HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-3-02tenative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MARCH 2, 2011
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Steve Sellers, Chief of Police.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. – Presentations:
8. 9:30 a.m. - Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, Steve Koleszar,
School Board Chairman.
9. 9:45 a.m. - Target Industry Study.
10. 10:15 a.m. - Update on Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant.
11. 10:30 a.m. – Update on Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP).
10:45 a.m. – Public Hearings:
12. FY11 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
13. To consider entering into a lease with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center for office space in the McIntire
County Office Building.
14. To consider granting a cable easement to CenturyLink within the Boulders Road public right-of-way,
owned by the County (TMP 03200-00-00-005C3).
11:15 a.m. – Action Items:
15. Little Keswick School, Request for Exception (WPO 17-308).
16. Adoption of 2011 Redistricting Guidelines.
16a. Resolution Supporting the Implementation of the Community Water Plan.
17. Closed Meeting.
18. Certify Closed Meeting.
19. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Recess and Reconvene at 6:00 p.m.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110302/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/7/2020 1:24:25 PM]
tenative
21. Call to Order.
22. Pledge of Allegiance.
23. Moment of Silence.
24. Proclamation recognizing the 17th Annual Virginia Festival of the Book.
25. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on the County Executive’s FY 2011/2012 Recommended Budget.
26. Adjourn to March 3, 2010, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: March 17(A), March 31, August 4, September 1, October 12(A), October 13(A), October 13
(N), November 10(A), November 11(A), and December 13, 2010.
7.2 Board Policy Related to Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding.
7.3 Hillsdale Drive Extension Project.
7.4 Towncenter Drive Road Name Change.
7.5 Resolution Supporting a Certificate of Public Need for a Nursing Home Facility in the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.6 Copy of letter dated January 28, 2011 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to James W. Sams, re:
LOD-2010-00013 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD &
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 122, Parcel 33 (Property of The MARION LEE SAMS
FAMILY TRUST) - Scottsville Magisterial District.
7.7 Copy of letter dated February 9, 2011 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning
Administrator, to Barracks Road Land Trust, c/o Dr. Charles W. Hurt, Trustee, re: OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 60, Parcel 68 (Property of
Barracks Road Land Trust) - Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2011Files/Migration/20110302/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/7/2020 1:24:25 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board Policy Related to Volunteer Fire Rescue
Funding
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Revised Volunteer Funding Policy – Related to
Capital Purchases
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Eggleston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 1, 2006 the Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote, adopted the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory
Board’s (ACFRAB) Policy SAP-DEP-007, “Volunteer Funding”, as an official County policy. In addition to providing
direction for determining eligible annual County funding support for volunteer fire/rescue station operations, this policy
establishes protocol for the acquisition of apparatus to support volunteer fire/rescue departments.
The intent of this action was to ensure that all future capital purchases for volunteer fire/rescue stations would be
handled by the County and prioritized in the Board’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and that all such
acquired equipment would be co-titled in the County and volunteer station’s name. Because the Board formally
adopted this policy, and has subsequently appropriated public funds through its adopted CIP, all purchased apparatus
for the system is required to comply with the Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA).
On July 7, 2010, the Board approved a request from the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad (WARS) for a
reimbursement donation totaling $91,186 for funds expended by it to re-chassis an existing ambulance unit, remove
and replace radio systems and to recondition a monitor/defibrillator. WARS made the request for reimbursement
mainly because there was a misunderstanding of the County volunteer apparatus procurement process. Therefore,
the Board requested that staff further revise the “Volunteer Funding” policy to include a clear process for volunteer
stations to follow for the procurement of vehicles and apparatus.
DISCUSSION:
Fire Rescue staff, in collaboration with County Finance staff and the ACFRAB, revised the “Volunteer Funding” policy
to include a step-by step vehicle and apparatus procurement process. The ACFRAB approved the revised policy with
no further revisions during its regular meeting on October 27, 2010. The revised “Volunteer Funding” policy (SAP-
DEP-007) is attached (Attachment A).
BUDGET IMPACT:
No impact
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the amended “Volunteer Funding” policy as the County policy for funding
volunteer capital purchases.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Volunteer Funding Policy – SAP-DEP-007
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Subject: Volunteer Funding
Reference Number: SAP-DEP-007
Effective Date: 1 December 2003
Last Revision Date: 27 October 2010
Signature of Approval:
J. Dan Eggleston, Chief
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to outline the funding policies for volunteer fire departments and rescue squads.
Background:
This policy was adopted by the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) at the November 2003 meeting,
approved by the Board of Supervisors on 23 February 2006, and revised September 2010.
Definitions:
Basic Operating Costs: Basic operating costs include building utility costs, buildings & grounds maintenance,
communications, fire suppression, emergency medical & rescue services, vehicle expenses, administrative expenses,
training, and uniforms.
One-Time Costs: One-time costs include major vehicle repair, hoses, nozzles, ladders, self-contained breathing
apparatus, personal protective equipment & gear, radio purchases, pager purchases, defibrillators, cascade equipment &
compressors, kitchen appliances, rescue equipment, building repairs & improvements (paving, HVAC, etc.).
Policy:
1. Basic Operating Costs
a. Annual funding of basic operating costs will be provided as a quarterly contribution to each volunteer
station.
b. The funding will be based on an annual review by ACFRAB and the County of Albemarle.
c. An annual audited report will be provided to the County as part of the annual budget process.
d. The annual Profit and Loss statements will be submitted per the annual schedule and in a standard
format
e. Future adjustments of budgeted operating costs will be based on an audited history of the previous
years.
2. One-Time Costs
a. One-time costs should be identified separately from operating costs and will be considered for
funding separately from the annual operating contribution. These may be submitted at any time
during the year and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
3. Fundraising Costs
a. The following costs associated with fundraising are not included as a basic operating cost: painting &
repairs to space, expendable items for space, janitorial items for space, office supplies, postage,
printing, professional services, and/or licenses.
4. Consolidated Purchase of Goods & Services
a. ACFRAB will strive to consolidate the purchase of goods and services to achieve better pricing. As
consolidation occurs, the line items associated with consolidated goods and services will be
eliminated or will reflect the revised price structure.
b. Items to be considered for consolidation include the following:
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 2 of 6
i. Long Distance Telephone
Service
ii. Fuel Oil
iii. Fuel for Apparatus
iv. Trash Disposal
v. Linen Service
vi. Radio/Pager Repair
vii. Small Tools & Equipment
viii. EMS Supplies
ix. Vehicle Repairs Outside the
County Vehicle
Maintenance Facility
x. Uniforms
c. Foam is provided to stations by the County; thus, no additional funds will be provided for such.
d. Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) maintenance is funded by the County; thus, no additional
funds will be provided for such.
5. Loan Payments
a. Outside loan payments obtained before 2003 are considered a basic operating cost. Outside loans
after 2003 will not be considered a basic operating cost.
6. Capital Expenses
a. Buildings - The County will consider participating in the construction or improvement of volunteer
stations on a case-by-case basis
b. Vehicles and Apparatus
i. The ACFRAB Apparatus Fleet Plan establishes the basis for replacement of emergency
vehicles.
ii. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for emergency vehicle replacement will be developed
and recommended by ACFRAB according to the regular schedule established by the County.
iii. The vehicle replacement schedule will be based upon consideration of vehicle age, mileage
and mechanical condition.
iv. The County will fund replacement of emergency vehicles (including chassis replacement
and/or refurbishment) based on ACFRAB adopted standard specifications or alternatives
specifically approved by the County operations chief.
v. Any variation from, or addition to, the adopted specifications will be a cost directly born by the
volunteer department.
vi. Vehicles that are funded by the County, in part or in whole, must be procured under the
direction of the County Purchasing Office. All vehicle purchases must comply with the
Virginia Procurement Act, and County Purchasing Policies which require one of the following:
a. Competitive bid or proposal process
b. Use of an applicable governmental contract through cooperative
procurement
c. A qualified sole source procurement (in cases where a unique vendor is
required and compelling circumstances are documented).
vii. Vehicles purchased with County funds shall be co-titled to the volunteer department and the
County of Albemarle
viii. When a volunteer department is ready to initiate a vehicle purchase (or refurbishment), the
department chief or designee shall contact the County Fire Rescue operations chief and
request initiation of a procurement process.
ix. The operations chief shall verify that adequate CIP budget funds have been appropriated and
consult County Purchasing about the appropriate purchasing method. When the best method
has been determined, and all related requirements for that method have been met, the
operations chief will submit a purchase requisition to County Purchasing for action.
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 3 of 6
x. Supplemental equipment procurement using County funds must also comply with County
purchasing requirements.
xi. During production of fire and rescue vehicles, the volunteer department chief or designee will
typically coordinate any pre-construction, post-paint and/or final acceptance visits with the
manufacturer.
xii. Production change orders must be reviewed and approved by the County operations chief.
Failure to do so will result in the volunteer department being responsible for all associated
costs.
xiii. Once a new or refurbished vehicle has been accepted by the volunteer department, the
volunteer chief shall notify the County operations chief of final acceptance and approval for
payment. Prior to delivery of the vehicle, the volunteer department and County operations
chief must communicate about any issues that might prevent acceptance and cooperate to
resolve any such issues in advance of delivery. When the vendor invoice has been received
and approved by the County operations chief, the operations chief will forward authorization
for payment to County Finance. If the invoice is received in advance of final acceptance, a
check for the payment may be prepared and held by the operations chief, pending final
acceptance notification from the volunteer department chief.
xiv. Upon notification of final acceptance, the County operations chief shall notify the County’s
volunteer department vehicle insurance policy agent of the addition to initiate proper
insurance coverage.
xv. Upon receipt of payment, the vendor shall provide the County operations chief with notice of
payment received and provide the vehicle Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO). The
MSO shall list the volunteer department and the “County of Albemarle“ as co-owners.
xvi. After delivery of a new vehicle, the volunteer department chief or designee typically
coordinates supplemental equipment mounting and installation, including communications
equipment. It may be appropriate to include some or all of these costs in the vehicle’s
replacement budget, as funding is available. This activity must be reviewed by the County
operations chief in advance for funding consideration and any necessary procurement
action(s).
xvii. When a new vehicle is ready for DMV registration and titling, the volunteer chief or designee
should notify the County operations chief, who will provide a packet with:
1. A DMV title application with County (co-owner) information
2. A copy of the vendor invoice
3. The vehicle Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin.
The volunteer chief or designee can then take this material to the DMV for processing.
“Volunteer Emergency Vehicle” license plates should be utilized.
xviii. A copy of the DMV title shall be returned to the County operations chief.
xix. Requests for reimbursement involving vehicle purchases, refurbishment or supplemental
equipment “after the fact” are not allowable.
xx. Once a County-purchased apparatus is sold at the end of its useful life, the proceeds after
the sale will go back to the individual volunteer department. If the volunteer department
originally upgraded the apparatus being sold, the volunteer department will receive the
percentage of the proceeds used for the upgrade to use at their discretion. The remainder of
the proceeds will go back to the volunteer department and must be used to upgrade the new
apparatus.
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 4 of 6
Example: Apparatus cost at time of purchase is $200,000. The volunteer department
added $20,000 in upgrades (10% of the total price). The apparatus is sold at the end of
its useful life for $5,000. The volunteer department will receive the upgraded percentage
(10% or $500) to use at their discretion. The reminder ($4,500) must be used to upgrade
the cost of the new apparatus.
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 5 of 6
Master Chart of Basic Operating Costs:
Building Utility Costs
1a Electricity
1b Fuel Oil or Gas (for heat, cooking, etc.)
1c Water & Sewer
1d Cable TV/DSS: Basic level of cable or DSS at the
established cost according to the Office of Management &
Budget (OMB) worksheet. May also include internet costs.
1e Trash Disposal
1f Other
Buildings & Grounds Maintenance
2a Building Maintenance (routine HVAC, plumbing,
generator repairs, painting, cleaning supplies, paper
products, oil trap service, water and septic system
maintenance, etc.)
2c Building Supplies (cleaning supplies, paper products,
light bulbs, etc.)
2d Linen Service (only provided for stations with duty
crews)
Communications
3a Telephone (land-based) including land-line costs. May
also include internet costs.
3b Mobile Telephone (expense for each front-line
apparatus & two chief officers at the established cost
according to the OMB worksheet.
3c Alphanumeric Pagers (expense for each front-line
apparatus and two chief officers) at the established cost
according to the OMB worksheet.
Front line apparatus includes engines, tankers, brush
trucks, and a first due EMS response vehicle. Although
not further defined by the committee, the volunteer
funding policy implies that ambulances, squads/special
rescue, and first due EMS response vehicles are included
for rescue squads.
3d Radio and Pager Repairs & Replacement (Includes
County 800 MHz system as well as mobile and portable
radios on other systems necessary to support mutual aid
operations )
3g Other
Operations (Fire Suppression & EMS)
4a General Supplies (stay-dry, fire-line tape, supplies for
the Haz Mat unit @ St-4 & the Haz Mat trailer @ St-7,
etc.)
4b Small Tools (generally, tools and equipment less than
$500)
4c Maintenance (maintenance and service of portable
pumps, equipment, extrication equipment, hydraulic
pumps, cascade systems, etc.)
4d Meals for Duty Crews (allowance for duty crew meals
only provided for stations with duty crews at the
established cost according to the OMB worksheet.)
One meal per 8 hour shift is to be used as a budget
figure. Although most evening crews are 12 hours, it
usually includes only one meal. Requested departures
from this will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Include specific request information in
Explanation/Justification column on budget spreadsheet.
4f Other
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Page 6 of 6
Emergency Medical & Rescue Services
5a General Supplies (generally, cost of disposable
supplies)
5b Small Equipment (generally, tools and equipment less
than $500)
5c Maintenance (maintenance and service of
defibrillators, etc.)
5d Other
Vehicle Expenses
6a Fuel (includes gas & diesel)
6b Preventative Maintenance (includes funds that were
reimbursed by the County.)
6c Repairs (Stations shall deduct insurance
reimbursements from repairs to vehicles before declaring
repair costs.)
6d Other
Administrative Expenses
7a Office Supplies
7b Postage
7c Printing
7d Dues
7e Professional Services (accounting, etc.) Audit services
only.
7f Licenses
7g Other
Training
8a Training (includes tuition, books, instructor expenses,
etc.) at the established cost according to the OMB
worksheet.
8b Subscriptions
8c Travel (includes lodging, meals, and mileage costs
associated with out-of-town training) at the established
cost according to the OMB worksheet.
8d Other
Uniforms
9a Uniforms (includes the cost for any station-provided
duty uniforms and dress uniforms) for two chief officers at
the established cost according to the OMB worksheet.
Loans Building
Apparatus
Reference:
• ACFRAB Annual Budget Timeline, Deadline, & Expectations
• OMB Volunteer Operating Costs Worksheet
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Hillsdale Drive Extension Project
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of design features for the extension of Hillsdale
Drive, from just north of Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road
in the City.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and
Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This project, which would extend the existing Hillsdale Drive in the County to Hydraulic Road in the City, has been
identified as a high priority transportation project by the County, the City and the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO). The project is located mostly in the City; however, the portion of the project from north of the Pepsi plant and the
post office to just north of the Hillsdale Drive intersection with Greenbrier Drive is located in the County. The project is
being managed by the City in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and will be funded with VDOT
Urban System funds; no Secondary Six Year Road Construction Program funds (VDOT funding for County roads) are
anticipated to be used on the project.
DISCUSSION:
A public hearing was held on the design of the Hillsdale Drive extended project on November 16 , 2010. Based on the
input from this public hearing, other earlier public input processes, and input from the project Advisory Committee, a
project design has been recommended for approval as outlined in the attached report prepared for City Council to
consider at its February 22, 2011 meeting (Attachment I). Please note that only the parts of the report to City Council
that are relevant to the project in the County have been provided as attachments to this Executive Summary. For the
section of the project located in the County, the major features of the proposed design include:
The relocation of a short length of Hillsdale Drive north of Greenbrier Drive to create a new four-way intersection
at the current location of the Greenbrier Drive/Pepsi Place intersection. This necessitates the relocation of the
existing storm water retention pond in this area (Attachment A, Board #1).
Please note that Attachment I describes this segment of Hillsdale Drive as having a roadway cross-section
consisting of one travel lane in each direction , dedicated turn lanes, on-road bike lanes, and 5-foot wide sidewalks
on both sides of the road. This is a modification to what is shown on the “Design Public Hearing Display”
(Attachment A, Board #1) for this section of road. The attached display depicts an earlier proposal for a 10-foot
wide multi-use path to accommodate bikes (and no on-road bike lanes).
The remaining section of the project in the County, from Greenbrier Drive to the City corporate limits will have a
roadway cross-section consisting of two through lanes, tur n lanes, on-street parking, a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the
west side of the road, a 10-foot wide multi-use path on the east side of the road to accommodate both bikes and
pedestrians, and “sharrow” bike markings on the road in lieu of on-road bike lanes.
County staff supports the design features for the project as recommended by City staff and the project Advisory Committee
(and as described above). City Council is scheduled to review the proposed road design and to hold a public hearing on
February 22, 2011. Staff anticipates City Council will approve the proposed design features as recommended by City staff .
BUDGET IMPACT:
The project will be funded with VDOT Urban System funds; no Secondary Six Year Road Construction Program funds
(VDOT funding for County roads) are anticipated to be used on the project.
AGENDA TITLE: Hillsdale Drive Extension Project
March 2, 2011
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment II) approving the major design features
identified in Attachment I for the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project.
ATTACHMENTS
I – Charlottesville City Council Agenda Report
A – Design Public Hearing Displays (Alignment Board #1) ; Design Public Hearing Displays (Alignment Board # 2)
Design Public Hearing Displays (Alignment Board # 3); Landscape Opportunities
B – Design Public Hearing Summary, T ranscript & Comments
II – Resolution for Board of Supervisors approval
Return to consent
Return to regular
I:\DEPT\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2011 Folders\0302\HillsdaleDriveExtensionAttach1.doc Page 1 of 4
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Agenda Date: February 22, 2011
Action Required: Resolution
Staff Presenters: Jeanette Janiczek
Staff Contacts: Jeanette Janiczek, Angela Tucker, Jim Tolbert
Title: Hillsdale Drive Extension Project - Design Hearing Approval
Background: The Design Public Hearing for the Hillsdale Drive Extension project was held
on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at the Senior Center, Inc. near the project’s alignment . Secenty-
eight persons attended the hearing. Project plans, environmental documents, and other required
project materials were available for public review and discussion from 4:30 pm until 6:30pm at
the Public Hearing. (This material was also made available for public review a nd comment
beginning October 17, 2010 at three separate public locations.) The Public Hearing displays are
included as an attachment to this memorandum (Attachment A). Beginning at 6:30pm until
shortly after 6:43pm, public speakers shared comments that were captured by a court reporter.
Three citizens spoke during the hearing, five provided private testimony, and additional written
comments were received. All public comments received between October 17, 2010 and
November 30, 2010 have been summarized (Attachment B). A transcript of the hearing and a
copy of each written comment received are also included (Attachments C). All comments will be
addressed by the project team and provided to the public.
This process has been guided by a Steering Committee co mposed of:
Bill Baskerville Sperry Marine and Sperry Marine Credit Union
David Benish Albemarle County Planning & Community Development
David W. Bryce Branchlands Property Owners Association
Rich Butala McCormick Taylor
Rick DeLong McCormick Taylor, Project Manager
Tony Edwards City of Charlottesville
John Gregg Branchlands Property Owners Assoc. (former member)
James Hill Northfield Homeowners Association
Satyendra Huja Charlottesville City Council
Jeanette Janiczek City of Charlottesville
Jay Jessup Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Central Virginia
I:\DEPT\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2011 Folders\0302\HillsdaleDriveExtensionAttach1.doc Page 2 of 4
Karen Kilby Virginia Department of Transportation
Kevin Lynch Charlottesville City Council (former member)
Bob Metzger Brookmill Homeowners Association
Kristin Peura Giant Seminole Ltd. Partnership
Charles Rotgin Great Eastern Management Company
Rick Seaman Rivanna Trails Foundation/Greenbrier Homeowners
Association
David Slutsky Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (former member)
Eric Smith Charlottesville Transit Service
Rodney S.
Thomas Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Peter Thompson Senior Center
Angela Tucker City of Charlottesville
Discussion: There are four steps in project development that require state and/or federal
agency approval: 1) The locality approves the major design features of a project allowing
detailed (final) design to continue as we coordinate with individual impacted property owners
and stakeholders; 2) VDOT/FHWA authorize the right of way acquisition phase to begin; 3)
The locality certifies that all necessary right of way is in place and VDOT/FHWA authorize
advertisement for construction; and 4) The locality certifies a qualified bidder, and
VDOT/Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorize award of the construction
contract. We are now asking for approval of major design features (Step #1).
During the Location Study, the Steering Committee developed eight goals for the Hillsdale Drive
Extension project. These goals were reviewed and confirmed by City Council and the Board of
Supervisors. The eight goals became the leading principles for the design effort these last four
years.
1) The safety of those working and living in, using the services of and traveling
through the area of the utmost importance and design features incorporated into
the roadway must enhance and promote its functions as a local, low speed (posted
at 25 mph) road, which is user-friendly to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and
transit, as well as those using other modes of mobility.
2) A community workshop program is to be developed by the Steering Committee (a
15-member committee comprised of representatives from the Virginia
Department of Transportation, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
Government, the Rivanna Trails Foundation, and various Homeowner’s
Associations and businesses, formulated to guide and assist the Study Team
through the project review process and to represent the interest of those directly
and indirectly impacted by the outcome of the study) so the citizens of the area
have the opportunity to provide input about the project and to comment on design
features.
I:\DEPT\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2011 Folders\0302\HillsdaleDriveExtensionAttach1.doc Page 3 of 4
3) Any loss in the number of parking spaces presently existing in the vicinity of the
Senior Center, Jordan Building, Laurels, or Pepsi Plant, or on the street at Pepsi
Place must be replaced in any build alternative.
4) Sidewalks and bike multi-use trails are to be provided throughout the project and
should connect with and include safety features similar to those being
implemented on Hillside Drive north of its intersection with Greenbrier Drive.
5) The possibility of separated bike paths/multi-use trails and/or alternative-vehicle
paths should be investigated, particularly in the area east of the Senior Center, the
Jordan Building and the Pepsi Plant.
6) Traffic calming and traffic control features sho uld be incorporated into the design
to promote safe, low speed facility and encourage its use as a local road and not as
a bypass for Route 29.
7) Design features such as landscape/streetscape, lighting etc., that will promote the
Route 29/H/250 Phase 2 Report vision for the area should be utilized where
feasible.
8) Every effort should be made to protect the viewshed, watershed and natural
features of the impacted area (including the Rivanna Trail) as part of the design
and construction of any build alternative.
The major design features include one travel lane in each direction with dedicated left turn lanes,
sidewalk on the west side and a shared use path on the east side. Two signalized intersections
with protected crosswalks will be constructed at Greenbrier and Seminole Court along with a
new roundabout at Zan Road. These plans have been discussed and reviewed with adjacent
landowners to mitigate possible impacts such as restructuring/replacing parking, landscaping or
access. One Citizen Information Meeting, One Business Information Meeting, Two Newsletters
and the website were used to solicit comment and answer questions during the design process
along with Seven Steering Committee Meetings.
As a result of a collaborative design process, public c omment received at the hearing was largely
positive. Two issues/themes – the operation/safety of Michie Drive & Hydraulic Drive and the
need for on-road bicycle lanes – emerged that were highlighted and reviewed by the project
team. The Michie Drive & Hydraulic Drive intersection is being reviewed and studied by the
City’s Traffic Engineer to provide for more flexibility and a faster response than a long term
transportation project such as Hillsdale Drive Extension could deliver. An On Road Bicycle
Lanes vs. Shared Use Path Comparison Matrix (Attachment D) was created to analyze the
Steering Committee’s original intent of selecting a shared use path for bicycle mobility by listing
the advantage of each facility regarding Safety, Mobility and Costs & Impac ts. The Steering
Committee believes it is meeting the City’s Complete Street Standard with the Shared Use Path
and a 25 mph design speed that would allow for on road bike usage within the travel lane. In
response to bicyclists’ comments, sharrows would be added to the plans to highlight the
possibility of bicyclists being present while encouraging them to better position themselves in
the travel lane. The Shared Use Path would also be removed along the SWM pond at the north
end and replaced with on-road bike lanes to better transition bicyclists at Greenbrier.
Budgetary Impact: Preliminary engineering, final design and right of way funding has
already been appropriated.
I:\DEPT\BOS\BOSLocal\agenda\2011 Folders\0302\HillsdaleDriveExtensionAttach1.doc Page 4 of 4
Recommendations: Approval of the major design features as outlined in the Design Hearing
Resolution (Attachment E).
Alternatives: Removal of project from the 6-Year Program and Long Range Transportation
Plan.
Attachments: (A) Design Public Hearing Displays
(B) Design Public Hearing Summary, Transcript & Comments
(C) On Road Bicycle Lanes vs. Shared Use Path Comparison Matrix
(D) Design Resolution Approving Major Design Features
Return to executive summary
LANDSCAPE OPPORTUNITIES
#SEPTEMBER 2010
30
M
i
n
.
w
a
l
k
10
M
i
n
.
w
a
l
k
5 M
i
n
.
w
a
l
k
5’ CONCRETE SidEwalk
8’-10’ SHaREd-USE PaTH
ZaN ROad ROUNdaBOUT
• roundabout with plantings
• tempered traffic flow
ON-STREET PaRkiNG
Context Map
SEMiNOlE CT. & HillSdalE
• N. Wing building will be bisected as a result of new road alignment
• new and current owners will have the opportunity to redevelop
highly-visible storefronts along the new roadway
• pavement treatment will be used to highlight area as a heavily-
trafficked pedestrian zone
GREENBRiER dR. & HillSdalE
December 13, 2010
Hillsdale Drive Extension
From Greenbrier Drive to Hydraulic Road
City of Charlottesville
VDOT Project Number - U000-104-119, PE-101, RW-201, C-501
UPC - 60233
Federal Project Number - STP-5104 (151)
A Design Public Hearing for the above described project was held on November 16, 2010
at the Senior Center, Inc., 1180 Pepsi Place, Charlottesville Virginia. The Informal Plan
Review began at 4:30 PM and the Public Hearing began at 6:30 PM. This hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on October 17, 2010 (Notice and advertisement are
attached). The hearing was advertised a second time on November 8, 2010. Signs were
posted on the termini of the project announcing the Public Hearing and message signs
were placed on Route 29 to notify the public of the meeting.
Seventy eight (78) individuals registered on the sign-in sheets. During the Informal Plan
Review portion of the hearing 5 oral comments were taken by the stenographer. During
the formal Public Hearing 3 oral comments were received. With no additional speakers
either registered to speak or coming forward when asked, the Hearing concluded at 6:43
PM.
There were 14 written Comment Sheets submitted at the Hearing. During the 14 day
comment period (November 30, 2010) following the Hearing an additional 24 comments
were received both by email through the project website and through email to the City.
A summary of the comments is attached as well copies of all of the comments received.
Question 1 Safety Access Ped/Bike Local Road DesignYES 13 14 13 13 15NO 4344Question 2Name ConcernsBalister LitterNeed for Public transportationFisher, White The relocation of the light on Hydraulic to Hillsdale has caused a problem with trafficwanting to make a left hand turn out of Michie Drive. Need traffic regulation at this intersection. Roy, Bryce, LindsayDrop speed to 25mph on existing Hillsdale Dr, Keep Speed Down, need control, speed humpsShould not depend on Senior citizens to maintain/clean holding pondHow will adjacent residents be kept apprised and considered during construction?How will construction affect CAT Bus Route 7 stops on Hillsdale and Greenbrier?Bryce Interested in the Landscaping Plan around the relocated holding pondLindsay More trees and berm near Branchlands to limit road noise. Where is the money and when will there be construction?Scully, Howell Concern for increasing noise levels, wants more lansdcaping and buffer for sound control. Landscaping should be a priority.Titus What a lot of work. Looks great!Schwartz Too much traffic through residential areas, old age homes and complex at Rio Road. Concernedtraffic will increase on Northfield Rd & Carrsbrook Drive ‐ consider speed control on those roads.McGowan Build it sooner! Looks perfect ‐ roundabout particularly fine.Senior Center Design for local traffic. Concerns on neighborhood safety ( speeding & inadequate ped facilities) and elimination of parking spaces,Southern Environmental Law CenterStrongly supports project creating vital link & solution to safety concerns. Supports 25 mph speed limit, on street parking, and landscaping. Need to consider public comments on bike lanes. Wants to incorporate more low impact development stormwater management facilities into the design features. Need transit stops. Other suggestions see letter.RookerSupports project, Disappointed in funding circumstances, would like to see it accelerated.Hamdani, Dill Supports projectMederios Is there funding and when will it be constructed?
Bike Path CommentsChandross Keep bikers safeFeedbackShould be a bike lane on each side of road separated froom pedestrians. Multi‐use trail is not the solution.Paisley One multi‐use path doesn’t serve both sides of corridor. Supports on road bike lanes.Shirley Shared use Path a terrible idea if it costs project bike lanes. Bikes and peds travel at different speed. Need safe access.Goal should be to intergrate bicycle and car traffic rather than separate it as it will be 25 mph. Existing bike lanes on Hillsdale work very well. Sharrows would work better than a path.Stevenson Current plan less than the sum of its parts. Incorporate separate, dedicated bike path to encourage biking.Farrell Design increases conflict points; Single multi‐use trail is inadequate; Incorporate aseparate, dedicated bike path to the project. Accommodate all transport forms on both sides of the street; Use sharrows. Bach Essential that bike lanes be provided on both sides of the street. Shared use path creates conflictbetween bakes & peds.Sorenson Intergrate pedestrian and bicycle transportation options both on and off road.Ohlms On road bike lanes. Ideally bike lanes, sidewalk and multiuse path. Too many conflict points with path. Narrow lanes. Need buffer strip with sidewalk. One way Hillsdale for southbound traffic. See email dated Nov 24th.Elliott Large improvement over current conditions but new conflict points created. Creating a prime shortcut. Ackward flows of travel and lack transition connections. See email dated November 20th.Geisert Hillsdale Drive should have on street bike lanes on both sides the whole distance. Multi‐use path as an extra like Meadowcreek Parkway. Stornetta On road bike lanes provide better access to both sides of street for entire length of road.Both seperated path and on road bike lanes should be provided. On road bike lanes for commuters.Farruggio Supports 5' bike lane, 5' planting strip, and 5' sidewalk. Multiuse trail not good in an urban setting.Burnsed Meadowcreek Parkway model should be pursued.Higgins Supports on road bike paths. Mimic Meadowcreek Parkway.Dicharry Need to plan and provide bike access.Lafferty One multimodal path is inadequate, providing connection only by automobileQuestion 3 Infor. met needsYES 9NO 235 comments including both comment sheets and oral comments at Hearing19 comments related to shared‐use and onroad bike lane
From: Janiczek, Jeanette
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:38 PM
To: 'jshirley@alumni.wfu.edu'
Cc: 'RAButala@mtmail.biz'
Subject: RE: Hillsdale Drive extended comments
Afternoon Mr. Shirley - Please feel free to email or mail any additional
comments to me before the comment period ends November 30th so that they
may be included in the public record. The comment form was provided to
help solicit feedback from citizens, but letters/emails/exhibits can
also be used to issue comments. I will include this comment form in the
public record and add any additional materials received from you as
well.
We will be compiling all the comments into a report for City Council's
and the Board of Supervisors' review and will be addressing comments at
that time. This report will be available online at
www.hillsdaledrive.org and will be discussed at upcoming City Council
and Board of Supervisors meetings.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Janiczek
UCI Program Manager
Neighborhood Development Services
City of Charlottesville
Phone 434-970-3309
Fax 434-970-3359
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Shirley [mailto:mnemia@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:00 PM
To: RAButala@mtmail.biz
Cc: Janiczek, Jeanette
Subject: Hillsdale Drive extended comments
Hi,
I've attached my comments using the given form. I could not attend the
meeting but live nearby and regularly bicycle in this area. I have
many more comments I could make about what I view as the incredibly
flawed shared use path concept as outlined in the current plans, but
the PDF form does not provide adequate space. If you have any
questions, feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Jeff Shirley
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN
OF THE HILLSDALE DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT
WHEREAS, a Design Public Hearing was conducted on November 16, 2010 in the County of
Albemarle at the Senior Center located at 1180 Pepsi Place, near Hillsdale Drive’s alignment, by
representatives of the City of Charlottesville after due and proper notice for the purpose of considering the
proposed design of the Hillsdale Drive Extension Project, under State project number U000-104-119, PE-
101, RW-201, C-501 and Federal project number STP-5104 (151), in the City of Charlottesville and County
of Albemarle, at which hearing renderings, plan sets, environmental documentation and other pertinent
information were made available for public inspection in accordance with state and federal r equirements; and
WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded full opportunity to participate in
said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council had previously requested the Virginia Department of Transportation
to program this project; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County were present and
participated in said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) adopted regional long range
transportation plan and the Alb emarle County’s Comprehensive Plan identify this project as an important
transportation network improvement to address transportation demands; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has identified this project as a high
priority project which, along with other priority transportation network improvements, will address local and
regional traffic demands; and
WHEREAS, members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and County staff were
members of the project Advisory Committee and participated in the public input and design development
processes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby approves the major design features of the proposed project as presented at the Public Hearing with the
following two adjustments based on public comment: 1) adding sharrows to the plans to highlight the
presence of bicyclists while encouraging them to better position themselves in the travel lane, and 2)
removing the shared use path along the storm water management pond at the northern end of the termini and
replacing it with on-road bike lanes to better transition bicyclists at the Greenbrier intersection.
Return to executive summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Towncenter Drive Road Name Change
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of road name change of Towncenter Drive to
Towncenter Boulevard
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Cilimberg, Weaver, and Slack
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manuel, road name
change requests shall be forwarded to the Board for approval upon validation of the following:
“That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by th e road have signed a
petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent
with the road name guidelines set forth in the Manual (i.e., that it is not a duplicate name, is limited to
three words, and does not exceed sixteen characters and/or spaces).”
DISCUSSION:
A majority of the landowners of the properties served by Towncenter Drive submitted a request to change the road
name of Towncenter Drive to Towncenter Boulevard (Attachment A). Staff has reviewed the ro ad type designators and
the portion of Towncenter Drive at the intersection of Seminole Trail (Rt 29) and has determined that it is consistent with
the description of “boulevard” as referenced in the Manual’s guidelines . A map showing the location of the road is
attached (Attachment B).
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowners will be responsible for the costs associated with new
signage.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Townc enter Drive to Towncenter Boulevard and
authorize staff to implement the change.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Towncenter Drive to Towncenter Boulevard Letter
B – Towncenter Drive Map
Return to consent
Return to regular
TOWNCENTER DRDICKERSON RDMEETING STCONNOR DRDEERWOOD DRLOCKWOOD DRWO
R
T
H
X
I
N
G
TIMBERWOOD BLVD
SEMINOLE TRLPrepared by Albemarle C oun tyOffice of Ge ograph ic Data Serv ice s(GDS). Map creat ed Janu ary 2011By A ndy S lack GIS S pecialist IINote: The map eleme nts de picte d are graph ic re present ations an d are not to be con st rued or use d as a le gal description. Parce ls sh own re flect plats and dee ds recorde d through De cembe r 30, 20 09.
Road Name ChangeTowncenter Drive 4Roads05501,100 1,650 2,200275Feet
New Road Name Towncenter Boulevard
Charlottesville
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC NEED FOR A
NURSING HOME FACILITY IN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, V IRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Virginia Commissioner of Health (the “Commissioner”) has issued a
Request for Applications for a Certificate of Public Need (“COPN”) for 60 nursing home beds in
Planning District Ten, which is comprised of the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa and Nelson and the City of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the facility can be located in any jurisdiction in Planning District Ten based
on the Commissioner’s award of application; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Employment Commission forecasts that the senior population
(aged 70 and over) in Albemarle County will grow by 33% between 2010 and 2020; and
WHEREAS, the last new nursing home built in Albemarle County was in 2004, and the
senior population in Albemarle continues to be the County’s fastest-growing population
segment; and
WHEREAS, in 2009, the average occupancy in Albemarle County/City of Charlottesville
nursing homes was 92%, demonstrating a need for additional capacity in the community; and
WHEREAS, increasing the number of nursing home beds in Albemarle County would
provide more options for seniors and their famil ies to consider as their health care needs
change, and would improve the delivery of services to County residents; and
WHEREAS, a nursing home facility that is a for-profit enterprise would contribute to the
local tax base that supports County services; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that a new nursing home facility would provide full-time and
part-time job opportunities to Albemarle County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County does hereby endorse and support the issuance of a Certificate of Public Need for a
nursing home facility in Albemarle County to meet the needs and interests of the County’s
senior population and directs the County Executive to send a certified copy of th is Resolution to
the Commissioner.
Return to consent
Return to regular
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Target Industry Study
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Overview of Proposed Approach for County’s Target
Industry Study
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Catlin, Graham, Cilimberg,
and Ms. Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Economic Vitality Action Plan, adopted in August, 2010, identifies the need for a target industry study as part of
Objective 3 which is focused on working with our strategic partners to provide a diverse array of quality career ladder
employment opportunities for our resident workforce. One of the strategies under that objective is described as follows:
Promote Targeted Business and Investment: Create an environment that supports companies and entrepreneurs
that achieve Albemarle County’s business development objectives:
Action: Determine target enterprises; work with a broad-based task force to determine the region’s target
enterprise sectors. These enterprise targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing
business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development efforts.
This item will describe a target industry study and propose an approach for such a study for Albemarle County.
DISCUSSION:
It is important that the target industry study, like all components of the Economic Vitality Action Plan, work within the
framework of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Any discussion of a target industry study should start with the
economic development goal established in this document. The Economic Development Policy chapter of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan (updated March, 2009) states a clear goal for the County’s economic vitality efforts that
will guide the outcomes of the study:
Maintain a strong and sustainable economy: 1) benefiting County citizens and existing businesses and providing
diversified economic opportunities; 2) supportive of the County’s Growth Management Policy and consistent with the
other Comprehensive Plan goals; and, 3) taking into consideration the greater Charlottesville Metropolitan region.
What is a Target Industry Study?
Target industry analysis identifies industries (or types of industries) that have the strongest potential to succeed in a
specific economic region or that offer the best prospects for "good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life
(security, higher wages, training, flexibility, etc). "Good jobs" will be defined by entry level and the individual need of
the worker as well as the need and impact on the community. A target industry study can be the basis for strategic
economic development and will help Albemarle County to assess and leverage its unique assets to provide economic
vitality and diversification and to develop a place-specific strategy that supports the County’s long term quality of life
goal. A study matches locality economic characteristics, resources and advantages with general location and work
force requirements for desired industry segments based on a community’s preferences.
Completion of a target industry study will aid the efficiency and effectiveness of the County’s economic development
efforts by steering its limited energy and resources toward those enterprises that have been identified as most likely to
succeed based on the County’s capabilities, the external environment and compatibility with the County’s character,
goals, objectives and preferences. It is important to stress that a target industry study has great value in business
retention and in helping to support existing County enterprises.
Benefits/Outcomes of a Target Industry Study
A target industry study can help the County accomplish the following:
diversify the economic base
expand quality job opportunities and match them to its existing labor force
build upon the assets and existing strengths of the County
support “economic gardening”, cultivating the success of home grown businesses
bring new capital investment into the County
nurture “compatible” enterprises
attract, retain and develop human capital that is innovative and entrepreneurial
AGENDA TITLE: Target Industry Study
March 2, 2011
Page 2
The following outcomes can be expected:
The results, or outcomes, will include a list of industries and industry sizes that are best suited to the local
economic climate, and that are consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals regarding resource and
environment protection.
The results will include a matrix of the strongest candidates that will most likely benefit from local support (work
force training, availability of zoned land, etc.,) and a rough idea of what building sizes and land requirements will
be needed over time to maintain local economic vitality for the community’s commercial base.
The study findings will identify the County’s assets or “magnets” that help key industry flourish in these economic
times.
The target industry study should be viewed primarily as a guide to be used in combination with other available
information. Industry trends and innovations will clearly drive corporate expansions well after the completion of the
study. It’s important to recognize that the target industry study is only a guide for identifying which industries best
meet the County’s objectives and fit its existing assets while at the same time providing commercial tax revenues and
career ladder jobs.
Key Components of a Target Industry Study
The following components are important elements of a target industry study. Opportunities for public input and
stakeholder involvement are included.
Conduct a community strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) assessment - Develop a
community economic profile with background data based on a combination of research and public input. This would
involve local leaders, stakeholders, focus groups, economic allies from outside the County, and others as
appropriate. (lead - in-house with local partners)
Identify key competitive assets – Work from the SWOT results to identify the community’s key assets, for
example, labor force availability and skill levels, access to markets, natural resources, quality of life, education,
etc.(lead –TJPED to assist with labor force analysis)
Analyze existing economic base - Analyze existing business clusters/businesses that are currently thriving to
develop a profile of the County’s existing economic base. A cluster analysis is used to identify groups of industries
whose synergies are likely to nurture further expansion with the goal of identifying high potential current and
emerging clusters. (lead – consultant)
Develop recommended targets – Identify industry groups that are a good match based on criteria developed by
the County in consultation with community stakeholders to create a mix that will: 1) enhance and add to the diversity
of the current business population; 2) increase essential tax base; 3) pursue highest quality of jobs and
investments; and 4) provide overall balanced approach to economic vitality within guidance of County policies. (lead
–consultant)
Peer community review – Research localities that are similar in economics and demographics or are regular
competitors to understand how the County can be most successful in nurturing desired enterprise clusters.(lead –in-
house)
Develop recommendations – Determine what actions will best support the County’s Economic Development Goal
and the Economic Vitality Action Plan based on the results of the target industry study. (lead –in-house)
Next Steps
The next steps in moving forward with the target industry study are for staff to prepare an RFP for a consultant and to
work with TJPED and other local partners to begin the SWOT process. Staff is aware of the need to coordinate this
study with the Comprehensive Plan update, and the Director of Community Development will be sharing this
sequencing with the Board at a future meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff estimates that the consultant portion of a target industry study would cost approximately $25,000, depending on
the level of support that can be provided by the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. Staff is
working with the TJPED to see if the labor analysis portion of the study can be done regionally with costs shared
between participating jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to initiate a target industry study based on the proposed approach.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the County Fire Rescue Initiative for
Volunteer Fire Rescue Recruitment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Kim, Downs, and Ms. Gerome
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2008, the County secured a federal grant in the amount of $392,000 to develop a marketing and advertising
program to promote the recruitment and retention of volunteer fire and rescue personnel serving the County.
Funding for this initiative was provided through the Department of Homeland Security’s, Staffing for Adequate Fire
and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program and is available for use by the County through June 2012.
Responsibility for the coordination of this initiative was initially vested in the Volunteer and Fire Captain’s position in
the Albemarle County Department of Fire/Rescue (ACFR). In early 2010, the County’s Human Resources (HR)
Department assumed oversight of the program subsequent to the Volunteer and Fire Captain leaving county
employment and this position being frozen. Transfer of program responsibilities to HR was completed subsequent to
receiving the approval of both ACFR and the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB). At that point
in time, approximately $5,000 had been spent on two radio advertising campaigns and there were no plans in place to
utilize the remaining $387,000 grant fund balance.
At the request of the Board, this executive summary provides a detailed overview of how this grant program is being
administered and its success measured.
DISCUSSION:
HR initially undertook a comprehensive assessment of all stations in order to understand and become knowledgeable
about their specific community-based staffing needs and recruitment challenges. To aid in this process, the Department
of Homeland Security and the ACFRAB agreed to amend the grant to allow for the funding of a part-time employee to
assist HR in grant management and program development. Based upon the feedback obtained from ACFRAB and
individual volunteer stations, an advertising and marketing program was created to enhance awareness of the mission
of volunteer stations and need for personnel to join and serve in this essential public safety function.
In addition to the comprehensive assessment described above, the following tasks have been achieved to date:
A compilation and summary of all information obtained in the station assessment was presented to the
ACFRAB. This presentation provided information that assisted HR and the contracted advertising agency in
creating slogans, themes and advertising concepts that would best meet the identified goals and needs.
HR and the ACFRAB agreed that the advertising agency should develop advertisements with HR input and
approval of the station recruitment and retention officers.
“JOIN” was chosen as the campaign slogan, with the purpose of advertising to community members that
otherwise would not have the opportunity to learn about the need for volunteers in the County’s Fire and
Rescue system. To provide uniform information to potential volunteers at one location, a single website was
created that includes information about the different volunteer stations, such as their geographical location,
duty requirements, training requirements and call volume. This allows the potential volunteer to determine the
“best fit” to com plement his/her lifestyle. HR acknowledges that the individual stations desire to maintain their
autonomy and the purpose of the website is to be the conduit from the advertisement to the individual station.
Recognizing the desire of the stations to maintain their own application processes, the decision was made by
AGENDA TITLE: Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant
March 3, 2011
Page 2
the ACFRAB to not centralize the applications and to rely on station recruitment and retention officers to
monitor the recruitment and application process.
The www.joinalbemarle.org website and all print, radio and television advertising were launched as scheduled
on November 24, 2010.
The measurement tool used is a monthly report, in spreadsheet form, from the stations that includes the
number of inquiries, applications, and registrations for an Emergency Medical Technician class and/or a fire
academy. The first assessment of data was to take place on January 1, 2011. As of January 25th, seven of
the twelve stations had reported. According to the ACFR’s application process, 17 applications have been
submitted. However, not all stations utilize this application software.
As of January 25th, the campaign website (joinalbemarle.org) has had the following activity:
o 1,266 visits, 1,079 visitors
o Average time spent on website is 1:57 (average is 2 minutes according to Google)
o Average page views per visit is 3.26
BUDGET IMPACT:
The initial grant award was $392,000, to be provided to the County in four annual installments over a four-year period,
ending July 2012. Currently the County has utilized $200,661.15, leaving a balance of $191,338.85 to be used
through July 2012. A majority of those funds, $180,705.05, were used to fund the production, design and labor costs
for advertisements and website development. No additional funds are required from the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is for inform ation purposes only. No action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on VIP project progress
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Eggleston, Oprandy, and
Lambert; and Ms. Kim
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
During the FY09 budget process, the Board appropriated $157,000 to fund the first phase of a Volunteer Incentive
Program (VIP). The VIP funding was requested to help ensure the success and sustainability of the County’s current
volunteer-based fire and emergency medical services (EMS) delivery system through a multi-layered incentive
program, including the Officer Development Program (ODP). Once designed and implemented, the Albemarle County
Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) has committed to supporting the ODP by setting a participation goal. During
its September 2009 meeting, the ACFRAB adopted a goal of having 75% of Fire/EMS system officers obtain the
training during its initial delivery.
DISCUSSION:
At the March 2009 Board meeting, the Board allocated funds to implement a training phase of the VIP. This phase
was to consist of soft and hard skill development of supervisory personnel and to increase the baseline offerings of
opportunities to become certified as an Emergency Medical Technician.
Once the funds were appropriated, a steering committee was formed with representation from both Fire Rescue staff
and the County’s volunteer personnel. From this committee, a request for proposals was created and approved
through the ACFRAB approval process and was placed out for bid with proposals due by January 1st, 2010.
Two companies responded to the RFP, and the steering committee evaluated both companies for compliance with the
RFP. One proposal fully met the scope of the RFP, and the steering committee requested that the contract be
awarded based on unique qualifications. Working within procurement regulations, a decision was made to notify both
companies of the intent to award based on the unique qualifications of the winning proposal. Delays occurred during
this phase because of the complex scheduling requirements of the steering committee and the vendors; the
procurement regulations associated with seeking a “uniquely qualified” designation; and the timetables for ACFRAB
input and guidance.
The contract was awarded to Emergency Services Consulting Incorporated in October, 2010. Full implementation of
the contract is projected for completion within an 18 month timeframe, with the first phase implementation beginning in
the first quarter of 2011. A project kick-off meeting was held in December 2010 to obtain input as to the details of how
to conduct the needs assessment.
Currently, the needs assessment is underway, with a series of town-hall meetings being conducted in mid-February.
Emergency Services Consulting is now soliciting input to identify the specific needs of development of volunteers, and
will analyze the feedback received in preparation for the development phase of the project. The development is
expected to last between 3 and 6 months, with a projected date for initial delivery in the third quarter of 2011.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates that the funds currently appropriated will cover the expected costs associated with the project
and that there will be no additional budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This summary is provided for information only. No action is required.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2011 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $3,810,593.94 and approval
of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2011065,
#2011066, #2011067 #2011068, and #2011069 for various
school and local government programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis; and Ms. Allshouse, L.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2011 appropriations, itemized below, is $3,810,593.94. Because the cumulative
amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing
is required.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2011 Budget Amendment totals $3,810,593.94. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 229,879.29
Special Revenue Funds $ 1,077,559.63
School Fund $ 159,370.16
School Programs $ 186,234.65
Capital Improvements Funds $ 2,129,895.21
CCF Funds $ 27,655.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 3,810,593.94
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 1,157,241.10
State Revenue $ 752,500.00
Federal Revenue $ 443,637.12
Loan Proceeds $ 1,250,820.21
Proffer Revenue $ 3,521.97
Other Fund Balances $ 202,873.54
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,810,593.94
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-two (22) separate appropriations as follows, 17 of which have already
been approved by the Board as indicated below:
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
March 2, 2011
Page 2
Approved November 3, 2010:
One (1) appropriation (#2011048) totaling $119,977.52 for various school programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011050) totaling $972,111.66 for various school programs and projects ; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011051) transferring $150,000 from Parks and Recreation Athletic Field Development
to the AHS and WAHS Turf Field projects.
Approved December 1, 2010:
One (1) appropriation (#2011052) totaling $578.67 from donations for Fire Rescue’s Smoke Detector Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2011053) totaling $27,655.00 for an adjustment to the amount of rent charged in the
Commission on Children and Families (CCF) budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2011054) transferring $33,451.00 from Crozet Meadows Rehabilitation administration
fees to the Office of Housing to fund the housing counselor for the full year;
One (1) appropriation (#2011055) to taling $19,800.00 for various school programs; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011056) totaling $2,200.00 for contributions to the Sheriff Office’s programs.
Approved January 5, 2011:
One (1) appropriation (#2011057) totaling $174,463.96 to re -appropriate m iscellaneous public safety grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2011058) totaling $35,373.00 for the FY2010 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program;
and
One (1) appropriation (#2011059) totaling $83,337.86 for various school programs.
Approved January 12, 2011:
One (1) appropriation (#2011062) totaling $11,276.00 to provide a part -time officer working under supervision of
the Sheriff’s Office for Offender Aid and Restoration’s Drug Court program.
Approved February 2, 2011
One (1) appropriation (#2011049) to taling $60,577.00 for a Program Coordinator with the Foothills Child
Advocacy Center; these costs will be 100% reimbursed by Foothills;
One (1) appropriation (#2011060) totaling $5,000.00 for a contribution to the Sheriff’s department;
One (1) appropriation (#2011061) totaling $712,500.00 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding for the installation of a sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood;
One (1) appropriation (#2011063) totaling $175,730.29 in received proffers and CDBG funds f or affordable
housing programs; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011064) totaling $3,000 .00 from the Board’s contingency reserve to the Board of
Supervisors for legislative services provided by the Virginia Association of Counties during the 2011 General
Assem bly session. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
The five (5) new appropriations requested for Board approval on March 2 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011065) totaling $124,440.00 for a Homeland Security grant for the Police
Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2011066 ) totaling $1,250,820.21 for General Government CIP;
Two (2) appropriations (#2011067 and #2011069) totaling $29,452.77 for various school programs, and
One (1) appropriation (#2011068) totaling $5,300 fo r donations to the Fire Rescue Department.
Additional details for the five March 2, 2011 appropriation requests are provided in Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2011 Budget Amendment in the amou nt of
$3,810,593.94 and approval of Appropriations #2011065, #2011066, #2011067, #2011068 and #2011069 to provide
funds for various local government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – March 2, 2011 Appropriation Descriptions
Return to agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011065 $124,440.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 124,440.00
The Police Department, through the Department of Criminal Justice Services, has been awarded a $124,440
2010 State Homeland Security Program Grant. This grant will provide for the maintenance and/or replacement of
equipment purchased with previous Homeland Security grant funding to law enforcement, including the
replacement/upgrade of 11 mobile data computer set-ups; 12 replacement portable radios; resupplying Patrol
Officers with digital cameras; and 12 replacement filters for gas masks. There is no local match for this grant.
Appropriation #2011066 $1,250,820.21
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $1,250,820.21
This appropriation is the follow-up action to previously approved appropriation 2010-103 which temporarily
transferred funds from the General Government CIP fund balance to the School’s CIP Fund balance to maintain
positive balances in the funds until receipt of VPSA loan proceeds. Although Appropriation 2010-103 appropriated
$1,423,032 to the School’s CIP Fund balance, only $1,250.820.21, the amount actually needed, was transferred.
The VPSA loan proceeds have been received, and this request is to transfer the amount equivalent to the actual
transfer back to the General Government CIP to restore the original fund balance.
Appropriation #2011067 $19,802.77
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 19,802.77
An appropriation is requested for $17,300.00 in payments from Utopian Wireless. Utopian Wireless has agreed to
pay the Albemarle County Public Schools in monthly installments for the leases of its broadband channel capacity.
Two checks from Utopian Wireless totaling $17,300.00 were received for their November payment. Albemarle
County Public Schools is committed to maximizing student achievement and fostering collaboration amongst
professional learning communities and stakeholders. Funds receiv ed from Utopian Wireless will be used to acquire
specialized contracted services needed to migrate the current ACPS Intranet instance to a new, functionally
enhanced platform that will also serve as the foundation for future development. This foundation will serve as an
optimized environment that will allow for increased collaboration and communication. Future development will
involve deployment of a security gateway, single sign-on platform, collaboration environments, and social
networking and user profiles.
This request also appropriates the following donations:
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,847.77 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support
Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9”
program for the month of November at Henley Middle School.
Crozet Elementary School received donations totaling $655.00. These donations were made to honor Mrs. Patricia
Ann Byrom who was a Title I, Special Education elementary school teacher who taught and retired from Crozet
Elementary School. Memorial contributions were requested to be made to fund Title I programs at Crozet
Elementary School.
Appropriation #2011068 $5,300.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 5,300.00
The County has received a donation of $5,300.00 designated for the Fire Rescue Department. This appropriation will
fund additional car seats and booster seats for the Child Safety Seat Program ($2,500.00) and a replacement
icemaker for the Monticello Fire & Rescue station ($2,800.00).
Appropriation #2011069 $9,650.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 9,650.00
This request is for various School Division grant and donation appropriations as follows:
Burley Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $5,500.00 from the Community Endowment Fund
in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used to purchase a WeatherBug Weather
Station. This equipment will help students discover the intricacies of meteorology and the connection between
science and math. In addition WeatherBug Education has awarded a matching grant that will lower the purchasing
price of the equipment by $1,000.00.
Stony Point Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,600.00 from the Bama Works Fund
of the Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used to pay the
stipend for a professional songwriter. The goal of this project is to capture students’ interests and hook them into
Language Arts Literacy by using m usic and singing.
Stone Robinson Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Virginia
Organizing Project. These funds will be used towards the purchase of pedometers for students. The goal of this
project is to educate students on the importance of core muscles strength, exercise and burning calories. This will
be tracked through the use of pedometers.
Monticello High School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $750.00 from the ExxonMobile Educational
Alliance Program. These funds will be used to purchase digital cameras, video cameras and accessories for the
school’s new Media Production Lab. This equipment will allow students and teachers to learn the 21st century skills
of using technology to think critically and create information in a digital visual format to solve problems and
communicate in our global economy.
Henley Middle School has been awarded a Grow Veggies for QuickStart grant in the amount of $500.00 from
QuickStart Tennis of Central Virginia with the support of the Junior League of Charlottesville. These funds will be
used to transform the underused, interior courtyard into the Hornets’ N.E.S.T. (Nature, Environment, Studio and
Teaching) which will include a lean-to greenhouse, raised beds, pergola, bleacher seating, picnic tables,
commemorative benches, and art murals and will primarily serve kids who study art, science, health and physical
education.
Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Mrs. Donna P. Cognata. The donor has
requested that this contribution be used to help the Cale Chamber Singers buy new chorus risers at Cale
Elementary School.
Brownsville Elementary School has received donations totaling $200.00. Timothy and Gwendolyn Holtsclaw
donated $100.00. They made this contribution in memory of Jeanette and T. R. Fuller, grandparents of Amanda
Fuller. Amanda is a teacher at Brownsville Elementary. The donor requested that their contribution be used to
purchase instructional supplies needed at Brownsville Elem entary. The Whitney and Anne Stone Foundation
donated $100.00 and asked that its contribution go towards the Food Hub, which is a student snack program at
Brownsville Elementary School.
Return to executive summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Lease
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to consider leasing office space in
the McIntire County Office Building to the Lewis &
Clark Exploratory Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2005, the Board approved a lease with the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center, Inc. to temporarily lease office space
in the McIntire County Office Building (COB). This space was located on the first floor in the north wing and had been
recently vacated when the Police Department moved to COB-5th. The rent was set at a nominal amount to
temporarily accommodate this new entity. After the renovation of the north wing for the Community Development
Department, the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center moved into a 169 square foot office on the second floor of COB
McIntire near the lobby. The term of the temporary lease was from June 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 unless
extended or sooner terminated. This tenancy has continued without either party taking the necessary steps to extend
it. In a recent review of the use of County office space, it was determined that there was not a proper lease in place
for the tenant.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has worked with the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center to draft a new lease (Attachment A). The term of the
proposed lease shall be from January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012, when the Center expects to move into its new
facility currently under construction at Darden Towe Park. The rent and other terms of the agreement are proposed to
be consistent with other leases of COB space. The County Attorney’s office has reviewed and approved the
proposed lease.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to entering a lease for County-owned
real property.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval of the proposed lease would generate an additional $3,036.42 in annual revenue through June 30,
2012.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board approve the Lease and authorize the County Executive to
sign the Lease on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Proposed Lease
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CenturyLink Request for Easement Across Boulders Road
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider granting a cable easement to
CenturyLink within the Boulders Road public right-of-way,
owned by the County (TMP 03200-00-00-005C3)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Davis, Herrick, and Kelsey
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Central Telephone Company of Virginia, doing business as CenturyLink , requested last year that the County grant a 10-
foot wide easement directly across Boulders Road, a public right -of-way owned by the County (TMP 03200-00-00-
005C3). Boulders Road was dedicated to the County and is not yet in the secondary system of state highways. After
conducting a public hearing on December 1, 2011, the Board approved the request and authorized the County
Executive to sign the deed of easement subject to approval by the County Attorney of the final documents. During the
preparation of the easement plat, however, the surveyor discovered that the underground communication line and
easement was also actually within the public right-of-way between the point where the easement crossed Boulders
Road most of the way to the intersection with US-29 (see Attachment B).
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of any inter est in County-
owned real property. Because the easement as currently proposed now includes an easement for the communication
line running the length of the right-of-way, it differs significantly from what was originally requested and previously
approved. The proposed easement cannot be granted without an additional public hearing and approval by the Board.
The granting of this revised easement would not prevent Boulders Road from being accepted into the secondary
system.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after holding the required public hearing , the Board approve the proposed easement in its new
location, and authorize the County Executive to sign the deed of easement on behalf of the County after the deed has
been approved in substance and in form by the County Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Deed of Easement
B – Easement Plat
Return to agenda
Draft: 11/17/10
1
This document was prepared by:
Albemarle County Attorney
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-005C3 (Boulders Road right-of-way)
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, is made and entered into on this _______ day of
_________________________, 2010, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, hereinafter referred to
as the “County,” and CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, doing business as
CENTURYLINK, whose address is 100 Century Link Drive, Monroe, Louisiana, 71203, Grantee,
hereinafter referred to as “CenturyLink.”
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL
WARRANTY to CenturyLink, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, a permanent
easement and right-of-way (hereinafter, the “Easement”) to install, construct, operate, maintain,
expand, replace and remove underground cables and related facilities or structures as are reasonably
necessary for CenturyLink to exercise the rights granted to it herein, upon, over, through, under and
along the real property of the County known as Boulders Road and identified in the tax records of the
County as Tax Map and Parcel Number 00320-00-00-005C3, in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more
particularly described as follows:
A permanent easement in the public right-of-way known as Boulders Road in
Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on the plat of ________________, dated
_________________, entitled “Plat Showing New 10’ Underground Cable Easement to
be Conveyed to CenturyLink” (hereinafter referred to as the “Plat”).
Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith, for
the exact location and dimensions of the permanent easement hereby granted and the property over
which the Easement crosses.
Draft: 11/17/10
2
This Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. Location of Improvements. CenturyLink may install, construct, operate, maintain,
expand, replace and remove underground cables and related facilities or structures (hereinafter, the
“Improvements”) only within the Easement. The Improvements shall be underground.
2. Right to Enter; Ingress and Egress. CenturyLink shall have the right to enter upon the
Easement for the purposes of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, expanding, replacing and
removing the Improvements within the Easement. CenturyLink shall have the right of ingress and
egress thereto as reasonably necessary to install, construct, operate, maintain, expand, replace and
remove the Improvements.
3. Excavation and Restoration. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the
Easement, CenturyLink shall backfill the excavation in a timely, proper and workmanlike manner so as
to restore the surface conditions to the same condition as they were prior to excavation, including
restoration of all paved surfaces that were damaged or disturbed as part of the excavation.
4. Vegetation and Obstructions. CenturyLink may cut any trees, brush and shrubbery,
remove obstructions, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide for safe installation,
construction, operation, maintenance, expansion, replacement and removal of the Improvements.
CenturyLink shall not be responsible to the County or its successors and assigns, to replace or
reimburse the cost of replacing or repairing any County-owned trees, brush, shrubbery or obstructions
that are removed or otherwise damaged if such vegetation or obstructions prevent CenturyLink from
installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, expanding, replacing or removing the Improvements.
5. Ownership of Improvements. The Improvements shall be the property of CenturyLink.
6. Obligations of CenturyLink if and when Boulders Road is Proposed for Acceptance or
is Accepted into the State-Maintained System. If and when the segment of Boulders Road in which the
Easement lies is proposed for acceptance or is accepted into the state-maintained or other publicly-
maintained system of highways, CenturyLink shall comply with the following:
Draft: 11/17/10
3
a. Permits. CenturyLink shall obtain all permits required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (hereinafter, “VDOT”) or such other public entity that becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Boulders Road (hereinafter, “such other public entity”) to authorize
the Improvements to exist or remain within the Boulders Road right-of-way (hereinafter, the
“Permits”) and shall comply with all applicable requirements of VDOT or such other public entity.
b. Acts Required of CenturyLink to Assure Acceptance of Boulders Road into the
State-Maintained System. Until CenturyLink quitclaims its interest in the Easement to VDOT, such
other public entity, or the County as required in conjunction with the acceptance of Boulders Road into
the state-maintained or other publicly-maintained system, CenturyLink, at its sole expense, shall,
promptly alter, change, adjust, relocate or remove the Improvements from the Boulders Road right-of-
way if VDOT or such other public entity determines that such alteration, change, adjustment,
relocation or removal is required in order for VDOT or such other public entity to accept Boulders
Road into the secondary system. Neither VDOT, such other public entity, nor the County shall be
responsible or liable to CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any costs associated with such
alteration, change, adjustment, relocation or removal of the then-existing Improvements. In addition,
neither VDOT, such other public entity, nor the County shall be obligated to compensate or reimburse
CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or value associated with
either the Improvements or Boulders Road resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment,
relocation or removal.
c. Continuing Obligations of CenturyLink to the County. After VDOT or such
other public entity has issued the required Permits, CenturyLink shall be subject to the following
conditions, notwithstanding any quitclaim of its interests to VDOT or such other public entity, and
these conditions shall be continuing obligations of CenturyLink:
1. CenturyLink, to the extent authorized by law, shall at all times indemnify
and save harmless the County, its employees, agents, officers, assigns, and successors in interest from
Draft: 11/17/10
4
any claim whatsoever arising from CenturyLink’s exercise of rights or privileges stated herein.
2. In the event that the County or such other public entity becomes
responsible for the maintenance of Boulders Road and the County or such other public entity requires,
for its purposes, that CenturyLink alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements, across or under
Boulders Road, the cost to alter, change, adjust, or relocate the Improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of CenturyLink. Neither the County nor such other public entity shall be responsible or
liable to CenturyLink or its successors or assigns for any costs associated with altering, changing,
adjusting or relocating the then-existing Improvements as may be required herein. In addition, neither
the County nor such other public entity shall be obligated to compensate or reimburse CenturyLink or
its successors or assigns for any increased or decreased cost or value associated with either the
Improvements resulting from such alteration, change, adjustment or relocation. The requirements of
this paragraph 6(c)(2) shall not apply if VDOT, such other public entity, or the County is either
required by law to pay for such costs or is authorized and elects to pay for such costs.
The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on December 1, 2010, does hereby convey the interest in real
estate made by this deed.
By its acceptance and recordation of this Deed of Easement, CenturyLink acknowledges that it,
its successors and assigns, shall be bound by the terms herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Draft: 11/17/10
5
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _______________________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid City and State by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, on this _______ day of ____________________, 2010.
My commission expires: ___________________
Reg. No.:______________________
_________________________________________
Notary Public
GRANTEE: CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA,
doing business as CENTURYLINK
By: _______________________________________
Name:_____________________________________
Title:______________________________________
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF ____________________:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the
aforesaid Locality and State by __________________, ___________, on behalf of Century Telephone
Company of Virginia, doing business as CenturyLink, on this _______ day of ___________________,
2010.
My commission expires: ___________________
Reg. No.:______________________
_________________________________________
Notary Public
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
County Attorney
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Little Keswick School
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
WPO exception
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Graham, Brooks
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Little Keswick School, a boarding school for special needs children, has been in operation since 1963. An aerial
photo from the applicant’s website, www.littlekeswickschool.net, is attached (Attachment A). The Water Protection
Ordinance was amended in 2008 to require buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas. This created buffer
requirements on the stream and lake on the Little Keswick School property as shown on the attached County map in
Attachment B. This site has a previously planned expansion that extends into this buffer area. The Water Protection
Ordinance provides for exceptions to be granted by the Board in these circumstances.
DISCUSSION:
In this case, the existing school campus had plans for expansion prior to the ordinance making this a protected stream
buffer. The requirement of the stream buffer is preventing them from achieving their long term goals for the campus.
The planned expansion specifically includes a dorm building and adjustment of the riding ring. The applicant’s
request is attached as Exhibit C. The man-made pond, an amenity to the campus, has substantially expanded the
buffer area, as that buffer is measured from the edge of the pond. Rather than reducing the pond, which would be an
allowable alternative that would eliminate the stream buffer from the building area, staff supports this exception
request to extend the disturbance into the buffer area. The pond itself will act as a collection and settlement area for
sediment and many pollutants, and the added mitigation planting will offset any impervious area additions.
Section 17-308(C) of the Water Protection Ordinance allows exceptions to be granted by the Board provided that:
1. A stormwater management/BMP plan has been submitted to the program authority for review in accordance with
this article; the plan demonstrates that reasonable alternatives to the exception have been considered and
determined to not be feasible through attempts to meet the provisions of this article, the use of non-structural
measures as provided in section 17-313, the use of a mitigation plan as provided in section 17-322, or by other
means;
2. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief;
3. Reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed as necessary to ensure that the purposes of this article are
satisfied; and
4. The basis for the request is not economic hardship, which shall be deemed an insufficient reason to grant an
exception.
Staff has reviewed this matter and finds that all of these conditions have been satisfied. Namely, a plan has been
submitted and reviewed that meets the requirements of condition one (1) and that the exception requested is the
minimum necessary to afford relief. Staff is recommending to the Board that Little Keswick School be required to have
both its Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stream Buffer Management Plan approved by the County Engineer.
Staff believes that this recommendation is necessary in order to ensure that the purposes of the requirements are
satisfied. Finally, staff finds that the basis for the request is not an economic hardship.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Costs for the plan reviews and inspections are offset by the fees in the Water Protection Ordinance, meaning no
additional funding is necessary as a result of staff’s recommendation.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request to grant a stream buffer exception (Exhibit C), subject to County
Engineer approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Aerial Photo of campus
Attachment B: County Map showing buffers
Attachment C: Applicant’s request
Return to agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
Water Protection Ordinance Buffers
Y2009 .5-1 ft Orthophotography
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources February 18, 2011
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2011 Redistricting
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of Redistricting Guidelines
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Washburne,
Weaver
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 2, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the December 1, 2010 Board meeting, the Board adopted a redistricting schedule and directed staff to proceed
under the proposed preliminary redistricting guidelines.
On January 20, 2011, staff held a public meeting in order to provide information and obtain public input about the
redistricting process and its requirements (Attachment B), the redistricting schedule, and the proposed redistricting
guidelines. Seventeen (17) members of the public attended this informational meeting. Attachment C summarizes the
comments that were provided to staff.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed redistricting guidelines (Attachment A) assure that the County complies with State and Federal laws in
the redistricting process on the issues of establishing magisterial district and precinct boundaries and identifying
qualifying polling places. The redistricting guidelines adopted by the Board will be used to draft proposed new
election districts, precincts and polling places that may be required as a result of the 2010 census.
The guidelines are based primarily on the guidelines adopted by the Board for the 2001 redistricting process;
however, they have been updated to assure that they comply with current State and Federal laws. They also have
been reorganized since the preliminary guidelines were provided to the Board at the December 1, 2010 meeting.
A comment was received from the public at the January 20, 2011 meeting objecting to the County guideline that
discourages boundary changes that result in two incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors or the School
Board being assigned to the same district (Attachment A, Magisterial District Guideline No. 14). The individual making
this comment indicated that this guideline should be deleted because it protects incumbents and the County should
not engage in this practice. Preserving incumbency is one of several “traditional redistricting principles” recognized by
the United States Supreme Court and it serves to protect the voters from being removed from a representative that
they have elected and with whom they have a constituent relationship. Therefore, staff recommends that the guideline
not be deleted.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Redistricting is already incorporated into various offices’ and departments’ work plans. The adoption of the
redistricting guidelines will have no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed redistricting guidelines (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Redistricting Guidelines
B – Public Meeting Information
C – Summary of 1/20/11 public meeting comments
Return to agenda
1
Redistricting Guidelines
Purpose: These redistricting guidelines will guide staff and inform the public of the applicable
criteria to be considered for redistricting as staff prepares to develop the 2011
redistricting ordinance, which will amend Article I, Elections, of Chapter 2,
Administration, of the County Code.
Introduction: These guidelines are divided into three sections – those that pertain to establishing the
boundaries for the County’s magisterial districts, those that pertain to the criteria for
precincts and those that pertain to the criteria for polling places. Some of these
guidelines are requirements of State or Federal law. Other guidelines are based on local
considerations (e.g., maintain six magisterial districts) applied by the Board in prior
redistricting years.
Magisterial District Guidelines
Federal Law
1. Establish population equality among the magisterial districts as nearly as practicable, with a goal
of having a deviation in population not to exceed +/-5%, in order to assure representation in
proportion to the population of the district. (White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973) (allowing
some minor variation from population equality; also, United States Constitution, Article I, § 2,
Virginia Constitution, Article VII, § 5 and Virginia Code §§ 24.2-304.1(B))
2. Assure that any change in a magisterial district boundary does not have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority
group. (Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
3. Assure that no protected class identified in Guideline 1 2 loses voting strength under the new
redistricting plan. (Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
State Law and State-Level Redistricting Criteria
4. Maintain geographical compactness in each magisterial district. (Virginia Code § 24.2-304.1(B);
Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A); also, Virginia Constitution, Article VII, § 5)
5. Maintain geographical contiguity in each magisterial district. (Virginia Code § 24.2-304.1(B);
Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A); also, Virginia Constitution, Article VII, § 5)
6. Assure magisterial districts have clearly observable boundaries, which include: (i) any named
road or street; (ii) road or highway which is part of the federal, state primary or state secondary
road syst em; (iii) any river, stream or drainage feature shown as a polygon boundary on the
TIGER/line files of the Census Bureau; or (iv) any other natural or constructed or erected
permanent physical feature which is shown on an official map issued by VDOT, on a USGS
topographical map, or as a polygon boundary on the TIGER/line files of the Census Bureau .
(Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A) and (B))
7. Use only 2010 census data for the County. (Virginia Code § 24.2-304.1(C))
8. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, economic, social and cultural factors,
geographical features, and service delivery areas. (Based on Virginia Senate and House 2001
Redistricting Criteria)
2
9. If there is a conflict between Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and Guidelines 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
or 16, priority shall be given to Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 because they are based on Federal and
State law requirements. (Based on Virginia Senate and House 2001 Redistricting Criteria) If
there is a conflict within Guidelines 1 through 6, priority shall be given to population equality,
compliance with the United States and Virginia Constitutions, and compliance with the Voting
Rights Act.
County Considerations
10. Maintain six magisterial districts.
11. Have each magisterial district contain both urban and rural areas of the County.
12. Minimize changes to existing magisterial district boundaries.
13. Preserve communities of interest, including neighborhoods, within the same magisterial district.
14. Avoid the pairing of incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors or the School Board in the
same magisterial district.
15. Avoid splitting census blocks to assure the accuracy of the census data.
16. Preserve the historic core of existing magisterial districts.
Precinct Guidelines
State Guidelines and State-Level Redistricting Criteria
1. In no event shall a precinct have fewer than 100 registered voters nor more than 5,000 registered
voters. (Virginia Code § 24.2-307)
2. Each precinct shall be wholly contained within a magisterial district. (Virginia Code § 24.2-307)
3. Maintain geographical compactness in each precinct. (Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A))
4. Maintain geographical contiguity in each precinct. (Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A))
5. Assure precincts have clearly observable boundaries, which include: (i) any named road or street;
(ii) road or highway which is part of the federal, state primary or state secondary road system;
(iii) any river, stream or drainage feature shown as a polygon boundary on th e TIGER/line files of
the Census Bureau; or (iv) any other natural or constructed or erected permanent physical feature
which is shown on an official map issued by VDOT, on a USGS topographical map, or as a
polygon boundary on the TIGER/line files of the C ensus Bureau. (Virginia Code § 24.2-305(A)
and (B))
6. If there is a conflict between Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 and Guidelines 7 or 8, priority shall be
given to Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 because they are based on State law requirements. (Based on
Virginia Senate and House 2001 Redistricting Criteria)
County Considerations
7. The target size of a precinct shall be not more than 2,500 registered voters
3
8. Avoid splitting precincts with Virginia Senate and House of Delegates district lines and United
States House of Representatives district lines.
Polling Place Guidelines
State Guidelines and State-Level Redistricting Criteria
1. Each precinct shall have one polling place. (Virginia Code § 24.2-307)
2. If a polling place cannot be located within the precinct, it shall be located within one mile (as
measured in a straight line) from the precinct boundary. (Virginia Code § 24.2-310(A))
3. Each polling place should be located in a public building whenever practicable. (Virginia Code §
24.2-310(B))
4. No polling place shall be located in a building which serves primarily as the headquarters, office,
or assembly building for any private organization, other than an organization of a civic,
educational, religious, charitable, historical, patriotic, cultural or similar nature unless the State
Board of Elections has approved the use of the building because no other building meeting the
accessibility requirements set forth in Guideline 5 is available. (Virginia Code § 24.2-310.1)
5. Each polling place shall be accessible to qualified voters as required by the provisions of the
Virginians with Disabilities Act (Virginia Code § 51.5-1 et seq.), the Voting Accessibility for the
Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973ee et seq.), and the Americans with Disabilities
Act relating to public services (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.). (Virginia Code § 24.2-310(C))
6. If there is a conflict between Guidelines 2, 3, 4 or 5 and Guidelines 7, 8 or 9, priority shall be
given to Guidelines 2, 3, 4 or 5 because they are based on State law requirements. (Based on
Virginia Senate and House 2001 Redistricting Criteria)
County Considerations
7. Each polling place should be centrally located within the precinct so that the maximum travel
time for a voter does not exceed 20 minutes.
8. Existing polling places should be maintained, provided that they satisfy Guidelines 2, 3, 4 and 5.
9. Polling places should be located where public transportation is available, where appropriate.
Summary of the Public Comments Received at the January 20, 2011 Redistricting Meeting
Local Guidelines
One attendee objected to the local guideline that discourages boundary changes that result in two
incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors or the School Board ending up in the same district. She
stated that the County should not have a guideline that protects incumbents.
Polling Places
One attendee asked the County to reconsider its use of the Senior Center as a polling place because of
parking concerns and the distractions caused by other activities ongoing at the Center on Election Day.
The Senior Center serves as the polling place for the Branchlands Precinct in the Rio Magisterial District.
One attendee asked the County to reconsider its use of St. Anne’s Belfield Lower School as a polling
place because of traffic concerns. St. Anne’s Belfield Lower School serves as the polling place for the
Belfield Precinct in the Jack Jouett Magisterial district.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY PLAN
WHEREAS, in June 2006 the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Charlottesville City Council,
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority approved a
local Water Supply Plan; and
WHEREAS, in 2008 the RWSA received the State and Federal permits necessary to implement
the Water Supply Plan; and
WHEREAS, the approved Water Supply Plan will ensure an adequate supply of potable water for
the Charlottesville‐Albemarle community for the next 50 years; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County continues to support the approved Water Supply Plan for the long
term water supply needs of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors wishes to reaffirm its support for full implementation of the
Water Supply Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has preferred and continues to prefer that the new earthen
dam be constructed in one phase to accommodate an increase in pool height of 42 feet, but
acknowledges and recognizes that both the City and County need to agree upon the phasing issue in
order to cooperatively and expeditiously move forward with the project; and
WHEREAS, time is of the essence to take advantage of the current cost savings in the
construction market and to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia dam safety requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors expresses
its appreciation to the Charlottesville City Council for its support for construction of a new earthen dam
at an initial pool height of 30 feet as a component of the Water Supply Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in consideration for the preference of City Council to limit the
initial height of the new earthen dam to the height necessary for an initial pool height of 30 feet and in
the spirit of cooperation, the Board will support this phased approach to the construction of the new
earthen dam, with the dam structure in the first phase at the height that supports raising the existing
Ragged Mountain Reservoir normal pool elevation by 30 feet (Phase 1); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board supports specific and objective conditions to assure
that when the urban system water demand approaches a predefined threshold, that the RWSA shall
have the right to automatically proceed to increase the normal pool height at the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir up to a total pool height of 42 feet at the direction of the RWSA Board without the need to
acquire any additional property rights necessary for the implementation of this future phase; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board encourages all parties to move expeditiously in
addressing all remaining issues necessary to begin construction of the new earthen dam to meet the
Commonwealth of Virginia dam safety requirements and to ensure the project takes full advantage of
the current bidding climate and low financing rates.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____
to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on _________________.
_____________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ___ ____
Mr. Dorrier ___ ____
Ms. Mallek ___ ____
Mr. Rooker ___ ____
Mr. Snow ___ ____
Mr. Thomas ___ ____
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: March 2, 2011
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached please find an updated listing of vacanci es on boards and commissions
through May 2011 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy.
Jason Woodfin
Housing Committee: One vacancy.
Charles Gross
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board: One vacancy, business representative.
No applications received.
Places29 Community Advisory Council:
Thomas Fromm
Jane Williamson
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee: Four vacancies
(one being a joint City/County Chair).
David Ward
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council: Ten vacancies.
Cyndi Burton
Betsy Gohdes-Baten
Dottie Martin
Neil Means
Carole Milks
Dennis Odinov
Paula Pagonakis
Rick Randolph
Richard Wagaman
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee:
John Mattern
Crozet Community Advisory Council:
Meg Holden
1 MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Committee Joseph Samuels 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Advisory Council on Aging M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Advisory Council on Aging William Harvey 5/31/2011 5/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Agricultural and Forestal District Adv. Cmte.John Mattern 4/17/2011 4/17/2015 Yes Action Required
Agricultural and Forestal District Adv. Cmte.Brad Cogan 4/17/2011 4/17/2015 Eligible No Action Required
CHART Jeff Monroe 4/3/2011 4/3/2014 Eligible No Action Required
CHART Brad Sheffield 4/3/2011 4/3/2014 Eligible No Action Required
Crozet Community Advisory Council Paul Clark 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, no applications recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Meg Holden 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Yes Action Required
Crozet Community Advisory Council David Mellen 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 No Advertised, no applications recv'd
Housing Committee Jana Crutchfield 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Ineligible Advertised, 1 application recv'd
JABA Constance Palmer 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
JABA Richard Lindsay 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
JABA Jean Wyant 3/31/2011 3/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Amber Capron 6/30/2013 Resigned Advertised, no applications recv'd
Places 29 Community Advisory Council Vacant Advertised, 2 applications recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Reed Muelman 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Deborah Rutter 12/31/2012 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Teri Kent 12/31/2011 12/31/2011 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Advertised, 9 received
Revised 02/24/11
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and
storytelling within and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted
over 1,000 writers and tens of thousands of readers to our VIRGINIA
FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK celebrates the power of books
and publishing; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have
contributed to the ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE
BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the world,
have made the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book
festival in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim Wednesday,
March 16, 2011 through Sunday, March 20, 2011 as the
Sixteen Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in
the wide range of available events and activities.
Signed and sealed this 2ndd day of March, 2011.
______________________________
Ann H. Mallek, Chair
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
Return to agenda