2008-09-03September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 3, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W .
Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, County Planner, V. W ayne Cilimberg, Clerk,
Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions:
a. Recognition of Police Department Reaccreditation.
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Boyd recognized the reaccreditation of the Albemarle
County Police Department by the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission. Mr.
Boyd said the reaccreditation process involved a very comprehensive analysis of the agency on 187
separate standards, culminating in a three-day on-site assessment by a three member team from
VLEPSC. In awarding the reaccreditation, VLEPSC noted the following:
The Albemarle County Police Department is an agency that espouses a philosophy of
community-oriented policing, which centers on a close and cooperative relationship with county
residents. This allows the County Police to take a proactive approach in a variety of criminal
incidents and to develop active partnerships with citizen to identify and implement creative
community-based solutions.
Albemarle County was only the 24th law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth of Virginia to
receive its original accreditation in 2000, following a rigorous four-year process. To become accredited,
the department had to do a comprehensive review and upgrade of its policies, procedures and facilities to
meet the standards required in all operational areas.
The reaccreditation award is a very tangible and objective acknowledgement that the County
Police Department is operating at an outstanding level of professional performance and organizational
excellence. Our citizens can feel very confident that the service they are receiving from the police
department is of the highest caliber and reflects the very best in efficiency, effectiveness and innovation,
reflecting the mission and values of Albemarle County.
Mr. Boyd said that on behalf of the Board and County citizens, he would like to express his sincere
appreciation to the men and women of the County Police Department for their dedication and hard work,
which made this reaccreditation possible. He then introduced Mr. Gary Dillon, representing the VLEPSC,
and Police Chief John Miller.
Mr. Dillon addressed the Board as the Program Manager for the accreditation program, and said
that Chief Tim Longo sits on the Executive Board of the Law Enforcement Professional Standards
Commission. He also introduced his boss – Tim Paul – the Section Chief for Law Enforcement at DCJS;
and added that City of Manassas Police Chief John Skinner is unable to attend but extends his
congratulations. Mr. Dillon said that they are here to recognize Albemarle County’s Police Department for
their commitment to law enforcement excellence by participating in the program. He noted that all
accreditation programs are designed to measure and confirm compliance that the participating agency
meets, and the police program has voluntarily decided to participate in this accreditation program. Mr.
Dillon said that this program was started in the early 1990’s to provide law enforcement agencies of all
sizes to prove they can demonstrate meeting 180 commonly accepted standards for effective and efficient
operation. He explained that only 70 out of 417 eligible agencies have been accredited under their
program, and each must meet or exceed the criteria contained in the standards.
Mr. Dillon said that in June a team of certified assessors came to the County and reported that the
agency is in compliance with all standards; the Executive Board met in July and unanimously
recommended accredited status for the second consecutive year. He emphasized that all agencies must
maintain their accreditation files on an ongoing basis and submit to annual verifications of compliance as
required by the commission. Mr. Dillon congratulated the entire police department – Chief Miller, Nicole
Marshall, and all the men and women who worked to help complete the process.
Chief Longo addressed the Board and congratulated the Police Department and awarded Chief
Miller with the reaccreditation certificate.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Chief Miller addressed the Board and said the reaccreditation documents live what they say, and
he thanked the men and women of the police department for their work.
__________
b. Proclamation recognizing October 2008 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Mr. Boyd read and presented the following proclamation to Sarah Roth of the Shelter for Help in
Emergency:
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Whereas, violence against women, children, and men continues to become more prevalent as a social
problem in our society; and
Whereas, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but
cross all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal indifference;
and
Whereas, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity, security, and
humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic
control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging; and
Whereas, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we
must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often suffer grave physical,
psychological and financial losses; and
Whereas, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to bring
peace and equality to the home; and
Whereas, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic violence on their
own—we must work together to educate our entire population about what can be done to
prevent such violence, support victims/survivors and their families, and increase support for
agencies providing services to those community members; and
Whereas, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the County of Albemarle in addressing
domestic violence by providing 24-hour hotline services to victims/survivors and their
families, offering support and information, and empowering survivors to chart their own
course for healing; and
Whereas, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 29th year of providing unparalleled
services to women, children and men who have been victimized by domestic violence;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that in recognition of the important work being done by the Shelter for Help
in Emergency, I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,
do hereby proclaim the month of October 2008 as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS
MONTH and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs
sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, and to work toward the elimination of
personal and institutional violence against women, children, and men.
Ms. Sarah Roth addressed the Board and thanked them for their support, and presented them
with packets of information.
__________
c. Proclamation recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Literacy Volunteers of
Charlottesville/Albemarle.
Mr. Boyd read and presented the following proclamation to Mike Etchemendy, of the Literacy
Volunteers:
LITERACY VOLUNTEERS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE
Celebrating its 25th Anniversary
WHEREAS, LITERACY VOLUNTEERS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE (LVCA) is a non-profit
agency that offers free basic literacy and English as a second language, tutoring to adults
through recruitment, and training of volunteer tutors who work one-on-one with learners; and
WHEREAS, LVCA helps adults living or working in Charlottesville become more productive workers,
parents, citizens, neighbors, and consumers; and
WHEREAS, LVCA believes the ability to read, write, and communicate is critical for adults to fully realize
their potential; and
WHEREAS, September 8 is National Literacy Day; and
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
WHEREAS, LVCA is celebrating its 25th Anniversary of service to adult learners;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville
Albemarle as an invaluable asset to our community and call this observance to the attention
of all our citizens.
Mr. Mike Etchemendy accepted the recognition on behalf of the organization, and shared two
stories of learners who were able to better their lives tremendously because of their work with LVCA. He
noted the work of all volunteers and staff for the agency.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked about the process for reporting and paying for intake volumes of the water
tankers that fill the hydrants at the Airport and Hydraulic Road. She asked if there could be a program
developed for area farmers, who are running out of water, where they would not have to go to
W aynesboro to get water.
Mr. Tucker replied that in the past they have been able to get water from the ACSA, but there will
be a joint meeting next week with the ACSA and the question could be posed then.
__________
Ms. Mallek reported that she would be walking on the land north of the Airport with some
neighbors and Airport representatives soon to get a firsthand view. If other Board members are interested
in attending, let her know.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that some future meetings had been planned in September in the W hite Hall
District to discuss the revalidation forms and tax relief.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that the Regional Transit Authority small working group is meeting every Friday
now from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., and decided to meet with the transportation options group that met
several years ago with the idea that they would come up to speed with where the localities are with
seeking transportation funds for transit and transportation projects in the area. He stated that the group
would like to seek broad-based community support for efforts in this area, and the primary
recommendation of the funding options group has been to seek sales tax increment that would provide
funding for transportation in the area. Mr. Rooker said that the approach was going to be requesting
some type of sales tax increment from legislations, and the fallback position would be to seek a package
similar to that sought in Northern Virginia and Tidewater. He stated that the plan is for revenue for both
local transportation projects of regional significance and transit to be done on the County and city level,
with some agreement that a portion of that would go to transit based on the level of services provided.
Mr. Boyd commented that he does not have a problem seeking local authority to be in better
control of transportation needs, but he does question the amount of spending and any proposed tax
increase.
Mr. Rooker said that at the next meeting a time should be scheduled to discuss this, so that the
support of the Board can be assessed; the first possible date to meet with the funding options group would
be September 19th – so it would need to be discussed next week, perhaps at the end of the other work
sessions scheduled.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the Historic Preservation Committee would be coming to the Board with
information leading up to a request to consider an ordinance to slow down the demolition of historic
properties that currently can happen with a short turnaround.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned a Historic Preservation and an Automobile Association publication that
had several articles and advertisements on sites in Virginia, but none of the articles pertained to this
region. She suggested the Tourism Board work on this.
__________
Ms. Thomas also said that the Crozet Library Committee has preliminary designs from the
architect that can be looked at by Board members, but they are not available for public review yet.
__________
Ms. Thomas said that the Rivanna River Basin Commission will be coming to the Board with a
report on analyzing best management practices, a unique effort being done locally.
__________
Ms. Thomas said the South Fork Reservoir Stewardship Task Force recently toured the Reservoir
by boat. She thanked staff for all their support of the Task Force and UVA for organizing the tour.
__________
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Thomas stated that the Local Government Advisory Commission to the Chesapeake Bay
Program have a pot of money for small watershed grants. The Commission is interested in the work of the
Rivanna River Basin Commission and there may be some financial help for study projects.
__________
Mr. Slutzky stated that he serves on the Affordable Housing Task Force convened between the
City, County, and University. He commented that Item 7.5 on the Consent Agenda (Resolution of Support
of the Regional Action Agenda for Housing) is not the work of the Affordable Housing Task Force. The
Regional Action Agenda is the collaborative work of all of the jurisdictions in the TJPDC. The Housing
Task Force is comprised of the City, the County and the University, and will be a more specific body of
recommendations. He then updated the Board on the work of the Affordable Housing Task Force. The
Task Force hopes to be able to send a draft report to the City and County Housing Committees in the next
couple of months, for them to refine and then forward to Council, Board and the University.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that he on September 11, 2008, 7:00 p.m., he will hold a community conversation
with residents near Darden Towe Park to discuss implementation of the softball field lighting.
__________
Mr. Boyd also reported that the Stony Point Fire Department addition is a request for an increase
in building size, and staff has indicated that the changes are minor. He asked the Board support to
encourage staff to expedite the review process for the addition. He also stated that he has received the
same request for the renter in the GIS building at the NGIC facility.
Mr. Rooker said that he understands the wish to put the NGIC project on a fast track, but it would
be helpful to have some more information as to why this project should take precedent over other projects
that put demands on staff.
Mr. Boyd noted that because of the nature of what they do, they do not broadcast their plans.
Mr. Slutzky added that the federal procurement rules may be a factor as well, as no official
procurement has been completed for this.
Ms. Thomas responded that it may fit the goals for compactness in the work area out there, but
she expressed her disappointment in the response to the environmental impact statement, and not having
traffic assurance. She indicated that the applicant claims no environmental impact, but staff concluded
otherwise.
Mr. Boyd said that this request is not coming from the people who filed the report.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern, and said that it is a confusing trail of decisions and recommenda-
tions which we as a County are involved in. She added that in the future it would be helpful to have things
written down so the Board does not have a building that is completed under a permit that was issued when
people were supposedly following the directions they were given.
Mr. Boyd said that there were a lot of good faith efforts being attempted.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he does not object to the accelerated timeline.
Mr. Rooker responded that when the process started for these buildings, there were other people
interested in obtaining the contract to provide the space and they complained that this applicant was being
given priority treatment. He said that the applicant at that time represented that he had a deal with them to
take the space, and when asked for a letter of support what was provided was not indicative at all of a
deal to take the space. He feels it is not overreaching to ask that end user to provide some letter
indicating that they need to occupy by a certain date, and these changes need to be expedited in order for
them to accomplish that.
Mr. Boyd replied that he does not think that will happen because the end user has to go through a
lot of bureaucratic red tape to issue written assurances. He emphasized that he does not want to skip
steps here.
Mr. Slutzky added that he only supports the change in timeline, not a change in substance.
Mr. Rooker commented that the RFP for this went out a long time ago and Mr. W ood got the RFP
awarded to him. He added that asking for a copy of that RFP would not be out of the ordinary, and said
that the County has been led along a trail here.
Ms. Thomas said that she has no interest in expediting this as staff is overworked at this point
because of the Board’s taxation decisions. She believe that staff works expeditiously on all the processes
that are put in front of it so she does not see any particular reason to pick out this particular project.
Mr. Slutzky said he supports the accelerated timeline and asked if a vote should be called.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that he would support it if there were documentation from the user that
they needed this done sooner rather than later to meet hard deadlines that they have for occupying the
building, but in the absence of that he would not support it.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Slutzky commented that the problem is if NGIC is expecting the structure up by a certain day
they can’t wait until November to determine whether to add a basement.
Mr. Tucker suggested delaying this decision until later in the day when Mr. Graham would be
available to answer questions.
Board members agreed that they did not mind having the Stony Point Fire Department addition
being expedited as the change was very minor.
_____________________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Colette Hall addressed the Board, stating that she was stunned to learn the Reservoir Task
Force has no one on that committee that is a member of the public. She emphasized that it is important
that reservoir users have input in maintaining the life of the south fork, but the very people whose lives and
homes depend on this water and will be asked to pay for an expensive future water plan are voiceless.
She emphasized that the dredging is intended to increase the south fork’s potable water capacity until a
new water supply is established – which may take years. Ms. Hall said that if public comment is relegated
to only one public meeting as proposed it eliminates many citizens’ voices.
Mr. Slutzky noted that not everybody on that commission is on well water, and some are users of
that system.
Ms. Thomas said that about one-third of the membership is from the City, and others from the
County are also public water users. She mentioned that the task force is trying to seek meaningful public
comment, through postcards and other methods, and are also hoping to give people more than just three
minutes to speak.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is not a governmental entity that is going to make a decision, but
a group of people that are meeting to produce a report. He also commented that it is difficult to get
meeting times when everyone can attend.
Mr. Boyd informed the Board that there would be a town hall meeting on September 9th for a
group to go up and meet with DIA people who may be moving to the area, and the survey information
would be released as to how many families would be moving.
_____________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded Mr.
Slutzky, to approve Items 7.0 through 7.10 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items for
information. (Discussion are included with individual agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.0. Resolution: Disaster Declaration Due to Drought Conditions.
The following letter dated August 26, 2008, was received from Peter L. W arren, Extension Agent,
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Virginia Cooperative Extension, to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors:
“I am writing to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution requesting a Year
2008 Disaster Declaration for the County due to drought conditions. I have been in contact with
Brent W hitlock at the Farm Service Agency in Louisa and Carrie Swanson at Cooperative
Extension here in Albemarle. W e agree that the corn, hay, and pasture crops in the County will
have suffered anywhere between 35 and 50 percent losses by the end of the year. In the near
future we expect to receive calls from farmers seeking to buy hay from producers who usually sell
it and there will be none to be had as the second cutting this year is in bad shape. I urge you to
draft a resolution so Albemarle agricultural producers can obtain drought related aid if they need
it.”
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to be sent to
Governor Kaine:
Resolution Requesting that Albemarle County
Be Declared an Agricultural Disaster Area
Due to Drought Conditions
WHEREAS, the drought conditions in the County of Albemarle have severely affected farmers; and
WHEREAS, during the growing season of this year the County of Albemarle has received
considerably less rain than normal while experiencing unseasonably high temperatures; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle/Charlottesville Extension Agent of the Virginia Cooperative Extension has
reported that corn, hay and pasture crops will have suffered between 35 percent and 50 percent losses by the
end of the year.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
requests that the County of Albemarle, Virginia be declared a drought disaster area as recommended by the
Virginia Cooperative Extension in accordance with the Virginia Farmer Major Drought, Flood and Hurricane
Disaster Act due to drought conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Executive forward this Resolution to the Governor of
Virginia with a request that he takes all necessary steps to effect the disaster declaration.
__________
Item No. 7.1. State Reductions in Aid to Localities for FY 2009 and FY 2010.
The Executive Summary states that item 475.20 in Chapter 879 of the 2008 Acts of Assembly
(2008 Appropriation Act) requires a $50 million reduction in state aid to Virginia local governments in both
FY 2009 and FY 2010. The Appropriation Act further requires the Director of the Department of Planning
and Budget to provide localities a list of the state aid to local government programs which serve as the
basis for calculating each locality’s share of the $50 million reduction. For Albemarle County for FY 2009,
the amount of the reduction is $477,842, and for FY 2010, the amount of the reduction is $482,448.
Localities may carry out these reductions using one of the following methods:
1) Take the reductions out of one or more of the programs in the list provided by the
Department of Planning and Budget,
2) Make a reimbursement payment directly to the Commonwealth for all of the locality’s
reductions, or
3) Choose a combination of program reductions and reimbursement payment.
The attached chart (Attachment B-on file) sets forth the County’s elections to meet the mandated
State reductions in aid to Albemarle County. As the chart indicates, Albemarle County staff recommends
a combination of program reductions in FY 2009 ($438,984) to various agencies and one reimbursement
payment ($38,858) to the Department of Juvenile Justice – Financial Assistance for Juvenile Confinement
in Local Facilities (Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center Commission). This reimbursement was
requested by the Juvenile Detention Center. The County’s FY 2009 budget was developed based on
these reductions. Similar reductions are elected for FY 2010 with program reductions ($444,099) to
various agencies and another reimbursement payment ($38,349) to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
There is no additional budget impact for FY 2009. These budget reductions were included in the
adopted FY 2009 budget. The budget reductions required in FY 2010 will be addressed in the FY 2010
budget process.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the County’s reduction election and authorize the
County Executive to submit the attached letter and chart to the Virginia Department of Planning and
Budget.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the County’s reduction election and
authorized the County Executive to submit the following letter and chart to the Virginia
Department of Planning and Budget:
Aid to Locality Reductions
Virginia Department of Planning and Budget
1111 E. Broad St. Room 5040
Richmond, VA 23219-1922
RE: Albemarle County’s Reduction Elections
To whom it may concern:
In accordance with the direction included in the Instructions for Submitting Aid to Local Government
Reduction Elections issued by the Department of Planning and Budget during July, 2008, I am writing
to certify Albemarle County’s reduction election and transmit the required hardcopy of the Reduction
Election Form. The County is being required to reduce State funding by $477,842 in FY 2009 and by
$482,448 in FY 2010.
The General Assembly chose to respond to shrinking revenue growth anticipated in the 2008-
2010 biennium by shifting to local governments the responsibility for reducing $100 million of core
services. This action was approved by the Governor without identifying the programs to be
reduced. These reductions are in addition to those made by the General Assembly, and approved
by the Governor, affecting law enforcement, elementary and secondary education, profits from the
Alcoholic Beverage Control tax collections, constitutional offices, the upgrade of wastewater
treatment, and farmland preservation to name but a few. Albemarle County is very concerned
that this $100.0 million reduction will be carried forward into future biennia forcing city and county
governments to either raise taxes or further reduce services.
Albemarle County has elected to make the reductions through a combination of program
reductions and a reimbursement payment as indicted on the attached Reduction Election Form.
The portion included in the reimbursement payment will be reflected in the locality’s records as
negative revenue under the heading, Local Aid to the Commonwealth Contra Revenue.
__________
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item No. 7.2. County Facilities Revised Rental Application and Rental Rate Increase.
The Executive Summary states that for several years, the Board has encouraged the use of the
County facilities by outside groups when those activities do not interfere with County business. This policy
has been well received. For the past three years, General Services has overseen the process by
receiving the requests, issuing and reviewing the applications for reservations, collecting the rental fees
and monitoring the uses. However, the reservation application and rental fee schedule have not been
revised since 2002.
W ith the additional conference rooms at COB-5th and the renovation of the auditorium and
Conference Room 241 at COB-McIntire, staff has recognized the need to update the application and
guidelines for using these facilities. The investment in modernizing County facilities has been significant:
$1.5 million in the auditorium and $200,000 in Room 241. Also, there have been significant operating cost
increases since the previous revision in 2002 – approximately 20% in labor and 40% in utilities. According
to a recent staff analysis, the daily cost to maintain and operate the auditorium is $175.20, which is the
basis for the auditorium rate recommendation. The proposed rate increases off-set only a portion of the
costs for security, custodial and utility expenses. The recommended fees remain significantly lower than
what the local private sector charges. In addition to the proposed fee revisions, staff is also
recommending additional changes to simplify and clarify the application.
Notable changes include:
• Reducing the classification of groups from five to three.
• Increasing the custodial charge from $16 to $18.
• Increasing the security deposit for weekend rental from $100 to $150 to address the
increased incidence of property damage. For example, the County has had to have the
document tables in the auditorium repaired when renters moved them without
authorization and damaged the tops. The County has also had to clean, repair, or replace
conference room furniture and walls written upon with markers.
• Increasing the hourly rental rate for for-profit and private groups, organizations and
businesses from $25 per hour to $40 per hour.
• Increasing the flat fee for weekend use of Lane Auditorium from $100 to $175 plus
applicable custodial charges.
In Fiscal Year 2008, revenue generated from conference room rental was $9,411. It is anticipated
that the recommended rate changes will generate an additional 10% to 15% in revenue.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the revised application and rate adjustments.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the revised application and rate
adjustments, as set out below:
Application Number____________
APPLICATION FOR RESERVATION OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BUILDING AND GROUNDS
I (we) __________________________________________________________, on behalf of
__________________________________________________ (organization) (the “Applicant”), have read and
understand the attached rules and regulations and in accordance with same, I (we) hereby make application
for the use of Room ____________ (space wanted) on _________________ (date), between the hours of
___________ and ___________ under the conditions indicated below:
1) The exact purposes, for which the space will be used, including the exact kind of equipment and
apparatus to be brought on the property and any special equipment desired to be used:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2) The following person(s) (include contact information) will be in charge of the program:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
3) The schedule of admission charges will be as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
4) The proceeds from such charges will be distributed and used as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
5) Number of anticipated people attending: _________________________________________
Number of anticipated parking spaces needed: _____________________________________
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
General Rules and Responsibilities of Individuals/Organizations Using County Facilities
On behalf of the Applicant, the undersigned acknowledges and hereby agrees to ensure compliance
with the following rules and responsibilities:
1. The rental fee shall be paid prior to the rental date.
2. A representative designated as the Applicant’s “responsible individual” shall remain on site throughout
the rental period.
3. The Applicant shall provide appropriate supervision of all the individuals using the facility (to include
the audience in case of performances).
4. The Applicant shall ensure all general and specific rules and regulations are adhered to, and
safeguard all County property entrusted into its care.
5. Only the room/facility specifically requested and paid for (and adjacent restrooms) shall be used.
6. Dais furniture shall not be moved or otherwise rearranged.
7. No food or drink shall be brought into Lane Auditorium.
8. Other than guide dogs, hearing dogs, and service dogs for persons with disabilities, no animals shall
be allowed in County buildings, without the County’s prior consent.
9. No tobacco or alcohol shall be brought onto any County grounds or into any County facility.
10. Rental of Lane Auditorium shall not include the use of its audio/visual/recording /computer equipment,
except by Class 1 Departments (directly supervised by the County Executive/Superintendent or
sponsored by the Virginia Cooperative Extension). Other groups may bring their own equipment, if
desired.
11. The Applicant shall be responsible for all damage to County property and agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the County and any of its employees or agents for any and all claims of any kind
asserted for any damage, loss, injury or death to persons or property arising out of the above use of
County property, including attorney’s fees. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the
sovereign immunity of the County.
Failure to adhere to these terms and conditions may be used as grounds to bar future use of County
facilities. Allowing a group/organization to use the County’s facilities does not constitute an endorsement of the
group/organization’s policies, beliefs or practices.
I hereby certify that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant. I assume full responsibility for
compliance with the above Rules.
Signed ________________________________________
(Applicant)
By ___________________________________________
Address _______________________________________
Phone Number ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - ACTION TAKEN
1) ( ) Approved for use of Room ____________ on _____________________________
pending receipt of rental fee.
2) Total rental fee: $_________________ Due Date(s):____________________________
3) Classification:____________________________
4) ( ) Disapproved for reason described below:
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
County of Albemarle
By: ___________________________________
(General Services)
9/30/99
Revised 7/3/02, 3/19/08, 09/03/08
* * * * * * * * * *
COMMUNITY USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES
A) Generally
1. The Board of Supervisors believes in the full and best possible utilization of the physical facilities
belonging to the citizens of the County. To achieve this end, the use of County facilities for
governmental, school and related activities, as well as by outside organizations and groups, shall
be encouraged when these activities will not interfere with the routine business of the County.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
2. Proper protection, safety and care of County property shall be primary considerations in the use
of County facilities.
B) Eligible Organizations
1. The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of priority and the
charging of fees.
1. Classification
I. School and County government affiliated or related groups.
II. Youth agencies, educational, recreational, cultural, political, civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or organizations.
III. Profit making or private groups, organizations, or businesses.
2. Membership
The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of County facilities must be
largely from the County of Albemarle. This restriction shall not exclude the use of certain
facilities, as determined by the County Executive, by state and national organizations that
have a local sponsoring division of such organization.
3. Commercial Activities
Commercial use of County property by any organization or individual is expressly prohibited.
C) Applications and Approval
1. Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs, societies or organizations
that reasonably can be held responsible for the payment of charges, compensation for damages
to property and for use of the property in reasonable conformity with the regulations on the
application.
2. The Board authorizes the County Executive or his designee to approve all applications for the use
of County facilities that meet the requirements of the Board, that comply with implementing
regulations the County Executive deems necessary to protect County property and that do not
conflict with established business or commercial interests in the community. The County
Executive shall design such application forms as are required. The completed and signed form
shall be a binding agreement upon the applicant and the County.
3. No rental application will be considered more than six months prior to the desired rental date.
4. The County Executive or his designee reserves the right to cancel a rental contract up to ten days
prior to a scheduled rental.
5. The Lane Auditorium is available during business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday) only if the applicant provides shuttle bus services or off-site parking for participants of the
meeting. On-site parking is not available for large meetings during business hours.
6. The Lane Auditorium is not available on any day during which a local government board,
commission, or other duly appointed entity is scheduled to use the facility due to the possibility of
these meetings running beyond the scheduled end time.
7. Meeting rooms and Auditorium are not available on holidays, scheduled or declared, when the
County Office Building is closed.
8. Reservations will automatically be cancelled when the County office buildings are closed due to
inclement weather or emergency conditions.
D) Fees (See Attachment)
1. The County Executive shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may make additional
adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional adjustments shall be based upon
the classification of the group or organization, the facilities to be used, the size of the group, the
objectives of the organization, the approximate cost to the County and the purpose for which the
facility will be used.
2. In general, the County Office Building Rental Charges schedule (attached below) will apply.
3. A full rental fee shall be charged to all groups except Classification I when County facilities are to
be used for fund raising and/or when an admission charge is levied.
4. All fees must be paid at least seven (7) calendar days in advance, and the sponsoring
organization whose name appears on the application shall be held responsible for any and all
damages to property and equipment.
E) Protection of County Property
1. An employee of the County shall be on duty on the property at times when the facilities are in use.
No equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without the consent of the employee in
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
charge if such usage is not in conformity with the contracted agreement. The employee in charge
may expel any group if said group, after ample warnings, fails to adhere to the provisions of their
rental agreement.
2. The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for crowd control measures, including the
employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be arranged in advance when
deemed necessary by the County Executive or his designee.
F) Safety
1. Organizations and individuals using the facility shall be responsible for familiarizing themselves
with the nearest exits in case of emergency evacuation. Each conference room has a Fire
Escape Plan posted at its entrance which shows the primary and secondary escape routes.
G) Deposits
1. A cash bond or deposit may be required at the discretion of the County Executive or his designee
prior to use of the property.
Lane Auditorium Rental Charges
Classification W eekday-
Business Hours
W eekday-
Evening W eekends
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political,
civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or
organizations
No Charge $18 custodial
charge
Fee: $175 flat fee plus $28/hr
Security/Custodial Personnel
Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned.
upon satisfactory inspection
III. Profit Making or Private
Groups, Organizations or
Businesses
$175 flat fee plus
$18 custodial
charge
$175 flat fee
plus $18
custodial
charge
Fee: $175 flat fee plus $28/hr
Security/ Custodial Personnel
Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection.
* Departments directly supervised by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the Virginia
Cooperative Extension
The Lane Auditorium is available during business hours (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) only if
the Applicant provides shuttle bus services or off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site parking
is not available for large meetings during business hours.
County Office Building Rental Charges (Other than for Lane Auditorium)
Classification W eekday-
Business Hours
W eekday-
Evening
W eekends
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political,
civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or
organizations
No Charge $18.00
custodial
charge
Fee: $28/hr Security/Custodial
Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned.
upon satisfactory inspection
III. Profit Making or Private
Groups, Organizations or
Businesses
$40.00 per hour
plus $18.00
custodial charge
$40.00 per
hour plus
$18.00
custodial
charge
Fees: $40.00 per hour plus
$28/hr Security/Custodial
Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection.
* Departments directly supervised by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the Virginia
Cooperative Extension
Additional Charges
1. Each additional room used shall incur an additional charge, pursuant to the above schedule.
2. Requests to set up additional chairs/tables shall incur a flat $18.00 charge.
3 Any meeting scheduled past 5:30 p.m. will be subject to the applicable custodial charge.
__________
Item No. 7.3. Set public hearing to consider request to abandon 50-foot right-of-way on TMP 56-
35 (Zinnser-Booth) in the Crozet Community.
The Executive Summary states that on September 4, 2007, the Planning Commission considered
a request from Michael and Charlotte Zinsser-Booth (Attachment A) for a waiver to Subdivision Ordinance
§ 14-404 to allow each of two proposed lots on TMP 56-35 to access separate public streets. The
multiple access points would allow the subdivision without requiring a road to cross Lickinghole Creek.
(See Attachment B)
This parcel is located in the W hite Hall Magisterial District off of Crozet Avenue (Route 240),
across from Meadow Drive. The parcel has a legal frontage that has an existing drive accessing off of
Crozet Avenue and another frontage along a platted 50’ right-of-way, extending from Brookwood Road to
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
the northeast end of the property. Lickinghole Creek and a floodplain run through the property, essentially
splitting the property into two separate developable areas/future parcels, one fronting on Crozet Avenue
and the other fronting on the right-of-way that extends from the property to Brookwood Road. The property
is zoned R1 (Residential) and EC (Entrance Corridor).
The Planning Commission approved the waiver (7:0) with the following conditions:
1. No more than two dwelling units would be constructed on Lot A (13.96 acres).
2. The Board would either abandon the 50-foot right-of-way, which would access this
property to the subdivision behind it or grant the applicants the right to have a single
private shared driveway under County standards to access the two dwelling units to be
built.
The applicant is acting upon Condition 2 of the waiver. Condition 2 provides the applicant two
options: (1) ask the Board for permission to allow what essentially would be a two-lane private driveway
across the public right-of-way. The applicant was informed that County staff would likely recommend
against this approach; or (2) ask the Board to abandon the public right of way so that a private street could
be built in its place. This area is in the County's Development Areas as identified in the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicant is requesting that the Board abandon the 50’ right of way connecting from Brookwood
Drive to the portion of the parcel north of Lickinghole Creek.
Proposed Lot A contains an existing 50-foot public right-of-way which was platted in the 1970’s,
but a road was never constructed. The platting was likely intended to serve any future development of this
site with a subdivision street. W ith the Commission’s action on the waiver request, development of Lot A
is restricted to the development of not more than 2 dwelling units. W ith such a restriction on the number
of lots, and without a connection across Lickinghole Creek to serve additional lots, any road constructed
on this site (and right of way) could not be accepted into the State highway system. Public roads in the
State system require three or more users. Therefore, the public right-of-way is not needed to serve the
site. Furthermore, because a dedicated right-of-way is public land to be used for public purposes, private
streets should not be located within public rights-of-way and County staff has not allowed public rights-of-
way to be privately used.
Staff has evaluated this abandonment request for its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
and other County policies and finds that this abandonment will not conflict with the policies of the County.
The Comprehensive Plan, including the Crozet Master Plan, does not identify/recommend any public road
or other public improvement in this area for which the right-of-way could be used. No road crossings of
Lickinghole Creek are identified in this immediate area in either the Comprehensive Plan/Crozet Master
Plan or Transportation Plans. Further, the construction of a road connecting Lots A and B to Brookwood
Drive would be costly given the length of that road and, under current regulations, additional approvals
would be required because the road would cross critical slopes, floodplains, and stream buffers.
Abandonment would not, in and of itself, convey the County’s interest in the alignment to either
the property owners lateral to the alignment or to the Zinsser-Booths. Rather, if the public right-of-way is
abandoned, the Board may then authorize the sale of the alignment or an exchange of lands.
Lastly, if the Board decides not to proceed with the abandonment, the applicant has one other
option: to request that the Planning Commission amend Condition 1 to allow a third dwelling unit to be
constructed on Lot A so that the right-of-way could be eligible under current VDOT regulations to be
accepted into the State system.
There will be no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize notice of the Board’s intention to abandon the 50-foot
dedicated public right-of-way and to set the matter for public hearing, as required.
(Discussion: Mr. Slutzky commented that a contiguous property owner has raised some
concerns that he has not had an opportunity to address.
Mr. Tucker said that this action sets the matter for public hearing.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing for November 5th to consider
the requested abandonment.
__________
Item No. 7.4. Fiscal Year 2009 Performance Contract between Region Ten & the Virginia
Department of Mental Craun, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS).
The Executive Summary states that each year, Region Ten and other Community Services
Boards (CSBs) throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia enter into Performance Agreements with the
Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS)
for the delivery of these services in their respective communities. Although Region Ten is the primary
signatory to this agreement, federal and state regulations require that the local governing bodies
establishing a CSB approve these contracts in order for the CSB to be eligible to receive state-controlled
funding.
Annual Performance Contracts between the VDMHMRSAS and CSBs delineate the
responsibilities of the Common-wealth and the CSBs for the delivery of mental health, mental retardation
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
and substance abuse services in their respective service areas. These contracts describe sources of
funding for the CSB, stipulate requirements for compliance with federal regulations and establish
performance measures. Although the County of Albemarle is not a party to this contract, Virginia Code §
37.2-508(D) requires that the local governing bodies establishing a CSB approve these contracts in order
for the CSB to be eligible to receive state-controlled funds for these services. Staff has reviewed the
proposed Contract and found no terms adverse to the County.
The County’s FY09 appropriation for Region Ten totals $566,276. Of this amount, $450,627 is
identified as “comprehensive services,” including outpatient, case management, emergency, day support,
residential, prevention and early intervention services for mental health, mental retardation, and substance
use disorders and prevention. The balance of funding ($115,649) represents the County’s share of local
programs funded by the City and County such as jail services, children services, and early intervention
grants for children.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Fiscal Year 2009 Performance Contract between
Region Ten & the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services
(VDMHMRSAS).
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek stated that she had not seen this report. She asked if there are
performance measures in this contract that involve patients in the evaluation of Region Ten. She added
that she would like to have a joint meeting soon with the organization as they have a $37 million annual
budget.
Mr. Tucker replied that it is a voluminous report and is on file in the Clerk’s office.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, noted that the document was reviewed in the
County Attorney’s office and there was no substantive change from last year to this one.
Ms. Thomas commented that there should be a lot more attention paid to substance abuse, and
asked if there is a responsibility to get the information to Region Ten.
Mr. Elliott replied that Dr. Peake’s presentation will also shed some light on this, but the amount of
interface between the Commission on Children and Families and Region Ten should include sharing of
information.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2009 Performance
Contract between Region Ten & the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation &
Substance Abuse Services (VDMHMRSAS).
__________
Item No. 7.5. Resolution of Support of the Regional Action Agenda for Housing.
The Executive Summary states that on March 13, 2008, approximately one hundred and fifty
interested individuals attended the Regional Housing Conference: “Finding Common Ground”. Attendees
included representatives from each local government in Planning District 10, builders, developers, lenders,
advocates, and citizens as well as representatives from nonprofit agencies and faith-based organizations.
The conference included both plenary and breakout sessions that generated a number of ideas for action
in the region.
Over the past several months, the planning group for the conference and the Regional Housing
Directors Council developed and adopted an action plan (Attachment A) using ideas from conference
attendees. The goal in developing this action plan was to put forth realistic ideas for actions to address
unmet housing needs within the region. The members of the planning group and the Directors Council
recognize that, although housing issues are regional, the successful implementation of an action plan
would require different options so that each locality could choose the actions that are appropriate for its
locality.
On July 17, 2008, the Planning District Commissioners adopted a Resolution in Support of the
Regional Action Agenda for Housing (Attachment B) encouraging each of the localities in Planning District
10 to identify at least one specific item from the action agenda to undertake or implement. On October 30,
2008, the conference planners will hold a follow-up conference “Finding Common Ground: Call to Action”
at which time each locality will report on what it is currently doing with regard to affordable housing and will
identify at least one additional action to undertake from the action agenda.
There is no budget impact associated with the adoption of the Resolution of Support. The
implementation of actions identified may have future budget impacts.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Support (Attachment C) and
provide guidance to staff on any specific item that members may want to undertake. Staff also
encourages members of the Board and all interested parties to attend the conference planned for October
30, 2008.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Support:
Resolution in Support
of the Regional Action Agenda for Housing
WHEREAS, the Regional Housing Conference: “Finding Common Ground” was held on March 13,
2008 with participation from all localities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District; and
WHEREAS, participants at that conference generated a number of ideas for action in our region; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Housing Conference Planning Group and the Regional Housing Directors
Council have adopted the Regional Action Agenda for Housing coming out of that conference; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to working with other localities and partners to find
realistic actions to address the unmet needs for affordable housing in the region;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County of Albemarle will send one or more
representatives to the follow-up event “Finding Common Ground: Call to Action” on October 30, 2008; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle will report on action items currently
underway in the County of Albemarle at the follow-up event; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle will identify at least one specific item from
the Regional Action Agenda for Housing to undertake, with partners as deemed appropriate.
__________
Item No. 7.6. Request FY 2008 Appropriation.
The Executive Summary states that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total
expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a
meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County
funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2008 appropriation is $269,089.45. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of one (1) new FY 2008 appropriation as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2008083) totaling $269,089.45 for various School grants and programs.
Staff recommends the approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $269,089.45 and the
approval of the FY 2008 Appropriation #2008083.
Appropriation #2008083 $269,089.45
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Grant) $ 5,959.00
State Revenue (Grant) 10,378.00
Federal Revenue (Grant) 252,752.45
At its meeting on August 14, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• The Virginia Commission for the Arts has awarded Hollymead Elementary School with two
Touring Grants totaling $995.00. These grants will assist with funding a Theatre IV and Virginia
Opera Performance.
• The Virginia Commission for the Arts has made grant awards to several Albemarle County Public
Schools. Teacher Incentive Grants were made to Baker Butler in the amount of $1,193.00, Burley
in the amount of $600.00, Henley in the amount of $300.00, Hollymead Elementary in the amount
of $1,500.00, Meriwether Lewis in the amount of $300.00, Monticello High in the amount of
$600.00, Murray Elementary in the amount of $300.00, Stony Point Elementary in the amount of
$3,300.00, and W estern Albemarle High School in the amount of $300.00. These programs will
involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experience for students with performing,
visual and musical arts.
• Stone Robinson Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $775.00 from the
local Childhood Obesity Task Force. These funds will be used to educate students on the new
USDA MyPyramid, how to analyze a nutrition label, and the importance of daily physical fitness.
• The Virginia Department of Health has awarded Greer Elementary School with a Bike Smart
Virginia Bicycle Helmet/Rodeo Mini Grant in the amount of $990.00. These funds will be used to
purchase bike helmets and to increase school and community bike safety awareness.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
• The Virginia Environmental Endowment has awarded Meriwether Elementary School with a
W atershed Educational Training Grant in the amount of $4,184.00. These funds will be used to
implement the project “Our Global W atershed: W ater and W eather Connections”; which will
provide students the opportunity to learn about local and global water resources through hands on
classroom activities and field trips.
• Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a Target Field Trip Grant in the amount of
$1,000.00. These funds will be used to cover expenses for a field trip to Graves Mountain Lodge.
The purpose of this trip is to provide students with hands on, real life learning experiences while
studying the reproduction of flowering plants and the critical role of pollinators.
• The Reading First grant is a federally funded program designated for Benjamin F. Yancey
Elementary School. The grant funds support a comprehensive K-3 reading instructional program
and the implementation of prevention and intervention services to include: hiring a literacy
coordinator to work with staff to provide high quality research based classroom reading instruction
in grades K-3, purchasing research based instructional materials to be used for reading instruction
in K-1, providing professional development related to implementing the research based reading
instructional materials purchased, purchasing research based intervention materials to be used
for reading intervention in grade 2 and 3 classrooms, and purchasing a variety of pleasure reading
books for students to read in addition to those books read during core reading instruction time.
Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY07/08 due to an increase in the federal
allocation. Funding for FY07/08 was increased by $6,661.74 from the original budget amount of
$160,000.
• The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB Act), Public Law 107-110, authorized the Title II, Part A as a
federal grant program that combines the Eisenhower Professional Development, School
Renovation, and Class Size Reduction Grants into a Teacher Quality grant program that focuses
on preparing, training, and recruiting high-quality teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals.
Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY07/08 due to an increase in salaries; paying
1.00 FTE for a Math Coordinator, .50 FTE for an Office Associate, stipends for CAI and staff
development. There is a fund balance retained by the State in the amount of $45,246.47 from
FY06/07 which may be reappropriated for FY07/08.
• Title I is a federally funded program designed to help children meet challenging content and
performance standards. It supplements, not supplants, local funding in providing services to
students in Albemarle County. The program utilizes strategies that focus on improving teaching
and learning and building stronger partnerships between schools and communities to support the
achievement of all children who are served. Title I supports reading/language arts instruction for
students where achievement does not meet expected standards in the elementary schools where
free/reduced lunch percentages are above the County average. Expenditures have exceeded
appropriations for FY07/08 due to an increase in staff expenses. There is a fund balance retained
by the state in the amount of $173,903.59 from FY06/07 which may be reappropriated for
FY07/08. The funds will be spent on salaries and benefits, educational materials, staff
development, and telephone charges.
• The Albemarle County Schools received additional funding from the Carl Perkins Career and
Technical Education Grant Award in the amount of $10,039.19 for FY07/08. These funds will be
used to modernize and improve Monticello High School’s technology lab.
• The Albemarle County Schools has received The Education Technology Formula Grant Award in
the amount of $14,901.46 for FY07/08. These funds will be used to improve student academic
achievement through the use of technology in schools, and providing funds for teacher training
and curriculum development.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$269,089.45 and the approval of the FY 2008 Appropriation #2008083.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2008083
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Grants and Programs – School Board Meeting: 08/14/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3101 33000 330101 TITLE I GRANT J 2 175,903.59
2 3104 18000 181222 REVENUE J 2 775.00
2 3104 18000 189900 REVENUE-MISC
GRANTS
J 2 5,184.00
2 3104 24000 240263 REVENUE-BAKER
BUTLER
J 2 1,193.00
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
2 3104 24000 240281 REVENUE-STONY
POINT
J 2 3,300.00
2 3104 24000 240328 REVENUE-MURRAY J 2 300.00
2 3104 24000 240330 REVENUE-
HOLLYMEAD ELEM
J 2 1,500.00
2 3104 24000 240331 REVENUE-HENLEY J 2 300.00
2 3104 24000 240332 REVENUE-MW L J 2 300.00
2 3104 24000 240333 REVENUE-BURLEY J 2 600.00
2 3104 24000 240366 REVENUE-
HOLLYMEAD ELEM
J 2 995.00
2 3104 24000 240418 REVENUE-
WAHS/MHS
J 2 900.00
2 3104 24000 240900 REVENUE J 2 990.00
2 3131 33000 330125 EDUCATION
TECHNOLOGY
GRANT
J 2 14,901.46
2 3203 33000 330105 TITLE II, PART A J 2 45,246.47
2 3207 33000 330107 CARL PERKINS
TECHNICAL GRANT
J 2 10,039.19
2 3302 33000 330001 READING FIRST
GRANT
J 2 6,661.74
1 3101 61101 111400 SALARIES-OTHER
MANAGEMENT
J 1 10,978.00
1 3101 61101 112100 SALARIES-
TEACHER
J 1 109,607.00
1 3101 61101 114100 SALARIES-
TEACHER AIDE
J 1 2,576.00
1 3101 61101 210000 FICA J 1 9,085.00
1 3101 61101 221000 VIRGINIA
RETIREMENT SYS
J 1 18,916.00
1 3101 61101 222100 ANNUITY-PART
TIME
J 1 1,548.00
1 3101 61101 231000 HEALTH
INSURANCE
J 1 14,947.00
1 3101 61101 232000 DENTAL
INSURANCE
J 1 569.00
1 3101 61101 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE
J 1 1,149.00
1 3101 61101 242000 GROUP LIFE/PART
TIME
J 1 221.00
1 3101 61101 580500 STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
J 1 384.00
1 3101 61101 600200 FOOD SERVICES J 1 35.00
1 3101 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 2,844.59
1 3101 61311 115000 SALARIES-OFFICE
CLERICAL
J 1 2,093.00
1 3101 61311 210000 FICA J 1 151.00
1 3101 61311 221000 VIRGINIA
RETIREMENT SYS
J 1 345.00
1 3101 61311 231000 HEALTH
INSURANCE
J 1 308.00
1 3101 61311 232000 DENTAL
INSURANCE
J 1 12.00
1 3101 61311 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE
J 1 21.00
1 3101 61311 550100 TRAVEL J 1 80.00
1 3101 62420 520301 TELEPHONE-LOCAL J 1 34.00
1 3104 60204 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 990.00
1 3104 60205 312500 PROF. SERVICE-
INSTR.
J 1 995.00
1 3104 60205 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,500.00
1 3104 60206 312500 PROF. SERVICE-
INSTR.
J 1 432.44
1 3104 60206 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 300.00
1 3104 60206 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 2,500.21
1 3104 60206 800700 ADP-EQUIPMENT-
COMPUTERS
J 1 1,251.35
1 3104 60210 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 775.00
1 3104 60211 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 3,300.00
1 3104 60216 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 300.00
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
1 3104 60217 420100 FIELD TRIPS J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60217 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 1,193.00
1 3104 60251 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 600.00
1 3104 60252 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 300.00
1 3104 60302 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 300.00
1 3104 60304 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 600.00
1 3131 61311 160200 STIPENDS J 1 13,840.00
1 3131 61311 210000 FICA J 1 1,061.46
1 3203 61311 111400 SALARIES-OTHER
MANAGEMENT
J 1 18,243.75
1 3203 61311 115000 SALARIES-OFFICE
CLERICAL
J 1 5,310.18
1 3203 61311 160300 STIPENDS-
STAFF/CUR. DEV
J 1 2,600.00
1 3203 61311 210000 FICA J 1 1,942.40
1 3203 61311 221000 VRS J 1 3,876.96
1 3203 61311 231000 HEALTH
INSURANCE
J 1 922.95
1 3203 61311 232000 DENTAL
INSURANCE
J 1 34.05
1 3203 61311 241000 VRS GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE
J 1 235.53
1 3203 61311 312505 PROF. SERV. UVA J 1 12,080.65
1 3207 61190 800100 MACHINERY/EQUIP
MENT
J 1 10,039.19
1 3302 61101 601300 ED & REC SUPPLIES J 1 6,661.74
3101 0501 Est. Revenue 175,903.59
0701 Appropriation 175,903.59
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 16,337.00
0701 Appropriation 16,337.00
3131 0501 Est. Revenue 14,901.46
0701 Appropriation 14,901.46
3203 0501 Est. Revenue 45,246.47
0701 Appropriation 45,246.47
3207 0501 Est. Revenue 10,039.19
0701 Appropriation 10,039.19
3302 0501 Est. Revenue 6,661.74
0701 Appropriation 6,661.74
TOTAL 538,178.90 269,089.45 269,089.45
__________
Item No. 7.7. Requested FY2009 Appropriations.
The Executive Summary states that the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality
may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown
in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total
expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a
meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County
funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
The total of this requested FY 2009 appropriation is $256,761.00. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of seven (7) new FY 2009 appropriations as follows:
• One (1) appropriation (#2009012) totaling $140,000.00 for two Commission on Children &
Families grants;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009013) in the amount of $3,800.00 for miscellaneous FY08/09 budget
adjustments;
• Two (2) appropriations (#2009014 and #2009016) for two Social Services grants totaling
$37,399.00;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009015) totaling $7,520.00 for Education donations;
• One (1) appropriation (#2009017) providing $34,042.00 for transcription services for the Board of
Supervisors; and
• One (1) appropriation (#2009018) totaling $34,000.00 to reappropriate funding for two
uncompleted Emergency Communications Center projects.
Staff recommends the approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $256,761.00 and the
approval of the FY 2009 Appropriations #2009012, #2009013, #2009014, #2009015, #2009016, #2009017,
and #2009018.
Appropriation #2009012 $140,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant) $ 140,000.00
• The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children and Families
a grant in the amount of $97,500.00. This grant will provide training and continued services to reduce
system involved of truants and juveniles with other negative school related behaviors. This will include
staff time, staff training, and training materials. The federal portion of the grant is $65,000.00 with an
“in-kind” match of $32,500, resulting in the total award of $97,500.00.
• The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children and Families
a grant in the amount of $75,000.00. This grant will provide training and the continued services of the
Family Functional Therapy program. This will include staff training, manuals, and treatment services
for the participants. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2009013 $ 3,800.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency $ 3,800.00
During the FY08/09 budget process, funding for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s part-time law student
intern was under budgeted $3,800.00. This appropriation will provide $3,800.00 in local funding to
supplement $3,800.00 currently budgeted for the intern which is provided through a grant from the
University of Virginia Law School Foundation.
Effective July 1, 2008, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was reorganized under the
Department of Finance and its FY08/09 budget was appropriated accordingly. One position, which had
previously been funding in OMB, remained in the County Executive’s office. This appropriation will
reallocate this position’s costs from OMB to the County Executive’s office.
There is no impact on the County’s total budget.
Appropriation #2009014 $25,127.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant) $ 25,127.00
The County of Albemarle has received renewed funds for the Child Care Quality Initiative from the Federal
government. These funds will be used in conjunction with the City of Charlottesville’s Department of
Social Services to create a position that will be housed at Albemarle County’s Department of Social
Services that will serve both departments under the grant. The revenues from this grant are 100% federal
with no local match.
Appropriation #2009015 $ 7,520.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 7,520.00
At its meeting on August 14, 2008, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• W estern Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Nguyet Nguyen.
The donor has requested that their contribution be used on the turf project at W estern Albemarle High
School.
• W estern Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Estech Systems,
Inc. The donor has requested that their contribution go towards the rowing team at W estern
Albemarle High School.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
• Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $1,325.00 from various donors. The
following is a list of donors with their donations: Mr. & Mrs. Mark Holdren donated $75.00; Mr. & Mrs.
Neal Goodloe donated $25.00; Mr. & Mrs. Michael Dantoni donated $25.00; Mary Beth & Gary Cramer
donated $500.00; Mr. & Mrs. Larry Rouse donated $25.00; Mr. & Mrs. Victor Morris donated $25.00;
Mr. & Mrs. Ben Hurt donated $100.00; Carol Bickers donated $100.00; Mr. & Mrs. R. J. Schuett
donated $300.00; Mr. & Mrs. Karla McCollough donated $50.00; Mr. & Mrs. Douglas W eiss donated
$50.00; and Mr. & Mrs. Mark Robbins donated $50.00. These donors have requested that their
contributions go towards the turf project at Albemarle High School.
• W estern Albemarle High School received donations totaling $5,595.00 from various donors. The
following are the donors with their contributions: W illiam A. Grupp II donated $1,000.00; W estern
Albemarle High School donated $500.00; Douglas L. Starns donated $100.00; Pamela K. Grove
donated $20.00; Terri B. Nicholaou donated $75.00; Mark T. Drapanas donated $250.00; Phillip E.
Pfeifer donated $1,000.00; Victoria Savoy donated $20.00; George P. Nowlin, III donated $25.00;
Judith F. Pugh donated $10.00; Valerie P. Seal donated $20.00; Michelle D. Bushrow donated
$100.00; Leslie S. Bergin donated $50.00; Cherie Chaney donated $25.00; Andrew J. Moriconi
donated $25.00; Sara S. O’Connor donated $100.00; James J. Shelley Jr donated $100.00; Elisabeth
A. De Jong donated $100.00; Brian A. W heeler donated $100.00; Karen J. McGlathery donated
$50.00; Kristal Sumpter donated $200; Greg’s Painting donated $100.00; Quanjun Cui donated
$25.00; Anna Castle donated $50.00; Deborah H. Claytor donated $200.00; Amy O’Leary donated
$35.00; Catherine Shaffrey donated $250.00; Suzanne O’Dell donated $10.00; C.G. W hitworth IV
donated $1,000.00; Jeffrey Schwoebel donated $25.00 and an anonymous donor donated $30.00.
They have requested that their contributions go towards the turf project at W estern Albemarle High
School.
Appropriation #2009016 $12,272.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue (Grant) $ 9,468.00
Transfer 2,804.00
The Department of Social Services has received continuation funding from the Virginia Community Corps
via a Federal grant for the AmeriCorps Program. AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs
that engage move than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive services to meet critical needs in
education, public safety, health, and the environment. The AmeriCorps worker will serve the Adult
Division of Albemarle County’s Department of Social Services to help achieve the following strategic goals
of the agency: develop and implement strategies focused on prevention and early intervention and ensure
that all services meet the needs of the changing demographics of the community. There is a local 20%
match, $2,804.00, which will be funding through appropriated funds in the Department of Social Services’
operating budget. This appropriation will increase the County’s total budget $9,468.00.
Appropriation #2009017 $ 34,042.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency $ 34,042.00
At its meeting on June 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors agreed to increase the Clerk’s operating budget
by as much as $35,000.00 from its contingency in order to improve timeliness of meeting minute
preparation and Board Office operations. Staff presented to the Board information that the number of
hours the Board met increased 43% between CY 2000 and CY 2007. During the first half of the current
calendar year, the number of days the Board met increased 25% compared to the same period in CY
2007 while the number of Board meetings scheduled during this period increased by 45%. Responses to
an RFQ for transcription services have now been received and evaluated. In order to improve the
timeliness of meeting minute preparation and Board Office operations, $34,042.00 in funding will be
needed for FY08/09.
Appropriation #2009018 $ 34,000.00
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 34,000.00
The Emergency Communications Center has requested reappropriation of the following uncompleted
projects:
• $20,000.00 to replace all of the carpeting within the Emergency Communications Center. This will
include the removal of the old carpeting and the cost to elevate each of the operational dispatch
consoles while the carpeting is being removed and replaced. This task will be carried out while the
Communications Center is in operations.
• $14,000.00 for the APCO Emergency Medical Dispatch Program. The present EMD protocols were
developed by our Operational Medical Director but are not recognized by the Virginia Department of
EMS. This new program will meet all the requirements for pre-arrival instructions.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved of the budget amendment in the amount
of $256,761.00 and the approval of the FY 2009 Appropriations #2009012, #2009013, #2009014,
#2009015, #2009016, #2009017, and #2009018.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009012
APPROPRIATION DATE
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Commission on Children & Families Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1580 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 75,000.00
1 1580 53157 312105 Consulting J 1 70,400.00
1 1580 53157 550100 Travel/Training J 1 1,600.00
1 1580 53157 600100 Supplies J 1 3,000.00
1580 0501 Est. Revenue 75,000.00
0701 Appropriation 75,000.00
2 1581 33000 330032 Federal Revenue J 2 65,000.00
1 1581 53154 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 39,341.10
1 1581 53154 210000 FICA J 1 3,258.90
1 1581 53154 231000 Health Insurance J 1 6,701.00
1 1581 53154 241000 VRS Group Life J 1 452.00
1 1581 53154 312700 Prof Services -
Consultants
J 1 6,000.00
1 1581 53154 500100 Travel/Training J 1 2,000.00
1 1581 53154 580000 Miscellaneous
Expense
J 1 5,247.00
1 1581 53154 800330 Computer Equipment J 1 2,000.00
1581 0501 Est. Revenue 65,000.00
0701 Appropriation 65,000.00
TOTAL 280,000.00 140,000.00 140,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009013
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Miscellaneous FY 2009 Budget Adjustments
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 22010 130000 C’wealth Atty – PT
Wages
J 1 3,800.00
1 1000 95000 999990 Contingency J 1 (3,800.00)
1 1000 12148 110000 Budget Office –
Salaries
J 1 (54,990.00)
1 1000 12148 210000 Budget Office – FICA J 1 (4,207.00)
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
1 1000 12148 221000 Budget Office –VRS
Retirement
J 1 (7,446.00)
1 1000 12148 241000 Budget Office – VRS
Life
J 1 (550.00)
1 1000 12148 231000 Budget Office –
Health Ins.
J 1 (6,523.00)
1 1000 12148 232000 Budget Office –Dental
Ins.
J 1 (238.00)
1 1000 12148 270000 Budget Office –
Worker’s Comp
J 1 (64.00)
1 1000 12010 110000 Co. Exec. – Salaries J 1 54,990.00
1 1000 12010 210000 Co. Exec. – FICA J 1 4,207.00
1 1000 12010 221000 Co. Exec. –VRS
Retirement
J 1 7,446.00
1 1000 12010 241000 Co. Exec. – VRS Life J 1 550.00
1 1000 12010 231000 Co. Exec. – Health
Ins.
J 1 6,523.00
1 1000 12010 232000 Co. Exec. –Dental
Ins.
J 1 238.00
1 1000 12010 270000 Co. Exec. – Worker’s
Comp
J 1 64.00
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009014
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Social Services – Child Care Quality Initiative
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1561 33000 330001 Federal Revenue -
Grant
J 2 25,127.00
1 1561 53115 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 19,508.00
1 1561 53115 210000 FICA J 1 1,492.00
1 1561 53115 301210 Contract Services J 1 2,000.00
1 1561 53115 310000 Professional Services J 1 1,000.00
1 1561 53115 312100 Professional Services
- Legal
J 1 300.00
1 1561 53115 550100 Travel/Training/Educa
tion
J 1 400.00
1 1561 53115 600100 Office Supplies J 1 427.00
1561 0501 Est. Revenue 25,127.00
0701 Appropriation 25,127.00
TOTAL 50,254.00 25,127.00 25,127.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009015
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Education Donations – School Board Meeting – 08/14/2008
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 DONATION J 2 500.00
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS DONATION -
TURF FIELD
J 2 1,325.00
2 9002 18100 181107 WAHS DONATION -
TURF FIELD
J 2 5,695.00
1 2302 61105 800100 MACH/EQUIP - NEW J 1 500.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYN. TURF
FIELD
J 1 1,325.00
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS SYN. TURF
FIELD
J 1 5,695.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 500.00
0701 Appropriation 500.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 1,325.00
0701 Appropriation 1,325.00
9002 0501 Est. Revenue 5,695.00
0701 Appropriation 5,695.00
TOTAL 15,040.00 7,520.00 7,520.00
__________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009016
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Americorps Grant
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1566 33000 330001 Federal Revenue -
Grant
J 2 9,468.00
2 1566 51000 512004 Transfer from G/F J 2 2,804.00
1 1566 53156 110000 Salaries J 1 11,400.00
1 1566 53156 210000 FICA J 1 872.00
1 1000 53013 571107 Social Services-Child
Care Fee
J 1 (2,804.00)
1 1000 53013 939999 Social Services-
Trsnfer to Other
J 1 2,804.00
TOTAL 24,544.00 0.00 0.00
__________
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009017
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Funding of Transcription Services for Board of Supervisors
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 11010 312210 BOS - Contracted
Services
J 1 34,042.00
1 1000 95000 999990 Contingency J 1 (34,042.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
___________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2009018
APPROPRIATION DATE
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: ECC Reappropriations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31041 312210 ECC-Admin-Contract
Services
J 1 34,000.00
2 4100 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 34,000.00
TOTAL 68,000.00 0.00 0.00
__________
Item No. 7.8. Personnel Policy Revisions: P-84 “Annual Leave”, P-80 “Absences”, P-60, “Salary
Administration and Position Classification” and the addition of P-89 “W orkers Compensation”.
The Executive Summary states that Human Resources has been working with the County
Attorney’s Office to review and revise personnel policies as part of the comprehensive revision of the
County’s Personnel Policy Manual. Under Local Government Policy P-08 and School Board Policy GAD-
AP, a joint staff committee must review proposed personnel policies that apply both to Local Government
and Schools and make recommendations to the County Executive and Superintendent.
Last spring, the County Executive and Superintendent appointed employees from Local
Government and Schools to the Commonality Personnel Policy Committee. At its meeting on June 25,
2008, the Committee reviewed the proposed areas of change in policies P-84, P-60 and P-89 and
recommended that they be approved. Human Resources also presented the proposed changes to the
Leadership Council and the Leadership Team for their information and feedback.
Revised policies P-84 and P-60 and new policy P-89 affect annual leave, salary administration
and workers’ compensation benefits, respectively. School Board policies GCBA (Salary Administration
and Position Classification) and GCC (Leave – covering both Annual Leave and W orkers’ Compensation)
were presented to the School Board for a first reading on August 14, 2008. The School Board directed
staff to consider implications of the W orkers’ Compensation policy changes on non-benefits eligible
employees, but asked that the W orkers’ Compensation policy, without changes, be presented for
consideration at its next business meeting. Both policies will return to the School Board for a second
reading and adoption on September 11, 2008. This fall, Human Resources will present information
regarding non-benefits eligible employees to the Commonality Personnel Policy Committee for its review
and will brief both boards on the relevant data and recommendations.
Highlights of changes to the policies are as follows.
Annual Leave (P-84):
1. Allow discretion for new employees to accrue annual leave at higher rates, with County Executive
and HR approval.
2. Change the schedule for monitoring maximum accruals (320 hours) from a monthly to annual
basis (on the employee’s birth month) in order to help employees better manage their excess
annual leave.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
3. Allow annual leave over the maximum to convert in the following manner, rather than being lost
without any employee compensation:
50% Employee’s own sick leave balance
50% County sick bank
Salary Administration and Position Classification (P-60):
1. Allow for more flexibility in determining pay for promotions, demotions, voluntary movement to a
lower pay grade and reclassifications.
2. Replace specific percentage amounts with language that allows for consideration of relevant
experience and internal equity.
W orkers’ Compensation (Establish new policy P-89):
Background:
Under the Virginia W orkers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”), employees who miss work due to an
eligible, work-related injury or illness must be paid 66 2/3% of their average weekly wages after their
seventh day of absence. Their 66 2/3% benefits are not taxable. Although employers are not required to
supplement these benefits, the County currently pays employees 1/3 of their daily wages, with no charge
to their personal leave balances, for up to 1 year from the date of their eligible injury. Consequently,
employees on workers’ compensation leave take home more than 100% of their regular salary because
their 66 2/3% benefits are not taxed. In most cases the untaxed 66 2/3% benefit, alone, is comparable to
the employee’s regular net earnings.
In a benchmarking study conducted last spring, Human Resources surveyed the workers’
compensation policies of eleven comparable jurisdictions in Virginia. Out of the eleven localities, seven do
not supplement the 66 2/3% wages (Chesterfield County, Henrico County Schools, Stafford County, City
of Suffolk, York County, Fauquier County and City of Charlottesville); two supplement to provide 100% of
the employees’ wages (Henrico County and City of Richmond); and two currently supplement to provide
100% of the wages, but are in the process of revising their policies to discontinue supplementation
(Hanover County and Prince W illiam County). As this study reflects, the County’s current policy of
supplementing over 100% of employees’ regular wages is in the minority.
The current policy also provides no financial incentive for injured employees to return to work or
participate fully in the County’s transitional work program, given that they earn more while not working than
while working. Adopting the new policy would also provide better stewardship of County revenues.
Proposed Changes:
Based on the above, staff recommends the following changes:
1. Discontinue supplementing workers’ compensation benefits through direct payment of 33
1/3% of employees’ daily wages.
2. Allow employees to supplement their 66 2/3% workers’ compensation benefits with
accrued sick, annual and compensatory time leave for up to 1/3 of the daily hours they
are normally scheduled to work. The County will continue to make all contributions
toward the employee’s retirement benefits, as well as their health, dental and life
insurance.
Apart from policy changes, staff will also be making some procedural changes required by the Act
and the County’s W orkers’ Compensation insurance carrier, the Virginia Municipal League (VML). The
County currently pays employees their 66 2/3% benefits on a monthly basis. Going forward, VML will
issue the employees’ workers’ compensation payments and mail them directly to the employees every two
weeks.
The County will also continue to focus on bringing employees back to work through its transitional
work program. This newly implemented program helps injured employees with medical restrictions to
return to work by matching them with departmental activities they can perform. The ultimate goal is to
return the restricted duty employee back to full duty. If the employee’s department cannot accommodate
the restrictions, Human Resources searches for suitable work in other County departments.
Absences (P-80):
Delete Section F regarding W orkers’ Compensation.
There are minimal budget implications for these policy changes. The changes to the workers’
compensation policy will create some cost savings for the minimal number of workers’ compensation
claims the County receives on an annual basis. Allowing annual leave to convert to personal sick leave
and sick leave bank hours may result in the County paying for a greater number of sick leave hours, but
should not create any direct costs.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions, which will approve the
proposed changes to Personnel Policies P-84, P-80 and P-60, and the addition of Personnel Policy P-89.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he did not understand how the County Executive can change the
accrued annual leave time date.
Mr. Tucker explained that there are employees that have a lot of experience and are basically
starting over from scratch, so as a recruiting tool it is helpful for him and the Human Resources
Department to negotiate additional vacation time for those who already had 10, 15 or 20 years of
experience. This will not be widespread use.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Boyd asked why change accruing leave time from date of employment to birth month.
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Assistant Director of Human Resources, explained that employees’ leave has
been measured every month from date of hire and every month if they had over 320 hours they would lose
the time. This impacted long service employees. To allow those employees to better plan and the
Department to better manage time off, it was recommended to be changed to once a year. It could have
been hire date, but the decision was made to use the birth month because employees move around within
the organization.
Mr. Slutzky asked why the County was additionally supplementing W orkman’s Compensation
benefits with a direct payment of one-third as most localities do not supplement because the two-thirds is
after taxes are taken into account, especially in light of the current economic crunch.
Ms. Pam Carter, Occupational Health, Safety, and W ellness Manager, explained that the County
is supplementing one-third of the employee’s salary and the new policy proposes that the employee can
use accrued vacation and/or sick time to supplement the salary.
Mr. Slutzky responded that if the employee uses accrued vacation or sick time they would
otherwise use, it still costs the County money to pay for those days. He asked why it is not more
economically beneficial for an employee to go ahead when they are coming back from a work-related
illness to stay out as long as possible. If they stay out they are going to get the equivalent of their pay from
this two-thirds plus they are going to get the extra one-third through a sick day.
Ms. Carter explained that currently the County itself is supplementing the one-third, not the
employee. The one-third would not exceed what their normal salary would be. It equates out to .7 hours a
day. She said that she did a computation on a $34,000 salary and on a weekly basis there would be a $55
difference that equates to the one-third.
Mr. Davis added that it could vary depending on the tax status of the employee – how many
dependents and deductions they have. He said that staff debated this internally but the General Assembly
mandates that this policy be in place for Sheriff’s deputies, so in the big picture staff decided this is the
best approach.
Ms. Carter clarified that the legislature mandated that employers had to allow Sheriff’s officers to
use their personal time to supplement the one-third.
Mr. Slutzky asked what the deletion was for Policy “P-80”. Ms. Carter responded that currently the
W orkman’s Compensation statement is located in that section of leave. Staff is replacing that with its own
policy number.
Mr. Slutzky said the Executive Summary states that: “Allowing annual leave to convert to
personal sick leave and sick leave bank hours may result in the County paying for a greater number of
sick leave hours, but should not create any direct costs.” That could be a significant economic impact to
the County because those hours that are now lost at the end of each year that employees did not take, are
now going to be paid because they would be allowed to roll them over.
Ms. Gerome explained that the annual leave would be converted to sick leave but that is not paid
for if an employee terminates employment or retires. Many of these are long-service employees who have
large sick-leave balances. Many have hours that they will never use and the cost really is minimal.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the in-depth analysis is not included in the staff report, expressing
concern about the budget impact of this policy.
Mr. Rooker added that when employees leave the County they do not get paid for unused sick
leave. He added though that if many of the hours are never used, why make the change.
Ms. Gerome commented that all of these policies went through an extensive review process with
inner-departmental staff committees as well as the Personnel Policy Committee. They were reviewed by
Leadership Council on Local Government side and reviewed by Leadership Team on the Schools side.
That point was brought up and data reviewed. It is difficult to really point to a dollar amount on the sick
leave, but this move was mostly made for morale reasons, as it is difficult for an employee to work for the
County a long time and end up losing time because they are not able to take vacation.
Mr. Tucker said that the County encourages staff to bank their sick leave because it is never
known when you might have a serious illness.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that he does not see a computable financial cost in most instances.
Ms. Thomas asked if the discussion included employees or just the leadership group.
Ms. Gerome said that Ms. Carter spent extensive time with public safety employees as the
W orkman’s Compensation was the more sensitive issue, but the salary administration and annual leave
matters are more favorable to the employees and therefore less contentious. There was some
representation but they did not go throughout the organization at every level.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to have information from Human Resources’ analysis on the
financial impact of the sick leave policy change.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Rooker emphasized that unless you hire someone to take the place of an employee who is
out sick, there really is not a financial impact. He said that there would likely be less sick days taken under
the new policy presented for adoption.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolutions, which approved
proposed changes to Personnel Policies P-84, P-80 and P-60, and the addition of Personnel Policy
P-89:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to Personnel Policy P-84, Annual Leave: 1) allow discretion for
new employees to accrue annual leave at higher rates with County Executive and Human Resources
approval; 2) change the schedule for monitoring maximum accrual of annual leave from a monthly to an
annual basis; 3) allow annual leave accrued over the maximum to convert evenly to the employee’s sick leave
balance and the County’s sick bank; and 4) make other appropriate updates and modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt the revisions to Personnel Policy P-84.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby adopts Personnel Policy P-84, Annual Leave, of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy
Manual, as attached hereto and incorporated herein, effective September 3, 2008.
* * * * * * * * * *
§P-84
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-84 ANNUAL LEAVE
1. Accrual
All benefits-eligible regular employees of the County shall be granted annual leave by the County as
follows:
A. One day per month for each month employed during the first five (5) years of continuous
employment.
B. One and one-quarter days for each month employed during the sixth through the tenth (6-10)
years of continuous employment.
C. One and one-half days for each month employed during the eleventh through the fifteenth
(11-15) years of continuous employment.
D. One and three-quarter days for each month employed during the sixteenth through the
twentieth (16-20) years of continuous employment.
E. Two days for each month employed during the twenty-first through twenty-fifth (21-25) years
of continuous employment.
F. Two and one-quarter days for each month employed during the twenty-sixth (26th) and
succeeding years of continuous employment.
W ith the approval of Human Resources and the County Executive or his designee, a new employee’s
annual accrual rate at the date of hire may begin at a rate other than the starting rate stated in section
(A) above.
2. Use and Conversion of Unused Annual Leave
Employees are required to arrange use of paid annual leave in advance with their department head or
designee. In case of a conflict because of the work schedule in a particular department, leave will be
granted at the discretion of the department head or designee.
In the interest of fostering wellness for County employees, those employees with five or more years of
service must take at least five (5) days of annual leave per fiscal year. Supervisors shall work with
their employees to ensure that time is made available for annual leave.
On the anniversary of the employee’s birth month each year, any annual leave balance that is above
320 hours automatically converts as follows: 50% to the employee’s own sick leave balance and 50%
donated to the County sick leave bank. The employee need not be a member of the bank. In cases
where annual leave is at risk of being converted, annual leave must be used for time off prior to using
compensatory leave.
Upon termination of employment, the employee will be paid for his accumulated but unused annual
leave. The maximum payout of annual leave will be 320 hours, except for the employees of
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
constitutional officers, who may not accumulate more than 240 hours of annual leave pursuant to
state law.
Amended: August 7, 1996; August 2, 2000; September 13, 2000; September 3, 2008
* * * * * * * * * * *
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to Personnel Policy P-60, Salary Administration and Position
Classification: 1) allow for more flexibility and for consideration of relevant experience and internal equity in
determining pay for promotions, demotions, voluntary movement to a lower pay grade and reclassifications;
and 2) make other appropriate updates and modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt the revisions to Personnel Policy P-60.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby adopts Personnel Policy P-60, Salary Administration and Position Classification, of the County
of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual, as attached hereto and incorporated herein, effective September 3,
2008.
* * * * * * * * * * *
§P-60
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-60 SALARY ADMINISTRATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION
The County Classification and Pay Plan governs the classification and compensation of positions in County
employment, and is maintained by the Human Resources Department.
The Pay Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors is directly linked to the Classification Plan and will be
based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Board will maintain a salary administration program
will provide for payment of salaries and for recognition of and reward for differences in individual ability and
performance.
Procedure for Salary Administration and Position Classification
A. Class specifications are written descriptions of each position which include general statements of the
duties, responsibilities, and qualifications necessary for that position. A class specification will be
developed for each position and supervisors are to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of that
position.
B. Like classifications will be grouped in terms of common elements:
1. Job Complexity
2. Education and Experience
3. Scope and Impact
4. Supervision Received
5. W orking Relationships
6. W orking Environment
7. Physical Demand
This grouping will be determined by a system of point values arrived upon in the analysis of each job.
C. It is the responsibility of the department head/designee to maintain equitable and properly evaluated
positions within his/her department. Newly created positions or major changes in the functions or
responsibilities of an existing position shall be reported to the Director of Human Resources in order
to initiate an evaluation study to establish a new position or reclassify an existing position.
D. All position classifications and reclassifications must be approved prior to placement on a salary
range. Recommendations must be approved by the County Executive or his designee.
E. Salary ranges consisting of a minimum, midpoint, and maximum salary will be established for each
class of positions based on the policies of the Board as well as information about similar positions in
the community and, where appropriate, compared with similar positions within the state.
F. Human Resources will ensure that the plan is kept current through periodic reviews and comparative
studies of pertinent factors affecting levels of pay.
G. Entrance Pay Rate – The entrance pay rate shall normally be the minimum rate in the pay range
prescribed for the class. W hen a prospective employee has relevant experience and education
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
beyond position requirements that would warrant placement above the minimum rate, the following
will be used as a guide for this placement:
Less than 12 months’ relevant experience Minimum Range
1 year to less than 3 years’ relevant experience 5% Above Minimum
3 years to less than 5 years’ relevant experience 10% Above Minimum
5 years to less than 7 years’ relevant experience 15% Above Minimum
7 or more years’ relevant experience 20% Above Minimum
The County Executive is authorized to hire employees at any point within the salary range based on
market conditions and the qualifications of the individual.
H. Pay Rate Adjustment – The following personnel actions shall affect the pay status of an employee in
the manner described:
1. Promotion – W hen an employee is promoted from one class to another having a higher pay
range and additional responsibilities, the employee may receive an increase of up to ten
percent or that rate which would be granted to a newly hired employee as stated in paragraph
G above with consideration given to internal equity and relevant experience. Promotions can
only occur if (a) there is a vacancy in the higher pay range or (b) additional positions in the
higher class are approved in the budget cycle for implementation in the next fiscal year.
2. Demotion – W hen an employee is demoted from one class to another having a lower pay
range, the employee shall be placed within the lower range with consideration given to
internal equity and relevant experience. If an employee is reassigned for administrative
purposes through no fault of the employee, his rate of pay shall remain the same. Only in
such cases, if the employee’s salary exceeds the maximum of the range, the rate of pay shall
remain the same until the range changes, as a result of subsequent market studies and/or
reclassifications, to the extent that the employee’s salary then matches the new range for his
position/job classification.
3. Voluntary Movement to a Position in a Lower Pay grade – W hen an employee chooses to
move to/apply for a position in a lower pay grade, he or she may be subject to a reduction in
pay, based upon internal equity considerations and other relevant factors.
4. Reclassification – W hen an employee is reclassified from one range into a higher range, the
employee will receive a pay rate increase. The increased amount will be based upon the
factors identified in section b, as well as internal equity considerations and the level of
variance from the current position.
5. Completion of Probationary Period – Upon successful completion of their initial probationary
periods, employees will:
i. If hired on or before November 1st of a fiscal year, receive a prorated salary increase
effective the following July 1st, earned by their participation in the regular merit
evaluation cycle; or,
ii. If hired on or after November 2nd of a fiscal year, receive a prorated salary increase
based on the budgeted new increase in the fiscal year, as outlined on the Exhibit
which accompanies this policy. Probationary salary increases will only be awarded
for successful completion of the employee’s initial probationary period. Successful
completion of subsequent probationary periods, as may be required in accordance
with Policy P-23, will not result in subsequent probationary increases.
6. Shift Differential – W hen an employee is assigned to work evening/midnight shifts, a pay
differential will be paid as follows:
Evening: 4:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.: 4% of base salary for the position
Midnight: 12:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.: 5% of base salary for the position
Employees must be assigned to a shift to be eligible for the differential. If an employee works
a shift that encompasses both daylight, evening or midnight shifts, the differential will be paid
based on the majority of hours worked in the respective shift.
I. Temporary work in a higher classification - All regular employees who are assigned temporary work in
a higher pay grade position shall be paid the minimum rate of the higher classification (but no less
than 5% above their regular rate) for those hours of such assignment if the assignment exceeds ten
(10) consecutive work days.
These temporary assignments with higher pay may be made only in situations when the work requires
the designation of an employee in the higher classification by the department head or County
Executive/designee and are not intended to apply to occasional assignments of supervisory or
administrative responsibility.
W hen it can be substantiated that the salary of an employee is significantly below the average salary
of the relevant market for the position, or the scope of the position has expanded considerably, an in-
range equity adjustment may be granted. Requests for adjustments will be submitted by the
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
employee’s supervisor to Human Resources, which will review the request based on the following
factors: (1) an identification of the position’s relevant market; (2) internal equity; (3) degree of position
expansion; and (4) other relevant considerations. Human Resources will use this information to make
a recommendation to the County Executive/designee, who shall have the sole authority to approve
any adjustment to an employee’s salary based on this process.
Adopted: July 1, 1993
Amended: September 13, 1993; June 19, 1995; July 8, 1996; December 8, 1997, September 3, 2008
§P-60
EXHIBIT
EXAMPLE OF PRORATED MERIT FOR NEW EMPLOYEES
Hire Date End Probation Merit Increase July 1st Date of Increase Amount of
Increase
The following employee would participate in the regular evaluation cycle and receive
an increase July 1:
July 1 December 31 12/12 x merit earned July 1 $600
August 1 January 31 11/12 x merit earned July 1 $550
September 1 February 28 10/12 x merit earned July 1 $500
October 1 March 31 9/12 x merit earned July 1 $450
November 1 April 30 8/12 x merit earned July 1 $400
The following employee would not participate in the regular merit program, but would
receive an increase based on the payout percentage
December 1 May 31 7/12 x payout percentage July 1 $350
January 1 June 30 6/12 x payout percentage July 1 $300
February 1 July 31 5/12 x payout percentage August 1 $250
March 1 August 31 4/12 x payout percentage September 1 $200
April 1 September 30 3/12 x payout percentage October 1 $150
May 1 October 31 2/12 x payout percentage November 1 $100
June 1 November 30 1/12 x payout percentage December 1 $ 50
* * * * * * * * * *
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy Manual has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Personnel Policy Manual changes: 1) discontinue supplementing workers’
compensation benefits through direct payment of 33 1/3% of employees’ daily wages; 2) allow employees to
supplement their 66 2/3% workers’ compensation benefits with accrued sick, annual and compensatory time
leave for up to 1/3 of the daily hours they are normally scheduled to work; and 3) make other appropriate
updates and modifications; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to adopt these Personnel Policy revisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby adopts Personnel Policy P-89, W orkers’ Compensation, and amends Personnel Policy P-80,
Absences, as attached hereto and incorporated herein, effective September 3, 2008.
* * * * * * * * * *
§P-89
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-89
W ORKERS’ COMPENSATION
I. PURPOSE
This policy establishes procedures to administer benefits under the Virginia W orkers’ Compensation
Act (the “Act”), Title 65.2 of the Virginia Code.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
II. POLICY
A. First 7 Days of Absence. In the event an employee misses work for a work-related injury or
illness that is compensable under the Act, the first seven (7) calendar days of absence are
not covered/paid by W orkers’ Compensation. During this period, an employee may use
accrued sick leave. If sick leave is exhausted, the employee may use accrued annual and/or
compensatory leave in any order desired.
B. Absence After 7 Days. Starting the eighth (8) calendar day of absence due to a compensable
work-related injury or illness, the employee will receive 662/3% of his average weekly wages
as W orkers’ Compensation income benefits. From the eighth day forward, the employee
may use accrued sick, annual and compensatory leave to supplement his W orkers’
Compensation income benefits, as follows:
1. The leave shall not exceed 1/3 of the employee’s normally scheduled, non-overtime
work hours on any shift.
2. Sick leave must be taken first. After sick leave is exhausted, the employee may use
accrued annual and/or compensatory leave in any order desired.
3. All leave must be accrued by the time of usage. Employees may not borrow against
future leave accrual.
4. The County’s Sick Leave Bank may not be utilized during this period.
C. Benefits After 21 Days of Absence. In the event that the absence exceeds twenty-one (21)
calendar days, the employee will be reimbursed for the first seven (7) calendar days by the
County’s Third Party Administrator for W orkers’ Compensation at the calculated
compensation rate. The employee will be allowed to keep this reimbursement without
obligation to return any payments to the County.
D. Leave for Noncompensable Claims. Should a claim not be accepted by W orkers’
Compensation as compensable, the employee may use all applicable leave for which he is
eligible.
E. Employer/Employee Insurance Contributions. The County shall continue all applicable
contributions toward retirement, life insurance, health insurance and dental insurance during
the period of time an employee is absent for a compensable injury/illness. It will be the
employee’s responsibility to make payment arrangements directly with the Payroll
Department for the employee’s contribution toward these benefits, as well as any other
optional programs to which the employee may be contributing.
F. Return to W ork. Once the employee is released by his treating physician to return to work in
any capacity, he is expected to return to work. Depending upon the nature of the medical
restrictions, if any, and the staffing needs of the employee’s department, this return may not
necessarily be to the same position or duties worked by the employee at the time of the
injury/illness. Should the employee turn down or fail to perform offered work that he is
capable of doing, the County may take all actions permitted under law, including but not
limited to, contesting the employee’s entitlement to further W orkers’ Compensation benefits
before the Virginia W orkers’ Compensation Commission.
III. EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
A. W orkers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator. The W orkers’ Compensation program is
administered through a third party administrator. The Third Party Administrator handles all
employee claims and settlements after detailed consultation with the County’s representative,
including contested claims scheduled for a hearing before the Virginia W orkers’
Compensation Commission.
B. Employee Reporting. Employees are required to report immediately all work-related injuries
and illnesses to their supervisor. These include any injury that occurs while working and any
illness that the employee believes to be caused by his work. All incidents shall be reported
regardless of apparent significance and regardless of whether medical attention was
obtained. Late reporting by the employee can result in delayed or denied W orkers’
Compensation benefits.
C. Departmental Reporting. The employee’s department is responsible for:
1. Submitting an Employer’s Accident Report immediately upon notification by the
employee of a work-related injury or illness, or upon his knowledge of the event. All
reports must be submitted electronically within 24 hours of the accident or injury.
2. Accurately recording time lost due to work-related injury or illness utilizing
appropriate leave code(s).
D. Assistance to Employees. The Human Resources Department is responsible for providing
information to employees with respect to workers’ compensation benefits. Human Resources
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
will also assist employees in completing necessary paperwork for submission to the Third
Party Administrator.
Adopted: September 3, 2008
* * * * * * * * * *
§P-80
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-80 ABSENCES
The Board strives to keep attendance of employees at a maximum and absences at a minimum. The
Board recognizes, however, that absences are unavoidable and allows certain absences and absence
payments. The Board will establish policies that are meant to maintain the highest possible efficiency.
Allowance will be made to permit bona fide absences, and prevent employees who have been ill from
becoming a hazard to other employees by returning to work too soon.
Procedure for Compliance for Absences
A. It will remain the right of the department head/designee and the County Executive or designee to:
1. Authorize, or refuse to authorize in exceptional cases, the advance request of an employee
for permission to be absent.
2. Investigate absences.
3. Deny leave payment for absences in violation of any Board policy.
4. Impose reasonable disciplinary penalties upon employees who have abused their leave
privileges and who violate the provisions of the “Responsibilities of Employees” section of this
policy.
B. Responsibilities of Employees
Every employee of the County has the following obligations and responsibilities concerning absence:
1. Request for Leave – W hen the need for being absent from work is known in advance, the
employee must notify his immediate supervisor as far in advance as possible on the Leave
Form provided by the Department of Human Resources.
2. Notice of Unexpected Absence – W hen an employee who has not given advance notice finds
that he cannot report to work, the employee must notify his supervisor prior to starting time or
within thirty (30) minutes of the regular starting time unless the department has established
other guidelines for notification. Employees should be aware of the notification requirements
of their departments. Upon returning to work, the employee must complete a Leave Form as
a record of absence.
3. Failure to Give Notice – Failure to give the notice required shall constitute cause for a
reasonable disciplinary penalty including cause for denial of absence pay allowance. Unless
an absence has been authorized in advance or an absence is unavoidable, every employee
shall be expected to be present and on time for his scheduled work.
C. Employees Returning to W ork After Illness
Before an employee returns to work after an absence due to illness, the employee may be requested
to submit a medical release certifying the illness and that he is well enough to return to work. This
medical release shall be from the employee’s physician or, if required by the department head, a
physician designated by the Human Resources Department. In all instances, the employee will be
advised of the requirement prior to the employee being authorized to return to work.
D. Absences for urgent personal business, bereavement, or illness will be granted at the discretion of the
immediate supervisor and in compliance with Board policy. Sick Leave may be used for bereavement
leave for immediate family members. (See also Sick Leave, P-85) Bereavement leave for non-
immediate family members shall be covered by compensatory time, Annual Leave or Unpaid Leave.
(See also Annual Leave, P-84 and Unpaid Leave, P-82)
E. The Board recognizes the duty of every citizen to serve on a jury when requested and will allow
payment from the court for serving on jury duty. Employees serving jury duty will receive full salary as
well as retain compensation received from the court. Employees are expected to give notice of jury
duty and to report to work when jury is not in session. Employees who are subpoenaed to appear as
witnesses in legal proceedings in their capacity as County employees will be entitled to treat time
spent in such proceedings as compensable working time. However, employees who initiate or are
otherwise involved in private legal actions of any kind (excluding employee grievance proceedings),
whether such actions involve the County or not, will not be permitted to treat time spent during
working hours in connection with such actions as compensable working time. Such employees will be
required to use accrued compensatory time, Annual Leave or Unpaid Leave for all hours spent in
connection with such actions that occur during working hours.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
F. Military leave of absence will be granted by the Board in accordance with existing state and federal
statutes. (See also Military Leave, P-83)
G. Breaks: There is no formal break time provided by Albemarle County. However, reasonable time
shall be provided for personal care and refreshments during the workday.
H. Lunch Time: A lunch period of at least thirty (30) minutes shall be provided to each full-time
employee and, unless prior supervisory approval is received, employees may not forego the lunch
period in order to shorten the workday. (See also Overtime/Compensatory Time, P-61/62)
I. Acceptable Attendance:
Acceptable attendance is a minimum expectation of all County employees. Department Heads are
responsible for monitoring attendance within their departments. Except as noted, when an
employee’s absenteeism exceeds four percent (4%) of available work time for Sick Leave, Unpaid
Leave, and/or unplanned use of compensatory time or Annual Leave, his department head is
responsible for investigating the absenteeism and taking appropriate action as necessary. Leave
taken under FMLA and/or W orkers’ Compensation shall not be considered when determining
acceptable attendance. However, nothing shall prohibit the County from determining an employee’s
eligibility to return to employment once FMLA has been exhausted.
Amended: August 4, 1993, April 20, 2005, September 3, 2008
__________
Item No. 7.9. Resolution of the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia,
authorizing the issuance of up to $195,000,000 in revenue bonds for Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH
Foundation.
The following letter dated September 2, 2008, was received from the Chairman, Economic
Development Authority of Albemarle County, to the Board of Supervisors:
“Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-stock corporations
(collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), have requested that the Economic Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") issue up to $195,000,000 of its revenue bonds
("Bonds") in one or more series from time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in
financing or refinancing costs associated with the following (collectively, "Plan of Financing"): (1) the
acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of an approximately 456,358 square foot, five-story
replacement acute care hospital facility (the "Replacement Hospital") to consist of approximately 176
beds to be located at the Peter Jefferson Place business office park near the intersection of W illis
Drive and Peter Jefferson Parkway in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) working capital and routine
capital expenditures at the Replacement Hospital, (3) routine capital expenditures at Martha Jefferson
Health Services' existing three-story healthcare and medical office facility located at 595 Peter
Jefferson Parkway, Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Peter Jefferson Place business office park, and
(4) costs of issuance, reserve funds and capitalized interest related to the projects or the issuance of
the bonds.
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the Authority has agreed
to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed Plan
of Financing and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Attached hereto (copies on file) is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and
the action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code
Section l5.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.”
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution of the Economic
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, authorizing the issuance of up to
$195,000,000 in revenue bonds for Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
W HEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has
considered the application of Martha Jefferson Hospital and MJH Foundation, both nonprofit Virginia non-
stock corporations (collectively, "Martha Jefferson Health Services"), requesting the issuance of the Authority's
revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $195,000,000 ("Bonds") to be issued in one or more series from
time to time to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services in financing or refinancing costs associated with (1) the
acquisition, construction, equipping and furnishing of an approximately 456,358 square foot, five-story
replacement acute care hospital facility (the "Replacement Hospital") to consist of approximately 176 beds to
be located at the Peter Jefferson Place business office park near the intersection of W illis Drive and Peter
Jefferson Parkway in Albemarle County, Virginia, (2) working capital and routine capital expenditures at the
Replacement Hospital, (3) routine capital expenditures at Martha Jefferson Health Services' existing three-
story healthcare and medical office facility located at 595 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Albemarle County, Virginia,
in the Peter Jefferson Place business office park, and (4) costs of issuance, reserve funds and capitalized
interest related to the projects or the issuance of the bonds (collectively, the "Project").
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
W HEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on September 2, 2008, as required by Section 147(f)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended ("Virginia Code").
W HEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code also provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction
over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds.
W HEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of Albemarle County, Virginia ("County"); the
Project is to be located in the County; and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Board")
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County.
W HEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds.
W HEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the
terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with
the Board.
NOW , THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves (i) the Project and (ii) the issuance of the Bonds pursuant thereto by the
Authority for the benefit of Martha Jefferson Health Services, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and
Section l5.2-4906 of the Virginia Code to assist Martha Jefferson Health Services with the Project.
2. The approval of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds do not constitute an endorsement
to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or Martha Jefferson Health
Services.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
__________
Item No. 7.10. Resolution to Allow Lighting of Darden Towe Park Tennis Courts (deferred from
August 13, 2008).
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked about coin-operated lights at the tennis court so they are only
running when needed.
Staff indicated that the machines can be vandalized, and Mr. Rooker said that it’s frustrating to be
playing and not have a quarter.
Ms. Mallek noted that motion sensors have been effective in other localities.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO ALLOW LIGHTING
OF DARDEN TOWE PARK TENNIS COURTS
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has received a citizen request to allow the
tennis courts at Darden Towe Park to be lighted; and
WHEREAS, Darden Towe Park is owned by both the County of Albemarle and the City of
Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the Darden Towe Park Agreement requires the mutual agreement of the County and City
before lighting of any competitive sport or recreation facility in the Park may occur; and
WHEREAS, County and City staff have recommended to the Darden Towe Park Committee that
lighting of the tennis courts be allowed; and
WHEREAS, the Darden Towe Park Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors and City
Council each set this item for public hearing in order to receive input from the public prior to taking action; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this matter on
August 13, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors finds that lighting of the tennis courts at
Darden Towe Park will benefit the community; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will only consider a lighting plan to be
acceptable that includes full cut off lighting in strict accordance with the Outdoor Lighting provisions of the
County’s Zoning Ordinance, that is as energy efficient as possible, that allows the lighting to be on only while
the courts are in use, and that will automatically cut off lighting at 10:00 p.m.; and
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
WHEREAS, it is contemplated that private funding will be secured to fund the capital costs of the
lighting project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
expresses its intent to allow the tennis courts at Darden Towe Park to be lighted, contingent upon approval by
the City of Charlottesville and the approval of an acceptable lighting and funding plan.
__________
Item No. 7.11. August 2008 Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School
Board, School Board Chairman, was received for information.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas mentioned that the schools have been successful in receiving grants,
and applauded the grant-writer there.)
Ms. Mallek added that lots of county teachers received funds for their projects from the Shannon
Foundation.
__________
Item No. 7.12. Draft 2009 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program, was received
for information.
__________
Item No. 7.13. JAUNT FY 2007-08 Annual Report, was received for information.
Highlights of the Year in Albemarle County
• Public ridership in the County increased 10% for the second year in a row, with the largest
increase on the Earlysville route (75%).
• Despite efforts to encourage rural area riders to use the more efficient routes, demand-response
service increased by 31%.
• There was increased ridership in every age category; service on Sundays increased significantly
as well.
• JAUNT received additional funding for two special projects that will benefit the County in the
upcoming year: a weekly shuttle connecting Esmont and Scottsville with the Central Virginia
Community Health Center in Arvonia and a Mobility Management program to work with human
service agencies on improving transportation coordination.
__________
Item No. 7.14. Order for Notice and Hearing issued by the Virginia State Corporation Commission
on applications filed by Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc:
a. for approval of amendments to its tariff provisions filed pursuant to Section 56-126 of the
Code of Virginia, Case No. PUE -2008-00059, was received for information.
b. for approval of an experimental W eather Normalization Adjustment mechanism pursuant
to Section 56-234 of the Code of Virginia, Case No. PUE-2008-00074, was received for information.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Community Health Assessment, Lilian Peake.
Ms. Peake, District Health Director, reported that in order to be successful in public health today,
there must be partnerships – including the health care delivery system, the employers, the media,
academia, as well as government infrastructure. She explained that for years they have collected health
data, and they are trying to take a different approach. The MAPP process uses a strategic planning
approach, and it is hoped that the data will provide a basis for communities to prioritize their most pressing
community health issues, identify resources to address them, and to take action. She noted that they first
bring everyone together, conduct the four health assessments, then look at the strategies to follow up on.
Mr. Rooker asked if the assessment is an effort to get a health of the entire community
population, and Ms. Peake indicated that it is.
Ms. Peake reported that the effort includes the City and County – representatives from local
government, UVA, Martha Jefferson, and many community groups. She said that the first report was
issued in July and the group collected all of the quantitative data that existed to compile it. Ms. Peake said
that issues raised in the effort include access to care, chronic disease and risk factors including obesity
and tobacco use, maternal and child health, injury, and health disparities. Ms. Peake presented a graph
of uninsured City and County residents, and quite a few are above the poverty line but still can’t afford
health care, or elect not to buy it.
Ms. Peake explained that Virginia Smiles for Children offers Medicaid dental services, but
sometimes people do not access the service so that needs to be publicized better. They still have some
work to make sure that children in the County are actually using the dental care that’s available to them.
She presented a graph that showed overweight and obese fifth graders in the County and City over time;
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
between 1998 and 2007, the percent of those two categories has increased. She said that nearly 40% of
our children are obese or overweight, so this is something that is a significant risk factor for chronic
disease and health issues throughout their life.
Ms. Peake also presented a behavioral risk factor surveillance survey conducted by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention – done through VCU– and between 1997-99 and 2002-04 the percent
increased in our health district, and making the area still above the Healthy People 2010 target. She
added that significant progress has been made since the 1950’s, but there is still a ways to go.
Ms. Peake noted that they looked at maternal and child health – prenatal care, low birth weight,
infant mortality – and found that the area is not always meeting our Healthy People 2010 targets and there
were specific groups that were more affected. She pointed out a significant disparity between black and
white infants less than a year old; black babies’ infant mortality rate compared to white babies is about
three times higher.
Ms. Peake explained that the most significant cause of unintentional injuries is motor vehicle
transport crashes, and there is a high level of accidents in the area.
Mr. Slutzky asked how many were related to alcohol, and Ms. Peake replied that that is in a
different part of the report.
Ms. Thomas commented that she was surprised at the rate of alcohol-related auto crashes, noting
that there are more miles of highway.
Ms. Peake confirmed this, adding that there are higher speeds than on city roads. She added that
the largest percentage of hospitalizations for unintentional injuries are D-2 falls, especially with the elderly
population. Ms. Peake said that this issue requires ongoing study and awareness.
She commented that there are still health care disparities among race groups and income levels.
Ms. Peake reported that the Community Themes and Strengths Assessment include 10 focus
groups and 100 participants, with each group being comprised of very different participants – older
members, teens, working people. She said that they were provided with health data compiled previously,
and asked the working group to come forward with their opinions on health issues and the resources in
the community that could be tapped into to address them. Ms. Peake reported that the top five priorities
by the number of votes were: dental care, nutrition and exercise and mental health, primary care,
substance abuse, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted infections.
She said that the Local Public Health System Assessment includes everyone that can impact
health – the Health Department, Region Ten, U.Va., local government, jails, etc. Ms. Peake reported that
this was a quantitative CDC assessment of how we are doing in our community; three areas that came out
related to mobilizing community partnerships to identify and solve health problems, better evaluate the
effectiveness and quality of personal and population-based health services, and a better job monitoring
the health status to identify community health problems. She noted that they asked the MAPP Steering
Committee about issues that should be focused on, and they came back with concerns about the aging
population, increasing multi-cultural population, and the slowing economy’s impact on public programs.
Ms. Peake added that the National Healthcare Reform debate could have an impact on public health in
the future.
Ms. Peake reported that the steering committee will reconvene later in September and examine
the issues deemed most significant, adding that they hope to do this again in five years.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there was anything being done to address the problem of elderly people
without health insurance who have a chronic disease.
Ms. Peake responded that there is a free clinic and a prescription drug program through the clinic;
JABA also has programs in place to address that.
Mr. Dorrier said that there could be better publicity about that issue.
In response to Ms. Mallek’s question about factors for accessing the dental care, Ms. Peake
explained that for a long time there were not appointments available but that has changed over the last
two or three years, as Medicaid is now providing more funding and there is a not for profit dental center in
the community. She said that the children at the Health Department will now be seen at the not-for-profit
children’s dental center so the free clinic space can be freed up for adult dental care. Ms. Peake agreed
with Ms. Mallek that transportation and appointment timing is important for many of these families, and
said that a more focused study could be done to address that problem.
Mr. Rooker noted that perhaps the YMCA’s new facility could offer some nutrition programs, and
they are planning to offer scholarship memberships.
Ms. Thomas said that her exercise facility, affiliated with U.Va., has lots of information available.
She also said that FAMIS participation has dropped off, and perhaps that could be re-emphasized again.
Ms. Peake responded that there was a United W ay grant that helped get enrollment levels up, but
as soon as the levels were high the rules changed and people dropped out.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Thomas added that improved transit would help people get to medical care easier and earlier.
She also mentioned that City Council zeroed in on one factor in this report – the death of black infants as
an indicator – and they are looking at ramping up a health clinic in a particular location.
Mr. Dorrier commented that health problems can wipe a family out financially, and wondered if the
group looked into that.
Ms. Peake said that it is challenging to get that data on a local level, but they did look at that
issue. She noted that this would be available on the U.Va. School of Medicine Library website, with links to
other sites.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 9. Natural Heritage Committee Annual Report.
Mr. Michael Irwin, Chairman of the Natural Heritage Committee, addressed the Board. He
reported that the committee is comprised of 12 volunteer citizens in the County with broad expertise in
science, natural resources, management, and education. Mr. Irwin said that report includes
accomplishments over the last year, a biodiversity action plan, and a draft letter to landowners
encouraging environmental and biodiversity conservation. He explained that the committee has made
progress in adding to the biodiversity database, adding some GIS layers in important County natural
resources, a partner in generating funding to get the latest high resolution land use/land cover maps,
participation in Earth Day ecofairs activity, meetings with the greenways coordinator for the County, and
development of a list of invasive plant species.
Mr. Irwin said that most committee members have been serving for three years, and have spent
considerable professional time and energy working towards a successful sustainable approach to
biological conservation in the County. He said that the future of the committee looks bleak without County
support, and they need at least partial FTEs in Community Planning & Development, and a minimum of
$3,000 for operations. Mr. Irwin said that without staff to help respond to the public regarding biodiversity
issues, little progress can be made in implementing the plan. He explained that a modest amount of
funding is needed to support a workshop focused on landowner practices and to defray the costs of an
educational brochure and endangered species and other threats. Mr. Irwin explained that a committee
member left before his term expired because of his perceived non-support from the County.
Mr. Irwin emphasized that the committee would like modest support from the Board, in balance
with the investments in growth management.
Mr. Rooker said that the County is fortunate to have a committee of this caliber doing the work
they’ve been doing and they know it’s an area that more resources should be devoted to; the question is
whether those resources can be found this year and that would be addressed in the budget session.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a danger that committee members will leave if they perceive non-
support, before the budget cycle approaches.
Mr. Irwin responded that they would like at least some verbal commitment toward either dollars or
FTEs.
Mr. Carlton Ray added that the loss of ecological services costs money to the County – water
supply, crops, weeds, insects, etc. – and lack of attention to these issues is costly.
Mr. Rooker asked about any grant opportunities to help fund the next leg of the effort of the
committee, noting that this year’s budget revenues are $4 million less than projected.
Mr. Slutzky asked for a sense of dollar value of their request, and Mr. Tucker replied that it would
be in the $50-60,000 range.
Ms. Thomas said that she envisions having the Natural Heritage Committee participate in the
upcoming landowner workshops.
Mr. Irwin said that most people aren’t even aware that the committee exists and there are lots of
opportunities for partnership, and it only takes a couple thousand dollars; what is needed is someone to
drive the program.
Mr. Slutzky commented that $50,000 compared to the purpose of the committee is nominal, and
he is committed to reallocating funds to foster their work.
Mr. Rooker added that it enables leverage of other public dollars significantly, and there should be
a way to find the funds the committee is requesting.
Ms. Mallek said that those who have lived here bear some of the responsibility, and the work the
committee is doing is wonderful prevention because heading off problems that the management task force
is dealing with is an example of how it’s more expensive to fix things later.
Mr. Irwin said that the issues such as dredging and water quality do not go away, and it is really all
one package.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Slutzky asked that Mr. Irwin encourage committee members to stick with it through the next
budget process so there can be a community dialogue as to the importance of natural heritage work.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 10. Update: Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, Cate Magennis
W yatt.
Ms. Kate McGinnis W yatt addressed the Board, stating that she is president of the Journey
Through Hallowed Ground partnership. Ms. W yatt said that her last briefing was three years ago and
reminded them that this is a four-state, 175-mile partnership generally following the Old Carolina Road,
where more American history and heritage has been found than any other swath of land in the country –
including nine presidential homes. She commented that there have been generations of citizens who put
their lives on the line to create democracy, and there are over 11,000 years of Native American history;
400 years of African and European history, two world heritage sites, 49 historic districts, and over one
million acres on the National Register of Historic Places, and 15 national historic landmarks. Ms. W yatt
mentioned that this land has the largest concentration of Civil W ar battlefield sites, and this was a very
important corridor during the French & Indian W ar, the W ar of 1812, and the Revolutionary W ar.
She noted that along this corridor there are 15 Historic Main Streets – few if any that are
prospering as Charlottesville is, and many threatened to be torn down because they can’t compete with
regional malls. Ms. W yatt explained that there are 13 National Park units within this corridor, and the
largest concentration of rural historic districts in the country, working landscapes, vineyards, and farms.
She added that the number one industry is tourism, but visitation to many of these places is trending
downwards. Ms. W yatt said that three years ago they set a goal of having a national awareness campaign
by 2008, wanted to created educational programs for students of every age, and secure a national act of
Congress to designate the entire region as a Natural Heritage area, have the Route 15 corridor
designated as a National Scenic Byway, and create a socially responsible real estate investment trust to
be able to purchase land when farmers or landowners/homeowners had to sell estates that were deemed
important to be telling the American story. She commented that they have created a very robust Board of
Trustees and Board of Advisors, and created a standing committee called the Leadership Council – made
up of the mayors and chairs from each of the jurisdictions – which have been meeting every other month.
Ms. W yatt said that there is also a standing committee of the 13 superintendents of the park units within
the region, and they by law cannot market themselves and have downward trending visitation; the
partnership can help do that.
Ms. W yatt reported that they are looking at planning for the sesquentennial of the Civil W ar, which
begins next year in Harper’s Ferry and will carry from 2011-15. She said that they have created a
standing committee of educators – the directors of curriculum development – as well as the educators
from the Park Service and Heritage sites, to begin working on creating lesson plans, field trips, etc.
She said that recognition of African-American, female American, and Native American
contributions has been noticeably lacking, and the partnership has obtained funding from the Virginia
Foundation for the Humanities to bring together top-flight academicians and historians to begin the
research on the African-American contributions; they received a second grant to publish their findings.
Ms. W yatt reported that they created a standing committee of directors of the main street communities
and the historical communities, many of whom have about $6,000 per year to market themselves – so
collaboration is much more effective. She noted that a travel guide book the partnership has worked on
has made it easier for people to visit the area.
Ms. W yatt explained that they have launched their national and regional awareness campaigns,
and they started with zero name recognition according to polls; voters indicated that they want this
initiative to succeed, and since then the group has created 100,000 visitor center brochures and have a
standing committee comprised from each county’s director of tourism. She reported that PBS has done a
30-minute special aired on 62 markets; Voice of America did a 15-minute piece in 72 different languages.
Ms. W yatt noted that the people in Australia and New Zealand are very interested in the Civil W ar,
Japanese wanted to know about the shopping, and England snubbed the initiative stating it was only 200
years old.
Ms. W yatt reported that they have created with the National Trust for Historic Preservation a two-
day community and countryside workshop, and many other communities are facing similar issues so they
have surveyed the country and Europe for best practices. She informed the Board that there has been a
National Geographic book published: Journey Through Hallowed Ground: The Birthplace of the
American Ideal, with stories and photographs of each generation and the challenges they’ve faced. Ms.
W yatt said that the forward of the book was written by the woman who just won the Pulitzer Prize –
Geraldine Brooks – and was photographed by Ken Garrett, the cover photographer for the National
Geographic Society. She stated that on September 16th they are featuring the book in a lecture and
presentation introduced by the NGS Chairman Gilbert Grosvenor. Ms. W yatt added that this will perhaps
be a pilot program for a similar traveling lecture series that will go around the country.
Ms. W yatt said that they have surveyed the public and discovered that most are familiar with
Gettysburg and Monticello, and when they learn of the other assets in the region they are noticeably
moved. She indicated that they hired a travel director who has extensive travel background and executive
experience with AOL. He has created a program that allows people to look at the “seeds that were sown”
during Revolutionary times that led to the Civil W ar; photographic safaris; a number of travel tours to
encourage patronage of Bed & Breakfasts; and navigational systems to be used with GIS as people travel.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Ms. W yatt reported that their second annual meeting would be May 1st this year, and David
McCullough joined them for the first meeting and made remarks about the importance of the effort. She
introduced Andrea Stokes, their Director of Educational Programs, and said that they have partnered with
U.Va. and Virginia Tech on a number of classes and initiatives related to the Journey.
Ms. W yatt added that on May 8th the President signed legislation to make the region the 38th
natural heritage area in the country. She said that this allows them to get up to $1 million for 15 years,
which they match dollar for dollar, and now they can work with their partners to create a business plan to
support educational programs and heritage tourism programs. Ms. W yatt also stated that the budget
situation will likely mean about $150,000 allocated sometime next year.
She explained that safety improvements are necessary on Route 15, and a parkway could be
created with partnerships so they are working to designate the corridor as a National Scenic Byway –
which prohibits all new billboards. Ms. W yatt also said that VDOT and the Department of Conservation
and Recreation have offered to brief them on the designation, and every other town and county has done
so. She noted that they have gone into communities and asked for feedback on what has been included
and what might have been overlooked. Ms. W yatt said that they have received a $250,000 challenge
grant to begin the legal work to create a standalone tool to take in investments which will be returned as
investment in a critically cultural and historic property to the community.
Ms. W yatt concluded with the three themes of the Journey: this is the land of leadership, the land
of conflict and reunification, and it’s the land of outstanding beauty.
Mr. Rooker reported that he had forwarded an email from VDOT regarding the “All-American
Road” and “Scenic Byway” designations and what they mean as it pertains to land use, and their
information indicates it is not very restrictive to landowners and might be helpful in getting grants.
Ms. W yatt mentioned that this road was already shown as a scenic byway, but it really wasn’t, and
ideally they would like to have the public hearing on the designation within 60 days. She also said that
Prince Michel Vineyard offered to do a private label wine for the Journey, and an artist painted the label;
$5 for each bottle sold there goes to the Journey’s education program. She noted that their next quarter
management plan meeting would be September 22nd in W arrenton at the Visitor’s Center.
Mr. Slutzky asked how actively the tourism office was involved.
Ms. W yatt responded that they work with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors
Bureau staff, and with Montpelier, Ash-Lawn Highland, Monticello, and the Bed & Breakfast Association.
She added that one of the things they’ve done with the standing committee of Main Street historic
communities is pursued a Preserve America designation – a W hite House initiative that includes funding
and now involves four communities.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 11. Crozet Pool Funding Request.
Mr. Kelly Strickland of Claudius Crozet Park addressed the Board, stating that this presentation is
in relation to Star Swimming, who asked for funding to cover their pool for high school swimming. He
reported that the park was established in 1954, and is not a county-owned park; it is community-owned
and is run by 25 volunteer Board members; it is a non-profit 501 (c) 3. Mr. Strickland said that there has
been a long-standing partnership with the County, and the baseball fields there were actually installed by
the County; the construction costs for the pool were also helped by Albemarle County. He said that the
fields are maintained by Parks & Rec and are used by SOCA and Peachtree Baseball; the swimming pool
and existing building being leased to the Field School. Mr. Strickland said that the pool is owned and
maintained by the Park Board and a committee runs the pool operation through the summer months.
Mr. Strickland explained that the pool is an eight-lane, 25-meter outdoor pool with handicap-
accessible zero-depth entry, and his understanding is it’s the only county pool open to the public; there is
financial assistance provided for families through social services. He said that the Jefferson League swim
teams use the pool, and there are also lessons throughout the summer. Mr. Strickland reported that there
were 222 youth on the Crozet Gators swim team last summer, and there is also water aerobics and lap
swimming available, as well as rentals.
He stated that the park is used four or five months out of the year and there are usually 700-2000
people per day using it, but in the winter it is empty; the Field School partnership has worked out well but
they are not really serving a public need. Mr. Strickland said that they would like to increase the lap-
swimming and aerobics, and there are six public schools that could benefit from a year-round pool at
Crozet Park. He added that the YMCA swim teams could also use this pool as a practice facility, and
there are currently 30 or 40 kids that participate in those programs in Charlottesville and W aynesboro. Mr.
Strickland explained that the Director of the Piedmont Family YMCA has expressed a verbal commitment
to opening a satellite branch facility, potentially in Crozet Park. He added that 40 people ran the pool at
Crozet this summer, and about 80% of them are high school teenagers. Mr. Strickland said that it would
increase participation to have additional programs.
Mr. Strickland reported that the bubble to go over the pool, site work, and making the change
rooms year-round would be $250,000 to $350,000 total.
Mr. Rooker responded that the Star Swimming proposal was fairly straightforward and they were
seeking capital assistance for the enclosure of the pool, and they could show how operationally they would
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
be able to pay. He asked what the nature of the Crozet request is, and Mr. Strickland replied that they
would not be seeking operating funds but would be seeking memberships and YMCA contributions for
lane hours, as well as an after-school swim program and the high school team usage. He added that the
long-term vision is to add a fitness component.
Mr. Boyd explained that there is a consistent information form being developed so that the
applications can be dealt with on an even level.
____________________
At 11:41 a.m., the Board took a recess and then reconvened at 11:48 a.m.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 12. Old Crozet School Reuse Study.
The following Executive Summary was forwarded to Board members:
The Old Crozet School (the “School”) was built in 1924 and was used as a public school until
1990. From 1991 through 2007 the Charlottesville W aldorf School leased the facility. In 1997 an adaptive
reuse study was conducted by UVA engineering graduate students. A recent review of that study revealed
that the information was outdated and lacked citizen input. More recently, during the process of selecting
a site for the new Crozet library, several sites were considered, including the School, and much discussion
was generated between County staff and the Crozet community. W hen the School was not selected for
the new library, members of the community expressed their desire for staff to consider it for other potential
uses. Many members of the Crozet community feel that the School has a genuine connection to the
history of the community and that the County has an obligation to examine the feasibility of other potential
uses for the School as part of the overall Crozet revitalization effort. A staff committee was formed with
individuals from the County Executive Office, Community Development and General Services to plan a
process to engage the citizens of the Crozet community to receive their input on how the School should be
used.
The County hired PMA Architects and Planners, Inc. to conduct an open community workshop, to
take the information gathered, and to summarize it into an unbiased, readable report to be presented to
the Board. The Study was not meant to be an all inclusive, comprehensive study considering all potential
uses, but the results of discussion between Crozet community members and County staff regarding their
ideas for potential future uses of the School. A two and one-half day work session was held at W estern
Albemarle High School with PMA and County staff facilitating lively and interactive discussions with
community members. Opportunities for public engagement were also set up through email and the
County website, and the Committee staffed an off-site table at a local grocery. Approximately 86 citizens
attended the workshop and approximately 200 additional comments were received and included. The
attached report (Attachment A) sets forth the results of the workshop. A cost estimate of the most highly
favored use is included in the report. Jeffery Stodghill of PMA and his staff will present an overview of the
process and answer questions.
Following is a summary of the consultant’s recommendations arising from the community
workshop:
o Proceed with the community center concept (various options of which are detailed in the
attached study report), which is the preferred and recommended use by the community;
o Conduct further study to explore possible community center uses;
o Proceed with a study that would define the building and site environment conditions and
engage the community to identify specific community center programs, including staffing and
budget requirements.
A project definition study would be the next appropriate step if the Board wishes to pursue the
possibility of converting the School to a community center. This study would refine the program elements
of the community center concept and provide a more in depth environmental investigation. It is estimate
that a study of this kind would cost approximately $150,000, depending on the specifics of the study.
Staff recommends that the Board acknowledge the preferences of the Crozet community as
reflected in the final consultant report and forward the study on for further staff analysis through the CIP
process. This analysis will include consideration of the community center concept in light of the needs
identified in the Crozet Master Plan and the Community Facilities Section of the County’s Comprehensive
Plan. This additional analysis is part of the normal process for considering the establishment of new
facilities and may provide further guidance on potential uses for a community center.
Mr. Shadman reported that staff had presented an executive summary to the Board on April 9th,
on a community worksession in Crozet to receive input on preferred uses for school. He said that citizens
of Crozet had provided input during the site review for a new library, and a committee made up of various
county departments and citizens was formed. Mr. Shadman stated that they interviewed several
consulting firms and contracted with PMA architects and planners to conduct a work session and
document results. He emphasized that this study was not meant to be an all-inclusive study, but rather to
serve as a conduit from Crozet citizens to county staff and the Board of Supervisors as the County
considers possible investments in the building and associated property.
Mr. Jeff Sogel of PMA addressed the Board and made a presentation on the work session held
June 19-21.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Sogel explained that they were engaged with the chief purpose of trying to identify what the
people of Crozet felt about re-using the old school, and designed a program that involved a wide range of
community input. He said that they used several techniques for public participation. Mr. Sogel stated that
the first goal was to identify citizens’ ideas through the County website with a specific section and
comment space for this project; an initial evening presentation and work session where residents and
citizens came in and offered ideas; the following day the committee ran an offsite satellite session where
they received almost 200 comments and ideas; other individuals met one-on-one with Mr. Sogel to
discuss their ideas and concerns. Mr. Sogel said that the citizens came in at the end and evaluated
various concepts and expressed their preferences.
Mr. Sogel noted that the school building is a typical colonial-revival/mission-revival building that
was expanded in the 1960’s with an on-grade flat-roof addition in the rear with six classrooms; in the
1990’s it was deemed obsolete and a new school was built across the street; the W aldorf School moved
out last year. He said that the building is sound and solid, even though it might not appear that way to the
casual passer-by. Mr. Sogel stated that the exterior elements are in a state of decay and that will continue
until a decision is made about the use of the building, and the systems in the building – heating, electrical,
plumbing – would need to be replaced as well. He added that there are lots of issues with handicapped
accessibility.
Mr. Sogel mentioned that the site is an eight-acre site zoned R-2, designated in the master plan
as a CT-1 area with the intent of preserving open space at the site, and be sensitive about reuse
scenarios due to its adjacency to neighborhoods and open space at the school across the street. He also
said that the building is served by water and sewer and has about 25,000 square feet with historic
preservation potential as well as being in a historic preservation district which opens the door to tax
credits.
Mr. Sogel said that on June 19th they opened the work session with a presentation of other old
school adaptations to demonstrate that the buildings can have a second life.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there had been a quantification of how much it would cost for lead and
asbestos removal.
Mr. Sogel replied that costs have been put together, but that would need to be reexamined and
better quantified. He added that it would depend on the ultimate uses to go in the building, and you’d have
to do more work to pin it down exactly. Mr. Sogel said that the core idea of the public sessions was to
have them express their ideas, so once all of the “lists were on the wall” participants placed their dots for
prioritization. He stated that on June 20th and 21st they took those ideas and formulated them into eight or
nine concepts that encompassed the ideas – revealing a strong consensus in the community for a
community center, and using the building for a library even though he and his staff were clear that wasn’t
going to be possible.
Mr. Sogel indicated that there were 165 dots received for multi-use community center, which
made it by and far the top choice. He said that farmer’s market and gardens received 48, followed by
County offices and athletic fields.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was an assumption that the building would be removed if the use
became athletic fields or skateboard park.
Mr. Sogel replied that that assumption was built-in, and their goal was to get community feedback
on ideas, adding that in this type of information-gathering it’s critical to realize that an idea from another
category could be brought in and integrated into the community center concept.
Mr. Rooker said that the combination of county offices and athletic fields shows an estimated per-
square foot cost that’s no lower than building a new building.
Mr. Slutzky commented that these budget figures do not reflect the cost of remediation, and the
building might actually have a negative value. He said that when the community is engaged it’s most
effective if they are aware of the realities and constraints.
Mr. Sogel responded that taking a building and putting it back into service might involve anywhere
from 85% of the cost of a new facility to more than the cost of the building. He said that historic
preservation tax credits would likely be available, and there is a perception among community members
that there is a value to the building’s heritage.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it was considered to turn the school into apartments such as the Scottsville
School, but Mr. Sogel said that there wasn’t much community interest in that and housing would likely be
more of a private-led effort.
Mr. Sogel said that there would need to be provisions for an at-grade entrance and parking would
need to be added if community center is the choice here; the school across the street could perhaps
accommodate the overflow. He added that adapting the auditorium was a key objective as was reusing
the classroom space for new programs.
Mr. Sogel said that the next step is to define the project a bit better, and he has done the best he
could to create a projected budget.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Ms. Mallek commented that the idea was to move some phase of the project into the CIP for the
coming year.
Mr. Rooker responded that there are already several projects in the Crozet master plan and this is
not one of them. He added that it is a worthy effort to try to reuse buildings like this, but the cost seems
somewhat prohibitive as it is more costly than building a new facility.
Mr. Boyd stated that the next step is to see if there is a nonprofit or for-profit organization to step
up on the building project, and he does not want to spend the $150,000 for further study.
Ms. Mallek commented that the Rockfish Valley Community Center is an example of that type of
collaboration; Ms. Thomas added that the Fluvanna County Performing Arts Center is also an example.
Ms. Thomas also expressed concern about the building sitting there unoccupied for a long time,
and she has heard that ACAC has been looking for space in Crozet. She feels the County is the landlord
of the building, and should be concerned about letting it deteriorate without having someone in it and
some care being given to it of some sort.
Mr. Davis noted that this site is zoned R-2 so no commercial uses are allowed unless it is a public
use.
Mr. Slutzky commented about the mold found in the building.
Mr. Sogel replied that mold is a concern that needs to be dealt with early on.
Mr. Shadman said that they have been regularly inspecting the building and walking through it,
and they do have money in the maintenance budget to keep it from deteriorating; they are actively
pursuing tenants and they have been coordinating that effort with the Department of Community
Development.
Mr. Davis pointed out that if the building goes up for sale, the Board has to hold a public hearing
and find that it’s appropriate to dispose of the property in some manner.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is a public building and expressed concern about throwing it away
without very carefully investigating other options first.
Mr. Rooker said that the W aldorf School used this until a year and a half ago, and now it’s going
to take $6-8 million to be able to use it. He stated that there may be uses for this building that do not
involve that level of investment.
Mr. Foley stated that staff has enough information and can bring it back for further discussion.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is a good model to look at to engage citizens in a really valid way
and to have them feel that there is consensus on what they came up with.
Mr. Rooker said that there may be uses on that list for this facility without a gigantic investment.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 13. Request for donation to Gordonsville Branch Library.
Due to being behind on the agenda, the Board decided to move this item until the afternoon.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 14. Use Value Tax – Revalidation.
The following Executive Summary was forwarded to Board members:
On July 9, 2008, the Board held a work session on a proposed revalidation requirement for
property in the Use Value Tax Program (“Program”). The Board requested staff provide a proposed
revalidation form.
This Executive Summary provides the specifics of the proposed revalidation requirement
discussed at the July meeting, the proposed revalidation form (Attachment A), and an ordinance to
implement revalidation (Attachment B).
Virginia Code § 58.1-3234 authorizes the governing body of any county, city, or town to require
property owners in the Program to revalidate any previously approved application. Revalidation requires
property owners in the Program to confirm that the property continues to meet Program requirements.
To date, the County has not required revalidation. Prior to January 2007, the County conducted
property reassessments on a biennial cycle. That two-year reassessment schedule allowed the Assessor’s
staff to conduct site visits of each property in the County every two years to reassess the property and, if
the property was in the Program, physically inspect the property to gauge compliance with Program
guidelines.
In 2007, the County changed from biennial to annual reassessments. This change resulted in the
Assessor’s staff visiting each property every three to four years instead of every two years. Revalidation is
a tool to assure that parcels enrolled in the Program continue to qualify without a field visit by an assessor.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Advantages/Disadvantages:
There are several advantages and disadvantages of a revalidation requirement. Advantages of
requiring revalidation include:
• greater public confidence that only qualifying parcels are receiving the special tax benefits of
the Program.
• regular notification to property owners of their enrollment in the Program and the requirements
of the Program.
• requirement that Program participants certify their farming/forestry/horticulture/open space use
(i.e., Schedule F, income receipts, farm numbers, etc.).
Disadvantages of requiring revalidation include:
• additional administrative costs (i.e., supply/postage expense, staff assistance, and storage
space needs).
• failure to meet deadline(s) and/or provide proper documentation would result in parcel(s) being
removed from the Program, the possible assessment of roll back taxes and taxpayer
complaints.
Comparative Information:
The following chart shows the revalidation requirements of other localities:
Locality Use Value Parcels Revalidation
Augusta County 6,000 Every Year, With Fee
Chesterfield County 800 Every Year, No Fee
Fluvanna County 1,500 Every Year, No Fee
Greene County 600 No
Henrico County 410 Every Year, No Fee
James City County 249 Every Year, No Fee
Louisa County 3,400 Every Two Years, No fee
Loudoun County 5,000 Every Year, With Fee
Nelson County 2,000 Every Six Years, With Fee
Orange County 1,000 Every Year, With Fee
Rockingham County 5,400 Every Six Years, With Fee
Albemarle County currently has 4,981 tax parcels in the Use Value Tax Program.
Recommended Revalidation Process:
Staff recommends that property owners in the Program be required to revalidate every two years,
beginning in 2009 for tax year 2010. This two-year approach would ease the burden of the property owner
having to file every year, while still providing the County adequate documentation that the property
conforms to Program requirements.
Staff recommends an extensive education process prior to implementation of a revalidation
requirement. This education process would begin by providing information about revalidation to all affected
owners with the second half 2008 tax bills (to be mailed in late October 2008) and the 2009 reassessment
notices (to be mailed in January 2009). Using the tax bills and reassessment notices for this step of the
education process would save the cost of additional mailings to Program participants.
The second step of the process would be the distribution of the actual revalidation forms. These
forms would be mailed in late April 2009, separately from the tax bills, to all owners in the Use Value Tax
Program. The deadline for filing the forms with the Assessor’s Office would be September 1, 2009. Staff
recommends no fee for applicants who file by the deadline. Applications would be accepted after the
deadline until December 5, 2009, but would require payment of a late fee of $125. As with the initial Use
Value applications, a separate revalidation would be required for each parcel.
Proposed Form:
Staff collected revalidation forms in use by 12 other localities and incorporated the best elements of
each form to develop the attached proposed form (Attachment A). The proposed form requires property
owners to provide certain information and forms to verify the continued qualifying use of the property. Staff
then consulted with several representatives of the Farm Bureau and the farming community to ensure that
the form, while providing the needed information, would not be unduly burdensome.
Administration of the Revalidation Process:
Upon receipt of the revalidation forms, the Assessor’s staff would review the paperwork for
accuracy and compliance, and would make every attempt to contact landowners concerning incomplete
applications prior to the final filing deadline. Property that qualified would remain in the Program. Owners
of property that did not qualify would be notified and the non-qualifying properties would be removed from
the Program.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Implementing a revalidation requirement would necessitate an amendment to Chapter 15,
Taxation, of the County Code pertaining to the Use Value Tax Program. In order for the forms to be mailed
in spring 2009, effective for the 2010 tax year, the Code amendment must be adopted by October, 2008.
This would provide time for the County to conduct a public information campaign this fall and again in
January (in conjunction with the 2009 reassessment) to notify the public of this new requirement.
The proposed effective date of the ordinance is April 1, 2009, which is after completion of the 2009
Use Value Tax Program cycle, but in time to implement the requirement for the 2010 tax year.
Although the revalidation forms would be sent as a separate mailing, the fiscal impact of
revalidation is expected to be minimal (less than $2,000). Expenses would include postage and printing
costs. It is anticipated that existing staff will be sufficient to review the documentation upon submission.
Minimal expenses are anticipated for supplies and storage. Minimal late fee revenues are projected.
Staff requests that the Board provide direction to staff regarding the proposed revalidation process
and form. In addition, staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance (Attachment B) to
implement the revalidation requirement for public hearing on October 1, 2008.
Mr. W oodzell addressed the Board, stating that on July 9th they met to discuss land use and land
use revalidation, then asked staff to develop a revalidation form. Mr. W oodzell said that staff looked at 12
other jurisdictions’ forms and created one that incorporates elements from those, and if the form is
adopted staff plans to put out literature this fall with tax bills.
Mr. Slutzky pointed out that jurisdictions with larger numbers of parcels charge fees, and
wondered why that wasn’t included in staff recommendations.
Mr. W oodzell replied that the revalidation is done only every other year and the amount of income
produced from charging that fee would not be substantial.
Mr. Boyd said that the fee can only be charged every six years.
Mr. W oodzell added that it is no more than the original application fee – $15 – and there is a $125
fee coming from late filing, the exact same fee as land use.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could be done in halves every year, instead of every other year.
Mr. Davis pointed out that it would additionally be heavy loaded on the two-year cycle, but that
would drop off as people are added to and drop out of the program.
Mr. W oodzell said that the September 1st deadline seems appropriate because it gives staff
another three months to get taxpayers on the phone or some means to let them know their application is
missing or needs to be amended. He stated that if you do not get it in by December 5th you are out of the
program for the following year; a rollback only occurs with change in use or acreage.
Mr. Boyd expressed concerned that there are people who just do not pay attention.
Ms. Thomas said that open house events with Farm Bureau volunteers to help people fill out the
forms, staff, and the Biodiversity Committee present might help.
Mr. W oodzell noted that his staff would be willing to help anyone who comes into his office.
Ms. Thomas added that it would be helpful for people filling out the form to have a statement of
purpose as to why this program exists.
Mr. W oodzell explained to Ms. Mallek that when a plat is recorded, that information is available to
his office. Ms. Mallek noted that it is difficult for his office to keep track of all plats though.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to set the proposed request to
implement the revalidation requirement for public hearing on October 1, 2008. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Request to set public hearings to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority jurisdictional areas:
a. Clifton Lake PRD – to provide water service to Tax Map 79, Parcels 23 and 23F and Tax
Map 79C, Parcel 1, located approximately 2,100 feet southwest of the intersection of Rt. 250 and
Shadwell Road.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, stated that the applicant has requested deferral of this
request. No action is required by the Board.
_________________
b. Robert and Carolyn Michie - to provide water service to Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and
17C located on the north side of Route 250, near the intersection of Route 250 and North Milton Road.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Benish summarized the Executive Summary which stated that the applicant is requesting
ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to two parcels totaling 15.8 acres with two existing
single-family homes (Attachment A). The parcels are on the north side Route 250 East, just north of the
intersection of Route 250 and North Milton Road (Rt. 729) and adjacent to the GOCO Oil site. The
parcels are located entirely within the designated Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The
existing well serving the home and cottage has recently been tested by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and determined to be contaminated with Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE),
a gasoline additive that promotes a cleaner burn of the fuel. Beginning in May 2008, the property owners
experienced taste and odor problems with the water, which prompted a request to DEQ to test the well
water supply for contamination.Subsequent testing of the well found MTBE concentration of 0.021 mg/L.
DEQ has funded the installation of a charcoal filter system on the well to treat the contamination. DEQ
considers charcoal filtration systems a temporary remediation inferior to public water service (if available)
and has recommended the site be connected to public water service.
The adjacent GOCO Oil site experienced a similar MTBE contamination in the wells serving that
site and was approved for, and connected to, ACSA water service in 1999.
Because of site conditions, including the location of the homes, out-buildings/barn, existing and
back-up septic fields, and the topography of the properties, there does not appear to be a viable location
for a new well on-site at a sufficient distance from the existing well to ensure no further contamination will
occur in the new well.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of public water and
sewer service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and
sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas
(p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in
cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in
danger (p. 130).”
W ater and sewer services by policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas
where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a
potential catalyst to growth.
W ater supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to
serve the Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas result in further
extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and into the Rural Areas, potentially
straining limited water resources and capacity.
This request meets the first criteria for the provision of service to Rural Area parcels (adjacency to
existing service lines). The adjacent property to the east of this parcel is within the ACSA Jurisdictional
Area for W ater Only to Existing Structures and is served with public water. The primary issue with this
request is whether the level of contamination experienced on-site creates a danger to the public health
and safety. The County’s Groundwater Manager has provided additional information regarding the health
threat of MTBE (Attachment B). DEQ has essentially established a “zero-tolerance” level for MTBE
contaminations. However, neither the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) nor the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established a level of MTBE contamination which is considered a health
risk. The Code of Virginia requires quarterly testing of public water supplies for MTBE and reporting of
concentrations above 0.015 mg/L to VDH and DEQ. As previously noted, MTBE in concentrations of
0.021 mg/L was found in the Michies’ well. The County has previously granted ACSA Jurisdictional Area
designation to the adjacent GOCO Oil site and the Key W est subdivision based on MTBE contamination.
The contamination levels for those two sites were lower than the level found at the Michies’ well.
Based on the odor and taste condition of the water supply, the level of contamination within this
source falling within the range suggested for public system monitoring, the proximity to a known
contaminate site, and past actions regarding sites/requests with similar levels of contamination, staff
recommends amendment of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water service only to existing structures.
The property owner will bear the costs for the water connection.
Mr. Benish said that staff recommends the Board set a public hearing to amend the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area for water only to existing structures to Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and 17C.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, to set a public hearing to
amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water only to existing structures to Tax Map 79, Parcels 17 and
17C on October 1, 2008. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_________________
c. Kirtley Property/University of Virginia – to provide sewer service through a non-gravity
line to the existing warehouse building on Tax Map 59, Parcels 23B1. The property is located on the north
side of Route 250 W est, adjacent to the Northridge Building.
Mr. Benish summarized the Executive Summary which stated that the applicant is requesting an
amendment to the current ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation to allow an existing warehouse building to
be served by a pumped sewer line as opposed to a gravity sewer line as required by the conditions of
approval for the existing Jurisdictional Area designation. The property is located on Route 250 W est,
between the Northridge Building and the Volvo of Charlottesville site. The property is zoned C-1,
Commercial and is designated as Rural Areas in the County Comprehensive Plan.
The Board of Supervisors amended the Jurisdictional Area designation for this parcel in 1984,
granting conditional sewer service to this parcel and the adjacent parcels to the east (Tax Map 59, Parcels
23B, 23C1, 23D, 23F). The Jurisdictional Area designations were approved with a condition that “sewer
service is approved only for the portions of these parcels which can be totally gravity fed…” Parcels 23B,
23C, 23D, and 23F have subsequently each demonstrated that the whole parcel can be served by gravity
fed sewer.
The recently submitted preliminary site plan for the Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH)
(located on portions of Parcels 23B and 23B1) demonstrated that both the LTACH building and the
existing warehouse building on the Kirtley property can be served by a gravity sewer line running along the
northern boundary of the Kirtley and Northridge parcels, generally parallel to the railroad right-of-way,
consistent with the existing Jurisdictional Area designation. However, the applicant would prefer to pump
the sewer uphill and intercept the public sewer line serving the LTACH facility as opposed to installing a
lengthier and more expensive gravity line downhill to the warehouse. Aside from the benefit to the
applicant, the relocation of the line would provide protection of existing trees and vegetation that would
otherwise have to be removed to run the gravity line. The maintenance of this vegetation would allow for
better screening of the LTACH and Northridge sites from several adjacent residential properties located in
Farmington (the site is visible from at least one home).
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following recommendations concerning the provision of
public water and sewer service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and
sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas
(p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in
cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p.
130).”
By policy, public water and sewer services are intended to serve the designated Development
Areas where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services
are a potential catalyst to growth. Sewer supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and
effectively used and reserved to serve the Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in
the Rural Areas result in further extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and
into the Rural Areas, potentially straining limited sewer capacity.
This request to modify the Jurisdictional Area designation is not consistent with the strict reading
of the policy regarding changes to the Jurisdictional Area for Rural Areas properties because there is no
health or safety reason for the requested modification. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the
existing warehouse building can be served by a gravity sewer line consistent with the current conditions of
the Jurisdictional area designation. Therefore, the requested change will have no impact on the level of
sewer service provided to this site or to the Rural Areas.
This request to modify the Jurisdiction Area would allow for the warehouse to be served by a
pumped sewer line. W hile gravity service is preferred over pumped lines because of: 1) the greater
potential for pump systems to fail due to power outages and breakdowns, and; 2) the higher level of
maintenance necessary for a pumped system over the long-term life of the facility; this would be a private
line and the responsibility for maintenance would be the property owner’s.
Installing the pumped sewer line would prevent the loss of approximately 30 trees, mostly mature
white pines, along the Northridge parking lot. These trees would have to be removed with the installation
of a gravity line. This site appears to be visible from at least one adjacent residence. New landscaping
would be planted to replace these trees, although locating the new landscaping will be more difficult to
achieve in this area due to the new easement for the sewer line (placement of trees within a utility
easement is discouraged).
The property owner would bear all of the costs for connection to public water service.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Based on the findings noted above, staff recommends that the Board hold a public hearing to
amend the Jurisdictional Area designation to W ater and Sewer Service for Tax 59, parcel 23B1, which
would eliminate the condition that the site be served by gravity sewer service only.
Mr. Boyd noted that the request is to take the item to public hearing.
Ms. Thomas said that she would like to see some kind of tree preservation plan for the trees in
the back of that site, similar to what’s required for cell towers because the trees are not in the best of
health and might fall down at some point.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to set a public hearing to
amend the jurisdictional area designation to water and sewer Service for Tax 59, parcel 23B1, which
would eliminate the condition that the site be served by gravity sewer service only for October 1, 2008.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting.
At 12:48 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that the Board go into a Closed Meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees, and commissions; under Subsection (1) to evaluate the performance of a County
department which requires the discussion of the performance of a specific individual; under Subsection (7)
to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice regarding an
agreement necessary to implement a funding source for public safety services; and under Subsection (7)
to consult with legal counsel pertaining to probable litigation regarding a conservation easement because
such consultation in an open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the
County.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:39 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek that
the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 18a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky to:
Reappoint Clifford Buys and Juandiego W ade to the JAUNT Board, with said terms to expire
September 30, 2011.
Reappoint John Murphy, Rick Odem, and Carleton Ray to the Natural Heritage Committee, with
said terms to expire September 30, 2012.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motions.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
____________________
(At this time the Board went back to Agenda Item No. 13.)
The following Executive Summary was forwarded to Board members:
During the August 3, 2008 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Bob Coiner of the Town of
Gordonsville requested that the Board consider donating funding for construction of a new Gordonsville
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
library which will be operated as part of the Orange County Library system (See Attachment A). Mayor
Coiner pointed out that residents living in the northeast quadrant of the County of Albemarle benefit from the
existing Gordonsville branch library and the availability of a new and more modern facility would further
enhance their library experience. The Mayor further indicated that the County of Orange has allocated
sufficient funding for construction of a 900 square foot branch for Gordonsville; however, the Town is
attempting to raise an additional $300,000 to provide additional space and amenities for its users. The Board
requested staff to confer with the Jefferson Madison Regional Library and develop a recommendation for its
consideration.
The County of Albemarle is a member of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL) System
and currently appropriates $3.2 million of its general fund revenues for the operation of this system. The
JMRL was created to provide and regulate library services to the residents of the City of Charlottesville and
the Counties of Albemarle, Louisa, Nelson and Greene. According to JMRL data, approximately 45,000
Albemarle County citizens hold library cards and account for 58.2 percent of all circulation for the JMRL
system. In addition, the County’s adopted capital improvement plan is programming approximately $50.0
million for construction of new libraries in the County over the next ten (10) years. Given its funding
obligations to JMRL, staff is not aware of previous Board allocations for operational support of other library
systems outside of the JMRL.
Based upon information provided by the Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS), less than 5
percent of the County’s population resides within a 10 mile radius of the Town of Gordonsville (See
Attachment B). Moreover, JMRL advises that approximately 320 Albemarle residents currently use the
Gordonsville Library representing 0.35 percent of the County’s population.
The County legally cannot donate funding directly to the Town of Gordonsville or to Orange County,
which operates the library, unless the funding is for services provided under a joint exercise of powers
agreement approved by ordinance. However, it may be possible for indirect funding to be donated to a
charitable institution or association if such institution or association provides library services to the residents
of the County.
No funding for this request is currently provided for in the adopted Operating or Capital budgets and
would therefore have to be allocated from the Board’s Reserve.
Staff recommends that the Board remain focused on using its increasingly limited revenues to serve
the best interests of the largest possible number of county residents through its ongoing annual operating
funding support for JMRL as well as development of enhanced library facilities throughout Albemarle County.
Staff recommends that should the Board decide to consider this request, that it do so in the context of its
overall library funding strategy and in relation to its adopted CIP process.
Mr. Rooker agreed to take staff’s recommendation on this.
Mr. Boyd said that the recommendation is solid.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 19. Transportation Matters:
a. VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Sumpter addressed the Board, noting that the signal at State Farm Boulevard and Route 250
is under construction and is expected to be done later this fall; the signal at Burnley Station is to be
completed then as well. Mr. Sumpter said that the railroad bridge repairs for the Buckingham Branch Rail
Road bridge are anticipated for the week September 15th , and the bridge is expected to be closed for two
weeks. He also stated that the Advance Mills Bridge public hearing and design has been approved by
Chief Engineer Mal Curley, and this will lead to approval of right of way acquisition and any easements –
which should occur within the next several weeks.
Ms. Thomas commented that she lives next door to W est Leigh Subdivision, and they work with
school division to see how they should trim their trees. She asked if there was anything that could be
done or suggested along private roads as far as tree-trimming is concerned.
Mr. Davis replied that it is not in the subdivision or private street standards, and he is not aware of
anything adopted that would regulate that. He also stated that a formal homeowner’s association may
have something in their covenants related to safety or convenient access, and may have the authority to
require it.
Mr. Rooker said that bright green signs show up more noticeably than white, and it’s unfortunate
that VDOT has taken the position to use the white ones.
Mr. Sumpter replied that the Federal Highway Administration dictates the signage requirements.
In response to Mr. Rooker’s question regarding illegal signs in the right of way, Mr. Sumpter said
that County staff has taken a draft sample agreement and it is currently in the review stage, adding that
going through the Attorney General’s office is a longer process and could take four to six weeks.
Mr. Sumpter added that VDOT is still looking at signage where they can with the resources
available, and during the communications plan would be the appropriate time for a rollout.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Tucker said that once it comes back from the state it will come before the Board for their
approval.
Mr. Rooker commented that the City has an ordinance that says you can only have signs on your
property.
Mr. Davis said that if someone puts a sign on your property you can take it down, and if it’s in the
right of way it’s illegal.
Ms. Mallek stated that if the signs are smaller than 2’x 2’, they are allowed.
Mr. Davis said that some temporary signs may not require a permit, but they cannot be placed in
the right of way.
Ms. Thomas thanked Mr. Sumpter for all his work in Batesville.
__________
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if the rural rustic road paving would be done for W alnut Level Road next year.
Mr. Sumpter responded that it should be complete.
Mr. Boyd said that he is meeting with 300 to 400 State Farm employees this month, and they will
likely ask about the traffic light there.
Mr. Sumpter replied that by the end of November it should be functional, possibly earlier.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: Proposed issuance of general obligation school
bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated maximum principal amount of $30,765,000. The purpose of
the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 18 and August 25, 2008.)
Mr. Richard W iggans, Director of Finance, summarized the Executive Summary which stated that
the FY 2008/09 Capital Improvement Budget was approved with the intent to issue approximately
$30,765,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for the following projects:
AHS Addition/Renovation $10,316,000
Brownsville Elementary Renovations $9,415,000
Crozet Elementary Renovations $45,000
Greer Elementary Renovations $5,140,000
Gymnasium HVAC & Lighting $100,000
Maintenance Projects $3,954,000
Support Services Complex $645,000
Vehicle Maintenance Facility Addition $1,150,000
Total $30,765,000
A Resolution authorizing the application to VPSA was adopted by the School Board on August 14,
2008. The attached Resolution authorizes issuance of the bonds not to exceed $30,765,000, the sale of
the bonds to VPSA, and approves as to form the Bond Sale Agreement and details relating to the Bonds.
In order to proceed with this process, a public hearing is scheduled on September 3, 2008 after
which the Board will need to adopt the attached Resolution.
The FY09 CIP and Debt Service budgets anticipated the issuance of $30,765,000 in bonds for
the above referenced projects.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution to authorize the
issuance of bonds in the maximum principal amount of $30,765,000 to finance certain capital
improvements for the County’s public schools.
Mr. Boyd inquired about the operational impact of this. Mr. W iggins noted that there is an
increase as this is a higher amount of debt; the dollars for this were included in the five-year forecast. Mr.
W iggins said that a rule of thumb is 10% of the principal amount as what will be paid in principal and
interest every year for 20 years.
Ms. Thomas encouraged including enough money for ongoing maintenance.
At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to adopt the following Resolution to
authorize the issuance of bonds in the maximum principal amount of $30,765,000 to finance certain
capital improvements for the County’s public schools.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2008A,
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,765,000
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the School Board (the “School Board”) of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”),
has, by resolution adopted on August 14, 2008, requested the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) to authorize the
issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) and consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to
exceed $30,765,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital
projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on September 3, 2008, on the issuance of
the Bonds in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the
“Virginia Code”); and
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as hereinafter defined) shall indicate that $30,765,000 is the
amount of proceeds requested (the “Proceeds Requested”) from the Virginia Public School Authority (the
“VPSA”) in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, VPSA’s objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA’s
judgment, reflects the Bonds’ market value (the “VPSA Purchase Price Objective”), taking into consideration such
factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to the amortization
schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other
market conditions relating to the sale of VPSA’s bonds; and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par and
consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is less than the Proceeds
Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or
(ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set forth in Section 1 below does not exceed the
Proceeds Requested by at least the amount of any discount, the purchase price to be paid to the County, given
the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is
advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $30,765,000 (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school
purposes, including without limitation, the projects as described in Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the
issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer
of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to VPSA, the Bonds at a price, determined by VPSA to be
fair and accepted by the Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, either of whom may act [that is
substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase price not
lower than 95% of the Proceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal amount authorized
by Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions,
to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested]. The Chairman of the
Board and the County Executive, either of whom may act and such other officer or officers of the County as
either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale
Agreement dated as of October 10, 2008 (the “Bond Sale Agreement”), with VPSA providing for the sale of the
Bonds to VPSA. The Bond Sale Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not
inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by the officer executing the Bond Sale Agreement, his
execution to constitute conclusive evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and
changes.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, dated the date of
issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated “General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2008A”; shall
bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning
July 15, 2009 (each an “Interest Payment Date”), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this
Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a “Principal Payment Date”) and in the amounts set
forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the “Principal Installments”), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this
Resolution.
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive is hereby authorized and
directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the corresponding
principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by VPSA (the “VPSA Bonds”), a portion of the proceeds of
which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not
exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent (5.50 %) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments are subject to change at the request of VPSA. The County Executive is hereby authorized and
directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of VPSA,
provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this
Resolution and provided further that the final maturity of the Bonds occurs no later than December 31, 2028. The
execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest
rates established by VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by VPSA as
having been so accepted by the County Executive as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten
bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the
Bonds:
(a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if
any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on
the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if
such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00
a.m. on the business day next succeeding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest
at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as bond registrar and paying
agent for the Bonds (the “Bond Registrar”). The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any time the Bond
Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor Bond Registrar.
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by VPSA coming
due on or before July 15, 2018, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by VPSA may be exchanged
that mature on or before July 15, 2018, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by VPSA coming due after July 15, 2018, and the
definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2018, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part,
on any date on or after July 15, 2018, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as
percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set
forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2018, through July 14, 2019 101%
July 15, 2019, through July 14, 2020 100½
July 15, 2020, and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of VPSA or the registered owner of the
Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered
owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, either of whom may
act, and the Clerk of the Board or any Deputy Clerk, either of whom may act, are authorized and directed to
execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of and premium, if
any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are
hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied
and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to
local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the
interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be
without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the
extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman of the Board, the
County Executive and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act,
are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate
each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants
as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “Code”), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the
Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and
such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds
and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is
in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the Director of Finance to participate in the State Non-
Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such
officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of
the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment
manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is
hereby approved, with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution
as may be approved by the officer executing such Proceeds Agreement, his execution to constitute conclusive
evidence of his approval of any such completions, omissions, insertions and changes.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and
such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized
and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, substantially in the form attached as Appendix F to
the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such
covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 15c2-12, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed to make all
filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by VPSA to be a
MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized
and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the
County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or
desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby
ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: Proposed ordinance to amend Section 4-100,
Definitions, and Article III, Licenses, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle County
Code. The ordinance would amend Sec. 4-100 by defining “hearing dog,” “releasing agency,” “service
dog,” and “kennel”; and Article III by reorganizing and updating the County Code dog license provisions to
conform to Virginia Code provisions; adding the requirement for veterinarians to provide the County
Finance Director rabies certificate information forty-five days after vaccinating a dog; providing two and
three year dog license options in addition to the one year license; increasing the penalty for making a false
statement to secure a dog license and failure to pay the dog license tax to a class 4 misdemeanor; and
increasing the dog license tax from $3.00 to $5.00 for spayed and neutered dogs, from $5.00 to $10.00 for
un-spayed and unneutered dogs, and eliminating the twenty and fifty dog kennel licenses and establishing
one kennel license tax of $50.00 for each block of ten dogs. The proposed effective date of this ordinance
is November 1, 2008. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 18 and August 25, 2008.)
Mr. Joe Correa, Division Manager of Revenue and Taxation, summarized the Executive Summary
which stated that the 2008 General Assembly amended the Virginia Code provisions relating to local animal
laws and dog licenses to become effective on October 1, 2008. Title 3.2 will replace the current provisions
of Title 3.1. On August 6th, the Board authorized an ordinance to be set for public hearing to update the
County Code provisions relating to dog licenses and to consider an increase in the dog license tax effective
for calendar year 2009. Other animal ordinance updates not relating to dog license taxes will be brought to
the Board later this year.
The County has required dog owners that reside in the County and kennel operators in the County
to obtain an annual dog license for at least the past forty years. The current dog license tax for a dog
owner is five dollars for an un-spayed and unneutered dog and three dollars for a spayed and neutered
dog. The current dog license tax for a kennel is fifteen dollars for up to twenty dogs and twenty-five dollars
for up to fifty dogs. The County’s dog license tax was last increased on February 13, 1985, and the
previous increase was on December 20, 1973. Virginia Code § 3.1-796.87 (§ 3.2-6528) authorizes
localities to establish a dog license tax not to exceed ten dollars per dog, and a kennel license tax for
kennels of ten, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty dogs not to exceed fifty dollars for any one such block of kennels.
The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) reorganizes and updates the County Code dog
license provisions to conform to Virginia Code provisions and to mirror the language of the Virginia Code.
In addition, the draft ordinance proposes to:
• Include the addition of definitions for “hearing dog,” “releasing agency,” “service dog” and
“kennel” that mirror the Virginia Code definitions. “Kennel” is defined as an establishment
with five or more canines, felines or hybrids of either which are kept for the purposes of
breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying, boarding, selling or showing;
• Add the Virginia Code § 3.1-796.87:1 (§ 3.2-6529) requirement for veterinarians to provide
the County Finance Director rabies certificate information within forty-five days after
vaccinating a dog;
• Include two and three year dog license options in addition to the one year license as
authorized by Virginia Code § 3.1-796.88 (§ 3.2-6530(B)). This allows dog owners to
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
purchase a dog license which can run concurrently with the rabies vaccination, thereby
reducing the number of renewals;
• Increase the criminal penalty for making a false statement in order to secure a dog license
(currently a fine of not less than $5.00 nor more than $100.00) and the penalty for failure to
timely pay the dog license tax (currently a fine of $10.00) to a penalty punishable as a class
4 misdemeanor with a fine of up to $250.00 as authorized by Virginia Code § 3.1-
796.128(A) (§3.2-6587(A)); and
• Increase the dog license tax from $3.00 to $5.00 for spayed and neutered dogs; from
$5.00 to $10.00 for unspayed and unneutered dogs; and eliminate the two types of kennel
licenses, establishing one kennel license of $50.00 for up to ten dogs as authorized by
Virginia Code § 3.1-796.87 (§ 3.2-6528). Additional kennel licenses may be purchased if
an owner has more than ten dogs. Other localities with similar kennel tag license
provisions include Culpeper County, Augusta County, Page County and Rockingham
County.
The draft ordinance is recommended to become effective on November 1, 2008 to correlate with
the date the County’s 2009 dog licenses become available for purchase.
The unfunded legislative mandate enacted by the General Assembly in 2007 requiring
veterinarians to report vaccinations monthly to localities required the reassignment of one full-time County
employee devoted exclusively to the administration of dog licensing. In addition, the initial cost of
enforcement under that new law was approximately $3,000 and the estimated recurring annual expense is
$1,200.
The dog license tax revenue in 2007 totaled $11,630 for the sale of 3,022 tags. It is estimated
that the 2009 revenue will be $24,793 at the current dog license fee rates based on historical sales and
responses to violation notices to date (generated as a result of the monthly vaccination reports). The
estimated 2009 revenue increases $18,627 to $43,420 if the Board adopts the proposed dog license fee
amendment.
To provide the option to purchase two and three year licenses will require 28 hours of programming
to modify the Finance software.
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
Mr. Correa noted that the 2007 and 2008 General Assembly sessions put into play legislation that
required localities to amend their ordinances; 2008 requires clarification of definition of “kennels,” “hearing
dogs,” “releasing agency.” The 2007 action requires veterinarians in the County to report vaccinations to
his office, and he then must reconcile them against the database to see which animals have licenses. Mr.
Correa said that required the assignment of one individual exclusively to administer dog licenses, and
there has also been additional expense in issuing licenses and sending notices out. He added that the
2008 session also required that criminal penalties be increased, and the Finance Department is proposing
an increase in fees. Mr. Correa said that he surveyed 18 different localities, and 11 of them are up to the
limit of what’s proposed in the executive summary.
Ms. Mallek asked if he is considering have dog licenses mailed along with tax bills.
Mr. Correa replied that they have considered it, but they have to send out vaccination certificates
in order to issue a license and they are not sure how to put that on a first cycle or second cycle bill.
Mr. Rooker added that they have discussed issuing licenses out of vet’s offices, and more dogs
would probably be picked up as the estimate now is only 10%.
Mr. Correa said that the 2007 legislation went into effect July 1st, requiring veterinarians to report
to local treasurers; the second part was enforcement and notice provision which kicked in January 1st
whereby treasurers must reconcile their information. He stated that he began reconciling it last year, and
in the first mailing 4,100 notices went out.
Mr. Rooker commented that most people do not know it’s a requirement.
Mr. Correa said that after that about 1,500 were sent out for a total of 5,600 without licenses. He
explained that he tried to identify all the veterinarians in the County, and have them attend a meeting to
discuss the legislation, adding that neither vets or treasurers are pleased with the legislation because of
the additional burden it places on them. Mr. Correa said that he has to take vaccinations for dogs from
another county and send them to that locality; he also receives information from neighboring counties. He
reported that the W hitehall Ruritan Vaccination Clinic offered to sell licenses there, and they did sell 54
licenses there one Saturday.
The public hearing was opened and public comment was invited.
Ms. Ann Sullivan addressed the Board, stating that she understands the need for compliance with
state code. She said that individual fees for neutering are going from $3 to $5, which seems fair.
Regarding the kennel license proposal, Ms. Sullivan said that in 2007 the County sold 102 kennel
licenses, and 90% were for the lesser amount of one to 20 dogs at $15. She said now the fee is $50 for
10 ten dogs in blocks of 10, which reflects a 14% increase – double the proposed raise in individual fees,
but since it is for exactly half the number it is actually an 85% increase. She said if you have more than 10
dogs, you must pay the fee of $100 every year for licenses from a previous $15. Ms. Sullivan expressed
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
concern that people with multiple dogs which previously got kennel licenses will simply stop getting rabies
shots for their dogs, an undue and punitive burden for a tiny minority; according to Mr. Correa it costs no
more to process a kennel license than it does an individual license including notification of noncompliance;
the only additional cost is additional kennel tags. She added that Greene County charges a kennel license
fee of $30 for 1-9 dogs; $40 for 10-20 dogs; in Augusta County, $25 for four or more dogs; in Fluvanna
County, $40 for up to 20 dogs; Orange County $25 for 1-10 dogs. Ms. Sullivan added that Albemarle used
Culpeper for comparison.
Mr. James Barrett addressed the Board, stating that he is with the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Kennel Club and co-founder of Responsible Dog Owners of Albemarle County. He said that changes in
licensing are long overdue and are based in neighboring county fees, and dog licenses should be required
of all dog owners to encourage responsible ownership and support county animal control officers. Mr.
Barrett said that Culpeper is not a neighbor, and imposing $50 kennel fees will create a hardship for small
kennel owners, and the fees only generate $3,500. He added that it is of much more importance to go
after the 16-30,000 unlicensed dog owners, and recommended only increasing the fees a small
percentage.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker commented that the license fee per dog is no higher for a kennel than an individual
pet, which is $50 for 10 dogs.
Mr. Davis responded that traditionally there had been a much lower cost for kennels, and the
ordinance hadn’t been amended since 1983.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is worth requiring pet stores and breeders to report dog sales so it could be
confirmed that a dog is licensed.
Mr. Davis replied that there are various strategies to try to enforce the dog license requirements,
but the County has not devoted a lot of resources to this in the past – owners of unlicensed dogs receive
notices as they are discovered – but essentially this has been an unfunded mandate. He added that the
biggest concerns are getting dogs vaccinated, and spayed and neutered. Mr. Davis said that this
ordinance is what has been proposed by the Finance Department to maximize the amount of revenue that
state law allows, and that is the recommendation that came forward.
Ms. Thomas asked if puppies are included in the 10 dog rule, because if they are under four
months they do not need a license.
Mr. Correa responded that they do not have to have a license but can purchase individual tags.
He also said that there’s no requirement to purchase a kennel block, that’s purely by choice. Mr. Correa
said that under the definition of kennels, it’s defined as five or more dogs; you can have five dogs and buy
a kennel block, or buy individual ones. He also stated that some localities have inspection of kennel
facilities and other requirements for animal control officers, but Albemarle does not have that kind of a
system.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is not a money-maker; it costs the County money every year.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following Ordinance
No. 08-4(2) to amend Section 4-100, Definitions, and Article III, Licenses, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl,
of the Albemarle County Code.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-4(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOW L, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, AND ARTICLE III,
LICENSES.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals
and Fowl, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Article I, In General, and Article III, Licenses, as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4-100 Definitions
Sec. 4-300 Required
Sec. 4-301 Procedure for obtaining licenses
Sec. 4-302 Evidence of rabies vaccination prerequisite to issuance of license
Sec. 4-307 Effect of dog not wearing collar and tag as evidence
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
By Amending and Renumbering:
Sec. 4-303 Amount of license tax to Sec. 4-304 Amount of license tax
Sec. 4-304 W hen license tax payable to Sec. 4-305 W hen license tax payable, valid
Sec. 4-305 Payment of license tax subsequent
to summons to Sec. 4-306 Payment of license tax
subsequent to summons
Sec. 4-309 Display of receipts to Sec. 4-308 Display of receipts; collar and
tag to be worn; penalties
By Adding:
Sec. 4-303 Veterinarians to provide treasurer with rabies certificate information; civil penalty
By Repealing:
Sec. 4-306 Term
Sec. 4-308 License to consist of receipt and metal tag
Sec. 4-310 License tags – Attachment to collar
Sec. 4-311 License tags – Contents
Sec. 4-312 License tags – Collar and tag to be worn by dog; exceptions
Sec. 4-313 License tags – Duplicate
Sec. 4-314 License tags - Kennels
Sec. 4-315 Penalties for violation of sections 4-312 and 4-314
Sec. 4-316 False statements
Sec. 4-317 Penalty for failure to obtain license
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 4-100 Definitions.
The following words as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings:
(1) Abandon. The term "abandon" means to desert, forsake, or absolutely give up an animal without
having secured another owner or custodian for the animal or by failing to provide the elements of basic care as
set forth in Virginia Code § 3.2-6503 for a period of five consecutive days.
(2) Adequate care or care. The term "adequate care" or "care" means the responsible practice of
good animal husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection,
shelter, transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age, species,
condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or
impairment of health.
(3) Adequate exercise. The term "adequate exercise" or "exercise" means the opportunity for the
animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and condition
of the animal.
(4) Adequate feed. The term "adequate feed" means access to and the provision of food which is of
sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is
prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is
provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests;
and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily,
except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting
normal for the species.
(5) Adequate shelter. The term "adequate shelter" means provision of and access to shelter that is
suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each
animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects
of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables
each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a
solid surface, resting platform, pad, floormat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a
normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or
slat floors (i) permit the animals' feet to pass through the openings, (ii) sag under the animals' weight, or (iii)
otherwise do not protect the animals' feet or toes from injury are not adequate shelter.
(6) Adequate space. The term "adequate space" means sufficient space to allow each animal to (i)
easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position
for the animal and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. W hen an animal is tethered,
"adequate space" means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the
animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the
animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or
from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at
least three times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, except
when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. W hen freedom of
movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal
according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate space.
(7) Adequate water. The term "adequate water" means provision of and access to clean, fresh,
potable water of a drinkable temperature which is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at
suitable intervals, but at least once every twelve hours, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species,
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally
occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles
which are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by
excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry
practices.
(8) Adoption. The term "adoption" means the transfer of ownership of a dog or cat from a releasing
agency to an individual.
(9) Agricultural animals. The term "agricultural animals" means all livestock and poultry.
(10) Ambient temperature. The term "ambient temperature" means the temperature surrounding the
animal.
(11) Animal. The term "animal" means any domestic animal, including both agricultural and
companion animals, if not specified otherwise. For the purposes of article IV, “animal” means any species
susceptible to rabies.
(12) Animal control officer. The term "animal control officer" means any person employed, contracted,
or appointed by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision for the purpose of aiding in the enforcement of
any other law or ordinance relating to the licensing of dogs, control of dogs and cats, cruelty to animals, or
seizure and impoundment of companion animals and includes any state or county police officer, animal control
officer, sheriff or other employee whose duties in whole or in part include assignments which involve seizure or
taking into custody of any dog or other animal.
(13) Animal shelter. The term "animal shelter" means a facility which is used to house or contain
animals and which is owned, operated, or maintained by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare
society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare,
protection, and humane treatment of animals.
(14) Boarding establishment. The term "boarding establishment" means a place or establishment
other than a pound or animal shelter where companion animals not owned by the proprietor are sheltered, fed,
and watered in exchange for a fee.
(15) Collar. The term "collar" means a well-fitted device, appropriate to the age and size of the
animal, attached to the animal's neck in such a way as to prevent trauma or injury to the animal.
(16) Companion animal. The term "companion animal" means any domestic or feral dog, domestic or
feral cat, non-human primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit not raised for human food or fiber, exotic or native
animal, reptile, exotic or native bird, or any feral animal or any animal under the care, custody, or ownership of
a person or any animal which is bought, sold, traded, or bartered by any person. Agricultural animals, game
species, or any animals regulated under federal law as research animals shall not be considered companion
animals for the purposes of this chapter.
(17) Enclosure. The term "enclosure" means a structure used to house or restrict animals from
running at large.
(18) Euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished
by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves
anesthesia, produced by an agent which causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss
of consciousness.
(19) Hearing dog. The term “hearing dog” means a dog trained to alert its owner by touch to
sounds of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond.
(20) Kennel. The term “kennel” means any establishment in which five or more canines, felines, or
hybrids of either are kept for the purposes of breeding, hunting training, renting, buying, boarding, selling, or
showing.
(21) Livestock. The term "livestock" includes all domestic or domesticated: bovine animals; equine
animals; ovine animals; porcine animals; cervidae animals; capradae animals; animals of the genus Lama;
ratites; fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities, as defined in Virginia Code § 3.2-2600; enclosed
domesticated rabbits or hares raised for human food or fiber; or any other individual animal specifically raised
for food or fiber, except companion animals.
(22) Owner. The term "owner" means any person who: (i) has a right of property in an animal, (ii)
keeps or harbors an animal, (iii) has an animal in his care, or (iv) acts as a custodian of an animal.
(23) Person. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, firm, joint-stock company,
corporation, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.
(24) Poultry. The term “poultry" includes all domestic fowl and game birds raised in captivity.
(25) Pound. The term "pound" means a facility operated by the Commonwealth, or county for the
purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned, or unwanted animals; or a facility
operated for the same purpose under a contract with any county, city, town, or incorporated society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
(26) Primary enclosure. The term "primary enclosure" means any structure used to immediately
restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, cage, compartment, or hutch.
For tethered animals, the term includes the shelter and the area within reach of the tether.
(27) Releasing agency. The term “releasing agency” means a pound, animal shelter, humane
society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other similar entity or
home-based rescue, that releases companion animals for adoption.
(28) Service dog. The term “service dog” means a dog trained to accompany its owner for the
purpose of carrying items, retrieving objects, pulling a wheelchair or other such activities of service or support.
(29) Sterilize or sterilization. The term "sterilize" or "sterilization" means a surgical or chemical
procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that renders a dog or cat permanently incapable of
reproducing.
(30) Treatment or adequate treatment. The term "treatment" or "adequate treatment" means the
responsible handling or transportation of animals in the person's ownership, custody or charge, appropriate for
the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal.
(31) Veterinary treatment. The term "veterinary treatment" means treatment by or on the order of a
duly licensed veterinarian.
(Code 1967, § 4-4; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference—Va. Code §§ 3.2-6500, 6528.
ARTICLE III. LICENSES
Sec. 4-300 Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person other than a releasing agency that has registered as such annually
with the County to own a dog four (4) months old or older in the County unless such dog is licensed, as
required by the provisions of this article.
(Code 1967, § 4-17; 9-13-89; Code 1988, § 4-20; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference-- Va. Code § 3.2-6524.
Sec. 4-301 Procedure for obtaining licenses.
A. Any resident of this county may obtain a one year, two year, or three-year dog license by
making oral or written application to the director of finance or his designee, accompanied by the amount of the
license tax and a current certificate of vaccination as required by this chapter or satisfactory evidence that
such certificate has been obtained.
B. The director of finance or his designee shall license only dogs of resident owners or
custodians who reside within the County, and may require information to this effect of any applicant. Upon
receipt of a proper application and a current certificate of vaccination as required by this chapter or satisfactory
evidence that such certificate has been obtained, the director of finance or his designee shall issue a license
receipt, on which he shall record the name and address of the owner or custodian, the date of payment, the
year for which issued, the serial number of the tag, whether male or female, whether spayed or neutered, or
whether a kennel, and deliver the metal license tags or plates provided for herein. Multi-year dog licenses
may only be issued upon evidence that the certificate of vaccination is valid for the duration of the multi-year
license.
C. The director of finance or his designee shall retain the application information during the
period for which such license is valid, and shall be available for public inspection.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person to make a false statement in order to secure a dog license
to which he is not entitled. Any person convicted of making a false statement in order to secure a dog license
to which he is not entitled shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than
two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
E. Any person convicted of failure to pay the dog license tax imposed by this division prior to
February 1 of any year or at such other time as may be required by this division on any dog four (4) months of
age or older and owned by him shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more
than two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
(Code 1967, § 4-18; 5-15-75; Code 1988, § 4-21; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-301; Code 1967, § 4-33; Code
1988, § 4-36; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-316; Code 1967, § 4-34; 4-13-88; 9-13-89; Code 1988, § 4-37; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-317; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference-- Va. Code §§ 3.2-6527, 3.2-6530(B), 3.2-6587(A).
Sec. 4-302 What license shall consist of; evidence of rabies vaccination; duplicate tags.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
A. A dog license shall consist of a license receipt and a metal tag. The tag shall be stamped or
otherwise permanently marked to show the County has issued the license and bear a serial number or other
identifying information prescribed by the County.
B. No dog license shall be issued for any dog unless there is presented to the director of finance
or his designee, satisfactory evidence that such dog has been inoculated or vaccinated against rabies, as
required by section 4-301, by a currently licensed veterinarian or currently licensed technician who was under
the immediate and direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian on the premises.
C. If a dog license tag shall become lost, destroyed or stolen, the owner or custodian shall at
once apply to the director of finance or his designee for a duplicate license tag by presenting the original
license receipt. Upon affidavit of the owner or custodian before the director of finance or his designee that the
original license tag has been lost, destroyed or stolen, he shall issue a duplicate license tag. The owner or
custodian shall immediately affix the duplicate license tag to the collar of the dog. The director of finance or
his designee shall endorse the number of the duplicate and the date issued on the face of the original receipt.
The fee for a duplicate tag shall be one dollar ($1.00).
(Code 1967, § 4-19; Code 1988, § 4-22; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-302; Code 1967, § 4-25; 4-23-88; Code
1988, § 4-28; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-308; Code 1967, § 4-28; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-31; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98, § 4-311; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference -- Va. Code §§ 3.2-6526, 6532.
Sec. 4-303 Veterinarians to provide treasurer with rabies certificate information; civil penalty.
A. Each veterinarian who vaccinates a dog against rabies or directs a veterinary technician in his
employ to vaccinate a dog against rabies shall provide the owner a copy of the rabies vaccination certificate.
The veterinarian shall forward within forty-five (45) days a copy of the rabies vaccination certificate or the
relevant information contained in such certificate to the County’s director of finance.
The rabies vaccination certificate shall include at a minimum the signature of the veterinarian, the
animal owner’s name and address, the species of the animal, the sex, the age, the color, the primary breed,
whether or not the animal is spayed or neutered, the vaccination number, and expiration date. The rabies
vaccination certificate shall indicate the locality where the animal resides.
B. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of each vaccinated animal that is not already
licensed to apply for a license for the vaccinated dog. If the director of finance determines, from review of the
rabies vaccination information provided by the veterinarians, that the owner of an unlicensed dog has failed to
apply for a license within 90 days of the date of vaccination, the director of finance shall transmit an application
to the owner and request the owner to submit a complete application and pay the appropriate fee. Upon
receipt of the completed application and payment of the license fee, the director of finance or his designee
shall issue a license receipt and a permanent tag.
The director of finance shall remit any rabies vaccination certificate received for any animal owned by
an individual residing in another locality to the local treasurer for the appropriate locality.
Any veterinarian that willfully fails to provide the director of finance with a copy of the rabies
vaccination certificate or the information contained in such certificate may be subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $10 per certificate. Monies raised pursuant to this subsection shall be placed in the County’s general
fund for the purpose of animal control activities including spay or neuter programs.
(Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference—Va. Code § 3.2-6529.
Sec. 4-304 Amount of license tax.
A. Dog license taxes shall be as follows:
1. Spayed Female/Neutered Male.
One year tag: Five dollars ($5.00)
Two year tag: Ten dollars ($10.00)
Three year tag: Fifteen dollars ($15.00)
2. Unspayed Female/Unneutered Male.
One year tag: Ten dollars ($10.00)
Two year tag: Twenty dollars ($20.00)
Three year tag: Thirty dollars ($30.00)
3. Kennel license Fifty dollars ($50.00) per block of ten dogs
B. No license tax shall be levied on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind
person or that is trained and serves as a hearing dog for a deaf or hearing impaired person, or any dog that is
trained and serves as a service dog for a mobility-impaired person.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
(Code 1967, § 4-20; 12-20-73; 80-11-76; 2-13-85; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-303;
Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference-- Va. Code § 3.2-6528.
Sec. 4-305 When license tax payable, valid.
A. The license tax imposed on dogs by this article shall be due and payable no later than thirty
days after a dog has reached the age of four months, or no later than thirty days after an owner acquires a dog
four months of age or older and each year thereafter no later than January 31 of each year.
B. If a dog shall become four months of age or if a dog over four months of age unlicensed by
this county shall come into the possession of any person in this county between January 1 and October 31 of
any year, a license tax for the current calendar year shall be paid forthwith by the owner.
C. If a dog shall become four months of age or if a dog over four months of age unlicensed by
this county shall come into the possession of any person in this county between November 1 and December
31 or any year, the license tax for the succeeding calendar year shall be paid forthwith by the owner and such
license shall protect the dog from the date of payment of the license tax.
(Code 1967, § 4-21; 9-13-89; Code 1988, § 4-24; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-304; Code 1967, § 4-23; Code
1988, § 4-26; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-306; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference-- Va. Code § 3.2-6530.
Sec. 4-306 Payment of license tax subsequent to summons.
Payment of the license tax subsequent to a summons to appear before the judge of the general
district court or other court for failure to pay the license tax within the time required shall not operate to relieve
such owner from any penalty for the violation of this article.
(Code 1967, § 4-22; Code 1988, § 4-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-305; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 3.2-6536.
Sec. 4-307 Effect of dog not wearing collar and tag as evidence.
Any dog not wearing a collar bearing a license tag of the proper calendar year shall prima facie be
deemed to be unlicensed, and in any proceeding under this article, the burden of proof of the fact that the dog
has been licensed or was otherwise not required to bear a tag at the time shall be on the owner of the dog.
(Code 1967, § 4-24; Code 1988, § 4-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
State law reference-- Va. Code § 3.2-6533.
Sec. 4-308 Display of receipts; collar and tag to be worn; penalties.
A. Dog license receipts shall be carefully preserved by the owner and exhibited promptly on
request for inspection by any animal control officer or other officer. Dog license tags shall be securely
fastened to a substantial collar by the owner or custodian and worn by such dog. It shall be unlawful for the
owner to permit any licensed dog four (4) months old or older to run or roam at large at any time without a
license tag. The owner of the dog may remove the collar and license tag required by this section when:
(i) the dog is engaged in lawful hunting;
(ii) the dog is competing in a dog show;
(iii) the dog has a skin condition which would be exacerbated by the wearing of a collar;
(iv) the dog is confined; or
(v) the dog is under the immediate control of its owner.
B. The license tag for a kennel shall show the number of dogs authorized to be kept under such
license, and have attached thereto a metal identification plate for each of such dogs, numbered to correspond
with the serial number of the license tag. The owner of a kennel shall securely fasten the license tag to the
kennel enclosure in full view and keep one of the identification plates provided therewith attached to the collar
of each dog authorized to be kept enclosed in the kennel. Any identification plates not so in use must be kept
by the owner or custodian and promptly shown to any animal control officer or other officer upon request. A
kennel dog shall not be permitted to stray beyond the limits of the enclosure, but this shall not prohibit
removing dogs therefrom temporarily while under the control of the owner or custodian for the purpose of
exercising, hunting, breeding, trial or show. A kennel shall not be operated in such manner as to defraud the
County of the license tax applying to dogs which cannot be legally covered thereunder or to any manner which
violates other provisions of this article.
C. The owner of any dog found running at large at any time of the year in violation of this section,
upon conviction, shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
(Code 1967, § 4-26; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-29; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-309; Code 1967, § 4-31; 4-13-88;
Code 1988, § 4-34; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-314; Code 1967, § 4-32; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-35; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-4(1), 12-7-05, § 4-315; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08)
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 3.2-6531, 3.2-6587(A).
This ordinance to be effective on and after November 1, 2008.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: WPTA-2008-0003. Water Protection Ordinance. To
exempt certain public airport improvements from stream buffer regulations. Amend Sec. 17-319, Types of
development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, to exempt the
construction, installation and maintenance of runways, taxiways, and other similar or appurtenant
improvements at public airports, including the expansion or extension of those improvements, from the
duty to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer, provided that all applicable federal, state and local
permits are obtained. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 18 and August 25, 2008.)
The following Executive Summary was forwarded to Board members:
On August 13, 2008, the Board authorized a public hearing to consider amending the W ater
Protection Ordinance (“Ordinance”) to allow public airport runways and associated improvements to be
exempt from stream buffer requirements. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport’s (“Airport”) planned
extension of its runway encroaches into stream buffers protected by the Ordinance. The planned
extension is shown in the Airport’s master plan, is incorporated into the County’s Comprehensive Plan
through the master plan, and is supported by the Board as evidenced by its August 13, 2008 resolution of
support. Additionally, the runway extension has already gone through a federal approval process that
included an environmental assessment.
Staff recognized a potential conflict between a planned runway extension at the Airport and the
Ordinance when reviewing a site plan for the Airport that includes the runway extension. Staff found that
the runway extension encroached into a protected stream buffer and that a runway was not specifically
addressed in the Ordinance. To resolve this potential conflict, staff determined that either an ordinance
amendment or an interpretation of the Ordinance by the Program Authority would be required.
Recognizing the Airport was under tight contractual timelines, the Director of Community Development,
acting as the Program Authority under the Ordinance, directed staff to proceed with the review of the
project, treating the runway as if it were a driveway. This delayed the need to make a final interpretation
and provided an opportunity to bring forward an ordinance amendment to address this issue. If the
Ordinance is not amended, an Ordinance interpretation will need to be finalized before approving or
denying a grading plan that allows disturbance of this stream buffer.
In proposing an ordinance amendment, staff considered three options for allowing a public airport
runway within protected stream buffers. Those options included:
1. Under § 17-319 of the Ordinance, treat a public runway as an exempted activity;
2. Under § 17-320 of the Ordinance, treat a public runway as an authorized activity with
established conditions; and
3. Under § 17-321 of the Ordinance, treat a public runway as a discretionary activity that
requires a case by case determination and mitigation plan.
Staff supports an amendment to make the public airport runway an exempt activity under § 17-
319 of the Ordinance for the following reasons. First, water quality impacts associated with the runway
extension are already regulated under federal and state permits. This suggests that water quality
regulation at the local level is redundant and would divert scarce staff resources from other projects where
there are no state and federal safeguards. Second, the runway extension is already recognized by the
County as a planned improvement in the Comprehensive Plan and by the Board’s August 13th resolution
of support. This demonstrates that the runway extension should be viewed as a Board endorsed project
rather than a project subject to administrative denial by staff. Additionally, a public airport runway is a
unique and very rare development, suggesting that standard conditions as an authorized activity will likely
provide a poor fit. Finally, staff recognizes the Airport and the County have a long and cooperative
relationship. W hile such an exemption might not be appropriate for all development, staff is confident the
Airport will remain open to staff suggestions on additional water quality measures beyond what is required.
Staff has not identified any budget impact associated with the proposed ordinance
amendment. This amendment will simplify the County’s administration of the grading permit, but that
activity is already funded through the fees in the W ater Protection Ordinance. Under County policy,
the Airport pays the same fees as any other developer.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance to exempt
public airport runways and associated improvements from the W ater Protection Ordinance stream buffer
requirement.
Ms. Thomas commented that she always thought the County requirements were higher than state
standards, and asked him to elaborate.
Mr. Graham replied that there is wetlands permitting, which the County does not require, and they
also have an industrial discharge permit for their storm water, and requirement for a pollution prevention
plan to minimize long-term impacts.
Mr. Rooker stated that his primary concern is to make certain that the storm water facilities
provided for this area are adequate to handle the runoff being created by the airport, and the County was
assured that if the plan was executed the storm water situation would improve.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Graham responded that staff fully expects that, and the airport is also building in some
redundancy under their erosion and sediment control plan that would not normally be seen for most
applicants.
Mr. Rooker asked about the good faith effort to do some stream mitigation downstream.
Mr. Graham replied that that is being pursued, and that’s a great example of the stewardship the
airport has exhibited.
The public hearing was then opened and public comment was invited.
Mr. Tim Kendrick addressed the Board, stating that comments were made at the November 5,
2007 joint public hearing. He said that three agencies provided recommendations specifically addressing
this issue as part of the DEQ’s coordinated review of the proposed development dated December 20,
2007. Mr. Kendrick said that DCR recommended the implementation and strict adherence to applicable
state and local erosion and sediment control and storm water management laws and regulations to
minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities. He added that
the DGIF made several recommendations: relocate stream channels where practical, incorporating
natural stream design and wooded buffers; maintain undisturbed wooded buffers of at least 100 feet and
width around all onsite wetlands and on both sides of the stream channels. Mr. Kendrick said that
Community Development stated that the western portion of the airport falls within a water supply area; but
the draft plan does not address local requirements for a 100-foot stream buffer in drinking water supply
areas. He added that the County requested that the airport comply with the stream buffer requirements to
design construction of the proposed project. Mr. Kendrick said that according to county GIS, there are
eight streams on the airport property, some of which converge with others on the property, so five streams
on the property flow into Chris Greene Lake.
He emphasized that the runway extension itself impacts the three streams located on the
northwest corner of the airport property; the Barlow site is located south of the other stream and the
relocation of snow removal equipment building is located next to the middle stream on the west side, and
the construction of the temporary west side access road crosses three of the five streams on that side.
Mr. Kendrick said that in Phase III of this project there are four or five buildings being placed on the west
side directly impacting the two southernmost streams, and under the proposed verbiage all of these
projects would be exempt from duties to retain, establish, or manage a stream buffer. He encouraged the
Board to consider a third option – which would treat a public runway as discretionary activity that requires
a case-by-case determination and mitigation plan, consistent with recommendations made by the
Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and the
Albemarle County Department of Community Development as part of the December 20th coordinated
review.
Mr. Bill Schrader addressed the Board, stating that he serves on the Airport Commission. Mr.
Schrader noted that the de-icer used is not a harmful product and is captured in a retention pond on the
east side and will not be close to the streams being discussed. He also said that the streamwork being
done is actually looking at a 100-year worst storm scenario, and they will take every precaution that work
being done meets guidelines. Mr. Schrader pointed out that the commission members are appointed, not
paid, and all live in this community and share concerns of other citizens. He requested approval of the
amendment so the project can move forward.
Ms. Tatiana Patton addressed the Board on behalf of the Rivanna Conservation Society. Ms.
Patton said that the RCS’s biggest concern with this project is the choice of amendment, and feel that the
airport has gone above and beyond requirements to make this a good project. However, she said, by
adopting option one, a future door is being opened for other projects that can slip by without any kind of
Board or staff review, and they hesitate to recommend the option for that reason. Ms. Patton asked the
Board to preserve the intent of the W ater Protection Ordinance and choose option three.
Mr. Jim Nixon of Delta Airport Consultants, the registered engineer, addressed the Board. He
indicated that they meet and exceed all requirements of the erosion and sediment control and stormwater
management for the State and County. Mr. Nixon pointed out that runways have a lot of buffer areas,
unlike regular roads, and assured the Board that there would not be problems downstream.
Mr. Tim Cosner of the Airport Commission addressed the Board, stating that he is with Delta and
Northwest and they support the extension because it puts more passengers on a plane; currently the
runway size prohibits the load on planes, and the extension would provide about 6,000 more passengers
per year. Mr. Cosner said that 1,000 more feet would allow 50 more passengers and their bags.
Ms. Barbara Hutchinson, Executive Director of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, addressed
the Board, thanking them for their consideration and assuring them that additional mitigation would be
undertaken. Ms. Hutchinson said that the clerk has been given written information on the de-icer material,
a safety data sheet, an information sheet from the manufacturer, and an economic impact analysis.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert addressed the Board, on behalf of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of
Commerce. Mr. Hulbert said that the Chamber has long supported enhancements to the airport, and this
community needs to go forward with the investment for the expansion. He stated that the plan is to meet
and exceed all state environmental and federal standards, as agreed by staff and the Planning
Commission.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Mike Matthews addressed the Board, stating that the airport is a critical link for his business,
and he was part of the original group that created the ordinance. Mr. Matthews said that everything
proposed here today is consistent with the intent of that ordinance, and the airport meets and exceeds
environmental requirements on a regular basis. He stated that these have been turbulent times for the
airport industry, and the airport must be competitive. Mr. Matthews also stated that the Airport
Commission receives accolades for their work, and they continue to be one of the most effective local
government bodies.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Ms. Thomas noted that there’s nothing in the action today that says the buildings would have to
meet requirements.
Mr. Graham confirmed this, adding that they’d have to be considered under §17.3-22, which deals
with the mitigation plan on a case by case basis; he said that only structures pertinent to the runway are
covered with this amendment.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this really only pertains to the runway and is an extremely narrow
amendment.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to find out what the difficulties are with option three.
Mr. Graham replied that the problem with that option is it becomes a discretionary decision with
the program authority and the County has to find that there is no alternative to them and that there is the
ability to mitigate the impacts on that property; no offsite mitigation can be mandated, which could put
them in a very difficult situation. He said that just the time needed for mitigation plans could jeopardize
their funding.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the County Attorney advised that the ordinance change was
necessary.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it’s almost an emergency decision, and the airport is assuring that
there will be no detriment to streams.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that they are going above and beyond what would normally be required.
Motion was offered by Mr. Slutzky, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following Ordinance
No. 08-17(4) to exempt public airport runways and associated improvements from the W ater Protection
Ordinance stream buffer requirement.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-17(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, W ATER PROTECTION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT AND
W ATER QUALITY
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 17, W ater
Protection, Article III, Stormwater Management and W ater Quality, is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 17-319 Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer
Chapter 17. Water Protection
Article III. Stormwater Management and Water Quality
Sec. 17-319 Types of development exempt from duties to retain, establish or manage a stream buffer.
The following types of development shall not be required to retain, establish or manage a stream
buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied:
A. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and telephone
transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their appurtenant
structures, which are accomplished in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code
§§ 10.1-560 et seq.) or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the Virginia Soil and W ater
Conservation Board.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
B. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of water and sewer lines,
including water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for dedication to public agencies, provided
that:
1. To the extent practical, the location of such water or sewer lines shall be outside of all
stream buffer areas;
2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and maintain
the water or sewer lines; and
3. All such construction, installation, and maintenance of such water or sewer lines shall
comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements and permits and be conducted in a manner
that protects water quality.
C. Silvicultural activities, provided that such activities are conducted in compliance with the water
quality protection procedures established by the Virginia Department of Forestry in its “Best Management
Practices Handbook for Forestry Operations.”
D. The construction, installation and maintenance of runways, taxiways, and other similar or
appurtenant improvements at public airports, including the expansion or extension of those improvements,
provided that all applicable federal, state and local permits are obtained.
(§ 19.3-43, 2-11-98; § 19.2-12, 6-19-91, § 12; Code 1988, §§ 19.2-12, 19.3-43; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-
17(4), 9-3-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 10.1-2108.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 23. Work Session: Alternative Funding for ACE.
Mr. Rex Linville, Land Conservation Officer with the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed
the Board. He thanked the Board for their time and applauded their consistent and generous level of
funding for ACE over the last eight years, as it has made a significant difference in the County and there
are now 27 farms and forest properties throughout the County that wouldn’t have been protected without
the program. Mr. Linville said that the public funds invested in the ACE program will make a lasting impact
in the community for generations to come. He said that demand has gone up and the cost for easements
has increased, today’s dollars are not protecting what they used to when the program was started in 2000.
Mr. Linville said that given these trends, it makes sense to preserve as much as possible today
while these lands are still available for protection and the cost is relatively low for the community. He
stated that one way to accelerate that rate of conservation would be to invest more dollars in ACE on an
annual basis, but given the fiscal realities this might not be the most feasible option. Mr. Linville said that
Pat O’Connell will speak with the Board today on conservation easement financing, as he specializes in
assisting local governments and corporations in raising capital for land preservation. He said that Mr.
O’Connell was instrumental in developing the Trust for Public Lands Government Lease Purchase Land
Acquisition Financing Program and serves on TPL’s Chesapeake Advisory Committee.
Mr. O’Connell addressed the Board, stating that most County programs funding conservation
through annual revenues find out that the money starts to run out before the accomplish what they have
set out to do. He said that land preservation programs are very opportunistic; with the landowner deciding
when it is time to preserve and if you are only funding in cash you may not have enough in a given year to
respond to that. Mr. O’Connell added that sometimes sellers do not want cash, and the County needs to
be in a position to respond to that. He also said that having some “debt” for land conservation can also be
healthy for municipality ratings – with criteria being considered such as quality of life and having some
control over a capital budget; land preservation fits into those as it provides some assurance to rating
agencies that there is a long-term vision.
Mr. O’Connell said that currently the County puts in about $1.6 million a year to land conservation,
and the state grants are somewhat uncertain. He stated that over the next five years, there would likely be
$1.8 and $2 million to spend on land preservation, and preserving at the rate of $4,000 per acre, assuming
the price stays the same, that allows for about 450-500 acres a year, or 2,300 acres over that time period.
Mr. O’Connell emphasized that there is no one answer and several tools must be available, with seller
financing, bonds and loans being additional options to cash. He added that public-private partnerships
and providing pensions are other tools to be considered.
Regarding debt for conservation easements, Mr. O’Connell said that general obligation bonds can
be issued, and the Virginia Resources Authority can also provide financing on behalf of local
governments. He explained that the County could also borrow from the State’s Clean W ater State
Revolving Fund to fund land conservation. Mr. O’Connell reported that the six County governments that
have gone to the voters in Virginia have seen good results for approval of debt for land preservation. He
noted that the approval rates went up with the higher the percentage of bonds being devoted for land
preservation, but cautioned that getting it on the ballot and getting voter approval takes time and requires
a significant effort. Mr. O’Connell said that VRA has a good track record for financing for local
governments, and they were authorized by the General Assembly in 2007 to finance land conservation,
and run a pooled financing program through SunTrust – with a 20-year basis and a moral obligation of the
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Commonwealth to yield AAA rates. He stated that they were also authorized to do installment purchase
agreements with landowners to require easements for open space.
Mr. O’Connell said that looking at the revenue stream, assuming that money was drawn down
through VRA over five years, the County would come out in year six with all money committed to debt
service on VRA leases, but $31 million in acquisitions would be completed, or 8,000. He emphasized that
leveraging increases purchasing power by almost three to four times.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that debt service would go on for another 20+ years though.
Mr. O’Connell likened the practice to not paying cash for a house, stating that it’s reasonable to
ask for preservation support from future residents. He added that historically, tax exempt rates going out
40 years tended not to be that advantageous. Mr. O’Connell said that it’s a lot harder to look at revenues
over 25 years and make the projections for how much land could actually be preserved.
Mr. Slutzky added that during that time that cost per acre and development right have gone up so
that could be projected out fairly reasonably.
Mr. O’Connell indicated that there is an assumption that land is going to appreciate at a rate faster
than a tax-exempt borrowing rate. He said that the IRS stipulates that when you borrow, you need to
spend the money within a three-year time frame.
Mr. O’Connell said that the DEQ borrowing program is a state revolving fund funded primarily
through the EPA with the state providing a 20% match, and it can be used for land conservation that
prevent pollution and ensure availability for agriculture. He explained that they accept applications in July
and DEQ ranks and approves projects, and this fund has been used traditionally for big conservation
projects. He said that he has met with DEQ staff and they have concerns for use for agriculture because
their goal is clean water, so they want to be sure that there are clean water practices such as buffers,
cattle out of streams, etc. Mr. O’Connell emphasized that over time they could be made more comfortable
with farmland. He confirmed that this is a competitive application process, and they have the ability to sell
bonds to increase capacity. He mentioned that most good projects get funded.
Mr. O’Connell reported that with revolving funds, when Congress appropriates money to the 50
states, that money must be matched on a 20% basis by each state; Virginia has put 20% of it in with the
EPA funding the other 80%. He noted that the interest rate is about one half of the market rate.
He discussed landowner concerns about capital gains tax, citing that all a landowner is selling is
an easement, but you still have to pay the tax on the portion you are selling. Mr. O’Connell said that this
has been compounded in recent years because of tax benefits from landowners who sell their easements
for less than fair market value. He said that if you sell an easement for less than value, you can deduct
that difference for up to 50% of adjusted gross income, and up to 100% if you’re a farmer; if you do not
use it the year of sale you can use it for the next 15 years until the amount is gone. Mr. O’Connell said
that if you want to take that 100% deduction, you need to shift the gain out of the year of sale.
He explained that landowners would agree to a 30-year payout, they lock in their stream of
revenue for a lifetime and push the capital gains tax off to their heirs. Mr. O’Connell said that a website
has been created so that landowners can play with different financing options. He stated that most
landowners have covered the balloon payment at closing by using available funds to by strip coupon US
Treasury Bonds, which pay no interest on a current basis. Mr. O’Connell said you buy them discounted
and you get the face amount when they mature.
Mr. O’Connell reported that landowners can do a like-kind exchange, where the IRS lets you take
the basis in the easement you’re selling and flip it into new real estate without triggering the capital gain.
He stated that the capital gains rate is at 15% today but is projected to go to 28% in ten years, where it
was at the beginning of the Clinton administration.
Mr. O’Connell used Virginia Beach as an example, stating that they started their program over 10
years ago using 25-year installment purchase agreements to buy easements only; they’ll only buy with
IPA’s. He said that they’ve bought easements on 123 parcels, protecting about 7,100 acres at a cost of
$23 million purchase price. Mr. O’Connell said that because they are a city, they can enter into general
obligation purchase agreements without getting voter approval. He also reported that he is working with
Isle of W ight County, one of two counties in the Commonwealth that have gone to voters and received
authorization for their debt to be treated like City debt. Mr. O’Connell said that King George County has
this same option.
Mr. Davis explained that this provision is in the constitution, although it’s rarely done, and is
permissible by referendum.
Mr. Rooker commented that he recently attended a TDR meeting, and walked through the
economics of TDR exchange rates, and it does not compare favorably with putting an easement on your
property and selling the tax benefits. He said that as much work that’s being done, very few landowners
understood that you can sell the tax benefits, and the County should help PEC and VOF with an education
program so the information gets out in a broad way.
Mr. Linville mentioned that under new federal tax laws, conservation easements are deductible at
the rate of 50% AGI with a 15-year carry forward, where historically they were only deductible at a 30%
rate with a 5-year carry forward; a farmer gets a 100% rate at the 15 years. He said that the tax benefits
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
in that scenario to a very wealthy landowner can be just the same to a lower income landowner over that
period of time.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would be helpful to create some models with different landowner
scenarios.
Mr. Linville responded that the PEC does as much outreach and education as possible, but help
from the County would be appreciated.
____________________
At 4:40 p.m., the Board took a recess and then reconvened at 4:50 p.m.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 24. Work Session: Community Development Fees – Subdivision Ordinance.
The following Executive Summary was forwarded to Board members:
The purpose of this work session is to receive Board direction on staff recommended changes to
Subdivision Ordinance (“Ordinance”) fees. At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a
Community Development Fee Study and a recommendation for a fee policy. (Attachment A) Given the
limited amount of time for discussion and the complexity of the topic, it was not possible for the Board to
give specific direction on revised fees. To provide adequate consideration of the fees, staff divided this
task into several ordinances. The fees imposed under the Building Regulations and W ater Protection
Ordinances were reviewed at an April 9, 2008 work session and ordinance amendments were adopted by
the Board on August 6, 2008. Today’s work session is to establish direction for the Subdivision
Ordinance fees. Following completion of the Subdivision Ordinance, staff plans to bring forward the
Zoning Ordinance fees.
The fee study presented to the Board in December 2007 identified County costs for fee related
services, estimated revenue from current fees, proposed new fees, and compared the recommended
fees to those in eight comparable localities. The fee study extract in Attachment A included an explanation
of how the service costs were calculated and the algorithm used by the consultant in developing a
recommendation for updated fees.
After reviewing past Board discussions regarding fees and the consultant’s fee recommendation,
staff recognized it would be appropriate to consider simplifying the fee calculation process. To simplify,
staff considered establishing fees at one-half of the County’s cost and retaining the fee at its current level
where the fee is already greater than one-half of the cost. Fees were then rounded to the nearest $10.
The concept behind splitting the cost of service was to recognize that part of the service is related to the
property owner’s interest and part is related to notices and other non-mandated County policies and
procedures that allow for public involvement. Staff then prepared Attachment B to provide a side by side
comparison of the cost of service, the current fee, the consultant’s recommended fee, and a staff
recommended fee calculated at one-half of the County cost. Staff also included a revenue summary for
each fee concept in Attachment B. From this analysis, it appears the consultant’s recommendation and
staff’s recommendation will generate very similar revenues in an average year.
Next, staff provided a comparison of fees for three common subdivision types in Attachment C.
Recognizing that each locality has a unique fee structure, staff found it nearly impossible to provide a
meaningful comparison of all fees. This simple table provides meaningful examples of how the fees
compared with three common subdivisions. This table demonstrates that the fees are similar in most
situations, but that there are a few significant differences. Among the most significant changes would be
the fee for a family subdivision (Fee Study ID 90, Attachment B). Staff noted that localities appear to have
differing goals in establishing fees for family subdivisions and recognized the Board may wish to treat
these differently than other subdivision applications.
Finally, staff notes that some other localities are also attempting to develop a more consistent fee
structure and recover a higher percentage of their costs. Chesterfield County is currently attempting to
establish a fee structure that sets fees at 75% of its costs and Arlington County is attempting to set many
of its fees at 100% cost recovery. Staff noted that either a 75% or 100% cost recovery would set many of
Albemarle County’s subdivision fees higher than any of the comparison localities. There are good reasons
for this higher cost:
• First, most other localities make their processes administrative, meaning the Planning
Commission is not involved in the process. For example, by comparing the cost of
service for a 20 lot preliminary plat that goes to the Planning Commission to one handled
administratively (Fee Study ID 82 versus 87), the cost is roughly double for the plat that is
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff found a similar result in Attachment C with
the Stafford County fees. Additionally, not only are subdivisions often handled
administratively in other localities, most of the waivers or modifications are handled
administratively. As the Board is aware, administrative waivers were a Development Task
Force recommendation and are now being considered by the Planning Commission.
• Second, in keeping with administrative processes, most localities do not send notices to
neighbors of proposed subdivisions. Costs associated with notices include the cost of
preparing and mailing the notices, as well as staff time to address questions resulting
from the mailings. W hile these notices keep the neighborhood informed, they can
generate a considerable demand for staff time in responses.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
• Third, it should be recognized that Albemarle County’s Ordinance is more complex than
most. For example, Albemarle’s Ordinance is roughly twice the size of the Greene
County Ordinance and the requirements are often more complex. The complexity of the
ordinance in relation to staff time required appears to follow the rule of the square. In
other words, if there are twice as many requirements, it requires four times as much time
to review, due to the increased likelihood of errors or mistakes.
In spite of adequate justification for a higher percentage of cost recovery, staff continues to
propose a 50% recovery to be more in line with the comparisons localities utilized in the study.
The County currently collects approximately $145,000 from subdivision fees in an average
year. Under the consultant’s recommendation, fees collected would increase to approximately
$486,000. Under staff’s recommendation, they would increase to approximately $476,000, increasing
County revenues by approximately $331,000 in an average year. Due to recent development trends,
staff anticipates applications will be two-thirds of an average year for the remainder of this year and
most of next year. Assuming the recommended fees were implemented by January 2009, staff
anticipates a revenue increase of $100,000 for the remainder of FY 08-09 and of $200,000 in FY 09-
10.
Staff offers the following recommendations:
1. The Board direct staff to bring forward changes to the Subdivision Ordinance fees as
recommended by staff in Attachment B, with any other changes the Board determines
appropriate.
2. The Board adopt the Resolution of Intent in Attachment D to amend the Subdivision
Ordinance.
W ith the above direction, staff will proceed with bringing a Subdivision Text Amendment to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyd asked if there were provisions for two-lot family subdivisions.
Mr. Graham said it’s noted in the staff report, and that one is a very significant change as the
current fee is $95 with the proposed fee being $690 – one half of the cost of what it takes to provide that
service. He also noted with the two-lot family subdivisions, Greene County and Stafford are in that range
but are in the high side of Virginia counties. Mr. Graham said that the only difference in requirements has
to do with roads, everything else requires the same amount of review and time by staff.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is inclined to give a break to family subdivisions, and Mr. Graham
pointed out that the County gets more of those than anything else. Mr. Graham also said that the cost of a
boundary line adjustment is the same to make sure they comply with all ordinance requirements.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that the only options are having the family pay for it, or having the
taxpayer pay for it.
Mr. Graham said that the last comprehensive adjustment was in 1991, and there was a 25%
adjustment in 2002. He said that the fees are estimated to generate about $145,000, with staff
recommending a change that would generate about $476,000.
Mr. Dorrier commented that this should be done during a year where property values are going
up.
Mr. Slutzky responded that there is still a cost associated with the process, and if the families do
not pay it the taxpayers will have to.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that the Albemarle costs are higher than comparable localities, although that
is by design.
Mr. Graham pointed out that Stafford has even higher fees, and it depends on the locality and
what they want in their subdivision review.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Slutzky, to adopt the following Resolution
of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 14-203, Fees, of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County
Code) establishes a schedule of fees for various subdivision and related applications and approvals under the
Subdivision Ordinance; and
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
WHEREAS, the fees imposed are inadequate to cover the reasonable cost of the services provided by
the County in the implementation and administration of the Subdivision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the County has conducted an extensive fee study to determine the cost of services
provided by the County under the Subdivision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 14-203 in order to establish a schedule of fees that is
adequate to cover the reasonable cost of the services provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good land development practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 14-203 of the Subdivision Ordinance to achieve the purposes
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 25. Work Session: ZTA-2006-001. Country Stores.
Ms. Joan McDowell addressed the Board, explaining that in 2003 the Historic Preservation
Committee reported that some of the stores were going out of business and could not open up again after
the two-year window; some were deteriorating, some were being torn down. She said that the
Comprehensive Plan includes a section of crossroads communities and stores, often being the nucleus of
the community; that plan was adopted in 2005 along with an implementation plan that looked at
crossroads communities and alternative uses. After the Commission drew attention to the stores’
struggles, it was decided to address the issue and the staff working on this left so Ms. McDowell picked it
back up. She stated that there is a ZTA team of County staff that has been consulted, as well as
representatives from other agencies; she has visited country stores and talked to the owners as well.
Ms. McDowell reported that they have worked through an outline of an ordinance through work
sessions with the Planning Commission, and a copy is in Board packets. She explained that a
comprehensive inventory of country stores has been done, and information has been gathered for each
one. Ms. McDowell stated that the ordinance redefines country stores and eliminates a two-year window
in which a store loses nonconforming status that prevents them from reopening, as well as looking at
changes to accommodate small store parking lots and well & septic issues. She also said that the group
looked at property tax abatement programs but thought that should go at a later time. Ms. McDowell said
that another country store was found recently, so that would need to be added, and the stores are widely
scattered through the County. She presented photos of stores, noting their simple architecture.
Ms. McDowell explained that staff tried to account for every conceivable thing, and determined
that the ordinance was cumbersome and unmanageable, so it was decided that stores would be either
Class A or Class B. She indicated that Class A is historic – your store is 50 years or older at the time the
ordinance is adopted, so the recognition for historic stores; a Class B store does not have all the
exemptions available to historic stores.
Ms. Thomas asked about a building that might burn down and be rebuilt.
Ms. McDowell replied that that would not be a historic country store, but would be a country store,
and there are benefits to both groups regardless.
Mr. Slutzky emphasized that he still wants to provide as much opportunity as possible for the
stores to thrive.
Ms. McDowell responded that this does not mean they all of the sudden have to have paid parking
and an improved entrance, it just gives them whatever they already have plus some new benefits. She
noted that of the stores inventoried, 49 are over 50 years old.
Mr. Rooker wondered if stores like wine stores and farm shops are classified as country stores.
Ms. McDowell responded that many of those stores come in under winery provisions, and the
Kluge store came in under farm store, which requires a special use permit.
Mr. Benish noted that 51 percent of items sold at those stores must be from the farm.
Ms. McDowell explained that there was more importance placed on preserving the old stores, the
sites, historic character, etc. She added that the Planning Commission expressed concern about
grandfathering and recommended that the ARB look at the Secretary of Interior standards, but felt it would
be too much and determined it wouldn’t be useful to have Entrance Corridor stores subject to an additional
layer of review for their alterations and signs, so that provision was removed.
Mr. Davis replied that the consequence of that is there is no architectural standard, so a country
store could be totally renovated to be a modern building and this ordinance would not regulate that.
Ms. McDowell added that it still comes under ARB review if it’s in the entrance corridor. She
explained that in 1969, the ordinance called for a 4,000 square foot limit on the ground floor; the new
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
ordinance calls for a 4,000 square foot limit on the entire building; a number of old country stores in
existence are larger so they removed it and placed it in the portion of the ordinance that can be waived.
Mr. Davis emphasized that you could change the façade of an old building, but if you build a new
building, you would be subject to the new regulations.
Mr. Slutzky commented that that seems like a loophole needing attention.
Ms. Thomas said that the 20% limit on space for food is a concern to some country stores, such
as Batesville Store. She said that the flavor of a country store often assumes the personality of the owner,
and at Batesville the owner is an excellent cook and baker.
Ms. McDowell clarified that that only covers the seating and table area, and not the food
preparation area.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not understand the prohibition on a store becoming a restaurant, and
wondered why the County would care.
Ms. McDowell replied that this is an ordinance for country stores, not restaurants.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the 20% limit could easily be waived.
Ms. McDowell reported that the parking requirements have been dealt with in the ordinance by
coming up with a parking plan for each store, with review if the store is being expanded.
Ms. Thomas mentioned the issues with Covesville Store and parking, as they were subject to
several sets of regulations because they were in the County but also on an Entrance Corridor (Route 29).
Ms. McDowell confirmed that most of the old country stores are not operating now. She said that
she receives about two calls a week from people wanting to open country stores or renovate old ones.
Mr. Dorrier asked about historical tax credit eligibility, and Mr. Benish explained that some might
qualify if they are 50 years or older, depending on how they are treated over time – but the County does
not get involved in that.
Ms. McDowell explained that gasoline is not listed in Section 10 about one of the uses in the rural
areas, and it’s quite expensive to install pumps new. She also said that there is a limit on the number of
pumps to be put in – both gas and diesel – with only one gas pump allowed.
Ms. Mallek asked if canopy issues were addressed in the proposed ordinance.
Ms. McDowell responded that it’s not off the table, and if it’s on the Entrance Corridor the ARB
would have to look at it.
Mr. Slutzky wondered about prohibiting them, using Sheetz as an example of a style that concerns
him.
Ms. McDowell replied that the one-pump restriction would probably preclude them from coming in.
Mr. Rooker said that a canopy would be allowed by special use permit, as a waivable provision.
Ms. McDowell explained that there is a three-tiered approach to sewage disposal, and any
discussion of an alternative system might cause concern – so they took it to the Planning Commission,
who felt the three-tiered approach was worth moving on to the Board.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Health Department has responsibility to provide those stipulations.
Mr. Benish noted that the ordinance is written so the Zoning Administrator requires maintenance
of the septic system as recommended by the Virginia Department of Health. He explained that the
alternative system is a last resort, and an applicant has to prove they cannot get a conventional system
onsite, next door, or through moving a boundary to accommodate it.
Mr. Bill Craun, Environmental Health On-Site Inspector, explained that they haven’t had any
problems with the ones they’ve had in the County, and this July the state will implement a program of
operational maintenance that will mandate the Health Department to be in charge of operation and
maintenance.
Mr. Rooker asked about the restriction on placing a drain field offsite, noting that showing
physically that it couldn’t be done is different from showing a legal restriction on why it cannot be done.
Ms. McDowell explained that the intention is for the property owner to go to the people next door
to try to obtain permission to place a drain field on their property.
In response to Mr. Slutzky’s question about discouraging use of alternative systems, Mr. Craun
reported that there have been subdivisions that have used alternative treatment systems by choice.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that those systems usually require a great deal more maintenance, and
the concern has always been that they are not going to be maintained. She also said that they have been
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
a way to make sure development in the rural area takes place where the soil perks and a well is required.
It has been part of a growth management practice.
Mr. Craun said that most country stores are small water users, and probably wouldn’t even need
an alternative system unless there is a food service facility onsite, or an apartment with a shower.
Ms. McDowell stated that staff and budgetary impacts would include about 20-22 hours of review,
including a pre-application review.
Mr. Boyd commented that that’s because no guidelines currently exist.
Ms. McDowell said that the Secretary of Interior standards would provide another layer.
Mr. Davis interjected that specific ARB guidelines do not exist, so the idea is to match the store
design to architectural features compatible to neighboring properties.
Ms. McDowell reported that a public hearing is slated for November, and any comments are
welcome before then.
Mr. Benish clarified that the Board may want some more information on canopies.
Mr. Davis suggested that new canopies could be covered under a Section 5.1 regulation that
could be waived.
Mr. Slutzky commented that he finds it helpful to know which Planning Commissioners have voted
for or against an item.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Regarding the NGIC item that was discussed earlier in the day, Mr. Rooker asked what kind of
assurance has been given as to the commitment to use the facility in place and the timing requirement of
the user, as there is a request to expedite something; the change does not seem to be a huge one and
the building’s going to be the same height.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Graham to explain the requested change.
Mr. Graham replied that they are expanding the square footage of the building – around 80,000
square feet per building by the proffer, and four stories – but a basement originally designated for storage
requires a ceiling height limitation of 6’6” or lower. He explained that the building plan shows a floor to
floor height for the basement as the same for other floors, and they are trying to increase that height. Mr.
Graham said that staff is looking for clarification as additional parking may be required, noting that the
same HVAC, electrical fixtures, bathrooms, etc. seem to be planned for that floor. There does not seem
to be any distinction between the office floor space and the storage space so staff trying to get a better
definition of what the space will be used for.
Mr. Graham emphasized that they would have to come up with over 200 additional parking
spaces if that additional square footage is office space. Staff does not have answers to these questions,
everything is anecdotal right now. Mr. Graham added that it will be very difficult for the Planning
Commission to recommend approval without this information.
Mr. Slutzky postulated the idea of granting the accelerated timeline so those questions can be
answered.
Mr. Graham emphasized that a Board public hearing would be advertised prior to having a
Planning Commission recommendation from their public hearing. He added that would be outside of the
normal process, and there are complications with that. He explained that the Board date would be
November 11th, and the Commission’s meeting the week before is rescheduled because of election day;
the Tuesday before that date is actually scheduled as a joint City-County Planning Commission meeting
on affordable housing.
Mr. Boyd asked why this should hold things up, because the applicant has indicated they would
provide the additional parking.
Ms. Thomas said that the Board requires the applicant to do those things.
Mr. Boyd said that the applicant is waiting for staff to tell them what those things are.
Mr. Rooker indicated that the plan submitted is out of synch with what the applicant says he is
going to use it for, and if it’s only storage he does not need plans that show it as offices.
Mr. Boyd said that they are not willing to share what it is going to be used for.
Mr. Rooker said that building plans are available for this project.
Mr. Graham stated that they have not indicated any additional parking, and staff cannot figure out
what the space is intended for based on the plans.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Mr. Slutzky said that maybe they are building this for storage space to come back later and
convert it to usable office space.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that that kind of leeway would not be given to a shopping center
developer.
Mr. Slutzky said that there is a sequencing issue here.
Ms. Thomas stated that there is a problem with the timeline for the reasons Mr. Graham
mentioned.
Mr. Boyd said that if it’s a warehouse facility, it won’t generate more people.
Mr. Graham reiterated that staff wants to know that and has asked the applicant. At this point staff
does not have the answers. He said that it can be expedited, but the applicant needs to provide the
information before that can happen.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is not in favor of taking this outside of the normal process unless
the applicant can demonstrate why.
Mr. Slutzky responded that perhaps the NGIC folks want the extra space for future expansion.
Mr. Rooker said that this is all hypothetical, and the County needs the applicant to put it in writing.
He said that the NGIC Colonel told him that they might not use the space, somebody else might use it.
Mr. Davis stated that if they drop the ceiling, they can go forward with the building; they can come
back in and raise the ceiling later.
Mr. Graham noted that the question is whether the certificate of occupancy is for a building with a
lower ceiling, as the building permit has been approved. If he wants to raise it that changes things. The
only evidence we have seen is what was required by the proffer that we be shown a lease of at least
40,000 square feet and staff has not seen any evidence of use of any other parts of this building. Staff is
asking the applicant to define what this use is going to be in this basement, and depending on that
answer, would it generate a need for parking.
Mr. Boyd stated that the applicant has indicated that this is for storage, and wondered what about
a 6.5’-ceiling if tall people work in that area.
Mr. Davis reiterated the need for parking if it is office space.
Mr. Graham said that if the project is expedited it would be slated for Board review on November
11th, with the Commission reviewing it on November 10th; otherwise it would be December and the
applicant said he wants a CO by December. He asked the Board if they believe there is no need to
accelerate this unless he can provide written evidence that there is a contract that requires the space to
be occupiable in December/January, and that would require a higher ceiling height.
Mr. Boyd stated that is fine with him as long as they can occupy the other floors.
Mr. Graham responded that that is fine, and sometimes staff grants a CO floor by floor.
Mr. Slutzky said that it’s OK for Mr. Graham to determine whether an accelerated timeframe is
needed.
Mr. Graham emphasized that this is not just about NGIC; it is about delaying the other ten people
in the queue. He asked again if the Board was saying that if this project is related to NGIC/DIA activities
and they need to have this space occupied in that time frame, it is acceptable to expedite it; otherwise it is
not.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks it should be demonstrated in writing.
Mr. Boyd replied that NGIC would not give that kind of detail.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that all that is being asked is whether that floor is being designated for
“X” or for “Y.” She stated that it needs to be in writing.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not see the need for an emergency here if they are only using it for
storage as they say.
Mr. Graham stated that normally it would go to the Planning Commission in November, and based
on the process brought to the Board last month it would come to them in January because a public
hearing date would need to be set after the Commission recommendation.
Mr. Davis added that final proffers would also need to be received.
Mr. Tucker said that that puts Mr. Graham in a very awkward position.
September 3, 2008 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Thomas commented that she does not see a reason to expedite this, and she would have
been more easily persuaded but building occupancy permits can be given floor by floor.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that everything has come in the form of verbal promises, and it
needs to be more formal than that.
Mr. Graham said that he will contact the owner tomorrow and indicate that the County needs
something in writing from the tenant – NGIC/DIA – that indicates there is a contractual obligation or a need
to have that space.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the applicant should be informed that he can occupy the building floor
by floor. He also stated everyone knows they occupy the building, and their presence there is no big
national secret.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that for the September 10th meeting with the Service Authority Board of Directors,
she has ideas for topics and presented them to the Clerk, noting that they are seeking ideas to
supplement the draft agenda.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that there is only one hour scheduled for the meeting.
Mr. Rooker stated that he wants to include discussion on whether hook-up fees are adequately
compensating for the cost of capital improvements, as it is a large issue.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that next W ednesday at 2:00 is the joint meeting with the Planning
Commission and ARB; at 3:00 they meet with the Service Authority; and at 4:00 the Board discusses the
financial plan with staff.
____________________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn to September 10, 2008, 2:00 p.m.
At 6:16 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by
Mr. Slutzky, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to adjourn the meeting to September 10, 2008, 2:00 p.m.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board of
Supervisors
Date: 10/01/2008
Initials: EW J