Monthly Archives: March, 2010

Greene BOS Discuss Schools Budget

Greene County Board of Supervisors Meeting March 23, 2010

By. Teresa Gulyas, Greene County Field Officer

The regular meeting of the Greene County Board of Supervisors was preceded by two public workshops.

The first workshop was with the Greene County School Board to discuss the FY 2010-2011 budget. The good news was that all who attended the Greene County Arts Festival at William Monroe High School were impressed with the caliber of projects and performances presented by students. 

News from the state regarding education appropriations was less exciting. At this point, the budget shortfall for Greene County schools is estimated in excess of one million dollars. The Greene County School Board has established four tiers of budget cuts based on money received from the state and county.

  • The first tier of cuts are those that would be made based on enrollment.
  • Tier 2 cuts would be salary reductions in the form of five furlough days that would be made across the board for all employees.
  • Tier 3 cuts would eliminate 7 positions
  • Tier 4 cuts would eliminate a total of 22.5 positions.

Supervisor Mike Skeens (Monroe) asked about the financial impact of non-resident pupils enrolled in the preschool program. Supervisor Jim Frydl (Ruckersville) questioned whether one out of county student would impact on preschool program staffing. Greene County Schools Superintendent David Jeck indicated he would get back to Mr. Skeens about his question.

Supervisor Carl Schmidt (At- Large) asked about the pupil:teacher ratio as compared to similar school districts and noted that Greene County is near the top of the ladder. When instructional assistants are factored in, the ratio goes even higher. The relationship of a strong school system to sound community growth and development is well known. The challenge is for the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to continue working together to mitigate the impact that budget cuts will have on the caliber of our schools in Greene County.

The second public workshop was to discuss the emergency revenue recovery program. There were no questions or concerns raised by the public. A list of FAQs was provided and another workshop has been scheduled for April 13 at 5:30.

In between the workshops and the meeting, the Board of Supervisors informally discussed other budget matters. Concerns include an anticipated 6% shortfall in real estate taxes in 2010, budget cuts coming to agencies that had previously been level funded, and the need for a policy about fiscal responsibility to include management of reserves and contingency funds. The Board remains committed to conservative fiscal management and reiterated their intent to avoid raising taxes.

The Regular Board meeting was called to order at 7:30 and began with Ms. Nora Gillespie discussing services offered by the Central Virginia Small Business Development Center to business owners in the area. She discussed the structure of the organization, funding sources, and measures of impact. Seminars offered were highlighted, including the recent “Social Media for the Business Owner” in Greene County.

A request from Cedar Grove Church of the Brethren  for a Special Use Permit for a church on approximately 1.00 acre tract zoned A-1, Agriculture, located on Cedar Grove Road and identified on County Tax Maps as 65-C-(A)-7 (SUP#09-005) was approved unanimously.

Information from VDOT right of way was receivedsheetz resulting in unanimous approval of the request from Sheetz, Inc./Ronald & Mary Lamm to rezone from B-2, Business to B-3, Business approximately 1.50 total acres located on Seminole Trail and identified on County Tax Maps as 66-A-9, portion of 66-A-10 and 66-A-12 (RZ#09-004)

The Board accepted the request for indefinite deferral for Proffer Amendment (RZ#09-003) from Fried Companies , Inc. Fried, Inc will do a 527 traffic generation study which will be completed and should be through the approval process in the late May – June timeframe.

The Board authorized the Greene County Planning Commission to also serve as the Planning Commission for the Town of Stanardsville. The Stanardsville Town Council and Greene County Board of Supervisors roles will remain unchanged.

  • In matters from the public:
  • Joanne Woods expressed appreciation for the support in filling boxes for troops in Iraq. She is still hoping to fund a few more boxes and can be contacted at Greene Primary School.
  • Patsy Morris requested that the Board evaluate the possibility of tax breaks for seniors and encouraged continued evaluation of excessive administrative positions within the school system.
  • The Board authorized James Howard’s request to fill a critical GCDSS position now to avoid the gap between an employee’s retirement and a successor assuming the position.

Fluvanna’s Planning Commission Okays Two Projects

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Representative

Fluvanna’s Planning Commission met on March 24th and quickly approved to site plans, set a review of the county’s sign ordinance, and was briefed on potential ordinance changes that could improve storm water runoff conditions in the county. The meeting lasted just over an hour.

Commissioners unanimously approved:

· A site development plan presented by Southern Development to construct a repair shop and a warehouse within the Zion Crossroads Industrial Park (zoned I-1, Industrial, General); and,

· A site development plan presented by Grace and Glory Lutheran Church to construct a church sanctuary. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and is located on the south side of Route 53, approximately three-fifths of a mile west from Route 15.

As part of the county’s ongoing ordinance review, the Planning Commission agreed to initiate the zoning text amendment process or the county’s sign ordinance. According to staff, the current ordinance has “inconsistencies where sections of the ordinance contradict one another, [and contain] inadequate regulations pertaining to sign height/are and number of signs permitted per parcel, and lack of regulations on common sign types”.

The Rivanna Conservation Society briefed commissioners on measures the county might take to mitigate storm water runoff. The society’s executive director, Ms. Robbi Savage emphasized that the recommendations were designed to be practical solutions, which, if adopted, would substantially improve the county’s ability to deal with storm water runoff. Specifically, the society recommended:

· Better design and layout of new development sites by avoiding excessive use of impervious surfaces;

· Promote on-site infiltration and encourage low-impact development techniques;

· Limit erosion from construction sites; and,

· As new development occurs protect riparian buffers through ordinances.

Finally, just nine new home building permits were issued during the first two months of 2010, down two from the comparable period in 2009.

Fluvanna’s Development Activity: Not So Much

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Representative

Fluvanna officials recently released the annual Development Activity Report, which covers 2009. It highlights, in this case, the lack of development activity in Fluvanna over the past year.

For example, residential building permits declihouse redned another 5 percent  last year to 112, continuing the downward trend that began in 2001. Since that year, new residential building permits have dropped by just over 75 percent.

New subdivision lots also have declined precipitously. Last year, just 90 were created in the entire county, down 40 percent from the previous year and over 90 percent from the 2005 record of 946. While the decline certainly reflects the economic downturn, the 2005 record is somewhat misleading. It likely includes some new subdivisions creation that occurred in response to perceived downzoning potential in the rural preservation areas of the county. That has yet to happen but the question may be revisited again later this year.

A signal accomplishment last year was the approval of a new Comprehensive Plan, replacing the one from 2000. Under the new plan, nearly 90 percent of the county is designated as rural, with the remaining earmarked for growth. A planned urban development district has been added to the plan, as has a fiscal responsibility chapter.

Other highlights from the report include:

· Ten site development plans were approved (8 in the growth area) – down from 17 in 2008;

· Over 10,500 acres in the county have been place in some form of conservation easement, while another 19,400 acres are in the county’s agricultural and forestall district program;

· Overall, three out of every five acres in Fluvanna receive some form of tax relief, most of which comes from land use tax benefits.

One final, and telling, statistic from the report: the average new home price in 2009 was just $160,118, twenty-eight percent below the average price in 2007.

Revenue Sharing Agreement Penalizes Albemarle’s Green Contribution

By. Neil Williamson, President

There has been a great deal of discussion recently regarding the unique revenue sharing agreement signed in 1982 between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.  The agreement was signed to prevent the City from using its annexation power to take economically productive County land. 

But does the revenue sharing agreement accurately reflect the values and priorities of the citPhysicalizens of both localities today? 

Think back to 1982:

  • Ronald Reagan was in the White House 
  • Albemarle had a population of 57,000 people
  • Olivia Newton John was on top of the Billboard Charts with “Physical”

Yes, much has changed about this community since 1982, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the agreement (or at least the revenue calculation) is in need of significant revision.   Considering the actions of City Council over the last decade, this agreement is environmentally inconsistant.

It is important to note that at the time the agreement was taken to the voters of both localities, the business community stood vocally in favor of the agreement. 

Sunday’s (3/21) Daily Progress included an editorial penned by three former Charlottesville City Councilors (two former mayors) titled “Revenue sharing—how it came to this”.  The goal of the editorial seemed to be to provide some context to how the agreement came into exist and to further document the legal obligation of both parties to the agreement.

davidtoscano Delegate David Toscano has started his own community voices blog to explore the issue prior to the April 24th joint meeting of City Council and Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that he helped to arrange.

While the Free Enterprise Forum is not convinced without the revenue sharing agreement Charlottesville would have been successful in its attempt to annex parts of Albemarle, we tend to believe if the agreement did not exist, Charlottesville may have eventually  reverted to town status and demanded increased county provided services. 

The heart of the unfairness regarding land use value taxation is the equation used in the aptly named revenue sharing agreement.  The equation generates a formula driven by:

The value of locally asses real property improved and unimproved.

Based on discussions with individuals who were involved in writing the agreement, the Free Enterprise Forum understands the choice of language was deliberate.  Charlottesville, who then “held all the cards”, did not desire to recognize any tax abatements Albemarle may have provided its citizens.  Such abatements would include use valuation tax also known as land use value taxation.cow

A parcel under land use value taxation pays full property tax on their residence and the acreage around it but receives a tax abatement on the land that qualifies.  Albemarle County accepts all four of the state defined four land uses for valuation:

  1. Agriculture Use: Land used for agricultural use must consist of a minimum of five acres and must meet prescribed standards for a bona fide production for sale of crops and/or livestock or be in an approved soil conservation program.
  2. Horticulture Use: Land used for horticulture use must consist of a minimum of five acres and must meet prescribed standards for bona fide production for sale of fruits, vegetables, ornamental plants and/or ornamental products.
  3. Forest Use: Land used for forestal use must be a minimum of twenty acres and must include standing timber and trees devoted to tree growth in such quantity and so spaced and maintained as to constitute a forest area.
  4. Open Space: Land in open space must be at least five acres or such greater minimum acreage, set by local ordinance, and be used to provide or preserve the land for park or recreational purposes, conservation of land or other natural resources, floodways, historic or scenic purposes or to assist in the shaping of the character, direction, or timing of community development, or for the public interest and consistent with the local land use plan. In 1990, the Board set the minimum acreage for open space at 20 acres.

Last May, Charlottesville Tomorrow reported:

As of 2008, 59.8% of the land in Albemarle County is enrolled in land use, which includes parcels in both the rural area and growth areas (where undeveloped).  That results in deferred taxes of $18.78 million this year.  Land use is viewed by County officials as one strategic tool for protecting the County’s rural fields, farms, and forests.

Earlier this year, Albemarle County and The Piedmont Environmental Council announced in a news release the success of conservation programs in 2009:

Albemarle County is pleased to announce substantial increases in acreage placed in agricultural and forestal districts, open space, conservation easements and parkland in the County’s rural area by landowners in 2009 according to new figures released today. Albemarle added a total of almost 11,500 acres of conserved land last year, including significant acreage protected with donated conservation easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Piedmont Environmental Council. Of that 11,500 total, approximately 3,800 acres were permanently protected in the rural area through conservation easements, bringing the total acreage of conservation easements in Albemarle County to over 81,000.

Why would the self described “Green City” of charlottesville leafCharlottesville, penalize Albemarle County’s efforts for environmental protection?

Why would the city which clearly benefits from the significant environmental contributions expect revenue sharing dollars that may exceed tax collected?

After being made aware of this institutional environmental inconsistency, will the City Council consider reopening the calculation to better reflect Council’s sustainability positions?

Or will Charlottesville continue chasing a different shade of green?


20070731williamson Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website

Greene Comprehensive Plan Inches Forward

Greene County Planning Commission Meeting

March 17, 2010

Teresa Gulyas, Greene County Field Officergreene county seal


  • Norm Slezak, Chair
  • Bill Martin, Vice Chair
  • Anthony Herring
  • Davis Lamb

Public Hearing items

  • Comprehensive Plan


This hearing was the final opportunity for public input to the Greene County Comprehensive Plan before the Planning Commission sends it forward to the Board of Supervisors for an additional Public Hearing and final approval. The Commission, who has worked with The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on the plan, reviewed input previously received and heard public comments about the plan. The Planning Commission deferred approval until the next meeting to incorporate minor editorial changes and updated statistics into the plan.

New Business


  • The Stanardsville Town Council has expressed an interest in developing a closer working relationship with the Planning Commission. Board members were receptive to expanding this relationship.

Fluvanna Supervisors Set to Hike Taxes Twelve Percent

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Officer

After flirting with no tax increase at all for the FY 2011 budget, Fluvanna’s Board of Supervisors on March 17th decided to increase the real estate tax rate by six cents per $100, or twelve percent. This is one penny more that the Board had previously suggested and reflects the newfound desire not to use the undesignated fund balance or savings account to fund operational expenditures.

Early in the evening of the scheduled Board meeting, and after much discussion, supervisors Chesser, Kenney, Ott, and Weaver suddenly voted to advertise a fifty-cent tax rate, unchanged from the current rate. This stunned the audience, and supervisors Booker and Gooch, who had urged tax hikes to fund schools.

Later, Ms. Booker urged reconsideration of the decision. Supervisors Chesser and Ott then supported the six-cent increase, as did Gooch and Booker (both of whom had advocated much higher rates).

The sudden reversal suggests that the earlier vote was at least in part designed to put pressure on the “left” part of the Board to compromise. Faced with the prospect of even further cuts to school funding, neither Gooch nor Booker was left with any option. The more conservative part of the Board was unwilling to support a double-digit tax increase but by the end of the evening, their votes did not matter.

Several items were left unresolved; including how much of the tax hike will be dedicated to debt repayment, if any, and the final distribution of the allocated funds to specific departments.

The advertised rate will go to Public Hearing on April 14th at a yet to be determined location.

Separately, supervisors decided to defer a decision on any water rate increase for customers of the Fork Union Sanitary District since they were split 3-3 on the decision.

Mayor Norris Refuses to Sign On The Dotted Line

By. Neil Williamson, President

Last night (3/15) Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris and City Council indicated their intention not to sign a letter endorsing a connection between McIntire Extended and 250 without an interchange.  Sean Tubbs of Charlottesville Tomorrow has a very good post outlining the timeline of events leading up to this decision.

Before McIntire Extended can be constructed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must issue a permit declaring that  the roadway’s impacts on historic and environmental resources have been adequately mitigated.

Last year, the Corps asked a question regarding the southern terminus of McIntire Extended; Would the road be connected if the McIntire/250 interchange was not built?

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) wrote Mayor Norris a letter on March 9th expressing their concern for the potential of losing very attractive bids on McIntire Road Extended if the Corps issue was not resolved. VDOT included a letter for Mayor Norris to sign indicating:

A grade-separated interchange at Route 250 is the City’s preferred option and we are working closely with the Federal Highway Administration to complete preliminary engineering and an Environmental Assessment. This approach merely confirms the City’s consistent position for almost 40 years that a complete transportation facility is constructed to connect the Meadowcreek Parkway to Route 250 through McIntire Park.

In the event that a grade-separated interchange is not built, an appropriately designed at-grade intersection constitutes an acceptable and realistic alternative.

Last night Mayor Norris said “No”.  He indicated a majority on council believe the road project can not be built without the interchange.

At issue, of course,  is attempts by the opponents of the three projects (Meadowcreek Parkway, McIntire/250 Interchange, McIntire Extended) to link all three as one project. As Will Goldsmith of C-ville Weekly reported last year:

The third portion is the split-grade interchange at 250, which will come last. City Council is expected to see a final design in the summer. Unlike the other sections, it was spawned by the federal government, in the form of a $27 million earmark in 2005 from former U.S. senator John Warner.

And therein lies the opponents’ opportunity. Federal money requires a different standard of review, particularly where public parks are concerned, and so the fact that the interchange segment extends into McIntire Park and seems to be connected to the McIntire Road Extended project, which didn’t get that higher level federal review, gives a legal wedge for termination.

Back in 2005, when City Council was concerned about the viability of an at grade intersection at McIntire Road and 250, the Free Enterprise Forum commissioned an engineering study of the intersection. 

A new independent “Review of Reasonableness” report, conducted by Draper Aden Associates for the Free Enterprise Forum, examined traffic projections, analyses and intersection designs and concluded that an at-grade roundabout would “allow Meadowcreek Parkway to operate safely and efficiently in the near term.” The report also found importantly that the second project “with its own design utility can be built upon, rather than replace an at grade plan.”

The “Reasonableness” report identified that the state funded parkway project can function by itself. When approved and constructed, the separate, federally funded, interchange project will be a welcome addition to a road that has been on the books for over 37 years.

The report also concludes that the at-grade intersection concepts can be developed within the parkway project’s existing right-of-way.

The questions are back to the City: 

How do the citizens of Charlottesville benefit by allowing the very attractive bids (more than $1 million under estimate) for McIntire Road Extended expire  on March 31?

What City benefit will be served when Albemarle County opens their Meadowcreek Parkway segment and dumps all the resultant traffic onto Melbourne Road?

Why is City Council choosing to  stand in the way of two funded, council approved transportation projects that will both improve transportation and serve as significant economic stimulus?

Is this the kind of coordinated regional cooperation citizens should expect in the future?


20070731williamson Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website

Highlights from the Greene County Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session

By. Teresa Gulyas, Greene County Field Officer

The Greene County Board of Supervisors met with department representatives on March 10th in an all day budget work session designed to frame the budget for FY 2011.

Parks and Recreation identified a comfort station at the park as a top priority but this would require increased funding from the Board and/or private citizen donations. The master plan for the park was discussed. Shared facilities between the park and school could include tennis courts but field restoration fees for some school sports have impacted on the Parks and Recreation budget. Board members asked if there had been consideration of increasing fees or adding revenue-generating projects. They discussed reducing fixed costs and the seasonality of park employment.

The School Board budget request included reinstitution of the summer school program and no salary reductions. A lively discussion ensued with the Board of Supervisors requesting data about student: teacher ratios from similar school districts in Virginia. The sense from the Board of Supervisors was raising real estate taxes is not a consideration at this point.

At the state level, there has been some discussion of consolidation of the county’s Cooperative Extension Program with the offices in Madison and Orange counties. The potential for reduced accessibility led students and 4H participants to send letters to Governor McDonnell and Representative Rob Bell requesting continued funding for the Greene County office.

The Greene County Rescue Squad said that the winter weather contributed to depletion of emergency assistance funds.

Planning District Ten will continue working with the county on the comprehensive plan, a multimodal transportation plan, and the home consortium. New programs in the strategic planning process include grant writing and administration workshops, broadband infrastructure initiatives, regional joint procurement programs, traffic analysis using models and simulation, and GIS and e-government services.

The Jefferson Madison Regional Library would like to extend their open hours at the Greene County branch but this would require a 4.6% increase in funding. Their multimedia presentation highlighted the variety of services provided by the library, including high speed internet, fax, and notary service. Weekly job seeker services sponsored by the Virginia Employment Commission continue to be popular.

Priorities for the Economic Development Authority include institution of a performance-based incentive plan for the Director, moving the office manager from a part-time to fulltime benefitted position, and expanding business appreciation activities. Marketing will be directed toward attracting defense contractors to support DIA and NGIC at the Joint-Use Intelligence Analysis Facility as these businesses positively impact the tax base and have limited resource consumption.

Fluvanna Supervisors Run Afoul of Budget Policy

By William J. Des Rochers, Fluvanna Field Officer

Just when one thought it could not get any more confusing, Fluvanna supervisors have discovered that they ran afoul of their own stated policy goals when they crafted the proposed budget on March 10th. They agreed to allocate some $600,000 to cover the operating expense shortfall.

But it seems that previous Boards established a policy to prevent raids of the undesignated fund balance – the county’s savings account — for operational expenses.

The policy is quite clear. It states:

no appropriation from unreserved-undesignated fund balance for recurring operational expenditures shall be made unless a plan for permanent funding of such expenditures is also approved at the time of appropriation.

The operative words here are “operational expenditures”.

But now here is some “inside baseball”. Should the supervisors tap this fund source for the planned $600,000, they will be obligated to raise taxes by about 1.7 cents in FY 2012, just to cover the shortfall in operating expenses in FY 2011. Moreover, supervisors would be expected to allocate funds to restore the fund balance – another 1.7 cents.

The policy also requires the supervisors to maintain an undesignated fund balance at a minimum of 12 percent of local spending. Currently it stands at about 10.8 percent. However supervisors will have to draw down approximately $450,000 to cover current fiscal year shortfalls, which would lower the percentage to 9.5 percent.

To meet policy guidelines and restore the savings account to the twelve percent level would require an additional $860,000, or another tax increase of about 2.5 cents. So collectively, supervisors would have to raise taxes by an additional 6 cents, just to borrow from the undesignated fund balance, and restore it to its minimum level.

In the current budget, the Board has made no provision to restore any of the savings account shortfall. And, the supervisors simply could change the policy. But that would no doubt be traumatic for those Board members who have consistently advocated fiscal responsibility on the Board.

To quote the eminent English philosopher Stan Laurel: [this is] “another fine mess you’ve gotten me into Ollie”.

Discussions will continue on March 18th.

Greene County BOS Discusses Sheetz Rezoning

By.  Teresa Gulyas, Greene County Field Officer

Greene County Board of Supervisors Meeting March 9, 2010 

Public Session items:

Public hearing to consider request from Sheetz, Inc/Ronald & Mary Lamm to rezone from B-2, Business to B-3, Business approximately 1.50 total acres located on Seminole Trail and identified on County Tax maps as 66-A-9, portion of 66-A-10 and 66-A-12.

 sheetz The Sheetz store located at the corner of US 29 and Route 607, opened in June, 1997 and has been one of the more successful stores in the area according to Mr. Augustine, a representative for Sheetz, Inc. After 13 years of steady growth in Greene County, the company is working with VDOT to improve traffic patterns to facilitate existing traffic and enhance safety. Plans also include updated signage and new colors.

The Board responded favorably to the plans and the request was approved unanimously but deferred any action.

Public hearing to consider request from Lamm Properties, LLC/Preddy Gables, LLC/Rapidan Retail, LLC to amend proffers approved on July 13, 2004 (RZ#04-152) for property zoned R-2, Residential and B-3, Business, containing approximately 95.9 acres total located in Ruckersville on Seminole Trail and Preddy Creek Road identified on County Tax Maps as 66-(A)-48, 51, 52, 52B. (RZ#09-003)

Mr. Jefferson Steve Jones, representing the property owners, said that the original proffsiteplan_rapidaners included tennis courts on the property. The owners have offered to place the tennis courts on school property for shared community use if desired. 

Several board members expressed concerns about traffic impact and would like more information from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The decision was deferred until the April 13 meeting so that VDOT comments can be considered.  

Public hearing to consider request from Barbara McNamara & Nancy Tardiff to have 128.91 acres, identified on County Tax Maps as 46-(A)-45, 45A, and 45 B which are zoned A-1, Agriculture, and located on Dyke Road and Bacon Hollow Road, removed from the St. George Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD). (AFD#09-001)

Margaret Ramsey represented the property owners. The request had been approved by both the Greene County Planning Commission and the Agricultural and Forestal District committee.

The Board unanimously approved the request.  

Discussion regarding awarded allocation in the amount of $2,425,596 of Qualified School Construction Bonds for eligible school projects.

 Greene County School Board Member Troy Harlow, School Superintendent Dave Jeck and GCPS Business and Facilities Director Kim Powell appeared before the Board to answer questions regarding this recently awarded bond. The bond would be used for an energy performance contract with Ameresco. Details about the bond are forthcoming.

 Matters from the public

Ms. Woodson from Greene County Primary School came to request support for her kindergarten class’s project. Through Hearts Across America, her class has received a box from a 52 man unit in Iraq. The class is collecting donations so they can send return boxes to the unit. The greatest need is for the $12.50 postage needed for each box. Other popular donations include pillowcases and ear plugs.

Consent Agenda – unanimously approved 

  1. Minutes of February 23, 2010 meeting  
  2. Authorization for Sheriff’s Office to apply for grant in the amount of $16,477 from DMV for highway safety. 


Other matters from the Board.

Mr. Peyton mentioned that the School Board decided to withdraw the plan for salary reductions and reinstated plans for summer school. They will be requesting an increase in funds for the 2010-11 school year.

Mr. Frydl reports that the first draft of the Board of Supervisor bylaws is ready for review.

Mr. Catalano said that insurance deductibles were brought up in the meeting with the Ruckersville Citizens Council when discussing emergency services revenue recovery. Susan Gibbs is working on a story for the Greene County Record that will precede an informational meeting open to the public scheduled for March 23.

Post (and headline) updated 3/23/10 to reflect the correct final action of the Board on the Sheetz Rezoning and the proper identification of Rapidan Center spokesman.