2004-12-01
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 1, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., County Office Building on 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, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, and V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning.
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.
Ms. Lizbeth Palmer, on behalf of the League of Women Voters Natural Resource Committee
asked that the Board request the Planning staff and Planning Commission to review the new Water
Supply Plan to insure it is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. She also announced that
the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority will hold a public meeting on Thursday, December 2, 2004, 6:00
p.m., at Monticello High School, on the alternative to expand the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir by adding
a bladder to the dam.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation: GFOA Awards.
Mr. Dorrier announced two awards received by Albemarle County from the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA). This nonprofit professional association serves 14,000 government finance
professionals throughout North America. This is the only national awards program in governmental
budgeting. He said the first award he will announce is the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting presented to Albemarle County for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR)
for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2003. This certificate is the highest form of recognition in the area of
governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant
accomplishment by a government and its management. The County's Financial Report has been judged
by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a constructive
"spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story. He then presented this award to Mr.
Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, on behalf of his staff and asked him to make comments about the
award and to introduce his staff to the Board.
Mr. Wiggans said he had nothing to do with the award so he is accepting the award for Mr. Melvin
Breeden who could not be present today. He and his staff are responsible for the award. He appreciates
their hard work; it was an arduous and long process that required a significant amount of staff time and
effort. He asked staff members of the Finance Department to stand and then introduced: Mr. Ed Koonce,
Chief of Financial Management, Ms. Vickie Pennell and Ms. Joyce Wheeler, Finance staff members; Ms.
Betty Thraves, Ms. Pam Powell and Ms. Bonnie Mullaney, Payroll Division; Mr. Hugh Gravitt, Ms. Brenda
Dickerson and Ms. Donna Hixson, Purchasing Division; Ms. Brenda Neitz and Ms. Tammy Critzer,
Finance Administration; and, Mr. Robert Walters, Ms. Charlotte Morris and Ms. Kim Stone, Finance
Collections Division. He said all of these folks worked long hours in putting together the document which
achieved this award.
Mr. Dorrier said the second award from GFOA to the County is its Distinguished Budget
Presentation Award which reflects the commitment of the governing body and staff to meeting the highest
principles of governmental budgeting. In order to receive the budget award, Albemarle County had to
satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation which assesses how well the
budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide and a communications device.
The GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards Program is the only national awards program in
governmental budgeting. He asked that Ms. Laura Vinzant and Mr. Chris Bever come forward to accept
this award.
Ms. Vinzant said that Mr. Melvin Breeden is actually the star of this award, and he was not able to
be present this morning. His direction was the primary reason staff was able to receive this award. It is
truly a collaborative effort to put the budget document together.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said she would like to add that the County has
received this award in previous years. However, this year staff made some significant improvements in
the budget document. The County showed some significant increases in the scores. Improving the
budget document is a way of communicating budget information. It is not just an award, but an improved
award over prior years.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board appreciates the hard work of the Finance staff and gives it full support.
_______________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Motionseconded
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. was made by Mr. Rooker, by Mr.
Wyant, to approve items 6.1 through 6.8 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for
information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 6.1. Approval of Minutes: July 14 and September 8, 2004.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of July 14, 2004, Night meeting, and recommended approval as
presented.
Mr. Wyant said he had read the minutes of September 8, 2004, and handed to the Clerk a list of
typographical errors, otherwise the minutes are fine as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes which had been read.
__________
Item 6.2. Approval of two ACE Appraisals for Year 2003-04.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that before the County can extend an “Invitation to Offer
to Sell” a conservation easement, appraisals must be submitted by the Appraisal Review Committee for
review and recommendation for action and then formally approved by the Supervisors as described in
Section A.1-110(H) of the ACE Ordinance. On August 6, 2004, Hallmark Properties completed the initial
appraisals of four properties from the Fiscal Year 2003-04 applicant pool. Shortly thereafter, the
Committee met to review these appraisals. The review showed that three of the appraisals (Samuel Hill,
James Shifflett and Henry C. Page) needed revision because important comparable sales had been
overlooked in the easement evaluation. In addition, the initial appraisal of the Page property did not
account for a recently-created riparian easement on 95 acres of the tract, so the appraisal had to be
revised.
On October 10, 2004, staff received the revised appraisals, and on November 8 the Committee
accepted the revised appraisals for Daniel Bieker (North Garden) and James Shifflett (Boonesville).
However, the Page and Hill appraisals need additional revisions before the Committee will accept them.
In the interest of time and efficiency, staff has decided to submit the revised appraisals for Bieker and
Shifflett. When the revisions for Page and Hill are approved by the Committee, staff will submit these to
the Board for approval. Staff anticipates these final revisions will be completed and reviewed by the
Committee in December.
Since the total value of the four appraisals would fall well within the allocated budget for this fiscal
year, the resulting surplus will allow the ACE Program to have carryover funds for the next budget cycle
when, based on the number of Year 2004-05 applications, it is anticipated costs for purchasing
easements may exceed the ordinary annual allocation. Ten applications were received in the year 2004-
05 totaling 2019 acres. At this time, all ten applications are considered as having “good” or “excellent”
prospects for acquisition.
Staff and the ACE Appraisal Review Committee recommend approval of the two appraisals by
Hallmark Properties for the Bieker and Shifflett application from the Fiscal Year 2003-04 applicant pool.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the two appraisals by Hallmark
Properties for the Bieker and Shifflett applications from the Fiscal Year 2003-04 applicant pool as
recommended by staff and the ACE Appraisal Review Committee.
__________
Item 6.3. Request for Military Leave Pay – W. Coleman Gentry.
It was noted in a memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, that Captain
W. Coleman Gentry, a member of the Army Reserves, was called to active military service effective June
7, 2004. His military orders state the period of active duty will be for approximately twelve months, until
June 7, 2005.
On July 3, 2002, the Board amended its policy on military leave (P-83). The change to the policy
states that an employee recalled under these circumstances would be paid the difference between the
employee’s regular pay and his military pay for a period of six months. The policy also allows an
extension of an additional three months if requested by the employee.
In accordance with Board Policy P-83, Captain Coleman has requested the difference in pay and
the extension of pay. A copy of Captain Gentry’s letter has been forwarded to the Board along with a
recommendation for approval of his request by the Board.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the request of Capt. W. Coleman
Gentry to be paid the difference between his regular pay and that amount paid by the military for a
period of six months, and that he be granted an extension of an additional three months, in
accordance with Board Policy P-83.
__________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 6.4. Mountain Top Farm Road Name Change Request.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Part 1, Section 6(e) of the Albemarle County Road
Naming and Property Numbering Manual allows road names to be changed by the Board. A request to
change the name of Mountain Top Farm to Montalto Loop Road has been requested by the sole
landowner on the road; this landowner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the new road name as requested and that it grant staff
the authority to coordinate/implement the referenced change.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved of the road name change as
requested and granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change.
__________
Item 6.5. Crozet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Revision (CPA-2003-07).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that at its meeting on November 3, 2004, the Board
reviewed the revised Community Profile language provided by staff. The revised Profile is intended to
update the existing Comprehensive Plan, Crozet section, and to summarize major recommendations of
the Crozet Master Plan and to clarify the role of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) relative to the
implementation measures recommended by the Master Plan. The Board discussed the accuracy and
timeliness of the funding estimates included in the Crozet Master Plan and then directed staff to add
language to the Crozet Master Plan, Section II, Strategies for Implementation, and to the Implementation
Timelines noting that these cost estimates were considered to be accurate at the time of the final report
(July 9, 2003), but these cost estimates may change in the future. The added language also emphasizes
the role of the CIP as the final authority for funding decisions.
With the addition of the clarifications noted above, the Planning Commission recommended that
both the Crozet Master Plan and the revised Crozet Community Profile contain language addressing the
cost estimates and the CIP as the final authority for capital expenditures. It is, therefore, recommended
that the Board adopt CPA-2003-07, Crozet Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment, replacing the
existing Land Use Plan Profile for the Crozet Community with the revised Crozet Profile, and incorporate
by reference the Crozet Master Plan language recommended by the Planning Commission with recent
changes noting the general nature and date of the cost estimates and final authority of the CIP for capital
expenditures.
Discussion
(: Mr. Boyd said the Board has debated the Crozet Master Plan. He is concerned
about how the Board evaluates CIP spending in this instance as opposed to spending in other areas of
the County. He thinks there has already been a significant amount of spending in Crozet. How the Board
determines how the CIP will be spend in terms of dollars is not addressed in this amendment. There are
master planning efforts for the Pantops area going on now, and soon that same thing will occur for the
Route 29 North corridor. He said all of these areas are interested in additional infrastructure.
Mr. Tucker said when the Board reviews the entire Capital Improvements Program all of this will
be brought together. That review will include the entire County.
Mr. Boyd said there are very specific comments in the Crozet Master Plan which do relate to the
CIP process. Somehow he would like to identify that there are competing interests for different things.
How does the Board go about determining need? Is it based on the current or projected population, or
current or projected traffic needs?
Mr. Rooker said he agrees with Mr. Boyd, but that is the CIP process the County has used for a
number of years. The master planning for Crozet identified their needs, but did not necessarily elevate
those needs above other needs in the County. The CIP process takes into consideration the needs of the
entire County and then prioritizes capital expenditures. Ultimately, the Board must approve the CIP and it
can make changes if it does not think the CIP as recommended adequately distributes funds according to
need.
Ms. Thomas said she was involved in the Crozet master planning process partly because Mr.
Perkins was sometimes ill. She did attend nearly all of the meetings. People would ask her why this
planning was taking place and asked the advantage of having a plan. She would tell them the plan would
not guarantee anything in the way of infrastructure improvements, but with the plan Crozet would be
better prepared for putting their case forward. She heard someone say recently that the County cannot
afford the Crozet master plan or any of the other master plans which are being put together. The truth of
that argument will come when the Board discusses the CIP. It has always been a battle to put enough
money into the CIP; the Board keeps trying to do that so that percentage wise an appropriate amount of
money goes into the CIP. She told people they have an advantage because they know precisely where
the roads need to go. She said that over the last two years the Board asked a lot of the Crozet
community as this planning took place. She is not willing to say they have no advantage, but neither are
they automatically at the top of any list. She thinks that is what Mr. Wyant has suggested in the wording
of this amendment.
Mr. Boyd said he has heard some people ask why the County is going through this process when
there is no money for improvements. It is a long-range plan and other plans will be competing with it in
the future.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Tucker said the County is better off having a plan and some direction than having no plan.
Development activity will take place in these areas and they are better off with a plan because it will
receive some of the improvements. Improvements might not take place in the year they are wanted, but
there will be a good basis for funding some of those projects and infrastructure. Planning is very
important. Last night at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce some people were saying they wanted
action, but action without planning would be foolish. He said the Capital Improvements Program is just as
important because the Master Plan cannot be implemented without a plan and funding structure. He said
the County is on the right track even though it is questioned from time to time. He said this is a tried and
true process.
Mr. Boyd said he does not question the process. He was just thinking out loud about how to
convey this to the public. He does not want them to get discouraged.
Mr. Wyant said the reason for this planning has to be reiterated to the public. The County has
taken a reasonable approach to this planning rather than just spot planning. Knowing what will go in the
community is the benefit of master planning, although he does not know where the funding will come
from.
Mr. Rooker said if there is a request for a rezoning with proffers, without a plan there is no way to
know how they would fit into the whole. With a plan, the pieces of the puzzle are supposed to fit together
when they are put into place.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board ever wanted to fund the plan with pennies off the tax rate, it
needs a plan to put that into place.
Mr. Boyd said as he read through this plan and other comprehensive plans, he thought it might be
helpful to him to receive as part of the process a summary of the legal, procedural, policy and fiscal
impacts of the Board’s decisions when it amends the Comprehensive Plan. In the future, he asked that
staff provide a synopsis of what happens when these changes are made.
Mr. Dorrier said another issue that might help improve the Board’s situation is whether this should
be called a five-year plan, a ten-year plan, or a one-year plan. He said no particular number of years has
ever been attached to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker said it is a twenty-year plan. Years ago when the County was less sophisticated the
Comprehensive Plan was reviewed every five years. Today, the Plan is so complicated that only sections
or elements are being reviewed every five years when possible. People do not realize it is a twenty-year
plan, but only portions are reviewed every five years because of its sheer volume. Over the next several
years, the Board will receive different pieces of the plan to review.
Mr. Dorrier said this Comprehensive Plan amendment is numbered as a 2003 amendment which
gives the Board an indication of what it is dealing with.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are already funds set aside for planning for the new library in Crozet.
There are people in the private sector that have had some informal meetings and would like to get
together and have some discussions with the County. She asked if there is any way to move forward with
planning for that library.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has met several times trying to decide how to do that. He said there is
funding in the CIP for a library and it is hoped that the money can also be used to look at the entire block
along Crozet Avenue and Carter Street which could potentially be a library location.
Ms. Thomas said she is urging staff to do what can be done with the planning money available.
Mr. Cilimberg said the new position which has been approved and advertised would actually take on this
duty. Also, an RPF must be put out for consultant assistance to do that work. Cities do a lot of focused
urban studies on certain pieces of land in their cities. This is a new thing for the County to undertake.
Mr. Wyant said he knows there is an issue with the land. Mr. Cilimberg said ownership of the
property has changed since this was discussed earlier.
Mr. Wyant said the square footage recommended may change and that would lower the cost of
this facility. Mr. Tucker said when public facilities are recommended staff has looked at ways to have
them merged with other public or private facilities.
Mr. Wyant said it is a misnomer to refer to this facility as just a library.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to add one thing about the history of master planning. He said the
Board looked at all the potential areas recommended for master planning and it voted to do the Crozet
master plan first. It was a decision based upon information that the area needed master planning.
Mr. Boyd asked for a brief synopsis of why the Board decided to do Crozet first.
Mr. Rooker said Crozet was an area where a lot of future growth was projected. There were a
number of areas in Crozet that might be subject to rezoning in the near future. It was an area that had
the potential for putting down a new network of streets as opposed to areas that are 80 to 90 percent
developed at this time. The Board felt it was a good opportunity for someone to get ahead of the curve
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
with respect to growth and master planning. It would have been nice if it had been done in the Route 29
North Corridor thirty years ago.
Mr. Bowerman said there were a couple of pretty large rezonings in Crozet where these issues
were raised. He said he agrees with Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Wyant said there is one large parcel there which is going to be developed by-right. This plan
was done in order to increase density in the area and to gain infrastructure. He said this plan has actually
worked against the County in this instance; the developer decided on by-right development because of
associated costs.
Mr. Boyd said he believes that when the Board decided to do the master plan for Crozet, the
decision was based on the best information available at that time. He wonders if there are now other
areas of the County which are growing at a faster rate. He keeps coming back to the Pantops area. He
asked how that data is used in determining where to put money into infrastructure. Maybe he does not
understand the evaluation process used by the CIP Technical Committee.
Mr. Tucker said there is not enough money to do master plans for all the various areas; planning
for every area could not be done at the same time.
Mr. Boyd said he is not questioning the master plan, but how spending is updated.
Mr. Rooker said Pantops was “jump started” because of what is occurring in that area. It was
recognized that some level of master planning should be started immediately.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members feel that this item should be pulled from the Consent
Agenda today.
Ms. Thomas said “no” although she appreciates what Mr. Wyant and staff have said.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted CPA-2003-07, Crozet Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, replacing the existing Land Use Plan Profile for the Crozet
Community with the revised Crozet Profile, and incorporating by reference the Crozet Master Plan
language recommended by the Planning Commission with recent changes noting the general
nature and date of the cost estimates and final authority of the CIP for capital expenditures, as set
out below:
Crozet Community
Location
The Community of Crozet is located west of the City of Charlottesville generally lying between
Three Notch’d Road (Route 240) and the Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250 West). The southern
boundary extends west from the Lickinghole Basin dam along the south side of Lickinghole Basin
and Creek, intersecting the Rockfish Gap Turnpike east of the Clover Lawn development, and
continuing west along the north side of the highway from there. The entire Development Area is
within the Lickinghole Creek watershed, with the exception of a small northern strip containing
portions of the old downtown commercial and residential area. The eastern boundary is the
ridgeline for two streams which flow into the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin. The
boundary follows this stream system north to Three Notch’d Road, crosses it and from a point
opposite the Acme property heads north to the south side of Parrot Creek. From there it
continues west, turning north to parallel the eastern boundary of the new Crozet Elementary
School parcel to its north property line, then angling west to the south side of Old Ballard Road.
At that point it continues in a westerly direction through Weston subdivision across Buck Road
(Route 789) to take in the water tank, then south to Railroad Avenue. This northern boundary to
the Development Area is defined as containing the area draining to a series of proposed
stormwater facilities located along the Parrot Branch drainage. The western boundary runs along
Route 684 to its intersection with Route 691. At this point, it turns eastward and follows a stream
system until it reaches the Rockfish Gap Turnpike.
In December 2003, the portion of the Development Area lying north of Three Notch’d Road
(Route 240) and Railroad Avenue was added to the Community of Crozet, with the caveat that no
intensification of use in this area should occur until stormwater management facilities along the
Parrot Branch drainage leading to Beaver Creek Reservoir were in place. This adjustment of the
Development Area boundary was based on a recommendation of the Crozet Master Plan that the
jurisdictional division of downtown that placed land south of Three Notch’d Road within the
Development Area and land north of this road in the Rural Areas be eliminated. As a part of the
same boundary amendment recommended by the Master Plan, the area lying south of
Lickinghole Basin and east of Clover Lawn was removed from the Development Area, based on
its environmental sensitivity, terrain, scenic corridor resources, and lack of transportation
connections to the rest of the Community of Crozet.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Background
History - The community of Crozet began as a whistle stop on the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad in 1876 that was established at the request of the Miller Manual Labor School (the Miller
School), which had been founded a year earlier. It was named for Colonel B. Claudius Crozet
(1789-1864), a French born civil engineer and artillery officer under Napoleon who is best
remembered as the chief engineer for the seventeen mile long railroad tunnel through the Blue
Ridge Mountains. Since its inception, it has functioned as a distinct settlement with a unique
history of agriculture, small business enterprises, and a dynamic civic spirit. Crozet in particular
was known for its fruit industry, and in the 1930’s it lead the state in the production of Albemarle
Pippin and Winesap apples. It also was known as the Peach Capital of Virginia. With the arrival
of Acme Visible Records and Morton Foods (ConAgra) in the 1950’s, year-round employment
was available to balance the area’s seasonal economy. Although these businesses closed in the
1990’s, technology-related enterprises as well as other small contracting firms are now occupying
portions of the old plant buildings, with space still available for future adaptive re-use.
Community Study - The first neighborhood study for the Crozet Community was completed in
1993 by the Department of Planning and Community Development under the direction of a
-
thirteenmember committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The purpose of this study
was to assist the County in establishing policy to help guide public and private activities as they
relate to land use and resource utilization within Crozet. The recommendations of this study were
considered and incorporated in the Master Plan, which came ten years later, and the carry-over
of many of the original recommendations demonstrates residents’ commitment to principles such
as downtown revitalization, adequate public facilities, and historic preservation.
Crozet Master Plan - In October 2001, Crozet was the first Development Area selected for a
Master Plan by the Board of Supervisors, because of the community’s strong interest and the
high level of development activity occurring there. The master planning process encompassed
nearly a dozen public events and several dozen Small Task Group working sessions, in addition
to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors work sessions and public hearings to review
the draft plan. The development community also participated in the public events, and worked
cooperatively with the project consultants and public on design issues. A year-long public
process produced the Crozet Master Plan Final Report, which was then reviewed and edited by
the Planning Commission. The Commission’s document, the Crozet Master Plan, was adopted
by the Board as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a guide for future development and systematic
change in the Community of Crozet.
Existing Land Use
-
Downtown The geographic, cultural and commercial center of the Crozet Community is the
downtown area. The downtown consists of a variety of businesses, restaurants, offices, a
retirement community, a library, a fire and rescue squad, and a post office. The building styles,
age, and location of some structures make downtown Crozet a unique and special place. Most
businesses and offices are located close together and near the roadway. The buildings that
service the downtown area are generally no taller than three stories in height with the exception
of Mountainside Senior Living, which is seven stories in height.
Other than a limited area around Mountainside, there is currently no unifying design theme, such
as tree plantings, lighting, street furniture, etc., downtown. There are limited pedestrian linkages
that exist between the surrounding residential areas. There are a few small trees planted
throughout the downtown and some vegetation exists along the railroad track.
-
Residential The Crozet Community (Development Area) contains an estimated 846 dwelling
units and a population of 2,224 people. Seventy-two percent (610) of the housing units in the
-
Neighborhood are singlefamily attached; twelve percent (105) of the housing units are either
townhouses, single family attached or duplexes; six percent (46) of the housing units are
multifamily; and ten percent (85) are mobile homes (July 1996). Large residential areas in the
Community include the Crozet Mobile Home Park, Parkview, Brookwood, Highlands at Mechum
River, Orchard Acres, Mountainside, Western Ridge, Cory Farm, Grayrock Orchard, Wayland’s
Grant, and Crozet Crossing. [these figures to be updated with most current statistics
available at time of publication]
-
Commercial and Office Most uses are located along Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three
Notch’d Road). Larger retail uses include the Square (13,427 square feet); Crozet Shopping
-
Center (29,502 square feetadjacent to the Development Area); and Blue Ridge Building Supply
-
Company (Route 250 West48,030 square feet).
-
Industrial There are three large industrial uses in the Community. They are the former Con
Agra (464,821 square feet) and Acme Visible (286,187 square feet) plants, and the J. Bruce
Barnes Lumber Company. The plants are located on Route 240 (Crozet Avenue); the lumber
yard is located adjacent to the Square.
-
Other Land Uses The Crozet Development Area contains a post office.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Environmental Characteristics
The topography of the Crozet area varies from gently rolling to steeply rolling terrain. The
majority of the Crozet Development Area drains into Lickinghole Creek; the entire Development
Area is located within the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watershed. The Lickinghole
Creek Sedimentation Basin was constructed to reduce nonpoint discharge from Crozet. The
basin serves as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff control device for development in the
Crozet Development Area, and will soon be managed as a park by the County.
Critical slopes occur in a scattered fashion in the southern portion of the Development Area.
Wooded areas are present throughout the Community. One hundred year floodplain
designations occur along Powell’s Creek, Lickinghole Creek, Slabtown Branch and the Parrot
Branch drainage.
Transportation
Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) and Route 240 (Crozet Avenue and Three Notch’d Road) are
the primary roads serving the Development Area. Accessibility to portions of the Development
Area south of Three Notch’d Road and east of Crozet Avenue is restricted due to lack of public
roads in these areas. In the central portion of the Development Area, alignment and sight
distance pose problems along both Three Notch’d Road and Crozet Avenue, especially in the
downtown area. In the western section of Crozet, Route 684 (Jarman’s Gap Road) is of a
substandard design to support proposed development, and is scheduled for upgrading including
widening, alignment improvements, bike lanes, and a sidewalk on the north side under a VDOT
project. The existing downtown sidewalk system is not interconnected and some portions are in
need of maintenance. Implementation of the Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study completed
in 2002 is recommended to address this need, and to provide additional parking for downtown
revitalization. Bicycle facilities are inadequate within the community; however, construction of
these facilities is anticipated with road projects and new development projects. Greenway
development is underway from Lickinghole Basin and Western Ridge to Claudius Crozet Park,
and in the area west of Crozet Avenue in conjunction with the Old Trail development.
Water and Sewer
Water supply in Crozet is provided by the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Safe Yield of the reservoir is
2.0 million gallons a day (mgd) and is adequate to handle growth in Crozet at the build-out
population of 12,000 people estimated by the Master Plan. Current water demand in Crozet is
370,000 gallons per day (2003). The capacity of the treatment plant is 1.0 mgd; treatment plant
equipment has been upgraded and preliminary design work has been done to accommodate an
expansion to 1.3 mgd. Wastewater service is currently being provided through the Crozet
Interceptor and Moore’s Creek Treatment Plant. The Crozet interceptor will need to be expanded
from a capacity of 2400 to 3600 gallons per minute to handle build-out. This will be done through
a planned replacement of the pump stations.
Public Facilities
The Crozet Community Development Area, along with the surrounding area, contains two
elementary schools, a middle school, a high school, a library, fire and rescue stations, and a
Community Park (Claudius Crozet) with a pool, a baseball field and a soccer field. The old
Crozet Elementary School currently houses a private school. Two other parks/recreation areas
(Mint Springs and Beaver Creek) are located nearby. Fire/rescue service is adequate to this
area. However, with continued growth to a build-out population of 12,000, there will be a need to
improve other public facilities in the area.
Crozet Master Plan
The Crozet Master Plan provides a series of Guiding Principles which reflect, to a large degree,
the Twelve Principles of the Neighborhood Model (see page 19 of the Land Use Plan). These
principles are:
1. The physical design of Crozet is built upon distinct neighborhoods, a historic
downtown area and other smaller centers, which are appropriate in scale and type to
the community’s planned growth patterns.
2. Linking us both within the community and to our neighbors, Crozet values multiple
transportation options and infrastructure to support ease of access throughout the
community. Of particular note, the community promotes pedestrian and bicycle
options for alternative transportation choices.
3. Offering diversity, affordability, and choice in its housing stock, Crozet attracts people
from many social and economic experiences.
4. Crozet values the contributions of locally grown business in providing both jobs and
enhanced quality of life for residents.
5. Through a variety of cultivation, recreation, and conservation efforts, Crozet values its
natural resource assets.
6. Our families and our individual and shared histories provide the foundation for our
identity. Crozet is a place that encourages a sense of community in its diverse
activities, institutions, and interests.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
7. Crozet actively supports its many community facilities and the role they play in the
lives of its citizens and believes that these facilities must accommodate the changing
needs of the community as it grows over time.
Because the Master Plan is lengthy and detailed, it is incorporated by reference in the
Comprehensive Plan. This Community Profile is intended to serve as a summary which further
condenses the Master Plan’s major principles, recommendations, and findings. The July 9, 2003,
final report is the document that most closely captures the history and products of the community
planning process.
As with all elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Crozet Master Plan is advisory in nature and
sets forth the County’s long-range recommendations for the development of land within Crozet.
Development guidelines contained in the maps, charts and other supplementary materials in the
Master Plan are intended as targets rather than specific requirements, consistent with the
advisory nature of the document. The County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), based on
a two-year financial cycle, is the final authority for funding policy, including funding level, timing
and sources associated with specific improvements. Although the CIP reflects funding
commitments to capital improvements, the implementation measures outlined in the Crozet
Master Plan establish the fundamental context of need and the desired relationship between
population, timeframe and infrastructure development. Most specifically, the “Costs and
Strategies for Funding Improvements” contained in “Section II. Strategies for Development” of the
Master Plan reflect timing for the provision of public facilities and infrastructure “triggered” by
projected population growth in Crozet. It reflects an attempt to program facilities concurrent with
Crozet’s growth, an important goal voiced by the community in the planning process. The actual
programming of projects in the CIP will be based on the real timing of population growth, actual
development activity that occurs and availability of funding from the sources anticipated in the
Master Plan section of “Costs and Strategies for Funding Improvements.”
Master Plan Components
The Crozet Master Plan is illustrated graphically by two maps supported by a series of tables,
drawings, and guidelines. The maps are:
Place Type and Site Development Guidelines Map
- This is the land use map, showing
recommended designations in the form of transect types ranging from the Urban Core to the
Development Area Preserve, organized around a hierarchy of Downtown, Neighborhood and
Hamlet. A corresponding set of Site Development Guidelines further describes the land use
designations. It also illustrates proposed infrastructure such as roads (by type), trails and
community facilities. The Place Type Map is found on page ___.
Green Infrastructure Map
– This map depicts the open space and preservation area system
throughout the community, showing streams and lakes, floodplains, slopes, and proposed
improvements such as parks and natural areas, neighborhoods and centers, roads and
community facilities. A corresponding set of guidelines further describes green infrastructure
recommendations. The Green Infrastructure Map is found on pages __ and __; the map on
page__ further describes parks and open space types and functions.
The tables and drawings provide additional detail on design elements such as thoroughfares
(roads), open space, block and lot type and examples of Hamlets, Neighborhoods and Downtown
development and redevelopment.
Master Plan Major Findings and General Recommendations
The following list highlights the findings and recommendations for Crozet. A full discussion of
these recommendations can be found in the full text of the Master Plan (incorporated by
reference into the Comprehensive Plan) and in the July 9, 2003, Crozet Master Plan final report.
Roads
1. : Two major north/south connector roads will be required as baseline
infrastructure development. A new Main Street is needed south of the CSX tracks to
provide an additional interconnection throughout the community and to downtown. Main
Street is intended to provide an east/west orientation.
Greenways
2. : A greenways-trails network should serve as an armature for both the
preservation of natural riparian resources and pedestrian movement within the Crozet
Development Area.
Centers
3. : Individual centers within the Crozet Development Area will serve as the
foundation for walkable neighborhoods supporting both residential uses and local
economic activity.
Downtown
4. : The largest and most important of these centers will be the Downtown area.
Development Phasing
5. : Development in the immediate future should focus on the
redevelopment and invigoration of the downtown area.
Design Guidelines
6. : Design guidelines outlined in the Neighborhood Model are applied
to fit the specific conditions of Crozet, and they provide the tools that will guide the form
of development.
Place Making
7. : The creation of a strong place identity within the Crozet area requires
attention, initiative, coordination and collaboration between local government, the
business/development community and residents.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Development Review Process
8. : New strategies for implementing the Master Plan
(based on the Neighborhood Model) may be needed to counter the option of doing strictly
by-right development. These strategies, if adopted, should identify both short and long
term solutions.
Local Businesses and Community Economic Development
9. : County staff and
officials must engage in public/private partnerships with local businesses to realize the
development of Crozet as more than a ‘bedroom community’ to the City of Charlottesville.
Jobs that keep residents of Crozet working in Crozet will be key to revitalizing downtown
and mitigating a deteriorating traffic condition on Routes 240 and 250.
Affordable Housing
10. : County staff and officials should support the development of a
comprehensive Affordable Housing Ordinance to support a broad demographic mixture
within the Development Areas.
Adjacent Rural Areas
11. : A strong Rural Areas policy should be put in place to assist in
focusing growth within the Development Areas and to help in mitigating cumulative
impacts of additional traffic on Routes 240 and 250. This policy will also be important to
maintaining a clear boundary between Development and Rural Areas.
Master Plan Recommendations by Geographic Sector
For purposes of the Master Plan, the Community of Crozet is considered as three geographic
sectors in which future development and redevelopment projects are focused. They are the
downtown area, the area west of Crozet Avenue and the area east of Crozet Avenue. Each area
holds unique characteristics and challenges. This section of the Guide identifies the priority
implementation strategies for each area and outlines specific tasks required to carry out those
strategies. Chart A, Crozet Priorities (p. ___ in the Master Plan), organizes these strategies in
visual form by geographic location and level of urgency, and includes additional actions that while
also desirable rank lower in priority. For additional recommendations applicable to the three
geographic sectors and the community as a whole, see Other Recommendations below in this
Profile (page ___ ).
Downtown
Initial development in the Downtown area should emphasize the completion of the sidewalk
system (per the recommendations of the Crozet Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study of 2001),
placement of the new library on Crozet Avenue, and creation of the first two blocks of Main
Street. Specific recommendations and tasks identified in the Master Plan for downtown include
the following:
1. Allow mixed-use, infill development in support of downtown.
2. Implement improvements identified in the Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study.
3. Construct the new library on the west side of Crozet Avenue near Mountainside.
4. Convert current library (depot) to civic center function, perhaps as a museum.
5. Construct Main Street by building the first segment from Crozet Avenue to the Barnes
Lumber property. (This will take trucks off “the Square.”)
6. Develop guidelines for renovating historic structures and for new buildings (scale,
.
materials, setbacks), and initiate establishment of a Historic District
7. Encourage development in blocks adjacent to downtown core.
8. Create bike lanes to and in downtown.
9. Create downtown community green at “the Square.”
10. Develop signage for greenway trails (in downtown and throughout community).
11. Create a pedestrian railroad crossing in downtown core (below or above grade).
12. Explore alternatives to current underpass at Crozet Avenue.
13. Explore opportunities for redevelopment of Con Agra and Acme as an extension of
downtown.
14. Reuse Historic Crozet Elementary School. The former school could eventually serve as
an Albemarle County satellite facility for county services, public meetings and other
community uses and/or it could be adaptively reused with some public and private
residential functions in relation to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
15. Continue construction of Main Street east from Crozet Avenue, including pocket parks in
block development.
16. As opportunities arise for redevelopment of the lumber yard, focus on a mixed-use form
that emphasizes employment.
Crozet - West
Development in the area west of Crozet Avenue should emphasize neighborhood related road
creation and other improvements. Specific recommendations and tasks for Crozet-West include
the following:
1. Encourage mixed use development in the center of the western area.
2. Protect Route 250 from further commercial development (in all three geographic sectors).
3. Implement improvements to Jarman’s Gap Road.
4. Construct Western Avenue.
5. Discourage improvements intended to increase capacity of Half Mile Branch Road in an
effort to encourage use of Western Avenue. (This does not apply to sight distance and
safety improvements.)
6. Encourage development of western area starting from the south up (from Route 250).
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
7. Propose East-West Drive (with bridge across Slabtown Branch), and safety
improvements to the Meadows intersection with Route 240.
8. Establish Western Park with public/private collaboration.
9. Upgrade playing fields at Henley Middle School.
10. Create frontage road for Henley and Brownsville schools (avoiding existing fields working
in conjunction with current improvements).
Crozet - East
Development for the area east of Crozet Avenue should focus on the construction of public
amenities such as the school and parks in addition to the creation of roads and bridges. Specific
recommendations and tasks for Crozet-East include the following:
,
1. Construct Eastern Avenue, Main Street and primary neighborhood streets within the two
or three major properties available for new development.
2. Construct Lickinghole Bridge on a time-line appropriate to demand.
3. Construct crossing of CSX tracks between Acme and Con Agra buildings (below or
above grade options).
4. Establish greenway trail (for pedestrians and bikes) from Lickinghole Creek Basin to
Crozet Park and downtown.
5. Construct new neighborhood elementary school on time-line appropriate to demand, in
general location shown on plan.
6. Explore and develop potential access points to Lickinghole Creek Basin.
7. Establish Eastern Park with public/private collaboration.
Other Recommendations
These recommendations resulted from the 1993 Community Study, 1996 Land Use Plan, 2004
Crozet Master Plan, and/or the Community Facility Plan, and reflect areas of special concern and
ongoing interest:
?
Construction of stormwater management facilities along the Parrot Branch drainage
leading to Beaver Creek Reservoir, to support and allow mixed-use, infill development
and downtown revitalization.
?
The boundary for the Crozet Development Area is generally based on the drainage area
for the Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin; exceptions are the addition of the old
portion of the downtown area to the Development Area, and the exclusion of the far
southeastern quadrant which is environmentally sensitive and located along the 250
West corridor, a scenic highway.
?
Any new commercial development along Tabor Street and Carter Street should be
physically and architecturally compatible and similar in scale to the existing residential
units located in the area.
?
Establish a new downtown zoning district to encourage revitalization and preservation
and re-use of historic buildings.
?
Work collaboratively with the private sector and other entities to encourage revitalization
of downtown, and to develop new business and employment opportunities in Crozet.
?
The Crozet Master Plan shall provide guidance for development that impacts the
Community of Crozet, including the designated entrance corridors.
?
Transportation improvements include:
Establish a road system in the eastern portion of the Community which connects existing
and new residential areas to each other and to other areas in Crozet. Eastern Avenue
will link Route 250 (Rockfish Gap Turnpike) and Route 240 (Three Notch’d Road). The
design recommended for this road shall be in keeping with the residential character of the
area (i.e. two lanes, limited through traffic, no through truck traffic, low speed limit). Main
Street, as recommended in the Master Plan, shall also serve as an east/west link
between downtown and the eastern residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. More
specifically the intent is to:
?
better integrate new and existing residential areas located east of Route 240 (Crozet
Avenue);
?
improve connections to downtown from new and existing neighborhoods east of
Crozet Avenue;
?
better distribute traffic to all roads, thereby reducing the ultimate design of any one
road;
?
provide an alternative route to relieve traffic on Routes 240 (Crozet Avenue and
Three Notch’d Road), particularly to downtown;
?
provide better access, particularly emergency access to those residents living east
and south of Route 240 (Crozet Avenue).
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Establish road, pedestrian, bicycle and greenway connections from Crozet Avenue west
to the Old Trail development, including the Meadows Connector; these connections are
recommended at various locations on the west side of Crozet Avenue, as development
occurs.
Correct the horizontal and vertical alignment problems along both Three Notch’d Road
and Crozet Avenue. These improvements will become more critical as the Development
Area is developed.
Reconstruct Jarman’s Gap Road from Route 240 to Route 684 to improve horizontal and
vertical alignment and provide adequate sight distance at intersections. Bike facilities and
walkways are recommended to be constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of this
road.
In the long term, consider constructing a permanent park and ride facility to serve the
-
community. In the short term, explore the possibility of a jointuse park and ride lot.
?
Utility improvements include:
Expand the water treatment plant as needed for full build-out.
Upgrade the Crozet interceptor pump stations as need for full build-out
?
Public Facility Improvements include:
Maintain the old Crozet Elementary School as a public building; determine the
appropriate use for the facility through a community planning effort.
As development occurs in the eastern portion of the community (east of Crozet Avenue,
north of Rockfish Gap Turnpike and south of Three Notch’d Road), construct a new
elementary school as needed.
?
Prevent crossing of the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the Square by constructing a
fence along the northern portion of the Square’s parking lot. Extend the fence to a point
east of the library.
?
Post office facilities should be located downtown.
__________
Item 6.6. Requested FY 2004 Appropriation (Form No. 2004-094).
It was noted in the Executive Summary that Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 allows any locality to
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in
the currently adopted budget. The total of this additional FY 2004 appropriation is $156,700.32 which is
below the threshold for a budget amendment on its own. This appropriation is for additional local funding
for the Family Support Program in the amount of $156,700.32 due to a shortfall in State IV-E
reimbursement funds in FY ‘04.
Since FY 1999, the Family Support Program has been housed in each of the County’s
elementary schools and one middle school. The program draws down Federal funding based on the
population of children served by the program who meet the eligibility criteria under the Title IV-E Pre-
Placement Prevention Program, hereafter referred to as Title IV-E Program, for children at-risk of
placement outside of the home due to abuse, neglect or other risk factors. The Family Support Program’s
Federal funds have been the program’s primary funding source; however, beginning in FY 2003 changes
in the eligibility criteria resulted in a gradual reduction of Federal support. In FY 2003 the Family Support
Program was able to cover a deficit through a different Federal source and an approved appropriation of
$37,500 from the School Board in recognition of successful outcomes in the elementary schools.
In FY 2004, the Family Support Program anticipated a deficit in IV-E reimbursement funds and
requested and received a direct appropriation of $17,000 from the Board of Supervisors, as well as
permission to use $70,111 in local Department of Social Services carry-over funds and $164,889 of
Federal reimbursement funds for overhead services provided by the County. The Federal government
reimburses overhead costs to the County for services provided to the Department of Social Services,
such as finance, information technology, county attorney, etc. The Board approved the annual budgeting
of these Federal cost allocation reimbursement funds to the Family Support Program. With these
additional funds, the Department of Social Services anticipated that the Family Support Program would
have sufficient funds in FY 2004 to cover related expenditures.
Title IV-E reimbursement changes that are being made at both the Federal and state levels are
having a significant impact on the ability of the Family Support Program to continue to recover the
required Federal funds to sustain the program as it has been up until now. In April 2004, at the national
level, the Department of Health and Human Services Departmental Appeals Board ruled against the
Missouri Department of Social Services on allowable IV-E costs. The ruling against Missouri was
anticipated to set a precedent for other states based on allowable administrative costs and expanded
documentation for claiming Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E Program. It was anticipated that
the impact of this ruling for Virginia’s Title IV-E Program would be stricter criteria for determining
reasonable candidates under the Title IV-E Program and reduced administrative costs allowable for
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
federal reimbursement. In June 2004, the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) announced a
proposed $7.0 million disallowance in Federal reimbursement for FY 2003 administrative costs under
Virginia’s Title IV-E Program and placed a hold on most administrative costs submitted for Federal
reimbursement.
In August 2004, VDSS proposed a $12.0 million deferral in Federal reimbursement for
administrative costs under Virginia’s Title IV-E Program and was working to develop a policy that would
hopefully have all costs reimbursed to localities as early as September, and no later than December,
2004. It is now anticipated that the IV-E funds will not be reimbursed until January, 2005. However,
Federal and state auditors have indicated to the Department that Title IV-E funds will only be available to
serve children who meet stricter criteria of being reasonable candidates for foster care. The auditors are
holding local programs to an increasingly narrow definition of candidacy that may impact current and
future claims for the Family Support Program and limiting the amount of funds that will be reimbursed to
the program for FY 2004. In anticipation of Federal reimbursements resuming in January, 2005, albeit
with stricter criteria that would reduce the amount of anticipated Federal reimbursement, the Department
is requesting local dollars of $156,700.32 to close the Family Support Program’s FY 2004 budget and
continue the program in Albemarle County schools to serve children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect,
out-of-home placement and school failure.
Although this appropriation will address the FY ‘04 shortfall, these ongoing changes in IV-E
policies and reimbursement criteria at the Federal level raise the question on whether the program can
continue at its current level for FY 2005 without another shortfall. The program currently consists of 13
social workers in the County’s elementary schools and one middle school on a full-time, twelve-month
basis providing services to maintain children in their homes and reduce the possibility of out-of-home
placement.
In light of the stricter IV-E reimbursement requirements, the Department continues to explore
other potential funding options for the Family Support Program that may provide future sustainability
without significant local dollars. These include Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment
(EPSDT) and Targeted Case Management and Administrative Services, both of which are funded under
Medicaid. Additionally, the Department is researching the use of private funds and other Federal funding
sources to support the program. All of these options continue to require significant research and testing
to determine their actual feasibility and are, therefore, not short-term solutions. The Department
anticipates that it will provide a status report for the current year funding to the Board in February when
more information is known.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation No. 2004-094 in the amount of $156,700.32.
Discussion
(: Mr. Boyd asked why this appropriation request was not included along with the
other requests on the afternoon portion of this agenda. Mr. Davis said this appropriation is for Fiscal Year
2004. The other appropriations are for Fiscal Year 2005.
Mr. Boyd said he was involved with this program last year while still a member of the School
Board. He asked that before the Board addresses this situation in next year’s budget, the difference in
criteria used for Federal and County reimbursement in funding the Family Support Program be furnished
to Board members. He also asked what overlapping programs there may be.
Mr. Wyant asked if this is one of the programs that should be mentioned to area legislators.
Ms. Thomas said staff is trying to pick out the most egregious areas where cuts have been made.
She is the one who is going to be giving that three-minute talk at the meeting with legislators next week.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the County needs to adjust its criteria to the Federal guidelines; that
may be part of the problem. He said the guidelines should be matched so there is not this disparity in
funding vs. provision of services.
Ms. Thomas said when this is discussed, she will argue against that. She said the Board would
need the facts more precisely, but she thinks the program is meeting local needs. Just because the Feds
have decided they will use different criteria for reimbursing the program does not mean what the County
is doing is wrong.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to be sure the County is not losing funds because its criteria are
different.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the FY 2004 budget amendment,
and adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2004-094
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL LOCAL FUNDING FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 53013 930213 TRS - FAMILY SUPPORT J 1 156,700.32
2 1000 51000 510100 GEN'L FUND BALANCE J 2 156,700.32
1000 0501 EST REVENUE 156,700.32
1000 0701 APPROPRIATION 156,700.32
2 1557 33000 330001 FED'L REVENUE J 2 (156,700.32)
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
2 1557 51000 512004 TRS FROM G/F J 2 156,700.32 ___________________
TOTAL 313,400.64 156,700.32 156,700.32
__________
Item 6.7. Approval of Addendum to Interjurisdictional Agreement between the County, the City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia for the regional 800 MHz public safety radio communications
system.
It was noted in the Executive Summary that in June, 2003, the County, the City of Charlottesville
and the University of Virginia entered into an Interjurisdictional Agreement setting forth their respective
obligations for payment of shared capital and operating costs for the regional 800 MHz public safety radio
communications system, including debt service. The Interjurisdictional Agreement provides for the
allocation of payment shares of system costs to the respective jurisdictions according to the number of
public safety subscriber units required by each of those jurisdictions.
In December, 2003, the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) issued a Request for
Proposals for a Mobile Data Communications System and Wireless Data Network and related services
(the “Mobile Data System”). A vendor (M/A-COM) has been selected and a purchase agreement
negotiated contingent upon approval and funding by the localities. The Mobile Data System is designed
to be a regional, multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional computer system for the County of Albemarle, the City
of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. It will be a system of computer hardware, networks and
software that enables data communications between public safety vehicles and the ECC. Data
transmissions between the field units and the ECC will use wireless, local area networks and the 800
MHz radio system infrastructure. These data communications links will give public safety personnel in the
field access to local and state computer databases, such as the local Wants and Warrants file and the
Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN). Access to computer databases from the field will improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of public safety personnel.
The ECC has received a $6.0 million Interoperability Communications Equipment Grant from the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, $1.0 million of which is earmarked to pay for infrastructure costs
related to the Mobile Data System. The County, the City and the University have agreed to allocate the
remaining shared capital project and operating costs of the Mobile Data System according to the
operating formula currently in effect for the ECC. Future maintenance, support and operating costs of the
Mobile Data System will also be allocated according to the ECC operating formula, except for purchases
and maintenance of computers or other Mobile Data equipment by individual jurisdictions, which shall
remain the responsibility of the purchasing jurisdiction.
Over the past several years, the County’s CIP has allocated over $1.4 million for the Mobile Data
Project. While originally planned as a County Police Department initiative, it has become a regional
public safety project that will provide mobile data communications for County, City and University Police
and the capacity to provide similar services for City and County Fire/Rescue. As a result of this regional
approach and the $1.0 million grant, the County expects to be able to more fully equip police vehicles with
this new technology over the next two years within the currently allocated funding.
The Addendum provides that the parties agree to use the current ECC operating formula for the
shared capital and operating costs for the Mobile Data System project. Staff recommends that the Board
approve the Addendum to the Interjurisdictional Agreement and authorize the County Executive or his
designee to execute the Addendum on its behalf.
Discussion
(: Mr. Wyant asked if all of the police vehicles will receive equipment under the grant.
Mr. Tucker said “no”, it will not be all vehicles, but the County will be much closer to having all vehicles
equipped with mobile data units.)
By the recorded vote set out above the Board approved the Addendum to the
Interjurisdictional Agreement and authorized the County Executive or his designee to execute the
following Addendum on its behalf.
ADDENDUM
THIS ADDENDUM
is entered into this _____ day of __________, 2004, by and between
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the
“County”), the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, a Virginia municipal corporation (the “City”) and the
Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (the “University”), and modifies the
Interjurisdictional Agreement dated June 27, 2003, entered into among the parties (the
“Interjurisdictional Agreement”).
WITNESS:
WHEREAS
, the Interjurisdictional Agreement provides for the payment of shared capital
and operating costs for the 800 MHz public safety radio system project currently under
construction, and other terms of mutual agreement;
WHEREAS
, the County, City and University have agreed to procure and construct a
Mobile Data Communications System and Wireless Data Network and related services (the
“Mobile Data System”) as set forth in the Request for Proposals originally dated December 1,
2003;
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
WHEREAS
, the Charlottesville/University of Virginia/Albemarle County Emergency
Communications Center (“ECC”) has received an Interoperability Communications Equipment
Grant from the U. S. Department of Homeland Security, the proceeds of which are partially being
utilized to pay for infrastructure costs related to the Mobile Data System; and
WHEREAS
, each party to this agreement has agreed to assume a portion of the
remaining capital project and operating costs of the Mobile Data System (the “System Costs”)
according to an agreed-upon allocation formula;
WHEREAS
, it is desirable that the funding formula governing the allocation of System
costs be memorialized in writing.
NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants contained
herein, the County, the City and the University hereby agree as follows:
1. Each party shall pay its respective pro rata share of the System Costs according
to the operating formula currently in effect for the ECC (the “ECC Operating Formula”). Future
maintenance, support and operating costs of the Mobile Data System shall be allocated
according to the ECC Operating Formula, as amended, except for purchases of computers or
other Mobile Data equipment by individual jurisdictions, which shall remain the responsibility of
the purchasing jurisdiction.
2. The County shall act as fiscal agent under the Mobile Data System purchase
agreement, and payments by the parties for their respective pro rata shares shall continue to be
administered and handled in the same manner as set forth in the Interjurisdictional Agreement.
3. Except as specifically amended hereunder, all terms and conditions of the
Interjurisdictional Agreement remain in effect.
WHEREFORE,
the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, by their authorized
representatives, as of the day and year set forth above.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By: _______________________________
Its: _______________________________
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By: _______________________________
Its: _______________________________
RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
_______________________________
Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President
And Chief Operating Officer
__
________
Item 6.8. Contribution - Virginia Hosts NACo Conference in 2007.
It was noted in a memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, that Mr. James
D. Campbell, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties, has reminded the Board that NACo’s
Annual Conference in 2007 will be held in Virginia. He is requesting that all counties contribute a
minimum of $1,000 to Conferences, Inc.
Discussion
(: Mr. Wyant asked if the Board could lobby to have the NACo conference held in
Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker said there is no facility in Charlottesville which is large enough to hold the
number of people who will attend.
(Ms. Thomas said several Board members noticed that Albemarle County did not have a flag at
VACo’s annual conference and almost all of the other counties have flags displayed. She asked that one
be available at next year’s conference.)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized a contribution of $1,000 being
sent to Conferences, Inc. to actively support hosting NACO’s Annual Conference which will be
held in Virginia in July, 2007.
__________
Item 6.9. Copy of letter dated November 11, 2004 from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning
Administration, to Tara Rowan Boyd, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels – Tax
was received as
Map 43, Parcel 30B (property of Philips Howard Hamilton, Trustee) - Section 10.3.1,
information
.
__________
Item 6.10. Copy of minutes of the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DISC II)
was received as information
meetings of October 19 and October 26, 2004, .
__________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
was received as information.
Item 6.11. VDOT Monthly Report for December, 2004
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7b. Criteria Utilized to Rank Secondary Road Projects.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said Agenda Item Nos. 7a and 7b are related to each other,
and he would like to begin with Item 7b. He said staff presented information on changes to the ranking
system used for secondary road projects at the September 2, 2004, Board meeting. The Board reviewed
those criteria (he referred to Attachment A of the Executive Summary). He said Mr. Wyant has been
working with staff on this question and suggested that more detail be shown to the Board to address
some of the Board’s concerns and to simplify the information presented to the Board and to the public.
Mr. Benish said the Board suggested in September that two things be added to the ranking
process. The first was to use the volume capacity ratio (v/c) as a ranking criteria. A v/c ratio is a method
of determining the capacity of a roadway based on a relationship of road design/geometrics to existing or
projected traffic volumes. The closer the ratio is to one, the closer the road is to capacity, with a ratio
greater than one indicating the road is over capacity. Staff has said this information is not available
comprehensively for all County roads. Therefore, it is difficult to use this criterion in the ranking system.
However, staff has incorporated this criterion into the final evaluation criteria (he referred to Attachment B
to the Executive Summary) and will consider this information whenever available to help prioritize roads.
He said that for some minor projects where no v/c ratios are available, it might affect how staff can equally
evaluate projects. However, staff does think it is useful, particularly in finalizing the priority process.
Mr. Benish said a second request was to track how long a project had been on the priority list.
Staff does not propose making this a specific evaluation criterion, but to track this information by noting
on the Priority List the year the project entered the list. He said this is a difficult criterion to quantify and to
put into the decision process.
Mr. Benish said that in meeting with Mr. Wyant to discuss his ideas for improving the prioritizing
process, there was general agreement with the ranking criteria and sub-setting process used to initially
rank projects. Two areas were the focus of Mr. Wyant’s and staff’s review. They were: 1) providing the
Board with more information as to how projects scored in relation to the ranking process, and 2)
simplifying the review process with the Board by focusing on a smaller set of high priority projects.
Regarding the first issue, it might be easier for Board members to understand the priority of projects if
data on how projects scored in relation to the evaluation criteria were more readily available. Staff
proposes to include Attachment B as a “technical addendum” to the Priority List. This list includes
pertinent information on projects including when the project entered the priority list and its v/c ratio, if
available.
Mr. Benish said the second issue was the appropriateness of undertaking and reviewing detailed
rankings for all of the projects on the Priority List, particularly when construction for most of the projects is
years away. Because many changes take place during the time projects are ranked lower on the priority
list, it may not be an efficient use of Board time to deliberate on the whole list each year. It was felt that
both the staff’s and Board’s time would be better served focusing on a smaller, more strategic set of
projects, those going to construction within 20 years. Also discussed was whether the smaller strategic
list should become the “adopted Priority List,” with the remaining part of the existing list being an
unadopted list or addendum to the adopted Priority List. In either scenario, staff would continue to
maintain and preliminarily rank all projects using the criteria set forth by the Board. This issue does not
affect the specific ranking criteria used, but does propose a change to the focus and extent of the ranking
and review process. Staff believes this concept has merit. It may help to provide more focus on the
important projects on the list and would be a realistic representation to the public of the road planning,
funding and timing of the road construction process.
Mr. Boyd said he has some comments concerning Attachment B. Under the heading “Average
Daily Traffic” he thinks it would be helpful to include the year of that count. Under the heading “Adopted
Plan” he asked what plan is being referred to. Mr. Benish said that is just shorthand for any adopted plan
of the Board or an endorsed traffic study. Primarily it will be CHART or the Comprehensive Plan, or a
master plan which is part of the Plan. He said that can be included as a footnote.
Mr. Benish said he thinks it was Mr. Wyant’s impression that the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan
contains too long of a list of projects. For planning purposes it is important for the Board and staff to have
that list, but in terms of what is presented to the public and what the Board focuses on in work session,
the emphasis of this Plan should probably focus on the top projects. The Board could develop that list in
a couple of ways. It could continue to adopt that list which has over a hundred projects on it, or it could
adopt just the first ten or so projects, those felt to be the most important, and then have the rest of the
document as a technical attachment. He said the public sometimes has a hard time understanding the
Plan.
Mr. Benish said those are the suggestions concerning the rating criteria. If the Board members
are in general agreement, staff could use them next year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this plan is normally debated in the spring of the year. Mr. Benish said it is
usually done at this time of the year. In the spring, VDOT will bring their actual budget for Mr. Tucker to
sign, and he will do so if it is consistent with the priority list.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board could have the v/c ratios before voting on the 2005-06 Plan. Mr.
Benish said the local Residency Office does not have that information readily available for all road
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
segments. For many of the major projects where preliminary studies have been done, there are v/c ratios
available.
Mr. Bowerman said that within the next year, VDOT could do a traffic count for the items where
that information is not available now. Mr. Benish said staff can make that request. The VDOT Residency
Office has said that given their manpower and staffing it would be difficult to do.
Mr. Bowerman asked if they do not just lay out counters on the roads. Mr. Benish said they also
have to do the evaluation of the road’s geometrics. He said staff will try to get them to do the v/c ratios,
but the indication has been that they are not readily available, and it would be difficult for them to get that
information.
Mr. Brent Sprinkle, Acting Resident Engineer, was present. He said he was not sure how
VDOT’s traffic engineering people determine capacity.
Mr. Rooker said if v/c ratios are to be used for a number of these roads, he would suggest that
the ones available at this time be plugged in. Mr. Benish said if the Board agrees with staff’s
recommendation, staff will do that where the information is available. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will make
sure that information is included in the paperwork for the public hearing in February, 2005.
Mr. Boyd said he likes the idea of narrowing down the list to a real six-year list and let the
remainder of the list be an addendum. He thinks it would be helpful to do that for this year. Mr. Benish
said staff will work toward doing that for the public hearing. He said there is an attachment to the Six-
Year Plan that actually shows how many projects can be done in six years; that is the VDOT Plan.
Mr. Rooker said in the actual Six-Year Plan projects which actually have funding in that timeframe
are noted.
Mr. Wyant said if the Board is producing a document for the County, maybe it should not be
called a Six-Year plan. He said VDOT uses that terminology, but projects are always changing for VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg said when the Board gets to the next agenda item it will see that the final result of
these sessions is to take action on a priority list. It could be called the “Secondary Road Priority List”.
The budget which the County Executive signs later in the spring is the Six-Year Financial Plan for that
priority plan; it is a terminology thing. Staff can make terminology consistent with what the Board is
saying.
Mr. Boyd said he noticed that staff separated the Rural Rustic Road projects from the other
paving projects as the Board had requested. He asked how staff is going to handle “hybrid roads”
particularly Doctor’s Crossing where part of it can be done as a rural rustic road project and the remainder
cannot. Will the project be listed in two places in the plan? Mr. Benish said VDOT has indicated that
some road segments are eligible and some are not. As to Doctor’s Crossing, staff is not sure whether to
put it on the regular list because staff is not sure it is eligible for rural rustic road funding. It will be placed
on the appropriate list at the time of planning for the project. Even at the time of design work, there will
be an opportunity for it to actually float back and forth between funding opportunities.
Mr. Boyd said Gilbert Station Road is not fully qualified for the rural rustic road program so only
part of it will be done that way. Mr. Benish said that is true, and the remainder of the project will be
treated as a regular project, which means it may not get done because of the priority placed on funding.
Mr. Boyd said he had a question on Attachment A (Albemarle County Criteria for Prioritizing
Secondary Road Improvements with Subsetting Data). He said Mr. Benish mentioned earlier a decision
tree, but he does not see that in this paperwork. He asked if that is being developed. Mr. Benish said
staff uses the criteria in Attachment A for rating priorities based on the hierarchy listed. The factors under
each category are used to determine each subset, so it acts as kind of a decision tree.
Mr. Boyd asked if that could be translated into something that is understandable by the public.
Mr. Wyant said he has used these subsets to rate roads for the rural rustic road program, and it is
probably the easiest way to do that. Safety always comes to the top of the list.
Mr. Rooker said he did not see any criteria listed about unsafe conditions. He thinks that for
bridge replacements and spot improvements, the top criteria would be safety. Mr. Benish said the column
entitled “School/Fire Rescue Request” is used as a proxy for safety.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding the word “safety” in that line. Mr. Benish said the sufficiency rating
is relied on for bridges. That implicitly includes a safety factor. Mr. Tucker suggested changing the
heading of that column to read “School/Public Safety.”
Ms. Thomas said the Rescue Division has often talked about their ability to access a certain area;
it has nothing to do with the safety of that stretch of road. It is a different concept. Schools are talking
about taking a school bus on a certain road, and that is sometimes not the same thing. Mr. Benish said if
the condition of the road impedes emergency access in any way, staff has always considered that as a
safety issue.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Rooker said if a spot improvement is needed for a left-hand turn off of a road because there
have been numerous accidents at that point, that is a criteria that should be looked at. He equates safety
somewhat with accident data. Mr. Tucker said “public safety” would also include a public safety entity.
Mr. Rooker said that terminology is clear to him. Mr. Tucker said staff considers public safety as
including police, fire, rescue, and they would look at accident data.
Mr. Rooker said he has never seen that data or information presented at the time the Board sets
priorities for roads. Mr. Benish said staff looks at that information. If there is accident information, that
has been used as the proxy for elevating a project. He understands that Mr. Rooker wants staff to clearly
articulate in those criteria when there is a safety issue.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is just the first draft of the criteria. Mr. Benish said this is the criteria but it
will change over time. Staff will give the Board this information next year as technical background for the
Plan.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff needed a motion to endorse use of these criteria. Mr. Benish said he
would like to point out that on Technical Addendum B, the column “Ranking Comments” will be used as a
way to provide the Board with qualitative information to explain why a project got a certain ranking.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to request that “community input” be included. She said rural
rustic roads can now take place without landowners having to give any right-of-way. She thinks some
measure of community input is needed for both categories of unpaved roads. She said at-grade railroad
crossings are another issue. The railroad can threaten closure of a road at any time, so immediate threat
of closure would slip one of those projects quickly to the top if there is not a safe alternative to use. She
suggested including some criterion about the imminent danger of closure if a safe alternative is not
available.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Work Session: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. Benish said he would like to make some brief comments about the Plan. He said Attachment
B of the Executive Summary is the “Draft Albemarle County Priority List for Secondary Road
Improvements, 2005-06 through 2010-11” and Attachment D is VDOT’s summary of the Secondary
System Road Improvement Program 2005-06 through 2009-10.” Staff asks the Board’s input today on
Attachment B which is the larger priority list. He said there are six new projects in this proposal; five of
them are for unpaved roads. There is one new regular project requested by the School Division for safety
reasons, a turn lane on Route 729 at the Route 250 intersection.
Mr. Benish said one change was requested by the Board last year and that was to take funding
from Old Ivy Road and transfer it to Georgetown Road in order to advance that project. He said
Georgetown Road has been moved ahead of Proffit Road. The year Proffit Road was scheduled to be
constructed was outside of the Six-Year Plan so while it may have some effect on Proffit Road, in the
long-term it has no effect on the actual Six-Year Plan itself.
Mr. Rooker said the cost of Georgetown Road on Attachment B has been increased by roughly
$4.0 million. Not that long ago it was estimated at $1.7 million. The cost then went to $3.2 million and
now it is up to about $7.0 million. He does not understand this almost 600 percent increase in the
estimated cost of that project over a period of about five years. He would like to get a copy of the plan for
these improvements. He questions whether the plans have changed or if the cost estimate has just
escalated. The cost estimates are completely out of line with the average building cost over that period of
time.
Mr. Brent Sprinkle said he does not know the specific details of that project. He said that with
VDOT’s new cost estimating system, they are trying to be more proactive and get total costs associated
with projects. Years ago most projects had low initial estimates because they were developed prior to
any scoping and field review. Obviously as more engineering work is done, a better estimate of costs can
be made. Only limited work has been done on this project at this time, so they are looking at the cost
estimating system which considers actual costs on other projects.
Mr. Rooker said the cost was adjusted up to $3.2 million a couple of years ago, supposedly for
this same reason. Now the cost has more than doubled in just one year. He asked that Mr. Sprinkle look
at the project and then give him the reasons for the proposed cost estimates. He would also like to know
if there has been any additional planning or engineering done which gives rise to these cost changes.
Mr. Cilimberg said a committee developed the scoping of this project; it was not a four-lane
project as originally proposed. It was not even a three-lane cross-section along the entire road. Staff
wants to make sure VDOT still has the concepts that committee recommended in their cost estimating.
Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner, said VDOT looked at this project again at the County’s
request, and returned with the higher price. VDOT said the costs had not been updated since 1995.
Questioned by County staff, VDOT confirmed that the costs are based on the road having three lanes in
certain sections. Staff will check to be sure Culpeper is aware of the study that was done. At this point,
VDOT is being overly conservative so the cost of the project will not be underestimated.
Mr. Rooker said the problem with being overly conservative is that the project does not get
started. The start date for the project keeps being moved back based upon the cost estimate. He has
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
another question for Mr. Sprinkle. The Southern Parkway is a project that VDOT has never given a
confirmation in writing that the road qualifies for secondary road funds even though the former Resident
Engineer said he was sure it did qualify. He thinks this issue needs to be settled.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Old Ivy Road had moved down on the priority list. Mr. Benish said Old Ivy
relative to Georgetown Road stayed in the same spot but the money for that project was moved up to
Georgetown Road.
Mr. Rooker said he asked to have the money moved from Old Ivy because between the two
projects he thinks Georgetown is more crucial and it looked like neither would ever get built the way
money was being allocated.
Mr. Benish said, on another subject, the Planning Commission has recommended that staff
develop a public notification process for circumstances where property owners work with VDOT directly to
complete major improvements to roads, such as road realignments/relocations and paving of unpaved
roads. These “construction permit” projects typically occur when a property owner owns land on both
sides of the road (and, therefore, can donate the right-of-way necessary for the project) and the owner
proposes to undertake the cost and responsibility for constructing the project. Since it is not a public
construction project requiring the acquisition of right-of-way, a public hearing process is not required. The
most recent example of this type of project was the paving of a long segment of Blenheim Road (Route
795). The Commission believes that adjacent residents/property owners should be made aware of this
type of project and should have an opportunity to comment. Staff would like some direction from the
Board as to whether staff should undertake this effort. To date, this type of project has been treated as a
VDOT matter since the County has no direct role in this process, including any review or approval of the
project.
Ms. Thomas said she feels strongly there should be some notification process and some
measure of the exact extent of land ownership of those people who think they own both sides along the
road and want to pave it themselves. She said where it sits has to be in compliance with the County’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission brought this up because of the recent experience with
Route 795. She thinks it would be good for the County to have some standards setting out what
someone would have to do in order to pave the road themselves.
Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. Thomas was talking about this as a guideline. He thought the process
worked with Route 795. The project was brought to the Board’s attention and it was discussed a number
of times. He asked if there have been other times when the process did not work.
Ms. Thomas said the process did not work this time because the owner thought he could grade
some land that he did not own. The people who did own the land felt strongly about it but came home
one afternoon and found that it had already been done. Also there were communications back and forth
while the neighbors tried to find out who was responsible for siltation issues, and there has been a culvert
put in where there used to be a stream. There has been confusion about who is responsible. Without
changing any ordinances, it can be made clear what steps need to be taken so that when someone
comes in for a permit they can be handed a list of requirements.
Mr. Boyd said some things occurred because that individual did not come in and ask, so it could
still happen in the future.
Mr. Rooker said that person talked to VDOT before he did anything and if VDOT had had the
County’s list they would have given him that list as things the County wanted.
Mr. Dorrier said it is not often that someone wants to pave their own road.
Mr. Wyant said that on projects where public funds are used, VDOT has a public hearing so the
people who are affected have some say. The ball got dropped in this case. He thinks there was
something lacking in the plans given to VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is something staff needs to have the Board say it wants to be done.
Something will have to be developed to be presented to VDOT since they are the controlling factor on any
such request. He wants to make sure the Board concurs that staff develop something for VDOT to
review. There was concurrence by the Board members.
Ms. Thomas said an Area “B” study has just been completed, and there are roads identified in
that study that should be on the plans. That study is more recent than CHART and most of the roads will
probably be built by a developer. However, there is a railroad crossing and a bridge that the Board would
probably want to have on the Six-Year Plan in order to make that a possibility even though it is far off into
the future.
Mr. Cilimberg said he anticipates that for the plan next year those will be added to the list. He
said if PACC endorsed the recommendation on this study, staff would want to bring that Area “B” study
before the Planning Commission and the Board for adoption as an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. Thomas said between No. 39 and No. 40 of the County’s proposed rankings, Fray’s Mill road
is listed twice. She assumes that is a typo. Mr. Benish said that is correct.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board should be coordinating with the new MPO committee that is looking
at prioritizing roads.
Mr. Rooker said there has been only one meeting of that committee. Its job is to look at a limited
number of potential roads and make recommendations as to how they might be more quickly funded. All
of the projects are currently in either the County’s or the City’s plans. They have talked about the
Meadow Creek Parkway interchange (which is a city urban project), the Southern Connector, a design
and location study for an Eastern Connector, the Route 29/250 project from Hydraulic Road down to the
Route 250 Bypass, and the completion of the Hillsdale Connector. Part of what the committee will look at
is the current funding status of all of those projects, the relative need for the projects, and then they will
bring forward a funding recommendation.
Mr. Boyd asked if that work will be completed before the Board looks at the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Rooker said that committee was charged with trying to finish its work by April, 2005, so it may
lag a little behind review of the Six-Year Road Plan, but it will impact it.
Mr. Dorrier said this meeting is running behind schedule, so the Board needs to end this
conversation at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7c. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier asked for comments from Board members.
Mr. Wyant said there is a ditch and drainage issue on Bloomfield Road just off of Route 250 and
he asked VDOT to look at the situation.
__________
Mr. Wyant said he appreciates VDOT’s work on the Millington Bridge. He also appreciates VDOT
staff getting back with him on previous drainage issues mentioned in Crozet.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that on Dry Bridge Road (Route 708), at mailbox 717, there is a place where
someone has installed reflectors on little sticks. It is a dangerous place (shaded area and it retains ice
long after other stretches of the road melt and it also slopes inside the curve) and the neighbors are
asking if guardrails can be installed.
__________
Ms. Thomas thanked VDOT for its work at Tilman Road in the intersection.
__________
Ms. Thomas asked if there are any rural rustic road bids coming in. Mr. Sprinkle said he has not
seen the results of the ad; they are in Richmond at this time and the results will not be back until January.
__________
Mr. Dorrier handed to Mr. Brent a petition concerning Route 53 from Ms. Silvia Mills. It contains
about 60 names and the petition talks about the safety of Route 53. The petition said there were 68
accidents on that road this year. They asked if anything can be done.
___________
Mr. Boyd asked for an update on Routes 22/231 about the truck issue. Mr. Sprinkle said he has
no information on that road. He understands something was presented to the County. As far as he
knows VDOT has not proceeded further on that request.
Mr. Boyd asked if there are any hearings scheduled on the request. Mr. Tucker said he has
heard nothing. The latest thing he saw is that Louisa County opposed the County’s recommendation.
Mr. Rooker said the decision is made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and he
understands they said that if other counties objected they would not go forward with the request.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff’s contact with VDOT has said the request will go before the CTB next
spring.
__________
Mr. Sprinkle said there has been an issue with the Airport runway extension project. There are
some safety issues there. VDOT had extensive meetings with Airport personnel and the contractor. The
current proposal is that the sight distance problem between the existing Route 606 and the new Route
606 will be addressed by having the contractor lower that grade by as much as three feet. That work
should start next week, weather permitting. The work will be done using flaggers, and hopefully it will
take only three or four-days maximum to accomplish this work. He said there will be times when the
public will be driving on a gravel surface through that short section. They hope to address the safety
concerns and that the ultimate capacity after completion of the work will be no less than what it is now.
__________
Mr. Sprinkle said he would like to mention the Ivy Business Park and Faulconer’s site usage. He
said VDOT has received numerous inquiries from the public just recently questioning what, if anything,
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
VDOT will do. He said VDOT shares the concerns of the citizens. He asked if the County is going to
request VDOT to take specific actions in this matter, and if so, will it be done in a letter.
Mr. Rooker said what the Board did was to leave the question in a posture for VDOT to address
whether the road can safely handle the type of traffic on the road and the additional traffic traveling to the
facility. He said maybe the Board should write a letter to VDOT in line with its adopted resolution.
Mr. Dorrier suggested the Board track the language in the resolution the Board adopted.
Ms. Thomas said it was a condition, and a letter could refer to the section of the Code that was
referenced. Mr. Davis said VDOT was copied on the action letter, specifically asking them to provide
information on Condition No. 8 in that letter.
Mr. Sprinkle said he has seen the eight conditions and knew that VDOT would be getting
involved. However, he did not know how that was going to take place as far as getting a formal request
from the County. When reading the numerous e-mails and letters the department has been receiving,
there is some misunderstanding. He wants to be sure the County and VDOT are moving together in the
proper manner and the proper studies can be accomplished within the policies of VDOT and determine
who will participate in any costs on these items. If VDOT has to do an actual structural review of that
roadway it could be extremely expensive and time-consuming depending on the limits that would be
investigated. He asked if they would be looking at the road from the Industrial Park back toward Tilman
Road for two-tenths of a mile and also the short section to Route 250. He thinks that section to Route
250 would be the road used by anybody going into that industrial park. Or, is VDOT to look at all of the
roads in the community, which some of the letters indicate is what they want VDOT to do.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board was looking at the segment of road Mr. Sprinkle described,
but not at all of the roads in the community. He thinks the Board’s action was based on Morgantown
Road.
Ms. Thomas said the citizens have been told by County staff that it is totally up to the applicant to
get that determination.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Tucker and Mr. Davis should come up with a letter for him to sign
spelling out what is specifically wanted.
Mr. Tucker said it is fairly clear, but staff understood it would be the responsibility of the applicant
to take care of this study and any costs associated with VDOT. That is the condition.
Mr. Davis said the applicant has to demonstrate that in conjunction with VDOT. The standards
the Board said should be used are VDOT standards to determine if the widths and strengths of the roads
are adequate for the traffic that will be generated from that site.
Mr. Dorrier asked if something is needed from this Board. Mr. Sprinkle he needs something
clarifying how the Board thinks the Department can assist in this matter. Mr. Davis said he thinks this is
something the Planning staff can take care of.
Mr. Sprinkle said if the Board is looking for the applicant to participate in the costs, should this
take more than just a minimal traffic engineering review it would be good for him to have that information,
and also the applicant to have that information. Mr. Davis said it will be necessary for VDOT to say what
information is needed to make the determination. Once the County has that, it can interact with the
applicant as to how that can be accomplished.
Mr. Tucker said staff will copy the applicant with the clarification so he is aware that the financial
responsibility for this is his.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Virginia Department of Forestry Presentation, Nelson J. Shaw, Area
Forester.
Mr. Nelson Shaw was present. He came to introduce the Board to what the Virginia Department
of Forestry is doing in Albemarle. He said the Department has six regions in Virginia. Albemarle is in the
third part of Region 3 which contains about 22 counties. He said that the Department of Forestry was
established in 1914 primarily for fire suppression and that is still its primary focus. Today there are
houses going into the woods and that gives the job of suppressing forest fires more urgency. He said
they respond with Albemarle County Fire/Rescue, as well as with volunteers, to every brush fire in the
County. They determine the cause of the fire and the person causing the fire pays the State suppression
costs for putting out the fire. The County pays the Forestry Department approximately five cents per acre
for every acre of forest land.
Mr. Shaw said the Department enforces forestry laws. They put up signs throughout the County
reminding the public about the 4:00 p.m. burning law. There are only two full-time people in Albemarle
County, and they organize “hot shops” mostly composed of volunteer firefighters to work where there are
mountainous type fires. Even though this is the twenty-first century, they are still using tools from the
previous century. There is no way to get present day equipment up into the mountains. The Department
provides the hand tools to the fire departments in Albemarle County. They also provide hands-on
training. Fire Prevention personnel go into the elementary schools in the County along with Smokey the
Bear.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Shaw said the Department manages “prescribed burns”. They do these on an annual basis,
rotated every other year. They also coordinate this with private, non-industrial forest lands through the
WHIP Program. They also do it for forest land such as Westvaco land in Albemarle County. It is done in
preparation for pond ?? He showed a slide of Westvaco land where there are different ages of pine trees.
He said it is important to have this.
Mr. Dorrier asked the purpose. Mr. Shaw said it is done for diversity. What he is leading to is the
economic importance. There is no more valuable tree than the loblolly pine as far as income is
concerned. It is also good for wildlife. When they manage the forest, it is done for wildlife as well.
Mr. Shaw said most of the land in Albemarle County is privately owned, so they go one-on-one
with the landowners. Their services are generally free of charge. They do forestry management plans.
Plans for intensive management are for 20 or more years in length. Some plans have an integrated
approach. They use different techniques and herbicides for various operations. He said one of the most
effective ways to use herbicides is by aerial spraying although they do some spraying by hand as well.
They help with reforestation of a riparian area by putting hardwood trees along drainage ways to improve
water quality. He said that at Miller School they did 87 acres two years ago. Hopefully, in years to come
there will be hardwood trees there. He said the trees come from one of the three State nurseries. When
the Department looks at the forest and does a plan, they look at the forest for the possibility of infestation
of insects. He said the gypsy moth has not been a problem in recently years, although it is not gone.
Mr. Shaw said this leads to the subject of harvesting. Many of the things done to the forest are
done for silviculture activities. One of the economic things done to the forest is harvesting. He said
approximately 105 logging operations take place in Albemarle on an annual basis. This amounts to about
$5.0 million in income to those landowners. Albemarle ranks about eleventh in all counties in the
Commonwealth. He said the Department inspects all logging jobs in the County mainly to enforce the
water quality law. This is done basically to be sure dirt is not going into the creeks and waterways. This
is done in a non-legal means although there is legal leverage, but they prefer to fix the problem rather
than take legal action.
Mr. Shaw said the Department is pushing the idea of timber bridges over streams because the
bridge can be pulled out without sediment getting into the stream. He said Best Management Practices
(BMPs) is a volunteer program, and although it does not directly impact the water, it improves water
quality. Throughout the Commonwealth there are volunteer practices. He said grading a road, putting in
water diversions and feeding it, all aid water quality.
Mr. Shaw said the Department has a website (www.dof.va.gov). He said the website shows their
forest rim. It is available to anybody. One can get topographical maps or aerial photos from this
program. He said the next time a Board member sees one of the white forestry trucks, he will have an
idea of what Forestry Department staff does.
Mr. Dorrier asked the location of the Department’s office. Mr. Shaw said it off of the dead-end
section of Fontaine Avenue.
Ms. Thomas said when a citizen asked what is going on in a logging operation it is usually
because they are appalled at its appearance or perceived impacts. She has always said the County
cannot do anything; that is up to the Forestry Department. She was misled because she thought the
BMPs could be required by the Forestry Department. Mr. Shaw said BMPs are actually voluntary
practices. He said a citizen can lodge a complaint with the Department and within 24 hours they will
investigate.
Mr. Rooker said there is no state law making BMPs mandatory. Mr. Shaw said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas asked how the Department handles complaints from citizens when it cannot require
the person doing the forestry operation to use BMPs. Mr. Shaw said there is a distinction between a BMP
and impact on a stream. Anything which impacts a stream comes under the water quality law. BMPs can
be done to enforce the water quality law, they overlap each other. He said in the event of a wet weather
stream, there is no law which says trees must be left along that ditch, but BMPs would leave trees along
that ditch. Along that same ditch, if a road were put across it which caused erosion to go into that ditch
and into the stream, that would fall under the water quality law. He said many within the logging
community are doing the right thing. There are always a few that “ruin the batch” for everybody. Any
citizen who is concerned about some operation they see can call the Forestry Department in Albemarle
County. He said only Albemarle County and Prince William County have adopted the Chesapeake Bay
Act which requires SMVs on “blue-line streams”. He said those are basically identified on a topographical
map.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Mr. Shaw for coming and invited him to come back again. He thinks
Albemarle needs to establish a closer relationship with the Forestry Department. There are issues of
biodiversity and other issues involving the forests in the County. He would like to have the Board
establish a better system for communication.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Southern Albemarle Historic District Presentation.
Ms. Marcia Joseph said the Southern Albemarle Historic District is a grassroots citizen initiative
stemming from the local residents’ desire to protect the historic resources in this area. They are working
toward establishing a National Register Historic District designation for land in southeastern Albemarle
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
County. She said members present today are Ms. Bessie Carter and Mr. Val Matthews. Other members
are Ms. Elizabeth Mews, Ms. Antoinette Brewster, Mr. Ben Brewster, Ms. Cindy Patterson, Ms. Kathy
Rash and Mr. S. Woodward. Also present is Ms. Jennifer Hallock, an architectural historian, owner and
partner of Arcadia Preservation. She said a representative from the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources was not able to attend this meeting, but they have offered to send someone at a later date if
the Board wishes to have more information about this district.
Ms. Joseph said when this group previously appeared before the Board, it was in the process of
presenting this concept to landowners and entities in order too get their response to the idea. They have
met with some of the landowners of large tracts in the area, including the University and this Board. She
said none of these people have offered any resistance to the project. The County has been generous
with staff time used for mapping purposes. She said that after these meetings a neighborhood
association called the Southern Albemarle Association was formed. They hired Arcadia Preservation.
The initial conceptual district included such notable properties as Monticello, Ash Lawn-Highland,
Tallwood, Pine Knot, Jefferson Mill, and many others. It encompassed approximately 87,000 acres with
boundaries roughly following the topographical spine of the Monticello, Carter and Green Mountains.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many acres the County owns in this proposed district. Ms. Joseph
said they initially came to the County and presented this idea to be sure the County had no problem with
the idea. At some point in time, DHR will ask the Board for its assessment of the project.
In reply to a question from Mr. Rooker concerning the area of the district, Ms. Joseph said that at
this time the district includes Alberene, Estouteville, Esmont, Hatton Ferry, etc. It goes all the way from
the Rivanna River to the James River.
Mr. Rooker asked if the town of Scottsville is in the district. Ms. Joseph said “no.” Scottsville has
its own separate district. This district would follow along their boundaries. She said they had to create a
Preliminary Information Form (PIF) which is a requirement of DHR. The document is used to determine if
the creation of the district meets their criteria. She said DHR met in June of this year and supported
creation of the district. The DHR Board rates the proposal based on information included the PIF to
determine if a project is eligible for both National and State Register recognition. This proposal ranked
the highest of all proposals which had come before it.
Ms. Joseph said if approved, this district will be the largest historic district in Virginia. It covers
approximately 87,000 acres and includes up to 1700 structures that will be surveyed. The district will
connect to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District and the Madison-Barbour Rural Historic
District in Orange County. Because the survey work requires the architectural historians to visit all the
properties and because people have information about their houses and land they are willing to share for
the archives, this group has been working to get the word out to the neighbors in the area. They also
contacted some of the owners of large parcels who were not in the core group of neighbors responsible
for creating the district. This included Monticello, Michie Tavern, Ashlawn, Estouteville and Plain Dealing.
DHR and landowners in the Southwest Mountains Historic District also attended a meeting held at
Blenheim to help answer any questions from landowners. There was a positive response from that
meeting.
Ms. Joseph said that in order to make sure landowners in the proposed district were aware of the
survey work that would take place in the district they held a number of neighborhood meetings in different
parts of the district. This past summer they met at Alberene Baptist Church, Slate Hill Church, Scottsville
Town Hall, Simpson Park and Rose Hill Baptist Church. They contacted churches, newspapers, radio
stations, television stations and stuffed flyers in newspaper tubes to advertise the meetings. However,
the meetings were sparsely attended.
Ms. Joseph said the Southern Albemarle Association is currently pursuing a private, nonprofit
status. They are in a fundraising mode at this time. This is still a grassroots pursuit. She said they are
asking neighbors and friends to help fund the project. Although this effort will take some time they hope
to have the survey work finished by early next year so the district can be submitted for approval. It would
then be registered as a Virginia and National Landmark which has a couple of advantages to those using
historic structures that are not currently listed on the registers. She said creation of the district will not
restrict landowners if they choose to modify structures, repair or demolish structures, and it will not restrict
development.
Ms. Jennifer Hallock spoke about the criteria DHR uses to determine if this proposal should be
accepted as a district. She gave some history related to the area in general. She said it is an exciting
effort because it is a grassroots community effort. All the members of the Association Board live in
southern Albemarle, and she and Ms. Joseph also live in Albemarle. They hope the Supervisors are
supportive of creation of this district.
Mr. Dorrier said he personally feels it is a great idea.
Note
(: The Board recessed at 11:15 a.m., and reconvened at 11:26 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Biodiversity Work Group Presentation.
Mr. David Benish said that in November 2001, the Board authorized the creation of a Biodiversity
Work Group (BWG), whose charge was to begin the Biodiversity Assessment of the County called for in
the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. They were to advise the
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Board on the composition of the permanent Biodiversity Committee which is also recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. The group was made up of citizen volunteers including local naturalists,
professionals in biological and environmental sciences, and experts in environmental education. The
BWG has completed its work and is presenting its report to the Board today.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends that the Board accept this report from the Biodiversity Work
Group and direct staff to prepare a report evaluating the next steps for reviewing and implementing the
BWG’s recommendations. This review should include an assessment of implementing these
recommendations, including implications for current County policies and procedures, and impacts to staff
and fiscal resources.
Mr. Tom Olivier said he was present to give the report of the Biodiversity Work Group to the
Board. He said that in 1999 the County adopted the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan. The chapter contained a new biodiversity section which recognized the value
of biological resources and the need to protect them. He said the biodiversity section called for creation
of a standing County biological advisory committee that would draft a protection plan for biological
resources. In 2001, the Board authorized creation of the work group, a volunteer group of local scientists
who worked with staff in the Department of Planning and Community Development to develop a scientific
foundation for the work of the standing committee which was to succeed this committee.
Mr. Olivier said members of the Work Group brought a wide range of scientific skills to the task,
natural history, taxonomy, invasive species biology, forestry, ecology, population genetics, GIS methods
and conservation methods, and others. He said that some members of the Work Group are present and
in lieu of presenting the Board with a big bill he would like to acknowledge them today. He introduced
Mike Erwin, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and wildlife scientist at the University of Virginia;
Tom Dieruf, former head of research for the Virginia Department of Forestry; Ken Lawless, Professor
Emeritus of Materials Science at the University of Virginia, well-known as a botanist, ornithologist and
photographer; Ruth Douglas, Professor Emerita at Piedmont Virginia Community College, an expert on
invasive plant species who has extensive experience in education of adult residents; John Hermsmeier,
Director of the Environmental Education Center who is also involved with education at the pre-collegiate
level; and, John Scrivani, current head of research for the Virginia Department of Forestry, who is a guru
in GIS methods and in the analysis of satellite images, particularly regarding forestry cover. Mr. Olivier
said he is a population geneticists and computer modeler. He also acknowledged Scott Clark who is a
Senior Planner with Albemarle County. Scott coordinated and edited much of the Group’s work. They
could not have produced this report without his efforts.
Mr. Olivier said the report is divided into three documents. The main document presents many
details of their findings, views of strategies and recommendations and should provide the foundation for
the standing committee and much information for anyone else interested in local biological conservation.
The summary presents key points for busy decision-makers. The appendices contain detailed
compilations of many facts regarding the currencies and distributions of some County biological
resources. The appendices are the starting point for the ongoing biological data base that will be needed
for long-term conservation planning.
Mr. Olivier said he knows time is limited today, but he would like to mention some of the key
findings on history, current conditions, threats and strategies. They will offer more details in their
recommendations regarding the Biological Advisory Committee since creation of that committee is the
designated next step in the process. He said that since European colonization, the landscape has been
altered again and again. As a result, the landscape, waterways and natural communities in Albemarle
County are highly modified descendants of those seen by Native Americans. Some species which were
present, such as the elk and H. sparrow are gone now and there is essentially no old-growth forests
remaining in the County. As to threats, expanding development areas reduces natural areas for wildlife
habitat. Many remaining blocks of forest and other natural habitats are fragmented or isolated by roads,
residential development and agricultural uses. Fragmentation interferes with gene flow and other
population processes. Many exotic species are invading the landscape and some displaced native plants
and animals are causing severe diseases. Airborne pollution and climate change are threats of non-local
origin. Water impoundments influence and affect the ecology of streams. He said fire suppression alters
many aspects of forest dynamics.
Mr. Olivier said as to strategies, the report contains a section called Guiding Principles of
Conservation Efforts. These principles are rooted in conservation science. During their work they
tabulated much data on occurrences of plants and animals in the County. These range from naturalist
field records of individual plant occurrences to analyses of County forest distributions from satellite
imagery. They also developed some classification schemes for the native plant communities that should
be useful in ongoing development of a database. He said there are significant holes in these data that
need to be addressed over time. From their guiding principles and available data they were able to
develop recommendations on protection strategies. He said page 11 of the summary presents a precise
summary of recommended action plan strategies. He mentioned: protect, restore and manage large
blocks of contiguous terrestrial ecosystems (especially forest) and extensive aquatic ecosystems; protect
and restore the connectivity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats; maintain and reestablish multiple
representative examples of native ecological community types and sites with the physical characteristics
necessary for those communities to exist, with appropriate management; protect and buffer ecologically
valuable areas and known occurrences of rare specifies and community types, with appropriate
management; recognize and convey the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services; provide
community education and foster awareness of biodiversity and understanding of its importance; identify
opportunities and act on them, or facilitate action by others; and, anticipate and address current and
potential threats in the County and in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Olivier said it is very clear from a biological point of view that if nothing is done, in the coming
decades quite severe losses will be suffered among the biological resources that exist at this point. They
recommend that the responsibilities of the standing committee include: providing consultations on
programs, representations and Comprehensive Plan changes that may affect biodiversity; comment to
the Planning Commission and Board members regarding impacts and mitigating measures of selected
development projects; develop educational materials and programs on biodiversity.
Mr. Rooker interrupted to ask if is it feasible to integrate some of this material into classroom
materials used in County schools. Mr. Olivier said a lot of environmental science information is already in
the current public school curriculum. About a year ago, he and John Hermsmeier met with a middle
school teacher in the Albemarle System at Mr. Dorrier’s request to discuss the integration of biodiversity
protection into the curriculum. He said Mr. Hermsmeier has worked with many of the schools in the area.
He has been involved with a “school yard habitat” project and it has been quite successful, both with
teachers and the people responsible for maintenance of the school system. They have established on
school yard grounds local areas that can be used as small ecological laboratories. He said some of the
County’s school properties are quite extensive. In some cases they have forested footages along river
edges, etc. The short answer is “yes” and some of it is already in place.
Mr. Olivier said the committee should also input and oversee extension of the ongoing
biodiversity assessment that was begun by the Work Group and develop a protocol for assessing
changes in the state of biological resources over time. The committee should periodically report to the
Board on the state of biodiversity and it should recommend actions to protect resources from immediate
threats. It should be clear that long-term protections need to be developed. In many cases, there are
precious resources that are vulnerable to simply being built over or having a driveway run through them.
Some simple programs need to be put into place soon based on information available and not wait for
grand schemes to restore connectivity, etc.
Mr. Olivier said the Work Group offers these recommendations and the makeup of the standing
committee. The process of the creation of the committee should begin with the acceptance of the BWG
report. There should be eight to twelve members. A range of scientific expertise should be represented
similar to the range that was created for the BWG. Members should include local landowners and
citizens with interest in conservation, farming, forestry and conservation-oriented development. Potential
appointees to the committee should affirm their support for the conservation goals in the Comprehensive
Plan. Committee formation and the application process should be well advertised so that applicants and
appointees reflect as far as possible the diversity of the County’s society. The committee should be
known as the “Natural Heritage Committee”.
Mr. Olivier said during the two-plus years that the BWG worked on this report, it was driven in part
by scientific interest in the subject. As scientists, the committee members hope the Board will find their
effort sufficient and will accept the report. However, BWG members also were driven by a shared
passion regarding the value of biological resources. As such, they hope the Board will be moved to begin
the process of creating the much needed standing County Natural Heritage Committee. He thanked the
Board for the opportunity to present this report today, and offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Committee has done an outstanding job. He found this to be one of
the best reports he has ever read. The report is clear and educational. He asked for Board comments.
Mr. Boyd said it appears to him that the basic concept is to create an ongoing biodiversity
committee. He does not favor just establishing layers of bureaucracy so he wonders if what is really
needed is to concentrate on this report and then integrate it into some existing committee dealing with
land use policies. He agrees with the importance of biodiversity, but he thinks the objectives might be
included it the action plan of an existing committee instead of creating a separate group that may not be
in touch with some of the existing committees.
Mr. Bowerman said the County needs a data set that expands into the future. There needs to be
someone looking at it.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is a lot of work for a committee to do in this area of study. He
could not see it being done by the DISC Committee; these are, after all, volunteer committee members.
He said the Comprehensive Plan in the Biodiversity Section includes a recommendation for a standing
committee.
Mr. Boyd said the report talks about considering biodiversity issues on everything that is done.
He asked if in the approval process, it would include going to the biodiversity committee for its comments
on the matter. He is trying to figure out if these concepts can be integrated with some ongoing committee
without adding another layer of approval and lengthening the approval period of time.
Mr. Olivier said the Work Group actually discussed the idea of consultation on development
projects. The members of the committee did not want to be involved in evaluating every development
project that comes to the County for approval. He said some development projects have pervasive
effects or extensive effects that are due either to the scale of the project or because the project is located
in a key area and that should be weighed into the project. The intent was that a development project
might have a major impact on the County’s biological resources. The committee might be consulted to
offer an opinion on what those impacts might be, or to voice relevant mitigating factors. The committee
was not to be just another layer of bureaucracy. He said the Comprehensive Plan firmly commits to
creation of a committee like this, so it is not a new request.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Wyant said he has been involved with such a committee at the state level. Some approaches
to biodiversity can be very expensive. This would be more of an advisory committee that gives input into
the process rather than being directly involved in the process.
Mr. Tucker said staff asks that the Board accept the report, and then in February staff will make a
presentation on how the report might be used. That presentation will also address the fiscal impact,
policies and procedures.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks this is an excellent report and it contains valuable data.
Mr. Rooker asked the extent to which the current ACE guidelines incorporate biodiversity. He
suggested that might be looked into. He hopes the committee will identify specific geographical areas
that are important to preserve. He thinks it is a factor the County should consider in selecting properties
for the ACE Program. Also, for PRD designs, the Committee might recommend a set of criteria that
should be considered in their designs.
Mr. Bowerman said the County is not aware of those impacts at this time.
Ms. Thomas said there is a blueway/greenway planner who is identifying places where there may
be trails, and even properties the County may want to buy. She said the County is not always dealing
with private developers. This was a very hard working committee, and she was impressed by their work.
However, the action plan strategies suggest powers the Board does not have.
Mr. Dorrier thanked the BWG for the report. He suggested that the Board hold onto the
committee for the time being. He asked for a motion to accept the report.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the Biodiversity
Report from the Biodiversity Work Group and to direct staff to prepare a report evaluating the next steps
for reviewing and implementing the Biodiversity Work Group’s recommendations. This review should
include an assessment of implementing these recommendations, including implications for current County
policies and procedures, and impacts to staff and fiscal resources. Staff is to schedule a presentation on
this report in February, 2005.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee Report.
Mr. Ron White, Housing Director, said before presenting the report he would like to make some
announcements. Yesterday AHIP notified him that the Department of Housing and Community
Development has asked them to submit an application for up to $250,000 for funds to do housing rehabs.
This is a demonstration program that DHCD is putting together with either left over HOME money or
recaptured Federal HOME money. He will give more information about this at the Board’s meeting on
January 5. The County will not be required to file the application or hold public hearings. He said the
County’s support would help the application process.
Mr. White said the Chairman of the Housing Committee was not able to be present today but
wanted the Board to know that there was a joint Housing Committee and Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee meeting to discuss this draft report. He then recognized Mr. Leigh Middleditch, who chaired
the Advisory Committee, and asked if would like to make some comments.
Mr. Middleditch said the Board appointed the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee in the
spring of 2004 to examine issues presented by the Affordable Housing Policy which was adopted in
February. He said this was a broad-based committee. In particular, the private sector developers added
a great deal to their deliberations. They took the definition established by the Housing Policy and used it
as the crux of their analysis. They used the report of the policy committee and broke it down into the five
issues identified by that document. They went into the barriers for implementing those five policy issues
and then tried to set up a priority list of matters to address the barriers. They came up with five strategies;
the principal strategy is the one that was fleshed out from the policy document. It appears on Page 4 as
Strategy 2 “Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for low and moderate income
families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based on the development size, timeline and
nature of surrounding area.” “At a minimum, fifteen percent of all units developed under rezoning and
special use permit should be affordable as defined by the County’s Office of Housing and Housing
Committee, or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the
County.” He said the suffix to that particular strategy is designed to address the possibility of a trust fund,
which is already in process through the Piedmont Housing Alliance.
Mr. Middleditch said he thinks the trust fund is critical because many developers, rather than
trying to deal with the fifteen percent requirement, will want to make a monetary contribution instead of
whatever the value is determined to be of that fifteen percent. That may not meet the desires of the
Supervisors in terms of having a mixed-use development, but on the other hand, the market will dictate in
many instances where low-income folks who need affordable housing would wish to live. It might not be
in the specific development being rezoned, but someplace else within the County. He thinks that is a way
to permit the market to dictate in many instances where those people would best like to go, and the trust
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
fund is the key to that. He thinks it will need a dedicated source of revenue. The Board will have to come
to grips with that during the implementation process.
Mr. Middleditch said the Committee recommends that there be implementation of this report.
Three working groups are contemplated. They would be comprised of not only public officials, but people
from the private sector who will have to live with this final policy if the Board goes forward with it. Their
report on implementation should be made by June, 2005. Personally, he does not think affordable
housing will ever be solved in any jurisdiction. He thinks some discreet steps can be taken that will assist
in addressing it, but as facts and circumstances change, the County will have to be flexible in how it can
improve affordability. He said the Washington Post contained an article this morning about how
Montgomery County, Maryland’s affordable housing policy which has been in effect for thirty years is
being readdressed and changed as facts and circumstances change.
Finally, Mr. Middleditch complimented the staff who prepared the bulk of the report, particularly
Ms. Lee Catlin who was their facilitator, and Mr. Ron White and Mr. Wayne Cilimberg. He suggested that
the Board accept the report and cause the implementation process to be entered into.
Mr. White said he would like to thank all of the Advisory Committee members. He said this is a
difficult subject. There are many elements; it is not something we can “throw money at” and solve. There
are market conditions and regulatory issues. Many things were brought up during discussions that in a
four to six-month period could not be addressed and solved. He said this report is presented as an
incremental implementation of the policy. Mr. White then gave a PowerPointe presentation (a copy is on
file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors).
Mr. White said that first they discussed barriers to production of affordable housing. The first
question was: “Who should bear the cost?” The development community felt the policy was putting the
cost burden on the building community. Another question was: “If affordable housing is a public good,
should all taxpayers contribute?” That is one of the ideas behind dedicating funds for a housing trust
fund. It would be through tax revenues, or some other taxing mechanism. Related directly to the public
contributions was the idea that there are insufficient funds to make a positive impact on what is a strong
market demand. Market demand is increasing land costs and increased development costs. If there is a
strong demand for what is being built now.
Mr. White said the third question is: “Is there a market for affordable units, and if so, how big is
that market?” Due to land and development costs, the only way to do affordable housing may be some
type of attached product such as townhomes or condominiums. Is that what people really want, or will
they go to another locality where they can buy a single-family detached property?
Mr. White said they addressed other questions also. How do you keep units affordable in the
long term? He said this has been done in many instances. There is presently about $570,000 in
receivables from Crozet Crossing which is based on the equity sharing agreements which are in place on
those units. He said that today their market value is larger than the assessed value so that is probably a
conservative figure.
Mr. Rooker asked how a receivable is defined. Mr. White said there are notes on these units.
There was a subsidy generally from $15,000 to $25,000 per unit when the houses were purchased. The
principal amount of that note plus a percentage of the equity when they sell the property will be the
receivable.
Mr. Boyd asked the percentage of the equity mentioned. Mr. White said it is the percentage of
the subsidy to the original purchase price.
Mr. Boyd asked why it was done that way as opposed to a true note with accumulated interest.
Mr. White said that was the model used at the time. The recommendation in the report is to go to a fixed
interest rate that is deferred. There are a number of reasons for doing that. Everybody would be treated
the same. The person who keeps their property well-maintained ends up paying back more when they
sell than the person who lets the property run down. A fixed interest rate is fairer across the board.
Mr. White said another question was: Can the existing density bonus be revised for better
effectiveness? He said this is not a new question and more work is needed to see if that density bonus
can be revised. Another question is: How would a partnership work? He said everybody who is a
partner would share in the cost and responsibility (that includes government, nonprofits, builders and
developers). A big question was: Is focus on production the right thing or should we focus on assisting
families? He said developers might want to put in money to assist families rather than producing the
units. That brings up the question of where the units come from.
Mr. White noted that the five strategies (regulatory and administrative functions; set specific
targets; instruments to ensure affordability; partnerships/alliances; and, seeking additional resources)
came directly from the policy adopted in February.
Mr. Rooker said he is concerned that this might create something that is just another social
services transfer. Will this really improve the stock of affordable housing? Mr. White said that is
something to think about. Are homeowners being created when they are not ready to be homeowners?
He said that in Business Weekly last month it was noted that the foreclosure rate for highly leveraged
mortgages is nine times higher than in the standard mortgage market. It has been found nationwide that
homebuyer counseling is critical.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. White said the committee looked at the recommendations which were part of the Policy
Report and they came up with some new or slightly reworded ones. At the last meeting of the committee,
they were asked to look at the total list of recommendations and give staff some priorities because it
cannot deal with everything. He then explained the strategies which are part of the written report. He
said the Board may have to give some policy directions in order to answer some of the questions
connected to the strategies.
Mr. White said Strategy 3 calls for creation of a Housing Trust Fund with a dedicated revenue
source, and it was a source of discussion at many meetings. He said the Department currently has the
Albemarle Housing Initiative Fund which the Board funded this year in the amount of $250,000. They are
recommending that money go into a homebuyer’s assistance program. The difference between what
they are doing now and a housing trust fund is that the trust fund usually has a dedicated revenue source
and is not subject to a budget situation.
Mr. Dorrier asked if State Code allows the Board to set up a housing trust fund. Mr. White said
he believes it does. Mr. Dorrier said the County Attorney is shaking his head “no.” Mr. White said there
can be local housing funds, he is not sure it can be a housing trust fund. He said the City of
Charlottesville in its legislative packet this year is asking that they be allowed to create a housing trust
fund similar to what counties can already do.
Mr. Bowerman said there can be cash proffers.
Mr. Rooker said money can be allocated each year in the budget.
Mr. White said he thinks the Board set a reasonable policy last year for what the department was
looking at doing; that was to increase the initiative fund from $50,000 to $250,000 by putting in some one-
time funds and some recurring funds and hopefully increasing it over a period of four years.
Mr. Tucker said the reality is that once the Board starts doing that, although the Board would
have to make the appropriation each year, the expense would probably remain in the budget year after
year.
Mr. White said it would be critical that any cash proffers taken related to affordable housing go
into the housing trust fund. He said Strategy 4 suggests promoting a Community Development Financial
Institution (CDFI). He said the Piedmont Housing Alliance is a CDFI. They have recently hired staff with
lending experience and he thinks the CDFI part of PHA will improve. They also recently announced a
Regional Homeownership Center. The County will probably be asked to contribute to that effort.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to make an observation. He said what the Board is hearing is
very important but he thinks the Board should have a work session on this report without going through it
so quickly.
Mr. Dorrier said that is a good point. The Board wants to do justice to affordable housing
because it is a major issue in the County. Boxed into a ten or fifteen minute timeframe, the Board cannot
do the report justice.
Mr. Rooker said staff recommended that the Board accept the report. He did not understand the
second part of the recommendation “Staff also recommends that members of the Advisory Committee
serve with one or more small groups to address the remaining issues and that the Advisory Committee
reconvene to review further recommendations.” He asked who would be a part of these small groups.
Mr. White said he would like to finish his presentation and then will discuss Mr. Rooker’s
question. Critical components noted are: have pre-qualified buyers with financing; create Housing Trust
Fund with dedicated resources; develop predictable process for calculating cash proffers/other
contributions; and, maintain continued affordability. He said staff will be meeting this Friday to determine
how to go forward. They are looking at expanding homeownership counseling, not just doing
homebuyer’s clubs, but other types of counseling for people who do not need 18 months of counseling.
In that way people can be moved toward homeownership quicker. They are working with PHA to put out
a joint application to VHDA for SPARC funds which are 30-year mortgage moneys which are one percent
below their normal rate. Then, they will use the resources they have now to implement the homebuyer’s
assistance program.
Mr. White said Mr. Middleditch mentioned three groups, but he does not think there will be more
than one working group to get some of the other issues answered, such as internal processes, incentives,
and how to create an atmosphere where the County gets good proffers toward housing initiatives. Other
internal work which will not be a part of the Work Group is to set up a tracking/monitoring system and then
identify/document demand. In the next budget cycle they will look at the possible sources of dedicated
funding for a Housing Trust Fund (2006-07 budget), and explore the use of tax credits or other incentives
to promote affordable housing.
Mr. Rooker asked if the immediate option listed (formalize a process for discussing affordable
housing for all residential rezonings and special use permits) is envisioned as being part of the process.
Mr. White said that is part of the process.
Mr. Rooker said the other options are (expand housing counseling options; seek SPARC funds
from VHDA; and implement homebuyer assistance program). He asked if Mr. White was asking for
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
authority to move forward with those recommendations. Mr. White said that is the recommendation in the
report and acceptance of the report would give staff the authority to move forward.
Mr. Rooker said he understands the longer term options would come back to the Board with more
detail. Mr. White said some of them may come back for more policy directions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Advisory Committee will continue in existence. Mr. White said the
Advisory Committee will remain at this time. They will not meet until the Work Group has something for
them to look at. Some members of the Advisory Committee will be asked to serve on the Work Group.
Ms. Thomas asked if the existing composition of the Work Group has proved to be good. She
said the Board got a formal complaint that it had not included certain individuals, but as a Board it tried
hard to have the right kind of composition. Mr. White said it worked out well. Some things are still being
heard from the development committee that could have been heard at the Advisory Committee meetings.
Ms. Thomas said she has been distressed at what is happening at the Federal and State level.
Some of the housing assistance program for renters (people who will never be homeowners), that the
County depends on as providing a base for that level of need has crumbled. She thinks when the Board
meets with the area legislators it should remember that if that base is not fairly well funded, there is no
use talking about homebuyers.
Mr. White said he is going to Richmond next week for a teleconference on the appropriations for
the Housing Choice Voucher Program. He is not sure what that program looks like right now. Nothing
has changed since the last time he reported to the Board on this question. Based on their formula for
reimbursing the County, of the 420 vouchers currently authorized, 50+ may be cut. He will keep the
board informed as he hears more. It has taken quite a while for the Appropriations Act to be passed this
year.
Ms. Thomas said she is somewhat impatient because she wants the County to solve the problem
of affordable housing. She does not want the Board to take Mr. Middleditch’s comment that the problem
will never be solved to preclude it from taking some steps. She gets worried by the word “phasing in.”
She thinks the recommendations listed for the immediate six months are good ideas (formalize a process
for discussing affordable housing for all residential rezonings and special use permits; expand housing
counseling options; seek SPARC funds from VHDA; implement Homebuyer Assistance Program;
consolidate all resources into Housing Trust Fund; promote the separation of CDFI functions/staff/Board
and PHA development functions/staff/Board; complete work on options, processes and policies for
submitting/accepting proffers for affordable housing). She said when dealing with things like density
credits, the location of housing and its effect on the cost of living might be worked into density credits
somehow. It is not just the cost of the house, but what it costs to live in the house.
Mr. White said where proxies for affordable housing are listed, that is a discussion that still needs
to take place.
Motionseconded
was then offered by Ms. Thomas, by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the report from
the Affordable Housing Policy Advisory Committee and support the recommendations included in the
report.
Mr. Boyd said he had some comments. He said one of the recommendations was to implement
the Homebuyers Assistance Program. He asked why it is necessary for the County to do this as opposed
to philanthropic/private agencies doing it. Mr. White said it was envisioned that the funds made available
in this budget year, plus any of the funds as receivable as they are received, would go into a homebuyer’s
assistance program. It may not be implemented from the Housing Office. Some type of administrative
agreement would likely be signed with the Piedmont Housing Alliance to implement the program. The
County would be funding the program within Housing’s current budget, but that office would not operate
the program.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board wants to make sure most of the money is not spent at the
administrative level, but gets down to its intended use. Mr. White said unless the Board gives other
directions, the money in the Albemarle County Housing Initiative Fund would not be used for
administrative costs. The PHA would have to request administration money separately if they had some
costs they wished to recover.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has to consider the impacts of its decisions on everything going on. He
has heard from people in communities where they feel there is “forced high density”, that they do not want
that density. For the Board to put in incentives to have even more density, it would have to deal with
those people. That is something the Board must wrestle with. He agrees with Mr. Bowerman that a work
session is needed on this subject.
Mr. White said in the summary of the report, it talks about the unintended consequences of
whatever is done. Other jurisdictions can be looked at to see those unintended consequences. He
understands Arlington County is now being sued, even before the development has been to the approval
stage, for putting a similar thing in place. Staff will be watching the courts in Arlington to see what
happens as it relates to affordable housing.
At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. Lee Catlin for her work with the Advisory Committee.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Social Services Advisory Board Annual Report.
Ms. Beth McIvor said she is Chair of the Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Advisory Board. She has come to present the Department’s Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2004. This is
a very specific duty of the Advisory Board and is defined by State Code. She then introduced members
of the Social Services Advisory Board, Mr. Claude Foster and Ms. Brenda Doremus-Daniel. Staff present
are Ms. Sonia Jammes and Ms. Kathy Ralston. She said on page 3 of the report there is a letter from the
Advisory Board. She said that for the first time the Board has included information on how it conducts its
business, and it lists some of their accomplishments. She is proud of their participation in the
Department’s Strategic planning which occurred between April and October of 2003.
Ms. McIvor said this allowed the Board to be a partner in the development of the current Vision,
Mission and Goals of the Department. Their strategic plan was designed to complement the County’s
mission and strategic direction of enhancing the quality of life for Albemarle County citizens. Further the
department has incorporated into its strategic plan the countywide outcome of reducing the number of
children living at or below 150 percent of poverty, of decreasing the per capita number of children in foster
care and increasing awareness of domestic violence in order to reduce the incidence of domestic
violence.
Ms. McIvor said she would like to share a result of the Advisory Board’s effort to communicate the
essence of the department’s strategic plan externally. She then distributed to the Board members several
documents. She said the executive summary of the full plan has an emphasis on results. The Advisory
Board intends to distribute these to a variety of partners including local businesses, community agencies
and others. On page 4 of the Annual Report it shows Outcome Measurements for Fiscal Year 2004. She
said the department regularly monitors 35 outcome measures specific to its programs. The Department’s
Leadership Team chose seven critical outcome measures on which to focus. She said the “Score Card”
on that page is self-explanatory. Standard No. 7 shows that in 99.6 percent of cases children did not
require out-of-home placement. This is a result of the Family Support Program. She said the department
will provide a report at a later date on this wonderful preventive program.
Ms. McIvor said the department is addressing the slippage seen in processing Medicaid
applications in a timely fashion. This occurred partly due to staffing shortages, but is also related to the
aging population, the outreach of FAMIS and possibly the economy. Throughout the report, increases in
major assistance programs will be seen. In regard to the Food Stamp Program, she will mention two
awards just received by the Department from the State. One was for one hundred percent food stamp
timeliness for the year 2003, and the second was for one hundred percent food stamp accuracy for the
year 2003.
Ms. McIvor said that pages 5 through 11 of the report describe programs and services offered by
the department. She said two stories were included on page 9 under Foster Care and Adoption Services,
and one on page 11 under the Family Support Program. They illustrate how the department has met
some of the needs of its clients. Finally, she drew the Board’s attention to the budget on page 12. She
said the Department gets support from the County, but it also works diligently to leverage its money to
bring additional dollars into the community to provide quality services to its customers. The figures show
that almost $56.0 million came into the community in FY 2004. In conclusion, she will add that it is a
privilege to serve on the Advisory Board of a department that is fiscally prudent and has such a
professional dedicated staff. She then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Thomas said this is an impressive report. It shows that the Advisory Board has a real feeling
of what it is doing and involvement in what it is doing. She knows there have been times when they went
through an identity crisis not knowing how they fit in and what they could do. She appreciates the
volunteers who work on lots of committees throughout the County.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board appreciates the work of the Advisory Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Human Resources Annual Report.
Mr. Tucker said the Board received a copy of the Annual Report of the Human Resources
Department. Staff can make a presentation of the report if the Board so desires, but due to the lateness
of the hour he can reschedule it on the agenda for next month.
It was the consensus that the report is self-explanatory, and is well put together.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Update on Lane Auditorium Renovations (continued from September 1).
Mr. Tucker said due to the lateness of the hour, he will reschedule this item for later in the day.
_______________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
motionseconded
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Session. At 12:39 p.m., was made by Mr. Boyd,
by Ms. Thomas, that the Board go into Closed Session pursuant to § 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia,
under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and commissions; under
subsection (3) to discuss with legal counsel and staff the acquisition of property for a public use; under
subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff legal matters concerning probable litigation
regarding a zoning decision; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff legal matters
regarding pending litigation; and under subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and staff specific legal
issues regarding an interjurisdictional agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Session. At 2:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session.
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.
seconded
The motion was by Mr. Rooker. 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: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
Motionseconded
was offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Bowerman, to:
Reappoint Mr. Ross L. Stevens to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with said term to expire
December 31, 2005.
Reappoint Dr. Leo Mallek to the Joint Airport Commission, with said term to expire December 1,
2007.
Appoint Ms. Caroline Taylor to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said term to expire
August 13, 2005.
Appoint Ms. Rosa Hudson to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said term to expire
August 13, 2005.
Note
(: Ms. Thomas returned to the meeting at this time.)
Appoint Ms. Martha Hill to the Historic Preservation Committee (no term limit).
Appoint Mr. Kevin Fletcher to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee (no term
limit).
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________
Public Hearing:
Agenda Item No. 18. Proposed FY 2005 Budget Amendment. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 21, 2004.)
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Budget Director, said this Budget amendment totals $2,483,889.50. It is
comprised of nine separate appropriations: Appropriation No. 2005-030 in the amount of $422,000.00 for
funding improvements to Key West Dam and Sunridge Road; Appropriation No. 2005-031 in the amount
of $13,857.00 for the AmeriCorps program; Appropriation No. 2005-032 in the amount of $7,580.00 for
various school programs and donations; Appropriation No. 2005-033 in the amount of $6,638.50 for
reappropriation of donated funds for a portable rehabilitation unit; Appropriation No. 2005-034 in the
amount of $84,618.00 to upgrade the Emergency 911 telephone system; Appropriation No. 2005-035 in
the amount of $6,820.00 for the Sheriff’s salary supplement; Appropriation No. 2005-036 in the amount of
$30,000.00 for a Department of Justice grant to the Police Department; Appropriation No. 2005-037 in the
amount of $90.00 for SPCA sterilization funding; and Appropriation No. 2005-038 in the amount of
$1,912,286.00 for the Regional Mobile Data Computer project. Staff recommends approval of the FY
2005 Budget amendment in the amount of $2,483,889.50, after the public hearing, and then approval of
the appropriations noted above to provide funds for various General Government, School and Capital
programs as described in Attachment A (on file in the Clerk’s Office).
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Breeden said he will mention Appropriation No. 2005-038 in the amount of $1,912,286.00 for
the Regional Mobile Data Computer project. He said that as the fiscal agent for the Emergency
Communications Center (ECC), the entire cost of the project must be appropriated. The County’s share
is approximately $476,000 and is already funded in the Capital Improvements Project budget.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this figure includes the $1.0 million from the Federal government. Mr.
Breeden said “yes.”
Mr. Boyd said he had a question about Appropriation No. 2005-036 in the amount of $30,000.00
for a Department of Justice grant to the Police Department. It is noted that it is a 50 percent local match.
Is the $30,000.00 the County’s 50 percent match, or is it the whole amount? Mr. Breeden said the
County will be matching $30,000.00 out of the CIP.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County must appropriate another $15,000.00 to go with the $30,000.00.
Mr. Breeden said that does not have to be done in this case. It is actually a $60,000.00 grant and the
County must put up $30,000.00, but the County’s share has already been appropriated in the CIP.
Ms. Thomas said she has said before that she would like for the County to keep a running total of
what these Justice Department awards are costing in the way of local matches. She said the County is
spending a lot of money on these. Mr. Breeden said the Police Department is already tracking that
expense; he will furnish Ms. Thomas a copy of those expenses, if desired.
Mr. Tucker said he has recently seen information that Congress is reducing significantly funding
for all of these types of programs and grants.
Mr. Rooker said it is not that bad when the money is for capital items. The County has to be
careful when they are not capital items. Mr. Tucker said the COPS Program is being reduced.
The public hearing was opened at this time. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motionseconded
was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, by Mr. Rooker, to approve the FY
2005 Budget amendment in the amount of $2,483,889.50, and to adopt Resolutions of Appropriation
No.2005-030, No.2005-031, No.2005-032, No.2005-033, No.2005-034, No.2005-035, No.2005-036,
No.2005-037, and No.2005-038 to provide funds for various General Government, School and Capital
programs as described in Attachment A of the Executive Summary (which is on file in the Clerk’s Office
with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors). Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The Resolutions of Appropriation as adopted are set out in full below.)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-030
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Funding for improvements to Key West Dam and Sunridge Road
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41058 800975 Key West Dam J 1 347,000.00
2 9100 51000 510100 Storm Water F/B J 2 347,000.00
9100 0501 Est Revenue 347,000.00
9100 0701 Appropriation 347,000.00
1 9010 41020 950171 Sunridge Road J 1 75,000.00
2 9010 51000 510100 CIP F/B J 2 75,000.00
9010 0501 Est Revenue 75,000.00
9010 0701 Appropriation 75,000.00
TOTAL 844,000.00 422,000.00 422,000.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPPROPRIATION NO. 2005-031
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Funding for Americorps Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1566 53156 110000 Salaries J 1 7,416.00
1 1566 53156 210000 FICA J 1 567.00
1 1566 53156 800700 ADP Equip. J 1 2,880.00
2 1566 33000 330001 Federal Revenues J 2 9,070.00
2 1566 51000 512004 Trs From G/F J 2 1,793.00
1566 0501 Est Revenue 10,863.00
1566 0701 Appropriation 10,863.00
1 1566 53156 110000 Salaries J 1 2,781.00
1 1566 53156 210000 FICA J 1 213.00
2 1566 33000 330001 Federal Revenues J 2 2,482.00
2 1566 51000 512004 Tr. From G/F J 2 512.00
1566 0501 Es. Revenue 2,994.00
1566 0701 Appropriation 2,994.00
1 1000 53013 939999 Trs To Americorps J 1 2,305.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Gen'l Fund Balance J 2 2,305.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 2,305.00
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
1000 0701 Appropriation 2,305.00
TOTAL 32,324.00 16,162.00 16,162.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPRORIATION NO. 2005-032
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Education Programs and Donations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 3143 61101 601300 Inst Supplies J 1 1,000.00
2 3143 51000 510100 Com Found Grant F/B J 2 1,000.00
3143 0501 Est Revenue 1,000.00
3143 0701 Appropriation 1,000.00
1 2212 61101 114100 Salary - Tchr Aide J 1 2,308.75
1 2212 61101 210000 FICA J 1 191.25
1 2212 61411 580500 Staff Development J 1 500.00
1 2252 61101 160300 Stipends-Staff J 1 3,580.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 6,580.00
2000 0501 Est Revenue 6,580.00
0701 Appropriation 6,580.00
TOTAL 15,160.00 7,580.00 7,580.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-033
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of donated funds for portable rehab unit
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32015 601015 Portable Rehab Unit J 1 6,638.50
2 1000 51000 510100 Gen'l Fund Balance J 2 6,638.50
1000 0501 Est Revenue 6,638.50
1000 0701 Appropriation 6,638.50
TOTAL 13,277.00 6,638.50 6,638.50
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-034
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Funding to upgrade Emergency 911 Telephone System
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31042 800301 911 Phone Sys J 1 84,618.00
2 4100 51000 510100 ECC-Fund Balance J 2 84,618.00
4100 0501 Est Revenue 84,618.00
4100 0701 Appropriation 84,618.00
TOTAL 169,236.00 84,618.00 84,618.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-035
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Sheriff's salary supplement
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 21060 110000 Salaries J 1 5,748.00
1 1000 21060 210000 FICA J 1 440.00
1 1000 21060 221000 VRS J 1 632.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Gen'l Fund Balance J 2 6,820.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 6,820.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 6,820.00
TOTAL 13,640.00 6,820.00 6,820.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-036
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Public Safety Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1522 31013 800100 Machinery & Equip J 1 30,000.00
2 1522 33000 300001 Federal Grant Rev J 2 30,000.00
1522 0501 Est Revenue 30,000.00
1522 0701 Appropriation 30,000.00
TOTAL 60,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-037
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: SPCA Sterilization Funding
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 39000 565510 SPCA J 1 90.00
2 1000 22000 220106 State Revenue J 2 90.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 90.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 90.00
TOTAL 180.00 90.00 90.00
__________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2005-038
DATE: 12/01/04
EXPLANATION: Regional Mobile Data Project
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4115 53106 800316 Mobile Data Project J 1 1,318,469.00
1 4115 53106 800714 Technology Upgrade J 1 393,817.00
1 4115 53106 999999 Contingency J 1 200,000.00
2 4115 16000 160544 City (44.74%) J 2 218,933.00
2 4115 16000 160545 County (42.51%) J 2 208,020.00
2 4115 16000 160546 UVA (12.75%) J 2 62,391.00
2 4115 16000 160502 City J 2 55,151.00
2 4115 16000 160503 County J 2 268,102.00
2 4115 16000 160512 UVA J 2 99,689.00
2 4115 33000 330325 Grant J 2 1,000,000.00
1000 0501 Est Revenue 1,912,286.00
1000 0701 Appropriation 1,912,286.00
TOTAL 3,824,572.00 1,912,286.00 1,912,286.00
_______________
Public Hearing:
Agenda Item No. 19. An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article VII,
of the Albemarle County Code, that amends Section 15-704, Persons eligible for exemption, and Section
15-705, Amount of exemption, relating to Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on November 15 and November 22, 2004.)
Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, said the Board discussed this program at its meeting
on November 3, 2004. The Board directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance increasing the income and
net worth limits used to determine eligibility for the Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program to
$30,000 and $90,000, respectively, and to replace the existing scale used to determine the amount of
eligible tax exemption with a matrix using both income and net worth limits. The public hearing on the
amendment to the Code is before the Board today.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motionseconded
was immediately offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt An
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and
Disabled Persons, of the Code of the County Of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 15-704, Persons
eligible for exemption, and Sec. 15-705, Amount of exemption.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE
EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
15, Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, is
hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-704 Persons eligible for exemption
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION FOR
CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
Sec. 15-704 Persons eligible for exemption.
Persons who satisfy all of the following requirements are eligible for the exemption
established in section 15-703:
A. The person claiming the exemption shall have either:
1. Reached the age of sixty-five (65) years prior to the taxable year for
which the exemption is claimed; or
2. Became permanently and totally disabled prior to the taxable year for
which the exemption is claimed.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
B. The person claiming the exemption shall be a person owning title or partial title in
the dwelling.
1. The person claiming the exemption shall own title or partial title to the
real estate for which the exemption is claimed on January 1 of the taxable year.
2. A dwelling jointly owned by a husband and wife may qualify if either
spouse is sixty-five (65) years of age or older or is permanently and totally disabled.
3. Except as provided in paragraph (B.2), the exemption shall not apply to a
dwelling jointly owned by a person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older or who is
permanently and totally disabled (an “exempt person”), and a person who not an exempt
person.
C. The person claiming the exemption shall occupy the dwelling as that person’s
sole dwelling.
1. The dwelling shall not be used for commercial purposes.
2. The fact that a person who otherwise qualifies for exemption established
by this article resides in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for
physical or mental care for extended periods of time shall not be construed to mean that
the real estate for which the exemption is sought does not continue to be the sole
dwelling of the person during such extended periods of other residence so long as such
real estate is not used by or leased to others for consideration.
D. A manufactured home is real estate eligible for the exemption established by this
article if the person claiming the exemption demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director of
finance that the manufactured home is permanently affixed. Either of the following shall be
evidence that the manufactured home is permanently affixed:
1. The person claiming the exemption owns title or partial title to the
manufactured home and the land on which the manufactured home is located, and the
manufactured home is connected to permanent water and sewage lines or facilities; or
2. Whether or not the manufactured home is located on land on which the
person claiming the exemption owns title or partial title, the manufactured home rests on
a permanent foundation and consists of two (2) or more units which are connected in
such a manner that they cannot be towed together on a highway, or consists of a unit and
other connected rooms or additions which must be removed before the manufactured
home can be towed on a highway.
E. The total combined income shall not exceed thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00)
for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year.
F. The net combined financial worth shall not exceed ninety thousand dollars
($90,000.00) as of December thirty-first of the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable
year.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; 6-12-85; 5-13-87; Ord of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Ord. 96-
8(2), 12-11-96; Code 1988, § 8-26; 9-9-81; Ord. 12-19-90; Code 1988, § 8-26.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. 00-15(2), 9-20-00; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03; Ord. 04-15(2), 12-1-04)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 58.1-3210, 58.1-3211, 58.1-3212, 58.1-3214, 58.1-3215.
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption.
The amount of the exemption established by this article from the real estate tax for any
taxable year shall be as follows:
Percentage of Real Estate Tax Exempted
Net Combined Financial Worth
$0- $80,000 $80,001-$85,000 $85,001-$90,000
$0-$18,000 100.0% 90.0% 80.0%
Total
$18,001-$22,000 75.0% 67.5% 60.0%
Combined
$22,001-$26,000 50.0% 45.0% 40.0%
Income
$26,001-$30,000 25.0% 22.5% 20.0%
Over $30,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
(2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Code 1988, § 8-27; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93;
Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(2), 9-20-00; Ord. 04-15(2), 12-1-04)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3212.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2005.
_______________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Public Hearing:
Agenda Item No. 20. Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District
Review. Periodic review of the Moorman’s River Agricultural & Forestal District and consider amending
section 3-222, Moorman’s River Agricultural & Forestal District, of Division 2, Districts, of Article II,
Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural & Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County
Code. The proposed ordinance would add TMPs 43-16B2, 43-16B3, 29-4E, 43-33E and 43-34D1 to the
district, and any other parcels for which a request for addition is received before the board acts on the
proposed ordinance, would remove TMPs 42-25C, 42-25C1, 43-17, 43-18, 43-18A, 43-18C, 43-18F, 43-
23A, 43-23D, 43-33D, 43-34, 43-34A1, 43-34A2, 29-15C and 28-37D from the district, and any other
parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before the board acts on the proposed ordinance,
would make a clerical correction to the section by adding or deleting identified parcels previously added
or withdrawn from the district, and would continue the district and set the next district review date
deadline of December 1, 2014. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 15 and November 22, 2004.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a public hearing on an ordinance to continue in effect the Moorman’s
River Agricultural/Forestal District which was originally created in 1986. It included 8035 acres at that
time; currently it includes 10,740 acres. With this process, there are seven requests to withdraw from the
district totaling 432 acres, and three requests to add properties to the district totaling 192 acres. There
will then be 10,500 acres remaining in the district. He said a couple of the property owners withdrawing
property at this time actually plan to come back and include parts of properties not being subdivided.
Staff expects that the size of the district will be somewhat bigger in the near future after some subdivision
activity takes place. The ordinance is recommended for approval by both the Ag/Forestal District
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the
public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motionseconded
was immediately offered by Mr. Wyant, by Mr. Rooker, to adopt An Ordinance
to Amend and Reordain Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide
Significance, Division 2, Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Section
3-222, Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District (correct the typo referring to Chapter 3 as
“Agricultural” and Forestal Districts).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Note
(: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 04-3(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION
2, DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2,
Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Section 3-222 Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 34A, 40, 40A, 40A1, 42, 42A; tax
map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B,
23B1, 30, 30A, 30B 32B, 32D, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 4E,
8, 8B, 8E, 8E1, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 40B, 40C, 40D, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67C, 69D,
69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70F1, 70G, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76, 78, 79C, 80,
84; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 12, 12C, 12D, 17A, 18E; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E,
15, 17C, 18, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 72D, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6,
6B, 7, 8, 8A, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H2, 41, 42B, 43, 43A,
44; tax map 43, parcels 1, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B2, 16B3, 18E4, 18G, 18J, 19I,
19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 2l, 21A, 24, 25A, 25B, 30, 30A, 30B, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 30N, 32H,
33, 33E, 34D1, 41, 42, 43, 43A1, 44, 45, 45C, 45D; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 26, 26A, 26C,
27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31, 31A, 31A1, 31D, 31F, 31G; tax map 59, parcels
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than ten years
and last reviewed on December 1, 2004, shall be next reviewed prior to December 1, 2014.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98;
Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 04-3(4), 12-1-04)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Update on Comprehensive Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance (STA-
2001-08).
Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner, was present. She said DISC II met eighteen times between May and
October 26 to discuss and develop recommendations for modifications to the Subdivision Ordinance text.
At their last two meetings, DISC II reviewed the specific text changes requested by this Board.
Attachment “C” to the Executive Summary contains their recommended subdivision language. She said
staff will present to the Board on December 8 DISC II’s recommended changes in light of the County’s
recently adopted urbanization goal and also discuss an anticipated letter from the Blue Ridge
Homebuilders in response to the DISC II recommendations. She offered to answer questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Davis has approved these changes. Ms. Echols said “no”, this
language has not yet received legal review by the County Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Davis said there are a number of issues to be addressed next week. Mr. Tucker said this
matter is scheduled for a work session next week. This presentation today is only to get the Board
prepared for next week.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be helpful to know what the Board will be discussing next
week.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said there are numerous issues associated with this
text amendment. Staff would like the Board’s comments on such issues as the County’s role in
maintaining streets, particularly if they do not meet VDOT standards. The answer to that question could
direct the County Attorney to revise the subdivision text amendment to ensure that it is as the Board
intends it to be. The issue of planting strips and their width is connected to whether street trees will be
required, and that is connected to whether VDOT or private property owners will maintain those trees.
Those are two broad issues which drive the text amendment. Finalizing these issues will resolve a
number of issues in the ordinance. There is also the question of waivers.
Mr. Davis said to some extent the ordinance has been written by the committee. Changes have
been proposed throughout this review process by Board members and the DISC II committee. Staff will
have to make sure everything in the ordinance works together because this is a comprehensive rewrite of
the entire Subdivision Ordinance and it involves other changes the Board has not focused on, changes
reviewed by the Planning Commission. These include submittal requirements and code updates.
Neighborhood Model changes are also being considered. Staff has to make sure the ordinance language
contains no unintended consequences. Whatever waivers are allowed, staff needs to make sure the
waivers are in a legally defendable format. He would prefer to do that work after the Board has
addressed the major policy issues mentioned by Mr. Foley.
Mr. Foley said between the broad issues he mentioned and the very specific language Mr. Davis
mentioned, there are a number of issues in the middle. He said a letter was received from the Blue Ridge
Home Builders Association yesterday which puts forward their position on these questions. He said Mr.
Mark Graham will furnish comments to the Board on the letter. If Mr. Graham agrees with the BRHBA on
some of the changes, he wonders if the Board will then want DISC II to look at Mr. Graham’s agreement
with the BRHBA and have them evaluate the suggestion.
Ms. Thomas said staff is talking about fiscal policy issues, and Mr. Davis is talking about legal
issues. She would ask Planning staff to comment today on whether they think what DISC II has
tortuously worked through is “good” planning. Mr. Cilimberg said there are a variety of judgments that
could be made about “good” planning. He said DISC II, with its knowledge of the Neighborhood Model
and its principles, deliberated over a long period of time as to what they felt would be most consistent and
what they could offer in the way of ordinance language that also reflected some of the things they heard
from Board members and the public. He thinks it is good planning although it is not the only way to
address the issue. It may not be ideal, but it reflects their attempt to put into ordinance language what
they believe would best represent the Neighborhood Model principles.
Mr. Wyant said he sees things in the ordinance he thinks will create some major stormwater
issues and not address stormwater as it should be addressed. When he worked on this issue at the state
level, they were concerned with the recharge of groundwater. This ordinance is calling for curb and gutter
and pipe just shooting the water into streams and eroding those streams. A lot of people in the Crozet
area have brought these issues to him already because of the additional pavement being called for in the
master plan. He said these things are intertwined, and although construction of these things looks good
on paper, they may not be possible to implement.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Mark Graham will address next week what some of the elements
recommended by DISC II mean in the context of general urbanization considerations, environmental,
recreational and operational.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Foley said he wants to make it clear that these are factors to consider in making a final
decision. Staff has brought some fiscal issues before the Board but recommends that the Board not take
action based on those fiscal issues. He said staff is in full agreement with the DISC II work, overlot
grading being a good example.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff wants to be sure the Board is aware of all of the aspects of ordinance
changes in combination with responsibilities. The idea today was to be sure the Board understood DISC
II’s recommendations and their feeling of what represents policy.
Ms. Echols said DISC II worked hard to be consistent with the Neighborhood Model as well as
any constraints there are in the way of legal language. They worked with the County Attorney’s Office on
that language. DISC II made some text changes that have not had a complete review by the County
Attorney. She said they did good work in trying to resolve issues; this is new territory for Albemarle
County. Applying a lot of the Neighborhood Model principles in this geographic setting is more
challenging than it would be in an area without hills and mountains. An example of that are
interconnections. DISC II looked at every angle of how the ordinance could be applied and tried to
foresee the problems and also find solutions. They have been creative in the way they addressed the
ordinance. DISC II met yesterday and went over some of the issues related to the Urbanization
Committee’s recommendation. The minutes of that meeting will be sent to the Board before next week’s
work session.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes it will be concluded that things will be costly. She said some will
be costly because of the Neighborhood Model and some will be costly because there are a lot of people
to deal with, and then there are Federal stormwater requirements. It is easy to pick out a scapegoat and,
as an example, say it is because of the DISC model. She asked that staff try to distinguish between
things that will be costly because there are a lot of people living in a small area versus requiring
something like street trees in the planting strip.
Mr. Foley said that is a good point. In the Executive Summary for next week’s meeting, staff will
say that some urban infrastructure issues are related to density so development areas do not have to
expand, i.e., curbs and gutters, etc. Street trees and similar things are more about aesthetics and some
of the principles of the Neighborhood Model as a form of development. It is important to separate them
that way. Each of these also require some maintenance responsibility. One is clearly about density and
the other is clearly about the form of development.
Mr. Boyd said he is concerned because by requiring these types of things in subdivision, not as
much affordable housing will be provided. He is going back to the statement he made this morning and
say he would like to see as part of the approval process for these ordinance amendments, an impact
statement on policy, procedure, legal and fiscal issues. If this is approved, what impact will it have on
these four areas? He said environmental might also be included as one of those areas.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board does not approve these Subdivision Ordinance amendments, just
having many people living in an area will have these fiscal impacts too. That is almost asking for more
than staff can come up with. That is where the Board has to use its judgment as much as possible.
Mr. Foley said the Board will have much information for next week’s meeting and it will be
structured in a way to get to the big policy direction issues first. More discussion will be needed on the
detailed issues.
Mr. Wyant said he is concerned that in the future people will come to the Board with complaints
about sidewalk maintenance, the grass strips, trees, etc.
Mr. Rooker said that is happening now. VDOT is supposed to be maintaining sidewalks, but it is
not being done. There is grass two-feet tall growing out of sidewalks, but it has finally died off because of
the cold weather.
Mr. Wyant said where that grass is in those sidewalks, the freeze/thaw cycle will break those
sidewalks which will create the need for replacement of the sidewalks. That concerns him because
VDOT cannot take care of those situations.
Mr. Rooker said this situation was brought up to Ms. Teresa Butler a couple of months ago. The
Board said because VDOT was not spraying and removing that grass long-term maintenance problems
were being created. Ms. Butler acknowledged that and said they would do something, but nothing ever
happened. He asked if the Board should talk about issues such as planting strips and maintenance
duties today.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has a work session scheduled for next week. Mr. Foley said staff
scheduled this discussion today in order to give the Board the opinions of DISC II and so the Planning
staff could clarify their position.
Mr. Rooker said he had a question about Section 14-313 on page 2, the third line from the bottom
of the page which reads “... or is one hundred feet wide:; ....” He asked if that should say “or is less than
one hundred feet wide; ....” Ms. Echols said “yes”, and that is one reason the County Attorney’s Office
needs to vet this for staff.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board will continue this discussion on December 8 at 4:00 p.m.
________________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Note
(: Mr. Tucker asked that the Board take up agenda item No. 14 which was skipped earlier in
the meeting.)
(continued from September 1)
Agenda Item No. 14. Update on Lane Auditorium Renovations .
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, said that moving certain departments to the new
County Office Building on Fifth Street should be completed by the end of December. A master plan is
now being developed to determine how space in the County Building on McIntire Road will be allocated.
Community Development will move to the space vacated by the Police Department in order to complete
the “one-stop-shop” staff has been working on for years. Making decisions about the rest of the space in
the building requires that staff get some directions from the Board about how to reconfigure the
Auditorium. Does the Board want to use that space as a Board Room for its meetings?
Mr. Foley said when the Board discussed this on September 1, 2004, five options were presented
for modifying the Lane Auditorium to serve as an everyday board room while including the flexibility to
serve as a large capacity venue for larger meetings. Basically the Board eliminated the options that had
the dais on the stage. That left two options where the dais was in front of the stage down on the floor of
the auditorium.
Mr. Foley said these scenarios call for creating a “horseshoe effect” in that facility. That left staff
with Option 2 (Seating capacity would be 424; the dais would be at the foot of the stage; support space
would be on the stage wing) and Option 5 (Seating capacity would be 279; the dais would be at the foot
of the stage; support space would be under the balcony). The Board asked for more information on the
use of the Auditorium. He said a quick summary shows there were 46 major events over the last two
years. There were six events that would exceed the seating capacity of either option. He said Option 5
could not accommodate the top six events, and Option 2 could not accommodate the top four events.
Mr. Foley said the number one event happened recently, and that was for Planned Parenthood.
The facility as it is now never would have accommodated it, so they are not planning for that kind of an
event. He said staff is looking for directions from the Board between Options 2 and 5. If the Board does
not like either option, staff would recommend renovating the auditorium so it could better accommodate
large meetings. That would mean the Board would still meet in Room 241 for other meetings. Ideally,
staff would like to reallocate the space in Room 241 for future needs.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the auditorium would be the Board’s regular meeting room. Mr. Foley
said “yes”, but the dividers proposed to close off the sections above and below the balcony would be
closed during normal board meetings so it would be a more reasonable meeting space.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the auditorium could accommodate events such as First Night Virginia.
He would not want to limit the types of meetings or performances that could take place in the auditorium.
Mr. Tucker said it would not eliminate those things taking place, but the room would not have the seating
capacity that is needed for some events; it does not handle the number of attendees for First Night
Virginia now.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the stage could still be used. Mr. Tucker said the stage will not be
affected by these changes.
Mr. Boyd said he cannot remember why the Board did not want the dais on the stage. Mr. Tucker
said previous Boards did not like being above and looking down at the public so it was their preference.
Mr. Boyd said there was one proposal where the dais fit under the stage. Mr. Foley said that
even with the dais on the floor, it will be taken down when there is a stage event; that is part of Options 2
and 5.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that is efficient. Mr. Foley said it is because of the desire to use the
auditorium for other large events and not have the Board table setting in front of the stage. Mr. Tucker
said the architects found a way to move it, and staff was trying to be as flexible as possible and still
provide a good space for the Board to meet.
Ms. Thomas said she read that the “U” shape can be tighter, but there are no pictures. She
wants that assurance. She hates meeting in that room now because she cannot see the other Board
members or staff. Mr. Foley said there is flexibility in the design process to make sure the room works for
the kinds of things the Board wishes to achieve.
Ms. Thomas asked if this renovation will provide the Board meetings a twenty-first century type of
audio-visual occurrence. Mr. Tucker said all of that is part of the renovation.
Ms. Thomas asked if both the audience and the Board members will be able to see on a screen
what is being presented. Mr. Foley said the architects have not designed the specific setup of the Board
seating or the audio-visual components.
Ms. Thomas said if that aspect if not greatly improved, this is hardly worth doing. Mr. Foley said
the design process is flexible enough to be sure it meets the needs. The architects did the sketches
attached to the Executive Summary to help answer capacity questions. Mr. Tucker said other localities
are using monitors instead of putting things up on a screen. That is what would be looked at when
someone makes a PowerPointe presentation. All of that is in the detailed design if the Board decides to
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
go forward with this project. What staff needs today is for the Board to say whether it favors either of
these options.
Mr. Bowerman said he favors Option 2 because it does not reduce seating capacity.
Mr. Rooker agreed; he would not agree to reduce the seating capacity to that shown for Option 5.
Mr. Dorrier said Option 2 is far superior to Option 5.
Mr. Wyant said after drawing the curtains, it would appear to be a smaller, warmer, more intimate
meeting space.
Mr. Foley said staff believes that under Option 2 it is possible to get more seating in that space
and not create any issues. It probably would not be a dramatic difference, but staff would try to maximize
seating.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the balcony will be eliminated. Mr. Foley said it will not be eliminated under
either Option 2 or Option 5. It would be used for larger crowds.
Mr. Davis asked if there is space allocated for closed sessions. Mr. Foley said it is on the back of
the stage.
Mr. Foley said it is clear that Option 2 maximizes the capacity. If the Board does think that is
sufficient, it would mean that two board rooms might have to be maintained.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that Option 2 is the proper choice.
Mr. Bowerman said he would not agree to reduce the seating capacity under Option 2. He thinks
the idea behind No. 2 is to maintain as much seating as possible.
Mr. Foley said staff will give the Board more information when it is available.
Mr. Dorrier said the acoustics in that room are very bad at this time. He assumes that will be
corrected. Mr. Foley said that is part of the design process.
Ms. Thomas asked if the possibility of telecasting board meetings will be considered during this
process. Mr. Foley said he thinks the consultants have factored that into these plans.
Mr. Rooker said the auditorium needs to be renovated no matter what happens. Mr. Foley said
there was a plan for Room 241, but staff did not recommend investing money there if the Board was
going to move its meetings to another location.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Review of Business Plan Report.
Mr. Tucker said that at the Board’s Strategic Planning Retreat on October 26, 2004, staff provided
Board members with a copy of the Business Plan Report. The Board started the review at that time but
due to time constraints it was moved to the agenda for today’s meeting. He said that for the different
reports made during the year (financial, strategic planning, development activity, and business plan) he
has asked staff to look at a way of providing those reports on an outcome basis.
Ms. Thomas said she was much more interested in the quarterly report on the Strategic Plan and
being able to comment on that plan. She thinks that combining the report on the Business Plan and the
report on the Strategic Plan into one report would be good. Earlier today the Board appropriated some
money so the social worker program in the schools could continue. She noticed in the Business Plan that
people had not been hired because there was not enough money and yet this Board had no say in that
decision. She thinks the Board might have decided to fund that program instead of funding something
else, so these things are definitely related. She would like to have some input on things that do not get
done.
Mr. Tucker said the School Board is now going through a strategic planning process. There was
a suggestion that the Board hold a day-long retreat to go through the process with them. He said staff
thinks it cannot happen until late April or early May of 2005 because of ongoing work on the budget.
Mr. Dorrier said one part of the Board’s plan concerns lifelong learning. That was to be
considered in conjunction with the Schools.
Mr. Rooker said this plan still shows a new southern elementary school with site selection
occurring in 2004 and design work being completed in 2005-06, with construction taking place in 2006-07.
There have been a number of discussions about the fact that there has been no increase in elementary
enrollment in recent years, so he wonders if that schedule has been altered.
Mr. Tucker said that is part of the CIP process. He asked Mr. Foley if the CIP Technical
Committee has discussed purchase of land, etc. for this project.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Foley said the Schools want to proceed with land purchase. They are monitoring enrollment
to determine if construction should continue to be moved back. He thinks purchase of land makes some
sense.
Mr. Boyd said that would assume where the people will be locating. Before approving purchase
of land he would want to see enrollment projections showing that population is shifting to that particular
area. Mr. Foley said those questions were asked by the Technical Committee and the Schools provided
enrollment projections.
Mr. Boyd said he knows the Technical Committee is working through their process. However, he
missed the time when the Board provided guidance to the Technical committee about what they wanted
to see in the process. He has mentioned this before, but he would want to see $1.0 to $2.0 million a year
set aside to deal with transportation issues. He thinks this is a high priority item and it should be
considered by the Technical Committee. He asked when the Board would have a chance to make that
recommendation so the Technical Committee would look at it rather than the Board getting a plan put
together by committee.
Mr. Tucker said because the Board ultimately approves the CIP, it still has an opportunity to
determine whether or not that will be started this year. This was discussed at the retreat (it being a major
issue for transportation), but the Technical Committee had already begun meeting. Does the Board want
them to go back and make changes to the program, or start this idea next year?
Mr. Boyd said the CIP is a rolling five-year project list. He thinks the Board should make
recommendations at the start of the process if it sees some philosophical differences. One of his top
priorities is to set aside money for transportation.
Mr. Tucker said in staff’s budget guidance which was presented last month, it recommended
taking money “off the top” for these types of items. The Board did not choose that option, but it was
suggested as an option.
Mr. Rooker said it is good to say that $2.0 million should be set aside for transportation, but what
would be taken out of that list to make this accommodation. He said the committee will hopefully be
bringing suggestions to the Board on funding for transportation. He said this is an expense counties have
not taken on in the past. The Board needs to understand that most of the high priority projects that do not
have funding or have been significantly delayed are projects the County has a mutual interest in with the
City. He said a $50.0 million project will not be constructed by setting aside $2.0 million a year if bonds
cannot be issued.
Mr. Boyd said $2.0 million would support a bond issue of approximately $40.0 million.
Mr. Rooker said that at the current rate, that would not amortize any principal.
Mr. Boyd said it is not necessary for the County to have a collaborative funding mechanism with
the City in order to contribute to a fund for transportation. There is no need to have some sort of joint
agreement. There are other ways to do it besides establishing a transportation district and an additional
tax on the community. He is not ready to do that.
Mr. Bowerman said the public will be involved with a bond issue.
Mr. Boyd said he favors having a referendum.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is in the middle of having a committee appointed to look into these
options on a community-wide basis. This would include representatives from the Chamber of Commerce,
from the BRHBA and from the University. They would make some specific recommendations about how
to fund some projects that would have broad-based community support. Since that has just started, he
thinks it would be a mistake to short circuit the process.
Mr. Boyd said that process was started by the MPO and not by this Board.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd, during a Board meeting, agreed with that process.
Mr. Boyd said when the Board approved moving forward with that idea it was that the committee
would look at a priority list, and not funding options.
Mr. Rooker said what they were going to do was look at funding options and a discreet list of
projects, and then try to establish priority among those projects.
Mr. Wyant said he has been sitting with the CIP Technical Committee and after the Board’s
Retreat told them that transportation should be considered. They are looking at some projects as they
work through the CIP.
Mr. Boyd said that under “Quality of Life” in the Strategic Plan, transportation issues are listed
and it shows $360,000 for corridor studies. That is not how he thinks the County should be spending
transportation dollars. He would rather have that money spent to accomplish something from a prior
study, rather than initiating another study.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that this item be set on another agenda for further discussion.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd also voted in favor of that allocation of funds.
Mr. Boyd said the Board gets a huge technical CIP budget that has basically been “washed
through” by the Technical Committee, which is mainly composed of staff members.
Mr. Rooker said that was a specific item that came to this Board for a vote, and Mr. Boyd voted in
favor. He said Mr. Boyd said at that time he thought the request made sense.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks that if money can be found for those types of transportation projects,
money can be found for other things also.
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree. The question is, “how do we find it” and “how do we go
about leveraging that money?”
Mr. Boyd said the Board needs to charge the committee to find some money for a certain project,
not do it after the Committee has already made a recommendation. The Board should give the
Committee priorities. Now, the Board is allocating huge amounts of money for library services, but
current library services got the highest ranking on the recent citizens’ survey. The lowest ranking was for
transportation services.
Mr. Rooker said the locality typically provides library services, whereas transportation services
are not normally provided by the locality but by VDOT.
Mr. Dorrier said this is being discussed as part of the Business Plan Report, and the Board is not
discussing it as a separate item. He thinks that if the Board wants to make it an agenda item, it can be
scheduled for a future agenda. He suggested that the Board move to the next agenda item.
Ms. Thomas said that in the Strategic Plan report, under “Quality of Life” it talks about
landscaping on Route 250 West. She said there is a Route 250 West Advisory Committee. She did not
know anything about landscaping on Route 250 West so she hopes they are being utilized to help with
that idea.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Parks and Recreation Consultant’s Report, Work Session.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation, said at the Board’s October day meeting the
consultant presented an implementation strategy for meeting the indoor recreation needs identified in the
Phase I, Needs Assessment. Today that discussion will continue and then staff asked for some
directions from the Board on how to proceed. That strategy included development of up to three facilities
in the County over the next 12 years. For each facility the County would seek partnership options for
construction and operation of the facilities. He said the initial facility would be 86,000 square feet at a
cost of $19.0+ million jointly built by the County and the YMCA. The facility would be contract-operated
by the YMCA with an annual County subsidy estimated at $177,000. That number is overwhelming at
first glance, so he wanted to explain the reasoning that went into the recommendation.
Mr. Bowerman said there has never been a YMCA in the area doing anything like this.
Mr. Mullaney said that is correct. In making this recommendation, they first considered the
overall indoor recreation needs that came from the Citizen’s Survey (he referred the Board to several
charts attached to the Executive Summary which is on file in the Clerk’s Office). Second, the YMCA has
been interested in building such a facility for some time. Third, when the report was made to the Board
several members expressed an interest in the YMCA being successful and said the County should be
careful not to endanger their efforts. Fourth, staff talked to the YMCA about their fund-raising capabilities
and the type of facility they would build. Finally, the County’s CIP currently has programmed $8.5 million
for this purpose in years 2006-07 through 2008-09. Given the increase in demand for County services, is
an indoor recreation a high enough priority to use that amount of funding in that timeframe. The answer
to that question will help staff set its direction from this point forward. He said Mr. Ken Ballard, Ballard
King Associates, Mr. Ron Vine, Leisure Visions, and representatives from the YMCA are all present this
morning.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there are other urbanizing counties in Virginia which provide indoor facilities.
Mr. Mullaney said Spotsylvania has a partnership with the YMCA, James City County has its own facility,
and there are some others. Henrico County does not provide an indoor facility. It is expensive and is a
choice for the Board to make. There are good park systems that do not have indoor facilities at this time.
Mr. Bowerman said that in the mid-80s he served on the YMCA Board. They had a couple of
facilities they could not fund so the facilities were sold. Part of the problem was that the University of
Virginia was a major player; at that time there was not the ACAC which is a major private player now.
The YMCA was never able to raise any significant sums and it has always had a difficult time raising
funds. The Paramount Theatre just spent about 15 years trying to raise $14.0 million. That is a large
sum of money for fundraising, so he wants to know if this proposal is really realistic.
Mr. Mullaney suggested that someone from the YMCA answer that question.
Mr. Kurt Kruger said he president and chief volunteer officer of the Piedmont YMCA. The YMCA
that he chairs has been in existence since 1994. They have a budget of about $1.0 million a year. They
have no facility other than the one on Westfield Road which is a small rental facility, yet they are able to
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
offer about $1.0 million in programs each year by partnering with the County and the City with respect to
their pools. He said the YMCA commissioned and spent $25,000 for a study by the Winfield Group out of
Atlanta in 2000. They presented a report which dovetails the County’s study in terms of citizen needs for
both the City and the County.
Mr. Kruger said the Piedmont YMCA is excited about doing this and think there are funding
possibilities. He said the YMCA here has never done it, but there are seven precedents in Virginia for
partnering with the YMCA. The city of Salem, York County, Franklin County, Fairfax County, Loudoun
County, the city of Hampton and the city of Newport News, have all been successful. He said the Fairfax
County YMCA and the York County YMCA were recently completed at a cost in the range of $9.0+
million. If the construction was done on a private basis rather than having Albemarle County do it, they
think there could be some cost savings. As a 501(C)(3) organization, the YMCA has the ability to raise
money as a charitable contribution. They would also be open to every citizen in the County, both those
who can pay and those who cannot pay. They provide scholarships for people who cannot pay, and do
that by raising funds on a charitable basis on an annual basis so these counties do not have to request
funds in order to subsidize the folks that cannot pay. They think this is realistic. In the 1980s, he was not
on the YMCA Board. He started in 1992 when the YMCA in place in the 1980s ultimately failed. An
organizational committee headed up at the national level got a group of about 25 citizens together to
revamp the local YMCA.
Mr. Bowerman said most of the YMCA’s revenues are from directed programs that are held at
public facilities. The YMCA has a lot of public programs that have a fee basis. The YMCA does not have
a capital asset which it has to carry.
Mr. Kruger said that is true. They cannot carry a capital asset unless they have members, and
without a facility they cannot have memberships. For the YMCA to take the next step it requires them to
have a facility. He said a facility is funded, and the debt is serviced by the memberships.
Mr. Bowerman said when he was involved with the YMCA they could not compete with the City of
Charlottesville and the University and at that time there were no private facilities available.
Mr. Kruger said that may have been true in 1988, but their Winfield Group Study from 2000 and
the County’s current study, shows that the situation is different now.
Mr. Bowerman said there are many people associated with the University who can use University
facilities.
Mr. Rooker said anyone who contributes to the University can use University facilities.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the YMCA plans on building three buildings or just one building. Mr. Kruger
said the plan is to build only one. He knows the County would like to have three separate buildings; the
plan calls for it to be done in steps with the first facility being built on a site near Monticello High School.
Ultimately if that facility were successful and the YMCA could help with a facility in Crozet and one on
Route 29 North, they would want to explore that possibility.
Mr. Boyd said he is in favor or providing an indoor facility. When this was discussed previously,
he thought the discussion focused on public donation of land and that the rest of it would be done by the
YMCA. He did not envision there being a $19.0 million facility and was surprised to see it proposed as
more than just a swimming facility, but as a recreational facility. He asked if there a scaled down facility
dealing only with swimming with the County providing just land, if that would be a feasible work plan.
Considering the cost of land in this community, that land would be a tremendous asset to the YMCA.
Mr. Kruger said the precedents in Virginia show that without public participation there would be no
way to reduce that $19.0 million number. He said that York County and others did theirs for about $10.0
million. Also, Albemarle’s includes items that would not normally be put into a community YMCA. He
said that 44 percent of the people surveyed said they would like to have an indoor warm water family-
oriented swimming center and they would support an increase in their taxes to fund such a facility. Only
14 percent said they would use a competition pool; the competition pool was an add-on and the YMCA, if
it was doing this by itself, probably would not build that type of pool. It is expensive to build, expensive to
maintain and expensive to operate.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the competition pool is needed for the high schools. Mr. Kruger said it
must be recognized that this is not being done just for the Parks & Recreation Department, but also for
the high schools.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the YMCA was saying it would not manage a competition pool. Mr. Kruger
said they are good managers of these types of facilities, but in the absence of partnering with the County,
the YMCA’s study says a competition pool is not financially feasible for them to build if they were doing it
on their own.
Mr. Rooker asked if when citizens were asked on the survey if they would accept a tax increase
to build facilities, if they realized they would also be paying a fee to use the facility.
Mr. Ken Ballard said “yes.” The survey was two-fold. It asked people what they would like to see
included, and questions about their willingness to pay a fee to use those facilities. There were questions
about what the level of support should be using with tax dollars. He said their original proposal was
dovetailed with what the YMCA put together. The amenities the County wanted to add to what the YMCA
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
would provide were an indoor track, a competitive pool, a small senior area and a small teen area. That
is why their original pro forma showed a loss of about $177,000 annually. That is not something the
YMCA can absorb on an operational deficit. The premise on the partnership was that the County would
help make up some of that difference. They tried to marry the needs of both organizations in a manner
that allowed for one building and one structure to be put together, and to have one management
structure. He said the YMCA is willing to take on the management side, but they would need to be
compensated for taking on the amenities that are not particularly lucrative.
Mr. Ballard said at the last presentation on this subject, the Board asked about building just a
competitive pool. He said that would cost over $5.0 million, and it would cost more from an operational
standpoint than for the entire 86,000 square foot facility proposed. A competitive pool is a strong money
loser. They married it with the other amenities and that makes it more efficient by including it with the
other spaces. The County would still need to compensate the difference between user fees and what the
facility could support.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was because of the reduced dues it would attract. He said it would cost
less to operate a smaller facility with the same size pool than a bigger facility with that size pool. Mr.
Ballard said they looked at just a pool by itself. There would be a difference in the fee schedule for a
facility with just a pool, as opposed to one with other amenities included. They had to cut back
significantly the rate that could be charged for the facility. Also, unless a person is a competitive swimmer
or a strong fitness swimmer, there is not a lot of appeal to what is called a “flat water” pool. It has no
particular value for a recreational swimmer.
Mr. Boyd said he knows there is another entity in town that has a year-round competitive
swimming group outside of the high school system. He knows they are looking at a possible three-way
partnership to backfill some of the cost of that pool. He wonders is there is any potential for such a three-
way partnership. Mr. Ballard said there are a lot of different options. If there were a competitive pool,
many user groups should be brought in to make it as successful as possible. In their original plan, they
did factor in some revenue from other groups.
Mr. Boyd asked if meets held outside of the high schools system produce revenue. Mr. Ballard
said they do, although they are generally not strong revenue producers for the facility itself. Usually swim
teams use the event as a fundraising element for themselves. In the original model, two bodies of water
are shown. One is the traditional competitive pool, and while a meet was being hosted, there was still the
warm water leisure pool available for lap swimming as well as for recreational purposes. Not having to
shut down the entire aquatics facility for a meet or for training is a benefit. He said this is a model which
has worked well across the country.
Ms. Thomas said she had thought the only way she would support this is if it went to a
referendum. She asked for comments as to whether Mr. Ballard felt a referendum would be successful.
Mr. Ballard said that was one of the questions on the survey. They got a strong positive response.
However, from the time the question was asked to an actual referendum, a lot of things could come into
play. Their survey showed there was enough support to at least move that forward as a concept. Also, in
looking at the partnership with the YMCA, the County has enough money set aside in the CIP for Phase I
without having to go to referendum.
Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said funds show in the CIP, but, at this time the
revenue is from a borrowing; there is no mention of it being through a referendum.
Mr. Wyant asked the percentage of error for the survey. Mr. Vine said they did a parks and
recreation survey for Fairfax County and they did four surveys for Arlington County. One of those studies
led to building an indoor aquatics center at $75.0 million which was approved by about 70 percent of the
voters in a referendum. Overall they have done about 250 market surveys for parks and recreation
systems across the country.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this survey was consistent with the Board’s Citizen Survey. Mr. Vine said
there were many similarities. In their survey they found there was broad support for purchasing land to
preserve open space, natural areas, etc. They also found it was a high priority to preserve and conserve
the existing parks and recreation system. The first four priorities were all oriented to outdoor space
activities. A strong fifth priority was to develop an indoor recreation facility. As to the question concerning
a referendum, the question on the survey dealt with a voter election for all types of parks and recreation
issues. They listed 15 parks issues and asked which were the most important. That was coupled with a
question concerning holding a voter election. Forty-one percent of households indicated they would vote
in favor, 23 percent said they might vote in favor, with only 15 percent saying they would vote against
such funding. He said the Board might want to combine this project with other parks and recreation
projects if a referendum were to be held.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the total number of respondents for an indoor swimming pool (20 percent)
is cumulative of all of the people who answered. Mr. Vine said the first question was whether the person
had a need for indoor swimming. Forty-three percent of the respondents said “yes.” That is about the
same level as those who said they had a need for a regional park. After asking other questions to break
down that need, they asked about three different types of swimming spaces in a community center. One
was a warm water pool, one was a pool for swimming laps, and the other was for a competitive pool.
About three-quarters of those responding preferred a warm water pool for family activities. About twelve
percent asked for competitive swimming facilities. As mentioned by Mr. Boyd earlier, it is less expensive
to operate a competitive pool as part of a larger facility than as a stand-alone facility. He said 43 percent
of the households indicated they would like to have an indoor pool.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the numbers can be added together. Mr. Vine said they
could go back to the survey and of the 43 percent who gave indoor swimming as a preference separate
those answers into what type of facility they would prefer.
Mr. Bowerman said that is still only one-third of the total number of people responding. Mr. Vine
said 44 percent said they had a need for indoor swimming.
Mr. Bowerman said that is a “desire”, not a “need.” Mr. Vine said they were further asked if their
need was being met. Of those 44 percent who said they had a “need” for indoor water, 19 percent said
their need was not being met now. That leaves 35 percent who said they would use this facility, and that
number is consistent with the number who said they would utilize this facility. Indoor water and indoor
fitness were the two biggest areas where citizens said their needs are not being met at the present time.
The YMCA is interested in this project because there is a big market where needs are not being met.
Mr. Wyant asked for the margin of error in the survey. Mr. Vine said they did 764 surveys and the
margin of error was +-3.6 percent.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a big problem in this country with obesity, and with kids sitting around
and doing little in the way of exercise. He asked if the survey showed anything dealing with young people
and the potential users of the facility. Mr. Vine said they broke down some of the issues based on
household size.
Mr. Rooker asked where the Charlottesville/Albemarle Swim Team trains and competes. Mr.
Mullaney said they have been using the Fairview Swim Club facility.
Mr. Boyd said they have said that Fairview is no longer adequate. He questioned whether the
Board might ask the consultants to prepare a proposal with low participation by the County, with a long-
term lease on property, with the YMCA and other groups putting together both the capital to build a facility
and to fund ongoing operating expenses, if that would be possible.
Mr. Ballard said that early in this study they looked at a number of different options. One was that
the County be an incubator for this type of project, maybe providing land or “seed” money to move the
project forward. That would put more of the load on the YMCA. He thinks the YMCA would take out
some of the elements that are not cost-effective, i.e., the competitive pool. That would change the focus
a little. In terms of moving the project forward in three to four years, that makes it tougher. Also, the
County would not have much control over the project. It is a possibility, but it limits the type of facility and
the time when it would be operational.
Mr. Boyd asked if that would be the same even if the County committed to a certain amount of
funds for use of the competitive pool. Mr. Ballard said there are only four elements included in this facility
that were not identified as part of the YMCA’s facility. One is the competitive aquatic, one is a walking
track, one is a teen element, and one is a senior element.
Mr. Bowerman said the YMCA does an excellent job running its programs.
Mr. Rooker asked how the YMCA runs its Pulaski facility which has an indoor pool and a gym.
Mr. Ballard said he does not know.
Mr. Rooker said Pulaksi is not a very affluent community, but for its size they have a very nice
YMCA with an indoor pool and a gym and it is heavily used. Of course, there are not competing private
facilities in the area. He suggested that the consultants look at that facility. Mr. Ballard said there are a
lot of different models for facilities in Virginia and across the country.
Mr. Vine said from a market standpoint, the Board would be looking at what is most important to
the County’s citizens. The County has a good system in relation to outdoor spaces. The County citizens
have indicated that is something they want the Board to invest dollars in. A competitive pool is not
something that ranks high being only at five percent. If there is to be an indoor facility, the belief was that
there is a need to focus the majority of the dollars on high priority issues including a family aquatic center,
and then an indoor walking track and the fitness space. If the facility is not built to an adequate size, the
investment would be about $1.0 million per percentage point.
Mr. Vine said in answer to Mr. Dorrier’s earlier question about obesity, he looked at the results of
the survey for households with three or more people, and when they were asked “what facility would you
be most willing to support with your tax dollar”, 31 percent said an indoor warm water family aquatic
center.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should send this question back to the YMCA. He likes Mr.
Boyd’s thought that the County consider contributing land and letting the YMCA decide if they could build
a facility of the kind they would want to build based on their user analysis. If they need an additional
subsidy, they could make that request to the Board. Given the many spending priorities the Board is
looking at now, he thinks it is unwise to move forward with a plan for a facility that could cost close to
$20.0 million. He thinks the Board should try to help the YMCA realize their dream of providing facilities
in this area.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Schools should be involved.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker said if the YMCA said they could build a $8.0 million facility, and the Board wanted to
look at adding a competitive pool to that facility it would have to realize that would be at the County’s
expense. From his perspective he would like for the Board to help the YMCA realize their program of
providing good facilities in this area.
Mr. Kruger said this is a paradigm that has been followed in other counties where the local
jurisdiction entered into a long-term ground lease for minimal dollars with a YMCA putting up the capital
dollars to build the facility. He said there are aspects of that facility the YMCA could not build because it
could not generate the membership revenues to support and operate the facility. He said they are a
501(C)(3) organization, and whatever excess moneys they have from memberships are used to run their
programs. He said that has been the problem with the YMCA in Charlottesville from the beginning. It has
not been in a position to be a membership YMCA. They rent from the City. The County provides school
space for basketball programs, etc, with the YMCA paying for janitorial service.
Mr. Rooker said if the YMCA wants to look at providing these types of services, he thinks the
Board should let them take a look and come back with a proposal as to how they might do it in this
community.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board wanted to set up an ad hoc committee to look at this question.
Mr. Rooker said he would rather let the YMCA think about what has been discussed today, and
then come back with a proposal.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Kruger if the YMCA is willing to do that. Mr. Kruger said “yes.”
Mr. Boyd asked if it is the consensus that the County would donate some land.
Mr. Bowerman said land in the urban area would probably cost $2.0 million.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks the County already owns some land that the YMCA is interested in. He
sees no reason why a facility could not be built on the Monticello High School site.
Ms. Thomas mentioned page 11 of the Executive Summary where it notes that 39 percent of the
respondents to the survey indicated they would pay at least $10 per month in increased property taxes to
fund the most important types of parks, trails, sports and recreation facilities. She said the question did
not relate to just a pool but to every type of facility they thought was important. She assumes the study is
talking about three pools and that would increase the tax rate by at least $9.00 per month. She said
although the citizens said they would support such an increase, they may have thought that increase
would cover facilities other than pools. When talking about indoor pools largely funded by the County,
she worries that it gets beyond what the population will support. She does not think a referendum on a
Vine issue for three pools would pass.
Mr. Ballard said the level of support was based on the amenities people said were most
important. The top three priorities had to do with outdoor spaces, while the fourth had to do with indoor
facilities. If the Board chose just to do indoor spaces, the support would not be there. Combining some
other spaces needs to be part of the larger issue.
Ms. Thomas said adding other things would make it an even bigger dollar per month. She found
this to be a very valuable survey. However, it is her conclusion that there is not the support necessary for
the expensive route.
Mr. Ballard referred the Board to page 10 of the Executive Summary which contains a pie chart
showing how people would use $100.00 of tax money for Parks & Recreation. It shows $20.00 being
used for acquisition of new parkland and open spaces, $38.00 being used for improvements/
maintenance, and $21.00 being used for development of new indoor recreation facilities. He said that
indicates how people would see their dollars being allocated. He said they were surprised to see indoor
recreation come out as strong as it did.
Mr. Rooker said this pie chart shows that if the County had $100.00 in additional recreation
moneys to spend, more of it should be spent in improving and maintaining existing recreation areas than
building an indoor facility. He thinks the Board would allocating virtually all of its new recreation money to
just the part that does not have the highest level of support. Mr. Vine said he tends to agree. A question
was asked earlier about voting. For those people who said they would provide $20.00 a month for Parks
and Recreation, his firm could go back and determine what those people had indicated the use of that
money should be. For the people who said they would vote in favor of a referendum, 51 percent said
they wished to have open space reserved, 56 percent said to conserve what the County already has, 46
percent said to develop new walking/biking trails, 43 percent said to develop new indoor recreation
facilities. He said that when they asked these same questions in a number of different ways, indoor
facilities ranked in the top four or five things to do. If the Board were going to hold a referendum, he
would suggest that the indoor facilities be married to a number of outdoor issues. He does not think this
issue will go away. The community has some unmet needs.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a work in progress so the Board will wait to hear back from the YMCA.
_______________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Agenda Item No. 24. Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2003-006), Work
Session.
Mr. Cilimberg said in work sessions on October 6 and November 3, the Board reviewed the draft
of the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Board
made several changes to the Plan and requested that they be incorporated into an updated draft for the
Board’s final review prior to scheduling a public hearing.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at the Board's request, the following changes were made to the draft plan:
?
Page 28: Added “and reducing the potential overall level of residential development and
loss of rural character” to the policy statement.
?
Page 34: Struck out text on central water and sewer systems.
?
Page 37: In Strategy 1, removed reference to specific exceptions, deferring those to the
implementation of the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan.
?
Page 38: Strategy 2, removed reference to community open space for backup drainfield
systems; added minimum 80% preservation parcel; added sentence that states that the
residential lot size will be determined with implementation of the Rural Areas
Comprehensive Plan.
?
Page 38: In Strategy 4, fixed “non-title” typo; added “groundwater recharge areas” to areas
to be protected in RPDs.
?
Page 38: Struck out Strategy 6 regarding central water and sewer systems.
?
Pages 38 - 39: Rephrased Strategies 12, 13-18 to remove “Consider”.
?
Page 43: Added “Except for agricultural and forestal purposes” to Strategy 5.
?
Pages 43-45: Struck out section on water and sewage disposal; relevant strategies are
covered elsewhere in Comprehensive Plan.
?
Page 47: In Strategy 4, added "including transportation" when conducting a fiscal impact
analysis of fiscal impacts of rural development.
Mr. Cilimberg said in order to move this amendment of the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan
forward there must be a good plan for implementation. Staff is working on the implementation component
before the plan which will reflect the strategies and recommendations contained therein is actually
approved. Today, staff wants to focus on getting a draft plan to public hearing possibly on February 9,
2005. He said Ms. Thomas has provided staff with some additional modifications to the plan; those
recommendations were just received this week so staff did not have time to provide comments to the
Board on those suggestions.
Mr. Dorrier said there were members of the Rural Area Committee present, and he asked if
anyone wished to speak. No one wished to speak.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks staff has picked up the changes he suggested at the last meeting.
Ms. Thomas said staff photocopied the changes she suggested but her formatting does not show
so she does not think anyone can follow the suggestions. She said her suggestions do not change
anything in the Planning Commission’s recommendations. She tried to clarify a couple of things she
found confusing such as the difference between “land preservation” and “land conservation”. She said
“land preservation” is the sort of the long-term preservation that would be done with a conservation
easement or with land purchases. “Land conservation” means using land in a way that the Biodiversity
Committee and other natural resource protection goals of the Comprehensive Plan would urge it be done.
That was a distinction she felt was important enough that she divided the land preservation and land
conversation goals/strategies, but she did not change any of them. She also had some other editorial
changes. Others were more significant, but she does not think the Board members will be able to find
them on the copy presented today. She is comfortable going to public hearing with what the Board has in
front of it today. If the Board would prefer that she and staff come up with something that embodies the
major editorial changes she has suggested, she can do that.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Thomas if this should be returned to the Committee because of the number
of changes she has suggested.
Ms. Thomas said that committee was actually a focus group. Mr. Cilimberg said that was not a
Board-appointed committee. Staff can work with Ms. Thomas and put this back on the consent agenda in
January.
Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Thomas made some very good points, and he is willing to have her
discuss those with staff and incorporate them into the draft unless the Board objects to something she
has recommended.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think anything Ms. Thomas recommended changes the meaning of
what staff has presented. She actually made some additions which are helpful clarifications. He is willing
to accept what Ms. Thomas added.
Ms. Thomas said staff just saw her suggestions yesterday. They actually came up with some
further suggestions. She agreed with them on some of those. It is possible she and staff could get
something ready for the Board’s next meeting.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Cilimberg said setting the public hearing for February 9 will allow enough time for staff to work
with Ms. Thomas and include the new version of the document on the consent agenda in January.
Mr. Boyd asked if announcing the public hearing means the document has to stay stable between
now and then. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board will want to have a final version available before actually
scheduling the public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said that in general she thinks what the Board comes up with should be a plan that
does not significantly reduce development potential in the rural area but expresses the Board’s concern
about developing in the rural area. Some ways that slow down or reduce the desirability for outside
developers to move into the County and develop large areas have been suggested in this plan. She said
some of these are tried and true ways which other counties have found reduce the desirability for these
developers to come into the County. Encouraging agricultural pursuits is encouraged. The other
significant thing in this draft which changes what has been done in the past is to bring in all the
conservation issues which are embodied in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. In 1992 the Board
adopted an Open Space Plan, but it has never been embodied in the rural portion of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if this will be an item on the regular agenda in order to review the changes
suggested by Ms. Thomas. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working on the Implementation Plan that will be
presented at the public hearing but on which the Board will take no action at that time. He said they are
working with staff members throughout the County who will be part of making the Rural Areas Plan
achievable.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to have an executive summary so he does not have to “read between
all the lines.” He would like for it to state what will happen. Mr. Cilimberg said staff wants the Board to
understand the timeline for implementation of certain things.
Mr. Rooker said there are a number of strategies so the Board needs to adopt this plan; it is going
to take a long time to implement the plan.
Mr. Boyd said he is concerned about what impact this plan has on personal property rights and
the changes from past policies that will impact personal property rights. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not sure
there is much in that area to be explained; that will be included in the actual ordinance. Staff will explain
in an executive summary what must happen in order to get an ordinance adopted. The Board is not
defining those things that affect personal property rights yet.
Mr. Boyd said this document sets guidelines for staff to follow. Mr. Cilimberg said it only says the
Board would like to see mandatory clustering and phasing. The Board has not changed anything else at
this time.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board needed to do anything else on this matter today.
Mr. Wyant said he has received some e-mails about the central water and sewage issue. He
thinks it should be included in the plan as an alternative. He has designed some sewer facilities in the
County where there is extremely poor soil. He said there has been a big improvement in technology.
Also, in dealing with central water the County would have better control. It does not mean it is something
that could be used in every case, but is an alternative that could be available. He thinks it should be
available to use if it can meet the criteria of the Health Department.
Ms. Thomas said she disagrees strongly. She thought the Board agreed on this subject when it
was discussed at the last meeting. In her district there are areas where there is little development today
because water is “spotty.” If the Board says only one or two good wells are needed on a tract of land,
and it allows a developer to build all the houses for which he has development rights, all of those houses
will be built. Today, only a couple of houses can be built because they cannot find enough water to
support each of those houses individually. She thinks changing that will totally “blow open” the part of the
rural area running from Charlottesville down Route 29 South. That area has not been greatly developed
at this time. It is not being taxed as an area that will be developed.
Mr. Wyant asked if the tiered approach to groundwater has taken care of that. He thought the
County had control over that.
Ms. Thomas said “no.” This would say that in order to have a subdivision the developer need
only find one or two wells to support that development.
Mr. Wyant said there has to be enough water to support the number of houses built on the
property.
Ms. Thomas said they could probably find one or two wells, but they would not find a well on each
lot. That is what has kept some areas from being developed. That is appropriate for an
agricultural/forestal use which is the main use in the rural area. If the Board wants to turn the rural area
into residential, then it should just rename this as a residential plan for the parts that are outside of the
development areas and then allow central wells and septic systems and just let them sprawl all over the
County.
Mr. Rooker said when the Board took out the things that had to do with central well systems at
the last work session it did not eliminate the ability of the Board to approve a central well system. If the
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
plan passes as it is now written, the Board still has the ability to approve a development in the rural area
based on a central well system. The language was changed to say the Board would not encourage these
systems.
Mr. Wyant said he does not care for all of that residential development in the rural area, but he
was looking at it as keeping the lot sizes smaller to give better control over groundwater. He can design
the septic side.
Mr. Rooker said if the plan is passed as it is written today he does not think the Board is
prohibited from looking at that possibility. He said what Ms. Thomas wants to make sure of is that the
Board is not handing out additional potential for development by offering this option. From his
perspective, he is concerned about long-term maintenance, operational requirements and the possibility
of having to run public water into areas when systems fail in future years.
Mr. Wyant said as long as that is covered, he is comfortable with the plan.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports Mr. Wyant. He thinks there needs to be some incentive to cluster.
This is not encouraging development, but it would eliminate putting numerous separate wells in one area
on two-acre parcels.
Ms. Thomas said this plan proposes that clustering be required, not that incentives be provided
for clustering. Clustering would be the required form of development for subdivisions in rural areas.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think there would be clustering with separate wells.
Mr. Rooker said there can be clustering with separate wells. There are numerous areas
throughout the County with two-acre or larger lots that have their own wells. There is still that potential
with clustering. Also, there is still the potential for looking at central systems.
Ms. Thomas said the larger a cluster gets the more people will feel like they live in a subdivision.
There would be some nice land on the perimeter, and then they could pass covenants restricting certain
activities within their subdivision. She thinks it would be hard for farming to coexist with large clusters of
suburban dwellers who think they are living in the suburbs and the land around them is pretty, but if a real
farmer tried to farm and things became smelly and messy, it would be the death of agricultural rather than
have the opportunity to retain more land in an agricultural setting. She has not come up with a better
solution so is willing to accept what has been proposed.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the alternative is much worse.
Ms. Thomas said she understands that and is willing to accept this proposal, but she does not
want the Board to think this is a panacea.
Mr. Wyant said that from a groundwater standpoint, he could drill a well and if he had a great
need for water could dry up the well on an adjacent property.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff will bring a new draft to the Board in January. Because there were no
comments made today, staff will assume that the things in the draft were fine. Staff’s comments will focus
on the things suggested by Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Wyant said someone commented to him that the Board often says someone can speak for
ten minutes, but lets the conversation go on for twenty minutes.
__________
Ms. Thomas gave to the Board members a proposed resolution dealing with the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir. The resolution notes the importance of the reservoir and how its size has been
reduced by siltation. Since 1997 the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has been working on long-range
water solutions. Until now dredging has always been a key part of that discussion. It has had
widespread public support. Recently, a citizens group brought up the situation in Decatur, Illinois, that
sounded similar to the situation here. The elected officials in that community decided not to continue
letting that lake silt in and die and hired a firm from Maryland that would dredge their reservoir at a cost
much less than what the RWSA has said dredging of the South Fork would cost. At Rivanna’s most
recent meeting with the public, there were many comments made about what is wrong with dredging.
Ms. Thomas said with a little encouragement from a couple of other members of the Board, she
put together this resolution. It ends with the statement that the Board wants the RWSA to take seriously
the possibility of dredging, to find out more about the Decatur, Illinois, situation, the type of dredging done
there and the fact that the firm doing the dredging is based in Baltimore, Maryland, which is not far away.
It says dredging should not be considered a failure if it does not get the reservoir back to its original
condition. She thinks the Board should pass a resolution emphasizing that it takes seriously the life of the
reservoir. She does not know if the City cares that much about the life of the reservoir because the
reservoir is physically in the County. She said a couple of City Councilors did share this concern.
Although this is an unusual step she thought it would emphasize the seriousness of this issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas felt the RWSA Board is not serious about dredging.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. Tucker said Gannett Fleming, Rivanna’s consultants, contacted the Decatur group. One
reason their cost was less is that Decatur owns all of the land next to the reservoir where the dewatering
activities would occur. That is where a lot of the expense for a project here is involved. There is a lot of
truck transportation to take off the sediment and dewater it. He had asked Mr. Tom Frederick to look at
the resolution, but because the Board has been meeting all day today, he has not been able to get a
reaction from him.
Mr. Dorrier asked if this is something that could be forwarded to the right parties to get more
facts.
Mr. Tucker said he agrees with Ms. Thomas. He thinks it would be good if the City were to
support this resolution. What he hears from them is that they are really concerned about the cost of all of
these projects. They are fearful of the impact on their rate payers. If this is going to be done, the City
needs to be a part of it as well.
Mr. Bowerman said the City owns the South Fork Reservoir.
Mr. Tucker said that technically they own that particular reservoir.
Mr. Wyant said dewatering is his major concern about this project. A barge could be floated and
the reservoir could be dredged with the water still in it, or they could wait until there is a drought and clean
it. There is still a need to dispose of the spoils in some place.
Ms. Thomas said there is a quarry that is not too far away, as well as a farmer who is willing to
take the initial amounts if RWSA does a pilot project. She said there are products that can be found for
dredged spoils if they are not contaminated. All the studies so far show that the Rivanna is not
contaminated.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is something the Board can consider, but he thinks it is too soon to
do it today.
Mr. Tucker suggested that some members of the Board visit the site along with staff.
Mr. Rooker said Decatur spent only $3.5 million to dredge 2.0 million cubic yards of material, and
their cost is much lower than the estimate RWSA has. It is about 50 percent lower. To him all the
resolution says is that the Board would like it looked into before the RWSA makes a decision. He does
not see any problem with passing this resolution now except all it does is ask the RWSA to take a harder
look at the situation.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think it would be fair to pass the resolution now. He just skimmed over
the wording and he does not see anything glaringly wrong, but he suggested that it might be done next
week.
It was agreed that the resolution would be included on next week’s agenda.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention the request Ms. Liz Palmer made at the beginning of
the meeting today to have the Planning Commission look at the water supply. She asked if that is
something which can happen. Mr. Cilimberg said staff intended to do this through an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan, it is working on an amendment that would incorporate the
recommendations being reviewed by a regional body of which this Board is a member. There would not
be a review of a plan for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but facilities would be reviewed for
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker said he thinks Ms. Palmer was asking that some kind of review of the water supply
plan be made as to the impact alternatives might have on the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said normally staff takes what is adopted by the regional body and incorporates that
into the Comprehensive Plan. That is done with CHART (it used to be CATS) recommendations. If the
Board feels there needs to be a County review of what is being developed at the regional level that has
never been done before. If the Board wants to do that, he does not know how soon staff could respond.
Mr. Tucker said even if the Board took each alternative and reviewed it the Board would still not
know everything. If it looked to see what impact there might be in the Comprehensive Plan, the review
would not be definitive. The Board would look at the type of impacts that might be envisioned if there was
something such as a raw water line from the James River to Charlottesville.
Mr. Cilimberg said if it goes to the Planning Commission it will be political. It is one thing to do an
assessment like that at the staff level. It is another thing to do it at the Planning Commission level
because they would feel they had to hear from the public and the public would be giving opinions on what
they feel would be the best way to approach the question. He thought that was what the regional plan
was to do. He said Mr. Mark Graham is probably more familiar as to how to look at some of this. That is
another time consumer.
Ms. Thomas suggested that someone on staff respond to the request and in reading that
response the Board could decide if it was something it wanted to direct staff to do.
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Davis said that under State Code any new facility should be reviewed by the County for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. That process should happen when a facility is chosen. Mr.
Cilimberg is saying it is Planning staff’s expectation that whatever is chosen would simply be incorporated
as an amendment to the plan rather than having a determination as to whether or not it is consistent with
the existing plan. He said that is a significant choice for the Board to make. These are two different
positions.
Mr. Rooker said the Board would make that decision when the recommendation is received. The
Board does not need to make a decision now. It might get some information on what the processes
would entail.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Tucker and Mr. Bill Brent are going to be voting on the County’s future
water supply for the next fifty years, and the City will have suggested from their point of view the water
rate impact of any of the proposals. The Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan impact will not have
gotten into the process in any way.
Mr. Rooker said the County is one of the bodies that must approve the plan.
Mr. Tucker said he will not vote on this until the Board has given him directions.
Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board wants the Planning Commission to see it before the Board takes
action that can be done.
Mr. Rooker said Albemarle County is one of those governmental agencies listed by Mr. Tom
Frederick that have to independently approve the plan. He assumes it will go to the City and to the
County. If the County votes against a particular recommendation, he understands that recommendation
would not go forward.
Mr. Cilimberg said he assumes that would require the Board to have a staff analysis.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Frederick has developed a timeline. RWSA is going through a public review
process on each alternative. The next one is scheduled for this next Thursday. When the process is
completed next January, Rivanna staff and the consultants will try to narrow down the alternatives and
bring those for the Board to review. RWSA is shooting for a July, 2005 timetable to start the permitting
process with all of the agencies involved.
Mr. Rooker said this needs to move forward expeditiously in order to implement a plan. The
County went through this process one time before and thought it had implemented a plan, but later found
that the adopted plan was not workable. He said the public’s patience is running a little thin on this
question, as is the Board’s.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the process talked about is the answer to the request the Board
received earlier today.
__________
Mr. Bowerman said there is a change in the Birnam detention basin project. There are five
homeowners who used to have a buffer that they no longer have. Four hundred and fifty-feet of eight-foot
fence would give them back some privacy from that public path. The cost is $9600 and is within the
budget for the basin. He suggests that the Board let staff go ahead and install that fence.
Mr. Rooker said it sounds reasonable. He has seen the area and where they were somewhat
private in that area, they are not any longer.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there was a consensus for this request. There was consensus.
Mr. Bowerman said each part of the fence in the rear of the house will have a door in it so there is
access to the path too.
__________
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board should indicate to staff that when the Board “has a lot of stuff
on its plate” it might entertain three meetings in a month. He said the Board always gets hung up on
some subject. Then it seems as if the Board slights some of the more important items. He is suggesting
that more time be allowed in the process to stay on track when people are coming in to make
presentations. Work sessions are a little different.
Mr. Dorrier said that is a good point. It is hard to cut off conversation. When people are here for
a presentation it is a “big deal” for them. Having the State Forester wait for an hour to make a
presentation is not good. Maybe it has something to do with the way items are scheduled.
Mr. Rooker said he would suggest having more four o’clock work sessions. If that were done
twice a month, it would give more time. Also, more time might be allotted to the items on the morning
schedule.
Mr. Tucker said there are an inordinate number of items that staff and the Planning Commission
have been working on. As some of these items are being finished, hopefully the schedule will start to
ease up.
___________
December 1, 2004 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Dorrier said he recently met with Mr. Cecil Cobb, Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of
Supervisors, to talk about the rescue squad and funding. He (Mr. Dorrier) and Mr. Foley will be meeting
with the Chairman of the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors next week to also discuss funding.
One of the issues that came up in the discussion with Mr. Cobb concerned the water supply. He said that
Fluvanna and Louisa counties are considering a regional water supply pipe and Mr. Cobb said he would
invite Albemarle to participate in the discussions if it wanted to.
Mr. Rooker said he thought Albemarle was participating because the RWSA has been entered
into the discussions.
Mr. Tucker said Fluvanna only has one alternative as opposed to RWSA which has five
alternatives. That is one of the alternatives for RWSA. He said Fluvanna and Louisa may be “antsy”
about it because it is not on their timetable. He said the RWSA cannot make its timetable move any
faster. It is trying to give every alternative as much consideration as possible. If the Board wants to meet
with them, that is fine. He said RWSA is trying to talk to them and keep everybody “in the loop.”
Mr. Rooker suggested finding out what their timeframe is.
Mr. Dorrier said he would write a letter and suggest that the lines of communication be kept open
and ask that they notify Albemarle of their next meeting.
Ms. Thomas said a representative from DEQ was at a meeting she attended and they seemed to
say that it did not matter if Albemarle joined with them at this point or not. They assumed that the pipeline
would some day come to Albemarle County. It did not matter if the County “got in line” because it would
not lose its place by not getting in line now. It would be based on needs and if it is needed 35 years from
now and no action is taken today it will not preclude Albemarle from getting “its foot in the water.”
Mr. Tucker said there are two alternatives being worked on. One is a regional approach with
Fluvanna and Louisa, and the other is a standalone that would run strictly through Albemarle County from
Scottsville to Charlottesville. They know that RWSA is looking at a standalone project and they have
asked about buying water from RWSA. There are many permutations going on. Recently, it was learned
that there is a private entity that might look at building this pipeline, and they would then sell water. That
gives RWSA some concern because it would not be controlling. If the private entity went “belly up” the
RWSA would be struggling for a water supply.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn to December 7, 2004, 3:00 P.M., Meeting with Legislators.
motion
At 5:00 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, was offered by Mr.
seconded
Bowerman, by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until December 7, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. for a
meeting with the area legislators. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 12/14/2005
Initials: DM