2009-07-01July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 1,
2009, at 9:00 a.m., in the Lane Auditorium of the County Office Building on 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, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Slutzky.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Recognition: Innovation Alliance Award.
Mr. Slutzky said on behalf of the Board it was his pleasure to welcome Ms. Toni Shope of the
Alliance for Innovation who will recognize the County’s Family Support Program. They chose the County’s
program to receive a prestigious Outstanding Achievement in Local Government Innovation Award. The
program is one of only ten programs nationwide to be so honored. Family Support is an innovative
prevention and early intervention program in County elementary and middle schools that supports
children’s growth and development, strengthens the family’s alliance and promotes school success
through home, school and community collaboration.
Mr. Slutzky said the Family Support workers address these safety concerns as well as create a
bridge between home and school that opens the way for parents to feel welcome and empowered to
participate in their children’s education so that they are ready to learn and be successful in school. Mr.
Slutzky shared a few highlights of the program’s outcomes: workers have served an average of 167
children each year over the last four years; in FY ’08, of those children whose behavior was an issue, 69
percent showed improvement in behavior; in FY ’08, of those children who were identified as having
academic issues, 68 percent showed academic improvement. He commented that Family Support staff
and the Department of Social Services management team for creating and running a program with such
broad and long-term benefits to families in the community, and congratulated them on this outstanding
recognition. He then introduced Ms. Toni Shope from the Alliance for Innovation.
Ms. Shope said she is the East Regional Director with the Alliance for Innovation – a network of
innovative governments from across the country pursuing innovative ideas and solutions to better serve
citizens in their communities. She said the Alliance’s “Outstanding Achievement in Local Government
Innovation” award was established by their Board of Directors to honor their first President and Board
Director – Bob Havlick and Thomas Mullenback –the intent of the award is to acknowledge local
governments from across the nation and Canada who have successfully addressed important issues such
as delivery of services and preparing their community for the future. Every year the Alliance receives
more than 100 applications from nearly 400 members sharing their creative, innovative and timely
programs, services, initiatives and projects. Only a few are selected annually to receive the award, and in
May the Alliance recognized the 2009 winners. Ms. Shope then called upon Ms. Kathy Ralston and Ms.
Debbie Chlebnikow with the Albemarle County Department of Social Services to present them the award.
Ms. Ralston commented that the department is thrilled to receive the award, noting that the
Alliance is a wonderful organization. She also recognized Debbie Chlebnikow and the Family Support
Program workers, who do a fabulous job in County schools with the families the program serves.
Ms. Chlebnikow also expressed her appreciation for the recognition.
Ms. Ralston then recognized Mr. Claude Foster, member of the Social Services Advisory Board,
who was in attendance.
__________
Agenda Item No. 4b. Recognition: 25th Anniversary of the Creation of the Albemarle County
Police Department.
Mr. Slutzky read the following resolution into the record:
On behalf of the citizens and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, we would like
to recognize the men and women of the Albemarle County Police Department on the occasion
of the 25th anniversary of the formation of the Police Department. It is our pleasure to
recognize and express appreciation and support for the
Albemarle County Police Department
Achieving this milestone is a tremendous credit to all of the men and women of the
Department who for the past 25 years have provided our citizens with a high level of dedication
and professionalism. Albemarle County was only the 24th law enforcement agency in the
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Commonwealth of Virginia to receive its accreditation in 2000, following a rigorous four-year
process.
Our community receives many accolades, appearing frequently on national lists such as
the #1 Best Place to Live in the United States. W e could not achieve the outstanding quality of life
we are so fortunate to enjoy, and that we are so well known for, if we were not a safe and secure
place for people to live, work and play. Our Police Department plays a critical role in our success
as an attractive and desirable location for residents, businesses and tourists.
The Police Department has evolved over time to meet the community’s changing needs
and demands and has remained on the leading edge of law enforcement innovations. These
advancements have been made possible by progressive, innovative police professionals who over
the past 25 years have acted aggressively to keep our department at the forefront of the law
enforcement profession.
On behalf of the County of Albemarle and the citizens of Albemarle County, we want to
congratulate the Police Department on its 25th anniversary and thank all the department
members, past and present, for the contribution they each have made to our community’s safety
and well-being.
Chief John Miller was present and introduced Lt. James Bond and Officer Kanie Richardson, who
took the oath 25 years ago as some of the department’s first officers. They came forward and accepted
the resolution of recognition.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas reported that she and Ms. Mallek recently attended a meeting of the High Growth
Coalition, and one topic discussed was the alternative sewer system legislation. She said representatives
from the State Health Department were in attendance and talked about their plans for developing the
regulations which localities will not be permitted to exceed for people who have alternative sewer systems.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Health Department views septic systems as state-of-the-art ways to deal
with waste.
Ms. Thomas replied that in the past they have regarded them as being temporary uses –
something used only until a sewer line was available; that does not fit the situation in Albemarle at all.
Albemarle has regarded whether land perked as a land use control regulation, although it has not been
specifically stated. The County realized that certain sections of the rural areas would not develop because
the land does not perk. That will no longer be a controlling factor. That is the land use aspect of this
legislation.
Ms. Thomas said there is a health aspect related to these systems because they need careful
maintenance, but so do septic tanks. She said the Legislators told the Health Department not to put
increased regulations on these systems over that for the ordinary type of septic tanks. From the Health
Department’s point of view, they would like to have all septic tanks regulated more carefully.
Ms. Thomas said they also learned about subdivision road standards; she thinks most of the
Board members are already aware of the changes. Then there was discussion of stormwater regulations.
She said the County recognizes that stricter stormwater regulations are necessary. It could add millions
of dollars to the sewage treatment plant or it could tackle agricultural runoff, and/or can tackle stormwater
runoff from construction in development areas. In this community, if stormwater is regulated in the City or
more stringently in the urban area, it will “squish” development out into the rural area because it would be
less expensive to manage it in the rural area. A more diligent approach would be to take a watershed
approach and recognize that some watersheds will be impacted and in the process other watersheds
could be saved, but they also could put that into the regulations and allow a “cap and trade” situation.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned that he met (personally) with the Secretary of Natural Resources last week
and with the head of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the agency promulgating these
regulations. One productive outcome was that they may allow for a “trading” system. He made the same
arguments about the unintended consequences of promoting sprawl and creating stale zoning. They
seem to be inclined to allow the .28 pounds per acres for phosphorus to be achieved either onsite or to
allow an option to purchase credits from the agricultural sector - that would be at a lower cost to the
developer but would achieve the same benefit for the Chesapeake Bay. Another option would be to put
money into a fund the State would manage for redevelopment situations where they don’t currently have to
meet this more stringent standard; with some additional investment from the State it might be possible to
achieve a better standard which would be better for the Bay than achieving the .28 onsite. He would like
to submit a response (he will submit one personally), but if the Board members agree with what he has to
say it could be submitted on behalf of the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked what local authority would regulate agricultural runoff.
Ms. Thomas responded that it’s up to the Soil and W ater Conservation districts, and they have
been given some more funding. In this community, it tends to be a matter of creating riparian buffers –
which takes away land and value from the farmer. She said the SW CS manages the State and Federal
program to provide funding, but it’s a matching situation with the farmer putting up 25 percent. If the
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Board wanted the RW SA to pickup some portion of that 25 percent, or if the County wanted to do that, or
if that is something that could become subject to the “trading” that would be the most useful thing to do in
a community such as this one.
Ms. Mallek said that other counties have offered other programs where the setback is lower in
order to make it possible for narrow properties to be fenced; Louisa County has a 10-foot setback,
whereas Albemarle’s is 35 feet on each side. Many people would do that if there was a way for us to pay
the whole cost and be able to fence closer to the stream. She said the maps of her property demolish
their lower pasture because it takes so much land. Hopefully, the SW CS will widen their perspective
because each county has a different approach.
Ms. Thomas commented that it has to be a “super buffer” to be effective at 10 feet.
Ms. Mallek said it keeps the cows out of the stream. It seems to be working in other places.
Mr. Slutzky said one good thing would come from this proposed new strategy - if the appropriate
buffer is built and fencing/watering systems put in, there’s potentially some compensation for the lost value
of land that would transfer to the agricultural sector from the development sector. That achieves
protection of the Bay, and addresses the disproportionate burden these proposed regulations would have
on the development community that would result in stale zoning and increased sprawl. He thinks that
what is being worked on will work for every sector.
__________
Mr. Rooker noted that the Charlottesville-Albemarle area was chosen by Kiplinger’s recently as
the fourth best place in the country to find a job. He has worked with Ms. Catlin over the past few years to
create a list of various community accolades this area has received, and there are probably 50
recognitions on that list.
__________
Ms. Mallek mentioned that Mr. Tom Foley and Ms. Lori Allshouse gave a sensational presentation
yesterday at the VACo class on budgeting that she has been taking. The meeting was held at COB Fifth
Street and they made her proud. They explained to the class all about strategic planning – she learned
more than she knew before, but the people who had never done this before in their counties were “blown
away” by the success of what Albemarle has in place.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Kevin Boyer, President of the Association of Firefighters here in Albemarle, addressed the
Board. He encouraged the Board to work toward the creation and acceptance of the ordinance begun last
fall. As a County employee he works at many fire stations; some of which have been run by volunteers for
a long time within the resources they had. He said there are differences between stations in running the
same calls and that creates issues on the scene during management of the response. He said there are
national safety standards the County needs to strive for, and everybody needs to be “on the same page.”
He said the firefighters are doing a good job now, but there is a need to bring everybody to the table to
create an ordinance that allows for accountability and continues the process of effective response in the
community. He encouraged the Board to develop the ordinance and create a structure where the
firefighters can step up to the forefront of fire and rescue in the County.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Mallek, to approve Items 7.1 (as read) through 7.5, and to accept the remaining items as information.
(Discussion on individual items is included with those items.) Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 2008; March 3, March 11, March 30, April 1, April 8, April
17, and May 13, 2009.
Mr. Dorrier had read his portion of the minutes of May 7, 2008, pages 1-39 (ending at Item #8),
and found them to be in order as presented.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of March 3, 2009, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of March 30, 2009, and found them to be in order as presented.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of April 17, 2009, and found them to be in order as presented.
Mr. Slutzky had read the minutes of May 13, 2009, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes which had been read.
Approval of the minutes not read was carried to the next meeting.
__________
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 7.2. FY 2009 Appropriations.
The executive summary states that 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 total of this requested FY 2009
appropriation is $130,866.46. 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 two new FY 2009 appropriations, No. 2009-065 and No.
2009-066, totaling $130,866.46 for various Education programs and projects (as set out on Attachment A
below).
ATTACHMENT A:
Appropriation No. 2009-065, $125,216.46. Revenue Source: Local Revenue $52,227.00, Fund
Balances $72,989.46.
At its meeting on May 28, 2009, the School Board approved the following appropriations:
• Meriwether Lewis Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $52,127.00 from the
Meriwether Lewis PTO. This contribution was made in order to purchase various technology
items for the classrooms at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School.
• W estern Albemarle High School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from Mary and
John Deviney. The donors have requested that their contribution be used towards funding the
synthetic turf field project at W estern Albemarle High School.
• Various Shannon Foundation Grants have an unexpended Fund Balance from FY 07-08 in the
amount of $9,772.69. Holders of these grants have been encouraged to expend these balances.
This agenda item is to reappropriate available funds for use in FY 08-09.
• Various Miscellaneous Grants have an unexpended Fund Balance from FY 07-08 totaling
$63,216.77. Holders of these grants have been encouraged to expend these balances. This
agenda item is to reappropriate available funds for use in FY 08-09.
Appropriation No. 2009-066, $5,650.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenue $5,650.00.
At its meeting on June 25, 2009, the following appropriations will be presented to the School
Board for its approval:
• The mission of the Families in Crisis Grant is to provide an effective structure to meet the needs
of students, whose families are in crisis, ensuring they receive equitable access to Division
services in support of the Division’s strategic plan. Families in Crisis received from the Bama
W orks Fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation a
donation in the amount of $5,000.00. The donation will be used for the “Hispanic Mothers Club”
program that provides English tutoring and language enrichment and learning activities for mother
and child. W e also received a donation from an anonymous donor in the amount of $50.00.
• V.L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $600.00 from an anonymous
donor. The donor requested that their contribution be used at the discretion of the principal at V.L.
Murray Elementary School.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $130,866.46 and the
approval of Appropriations No. 2009-065 and, subject to School Board approval, No. 2009-066. (Note:
Appropriation No. 2009-066 was revised based on action taken by the School Board - the amount was
revised from $5,650.00 to $600.00.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$125,816.46 and approved Appropriation Nos. 2009-065 and 2009-066 as set out below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2009-065
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Education Programs And Grants - School Board Meeting: May 28, 2009
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 52,127.00
2 3104 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 63,216.77
2 3502 51000 510100 Fund Balance J2 9,772.69
2 9002 18100 181107 W AHS - Turf Field Project J2 100.00
1 2206 61101 800700 Data Processing Equip-New J1 52,127.00
1 3104 60201 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 80.75
1 3104 60203 312500 Prof Services-Instructional J1 325.00
1 3104 60203 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 500.00
1 3104 60204 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 990.00
1 3104 60205 312500 Prof Services-Instructional J1 1,550.00
1 3104 60205 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,464.28
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
1 3104 60206 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 18.24
1 3104 60207 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 200.00
1 3104 60209 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 105.29
1 3104 60210 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,869.02
1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 72.63
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 656.23
1 3104 60213 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 4,806.83
1 3104 60215 132100 Pt/Wages-Teacher J1 23,218.50
1 3104 60215 210000 FICA J1 1,781.69
1 3104 60215 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,051.56
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 1,600.49
1 3104 60217 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 5,014.10
1 3104 60251 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 797.38
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Services-Instructional J1 4,641.77
1 3104 60253 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 2,452.10
1 3104 60302 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 600.00
1 3104 60304 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 12.76
1 3104 61101 420100 Field Trips J1 1,000.00
1 3104 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 5,779.00
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Development J1 2,629.15
1 3502 60606 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J1 9,772.69
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS Turf Field Program J1 100.00
2000 501 Est. Revenue 52,127.00
701 Appropriation 52,127.00
3104 501 Est. Revenue 63,216.77
701 Appropriation 63,216.77
3502 501 Est. Revenue 9,772.69
701 Appropriation 9,772.69
9002 501 Est. Revenue 100.00
701 Appropriation 100.00
Total 250,432.92 125,216.46 125,216.46
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2009-066
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Education Donations and Programs - School Board Meeting - 06/25/2009 (REVISED)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J2 600.00
1 2215 61411 580000 Miscellaneous Expense J1 600.00
2000 501 Est. Revenue 600.00
701 Appropriation 600.00
Total 1,200.00 600.00 600.00
__________
Item 7.3. Destruction of FY 2004 Paid Personal Property Tax Receipts.
The executive summary states that pursuant to Va. Code § 58.1-3129(A), the Director of Finance
may, with the consent of the governing body, destroy all paid tax tickets at any time after five years from
the end of the fiscal year during which taxes represented by such tickets were paid, in accordance with
retention regulations pursuant to the Virginia Public Records Act. The Library of Virginia’s Record
Retention and Disposition Schedule GS-28 requires that paid tax tickets be retained for five years from the
end of the fiscal year in which the tax is paid or until an audit, whichever is longer, at which time the
governing body is to be petitioned for authorization to destroy the records.
Paid personal property tax tickets for FY 2004 were included in the FY 2004 audit in December,
2004 and reached the five-year retention period on June 30, 2009, and are eligible for destruction.
Attached is the County’s Certificate of Records Destruction (Attachment A - on file in the Clerk’s Office),
which has been approved and signed by the Director of Finance and by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors, the County’s designated Records Retention Officer. Authorization from the Board is required
to proceed with the destruction of these records. Staff requests that the Board authorize the destruction of
the FY 2004 paid tax receipts.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the destruction of FY 2004 paid tax
receipts as set out on Attachment A.
__________
Item 7.4. Five Oaks Court Road Name Change.
The executive summary states that pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road
Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name change requests shall be forwarded to the Board for
approval upon validation that the landowners of more than fifty percent of the parcels served by the road
have signed a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise
consistent with the road name guidelines set forth in the Manual.
A majority of the landowners of the properties served by Five Oaks Court submitted a request to
change the road name of Five Oaks Court to Frays Ridge Court. The proposed name is a common road
name within the meaning of the Manual and is consistent with the Manual’s other road name guidelines.
There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowners will be responsible for costs
associated with new signage. Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of
Five Oaks Court to Frays Ridge Court and authorize staff to implement the change.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas said she understands the request to change the name Five Oaks
Court to Frays Ridge Court; there is a policy that says if community members want to change the name of
their road, they should be allowed to. Currently there are roads that have similar names (Frays Ridge
Road, Frays Mountain Road, Frays Lane, Frays Ridge Crossing and Frays Ridge Court) and this causes
confusion.
Mr. Slutzky said that most of those are in the same subdivision.
Ms. Mallek said they are in the Advance Mills area because that was the family that founded the
neighborhood.
Ms. Thomas said it is an historic name, but she thinks staff should give some advice when there
are so many roads with the same name.
Mr. Rooker said it might be helpful to hear from the ECC and Fire & Rescue on that issue, and
whether it creates problems when trying to locate a road. To him, that is the real problem. Mr. Tucker
said staff checks with the Police, Fire/Rescue and ECC on these issues to make sure it is not too
confusing.
Mr. John Oprandy said there is an opportunity for some confusion, but it is helpful that they are all
in the same area and the mapping information would help to clarify the location. As long as they can
speak with ECC while answering the call, he does not think it is a huge problem.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are computers on the engines to direct them to the proper location. Mr.
Oprandy said they have a printed map book, and they can access something similar to MapQuest or
Google Maps, so they can see the roads on a map as they respond to the area.
Ms. Mallek said it is interesting that Buck Mountain Road used to go from Earlysville all the way
around the ridge through W hite Hall and into Crozet. W hen E-911 came along, they separated off the
section in Crozet, and after discussing this with neighbors they settled on calling that section Buck Road –
they did not want to give up the name because it had been there for a couple of hundred years.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved changing the road name of Five Oaks
Court to Frays Ridge Court and authorized staff to implement the change.
__________
Item 7.5. Resolution to accept road(s) in High View Estates Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
W HEREAS, the street(s) in High View Estates Subdivision, as described on the
attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated July 1, 2009, fully incorporated herein by reference, is
shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
W HEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in High View Estates, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated July 1, 2009, to the secondary system of
state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street
Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Molly Lane (State Route 1039) from the intersection of Route 618 (Martin Kings
Road) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3335, page 474, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.26 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.26
__________
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item 7.6. Quarterly Resource Management Review Update was received for information, as
follows:
The executive summary states that on May 7, 2008, the Board directed staff to initiate an external
assessment of the County’s resource management in conjunction with the County’s ongoing continuous
improvement efforts. On July 2, 2008, the Board approved the County entering into an agreement with
Virginia Commonwealth University’s Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) to conduct this
assessment. CEPI delivered its final report to the Board on February 11, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the
Board received initial information on staff’s progress and planned actions in evaluating and implementing
the recommendations of CEPI’s assessment. This is an update to the information presented in May.
The Resource Management Review included 148 recommendations for local government
departments and selected community agencies. In order to improve the clarity of the report’s
recommendations and allow for better management of and reporting on recommendations, staff has
consolidated similar or related recommendations and categorized them as follows:
• 18 recommendations have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing
County processes or practices.
• 48 recommendations are in the process of being implemented.
• Eight recommendations are related to providing additional resources. These will be
reviewed in the context of the County’s annual Five-Year Financial Plan and budget
processes.
• Eleven recommendations will require further evaluation by staff before they can be
considered for implementation. Staff will proceed with these evaluations as soon as
possible recognizing that existing staffing levels in some departments, and the scope of
organizational change required by certain recommendations, will determine their timing
for implementation.
A list of the recommendations included in each category is available in Attachment A (on file in the
Clerk’s Office). Staff will continue to provide quarterly updates to the Board on the status and results of
the Resource Management Review’s recommendations. There is no budget impact in analyzing the
report’s recommendations at this time. Recommendations that will require additional resources to analyze
or implement beyond the reallocation of existing resources will be brought to the Board for discussion and
action.
(Discussion: Ms. Thomas asked if staff had tried to determine the fiscal impact to the sum total
of the recommendations. She was impressed that there were many things suggesting that the county do
more, rather than less.
Mr. Tucker said staff had done that; it had given the Board some information during budget work
sessions. He said some recommendations were to increase staff in certain areas. Staff can come up
with some financial information related to the recommendations.
Ms. Mallek asked if she could e-mail her questions to staff rather than bringing them up now.
Mr. Boyd said he has a number of questions also.)
This update was presented for the Board’s information.
__________
Item 7.7. Update on Safer Chemicals Policy, was received for information, as follows:
The executive summary states that in June, 2008 the Board expressed support for the
implementation of the Safer Chemical Management Procedure, a department-level operational procedure
that promotes the use of non-chemical methods and safer product alternatives in day-to-day County
operations and activities in lieu of using traditional, synthetic products. The procedure is being
implemented by the Parks and Recreation and General Services Departments. In July, 2008 the School
Board also expressed support for implementing a slightly revised version of this procedure. This
Executive Summary is meant as an update on implementing this Procedure in Local Government
departments.
In summary, the Procedure stipulates that: 1) Custodial products must be certified by a green
label specified in the Procedure; 2) High touch surface areas (e.g. bathrooms) be routinely sanitized (not
disinfected), but that disinfection occur as soon as practicable in response to a blood-borne pathogen
event, viral outbreak, or as directed by the Virginia Department of Health; 3) In management of grounds,
chemical use is eliminated where practicable and feasible. If chemicals must be used, then organic or
biological-based alternatives are to be used, with five outlined exceptions; and, 4) the County implement a
formal integrated pest management (IPM) program for the management of indoor pests.
During the June, 2008 meeting, the Board of Supervisors requested an annual update via the
Consent Agenda as to the progress of implementing the Safer Chemical Management Procedure,
including a summary of any waiver requests granted, a copy of any audits conducted, and a summary of
any issues with implementation.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Functional Area Updates
Grounds Management
o Recognizing the intent of Procedure, the Parks & Recreation Department has reduced the
use of Round Up in exempted areas by an estimated 50 percent.
o Corn gluten, a biological alternative for a pre-emergent, is currently being tested for
effectiveness by the Parks & Recreation Department. This test will require two years for
accurate results. The first application of corn gluten was applied this Spring in a test area.
Another area was treated with a chemical pre-emergent and a third area with nothing.
Parks will repeat that process again this Fall and next Spring with hopes of having
informative results by Spring, 2010.
o The Parks Department has diverted some volunteer work groups from other projects to
hand weeding landscape beds and mulched areas.
o Parks and Recreation staff has noted that the parks don't have the routine “neat and trim”
appearance as in the past, but thus far this has not generated complaints from the public.
This is particularly noticeable along sides of roads, fence lines, landscape beds and
mulched areas around trees.
o Staff has yet to find an alternative as effective as Round-Up. Burn-Out, a biological-
based alternative, is currently being used and is the best of the alternatives.
Custodial / Cleaning Operations
o All custodial products used by the General Services Department have been replaced with
products that are certified by a green certification system listed in the Safer Chemical
Management Procedure.
o The General Services Custodial Division has made an almost seamless transition from
using traditional custodial products to using green certified products, and has had no
major reported performance issues with using the new green certified products.
o Despite making the switch to green certified products, General Services has received
occasional complaints from building occupants who are sensitive to these cleaning
products and associated odors, despite the green certification.
o Parks & Recreation cleaning staff report that green certified cleaning products do not
clean as well and require more effort and product.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM): An integrated pest management program for the
management of indoor pests is currently in place, but staff is currently working on formalizing this
program.
Internal Audit Process: The Environmental Compliance Managers are planning the first internal
audit of the Safer Chemical Management Procedure, to be scheduled before the end of July, 2009.
Results of the audit can be made available to the Board and will be included in the June, 2010 update to
the Board.
Waiver Requests: As of June, 2009, only one waiver has been requested and granted. The
Parks & Recreation Department submitted a waiver request for the purpose of treating an irrigation pond
at Darden Towe Park that becomes overtaken annually by an aquatic weed known as Mosquito Fern
(Azolla caroliniana). In 2008, staff attempted to manually remove this weed, which proved infeasible with
the labor hours and staff required; shortly thereafter, the weed grew back in its entirety. W hile there are
no biological or organic treatment alternatives available, there is a biological-based prevention product that
will be used in the future to try to prevent this from recurring. The product approved for treatment has
been researched by staff to be the most environmentally friendly alternative, and all requirements on the
product label, including dilution rates, signage, etc., will be strictly adhered to. Staff has identified some
environmental and safety risks inherit in not treating the pond. Examples include the potential of a fish kill
due to lack of oxygen in the water, and the possibility of a child mistaking the pond for solid ground.
There is no budget impact in presenting the Board with an update of program implementation.
This update was presented for the Board’s information only.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. School Board Chairman, Board-to-Board.
Mr. Brian W heeler, Chair of the School Board, thanked the Supervisors who attended graduation
exercises this year; it was his personal observation that the students performed among the best he had
ever seen at those ceremonies which were streamed live over the internet.
Mr. Slutzky asked how many people viewed the simulcast. Mr. W heeler responded that there
were 757 viewers, coming from every continent except Antarctica.
Mr. W heeler said as of the first day of the new fiscal year, today, the Central Office has been
restructured - based on the changes made as part of budget considerations.
Mr. W heeler said the turf field project at Monticello High School and other capital projects have
been going well. All major school renovation projects are anticipated to be done on schedule and on
budget. He offered to answer questions.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the timetable is for making decisions about renovation of the three schools
in the southern part of the County, and what role is the Board of Supervisors expected to have in that
decision. Mr. W heeler said the School Board is in the midst of its master planning process. Their
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Resource Utilization Study recommended that they look closely at whether to invest in renovating small
schools or consolidating some or all of those small schools into a new facility.
Mr. W heeler said that earlier in the year they focused on getting public input and having a
committee work through the pros and cons of different approaches. That input was shared with their
Long-Range Planning Committee. Unlike the Supervisors, the School Board only appoints people to
special committees - the Health Advisory and the Long-Range Planning committees. He said their
recommendations have been given to the Superintendent, so the matter is expected to be before the
School Board in August. Once they get the recommendation, the School Board will set a process for the
remainder of the year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Supervisors have any input into the School Board’s decision. Mr. W heeler
said they welcome input. If a decision is made not to use those buildings for instructional purposes, the
Supervisors have an immediate role to play since those buildings would come to the Supervisors and it
would have to decide what possible community purposes they could serve. He said the School Board has
a good collaborative relationship with the Supervisors, so if the members have feedback, it would be
welcomed.
Mr. Rooker said if the recommendation was to have one school to house the student population
from those three schools, to fund that project a Capital Improvement decision would need to be made.
Mr. W heeler said that will be discussed later today during the joint meeting with the School Board.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are several different options available. Mr. W heeler said the committee
that advised Dr. Moran did narrow them down. One of their recommendations was to close all three
schools and build a new school near the W alton Middle School site; another recommendation was not to
close any schools and renovate them all as needed – which is what’s reflected in the CIP of the past. The
question now is whether that is a good use of resources.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a copy of the documents involved, since he and Ms. Thomas are members
of the CIP Committee. He said they have constituents who feel strongly about the issues. Mr. Tucker
said most of that information is online. Mr. W heeler said that is true, he will send Mr. Dorrier that link.
Ms. Thomas said when she was a member of the School Board and they closed a school it was
for educational reasons. She asked if the School Board is confident that after doing this, it will have the
financial, fiscal argument clearly laid out. Mr. W heeler said they know the cost to maintain these facilities
today as compared to a newer school. That information has already been reviewed by the Committee and
by the public. There are greater upfront costs when building a new school and that will be a challenge for
their CIP.
Ms. Mallek asked if the additional transportation costs have been considered. Mr. W heeler said
“yes.”
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. W heeler is confident they have those costs. Mr. W heeler said they do
as to maintenance of the facilities. More research may be needed on the Yancey School site, to see if the
septic system can handle a larger facility. The County’s park across the street uses the school’s septic
field because that land did not perk. They may need to explore with adjoining property owners use of
additional property for septic fields.
Mr. Boyd asked if the School Board expects this process to determine a threshold for school
sizes. There is a number they use now for elementary schools – these three schools are way under that
number, and he is concerned about Stony Point elementary because of those numbers. Mr. W heeler said
there is a community conversation going on now about the best size for elementary schools. W hat he
hears is that everybody likes the size of the school their children presently attend. The School Board
wants to look carefully at the research. Parents came before the School Board recently and expressed a
clear preference for the small schools they have and the benefits they see them having on the community,
teachers and staff. In the past the numbers considered were 650 students for an elementary school, 900
for a middle school and 1,200 for high schools such as Monticello and W estern; Albemarle is bigger.
Mr. Boyd said that recently some people have questioned whether it’s possible that other schools
could be considered for consolidation, such as Stony Point and V.L. Murray. Mr. W heeler said it might be
considered depending on where those buildings are located and the opportunities for making positive
changes. From the beginning, the School Board said this process would be division-wide, and it would
start in the southern feeder pattern. He said they have talked about Murray and Meriwether-Lewis and the
potential of those two schools. If this process brings forth information suggesting changes need to be
made elsewhere, they would take that process and do it for the other two feeder patterns.
Ms. Mallek asked where travel time to school fits in. She said more than an hour on the bus in the
morning and afternoon for a six-year old is debilitating. Mr. W heeler said data presented at the public
meeting shows that the average time on a bus would not change if all three schools were consolidated.
On the average, the student experience on the bus would not change.
Mr. Boyd asked if Central Office restructuring will result in a significant reduction in administrative
costs for next year’s budget. Mr. W heeler responded that it is expected to, but the exact amount is not
known; it depends on where the people who were shifted ended up in their jobs. He said they budgeted
for a certain amount of savings.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Thomas asked how many employees retired and how many are back teaching in the
classroom. Mr. W heeler said 80 employees took advantage of the retirement incentive. That should have
a positive impact on payroll as people with less experience are hired for teaching positions. He said the
Schools are taking out of their Fund Balance about $1.5 million to cover the cost of the early retirement
incentive.
Mr. Boyd asked if a large number of those retirees came from the transportation area. Mr.
W heeler confirmed that was true.
Mr. Slutzky said a goal of school systems nationally is to have 65 cents of each dollar go into the
classroom. He asks how close they are to achieving that goal. Mr. W heeler replied that Albemarle is well
beyond that goal.
Mr. Slutzky said he knows the School Board has historically been well beyond that number, but he
wonders if the County is getting light on its percentage of investment in administration. Mr. W heeler said
the Schools have been well above the standard for directing dollars into the classroom. W hen the
recommendation was first brought up for restructuring, he thought they would end up as a stronger
organization. He still believes that.
Mr. W heeler said he would like to jointly celebrate the Human Resources Department since it is a
joint operation of Local Government and the Schools – they will be receiving an award from the U.S.
Senate Productivity and Quality Award Program in Virginia. They are one of six organizations being
recognized at an event in October – it comes out of the Baldridge performance criteria that the School
Board has been having their many departments look at. There are three sub-parts of the School Division
– Monticello High School, Transportation and Human Resources – all will be recognized under this award.
It is not about the award, but about continuous improvement. He said the Schools have a goal of being a
world-class organization and the Baldridge performance criterion is one of the ways they are measuring
that.
Mr. Slutzky said both Local Government and the Schools are often acknowledged by independent
and objective outside forces as having achieved extraordinarily high levels of effectiveness. He suggested
having awards and accolades such as this mentioned on the County’s website. He thinks it is important
that taxpayers recognize that their tax dollars are being well spent. Mr. Tucker replied that the site is
being updated now, and he would see to its inclusion.
Mr. Slutzky said in anticipation of having those posted, he would appreciate having a list of those
items, as would the other Board members.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Quarterly Updates.
Item No. 9a. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), Gary Fern.
Ms. Thomas noted that these sessions have been very valuable to the Board. It has made a
difference in how much City Council does not understand about things going on. She appreciates having
these updates.
Ms. Gary Fern, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present. He
said there is a new rate structure starting today for the ACSA. Last year ACSA engaged the services of
the Municipal and Financial Services Group in Annapolis, Maryland. They worked with members of the
ACSA Board, its finance director and Mr. Fern looking at different types of structures for water and sewer
rates and made recommendations for new rates which the ACSA Board adopted in June. He said the old
structure included a three-tiered system to encourage water conversation, and they are now shifting to a
four-tiered system – with the first tier being charged at the RW SA wholesale rate.
Mr. Fern said the first tier will just be to cover the RW SA charges; that first tier will give a benefit
to those people with lower income. Then there is a second tier, a third tier and finally a fourth tier. The
second tier will be two times the RW SA rate, the third tier three times the RW SA rate and the fourth tier
will be four times the RW SA rate. He said the first tier is from 0-3,000 gallons, the second tier is for 3-
6,000 gallons, the third tier is for 6-9,000 gallons, and the fourth tier is anything above 9,000 gallons per
month.
Mr. Rooker asked how these tiers apply to commercial users. Mr. Fern said commercial users
would still pay the flat charge – the one-time charge per 1,000 gallons – they are not in the tiered system.
Only single-family residential, irrigation flows, multi-family and apartment complexes are in the tiered
structure.
Mr. Rooker asked why commercial properties are not included in the tiered system. Mr. Fern said
because they are master-metered there is no way to assign bills to each user.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks charging the occupants would encourage users to change their
behavior because they are not now paying the bill for their use. Mr. Fern said that one item in their
strategic plan is to identify the top 20 percent of users, which are multi-family, and educate them that they
can save money by using less water.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is a way to charge more for institutions that use a garbage disposal.
Mr. Fern said they do not have any direct way of charging. One item they will be looking at in the coming
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
year is a fat, soil and grease program – which comes from garbage disposals and commercial
dishwashers. They will address implementing a surcharge for those higher-strength wastes; currently
both authorities share a set of sewage regulations which provides an opportunity to charge at a higher
rate, but no way has been established to do that.
Mr. Slutzky said there are currently a number of residential dwellings in the growth area that are
not connected to either sewer or water and would like to connect. However, the upfront capital cost
prohibits them from connecting. Has any thought been given to changing the rate structure so they could
hookup to public water and sewer? Mr. Fern said that has been considered. He explained that one of the
consultant’s recommendations was to terminate the local facilities charge; they would look at recalculating
the system development charge and the RW SA capacity charge. The local facilities charge would be
terminated in the hope of encouraging people whose property lies in a jurisdictional boundary that is not
connected to the system to be able to connect to the system.
Mr. Slutzky said when people in Northfields tried to connect their house to the sewer line, there
was a charge of several thousand dollars upfront over and above their responsibility for paying a plumber
privately to connect from the ACSA line into their house. Is this recommendation to eliminate the charge
altogether for the cost of putting in the system? Mr. Fern said “no.” There are four components related to
the connection fee: the actual connection charge, the local facilities charge, a system development
charge and an RW SA capacity charge. In this case, the local facilities charge would be eliminated, but the
other charges would be retained.
Mr. Slutzky asked the cost for a residential connection. Mr. Fern said it is about $2,500.
Mr. Slutzky said in small portions of neighborhoods the system was not built out entirely. Now it
has to be retrofit so the cost of building out is disproportionately high per house. Has any thought been
given to addressing that impediment to those homeowners? Mr. Fern said that topic needs to come back
to the ACSA Board for discussion, but it also brings up the subject of mandatory connections which he
knows this Board has not been in favor of in the past. There will be a public hearing on the revised
connection charges in August with implementation in September.
Mr. Slutzky said he is frustrated that homes in the growth areas are using a septic system with
failing septic fields, and because they are older couples on fixed incomes they cannot afford to get into the
sewerage system. There is a lot of evidence that the problem will grow.
Mr. Rooker said he had a question about the tiered-rate system. If the first tier is one times the
rate per unit paid to RW SA, how are administrative expenses covered out of that tier? Mr. Fern said it is
not covered in the first tier, it is picked up in the second, third and fourth tiers.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the tiered structure is a good idea, but it seems imprudent to have a
rate for a large number of users who make no contribution toward anything except the raw cost of the
water. Mr. Fern explained that in the analysis they found that about 82 percent of their customers use the
first two tiers – less than 6,000 gallons per month; there are 12 percent in the third tier and six percent in
the fourth tier.
Mr. Rooker said he does not understand having a rate structure that has a large component of
payers contributing nothing toward the overhead of the system.
Ms. Mallek said this is a big shock because even the people using 9,000 gallons are getting the
first two amounts for no overhead charge.
Mr. Slutzky said because of the humble consumption patterns of this group, they are not
burdening the system in a way that requires additional infrastructure which would have a debt service
component that would have to be absorbed throughout the system.
Mr. Rooker said a lot of infrastructure cost is replacing old existing infrastructure so there is no
contribution being made toward amortizing the cost of replacing the equipment that they do use.
Ms. Mallek asked where irrigation falls in the tiers. Mr. Fern said irrigation is on auxiliary and
exclusion meters - that is where the water is metered either for irrigation or car washing or outdoor uses.
There are separate meters for an in-ground irrigation system – it is called an auxiliary meter. In a single-
family residence the ACSA reads both the auxiliary meter and the primary meter, combines the two flows
and then applies the tiered system. If there is a single-family residence that uses 3,000 gallons on their
primary meter, that first 3,000 gallons is billed at the first tier rate. If the irrigation system uses another
5,000 gallons, the auxiliary meter reading would be used in the second tier, and then another 2,000 in the
third tier.
Mr. Rooker said there had been discussion of metering and billing an irrigation system at a
different rate. Mr. Fern said that proposal was considered by the ACSA Board, but they decided to use
the consultant’s proposal for billing.
__________
Item No. 9b. Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, Tom Frederick.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the Rivanna W ater and Sewer Authority, was present.
He appreciated the comments earlier that these reports are helpful to the Board members because he
wants to keep all of the affected boards as informed as possible. Before he begins discussing his list, he
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
will say that was a good discussion with Mr. Fern. He is going to send a compliment to the ACSA – from
what he reads and from his past experience with retail policies, the ACSA is doing “cutting edge work” in
trying to improve conservation in the community through rate structures. He said a citizen sent him an e-
mail a few weeks ago suggesting that a community in Georgia was doing a lot more than Charlottesville
and Albemarle to encourage conservation. Basically that citizen was not aware of things being done here.
He started the dialogue, passed it to Mr. Fern who continued it, and there were a stream of e-mails
leading to a conclusion that this community is doing more than the community this citizen was comparing
it to. It turned out to be an educational process for that citizen.
Mr. Frederick reported that last Thursday the RW SA Board, after a lot of deliberation, made a
decision to seek a new designer for the Ragged Mountain Dam. Their expert panel encouraged the
RW SA to talk to Gannett Fleming after the expert opinion released its report that suggested things be
taken in a different direction from that recommended by Gannett Fleming. Recently there have been
comments and suggestions about expenses and whether some costs will be duplicated by hiring a new
designer. He said RW SA is pulling together information to answer that question.
Mr. Frederick said all of their contacts are with professional services and the RW SA owns all the
work they produce so RW SA has a right to request all of that work, and everything has been received
from Gannett Fleming - nothing has been lost in terms of data and information. Even their expert panel
told them the geological boring information and geotechnical information was very sound and useful.
Hiring a new designer will provide an opportunity for that designer to provide its own interpretation of the
data already paid for and obtained. The goal of this process is to get the closest interpretation to a
pragmatic viewpoint that recognizes the safety and importance of the structure, but also looks for
innovative and exciting ways to keep the cost as economic as possible.
Mr. Boyd asked if a lot of the expense for Gannett Fleming was to lead the boards through the
process of deciding on a plan. Money must have been spent on public hearings and engineering studies.
The 30+ plans were narrowed down to just a few. He would refute comments that it will be lost money,
because it would have been spent anyway. Mr. Frederick said it is a fair argument that 100 percent of
what was invested in the development of the plan that led to permit approvals is useful information. The
goal was to get permits from both State and Federal agencies – that is something this community never
accomplished with any of the previous water planning. Everything was driven by what was needed in
order to get the permits. Some community groups have said certain items were not studied hard enough
but the whole process was driven by what was needed to properly influence public participation in the
process, and what regulatory agencies needed to make their decisions. They were not focused on trying
to gather every piece of data in the world, but were driven toward a management purpose.
Ms. Thomas said it is amusing that the very people in the community who were most critical of
Gannett Fleming quote the firm all the time.
Mr. Frederick said the RW SA is pursing the dredging feasibility study requested. Eight proposals
were received from good firms in terms of names and qualifications. They are meeting with the committee
that will be reviewing these proposals next week, July 8, at 3:00 p.m. in COB-Fifth Street, Room A, and
the public is invited to sit in and observe the process.
Mr. Frederick said he has good news with respect to the Moores Creek W astewater Treatment
Plant – it is in construction and in some places a little ahead of schedule. There was a groundbreaking
ceremony which Governor Kaine attended and he said this was the first wastewater plant groundbreaking
he had attended in his term as governor and he called the proposed project a model. He mentioned that
the component of the plan that addresses energy efficiency and the reuse of biogas in the production of
electricity is above and beyond the goals of nutrient removal from surface waters. That was part of his
decision to attend this ceremony. He wanted to recognize that this is a model for other communities to
follow.
Mr. Frederick said RW SA pursued this project due to aging equipment. They said they would
have to replace that equipment anyway. He said RW SA is challenged toward the future with the certainty
that there will be carbon legislation passed at the Federal level, and it will put a premium on beneficial
uses of energy and penalize the purchase of electricity from more commercial settings in terms of higher
rates. RW SA thought this was positioning itself well for the future, and also making a significant mark on
carbon footprint reduction as an example to other sectors in the community.
Mr. Rooker asked how much power might be generated from that. Mr. Frederick said that in July
when they can use almost 100 percent of the methane gas they generate toward electricity production,
they can produce 400 kilowatts of power per day.
Mr. Slutzky asked what percentage that is of the facility’s consumption. Mr. Frederick said they
would be purchasing high-efficiency blowers that push air into the aerobic bacteria processes, and the
demand for electricity should be driven down while increasing production. They will not be able to produce
the full 400KW h in the winter months because that is when they have to heat the digesters to produce the
methane gas. It is more efficient to heat the digesters through a hot water exchange than it is to produce
electricity and use it to do the heating.
Mr. Rooker asked if on a year-round basis it would be 15 percent of electrical needs. Mr.
Frederick said he thinks 20 percent is achievable, with carbon footprint reductions of around 40 percent.
Mr. Frederick said on a related subject, he included in his written report some information about
the Chesapeake Bay. He said the EPA is directing a new process to look at how to allocate nitrogen and
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
phosphorous throughout the Chesapeake Bay. There have been previous attempts to do these
allocations – they are easy but involve sophisticated computer models that can be threatening to day-to-
day people who do not understand all the numbers and statistics. Through that process Virginia adopted
a leadership role in 2005 and adopted allocations that are part of the project RW SA now has under
construction where allocations were set, and the community decided to do a little better than that and sell
credits at the same time.
Mr. Frederick said there is lot of publicity about the fact that at the Federal level the Chesapeake
Bay is not going to meet the clean water goals that were set for 2010. In terms of publicity, that is what is
making the headlines now. W hat is not making headlines, but which is true, is that the Commonwealth of
Virginia is on schedule to meet its 2010 goals for point sources which are predominately the wastewater
treatment plants. They are a model to the rest of the sectors in the communities that contribute nitrogen
and phosphorus to the surface waters. The EPA is reconsidering how to reassign allocations to achieve a
goal which at the Federal level will not be achieved. They are talking about moving the target for
wastewater treatment plants and that can be a challenging issue when in the process of building hardened
concrete and equipment structures designed to achieve a certain target and then the target may move.
Mr. Frederick said through an association of which the RW SA is a member, that the EPA and the
states look at those sectors which have an influence on nitrogen and phosphorous. Those sectors are
much less regulated than wastewater treatment plants - this does not need to be done unfairly on the
backs of ratepayers where other sectors in the community that contribute nutrients may not be paying their
fair share. That is aligned with some of the Supervisors’ goals of promoting development in urban areas
and not in rural areas.
Mr. Frederick said there is current research sponsored by VAMLA looking at how to reduce
nutrients such as nonpoint sources which are atmospheric deposition. It can be done better by looking at
the carbon footprint and at environmental issues. Driving levels down through higher advances in
wastewater technology is very expensive from an energy consumption standpoint. He said there is also
uncertainty about what to do with respect to stormwater programs. They are on the table now for possible
numeric limits, but it’s too early in the process for County staff to get a handle on this and develop specific
strategies. He thinks this is something all should be watching.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the trade organization that represents the point source community that RW SA
is part of has weighed in on the proposed DCR regulations. Are they trying to share their perspective with
DCR that there are unintended consequences of pushing development out of the rural areas since it will
undermine some of the benefit achieved by what RW SA is doing in its sector. Mr. Frederick said “yes.”
Mr. Slutzky said they need to make comments during this “comment window” because DCR
needs to hear from all sectors that the proposal is inadequate. If Mr. Frederick needs help with how to
frame those comments, he has personally invested some time in the subject and would be happy to work
with him.
Mr. Frederick said the Meadow Creek Interceptor project is moving forward. The RW SA is
addressing comments provided to it by the ACSA and the City in the design of the project, as well as
continuing right-of-way acquisition. They hope to be to the bid stage by fall, the target date for bids is
October. They will move the project along as fast as possible. The RW SA will be meeting with individuals
and homeowners’ associations with respect to landscape plans. Every property owner along the route has
been provided with an individual plan of how the landscape plantings will occur on their property after
construction takes place; these plans are open to comment. If homeowners want to move trees or
shrubbery around, or plant different species, RW SA has a list to choose from of what are being called
“sewer safe” trees and shrubbery. In the past, right-of-way easements were allowed to grow up as people
wanted and without attention as to how they affect the integrity of the sewer system. They are trying to
achieve a balance – they do not want cleared areas that look ugly, but they want to reflect the compatibility
of the two systems.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is true the RW SA has not yet resolved how to get the supply line that needs
to be relocated out of Route 29. He said the Board had talked about whether it was more efficient to go to
Route 29 along the right-of-way to the side of the road and then back over, or go straight down and hang
the line off of the future Berkmar Bridge to be more cost effective. He has had some conversations with
Congressman Perriello’s office exploring the possibility of getting some earmarked dollars to invest in the
Berkmar Bridge so that critical element of the Places29 Plan parallel road network could move forward
more quickly. There may be value to the RW SA weighing in on this and making them aware of the
RW SA’s time sequence in the event there is a possibility of getting that money.
Mr. Slutzky said in discussing the Places29 plan, both the Planning Commission and the Board
talked about how to pay for some of its transportation infrastructure. One element of that discussion was
whether to fund projects sooner on the backs of proffers rather than waiting for the money to come out of
the taxpayers’ pockets. In that regard, there are land use decisions that have not been resolved in
Places29 that would definitely affect the ability to have private money if there is not earmarked money.
Private money would fund most of that bridge connection. Since the RW SA has a part in this they may
want to be sure the Commission is aware of the beneficial impact that facilitating private funding of that
bridge might also help the RW SA in getting its pipe installed.
Mr. Frederick said he appreciates the feedback; he will work with Mr. Fern and his staff to try and
accomplish that. W ith respect to Route 29, that project is still on hold. The RW SA is working within the
Hollymead Towncenter area as to what infrastructure is needed there, but there remains uncertainty as to
how to get from the southern edge of the Towncenter property back to the South Fork Rivanna Treatment
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Plant. There are not any good alternatives currently that use the existing lay of the land and no security
that the lay of the land will remain as it is today. That is a troublesome concern when trying to locate
infrastructure that should last 100+ years.
Mr. Slutzky said that concern would be solved if there were a road and a bridge. Mr. Frederick
said that is true. Getting a road corridor, a final grade for the road, and getting a bridge would solve that
problem. They want to be responsive when those decisions are made. They want to be in the readiness
mode so they can jump in and do what they need to do when the timing works for the Board. They are not
imposing a strict timeline on their project so this can be worked out. He emphasized that there are some
risks in delaying the implementation of this connector, such as a hypothetical situation where the North
Fork Treatment Plant is shut down for several days; the RW SA is working now on an emergency plan on
how they would keep service as long as possible in that area in the event of some catastrophic issue. The
ACSA is also a part of working out that plan. They have some innovative ideas, but it is not a total
solution. It would just reduce the risk in order to “buy some time.” The ultimate solution to making that
whole service area reliable, especially looking at the North Pointe development and beyond is a new
connector on the ground that is in a corridor and at an elevation that works for the long-term future.
Mr. Rooker said since the issue was raised about Federal money for a Berkmar bridge, he thinks
there would be a better chance of getting money for the widening of Route 29 from Polo Grounds Road to
the Hollymead Towncenter than for that bridge. In the County’s priorities, the widening and the solving of
the geometry problems on Route 29 in that area is a higher priority project. Also, if the bridge were built
tomorrow, it would go nowhere until the rest of the road network was built out, and that would depend on
land use decisions not yet made. That project is in the long-range plan, and he has supported it, but the
widening of Route 29 is a needed safety improvement. He also spoke with Mr. Perriello’s office and it is
his understanding they are giving the Route 29 widening project a higher priority than the bridge project.
He does not want Mr. Frederick to leave believing there is a significant chance of getting Federal money
for that project today.
Mr. Slutzky said he did not want Mr. Frederick to think the two projects are competing with each
other for the same dollars. The conversations he had are within the context of the Transportation Bill
which is up for its five-year authorization; since the widening of Route 29 is a high priority it would be
funded through that mechanism. As a separate earmark the County could possibly get funding in a
subsequent effort for the bridge, but not as a replacement project.
Mr. Rooker said he supports that; he does not want the Board to get out of order with its priorities.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks that having Mr. Frederick weigh in with Mr. Perriello’s office and enforce
the value of that additional supplemental source of funds would be helpful.
Mr. Frederick said he would like to brief the Board on one other item which was not a part of the
written report. He said the RW SA has been working with the ACSA and the City for a number of months
to come up with an effective master plan. The idea for the master plan came from the Supervisors when
they mentioned projects that had been approved at the Planning and Zoning levels; it is needed to get
ahead of that process. W hile the RW SA was collecting data about the sewer system, it found capacity
limitations. That project has been advancing and is now at a critical point – a decision has to be made in
their master planning process as to what extent to design piping and pumping systems that carry wet-
weather flow, and to what extent wet-weather flow can be cost-effectively removed before it gets to the
system. For the RW SA and the City it means doing an intense study of data within the City’s systems.
They think that process needs to move forward at a pace that allows the City to feel comfortable with the
ultimate decision that must be made.
Mr. Frederick said that at the same time, the RW SA has some systems that need to be designed
in the near-term – they include the Rivanna Pump Station, the Moores Creek Pump Station, the Rivanna
Interceptor, and the area of Crozet. Decisions need to be made in the next 60 to 90 days on how to size
the pump stations so they stay ahead of the concern he just expressed. The RW SA and the City will need
longer to come up with an effective detailed answer to their question, some sort of adaptive management
that scientists use. They can establish some minimum agreements that can be edited as the process
moves forward. It is tough to get three units to sit down and try to work out something together, but they
are determined to keep going.
Ms. Thomas said she is playing a role on the RW SA Board by trying to be sure the total overall
cost for the system is kept in front of the decision-making process. She said the City and the RW SA have
the pipes that lead to the sewer treatment plant, and the pipes are spongy and let in rainwater during wet-
weather events. If the pipes are to be fixed so less rainwater gets into the sewer treatment plant, that is
expensive for the City and the RW SA. If they’re not fixed, it’s expensive for the RW SA because they have
to build bigger interceptors and bigger holding ponds at the sewer treatment plant. There is a point at
which the expense ends up being the least for the total system, but is not where it is the least for the City
and the RW SA. The RW SA Board needs to keep that in front of everybody, and it will mean twisting a few
arms in order to get the lowest cost system for the whole system. She said that is the role that she and
Mr. Tucker play because they are not customers like the other members of the RW SA Board.
Mr. Rooker commented that if the cost of water goes up, it gets passed to consumers one way or
another. He said Mr. Frederick had noted that their goal is to have the Meadow Creek Interceptor project
go out to bid in October. If that is the case, at what point would the construction phase be completed?
Mr. Frederick said with an October award there should be a contract in place and “Notice to Proceed” by
the first of December; it’s estimated it will take about 14 months to complete all aspects of the project, so
that would probably be in January, 2011.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker asked that until the project is completed, is there a restriction on new hookups that
could impact the existing interceptor? Mr. Frederick answered that looking at both dry weather and wet
weather data, there is no capacity in the existing system. The tightest area is near the Greenbrier area
where the sewer line is not adequately sized for what they are treating, especially during wet periods. The
system works well during dry periods, even peak day needs, but it is not always where it needs to be
during wet weather periods.
Mr. Rooker said there are several projects under construction now; W hole Foods, Albemarle
Place, Trader Joe’s. How does that impact these facilities from being able to go on line and tap into the
existing system. Mr. Fern said there is a process of analyzing the flow that those businesses will put into
the system; if it’s more than 40,000 gallons per day, the ACSA is required to request that capacity from the
RW SA. If there isn’t sufficient capacity at the Meadow Creek Interceptor, that development will not get
approval from the RW SA. They could not grant approval to a development, and then have no place to put
the wastewater.
Mr. Rooker asked if a grocery store is a typical 40,000 gallons user. Mr. Fern replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Rooker asked how W hole Foods would come on line under that scenario. He said that
Trader Joe’s which will be on the other side of the road is a facility of a similar size. If both use
comparable amounts of water, and put out a comparable amount of sewage, he wants to make sure there
is equal treatment with respect to the ability to use the facilities – he is not expecting priority treatment, but
expects equal treatment on both the City and County sides of the road. Mr. Fern replied that the City has
to go through the same process of requesting that capacity because wastewater from the City and from
the County goes into RW SA’s pipes. Mr. Frederick said the site plan for Trader Joe’s has not come
forward yet. The RW SA’s Chief Engineer is responsible for reviewing those plans and he is not aware of
any recent requests.
Mr. Frederick said the last issue he wants to mention has to do with solid waste. Staff discussed
with the Rivanna Solid W aste Authority (RSW A) Board during its retreat last week about their strategic
plan. They also need to discuss upgrading or improving a transfer station in the Ivy vicinity that could
serve the public for the long-term. Eventually service would be expanded beyond just accepting trash to
accepting C&D materials (construction demolition debris) - a large part of those materials can now be
recycled. Perhaps they could accept single-stream recycling which would help haulers working in
subdivisions to have a convenient place to bring these materials. They cannot offer those services now
because physical facilities are limited and very old. Useful life of these facilities is being measured in
months not years, which makes this issue critical.
Mr. Frederick said that last week the RSW A Board authorized staff to develop a business plan to
see if this idea and strategy can work. W ith respect to the services they are talking about, Ivy would
continue to operate as a transfer facility. It would not get into the processing of recyclable material
because there are private entities in the area that can do the processing. He said RSW A needs to get
back to discussion of the current agreement which expires at the end of June, 2010. At some point, they
must discuss how to pay for the free services that people continue to ask for, such as special collections
for household hazardous wastes – should they charge a fee or continue providing that as a free service
and if so, how do you pay for it?
Mr. Boyd said as this Board’s representative on the RSW A Board, he said the Supervisors need
to think about a decision regarding recycling and trash collection. At some point, the City will want to know
what the County is going to do – things like a single-payer hauler or using multiple haulers, etc. He said
such things will need to be addressed by ordinances. He will need some direction from this Board to use
in those discussions.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has never received the results of the study. The purpose of that study
was to help the Board with the decisions it had to make, and the results of that study were never
distributed.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Frederick could get that study finished, and the results sent to the Board.
Mr. Frederick said if the RSW A is going to do a business plan, it can be incorporated into that plan using
the information that was obtained. They have data – the open question is: W hat is the recommendation?”
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs that information before it has a work session. Mr.
Frederick said he would get the information requested to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know what capabilities the County has in regulating the collection of
trash. He knows there is “a five-year thing” if the County went to a single-payer. His question is whether
the County can stay with its existing system but require that all people pick up recyclables, and how would
it be billed. Also, can they be required to charge only one fee?
Ms. Mallek said that trash haulers are required to pick up newspapers now as part of their original
“thing.”
Mr. Slutzky asked if the haulers are picking up everything. Mr. Tucker said it is required by the
ordinance, but it is not totally enforced.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Mallek said if you call the RSW A and tell them that the hauler is not picking up everything,
they will call the hauler and tell them they have to do it. Mr. Davis said the haulers will pick up newspapers
if they are requested to do so.
Mr. Slutzky said in anticipation of the Board having a work session, it needs both the finished
study data and a memo from the County Attorney summarizing different options. It sounds like there is
interest in having a work session so that during the next budget process the Board will go into it “with eyes
wide open.”
Mr. Boyd said there are some real maintenance issues now having to do with the transfer station
at Ivy. If there is not a fairly quick decision, the RSW A might spend more money than is necessary.
Ms. Thomas said she had one more matter related to water that she will mention. She said clarity
in the billing process of wholesale is also being worked on by staff. She said people think it’s unfair when
their rates go up when their usage has gone down in a time of drought. If consumers understood the cost
of providing service, the cost would be clearer to them.
Mr. Fern said that earlier today the Board talked about administrative costs. He said the ACSA
has a monthly service charge in addition to the tiered rate structure, and there are some administrative
costs built into that service charge – the cost to prepare a bill, to read the meter, and now the cost to
maintain and/or replace that meter has been added in the monthly service charge; that is part of the new
rate starting July 1 (today). He said every customer of the ACSA pays some part of that service charge.
Mr. Rooker said he assumes the largest part of ACSA’s non-water purchase cost is CIP
amortization, which is not included in the service charge. Mr. Fern confirmed this to be true.
(Note: At 10:47 a.m. the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:58 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: FY 2010 Budget Amendment (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 21, 2009).
Ms. Laura Vinzant, Budget Analyst, said this budget amendment is comprised of six new
appropriations as follows: No. 2010-001 providing $2,530.00 from the Board’s contingency to the
Commonwealth’s Attorney Office which was erroneously excluded from their recommended budget; No.
2010-002 totaling $1,347.00 for the Police Department’s “Neighborhood Safety Project” grant; No. 2010-
003 for the Belvedere bond default totaling $3,675,790.00; No. 2010-004 totaling $1,083.65 to the Natural
Heritage Committee; No. 2010-005 totaling $12,500.00 for Education donations/programs; and No. 2010-
006 establishing a special revenue fund for rental income and expenses related to the Old Crozet
Elementary School totaling $57,778.65. (Note: A detailed description of these requests is provided on
Attachment A, set out below.)
ATTACHMENT A:
Appropriation No. 2010-001, $-0-. Revenue Source: Board Contingency $2,530.00. It was
discovered that the recommended funding for the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office had inadvertently
omitted a total of $2,530.00 from various operating line items. This request will provide the additional
funding from the Board’s Contingency. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
Appropriation No. 2010-002, $1,347.00. Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $1,212.00; Transfer
from General Fund $135.00. The Department of Justice through the Department of Criminal Justice
Services has awarded the Police Department a grant in the amount of $1,212.00 with a local match of
$135.00, for a total of $1,347.00. This grant will assist in funding overtime for the Police Department’s
“Neighborhood Safety Project” focused in the Southwood Mobile Home Park. The local match will be
provided from overtime previously funded within the Police Department’s operating budget and will require
no additional local funding. This appropriation will increase the total County budget $1,212.00.
Appropriation No. 2010-003, $3,675,790.00. Revenue Source: Other Fund Balance
$3,675,790.00. The developer of Belvedere Subdivision, Belvedere Station Land Trust (BSLT), provided
performance bonds to the County for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase 1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B &
9A covering water protection (erosion control & stormwater management), roads, drainage and related
site work, and water and sewer improvements. The bonds totaled $3,675,790.00 and were secured by
letters of credit from W achovia Bank. In November, 2008 the County received notice from W achovia
Bank that the letters of credit securing the bonds would not be renewed beyond their current expiration.
Since BSLT was unable to get W achovia Bank to renew the letters of credit and did not provide
replacement performance bonds, the County demanded payment in January, 2009 on the six letters of
credit securing the bonds.
BSLT is currently working with W achovia to obtain new letters of credit for the project and the
County Engineer is reviewing the project to determine if the County should complete some of the work
rather than allow BSLT to re-bond all of the incomplete improvements. This request is to move the
proceeds from the letters of credit to an expenditure account. The County will then be in a position to
either use the funds to complete the improvements or return funds to W achovia Bank if new letters of
credit are issued to BSLT, or a combination of both.
Appropriation No. 2010-004, $1,083.65. Revenue Source: Other Fund Balance $1,083.65.
Some individuals expressed an interest in making donations to the County to fund the efforts of the
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Natural Heritage Committee (NHC). A separate account was established to accept these donations which
now total $1,075.00 with interest accumulated in the amount of $8.65. The Chair of the NHC has
requested the donated funds be appropriated so the committee can make use of the funds to support their
mission - to maintain and restore the County's native biological diversity and provide a healthy
environment for the citizens of Albemarle County.
Appropriation No. 2010-005, $12,500.00. Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Donations/Grants)
$12,500.00. At its meeting on June 25, 2009, the following appropriations will be presented to the School
Board for their approval:
• W oodbrook Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $4,000.00 from the
Bama W orks fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation.
These funds will be used to engage students in the “Nature Path to Environmental Learning”
school project that will build a walking trail while teaching students about the environment. This
grant will be used in conjunction with an $8,500.00 donation to build a walking trail and gravel
track.
• W oodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $8,500.00 from W illiam
Sterrett. The donor requested this contribution be designated toward the building of a W oodbrook
Nature Path and Track on the W oodbrook school grounds. This contribution will work in
conjunction with a recently awarded BAMA grant of $4,000.00 to see this project through.
Appropriation No. 2010006, $57,778.65. Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Rental Income)
$57,778.65. The General Services Department has requested the use of rental revenues generated from
leases of the Old Crozet Elementary School to fund the operating costs of the facility as well as to provide
a source of funding for major capital replacements/repairs that may be necessary in the future (e.g., boiler
replacement, roof repairs, etc.). It is anticipated that the leases currently approved will generate
$57,778.65 during FY ‘10 assuming no reductions are made for certain approved improvements as
allowed by the leases.
Since the W aldorf School’s lease expired in September 2007, General Services has
absorbed all cost of utilities and maintenance for this facility without a corresponding increase in its
operating budget, to the detriment of other programs for which the Department is responsible.
During the FY ‘10 budget process, an additional $21,800.00 was requested and subsequently
approved to cover the increase in fuel oil costs at County buildings, including the Old Crozet School.
Of this amount, approximately $8,000.00 relates to the Old Crozet School building. W ith approval
of this request, General Services’ FY ‘10 operating budget will be reduced $8,000.00 and the
reduction used to decrease budgeted “anticipated salary savings.”
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently
adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required. After the public hearing is held, staff
recommends approval of the FY 2010 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,748,364.30, and then
approval of Appropriation Nos. 2010-001, 2010-002, 2010-003, 2010-004, 2010-005 (subject to approval
by the School Board at its June 25, 2009 meeting) and 2010-006 to provide funds for various Meadow
Creek and school projects and programs.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a question about the Belvedere bond, but just wonders what will
happen; he only knows what he read in the newspaper about this situation. Mr. Tucker explained that the
appropriation is being requested because it will give the County the opportunity to turn the money back to
the developer if a bond replacement is received, adding that if any of the funds would be needed for
improvements required by the County the funds would be available.
Mr. Boyd said the newspaper implied that the County wanted to take over and do the
improvements. Mr. Tucker said absolutely not; the County definitely does not want to take over and do
these improvements.
Mr. Slutzky said he talked with the developer and understands they basically have a commitment
from their lending institution, so they will be able to furnish letters of credit to reactivate the bond. In order
for that to happen, they need to have a new bond agreement - the old one expired. There also needs to
be a schedule of completion. He thinks that will happen quickly. The County would give the money back
to the lender and go back to the bonding position. The developer would satisfy the requirements they
committed to and that would be recorded in the new schedule of completion. Anything short of that puts
the developer in the position where the project could go under and that would be a disaster for Albemarle
County. The County would have the money to complete the roads that nobody would need, so he thinks
this is the correct way to proceed. He said some work on stormwater runoff is actually being undertaken
now at some risk to the developer so he thinks this will “play out the right way.”
Mr. Tucker said that if there were no further questions, staff recommends approval of the budget
amendment and approval of the appropriations listed in the Executive Summary.
At this time, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the public rising to speak,
the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek, to approve the FY 2010 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $3,748,364.30 and to approve Appropriation Nos. 2010-001, 2010-002, 2010-003, 2010-004,
2010-005 and 2010-006 ( as set out in full below) as described in Attachment A.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-001
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Budget Adjustment - Commonwealth's Attorney Office
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 22010 520100 Postal Services J1 510.00
1 1000 22010 520300 Telecommunications 10.00
1 1000 22010 550502 Travel-Witnesses 6.00
1 1000 22010 580100 Dues & Memberships 444.00
1 1000 22010 600100 Office Supplies 1,020.00
1 1000 22010 601200 Books & Subscriptions 520.00
1 1000 22010 601700 Copy Expenses 20.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOS Contingency (2,530.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-002
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Police Department Grant - Neighborhood Safety Project
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1508 33000 330001 Federal Grant Revenue J2 1,212.00
2 1508 51000 512004 Transfer From General Fund J2 135.00
1 1508 31013 120000 Overtime J1 1,243.95
1 1508 31013 210000 FICA J1 103.05
1508 0501 Est. Revenue 1,347.00
0701 Appropriation 1,347.00
1 1000 31013 120000 Police - Overtime J1 (135.00)
1 1000 31031 930210 Transfer to Grants J1 135.00
TOTAL 2,694.00 1,347.00 1,347.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-003
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Belvedere Bond Default
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9011 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J2 3,675,790.00
1 9011 90900 940080 Belvedere Bond Default J1 3,675,790.00
9011 0501 Est. Revenue 3,675,790.00
0701 Appropriation 3,675,790.00
TOTAL 7,351,580.00 3,675,790.00 3,675,790.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-004
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Natural Heritage Committee
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8407 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J2 1,083.65
1 8407 79000 568755 Natural Heritage Committee J1 1,083.65
8407 0501 Est. Revenue 1,083.65
0701 Appropriation 1,083.65
TOTAL 2,167.30 1,083.65 1,083.65
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-005
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Education Donations and Programs - School Board Meeting: 6/25/2009
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3104 18100 181109 Donation J2 8,500.00
2 3104 18000 181240 Rev-Miscellaneous Grants J2 4,000.00
1 3104 60608 800605 Bama W ks W dbrook Const J1 12,500.00
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 12,500.00
0701 Appropriation 12,500.00
TOTAL 25,000.00 12,500.00 12,500.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION NO. 2010-006
DATE: 07-01-09
EXPLANATION: Old Crozet School Rental Account
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8610 15000 150262 Rent: Old Crozet School J2 57,778.65
1 8610 91081 301221 Maint Cont - Landscaping J1 4,000.00
1 8610 91081 331200 R&M Equip.-Buildings J1 5,000.00
1 8610 91081 332200 Maint. Contract-Building J1 1,180.00
1 8610 91081 510100 Electrical Services J1 7,151.00
1 8610 91081 510210 Heating/Fuel Oil J1 17,081.00
1 8610 91081 510300 W ater & Sewer Services J1 1,610.00
1 8610 91081 530200 Fire Insurance J1 6,200.00
1 8610 91081 600700 Repair & Maint. Supplies J1 2,000.00
1 8610 91081 800949 Maintenance Projects J1 13,556.65
8555 0501 Est. Revenue 57,778.65
0701 Appropriation 57,778.65
1 1000 43002 510210 General Services-Heating Oil J1 (8,000.00)
1 1000 95000 999975 Anticipated Vacancy Savings J1 8,000.00 ___
TOTAL 115,557.30 57,778.65 57,778.65
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend Sec. 7-201, Health and Safety,
Designation of agent, of Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of Chapter 7, Health
and Safety, of the Albemarle County Code, to revise a reference to the County officer designated as the
agent under Article II. (Public Hearing advertised in the Daily Progress on June 15 and June 22, 2009.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment to the County Code is occasioned by the reorganization of the
development departments. Section 7-201 of the Code currently designates the Director of Planning and
Community Development as the County’s agent for the road naming and property addressing program.
That needs to be amended to change the reference to “Director of Planning” which will conform to the
current job title.
W ith no questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the public
rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker immediately offered motion to adopt Ordinance No. 09-07(1), An Ordinance to
Amend Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 7-201, Designation of agent.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-07(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, HEALTH AND SAFETY, ARTICLE II, NAMING OF
ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
7, Health and Safety, Article II, Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties, is hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 7-201 Designation of agent
Chapter 7. Health and Safety
Article II. Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties
Sec. 7-201 Designation of agent.
The director of planning is hereby designated the agent under Virginia Code § 15.2-2019
for the purpose of assigning road names and property addresses, and for the development and
maintenance of a manual and maps, as provided in sections 7-202 and 7-203.
(§ 16.01-2, 7-8-92; 10-13-93; Code 1988, § 16.01-2; Ord. A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2019.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 09-07( ) – Health and Safety. Amend
Secs. 7-100, Purpose and intent, 7-101, Administration and enforcement, 7-102, Applicability, 7-103,
Definitions, 7-104, Prohibited noise, 7-105, Prohibited acts enumerated, 7-106, Exempt sounds, 7-107,
Complaints of noise, and 7-108, Violation and penalty, of Article I, Noise, of Chapter 7, Health and Safety,
of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 7-100 to establish a new statement of
purpose and intent for regulating excessive or unwanted sound; Sec. 7-101 to revise references to county
departments and officers authorized to enforce Article I; Sec. 7-102 to revise a cross-reference to chapter
18; Sec. 7-103 to amend, delete and add definitions applicable to Article I; Sec. 7-104 to establish new
sound levels produced by acts or devices not addressed in Sec. 7-105 that are a violation of Article I; Sec.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
7-105 to establish new sound levels generated by specific acts so as to be a violation of Article I; Sec. 7-
106 to clarify that although animal sounds are exempt under this Article, they are subject to the noise
regulations in Chapter 4 of the County Code; Sec. 7-107 to clarify a reference to an officer; and 7-108 to
delete an obsolete reference. The current regulations establish violations of Article I if the sound is at a
level that annoys or disturbs the quiet, comfort or repose of a person (or terms to similar effect); the
proposed regulations would establish a violation of Article I if the sound is audible by a person from
specified distances, at specified locations, for specified durations and/or depending on the time of day.
(Notice of this public hearing was sdvertised in the Daily Progress on June 15 and June 22, 2009.)
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, said staff has provided, in the Executive Summary,
reasons for a proposed new Noise Ordinance. He will review the reasons for the recommended changes.
He said studies show that excessive or unwanted sound (“noise”) has many adverse impacts including
physical and mental impairment, impacts on traffic safety, and diminished job and school performance.
Mr. Kamptner said noise is regulated by localities using three approaches: (1) by prohibiting
sounds that exceed prescribed sound levels described in decibels and measured using sound meters (the
County’s noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance regulate noise generated by land uses using this
approach).
Ms. Thomas asked for an example since she did not understand the distinction. Mr. Kamptner
said the noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance establish, for example, nighttime noise standards that
would be measured at the property line at 55 decibels.
Mr. Davis said that would include sawmills, factory noises from machines running for industrial
operations, things that are a part of the land use itself, rather than a random nuisance. If there were a
commercial operation that generated noise as part of the operation itself, it would be regulated by these
noise standards.
Ms. Mallek asked if lumbering is under that category when harvesting is taking place. Mr. Davis
said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd asked if a sawmill is exempt. Mr. Davis said certain standards are set out in the Zoning
Ordinance, and some uses are exempt.
Mr. Rooker asked about construction noise. Mr. Davis said that would not be a part of the Zoning
Ordinance, but is addressed in the proposed Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said construction noise has been the subject of many complaints over the years,
primarily because it starts earlier in the day than is allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Davis said that both the
existing ordinance and this new ordinance continue to regulate that noise after-hours, but not during
daytime hours.
Mr. Kamptner explained that approach (2) prohibits sound levels audible from a specified distance
or location. In the current Noise Ordinance there is a single standard, such as music coming from motor
vehicles. It uses a distance approach; sound that is audible from 100 feet would be a violation under
current regulations. The proposed ordinance carries on that 100-foot distance.
Mr. Kamptner reported that approach (3) is to prohibit noise levels that are loud, disturbing or
raucous so as to disturb or annoy the reasonable person, i.e., “nuisance noise.” The current noise
regulations in Chapter 7 prohibit sound levels that are “loud, disturbing, or raucous so as to disturb a
reasonable person.” He said many localities in Virginia and across the country have used this approach
for years. In late April the Virginia Supreme Court considered a case in the City of Virginia Beach and
found that kind of standard to be unconstitutionally vague for a couple of reasons. State courts in other
states have reached a similar conclusion. There are some constitutional considerations in drafting an
ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner showed on the screen outlines of the two things that need to be considered when
drafting a noise ordinance. One is to be mindful of the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment, and
the second is to be certain the regulations are such that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand
what conduct is prohibited. In this ordinance there are three proposed standards which work in
combination or sometimes alone for determining whether a violation exists.
Mr. Kamptner said one standard is the duration of the sound. There are certain provisions such
as 1) the sound must be continuous (the definition of “continuous” is prescribed in the ordinance), for a
certain duration of time before it is a violation. The second standard is the distance (100 feet) or the
location, typically inside a dwelling or a hotel room. Third, is a standard for the time of day (daytime
versus nighttime). All of these standards work in combination to establish a noise standard the courts say
is narrowly tailored to address the identified problem.
Mr. Kamptner said the two key provisions of the Noise Ordinance are found in Sections 7-104 and
7-105. In 7-104 is the standard proposed for the general prohibition on noise. This standard would apply
to any sound created that is either not exempt under this ordinance or does not fall within one of the
classes considered in the following section. There is a differentiation between the daytime and nighttime
standards and whether the sound source is on public property or private property. The determination of
audibility varies, if on public property the distance is measured from the sound source and on private
property the sound must be audible 100 feet or more beyond the property line - the courts have said it
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
should not be a violation of a noise ordinance or a crime if the sound is not audible beyond the property
line of the parcel on which the sound source is created.
Mr. Boyd asked if the sound of a trash truck backing up and making a beeping noise would violate
the ordinance. Mr. Kamptner said warning signals and things of that type are typically exempt; although
those particular sounds have been found to be annoying they are a necessity of life. The beeping sounds
are required by Federal law and are exempt.
Mr. Boyd said he has received complaints about trash trucks coming in to neighborhoods too early
- before 6:00 a.m. Mr. Davis said that has been addressed in the proposed ordinance under “Exempt
Sounds.” That has not been regulated before but what is being proposed is that trash collection not take
place between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in any residential zone.
Mr. Rooker said this is a complaint-driven ordinance, so these things do not normally come to
enforcement unless someone makes a complaint.
Ms. Thomas said if you are a grouchy old person and don’t like the sound of children playing in
the neighbor’s pool and it goes on for longer than five minutes (in her case she is definitely more than 100
feet from the edge of her property when she hears such noises), this ordinance gives people the ability to
file complaints over even slight violations. She is not happy with the “audible” provisions.
Mr. Rooker said he thought the prior standard was better. There was a reasonableness standard
applied, and he does not think the court would find that children playing in a pool where the sound was not
creating a certain decibel level would be unreasonable. He is sympathetic to what Ms. Thomas said, but
the court ruling eliminated what to him was the best way to approach a sound ordinance, which is what the
County had in effect before. The question now is what to do now in light of that ruling.
Ms. Mallek said there are appliances which are associated with normal household use, so would
children playing be associated with normal household use. Is there another description that could be
added to the ordinance? Mr. Kamptner said there is a new exemption which is not in the current
ordinance and it creates an exemption for home appliances that are in their normal use and good repair.
There is also an exemption for protected speech (conversation or yelling, anything of that type) and it
creates a fairly significant defense. The exemption provides the person who is allegedly violating the
ordinance to establish a defense that the person is exercising their First Amendment rights.
Ms. Mallek asked if children playing would come under that category. Mr. Kamptner said there is
some disagreement about that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it can be made clear that by adopting this standard it is the intent of the Board
that children playing in pools and similar sounds are protected free speech, so are not subject to the
ordinance. W ould that help? Mr. Kamptner said the best thing is to establish the exemption expressly in
the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if something could be added that described what the Board is talking about. Mr.
Davis said the failsafe would be that a district or circuit court judge would consider the facts and
circumstances and make a decision.
Mr. Slutzky said he thought the Supreme Court took judgment out of this. Mr. Davis said it took
the judgment out of legislative bodies and out of complainants. It did not take away the common sense of
judges.
Ms. Thomas asked why the Board as a legislature would set up a judge to have to throw out
something.
Mr. Rooker said the judge would not throw it out, but simply apply his own reasonable standard to
the interpretation of the ordinance. He asked for a definition of “continuous sound.” He said Ms. Thomas
mentioned children playing in a pool, and he did not think that would be continuous noise.
Ms. Thomas said the noise did go on for longer than five minutes, but she hates to put into an
ordinance something that seems on the face of it seems so unreasonable.
Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree. However, to him the alternative is to go to a decibel
measurement level.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board could discuss Item I on Page 8 of the Board’s materials, which is
the list of exempt sounds - Section 7-106. He said there is an item listed as “protected expression.” He
asked if that language could be tweaked to include children playing and people in general conversation.
Mr. Davis said that would be difficult to do. The key to this is the distance and the reasonableness of the
distance for normal noise. He said 100 feet beyond the property line is in addition to whatever distance
from the sound source it is before it gets to the property line. He said that children playing would have to
be really loud for this to be a factor in the daytime.
Ms. Thomas said they do not have to be really loud to bother a reasonable person, but to be
audible, they definitely can be heard. Mr. Davis said if “audible” is the problem, then a better solution
would be to increase the distance; that would make all noises audible at a greater distance, but the
greater distance the requirement is increased the more sound that can be permitted without it being a
violation.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Thomas asked if decibels could be applied to the definition of audible. Mr. Davis said
decibels could be, but that would require every citizen and police officer to have a decibel reader, and staff
does not think that’s practical.
Ms. Mallek said someone could call and ask for an intervention with a meter if there were even
one meter in the County. Mr. Davis said that would be an option if the Board wanted to require a County
police officer or staff person to be involved in every noise complaint.
Ms. Mallek did not agree with that suggestion.
Mr. Slutzky did not agree, and said an imperfect circumstance has been brought upon the County
by the court’s decision. If it cannot be done in the preamble, or in the specific exemptions section, then
maybe it is stuck with legislative history and the Board can only have faith that the judge will get it right.
He does not think the Board is interested in squashing children playing in yards.
Mr. Boyd said he does not understand why this cannot be addressed under the listing of excluded
things – it deals with animals, bells, construction, firearms, public facilities, sporting events and school
athletic events. Can something be added in for activities such as “outdoor play?”
Mr. Rooker said the discharge of firearms is exempted under the noise provisions. Someone
shooting in their backyard continuously would be allowed, but children playing in a pool could be subject to
potential prosecution. He does not know why, especially at night, discharge of firearms is allowed. Mr.
Davis said that exemption was in the existing ordinance, and it’s a topic staff was not going to touch.
Mr. Dorrier noted the exemption for County fairs under the section for fireworks, etc.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks Section H captures that. He asked if an additional exemption could be
added for children playing. W ould that satisfy the Board that the concern has been addressed, or is that
illustrative of a broader defect in this approach?
Ms. Thomas said it was illustrative in her situation. Mr. Kamptner said staff will look at that
question.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a preamble opportunity to characterize the spirit and intent without
undermining the particularity of the ordinance. Mr. Kamptner said in the preamble and also in one of the
exemptions, it is noted that the production of sound is being regulated mindful of the limitations of the First
Amendment to the extent it can be regulated. Some additional language could probably be added but
“sound is sound,” and the First Amendment prohibits regulating content. W hether sound coming out of a
child should be distinguished from sound coming out of an adult, staff can look into.
Mr. Slutzky said he can see a headline in the newspaper tomorrow saying “Board outlaws
children’s laughter.” Technically the Board would be doing that by passing this ordinance as presented.
Ms. Thomas said there is the old question: W hen a tree falls in the forest, if no one hears it, has
there been any noise? She said, by legislation, it has been decided that there is no noise. She said the
word “sound” means “the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing.”
Mr. Slutzky asked how the Board members wanted to handle the fundamental challenge of this
ordinance. Are the Board members satisfied that the First Amendment protection is adequate?
Mr. Rooker said the distance could be increased.
Mr. Slutzky said that would affect other things.
Mr. Rooker agreed that it would, but the question is, how often will this be implemented? W hen it
is implemented he thinks it would be the kind of noise that could be heard 150 feet away as opposed to
100 feet away. The Board needs to arrive at a reasonable standard, such as that used in the prior
ordinance. He thinks there are only two ways to do that – distance or through use of a meter. The Board
has decided that use of a meter is not practical in the enforcement of this ordinance.
Ms. Thomas asked how impractical that is. How many noise complaints are received by staff?
How hard is it for the police to have a sound meter? Can sound meters be rented to complainants? Mr.
Davis said the Zoning Administrator can explain the training required in order to operate a sound meter.
Currently, the Police Department has no sound meters. They rely on the Zoning Department to help them
when they become involved in a noise enforcement situation. If the Police were present they would say
noise complaints are a very low priority; they respond to them as soon as they can but often it is long after
the noise is gone.
Mr. Slutzky said that with only 1.3 officers per 1,000 people, he does not want them chasing after
loud noises. If there is already an acknowledgement in the preamble that there is a separation on the First
Amendment between content and other freedoms of expression, a logical judge should be able to discern
what is reasonable noise or not. If the Board has had a discussion here to support that conclusion by a
judge, arguably it may be adequately addressed and the issue is not to regulate childhood laughter. That
is certainly not the intent of the ordinance, if the Board passes it.
Mr. Davis said the same concern was raised last year with the barking dog provisions. People
were concerned that the ordinance might be used “to get even” with their neighbors, but that has not been
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
the case. He said this ordinance would require someone who wanted to file a noise complaint, to go to a
magistrate, swear out a summons, and appear in court and testify. The anticipation is that no one will
ever use this ordinance unless it is a last resort situation.
Mr. Slutzky said in Item G there is an exemption for generators. During the hurricane a few years
ago, somebody in his neighborhood had a generator so the entire neighborhood had to listen to it for
about two weeks, and it was very loud and obnoxious. He would not want to prohibit that person from
protecting himself from a power failure and this ordinance is very generous in what it allows. He asked if
the Board members are satisfied that they have addressed legitimate First Amendment concerns and if
there is a consensus it is not the Board’s intent to undermine the free speech inherent in children playing
and other reasonable expressions of joy and exaltation.
Mr. Rooker said he would favor increasing the audibility distance to try and deal with that. If Mr.
Slutzky is talking about things such as loud music or construction activities that go on after normal hours,
he thinks the objectionable noise would be audible from 150 feet.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it would be possible to change the language to suggest that the noise must be
sound that is clearly aberrational compared to background noise. Is that too vague? Mr. Kamptner said
that staff talked about that. In determining what normal background noise is, staff was not certain how to
define that. W hat is normal can change significantly.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it could state that it is the conditions at the site independent of the specific
sound.
Mr. Rooker said that gets back to the question of using a meter. Audibility would still be the
standard.
Mr. Kamptner said there is one carry-over from the current regulation which is a meter-based
sound level - sound that causes a 15-decibel increase over the ambient sound level is prohibited. It is
measured with a sound meter and there was a reason why 15 decibels was selected. At that increase
above the ambient level that change in sound was termed as being “noticeable” or “objectionable.” He
said this is the one meter-based standard in this ordinance. Because the Police Department has no
sound meters at this time, that provision exists as a fall back type of regulation which would require
involving an inspector from either Zoning or General Services to assist the Police in the enforcement of
this regulation. If the Board is interested in changing the distance for determining audibility staff looked at
cases where the courts upheld distances of 50 feet and up, with the greatest distance found in case law
being 250 feet; some localities have different distances for different types of sound. That appears to be
the range that most localities have elected to choose. Since the Virginia Beach case, the City of Virginia
Beach has adopted a new noise ordinance and for the most part it has gone to a meter-based regulation;
they retained one standard for a particular type of noise that is based on a distance of 100 feet. Curiously,
they also retained one standard based upon raucous, annoying or disturbing noise that would disturb a
reasonable person. He contacted their City Attorney’s Office, but was not able to get a lot of information
because there is still some back and forth between the city and the plaintiff in the original case.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board is “stuck” with not being able to define “audible.” She thinks 100
feet would be reasonable if it were an annoying sound. She asked if any qualifiers are allowed to be put
on the word audible. Mr. Kamptner replied that audibility is the standard the localities that take this
approach use; different terms are used such as “plainly” or “clearly” audible – but the definition itself still
breaks down to a sound that’s capable of being heard by a person.
Mr. Dorrier asked what an ambient sound is. Mr. Kamptner explained that it is generally what
would be regarded as the background sound. In this room, the ambient sound level would incorporate the
sound of the lights and the air-conditioning; it is almost like white noise. If is measurable – probably
ranging from 40 to 45 decibels; a normal conversational human voice is around 50 to 55 decibels.
Mr. Boyd said he found it interesting to hear that some localities have put different restrictions on
different types of sounds. He asked if the Board could use 150 feet when talking about conversation or
playing – human noises.
Mr. Kamptner said staff looked at the general prohibition, and there are daytime and nighttime
standards. It is a “catch-all” provision. In Section 7-105 there are four subsections where there is sound
being produced from very specific sources – they are all in the current regulations. He said the County’s
Noise Ordinance has been on the books for probably 30+ years; it was updated somewhat in 1998. There
are four types of sound sources listed. First are motor vehicles and motor cycles operated in ways that
could be considered obnoxious. There is a 100-foot standard for that sound. Next is sound from
electronic equipment or instruments. This would be enforced where there is a party with a band playing or
stereo equipment. In talking with the police officers, it was his impression that this is their most typical
type of violation. They said that when called out, they may go back three or four times before citing
someone. They try to get compliance in the field. There is also a 100-foot standard for that one.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an exemption for a paid party. Mr. Kamptner said some localities
have established a permitting process for parties. Sometimes the courts look at those as creating
loopholes if the permitting process does not have objective standards.
Mr. Rooker said someone having a party once or twice a year at their house is one thing, but
having a party every weekend with loud music is another thing. He said this proposed ordinance prevents
someone from having a party at all the way he reads it. This ordinance is like killing an ant with a
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
steamroller. There needs to be a way to deal with objectionable things without sweeping away everything
that a normal, sensible person would not consider objectionable.
Mr. Davis said there are about 70 jurisdictions struggling with this right now. Albemarle is on the
leading edge of this, other than Virginia Beach. He said the Local Government Attorney’s Association has
formed a committee that’s trying to put together a model ordinance. He said Mr. Kamptner has done a
tremendous amount of research on this, so he is ahead of them. The question is whether the Board
wants to adopt this ordinance, with tweaks, as an interim ordinance that can be re-examined after other
jurisdictions “have weighed in on this.” The problem is the existing ordinance clearly does not now meet
the standards required by the Virginia Supreme Court. His best advice to the Police Department is not to
charge people unless they use a decibel reader for the existing ordinance. There is a gap in time, so it
may be better to adopt an ordinance, even flawed, and revisit it as soon as possible, than not to adopt an
ordinance at all.
Mr. Boyd asked how often the County gets noise complaints. Is it once a week, or infrequently?
Mr. Davis replied that they are infrequent.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should wait and see whether the model is able “to wrestle”
with some of these problems and come up with a model ordinance that deals with this in a more
reasonable way. He said there are decibel limits. Mr. Davis said there are zoning decibel limits for land
uses, and there is the 15-decibel limit which is the catchall in the current ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said if someone has a loud party going on at one o’clock in the morning and the police
go out a few times and the party has not shut down, the person could be cited. Mr. Davis said the police
would have to go and get a sound meter.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this proposed ordinance is overkill and a better way needs to be found
to enforce existing regulations.
Mr. Dorrier said that under the present “disturbing the peace” ordinance, there does not have to
be a decibel level to enforce it. Mr. Davis said that is a State Code provision that may have some
constitutional issues given the Supreme Court’s ruling on the noise ordinance.
Mr. Slutzky said if the Board comes back with a different ordinance, he would suggest that the
definition of “motor vehicle” be looked at. Mr. Kamptner said the definition is based on the State Code,
and the Police Department specifically asked that other types of vehicles be included because they do
experience problems with them.
Mr. Slutzky said the part that refers to an internal combustion engine was deleted – it is vaguely
referred to by saying “they are not limited to electric vehicles” which are nearly silent. He said the
fundamental piece was left out while focusing on that additive piece.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Rooker that the Board should postpone passing this ordinance now.
Ms. Thomas said that will leave the County without an ordinance except for the 15-decibel test
which police do not have a sound meter to do, but she is willing to put up with that rather than “hit a gnat
with a cannon.”
Mr. Boyd said if there were several calls a week that would be different, but given the infrequency
of calls, he does not think the County is too exposed. Mr. Davis said that according to the police, the
biggest occurrences take place in student housing situations. He understands that neighbor-to-neighbor
situations are very rare.
Mr. Slutzky said if the majority of complaints concern amplified stereophonic equipment issues,
why not draft a more narrowly conceived ordinance that allows for the broader 15-decibel variance across
the subject matter, rather than shutting down children playing in a pool. That would address most of the
citizen complaints. Mr. Davis said it’s not just amplified music, but that is a big part of the problem.
Mr. Slutzky asked how the Board members felt about having an ordinance that addresses that
aspect.
Mr. Rooker said if this is being worked on by the Committee on Local Government, he would
prefer to wait for its recommendation. In the interim, there is the existing ordinance. It might be found to
be unconstitutional if it played out the way the case in Virginia Beach did, but it is on the books.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Board wanted to direct the police department to enforce what it thinks
might be unenforceable.
Mr. Rooker said it gives them the ability to say that what is being done is in violation of the current
ordinance. It gives the ability to cite them, and they would have the right to challenge its constitutionality
and they might prevail. His point is that in the interim period there is the 15-decibel limit in place. There is
the current ordinance, and to him that provides sufficient teeth in order to stop the activity being
complained about. There is also the common law of nuisance.
Mr. Boyd said as a practical matter, if there were a complaint, would not a policeman go out and
say a complaint had been received.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Mr. Slutzky said there seems to be a consensus that the Board is not prepared today to move
forward with the proposed ordinance despite the good efforts of staff. After staff discusses it with its peers
in Virginia and has an ordinance it feels might satisfy the needs of the County, it could be brought back at
that time. He asked if that is a fair statement.
Ms. Mallek said she does not understand why the Board cannot just add something into the
exclusions. That seems logical to her. It would allow the occasional party and if it got to be a pattern,
there must be some other way to handle it.
Mr. Rooker said that is why he thinks it is better to wait for a recommendation from the committee.
He thinks it will grapple with those types of issues and come out with a recommendation and a model. He
does not see a compelling need for the Board to act on this prior to that playing out.
Mr. Slutzky said if staff finds that there are significant increases in complaints, they could let the
Board know that and bring the ordinance back more quickly. Mr. Davis said he thinks the ordinance will
have to be grappled with in the near future, but waiting for some consensus from other jurisdictions may
be a good approach. He reminded Mr. Slutzky that this ordinance was advertised for a public hearing
today, but given the Board’s feelings about this ordinance he does not know if they want to go ahead with
that hearing.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the public hearing should be held in the event citizens showed up to
speak. He then opened the public hearing and invited anyone present who wished to speak to come
forward to the microphone.
Mr. Dennis Hanley said he lives in the Fontana community. There was a blast that let rock fly all
over the neighborhood two weeks ago. After meeting with the County Fire Marshal, the permit which
allowed the blast was rescinded with no intention of allowing further blasting in the exact site where they
are currently working. He said it is not a new issue; it was an issue before they started blasting – the
developer has an impact crane drill that runs for hours. Yesterday it went on for so long that they
contacted the police and asked for some assistance after they had looked at the ordinance proposed for
today. They were told by the police that until the matter is resolved, they are not enforcing the 15-decibel
existing ordinance; they will not come out and investigate.
Mr. Davis said there is some confusion. The noise Mr. Hanley is referring to is exempt under the
ordinance, so the police cannot enforce the 15-decibel provision because it is part of construction
demolition. He said the police can enforce the 15-decibel level for other noises which are not exempt.
Mr. Hanley said that is what he is here about. He thinks there are certain types of noises and the
one he is speaking about is the impact drill working for so long – if it is going to continue to be exempt he
will just have to live with it, but if that drill were within 100 feet of this building, there would be no way to
have a meeting here today.
Mr. Slutzky said his message is loud and clear and valuable and he appreciates it.
W ith no one else from the public coming forward to speak, Mr. Slutzky closed the public hearing
and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Davis what the Board can do to address Mr. Hanley’s legitimate concern.
Mr. Davis said in most jurisdictions construction noise is a noise which is not regulated by a noise
ordinance.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is only during certain times of the day. Mr. Davis said during daytime
hours when you would expect construction activity to take place the theory is that there is no way to avoid
it and it only happens while construction is taking place and then it ends. That does not make it less
annoying to the people around it. As Mr. Rooker pointed out earlier, if someone feels it is unreasonably
caused, there is a “civil nuisance” provision if they think it is damaging the use of their property for an
unreasonable period of time, they would have a civil cause of action, and would need to consult their
private attorney to see if that could be maintained under this fact situation. That is not something a locality
would regulate.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there were further comments from Board members. He then asked for a
motion.
Mr. Rooker moved to defer action on this proposed Noise Ordinance until such time as staff can
bring back alternative proposals, with the proviso that the Police will continue to enforce the existing
ordinance up until that time. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion, which passed but the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-005, Enforcement and Administration.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, and 34.3, Appeal to the board of zoning appeals; amend and rename Secs.
31.1, Enforcement, zoning administrator, and 36.1, Violations; amend, renumber and rename Secs.
31.2.2, Building permits, 31.2.3.1, Certificate of occupancy, 31.2.3.2, Zoning compliance clearance,
31.2.4, Special use permits, 31.2.4.1, Reserved to board of supervisors, 31.2.4.2, Application, 31.2.4.2.1,
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Limitation of filing new application after original denial, 31.2.4.2.2, W ithdrawal of application, 31.2.4.3,
Conditions, 31.2.4.4, Revocation, 31.2.5, Review of public uses for compliance with the comprehensive
plan, 37.1, Criminal penalty, 37.2, Civil penalty, and 37.3, Injunctive relief and other remedies; repeal
Secs. 31.1.1, Enforcement of board of zoning appeals decisions, 31.1.2, Enforcement of minimum
requirements, 31.1.3, Interpretation by zoning administrator, 31.2, Permits (heading only), and 31.2.3,
Certificates of occupancy; zoning compliance clearance (heading only); and repeal but move substance
into new sections Secs. 31.2.1, Permits required; conformance, 31.2.3.3, Authority not to issue certificate
of occupancy or zoning compliance clearance, 36.2, Notice of violation, 36.3, Remedies not exclusive,
36.4, Complaints regarding violations; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 to define several terms commonly used in the Zoning Ordinance; would
amend and reorganize Sec. 31.1 and its enumerated subsections by restating the authority of the zoning
administrator; would amend and reorganize Sec. 31.2 and its enumerated subsections by clarifying the
procedures and standards for the review and approval of building permit applications (new Sec. 31.2),
zoning permits (formerly referred to as non-Building Code “building permits”) (new Sec. 31.3), certificates
of occupancy (new Sec. 31.4), and zoning clearances (formerly referred to as “zoning compliance
clearances”) (new Sec. 31.5), by renumbering those subsections pertaining to special use permits and
amending cross-references (new Sec. 31.6), and by amending the regulations pertaining to review under
Virginia Code § 15.2-2232 (new Sec. 31.7); would amend Sec. 34.3 by restating the requirements for
appealing a decision to the board of zoning appeals and by adding that an appeal of a decision pertaining
to temporary or seasonal commercial uses must be filed within 10 days of the decision if the notice of
violation states that the 10-day appeal period applies, rather than the generally applicable 30-day appeal
period and by adding that an appeal shall not be processed until the required fee is paid; would amend
Sec. 36.1 which delineates acts that are violations of Chapter 18; would amend and reorganize Secs.
36.2, 36.3 and 36.4 pertaining to notices of violation, remedies and complaints regarding violations into a
new Sec. 36.2 which establishes the powers and procedures for enforcing Chapter 18; would amend,
reorganize and renumber Sec. 37.1 and amend that section to authorize criminal penalties to be sought
when civil penalties have reached $5,000 and to authorize separate criminal penalties for violations of
regulations pertaining to the number of unrelated persons in a single-family dwelling unit (new Sec. 36.4);
would amend, reorganize and renumber Sec. 37.2 and amend that section to authorize civil penalties
proceedings to be initiated by a ticket in limited circumstances, and to authorize criminal penalties to be
sought when civil penalties have reached $5,000 (new Sec. 36.3); and would amend and renumber Sec.
37.3 pertaining to injunctive relief (new Sec. 36.5). (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 15 and June 22, 2009.)
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, said the next three zoning text amendments are
basically housekeeping measures. For ZTA-2009-005, Enforcement and Administration, the Planning
Commission, at its meeting on June 9, recommended approval making very limited comments. This
amendment will reorganize and update sections of the Zoning Ordinance to align them with State Code,
as well as provide some new provisions for zoning administration and enforcement. The new ordinance
content generally codifies a lot of current practices – such as establishing a definition for a zoning permit
(it is a permit not required under the Building Code as a building permit) which is regulated for zoning
purposes in terms of use and setbacks. Examples of that are farm buildings and sheds containing less
than 150 square feet. This codifies current practices by establishing a zoning permit when the Building
Code does not require a building permit.
Ms. McCulley said it specifies cases where the final zoning inspection can act in place of a
Certificate of Occupancy. There are certain types of construction, most often for interior alterations, where
the Building Code does not require that a CO be issued. Staff wants to codify that in those cases the final
zoning approval stands as the issuance of the CO for the purpose of approval of that construction. The
third point is to provide for administrative approval rather than Board approval of site plan bond extensions
beyond the first year. Staff is getting more and more requests for these extensions. There are criteria in
the ordinance for how those requests are reviewed. Additional ordinance content would apply the same
safety standards for a certificate of occupancy as that used for a zoning clearance – such as when things
come up during construction that weren’t shown on the site plan, but in the field on the site are warranted.
Often it is a guardrail or a handrail or stairs. Typically it has to do with grade differences and safety. This
amendment would allow staff to require that with zoning clearances and COs.
Ms. McCulley said the next change relates to a State Code provision for temporary events and
temporary situations such as a temporary sign. She said the violation appeal period is 30 days for all
violations and determinations, but it can be decreased to 10 days for temporary events, and staff would
like to utilize that tool. There are some investigative tools listed in the Code that staff would like to have
the opportunity to use if necessary. The final recommendation is to provide some ordinance language for
a violation ticket system – which is not done at this time, but staff would like the opportunity after working
with the County Attorney’s Office to determine that is an effective way to go. It also has some expanded
notice of violation delivery methods. She said this would improve clarity and procedures for both the
public and for staff.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that in Attachment B there is the term “Subpoenas duces tecum ” and
she thinks it should be translated into everyday English in the body of the text. Ms. McCulley said it is on
page 13 of the draft ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said it gives staff the right to enter and investigate. Mr. Davis mentioned that it’s a
legal term that would only be exercised by a staff person or attorney in court.
Mr. Kamptner said the regulation explains what the Zoning Administrator can do, and the
Subpoenas duces tecum is a document issued by the court that authorizes the Administrator to obtain
records from the violator where there’s a records-based violation. In his experience with zoning
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
enforcement, the need to obtain records from an alleged violator is extremely rare. Although the term is
not defined in the Code, it is simply a reference to the document that is issued by the court. W hat the
Zoning Administrator is doing is getting a court order to obtain records from the alleged violator.
Mr. Rooker said the Zoning Administrator would have to make a showing to the court of a
reasonable cause for issuance of the subpoena.
Mr. Slutzky suggested putting parenthetically after the term the name of the document. That
would give clarity to a layperson that those three words refer to the document. Mr. Kamptner said it could
be something as simple as “court order to produce records.”
Ms. Thomas agreed with that suggestion.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the
public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis said that to address Ms. Thomas’ question he would suggest that on the top of Page 13
where it says Subpoenas duces tecum, put a parenthetical in that heading saying “court order to produce
records.”
Mr. Rooker immediately moved to adopt Ordinance No. 09-19(3), An Ordinance to Amend
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article IV, Procedure, and Article V, Violation and
Penalty, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as amended by Mr. Davis.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, AND ARTICLE V, VIOLATION AND PENALTY, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article IV, Procedure, and Article V, Violation and
Penalty, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 34.3 Appeal to the board of zoning appeals
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 31.1 Designation of zoning administrator; authority
Sec. 36.1 Violations
By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming Where Noted (old section number first,
followed by name, followed by new section number):
Sec. 31.2.2 Building permits Sec. 31.2 (part) and
Sec. 31.3 (part) Zoning permits
Sec. 31.2.3.1 Certificate of occupancy Sec. 31.4
Sec. 31.2.3.2 Zoning clearance Sec. 31.5
Sec. 31.2.4 Special use permits Sec. 31.6
Sec. 31.2.4.1 Reserved to board of supervisors Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.2 Application Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.2.1 Limitation of filing new application
after original denial Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.2.2 W ithdrawal of application Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.3 Conditions Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.4.4 Revocation Sec. 31.6(part)
Sec. 31.2.5 Review of public features to determine Sec. 31.7
substantial accord with the comprehensive plan
Sec. 37.1 Criminal penalties Sec. 36.4
Sec. 37.2 Civil penalties Sec. 36.3
Sec. 37.3 Injunctive relief and other remedies Sec. 36.5
By Repealing:
Sec. 31.1.1 Enforcement of board of zoning appeals decisions
Sec. 31.1.2 Enforcement of minimum requirements
Sec. 31.1.3 Interpretation by zoning administrator
Sec. 31.2 Permits (heading only)
Sec. 31.2.3 Certificates of occupancy; zoning compliance clearance (heading only)
By Repealing But Moving Substance into a New Section (old section number and name
first, followed by new section number:
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Sec. 31.2.1 Permits required; conformance Sec. 31.2(part),
Sec. 31.3(part) and
Sec. 36.1(part)
Sec. 31.2.3.3 Authority not to issue certificate of occupancy
or zoning compliance clearance Sec. 31.3(part) and Sec. 31.4(part)
Sec. 36.2 Notice of violation Sec. 36.2
Sec. 36.3 Remedies not exclusive Sec. 36.2
Sec. 36.4 Complaints regarding violations Sec. 36.2
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Building code: The term “building code” means the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
. . .
Building permit: The term “building permit” means a permit issued by the building official under
the building code that is subject to the fees stated in Albemarle County Code § 5-201.
. . .
Certificate of occupancy: The term “certificate of occupancy” means a certificate issued by the
building official and the zoning administrator after final inspections under the building code and
this chapter certifying that a building or structure is in compliance with the building code and this
chapter.
. . .
Chapter, this: The term “this chapter” means chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, also
known as the Albemarle County zoning ordinance, and all applicable proffers, special use permits
and their conditions, certificates of appropriateness and their conditions, variances and their
conditions, application plans, codes of development, site plans, zoning compliance clearances,
waivers, modifications and variations and their conditions, and all other approvals and their
conditions authorized by this chapter.
. . .
Site. The term “site” means one or more lots, or any part thereof, including one or more lots
shown on a subdivision plat, site plan, or application plan. References in this chapter to
“premises,” “land,” “lands,” “lots” or “parcels” are to a site.
. . .
Virginia Code. The term “Virginia Code” means the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
including the latest edition or supplement unless otherwise indicated. References in this chapter
to the “Code of Virginia” and the “Code” are to the Virginia Code.
. . .
Zoning administrator: The term “zoning administrator” means the officer designated to administer
and enforce this chapter, or his or her designee.
. . .
Zoning clearance: The term “zoning clearance” means a written determination by the zoning
administrator that a proposed use or structure complies with this chapter. References in this
chapter to “zoning compliance clearance” are to a zoning clearance.
. . .
Article IV. Procedure
Section 31. Administration and Enforcement
Sec. 31.1 Designation of zoning administrator; authority
The office of zoning administrator is hereby established, subject to the following:
a. Authority. The zoning administrator shall have all necessary authority on behalf of the
board of supervisors to administer and enforce this chapter. This authority includes, but
is not limited to:
1. Interpreting this chapter and the official zoning map;
2. Administering this chapter by making determinations and decisions on any
matters arising under this chapter, including but not limited to, how a building,
structure or use should be classified, whether a use is permitted within a
particular zoning district, whether a proposed building or structure complies with
setback, height, bulk and other requirements, whether a building, structure, use
or lot is nonconforming, and whether a lot meets minimum lot size requirements.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
3. Ordering in writing the remedying of any use or structure determined to be in
violation of this chapter;
4. Insuring compliance with this chapter, bringing legal action, including an action for
injunction, abatement, civil penalties or other appropriate action or proceeding
subject to appeal as provided by Virginia Code § 15.2-2311 and this chapter;
5. In specific cases, making findings of fact and, with concurrence of the county
attorney, conclusions of law regarding determinations of rights under Virginia
Code §§ 15.2-2307 and 15.2-2311(C);
6. Enforcing the provisions of this chapter regulating the number of persons
permitted to occupy a single-family residential dwelling unit, provided such
enforcement is in compliance with applicable local, state and federal fair housing
laws; and
7. Making decisions and determinations as to whether a pending site plan,
subdivision plat, building permit application or any other application subject to
review and approval by the county or the program authority complies with this
chapter.
b. Absence of specific authority not a limitation. The specific authority expressly granted to
the zoning administrator in other sections of this chapter shall not be construed to be a
limitation on the authority of the zoning administrator to administer and enforce those
sections where specific authority is not expressed.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4), (14).
Sec. 31.2 Building permit applications
The zoning administrator shall review building permit applications submitted to the building official
as follows:
a. Review. The zoning administrator shall review each building permit application to ensure
that the proposed building or structure complies with this chapter. Each applicant shall
provide two (2) copies of the building plans, two (2) copies of the approved site plan if
applicable, and a copy of the most recent plat of record of the site to be built upon unless
no such plat exists, in which case the applicant shall provide a copy of the most recent
deed description of the land. Each applicant shall also provide any other information the
zoning administrator deems necessary to review the application.
b. Approval. If the proposed building or structure and stated use comply with this chapter,
the zoning administrator shall approve the building permit application as to its compliance
with this chapter. Upon approval of the building permit, one (1) copy of the building plan
shall be returned to the applicant with the permit.
c. Circumstances when building permit shall not be approved. The zoning administrator
shall not approve a building permit in the following circumstances:
1. No building permit shall be issued for any building or structure for which a site
plan is required unless and until the site plan has been approved.
2. No building permit shall be issued for any structure to be served by an individual
well subject to a Tier 1 groundwater assessment under Albemarle County Code §
17-400 until the applicant complies with Albemarle County Code § 17-401.
(Amended 2-5-05)
3. No building permit shall be approved in violation of any provision of this chapter.
(Amended 10-3-01) (§ 31.2.1, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
d. Other information for building official. The zoning administrator shall inform the building
official of any other applicable laws or any other provision of the Code to which the
building or structure would not comply and, therefore, a building permit application should
not be approved by the building official.
(§ 31.2.2, 12-10-80; Ord. 04-18(4), adopted 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05)
Sec. 31.3 Zoning permits
The zoning administrator shall review requests for zoning permits for those buildings and
structures not required to file a building permit application, as follows:
a. When required. Prior to starting, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging or
altering any buildings or structures for which a building permit application is not required
under the building code, the applicant shall request a zoning permit.
b. Review. The zoning administrator shall review each zoning permit application to ensure
that the proposed building or structure complies with this chapter. Each applicant shall
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
provide a copy of the most recent plat of record of the land to be built upon unless no
such plat exists, in which case the applicant shall provide a copy of the most recent deed
description of the land. Each applicant shall also provide any other information the zoning
administrator deems necessary to review the application.
c. Approval. If the proposed building or structure and stated use comply with this chapter,
the zoning administrator shall approve the zoning permit application.
Sec. 31.4 Certificates of occupancy
The zoning administrator shall review certificates of occupancy submitted to the building official as
follows:
a. Review. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the zoning administrator shall
review the certificate to ensure that the building, structure and improvements comply with
this chapter.
b. Approval. If the proposed building, structure and improvements, and the proposed use
thereof, comply with this chapter, the zoning administrator shall issue the certificate of
occupancy. The final zoning inspection approval or approvals may serve as evidence of
the zoning administrator’s approval of the certificate of occupancy for any addition or
alteration to a building or structure for which a certificate of occupancy has previously
been issued or is not required under the building code.
c. Certificate of occupancy where improvements not completed. Upon the request of a
developer, the zoning administrator may approve a certificate of occupancy where the
buildings or structures shown on a site plan are completed in compliance with the building
code and this chapter before all improvements required by the site plan are completed, as
follows:
1. Required findings. The zoning administrator may approve a certificate of
occupancy upon finding that: (i) the improvements still to be completed and
operating are not directly related to health and safety, such as fire hydrants and
safe and convenient access to public roads; and (ii) the site may be occupied
without endangering life or public health or safety prior to full completion of the
improvements required by the site plan.
2. Surety. Before issuing a certificate of occupancy, the zoning administrator may
require the developer to provide a certified check, bond with surety, a letter of
credit, or other form of surety, all of which shall be in a form satisfactory to the
county attorney, in an amount sufficient for and conditioned upon the completion
of the improvements within one (1) year. Upon the request of the developer prior
to the expiration of the surety, the zoning administrator may extend the period of
the surety if the developer demonstrates that an extension is required because of
adverse weather conditions or other unusual circumstances beyond the
developer’s control, rather than the developer’s failure to diligently pursue
completion or other reasons.
(§ 31.2.3.1, 12-10-80, 6-2-82, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
d. Circumstances when certificate of occupancy shall not be issued. The zoning
administrator shall not issue a certificate of occupancy in the following circumstances:
1. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued in violation of this chapter. (Amended
10-3-01) (§ 31.2.1, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
2. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued if, after review of any building,
structure or site, the zoning administrator determines that additional
improvements are necessary to protect the public health or safety, regardless of
whether the improvements are shown on the site plan. (Added 9-9-92; Amended
10-3-01) (§ 31.2.3.3, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
e. Other information for building official. The zoning administrator shall inform the building
official of any other applicable laws or any other provision of the Code to which the
building or structure does not comply and, therefore, a certificate of occupancy should not
be issued by the building official.
Sec. 31.5 Zoning clearance
The zoning administrator shall review requests for zoning clearances as follows:
a. When required. A zoning clearance shall be required in the following circumstances:
1. New use. Prior to establishing a new non-residential, other than an agricultural,
use.
2. Change or intensification of existing use. Prior to changing or intensifying an
existing non-residential, other than an agricultural, use.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
3. Change of occupant. Prior to a new occupant taking possession of an existing
non-residential, other than an agricultural, use.
4. Specific buildings, structures or uses. Prior to establishing any building, structure
or use for which a zoning clearance is required under section 5.
b. Approval. If the proposed building, structure, improvements, and site, and the proposed
use thereof, comply with this chapter, the zoning administrator shall issue the zoning
clearance.
c. Circumstance when zoning clearance shall not be issued. The zoning administrator shall
not issue a zoning clearance if, after review of any site, the zoning administrator
determines that additional improvements are necessary to protect the public health or
safety, regardless of whether the improvements are shown on the site plan. (Added 9-9-
92; Amended 10-3-01) (§ 31.2.3.3, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01
d. Commercial and industrial uses defined. For the purposes of this section 31.4, production
agriculture is not a commercial or industrial use, and a home occupation, class A or class
B, is a commercial use. (Added 9-9-92; Amended 10-3-01)
e. Effect of renumbering and renaming. Any other section of this chapter that refers to
section 31.2.3.2 or to a zoning compliance clearance shall be deemed to be a reference
to section 31.4 or a zoning clearance.
(§ 31.2.3.2, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 31.6 Special use permits
Sec. 31.6.1 Reserved to board of supervisors
The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use
will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in
the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5, and with the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Sec. 31.6.2 Application
Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof by the owner or contract
purchaser of the subject property with the zoning administrator, together with a fee as set forth in
section 35. No such permit shall be issued unless the board of supervisors shall have referred
the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to
report within ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has
been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. Provided,
however, any day between the date an applicant requests or consents to a deferral or continuance
of the consideration of the application by the commission until the date of the deferred or
continued hearing by the commission shall not be counted in computing the ninety (90) day review
period. The board of supervisors may extend the review period upon a request by the
commission.
The board of supervisors shall act upon such application and render a decision within a
reasonable time period.
No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by Virginia Code §
15.2-2204 and section 33.8 of this chapter. (Amended 5-5-82; 6-19-96)
a. Limitation of filing new application after original denial. Upon denial by the board of
supervisors of any application filed pursuant to section 31.6.2 above, substantially the
same petition shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12) months of the date of denial.
(Added 6-19-96)
b. Withdrawal of petition. An application shall be withdrawn, or be deemed to be withdrawn,
as provided herein: (Added 10-3-01)
1. An application filed pursuant to section 31.6.2 above may be withdrawn upon
written request by the applicant. The written request must be received by the
body considering the application prior to it beginning consideration of the matter
on the meeting agenda. Upon receipt of the request for withdrawal, processing of
the application shall cease without further action by the commission or the board.
Substantially the same application shall not be reconsidered within twelve (12)
months of the date of the withdrawal unless the body considering the application
at the time of withdrawal specifies that the time limitation shall not apply. (Added
6-19-96; Amended 10-3-01)
2. If the applicant requests that further processing or formal action on the application
be indefinitely deferred, the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
withdrawn by the applicant if the commission or the board does not take action on
the application within twelve (12) months after the date the deferral was
requested. Upon written request received by the director of planning before the
application is deemed to be withdrawn, the director may grant one extension of
the deferral period for a period determined to be reasonable, taking into
consideration the size or nature of the proposed use, the complexity of the
review, and the laws in effect at the time the request for extension is made.
(Added 10-3-01)
(§ 31.2.4.2.2, 6-19-96; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 31.6.3 Conditions
The board of supervisors may impose upon any such permit such conditions relating to the use
for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require
a bond with surety or other approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be
complied with. The conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not
limited to, the prevention of smoke, dust, noise, traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous,
deleterious or otherwise undesirable substance or condition; the provision of adequate police and
fire protection, transportation, water, sewerage, drainage, recreation, landscaping and/or
screening or buffering; the establishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks,
front, side and rear yards, off-street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside
storage of materials, duration and intensity of use, building height and/or other particular aspects
of occupancy or use. Except as the board of supervisors may otherwise specifically provide in a
particular case, any condition imposed under the authority of this section shall be deemed to be
essential to and non-severable from the issuance of the permit itself. (Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 31.2.4.3, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 31.6.4 Revocation
Any special use permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be revoked by the board of
supervisors, after notice and hearing pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2204, for willful
noncompliance with this chapter or any conditions imposed under the authority of section 31.6.3.
If the use, structure or activity for which a special use permit is issued is not commenced within
twenty-four (24) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, if the use
authorized by the permit requires the construction of one or more structures, the term
“commenced” means starting the lawful physical construction of any structure necessary to the
use authorized by the permit within twenty-four (24) months after the permit is issued. The board
of supervisors may, as a condition of approval, impose an alternative period in which to
commence the use, structure or activity as may be reasonable in a particular case. A deter-
mination that a permittee has commenced a use, structure or activity under this section is not a
determination that the permittee has acquired a vested right under Virginia Code § 15.2-2307.
(Amended 10-3-01) (§ 31.2.4.4, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01)
Sec. 31.7 Review of public features to determine substantial accord with the
comprehensive plan
If a public facility subject to Virginia Code § 15.2-2232 is not already shown on the comprehensive
plan, the commission shall determine whether the location, character and extent of the public
facility subject is in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan as provided by Virginia Code §
15.2-2232.
Sec. 34.3 Appeal to the board of zoning appeals
An appeal to the board of zoning appeals may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer,
department, board or bureau of the county affected by any decision of the zoning administrator, or
from any order, requirement, decision or determination (collectively, the “decision”) made by any
other administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this chapter, as provided
herein.
a. Time for filing appeal. A notice of appeal (an “appeal”) shall be filed within thirty (30) days
after the decision appealed, provided that an appeal of a decision pertaining to temporary
or seasonal commercial uses shall be filed within ten (10) days after the decision if the
notice of violation states that the ten (10) day appeal period applies.
b. Filing and contents of appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the zoning administrator and
with the board of zoning appeals. The appeal shall specify the grounds for the appeal.
c. Transmittal of record. Upon the filing of an appeal, the zoning administrator shall forthwith
transmit to the board of zoning appeals all the papers constituting the record upon which
the action appealed from was taken.
d. Stay of proceedings. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action
appealed from unless the zoning administrator certifies to the board of zoning appeals
that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would in his opinion cause imminent
peril to life or property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
restraining order granted by the board of zoning appeals or by a court of record, on
application and on notice to the zoning administrator and for good cause shown.
e. Payment of fee. No appeal shall be processed, no record shall be required to be transmitted
as provided under section 34.3(c), no proceedings shall be stayed as provided under section
34.3(d), and the time for which the appeal must be heard and acted on by the board of zoning
appeals shall not begin, until the fee required by section 35 is paid. The failure of the
appellant to pay the required within the time for filing an appeal shall not be a basis to refuse
to accept the appeal or to dismiss the appeal.
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2286(A)(4), 15.2-2311(A), (B).
Article V. Violation and penalty
Sec. 36.1 Violations
The following are violations of this chapter and are declared to be unlawful:
a. Uses. Any use of a structure, improvement or land, established, that is conducted,
operated or maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter or any approved
application plan, site plan, code of development, zoning clearance, or condition accepted
or imposed in conjunction with any county approval under this chapter.
b. Structures or improvements. Any structure or improvement that is established,
conducted, operated or maintained in violation of any provision of this chapter or any
approved application plan, site plan, code of development, zoning permit, zoning
clearance, or condition accepted or imposed in conjunction with any county approval
under this chapter.
c. Structures without building permits. Any structure for which a building permit application
is required that is started, established, constructed, reconstructed, enlarged or altered
without a building permit.
d. Use of structure or site without certificate of occupancy. Any use of a structure or site for
which a certificate of occupancy is required that is conducted, operated or maintained
without a certificate of occupancy.
(Subsection c: § 31.2.1, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; subsection d: § 31.2.3.1,
12-10-80, 6-2-82, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01))
Sec. 36.2 Enforcement
The zoning administrator is authorized to enforce this chapter as follows:
a. Investigation. Upon receipt of a complaint or a request to investigate whether this chapter
is being violated, the zoning administrator or his designee shall conduct an investigation.
b. Inspection warrants and search warrants. The zoning administrator is authorized to
request and execute inspection warrants issued by a magistrate or court of competent
jurisdiction to allow the inspection of dwellings authorized under Virginia Code § 15.2-
2286(A)(15). The zoning administrator also is authorized to request and execute search
warrants issued by a court of competent jurisdiction as provided by law. Prior to seeking
an inspection warrant or a search warrant, the zoning administrator or his agent shall
make a reasonable effort to obtain consent from the owner or tenant to enter the structure
or property to conduct an inspection or search.
c. Subpoenas duces tecum (court order to produce records). W henever the zoning
administrator has reasonable cause to believe that any person has engaged or is
engaging in any violation of this chapter that limits occupancy in a dwelling unit and, after
a good faith effort to obtain the data or information necessary to determine whether a
violation has occurred, has been unable to obtain such information, he may request that
the office of the county attorney petition the judge of the general district court for a
subpoena duces tecum against any person refusing to produce the data or information,
as authorized under Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4).
d. Notice of violation; exception. If, upon completion of the investigation, the zoning
administrator determines that a violation of this chapter exists, a notice of violation shall
be issued to the person committing and/or permitting the violation if the zoning
administrator determines to pursue enforcement; provided that a notice of violation shall
not be required to be issued for a violation initiated by a ticket under section 36.3(a).
1. Contents of notice. The notice shall include the following information: (i) the date
of the notice; (ii) the basis for the decision; (iii) a statement informing the recipient
that the decision may be appealed to the board of zoning appeals within
applicable appeal period provided in section 34.3 and that the decision shall be
final and unappealable if it is not timely appealed; and (iv) the time within which
the violation shall be abated.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
2. Delivery of notice. The notice shall be either hand delivered, posted on the door
of a building on the site, or mailed by regular or certified mail, provided that notice
to the property owner, sent by certified mail to, or posted at, the last known
address of the property owner as shown on the current real estate tax
assessment books or current real estate tax assessment records shall satisfy the
notice requirements of this section.
e. Remedies. In the enforcement of this chapter, the zoning administrator may pursue any
remedy authorized by law. The remedies provided in sections 36.3, 36.4 and 36.5 are
cumulative and not exclusive except to the extent expressly provided therein, and shall be
in addition to any other remedies authorized by law.
Sec. 36.3 Civil penalties
Any person, whether the owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any
provision of this chapter as provided in section 36.1, or permits either by granting permission to
another to engage in the violating act or by not prohibiting the violating act after being informed by
the zoning administrator that the act violates this chapter as provided in section 36.2, shall be
subject to the following:
a. Procedure. Proceedings seeking civil penalties for all violations of this chapter under this
section 36.3 shall commence either by filing a civil summons in the general district court
or by the zoning administrator or his deputy issuing a ticket.
b. Minimum elements of a civil summons or ticket. A civil summons or ticket shall contain, at
a minimum, the following information: (i) the name and address of the person charged; (ii)
the nature of the violation and the section of this chapter allegedly violated; (iii) the
location and date that the violation occurred or was observed; (iv) the amount of the civil
penalty being imposed for the violation; (v) the manner, location and time in which the civil
penalty may be paid to the county; (vi) the right of the recipient of the summons to elect to
stand trial and that a signature to an admission of liability will have the same force and
effect as a judgment of a court; and either the date scheduled for trial, or the date for
scheduling of such trial by the court.
c. Amount of civil penalty. Any violation of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of
two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the initial summons, and a civil penalty of five hundred
dollars ($500.00) for each additional summons arising from the same set of operative
facts.
d. Maximum aggregate civil penalty. The total civil penalties from a series of violations
arising from the same set of operative facts shall not exceed five thousand dollars
($5,000.00). After the civil penalties reach the five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) limit, the
violation may be prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor under section 36.4.
e. Each day a separate offense; single offense in 10-day period. Each day during which a
violation is found to exist shall be a separate offense. However, the same scheduled
violation arising from the same operative set of facts may be charged not more than once
in a ten (10) day period.
f. Option to prepay civil penalty and waive trial. Any person summoned or ticketed for a
violation of this chapter may elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in
person or in writing by mail to the department of finance prior to the date fixed for trial in
court. A person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil
penalty established for the offense charged. A signature to an admission of liability shall
have the same force and effect as a judgment of court. However, such an admission
shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. If a person charged with a
violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the violation shall be
tried in the general district court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as
provided by law. A finding of liability shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any
purpose.
g. Civil penalties are in lieu of criminal penalties. A violation enforced under section 36.3
shall be in lieu of any criminal penalty except as provided in section 36.3(d) and section
36.4 and, except for any violation resulting in injury to any person, such a designation
shall preclude the prosecution of the particular violation as a criminal misdemeanor, but
shall not preclude any other remedy available under this chapter.
h. Violations excluded. Section 36.3 shall not be construed to allow the imposition of civil
penalties: (i) for activities related to land development where, for the purposes of this
section, the term “land development” means a human-made change to, or construction
on, the land surface including, but not limited to, land disturbing activity within the
meaning of chapter 17 of Albemarle County Code or the construction of buildings,
structures or improvements under an approved site plan or subdivision plat, but does not
mean the land development project’s compliance with this chapter; or (ii) for the violation
of any provision of this chapter relating to the posting of signs on public property or public
rights-of-way.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
(§ 37.2; Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00; Ord. 02-18(3), 2-13-02; Ord. 05-18(3), 3-16-05;
Ord. 06-18(1), 7-05-06)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2209.
Sec. 36.4 Criminal penalties
Any person, whether the owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any
provision of this chapter that results in injury to any person, or to whom the five thousand dollar
($5,000.00) maximum aggregate civil penalty provided in section 36.3(c) has been reached and
who continues to violate any provision of this chapter as provided in chapter 36.1, or permits
either by granting permission to another to engage in the violating act or by not prohibiting the
violating act after being informed by the zoning administrator that the act continues to violate this
chapter as provided in section 36.2, shall be subject to the following:
a. The person shall have committed a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of not less
than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
b. If the violation is uncorrected at the time of conviction, the court shall order the person
convicted to abate or remedy the violation in compliance with this chapter, within a time
period established by the court. Failure to remove or abate such violation within the time
period established by the court shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense
punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00), and any such failure during any succeeding ten (10) day period shall
constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each ten (10) day period, punishable by a
fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one thousand five
hundred dollars ($1,500.00).
c. Notwithstanding sections 36.4(a) and (b), any conviction resulting from a violation of
provisions regulating the number of unrelated persons in single-family residential dwelling
units shall be punishable by a fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). Failure to
abate the violation within the specified time period shall be punishable by a fine of up to
five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), and any such failure during any succeeding ten (10)
day period shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense for each ten (10) day period
punishable by a fine of up to seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00). However,
no such fine shall accrue against an owner or managing agent of a single-family
residential dwelling unit during the pendency of any legal action commenced by such
owner or managing agent of the dwelling unit against a tenant to eliminate an
overcrowding condition in accordance with chapters 13 or 13.2 of title 55 of the Virginia
Code, as applicable. A conviction resulting from a violation of provisions regulating the
number of unrelated persons in single-family residential dwelling units shall not be
punishable by a jail term.
(§ 37.1; Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2286(A)(5).
Sec. 36.5 Injunctive relief and other remedies
Any violation of this chapter may be restrained, corrected, or abated as the case may be by
injunction or other appropriate relief.
(§ 37.3; Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2208.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-006, Accessory structures in required
yards. Amend Secs. 4.11.2, Structures in required yards, 4.11.2.1, Accessory structures, 4.11.2.2, Public
telephone booths, and 4.11.2.3, Fences, mailboxes, and similar structures, and add Sec. 4.11.4,
Structures within easements, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would
amend Secs. 4.11.2, 4.11.2.1, 4.11.2.2 and 4.11.2.3 by reorganizing them into a single section, prohibiting
accessory structures within required front yards with exceptions, revising the types of structures allowed
within required yards currently delineated in Secs. 4.11.2.2 and 4.11.2.3 by deleting signs, which are
subject to other yard requirements and adding automated teller machines, and by requiring that accessory
structures be physically separated from the primary structure up to 6 feet or it be subject to primary
structure yard requirements. This ordinance would also add Sec. 4.11.4 to prohibit structures within an
easement in a way that adversely affects the easement purpose. (Notice of this public hearing as
advertised in the Daily Progress on June 15 and June 22, 2009.)
Mr. Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, said this amendment is to change
the setbacks for accessory structures in required yards. Accessory structures can be in the front yard, but
somehow over time the minimum requirement for them not to be located in the front setback had been
inadvertently eliminated. An accessory structure could be detached from the house and as an accessory
structure would only have to be six feet from the property line. An accessory structure could be only one-
inch from the house and need to have a side setback or a rear setback of only six feet.
Mr. Higgins said the Planning Commission made some good suggestions about accessory
structures in commercial and other areas, and about setbacks for retaining walls, ATMs and dumpsters.
In the course of that discussion, the Commission debated whether it should be one-foot or six feet of
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
separation for a building to meet the setback of the main structure. If it were less than one-foot it would
meet the main setback. The Commission was concerned about fire codes and about maintenance so
increased it to six feet. Staff was asked to look at that before this amendment came to the Board just to
be sure there were no other ordinance or Building Code issues. There are no concerns there.
Mr. Higgins said there was a provision in the ordinance concerning “not having an adverse affect
on easements.” There was a lot of language in the draft ordinance describing how that would be done
and requiring the easement holder to approve it, but that language was eliminated by the Commission.
They went with the language that says a structure would not have an adverse impact on the easement.
Mr. Slutzky asked why that provision was eliminated. Mr. Higgins said the Planning Commission
felt that as long as staff could determine it was not having an adverse affect on the easement, the person
did not have to sign a document. He said the Commission recommended approval of the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if this change allows for a bigger footprint. She is thinking of a small lot with a
large house and if it had an attached garage it would not be allowed to encroach on its neighbor, but if the
garage were separated, with a reduced setback the garage could be right up against the property line. Mr.
Higgins said that can be done now. At this time it only has to be physically detached from the house. It
was suggested that staff come up with a minimum distance and if the garage were within that minimum
distance, it would be part of the main house.
Mr. Rooker asked whether it should be one foot or six feet. Mr. Higgins said the discussion
centered on practical issues. They talked about how you could get in that space to take care of the
structure if there were a fire issue. He said the Fire Code addresses all of that, regardless of setback and
distance.
Ms. Thomas asked what the Board members thought about the impact of making it less easy to
have dense development by six feet. She said it would reduce compact development on some lots. She
thinks that was the reason for staff’s suggestion of one-foot. Mr. Higgins said in a mobile home
subdivision, if six feet is used as the separation it almost eliminates accessory buildings.
Ms. Thomas said she personally would prefer either one-foot or three feet for those reasons.
Mr. Rooker said one size does not fit every situation.
Mr. Boyd said he is struggling with this issue.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this is a reasonable compromise with respect to the issues being
presented. There are good reasons to go in either direction.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to clarify what is being said. If there is going to be an accessory
structure, it has to be three feet, or it can be up to three feet.
Mr. Slutzky said if it is within three feet it becomes part of the original structure so has to meet the
setback.
Ms. Mallek said it would protect the neighbors from having a garage an inch from their property
line.
Mr. Boyd said it could also impact a mobile home because there is not enough room on the lot to
put up an accessory shed for a legitimate use.
Mr. Rooker said setbacks could be eliminated all across the County, but for mobile homes, he
assumes that a shed could be built that connected onto the mobile home. Nothing prevents you from
putting it close to the mobile home. But there is a reason for setback lines.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing. W ith no one from the
public rising to speak, the hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve ZTA-2009-006 with a change in Section 4.11.2.d from a six-foot
separation to a three-foot separation as discussed, by adopting Ordinance No. 09-18(4), An Ordinance to
Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
as set out in full below.
Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending and Renumbering (old section number first, followed by name, followed by
new section number):
Sec. 4.11.2 Structures in required yards Sec. 4.11.2 (part)
Sec. 4.11.2.1 Accessory structures Sec. 4.11.2 (part)
Sec. 4.11.2.2 Public telephone booths Sec. 4.11.2 (part)
Sec. 4.11.2.3 Fences, mailboxes and Sec. 4.11.2 (part)
similar structures
By Adding:
Sec. 4.11.4 Structures within easements
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.11.2 Accessory structures in required yards
Accessory structures are authorized in required yards as follows:
a. Front yards. Accessory structures, including detached garages, are prohibited within the
minimum front yard required by the applicable district regulations except as otherwise
provided in subsection (c).
b. Side and rear yards. Accessory structures are permitted in side and rear yards, provided
that they are erected no closer than six (6) feet to the side or rear property lines or, in the
case of an alley or a shared driveway, no closer than three (3) feet to the edge of the
easement or right-of-way of the alley or shared driveway except as otherwise provided in
subsection (c). The zoning administrator may authorize an accessory structure to be
located closer to the edge of an alley easement or right-of-way if the county engineer
determines that the proposed design incorporates features that assure public safety and
welfare. In making the determination, the county engineer shall consider the provision of
adequate access to required onsite parking and/or garages, unimpeded vehicular
circulation along the alley, an adequate clear zone along the alley, and other safety issues
deemed appropriate for the conditions.
c. Accessory structures permitted in required yards. The following accessory structures are
permitted in required yards provided that they comply with the visibility clearance
requirements of section 4.4:
1. Fences, including free-standing walls enclosing yards and other uncovered areas.
2. Freestanding mail and newspaper boxes.
3. Retaining walls.
4. Shelters for school children traveling to and from school.
5. Public telephone booths, provided that: (i) the telephones are equipped for
emergency service to the public without prior payment; (ii) the zoning
administrator determines that the location of the booth will not adversely affect the
safety of the adjacent street; and (iii) the booth shall be subject to relocation at
the expense of the owner, whenever relocation is determined by the zoning
administrator to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and
welfare or whenever relocation is necessary to accommodate the widening of the
adjacent street.
6. Automated teller machines.
d. Accessory structures located closer than three (3) feet to primary structure. Accessory
structures for which any part is located closer than three (3) feet to any part of a primary
structure shall comply with the minimum applicable yard requirements for a primary
structure.
(12-10-80, § 4.11.2 (3-18-81), 4.11.2.1 (1-1-83, Ord. 02-18(2), 2-6-02), 4.11.2.2 (3-18-81),
4.11.2.3 (Added 3-18-81))
Sec. 4.11.4 Structures within easements.
No structure shall be permitted within an easement in a way that adversely affects the easement.
_______________
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: ZTA-2009-007, Temporary construction headquarters
and yards. Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions; 5.1.18, Temporary construction headquarters, yards, 5.1.18.1,
Temporary construction headquarters, and 5.1.18.2, Temporary construction yards, of Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Secs. 3.1, by adding definitions of
temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction yards, and 5.1.18, 5.1.18.1 and 5.1.18.2,
by reorganizing the sections into a single section and amending the regulations pertaining to the duration
(by requiring that the use terminate within 30 days after construction of the last building is completed or
active construction is discontinued, and eliminating the requirement that construction yards exist for not
more than 18 months), location (by clarifying the requirement that the use be located on the same site,
rather than the same lot, as the construction and that construction yards be set back from existing public
streets and dwellings) and maintenance of temporary construction headquarters and yards, by amending
the regulations pertaining to the screening of temporary construction yards, and by authorizing the zoning
administrator to approve such uses with a zoning clearance rather than a temporary permit. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 15 and June 22, 2009.)
Mr. Ron Higgins said this proposed amendment would delete the 18-month time limit for
construction headquarters and add provisions for consistent administrative regulation of both temporary
construction headquarters and temporary construction yards. He said it is also being defined as a facility
located on “a site” because the current language talks about parcels and lots and properties, so the
language is “fuzzy.” He said the Planning Commission suggested that staff define in the ordinance
temporary construction yards and temporary construction headquarters so there would be no confusion on
an applicant’s part.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the current ordinance allows for any defined period prior to the
commencement of construction. Mr. Higgins said there is a 30-day and 20-day provision in the ordinance,
so it is a little disjointed there also.
W ith no further questions for staff, Mr. Slutzky opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Matthews said he is present with Mr. Ron Cottrell from the Martha Jefferson Hospital.
They are in attendance today to urge the Board to adopt the ordinance as written. He said they are
building a new hospital on Pantops and it takes more than 18 months to build the project. They are on
schedule but would like to be able to finish – they are at the 18-month mark now. It is a large undertaking,
but with the discretion vested with the Zoning Administrator, this change would reflect the realities of large
projects.
W ith no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of ZTA-2009-007 as recommended by the Planning Commission
by adopting Ordinance No. 09-18(5), An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General
Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as set out in
full below.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS,
AND ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, and Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
By Amending, Renaming and Renumbering:
Sec. 5.1.18 Temporary construction headquarters and Sec. 5.1.18
temporary construction yards
Sec. 5.1.18.1 Temporary construction headquarters Sec. 5.1.18 (part)
Sec. 5.1.18.2 Temporary construction yards Sec. 5.1.18 (part)
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Temporary construction headquarters: A building or structure used for the on-site management
or oversight of construction or development activity for the duration authorized in section
5.1.18(a).
Temporary construction yard: An area used for the on-site storage of construction or
development materials, supplies, equipment, and tools, and the on-site stockpiling and recycling
of useable construction materials and other items, for the duration authorized in section 5.1.18(b).
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.18 Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction yards
Temporary construction headquarters and temporary construction yards are permitted as follows:
a. Temporary construction headquarters. The zoning administrator is authorized to issue a
zoning clearance allowing temporary construction headquarters serving a construction
project, subject to the following:
1. Duration. The headquarters shall be authorized on the site for a period beginning
no earlier than thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of actual construction
and ending no later than thirty (30) days after completion of the last building to be
constructed in the project or thirty (30) days after active construction on the site is
suspended or abandoned, whichever occurs first (hereinafter, the “ending date”).
Construction shall be deemed to be suspended or abandoned if no substantive
progress, characterized by approved building inspections or other evidence that
substantial work has been performed in the prior thirty (30) day period. The
zoning administrator may extend the ending date, upon the written request of the
owner, if the suspension or abandonment of active construction is the result of
inclement weather. The headquarters shall be removed from the site by the
ending date.
2. Location. The headquarters shall be located within the same site where the
construction project is located.
3. Maintenance. The area in the vicinity of the headquarters and the access roads
thereto shall be treated or maintained to prevent dust and debris from blowing or
spreading onto adjacent properties and public street rights-of-way.
b. Temporary construction yards. The zoning administrator may issue a zoning clearance
allowing temporary construction yards serving a construction project, subject to the
following:
1. Duration. The yard shall be authorized on the site for a period beginning no
earlier than thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of actual construction and
ending on the ending date. All materials, supplies, equipment, debris and other
items composing the yard shall be removed from the site by the ending date. The
zoning administrator may extend the ending date, upon the written request of the
owner, if the suspension or abandonment of active construction is the result of
inclement weather.
2. Location. The yard shall be located within the same site where the construction
project is located. In addition, no portion of a yard shall be located: (i) closer than
fifty (50) feet to any public street right-of-way existing prior to the recording of the
subdivision plat served by the yard or existing prior to the commencement of the
construction project; and (ii) closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any
preexisting dwelling not owned or leased by the owner of the subdivision or
construction project served by the yard.
3. Maintenance. The area in the vicinity of the yard and the access roads thereto
shall be treated or maintained to prevent dust and debris from blowing or
spreading onto adjacent properties and public street rights-of-way. All yards shall
be maintained in a clean and orderly manner, and building material and
construction residue and debris shall not be permitted to accumulate.
4. Screening. The zoning administrator may require appropriate screening or
fencing around a yard if the yard will be located in or adjacent to a residential
zoning district.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Downtown Crozet Stormwater Management.
Mr. Greg Harper, W ater Resources Manager, said that more than a year ago the Board
authorized staff to proceed with a regional approach to stormwater management for the downtown area of
Crozet, and to proceed with planning and land acquisition. He is here today to get authorization to buy
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
some property, continue with engineering work, and request an appropriation of proffer money and to
allocate additional stormwater funds for this project. He said there was a statement in the Executive
Summary which is not correct. He is not here to request that grant money be appropriated – that grant
money has not yet been secured under contract, so it is premature to do that.
Mr. Harper said he will explain the W ater Resources Capital Program – basically it is to protect
streams and other natural water resources through several different types of capital projects – including
enhancing existing facilities, demonstration projects such as the green roof on the County Office Building,
stream and buffer enhancement projects, providing regional stormwater management for future
development, and most importantly, to incorporate stormwater management into existing built areas.
There are a lot of areas that preceded stormwater regulations so their streams suffer from lack of
stormwater management. Staff has completed or is working on projects that fit into these categories,
such as making small, cheap improvements to the Birnam Basin near the Humphris Park.
Mr. Rooker commented that the changes there have been very helpful, observing the natural
activity that takes place there.
Mr. Harper said they have completed a small bio-filter project at Broadus W ood Elementary
School, and soon will be building a bio-filter between the lower parking lot of this building and McIntire
Road to treat most of the runoff from the lower parking lot instead of having it dumped directly into
Schenk’s Branch. Another large project being worked on simultaneously with the Crozet project are the
W oodbrook Lagoons enhancement project which is part of the Stormwater Master Plan. He said the
Crozet wetland project fits into three categories – stream and buffer enhancement, regional stormwater
management for future development, and existing impervious areas that have no stormwater
management currently.
Mr. Harper explained that there are two basic project goals. There are a number of highly
important streams downstream of the downtown Crozet area impacted by runoff. Since this area lies in a
water supply watershed, this water eventually gets into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and is part of
the main drinking water supply source. Additional protection is needed for these sensitive waters. This
will also facilitate the dense downtown development foreseen by the Crozet Master Plan - much of the
area which will be served by this project is intended to be very dense and as much as 100 percent
impervious. W hen 100 percent impervious is combined with stormwater management, there is very
expensive underground detention so they will try to provide stormwater management downstream at a
much cheaper price, but upstream of the sensitive waters.
Mr. Harper explained that there are two project elements: making improvements to an existing
channel which collects and conveys the stormwater from this area into Powell’s Creek, and using a
stormwater wetlands system for treatment – which will provide good water quality and attenuation of peak
flows. He said staff has identified the property (shown on a map on the screen) as being ideal for location
of the stormwater wetlands. Staff has been communicating with the property owners for the past couple
of years and the owners are willing to sell the property to the County. Staff has also communicated with
other adjacent property owners regarding easements. Everybody is “on board” with providing easements
for the stream portions as well. Staff is poised to do final negotiations with the property owners.
Mr. Harper reported that design consultants – Kimberly Horn – have been hired – they are also
consultants for the Crozet streetscape project. Stormwater wetlands has been selected as the treatment
type; construction drawings are about 80 percent complete; and, staff has been working with the RW SA to
get approval to relocate the utilities that are on this property.
Mr. Harper said the last thing he will mention is the service district. It has essentially been
defined. Staff will develop a pro-rata formula in the form of “x” dollars per square feet of impervious area
that can be used by developers within the service district to pay back the County to help reimburse the
cost of this project. He would like to add a feature to allow property owners to opt out of this instead of
making it mandatory. If someone can do it cheaper than the County, they should be able to do it on site.
The County would not get as much money back, but economically it would be cost-effective for someone
who can do it cheaper. Their property might lie in outlying regions of the district, and it would not be
developed to the density that a more internal property would be developed.
Mr. Harper said a trading program might be developed for that service district would allow
someone developing in the core of downtown to have somebody else in the district provide stormwater
management on their behalf. The point of that would be to provide stormwater management at its lowest
cost whether regionally or onsite. He said Ms. Thomas pointed out more than a year ago that stormwater
wetlands will not address any increase in volume as the watershed is developed. If a little volume capture
can be provided, infiltration and evaporation throughout the service district, in combination with a regional
wetlands approach, would be the best of all possible solutions.
Mr. Slutzky said if the County is going to spend taxpayer dollars to create a structural solution to
stormwater, to facilitate cleansing and entrapment for a period of time, there is a certain cost associated
with that. This project is being sized and scaled based on a certain demand throughout the service
district. If half of the people in the service district opted out feeling they would be better off downzoning
relative to the density that is allowed, the consequence would be to create a disincentive for density and at
the same time erode the support base to pay for this larger facility. W hat happens if there is a substantial
opting out?
Mr. Rooker said to take care of stormwater on their own would in most cases be more expensive.
Mr. Harper said if someone can do it cheaper than the County, that’s great, there might be some volume
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
reduction from the watershed. There might be improved stream health. The worst that can happen is that
there is a treatment train and there is a better quality of water. Staff thinks that for the cost of stormwater
management which will be provided for this district, not many people will be able to avoid buying in. Staff
has calculated that stormwater management can be provided for $25,000 to $30,000 per impervious acre.
It has talked to developers who are developing very dense areas and they are now estimating $66,000
per impervious acre. He said the County’s cost will be about one-half of that.
Mr. Boyd asked when staff expects to start this project. Mr. Harper responded that staff is hoping
to be under construction within six months.
Mr. Boyd asked if this is being done far in front of any planned development. Mr. Harper said any
planned development in the downtown Crozet area would probably be piecemeal; there is no large
planning development coming online.
Mr. Slutzky said this will capture the runoff from existing development immediately. Mr. Harper
agreed, saying there are 15 acres of impervious area that have been identified that can be treated
immediately and prevent those pollutants from reaching the water supply.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Harper referenced establishing a service district, and although it has been
discussed several times, the Board has not done anything about it yet. Mr. Davis said this is different than
what is normally considered a service district; it is legislation that’s available under the Subdivision and
Site Plan ordinances; it is the only impact fee legislation localities have as it allows for recovery of offsite
drainage costs on a pro-rata basis. He said this is done now for the Lickinghole Creek Basin. Mr. Tucker
said it is actually used for all of the basins. Mr. Davis said this would be overlapping another service
district established under this legislation, so they would be paying for Lickinghole Creek as well as this
basin.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is a one-time fee and not an ongoing maintenance fee. Mr. Davis said it is a
one-time fee – there is a process on the front-end to establish the cost of the facility. The County fronts
that cost and everyone contributes their pro-rata share. He added that if people opt out, the County never
recovers that portion of the cost. Theoretically, all new development will pay their pro-rata cost and any
existing development using it will have a “free pass” on paying for it, so the County will pay for existing
development and anyone who opts out. New development would pay its own share.
Ms. Mallek said that would apply also to properties as they are redeveloped. Mr. Davis said for a
new subdivision or site plan the developer would be required to pay their pro rata share.
Mr. Rooker said that is one reason the County needs to be in front of development, otherwise the
cost would not be recovered. Mr. Harper said that in the past many of these regional facilities were driven
by particular large developments. In this case, staff wanted to do the regional approach before all of the
properties in the downtown area of Crozet are redeveloped.
Ms. Mallek said that on the corner of Crozet Avenue near the proposed library there is a very
small stormwater feature that might account for part of someone’s responsibility. She asked if someone
were redeveloping and had a small feature on their property, the larger part would be achieved by paying
into the system. Mr. Harper said a person could be allowed to do a portion of their stormwater
management on site in whatever combination they wanted – that part could be done by using impervious
pavers. The details of the service district will be worked out by staff and brought back to the Board at a
later date.
Mr. Slutzky asked if service district participation would be imposed on new development and
redevelopment, not superimposed on what exists. Mr. Davis said that is correct.
Mr. Harper said this relates to the streetscape project which will create a storm sewer system for
property to tie into. That system will connect directly to the channel where improvements will be made,
and the County will provide stormwater management for the streetscape itself and any properties that tie
into the storm sewer system. W ithout making improvements to the channel, that obligation would go to
the streetscape project itself. The library would have difficulty managing all of its required stormwater
management onsite. If they do anything on site, such as a demonstration project for educational
purposes, it would not have to meet the full rule, they could partially buy in. For Jarmans Gap Road, staff
has been talking with VDOT to get them to buy in to this system. There is already a property owner
waiting to start using this and start paying into it quickly.
Mr. Harper said staff came to the Board previously with a preliminary planning cost estimate of
about $600,000, and after some cost recovery about $350,000; those numbers have increased. Staff
made the best guess it could at the time based on a concept, using formulas provided by some
institutions. That guess was low. They failed to provide a contingency based on the uncertainty of that
estimate. He said there is no way to know what it will cost until it is put out to bid. This estimate could be
a little high. Due to the economy, construction costs are cheaper at this time. Hopefully, it will not be the
full $1.0 million price tag at the end.
Mr. Harper said he would like to discuss one of the cost recovery items, which is a grant. He
reported that the Rivanna River Basin Commission applied for a grant and was successful in receiving that
grant of about $725,000 – a portion of that will in turn be granted to the County to construct this project.
There are various obligations the County will have to fulfill to get the funds from the Commission. He said
the County is part of that Commission and has been working with the other governments which are part of
the Commission on the application and administration of the grant. It will be part of the cost recovery.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Harper said the Gray Rock development, in 1998, made a proffer for improvements to
Jarmans Gap Road. Since this project will serve Jarmans Gap staff thought it was appropriate to apply
that money to the stormwater project. In all, the net project cost may go up as much as $344,000.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much money is in the Stormwater Improvement Fund. Mr. Harper said he
did not have that figure today. However, if this project is done at the cost mentioned and the other big
project, W oodbrook Lagoons, is done at an estimated cost of $600,000, there will be about $1.0 million left
in that account.
Mr. Slutzky said he asked because it has been a few years since the Board approved money to be
used for Sunridge Road. He thought this fund was going to be used since a significant portion of that
project also addresses a stormwater runoff problem. He wants to be sure that since that project “is
languishing terribly” that its funding base is not eroded in the meantime. Mr. Harper said he was not
aware of that.
Mr. Slutzky asked if he was wrong about that. Mr. Tucker responded that money is set aside for
Sunridge Road. He said the project is not “languishing” because of staff.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it is being held up because of right-of-way issues. Mr. Tucker said that is
what he understands.
Ms. Mallek said recently someone mentioned that the amount of money involved seemed large,
but in comparison, the Birnam Basin project cost about the same and it does not have the same features
as the wetlands. Mr. Harper said it cost about $725,000 when all the components were added together.
Engineering-wise it was a much simpler project. He said the Crozet project is unusual because historically
the County has not done large projects, so $1.0 million should not be shocking to anyone. This will serve
30 impervious acres. The cost, per impervious acre, is very competitive. He mentioned that cost recovery
takes many years, and so far about $50,000 has been recovered for the Birnam Basin project which was
completed five years ago. It has been on the books since 1984. If there is a lot of development, cost
recovery will happen more quickly.
Mr. Rooker said the area served by the Birnam Basin is almost built out. In the Crozet situation, it
would be expected to have a lot of development over the next 15 years.
Mr. Harper said that is a summary of what staff is requesting today. He then offered to answer
questions.
Mr. Davis said if the Board is in favor of using these funds, a formal appropriation would need to
be prepared and then brought back for approval on a consent agenda. The Board needs to authorize staff
to proceed with the project.
Ms. Mallek moved to authorize staff to proceed with easement and property acquisition; and, also
to authorize staff to bring back the necessary appropriation form to appropriate funds from the Gray Rock
proffers, Stormwater Control Improvement Funds and Rivanna River Basin Commission grant.
Ms. Thomas added that she and Mr. Dorrier are members of the Rivanna River Basin
Commission. That money brings with it some extra features – for example, there will be signage - all of
the communities that have these projects will have signage so people will understand what is going on.
The County will also have to certify to the Commission that the project has been done right which may
help with the contractor. The University of Virginia did a very expensive project and at the last minute the
contractor put the pipe in the wrong place, so they want to make sure it is done right. Many of these
projects go into effect and no one puts in the extra money to see that it is actually collects the sediment
and nutrients it was to collect. She said Mr. Harper was on the Technical Advisory Committee and has
helped shape this project.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is certainly grateful to the Commission for helping make this possible.
Ms. Mallek said having seen over the years the great success of a similarly designed project in
Bentivar where the North Fork and South Fork of the Rivanna come together, that TNC put together
several years ago, she is looking forward to this. It will be a great place to see a lot of wildlife.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Work Session: ZTA-2008-02, Planned Developments and Neighborhood
Model District.
Due to time constraints, this item was moved to the August 5, 2009, Board meeting.
_______________
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Meeting.
At 12:46 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Thomas that the Board went into 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 conduct an administrative evaluation;
under Subsection (1) to evaluate the performance of a County department which requires the discussion
of the performance of a specific individual; and, under Subsection (7) to discuss with legal counsel and
staff specific matters requiring legal advice relating to the negotiation of an open space easement.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:12 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to
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: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to:
Appoint Ms. Frances Hooper to the Community Mobility Committee, to fill an unexpired term which
will expire December 31, 2010.
Appoint Ms. Jane Covington to the Historic Preservation Committee, to fill an unexpired term
which will expire June 4, 2010.
Appoint Mr. Drew Holzwarth to the Housing Committee, to fill an unexpired term which will expire
December 31, 2010.
Appoint Ms. Darlene “Casey” Beeghly to the Pantops Community Council, with term to be
determined at a future date.
Appoint Ms. Faye Giles as an at-large member to the W orkforce Investment Board, with said term
to expire June 30, 2010.
Reappoint Mr. Jeff W erner to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee with said term to expire July
8, 2011.
Reappoint Mr. Rod Gentry to the W orkforce Investment Board as an at-large member with said
term to expire June 30, 2010.
Reappoint Ms. Sue Goldman to the W orkforce Investment Board with said term to expire June 30,
2012.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21a. Transportation Matters: VDOT Monthly Report.
Mr. Allan Sumpter, Residency Administrator, reported that the signal at W oodbrook Drive and
Route 29 North has been investigated and VDOT found some intermittent problems. Changes were made
so hopefully that resolved the issue.
__________
Mr. Sumpter stated that VDOT is proceeding with plans to install four-way stop signs at
W oodlands Road and Reas Ford Road next week; there are message boards in place letting people know
about the changes in the traffic pattern.
__________
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Sumpter reported that the public hearing package for the Georgetown Road project is being
reviewed by the VDOT central office. It will then go to the State Office to be signed for approval.
Mr. Rooker noted that constituents in that area do not want streetlights on that road. Mr. Sumpter
said before there is an absolute “no” to that he would like to have more discussion to see if some kind of
indirect lighting could be used. There are many options available now as opposed to what lights up the
entire community. If this is something the traffic engineers feel strongly about, he has asked them to
come and show some examples of how to minimize the impact of lighting.
__________
Mr. Sumpter said VDOT is proceeding with getting the right-of-way for Jarmans Gap Road.
__________
Mr. Sumpter said VDOT’s District Construction Engineer, Mr. Kenneth Shirley, is present to give
an update on the Meadow Creek Parkway project.
Mr. Shirley said the project cost is $12.0 million, and about 12 percent has been spent thus far.
He said the clearing and removal of trees to prepare for construction is 100 percent complete with the
exception of a couple of trees here and there. As to excavation of material, about 43,000 cubic yards
have been moved to date – that is an area the size of a football field filled 20 feet high with material. The
box culvert has been placed south of the creek close to Melbourne Road. There is approximately 10,000
linear feet of storm sewer pipe on the job with almost 1,000 feet having been placed so far – about 10
percent of the storm sewer.
Mr. Shirley said he wanted to paint a picture for the Board members. He knows that while pieces
of this project are visible, a lot of it is not. Some drainage work has been done at the Melbourne Road
side of the project. The majority of the utility relocations have been done from that point north. They are
at-grade at Melbourne near the softball field area. Continuing northward there is a small amount of
excavation needed to fill in where the box culvert is located. There is a large hill between the box and the
creek. That is almost down to grade at this point. The material left will be hauled to the bridge at the
creek. One of the piers for the bridge has been installed and it looks beautiful with the stone finish, and
they are working on the northern abutment which is where the bridge lands. He said they are working on
the substructure on the north side. W hen that side is completed, they will move to the south side of the
creek and begin that portion of the bridge.
Mr. Shirley indicated that continuing north there is a large hill just north of the bridge. A lot of
material has to be moved from that area. South of the creek, 70 to 80 percent of the earth has been
moved. North of the creek that big hill must be removed. Drainage work is going on in front of CATEC.
The majority of the 1,000 feet of storm sewer pipe will be installed in that area. Continuing around by the
railroad, the bore underneath the railroad has been completed so that work can begin on the northern end
of the twin structures going over the railroad.
Mr. Shirley said from now until the end of the year, work on water lines and storm sewer lines will
continue near CATEC. Soon the work will begin to show the layout of the road and the near realignment
at CATEC. It will be next spring before there will be asphalt on that road. He said that next summer traffic
will be shifted from the existing bridge over the railroad onto the new bridge, so the existing bridge can be
replaced. Also, next summer they will make the tie-in with Rio Road which will require closure to do the
water lines and build, and do the excavation and rebuild that road. He said that essentially the road is
banked in one direction but when the project is done it will be going in another direction.
Mr. Rooker asked if Rio Road will be closed for a period of time. Mr. Shirley said Rio Road will be
closed during the summer months between school sessions. It is in the contract that it will be for a limited
period of time
Mr. Rooker asked how long that closure should last. Mr. Shirley said it will be approximately one
month. He said there are eight to 10-foot deep trenches that have to be dug to place the waterline, then
getting it placed, backfilled, and tested and tied in will take a couple of weeks, not to mention the road
work that has to occur. It is a very confined space, so not too many crews can work at the same time.
Completion date is scheduled for October, 2011.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a contingency should people decide to take the wooden bridge on
Free State Road to circumvent the closure on Rio Road. He said that bridge is not capable of taking any
more cars. Mr. Shirley said he is not aware of where that bridge leads to on the east side. They would not
be able to go further south on Rio Road.
Mr. Slutzky asked where traffic would go when it comes out of Belvedere. Mr. Shirley said they
will have to make a right turn out of Belvedere and head toward Route 29.
Ms. Mallek said the detour will then be through Greenbrier Subdivision.
Mr. Rooker said that earlier Mr. Shirley mentioned a $12.0 million project, but there are three
separate projects in the County portion of the Parkway which total nearly $30 million. Mr. Shirley said the
project from Melbourne Road to the railroad bridge was awarded to the contractor for $11.8 million in
construction dollars.
Mr. Rooker asked if the cost of the bridges is included in that figure. Mr. Shirley said the bridges
and roadway cost $11.8 million from Melbourne Road to the railroad.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Shirley knows what will happen with the rest of the road. Mr. Shirley said he
does not have that information at this time. He knows that VDOT is continuing to work on the next portion
south of Melbourne and the City is working on the interchange portion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21b. Transportation Matters not listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker said the Broomley Road Bridge was discussed in the winter, and it was too cold to do
paving work at that time. It was to be done in the summer, and now he sees that it is scheduled for
August. He said the top of that bridge is in very bad condition. Mr. Sumpter said because VDOT is
partnering with the railroad to do this project, VDOT is pushing them to make it happen. He said
Buckingham Branch Railroad has told him they have been dealing with a lot of conditions throughout their
entire line trying to get work scheduled. He was at the bridge this morning and there are a couple of
potholes which he reported in an effort to get them immediate attention. For everybody’s benefit, he wants
to get something done to this bridge.
Ms. Thomas asked if the project will assure a greater weight limit. Mr. Sumpter said the weight
limit won’t change, this work only deals with rideability.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board skipped to Agenda Item No. 21d, and considered Agenda Item No.
21c immediately after completing this item.)
Agenda Item No. 21d. Transportation Matters: Hatton Ferry.
Mr. Tucker said the Board, at its meeting on June 3, 2009, discussed the decision of the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to close the Hatton Ferry on July 1, 2009. At that time the Board
authorized Mr. Slutzky to send a letter requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board to reconsider
its decision and at a minimum work collaboratively with the County to weigh other alternatives for
continuing the Ferry operation. On June 10, 2009, the Board agreed to guarantee funding for VDOT to
continue operations for one quarter beginning July 1, 2009. That was communicated to Commissioner
David S. Ekern. The Board took this action with the expectation that private funds would be forthcoming
to reimburse any County funding necessary to guarantee the continued operation of the Ferry.
Mr. Tucker said VDOT has taken the position that continuation of their operation of the Ferry will
require advance payment of funds and a memorandum of agreement signed by the appropriate County
official and Commissioner Ekern. VDOT has estimated its administrative/overhead cost for the upcoming
quarter to be approximately $1,800. The daily contract rate for the Ferry operator is $290/day. Last year,
the Ferry actually operated only 12 days from July 1 through September 30. Pending river conditions,
there are potentially 26 days the Ferry could operate during the upcoming quarter.
Mr. Tucker said the potential total budget impact for the County is $9,340 for the operation of
the Hatton Ferry from July 1 through September 30. It is unknown to what extent this budget impact
will be mitigated by private fundraising. Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $10,000 for the
operation of the Ferry through September 30, 2009, with the understanding that any private
contributions received for the Ferry operation be utilized to offset County funding support. It is further
recommended that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute an appropriate Memorandum
of Agreement with VDOT.
Ms. Thomas noted that the operator of the Ferry and the President of the Historical Society are
both present if anyone has questions for them.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Dorrier to report on the status of the private fundraising.
Mr. Dorrier replied that they have set up a committee to deal with funds. Members of that
committee are Mr. Marshall Pryor (President, Old Dominion National Bank), Mr. Steve Meeks (President,
Albemarle-Charlottesville Historical Society), Mr. Larry Barnett (a local realtor), Mr. Ashley Pillar (who runs
the ferry) and Mr. Dorrier. He said they have talked informally and opened a bank account at Old
Dominion National Bank. They are actively raising money for the Hatton Ferry Fund; funds can be sent to
P.O. Box 321, Scottsville, Virginia. He said progress is being made.
Mr. Dorrier said they are trying to get enough funds to get through the next quarter so they have
time to get better organized, and get a mailing out to the people who have shown an interest in the Hatton
Ferry. There has been significant interest shown by a number of people. In fact, it has gone national
because the Today Show wants to come here and do a piece on the Hatton Ferry. He said that practically
everyone who is interested has been sending e-mails to VDOT asking for funding. The committee is
trying to set up a permanent organization to take over the operation of the Ferry. VDOT is in a position to
help direct the future of the project since they have managed it for many years. He passed out a copy of a
brochure about the Ferry which says this is not the first time the Ferry has been threatened with closure; it
was so threatened back in the 1940s. It was not closed, and has actually been in continuous operation
since the 1870s. He thinks it would be a tragedy to have it closed because it is the last poled ferry in
America. That is something Albemarle County can be proud of, and if promoted properly, it would pay for
itself.
Mr. Dorrier said the Town of Scottsville has been working on walking trails and river activities –
there is a park (Canal Basin Square) showing how bateau are made and they are actively pursuing
historical preservation. There is an opportunity here for the County, working with the Historical Society
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
and VDOT, to forge a public/private partnership that will enhance the Ferry and attract people to it. He
understands that about 200 people came to Hatton over the weekend to look at the Ferry. It has already
attracted a lot of interest and he thinks it will continue to, particularly if promoted properly.
Mr. Boyd suggested that a local person who works for VDOT be added to the committee.
Mr. Slutzky said that person could be on the committee, but VDOT has no money at all. They
have been gracious in accommodating its management it for the next three months.
Mr. Boyd said he was thinking it would keep VDOT in the loop to know what is going on.
Mr. Davis said it’s important for VDOT to clearly state what their position is on the future of the
Ferry, because what they’ve told the County is significant as to their expectation for the County after the
end of September. It might be helpful for Mr. Sumpter to clarify that with the Board at this point.
Mr. Sumpter explained that it is VDOT’s position that it will use the funds as specified in the draft
agreement and operate the Ferry for the months of July, August and September. Beyond that, VDOT
does not plan to participate in any operation of the Ferry.
Mr. Rooker said it is understood on the record that during that time VDOT expects to be paid for
its cost of the operations. The request today is for the County to put up $9,000 against which VDOT would
draw to pay for the operation, but at this time it is not willing to put any more money into it. Mr. Sumpter
said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas asked if the County is aware of all its obligations should it choose to take on the
ownership of the Ferry operation as of October.
Mr. Rooker said the Board discussed this at its last meeting. At that time it was represented that
private money was “just about in the bank.” Since VDOT was going to close down operations on June 20,
and the Board did not have another meeting scheduled until today, the County needed to say it would put
up $5,000 that would come back from private money in order to prevent it from being closed on June 30.
Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Dorrier had said that $5,000 was already committed.
Mr. Dorrier said he still thinks $5,000 is committed, and he also believes it can be moved ahead.
Mr. Sumpter said he wanted to make a clarification just to be sure the record is clear. The $9,000 that is
specified (chart on screen) is the scenario if the Ferry were to operate every available weekend from July
through September. He said that last year, due to weather conditions, the Ferry only operated about 12
days during that period. There is no way to know what the weather conditions will be during that period
this year so that number is based on every potential weekend that it could operate.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had talked about $5,000 that it wanted to get back. There has not
been any commitment by this Board to take over the operations of the Ferry. VDOT will continue to
operate for this limited period of time, and now the Board is saying it will actually pay to VDOT $9,200, and
if they do not utilize all of that money, the County will get back the difference. It is his understanding that
the commitment is that private money will reimburse the County for that outlay. Also, he would suggest
that the Town of Scottsville participate in the funding because it is the primary beneficiary of any tourism
that occurs.
Ms. Thomas added that Buckingham County should also contribute.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has received several e-mails from people in Buckingham County
urging the County to keep the Hatton Ferry operating, but none of them have volunteered to put money
into it. He thinks the Board’s intentions need to be clear, that it is putting up interim money to allow this to
continue to be operated by VDOT between now and September 30, with the expectation that it will
probably not take the $9,000 because that is the maximum that could occur if it were open every day. It
will probably cost $5,000 and the County expects it will get that money back from the private money that
Mr. Dorrier has said he is putting together.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Meeks is in the audience and he invited him to come forward and speak as
president of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Historical Society.
Mr. Davis said he thinks it’s a good idea to have VDOT involved in the long-term discussions
about this, because ultimately at the end of September VDOT will have to enter into an agreement with
someone if they are going to continue the operation of the Ferry. He said VDOT would have to enter into
an agreement to transfer or rent or lease the physical ferry to someone, and he is assuming that VDOT
would need to issue a permit to someone to operate it in their right-of-way. VDOT will have to play a role if
the Ferry is going to continue beyond September and be operated by someone else.
Mr. Rooker commented that the capital costs could well be substantially more than the operating
costs – last year VDOT spent about $40,000 in capital costs. It was suggested at the Board’s last meeting
that another $25,000+ may need to be expended in the next year or two. It is not just the operating
expense.
Ms. Thomas noted that the $40,000 mentioned was a once in 18+ year’s expense.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Rooker said they did suggest that there was a possible $25,000 needed for the cabling
mechanism.
Mr. Steven Meeks said he would like to introduce Mr. Ashley Pillar who is the actual operator of
the Ferry.
Mr. Pillar stated that the Ferry has received zero maintenance since 1986, other than preventative
maintenance such as greasing cables and winches and cleaning off the ramps when there is high water.
This spring money was spent to refurbish the Ferry – bringing cranes in from VDOT – and last spring a
company from Lynchburg inspected the cables and rode them across (Mr. Pat Mullaney has the
documentation on that visit). He said there has been little deterioration to the cable system – it was
deemed to be in great condition. He said there is not a semi-annual cable check. There are two days in
the contract – one at the beginning of the year and one at the end of the year – to get the Ferry ready for
the season. There is little maintenance necessary; the Ferry can operate for another 20 to 30 years.
Mr. Pillar said the Ferry does not generally operate in July and August because of low water
levels. There has been an unusual spring this year so the water level is higher – the River is at about
three and a half feet, but they probably will not run this weekend anyway. It probably will not run until there
is a good amount of rain; when it is lower than three and a half feet it cannot cross without hitting rocks.
W hen the water level gets above nine feet the Ferry can’t be hooked up on the other side to the chain. He
offered to run the Ferry at no cost until the Board figures out where the funding will come from for the
long-term, and then it can pay him per day. He would like to see the County keep it, since he thinks the
benefit far outweighs the cost. He said the Board members need to visit the Ferry and see the kind of
people who come to see the ferry, they are from all over the country.
Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Pillar’s comments seem to go against VDOT’s contention that there is a
pending need to do significant cable repair at a significant price tag. Mr. Sumpter responded that Mr.
Pillar is speaking about the cabling itself. VDOT’s Structures Report indicates that there will need to be
rehabilitation work on the tower support systems that link to the cabling, and also to the dead bin where
they are anchored. He said the estimated cost could be anywhere from $30,000 to $50,000.
Mr. Rooker said that, personally, he thinks there is a nice historic aspect to this, and it is a benefit
to the area. That could be said about Monticello or the Lewis & Clarke Center, and to him it would be
appropriate for a nonprofit to take over its operation. He said the Board could choose to contribute to a
nonprofit, and if Scottsville deems it to be important, they should also contribute. He does not think this
Board should take over the operation. It should help facilitate a nonprofit to do that job, and apparently
there is significant interest in doing that.
Mr. Sumpter said he would like to clarify that when talking about VDOT being involved, VDOT is
willing to be involved with any kind of transition that would take place. They have no intent of going to the
ferry on July 1 and pulling the boat out of the water and cutting the cables down, etc. They are just talking
about not operating the ferry after this date. No decision has been made about whether to dry dock the
ferry; they are willing to be involved in discussions. VDOT’s position is clear – they do not intend to
continue to operate this facility as part of its transportation structure.
Mr. Slutzky asked Mr. Meeks to speak.
Mr. Meeks said there needs to be some dialogue about what will happen after September. That
will make the task of raising the funds to continue after this year easier. He said that in 1982 the Historical
Society made a commitment to the Ferry and raised money at that time to help refurbish it and the
building. They have been overseeing the ferryman’s hut – a historical kiosk – ever since. The Historical
Society Board has gone on record as wanting to continue to support it, and will do everything possible to
help raise the funds. He said that he and Mr. Dorrier are working to get the process started. All of this
has happened fast. There is one charitable institution, the 20th Century Merchants’ Fund, that has pledged
to match some of the money they raise, with the final amount to be determined.
Mr. Slutzky said he applauds the efforts to raise funds and facilitate a seamless transition to
private management of the operation. He said they should make it clear to potential contributors that this
Board only committed to a short-term guarantee of money. Mr. Meeks said “correct.”
Mr. Meeks said Mr. Dorrier had identified a committee that would like to work on this project. In
1982 the County established an ad-hoc committee, and he asked if they could do it again. It would give
the committee a little more legitimacy to pursue funding, and if a County staff person could be assigned it
would keep lines of communication open and clear.
Mr. Rooker said if there really is broad-based support for keeping the Ferry going, a nonprofit
should be created for that purpose - it does not need County action for that to occur. He does not think
the Board needs to create a committee – it has received numerous e-mails from people expressing an
interest in putting together a group to do this. He suggests they set up a nonprofit so contributions would
then be tax deductible.
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks the Board members would support letting Mr. Mullaney invest some
time to facilitate that ongoing transitional dialogue. It would slow down the process to wait for the Board to
form a new committee. Mr. Meeks said that would probably serve the same purpose.
Mr. Slutzky asked the Board members if they are willing to move forward with the agreement and
the appropriation.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Dorrier moved to accept the Memorandum of Agreement dated July 1, 2009, between
Albemarle County and the Virginia Department of Transportation to operate the Hatton Ferry through
September 20, 2009, and to authorize the County Executive to execute same, and to appropriate $9,300
from the Tourism Fund, Capital Code 1901072030950107, River Access Improvements, for the operation
of the Hatton Ferry through September 30, 2009, with the understanding that any private contributions
received for the Hatton Ferry operation be utilized to offset County funding support. Mr. Slutzky seconded
the motion.
Mr. Rooker said he would support this with a provision as stated earlier on the record about the
expectation of the County regarding the total cost, and that the County will get money back from VDOT if it
is not utilized, and that the Board expects private fundraising to ultimately pay the County back.
Mr. Dorrier said funds can be sent to P.O. Box 321, Old Dominion National Bank, Scottsville,
Virginia, 24590.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis clarified that the $9,300 would be forwarded to VDOT, and they will return any
unexpended moneys after the end of September; if there are any unanticipated operating costs that
exceed $9,300 they will not incur that cost unless they amend the agreement with the County and have
this Board agree to pay any additional cost. There is a possibility that if unanticipated costs arose that
they would not go beyond the date when they run out of money.
Mr. Slutzky said that is understood.
(Note: The Memorandum of Agreement is set out in full below.)
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate this 1st day of
July, 2009, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the
COUNTY, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred
to as the DEPARTMENT.
W HEREAS, the Commonwealth’s official revenue forecasts have been reduced
significantly as a result of current economic conditions and the Commonwealth Transportation
Board budget for fiscal year 2010 adopted on June 18, 2009, does not include funding for
continued operations of the Hatton Ferry, located on the James River near Scottsville, Virginia,
between the counties of Albemarle and Buckingham, Virginia; and,
W HEREAS, the DEPARTMENT and the COUNTY, recognize the historical significance of
the Hatton Ferry as one of the last remaining operational poled ferries in the United States; and,
W HEREAS, the COUNTY has expressed its support for the continued operation of the
Hatton Ferry and, furthermore, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has voted to
guarantee funding to the DEPARTMENT for the operation of the Hatton Ferry from July 1, 2009,
to September 30, 2009; and,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall:
a. Provide funds to the DEPARTMENT for the operation of the Hatton Ferry,
in the amount of $9,300, no later than July 10, 2009, for the operation of
the Hatton Ferry from July 1, 2009, through September 30, 2009.
b. Accept responsibility for any additional costs to operate the Hatton Ferry
from July 1, 2009, until September 30, 2009, in excess of those identified
in 1.a, but only after concurrence of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and modification of this Agreement.
2. The DEPARTMENT shall:
a. Continue operation of the Hatton Ferry in accordance with established
DEPARTMENT processes and procedures, including the
DEPARTMENT’S current contract for an operator of the ferry, beginning
July 1, 2009, and ending midnight September 30, 2009.
b. Provide a summary of operational expenditures to the COUNTY for
charges of actual DEPARTMENT cost.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
c. Notify the COUNTY of additional expenses resulting from unanticipated
circumstances and provide detailed estimates of additional costs
associated with those circumstances.
d. Return any unexpended funds to the COUNTY no later than 90 days after
final operational expenses have been paid in full.
3. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the COUNTY’s or the
Commonwealth of Virginia’s sovereign immunity.
THE COUNTY and DEPARTMENT acknowledge that this Agreement has been prepared
jointly by the parties and shall be construed simply and in accordance with its fair meaning and not
strictly for or against any party.
THIS AGREEMENT, when properly executed, shall be binding upon both parties, their
successors, and assigns.
THIS AGREEMENT may be modified in writing by mutual agreement of both parties.
IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, each party hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the day, month, and year first herein written.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
(SIGNED) Robert W . Tucker, Jr.
Robert W . Tucker, Jr.
Typed or printed name of signatory
County Executive_____________ July 1, 2009
Title Date
__________________________ __________
Signature of W itness Date
NOTE: The official signing for the COUNTY must attach a certified copy of his or her authority to
execute this agreement.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
________________________________________ __________
Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner Date
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Transportation
__________________________ __________
Signature of W itness Date
_______________
Note: At this time, the Board returned to consider Agenda Item No. 21c. Transportation Matters:
Route 29 Corridor Program.
Mr. Charlie Rasnick, VDOT Project Manager for the Route 29 Corridor Study, addressed the
Board. He reported that the study began about 15 months ago when the Commonwealth Transportation
Board met with many members of the General Assembly as well as elected local leaders. The CTB
initiated the Route 29 study to address 219 miles from the North Carolina line at Danville to Gainesville,
Virginia. He said they used recommendations from a lot of the previous studies to the extent possible,
particularly those with local emphasis such as Places29. All forms of transportation to move people and
goods are considered in this study. Their goal is to develop a framework plan for Route 29 with more
details included at the project level. They are looking at rail service, transit service, as well as highway-
oriented transportation and other issues that need to be addressed, such as carpooling and vanpooling,
and connections to other modes.
Mr. Rasnick said they are looking at many issues that have been looked at before particularly the
area south of Charlottesville between North Carolina and I-64. There was a significant study completed
for that corridor in 2003. Much of that study is being used as is, but it is being augmented with more in-
depth study of transit and rail. They are also looking at policies, procedures, and legislation that protects
Route 29. There are many areas where things done in the past must be fixed. Many things have
occurred along the corridor that have impeded the traffic flow, both local and through traffic. There needs
to be a level of procedure and a level of policy and some legislation to protect the corridor, in order to
control the access.
Mr. Rasnick said a blueprint is being developed that will be in three stages. The short-term stage
will focus on what to do in the first 10 years, and in that phase they will talk about procedures, policies and
legislation. The first 10 years will focus on safety-related projects, smaller projects. He said they will only
get to the zero year when funding is available, so it might be some time before they get to the zero year. It
is a good time to develop a plan while waiting for transportation funding to become available.
Mr. Rasnick said there is the wide swath of the Route 29 corridor along the Piedmont – which
includes rail. He then introduced Mr. Joe Springer, the Project Manager for the consulting team, and Mr.
Blager Vilovich with Renaissance Planning. He said they will give an overview and then the Board may
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
wish to ask questions. In the next couple of months they will get into details with the Board and members
of County staff.
Mr. Springer said the group’s study process was in three phases. The first was to identify needs
and establish a planning framework. The study began with no preconceived notions, so their initial steps
were to seek public input on issues related to Route 29. They have been at the second stage for about six
weeks. That phase is to develop specific recommendations which are not only project-related but looking
at the way things are done and legislation, access management regulations, how VDOT and localities
work together, etc.
Mr. Springer said today’s meeting with the Board is part of the series of one-on-one meetings they
have had throughout the corridor. They want feedback before putting out specific recommendations on
the overall planning framework to make sure everyone is in general agreement with the framework. He
showed a slide on the screen outlining some of their goals for getting input on that framework. They had a
“listening tour” that consisted of eight meetings starting in the south and moving up to Gainesville.
Concerns that arose at those meetings included safety as number one and congestion in spot locations.
They heard from people in five general locations such as the area north of Charlottesville. He said there
was a 100 percent consensus throughout the corridor about the proliferation of traffic signals. Concerns
were expressed about possible bypasses, potential impacts on historic resources, economic development,
the lack of mobile choices, and issues related to land use and growth management.
Mr. Springer reported that following those meetings, they had a series of planning forums – four
workshops were held throughout the corridor – and from that process they identified consensus themes.
People were asked to look at a “tool kit drawing” on maps and then asked to draw their ideas on maps.
The next step is to think about how things are developing and how land use decisions are made, and how
access is granted onto Route 29 by local government and VDOT. Those decisions are made on a regular
basis so many questions were asked as to how those decisions might have affected a better outcome.
Mr. Springer said based on that meeting they came up with a number of preliminary consensus
themes. The first relates to access control. For long-term control the minimum level of access would only
be at designated secondary road intersections and at key primaries. Land use planning and transportation
planning would be done around this concept. A subtext to this particular issue is to make sure there is
access management so that strip development doesn’t continue to occur. Some tools to make this
happen include purchase of development rights, incentives to have access take place via secondary
roads, developing portions of a grid system through private or public funding, and perhaps even
purchasing limited access right-of-way.
Mr. Springer reported that the next theme is related to congestion mitigation. Congestion needs
to be controlled and managed with the idea of ultimately improving locations through a number of
measures including intersection improvements, signal coordination, and ultimately construction of
interchanges. One thing they heard consistently throughout the corridor was the idea that a corridor-wide
master plan should be developed, perhaps through cooperation between VDOT and local governments. It
would guide both land use and transportation or ensure that they work together to manage land use
decisions to minimize travel and traffic congestion.
Mr. Springer said there was discussion about the idea of corridor stewardship – basically
ownership of Route 29. There is a need to look at ways to enhance the ownership aspect of VDOT
whether it is done from a top-down level or cooperatively with local governments or whether VDOT sets
the rules. He said the last item related to consensus themes is the multi-modal aspect. One thing that
needs to be emphasized is the importance of the rail system in the corridor. It is important to put an
investment in the rail system in advance of some roadway improvements to provide a competitive
advantage to the rail transit and make it a higher priority than it is currently in Virginia. He offered to
answer questions, and asked for feedback on some of the consensus items.
Mr. Rooker said that currently there are 53 lights on Route 29 from Charlottesville to I-66, with
several applications pending for lights north of Albemarle. He asked why the State can’t put a moratorium
on red lights until the study is finished. Mr. Springer said a flat-out moratorium may actually come from
the idea of corridor stewardship and changing the way VDOT and local governments work together. He is
not certain the mechanism exists today for a flat-out moratorium on traffic signals.
Mr. Rooker said he understands that VDOT has the power to say whether a red light can be
installed on Route 29. That issue came up with a light that was almost installed on Route 29 near the
Route 250 bypass and VDOT had the power to stop it. Mr. Rasnick explained that VDOT has the power
to stop installation, but many of the signals have been in the works for many years. There is an
expectation from citizens that if VDOT makes a commitment to put them in the electricity will be put there
to make them work. That is an issue that cannot be overcome right away. They are trying to limit the
number of additional traffic signals because even though the signals make overall safety greater, they do
not stop traffic accidents. They recognize that the number of traffic signals needs to be limited, but there
is not much they can do in this study because of the timeframe and the commitments already made.
Mr. Rooker said he understands applications have been made for additional lights that may be “at
a point of no return.” He thinks VDOT could “put out the word” that they are not going to accept any more
applications for new lights until this report is issued and digested. Hopefully certain things are imple-
mented that will ameliorate the need for some of the lights. Mr. Rasnick said as part of this plan they
talked about what would be done in the first 10 years. They are looking at an operations plan that shows
what is in the works and what needs to be done to address all the safety issues. Even though funding is
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
not available for projects, safety issues must be addressed. There must be a plan so it is clear to local
leaders what VDOT will be doing if safety issues arise.
Mr. Springer said as a practical matter, traffic signals are installed based on traffic signal warrant
studies. They are typically based on some identified need; if a signal is not installed then some other way
has to be found to accommodate what is happening at that location.
Mr. Rooker said he knows that, but it is more difficult to take something out once it has been
installed then not to install it in the first place. Mr. Springer agreed.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to speak up for Route 29 South in Albemarle because it is not
normally the focus of anyone’s attention. If there is a one-size fits all solution put onto the corridor it will
impact that nice rural area. It is all zoned rural and is not under any growth pressures. Also, it’s too
sparsely populated to ever support the kind of parallel road that would allow it to have more limited,
controlled access than it has now. It also has school busses using it, and when talking about multi-modal
that is a mode that is not often considered, but it creates a very definite safety issue. She said the
General Assembly overrode VDOT and raised the speed limit on that road, so there are school busses
and a rural road and people speeding at well over 60 mph. She appreciated the meeting held with
parishioners at the Cove Presbyterian Church talking about the historic structure and their concerns about
what widening the road in that area would mean to them. She said these are things that are not
mentioned often because it is sparsely populated.
Mr. Springer responded that the second and third phases would address alternatives to the knee-
jerk reaction of doing things such as installing signals. If traffic volumes and development in the southern
part of the County stays as it is presently, some of those things will be on the shelf available for use, but
probably would not be used.
Ms. Thomas said people worry about the future of their property if there is a dashed line on a
map. They are not sure what it means.
Ms. Mallek said the list of information forwarded to the Board talks about access control as a long-
term project in the way of fewer curb cuts, but what can be done in the short-term to make the long-term
possible. Mr. Springer said they are working on specific prototypes to address situations at crossroads
where properties were developed in the quadrants of the intersection and will require a grade separation
at some future time. They are looking at ways to develop parallel road systems around these rural nodes,
perhaps by building a simple bridge structure for the cross street and having local roadways serve as
ramps. Some of those concepts are in Places29, but the idea is to apply it in an area that is rural.
Ms. Thomas said “corridor stewardship” is a nice term, but she is not sure what it means.
Stewardship is the kind of word that is so popular that everybody has a different idea of what it means.
Often, in this community, she has appreciated VDOT’s stewardship such as not allowing cut-throughs in
the median. That has helped the Board with land use planning decisions; sometimes the Board cannot
say “no” because of stale zoning, but VDOT can say “no” to the cut-through. She tends to be distrustful of
pretty words like “stewardship.” Mr. Springer said it has meant different things to different people. He said
VDOT owns this road so they are looking at that with these new Access Management regulations. They
are looking at what they should be done with legislation to ensure that VDOT works more with local
governments to protect their investment.
Mr. Slutzky asked when they anticipate having a final report completed. Mr. Springer said they
are making a presentation to the CTB in November, and at that point it should be wrapped up. He
mentioned a forum earlier that had to be rescheduled, hopefully in early September, and at that point there
will be draft recommendations available for people to look at with the idea that they take some of these
things and put specifics to them. He said they want to have this as their framework, but want to have
some specifics so that people can see what is being talked about.
Ms. Thomas said use of the term “multi-modal” would be more believed if the train tracks were
denoted on the maps. Mr. Springer said they should be on there now. If they are not, that was an
oversight.
Mr. Slutzky said it is appreciated that VDOT is looking at this corridor-wide. There are risks to
everyone on the corridor to having some element that is superimposed upon them as a matter of policy to
the benefit of the corridor, but to the perceived detriment of the locality, when in fact if a U.S. highway like
this is to be managed, there is no other way to do it right. He appreciates engaging localities in these
discussions, and being open and receptive to comments. Mr. Springer said they are also developing
specific recommendations relative to the Places29 plan as well as some other parallel corridors that Mr.
Rooker has suggested; those are being discussed with County staff currently and probably will come back
to the Board within the next month to get some feedback as well.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. (This item was moved
to end of today’s agenda.)
(Note: The Board recessed at 3:28 p.m., and reconvened at 3:37 p.m. in Meeting Room 241.)
_______________
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Agenda Item No. 23. Joint Meeting with School Board
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Steve Koleszar, Ms. Diantha McKeel, Ms. Barbara
Massie Mouly, Mr. Ronnie Price, Sr., Mr. Jon Stokes and Mr. Brian W heeler.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Pamela Moynihan.
STAFF PRESENT: Superintendent, Pam Moran, Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning,
Bruce Benson, Director of Fiscal Services, Jackson Zimmerman, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Annie
Kim, and, Clerk, Jennifer Johnston.
__________
Item No. 23a. Call to Order. At 3:37 p.m., Mr. Slutzky called the Supervisors back to order.
Mr. W heeler called the School Board to order.
__________
Item No. 23b. Policy, re: School-Funding Allocations.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, explained that staff is getting ready to start work on
the CIP update. This week Local Government departments and the Schools will be asked to start
developing requests which will be due back at the end of August; in September staff will start reviewing
those requests. Today the question is whether to include debt service payments in the transfer to the
Schools and whether to move to a single-allocation to the Schools for both operations and debt; a decision
is requested on that question. If that is the decision, when all of the requests are reviewed in September,
they would not be jointly reviewed. Instead the Schools would be responsible for their own capital
program within this allocation of money. Staff is asking the boards today if that is a good idea. Staff has
prepared some questions for this discussion.
Mr. Foley said he would make a short PowerPoint presentation before the boards begin
discussion of these questions. If the Supervisors want to allocate to the Schools and have them be
responsible for both operations and debt, staff will have to determine what percentage to add on top of the
existing 60 percent. That’s going to be a complicated review because there’s no set amount; every year
the amount changes. If it is decided to keep the existing process staff will draft recommendations on how
to make the CIP Oversight Committee process more effective. However, staff needs to get past this first
issue – it has been doing research of how these questions are handled in other localities.
Mr. Foley showed a slide depicting the allocation to the Schools, primarily focused on operating
needs. It depicts the other localities staff researched, ones that are typically looked at for having best
practices, and ones that use some kind of an allocation formula. This will give a perspective on the topic
of the 60/40 split which will be discussed over the next couple of months. This group shows that there are
a variety of ways used by different localities; two of them consider only revenue growth, four consider
revenue growth plus another factor in determining the allocation, and two do not consider revenue growth
at all but use some other type of data. He said staff wants the boards to know this is preliminary research
and findings – School staff and Local Government staff will work together to follow up on some of this data
and come back to the boards with that information.
Mr. Foley brought the attention of the boards to the next slide which focuses on the topic of
discussion today which is the transfer for debt and capital. Four out of the seven localities researched
consider the capital program for the schools independent of their allocation for operations. They do not
allocate debt service with operations; they basically do an independent review of capital and make
decisions separately from the allocation for operations. He said Spotsylvania considers operations and
debt service and makes one transfer; in Arlington and Virginia Beach, in addition to debt service the
allocation also covers pay-as-you-go or cash-funded projects. He said a majority of the localities are
doing it in a way similar to how Albemarle does it, but their consideration is a little different.
Mr. Bruce Benson, Assistant Superintendent for Operations and System Planning, said a lot of
factors determine the amount of the transfer. Today’s conversation should include discussion of the
disadvantages of moving in that direction and whether the current process works for the joint boards. Is it
broken, does it need to be adjusted, should the guidelines for the CIP Oversight Committee be changed,
or should the boards look at a different way of allocating resources. Prior to making a decision about
whether to transfer the debt service to the Schools and have some separation in capital projects
discussion, the current process needs to be looked at to see if there are ways to refine it. Both he and Mr.
Foley think there is some room for improvement in the current process. W hat the Boards decide today
will direct the next steps of the staff in preparing the FY 2010-11 Budget.
Mr. Benson said there are some additional questions that need consideration. Should School
capital improvements be funded according to a set formula or funded based on evaluation of needs? One
challenge when moving to a model where debt service is transferred to the Schools is that it could
potentially limit conversation between the two boards regarding projects that would likely benefit both. In
thinking about the additions/renovations going on at some schools, those schools meet a community need
and separating the two programs entirely might limit the opportunity for conversation. W hat are the
implications of an allocation that includes capital and operational needs on the following practices:
upgrading facilities for community use, operation of school facilities for community use, maintenance
standards for those facilities, and maintaining commonality as it relates to joint compensation goals?
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Foley said depending on which of the two options the boards decide to proceed with, staff will
need to either recommend an improvement in the CIP Oversight Committee process or develop a formula
to split that percentage.
Mr. Slutzky said if there were a formula agreed upon, would staff have answers to the second set
of questions. How would the Supervisors have a way to weight in on the community benefit of a school
facility when it was no longer a part of the funding decision? How do you overcome that as a concern?
Mr. Foley said staff is asking that question of the Supervisors today. That issue would have some impact
– is it a good direction to move in?
Mr. Slutzky asked if a policy could be set up saying that there is a mutually agreed upon
expectation that facilities would be available for certain kinds of uses, and that would be applied to any
school building/project the Schools undertook if that expectation was satisfied.
Mr. Rooker said after looking at the staff report and thinking about this, he does not think it is a
good idea. However, he might be persuaded otherwise if he hears things he had not thought of.
Generally speaking, capital improvements are “lumpy” – a school is built and then another might not be
built for 10 years. There are facilities that are used for multiple purposes – school property is usually
purchased with greater acreage than necessary for a school in order to satisfy community needs. The
artificial turfs were just installed, and the Supervisors contributed money to those at the three high schools
because it was a way to provide lighted field time for the community in an economical way, etc.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks this issue has come about because the boards need to look at retooling
what the CIP Committee does. There is significant input from the Supervisors on school projects, and
vice versa at that level. It needs to be a working committee that develops a priority list of projects – both
school projects and General Government projects. He does not see an advantage to “going down this
road” of a fixed allocation. There might be five years in which the Supervisors decided the schools had
big capital needs and that was fine. Five years later when the Schools did not have big demands, other
things could be funded. He is afraid a fixed allocation will not be responsive to the differing needs of the
community. Capital is much different than operations.
Mr. Slutzky said Mr. Rooker may have saved this group a fair amount of time because that was
his conclusion also. He thinks this became a problem for the committee because it felt the Schools
decided what projects they needed and they did not have an obligation or right to weigh in heavily on
them. Not dissimilarly the School members of the CIP committee did not seem to feel welcome engaging
too much on some County projects. The CIP process might be focused on it being truly collaborative –
put all the projects in one box and collectively decide what gets done and why. If that is the crux of the
problem that gave rise to this discussion, maybe that is the way to solve it. He asked Mr. Boyd to
comment since he is a member of the committee.
Mr. Boyd said he was in a hybrid position. He does not think the 60/40 split should be used for
anything other than budget guidance. It should not be a hard and fast rule either on the operating side or
the CIP side. This year, the CIP Committee was faced with decisions about whether to renovate all of the
tracks at three of the high schools, or to fund the library project. There was no mechanism to use to
decide which project was the most important. Some people on the committee said they weren’t “giving in”
on the library project. It would be easier if the Committee had guidelines about how much money was
traditionally allocated in the CIP to one side or the other side. In the last 10 years there have not been
many County projects so it has not been a problem. Now there are several library projects in the mix and
stormwater management needs. School System needs have tapered off a little because enrollment is not
increasing. There should be a system that is flexible enough to deal with the changing environment – the
lumpiness that Mr. Rooker talked about. That cannot be done when saying 60 percent goes to the
Schools and 40 percent goes to the County.
Mr. Slutzky said the 60/40 issue is a separate conversation. The Board has been funding the
Schools because education is a priority, but the result is that the Board, for a long time, has been remiss
in adequately funding infrastructure. Now, it is predicted that there are about to be infrastructure needs in
the County. The fact that they have not been addressed is in part because of the CIP process where
there is an underlying deference to School projects. If the two are not going to be bifurcated but
commingled more effectively, how do the Supervisors and School Board collaboratively figure out how to
fund them?
Mr. Boyd said the School System does not try to determine what projects they need in terms of
the CIP. There is nothing that says they will get “x” amount of dollars over the next few years based on
projections and the County’s needs. The Schools don’t start at that place, but with a lot of placeholders
for projects that may or may not be done. If they think a new school will be needed in the next five years,
money is set aside in the CIP for land purchase - it is a placeholder, it is not a definite project. He knows
that some of that type of thing is needed, but there have to be guidelines for both sides of government in
terms of what is available to budget based on the economic forecast.
Mr. Stokes said he has been a member of the CIP Oversight Committee for three years, and
thinks there are guidelines. He takes exception to the description of the CIP process as not collaborative
and broken. The Committee has gone through projects for both the Schools and Local Government
making decisions based on the guidelines of debt levels and revenue levels. First they discuss the
amount of money available. This past year there was not the money needed, so the number of projects
was reduced - the Committee went through each project. W hen they got to the School projects it was not
said they could not be talked about because a decision had already been made. From his perspective as
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
a Committee member, the Committee, which is made up of School Board and Supervisor members as
well as citizens and others, went through the process to decide what is needed and what can be afforded.
Mr. Slutzky commented that Mr. Stokes’ is characterizing everybody as getting along fine, but the
Supervisors have gotten a report from its representatives that there was no agreement at all.
Mr. Boyd said his perspective was from this year, he has not been a member of the Committee for
three years. He said the committee directed staff to bring the CIP projects back in budget. The
Committee talked about all of the different projects included in the CIP, but he did not say to delete a
school project here and there because he did not feel it was his place to do that, as Mr. Stokes did not say
to postpone the Crozet Library for two years.
Mr. Stokes said he knows Mr. Boyd expressed that opinion to the Supervisors. He took exception
to that and wrote an e-mail to everyone explaining that was not what happened. He was sorry that Mr.
Boyd didn’t feel he could question the School Board’s requests, but he certainly felt he could question the
expense of a library or the expense of a firehouse and that’s what the group did. At the end of the three or
four meetings, the Committee put a recommendation together and that is when all of a sudden this
questioning of the process came up and it seems like Mr. Boyd is asking why is was not done right.
Mr. Boyd said the Committee realized the CIP was not going to balance the way it was presented.
They did not go back and say each side needs to cut a specific percentage out of its CIP.
Mr. Rooker said the whole idea of having a Committee is so it can, in a collaborative way, make
recommendations that are in the community’s interest based upon the amount of money available,
whatever the percentage. He feels the School Board is as interested in the overall well-being of the
County as the Supervisors are interested in excellence of the schools. It needs to be sure that when
recommendations come out of that Committee, everyone is comfortable the process has been followed
and the Supervisors get the collective judgment of that Committee.
Mr. Boyd said from his perspective, the reverse sides asked staff to step up and find balance. He
thinks County staff went to great lengths to make that happen. It was tough to talk about putting off Crozet
Library construction because he knew the Supervisors would “get a lot of flack” for putting it off for a
couple of years. He didn’t feel the School Board representatives were willing to step up and say “we didn’t
see your maintenance project until the last meeting we had.” There was no definition of the $3.0 to $4.0
million a year in maintenance.
Mr. Stokes replied that he 100 percent disagrees with that statement.
Ms. McKeel said that is not an accurate description of what happened. Even the at-large
community member on the Committee, Mr. Chris Lee, agreed that there was sufficient opportunity for
input.
Mr. Stokes added, “If it hadn’t happened, staff would not have brought forward a recommendation
to the Supervisors.”
Ms. McKeel said everyone needs to remember that this committee that she and Mr. Stokes are on
with Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier is an “oversight committee.” There is another committee comprised of staff
from both groups – Schools and Local Government – that reviews all of the processes in detail. It’s their
job to go over all projects, sort them out, and make recommendations; the Oversight Committee reviews
them last. She said Mr. Boyd seemed to want the Oversight Committee to do what the staff committee
was charged to do, or that is the way she interpreted it. She said there were already projects which had
come forward, and for the Oversight Committee to start over was not a good idea.
Mr. Stokes said if there is going to be a project the Technical Review Committee checks how
much it will cost and if that cost is correct. Those projects then come to the Oversight Committee and it
chooses based on the level of debt - that is what the committee did last year and the year before. They
got feedback that it did not happen, and that is why he is puzzled.
Ms. McKeel said it was her sense that Mr. Boyd wanted them to go back to the very beginning
(not do what the committee was charged to do), and rework everything. They could not do that in absence
of more information.
Mr. Boyd said when appointed to this committee there is no training manual. He will admit that
being on it the first year he did not ask a lot of questions that he should have asked early in the process.
Ms. McKeel said that Mr. Boyd agreed with everything at the committee level, and then went back
to the Board of Supervisors and said something different.
Mr. Boyd retorted that he didn’t agree to anything because there was never any vote.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the consensus is that the process should not be changed from the
standpoint of allocation, but the CIP process should be such that the recommendations are the joint
recommendations prioritized by the committee to go openly to the Supervisors. Ultimately, the
Supervisors have the final determination when they vote on the CIP.
Mr. Foley said staff can help with some of the value judgments that the Technical Review
Committee does not make; those have to be made by the Oversight Committee. Staff can help the
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Oversight Committee make some of those value judgments by developing criteria for consideration. At
the end of the day, decisions have to be made, but it will help them to be done a little more objectively.
Mr. Rooker said he understands where the Schools are coming from, but the Supervisors’
representatives were not as comfortable with how the process worked. Both sides need to be comfortable
with how the process works and what the end product is.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Dorrier to comment.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he believes there needs to be a better system in the oversight
process for making cuts in projects. He said the 60/40 split works pretty well, but he felt some things
should be cut and he did not get any support. He said they were dealing with Brownsville School, which
was the number one priority of the School Board. He and Mr. Boyd both supported that project. He said
the Oversight Committee is supposed to set priorities to recommend to the two boards. He said there is
not a good system for making cuts. He does not know where the cuts were made on the school side.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks the School Board as a whole should convey to their representatives
what their priorities are, in the same way that Local Government would have to decide what improvements
had to be made for lots of reasons.
Mr. Boyd said he did not recall the School Board prioritizing their projects.
Mr. W heeler said the School Board looks at the entire CIP, not just one given year.
Mr. Boyd said the place to start may be to first rank the list of projects. Then, if there is a need to
cut the last project on the Schools’ list it could be deleted leaving the last one for Local Government on the
list. That could keep the Committee from unknowingly recommending a project that isn’t a priority.
Mr. Stokes said that’s why he serves on the Oversight Committee. He felt empowered by the
School Board to list those priorities, report back to them and if they didn’t agree they could give other
instructions. He said they appointed him and Ms. McKeel to this committee to make those decisions
within the overall assessment of all the CIP projects. That is what he thought they were doing.
Mr. Slutzky said at the budget level a decision was made to take three cents out of the CIP to start
with. Then the CIP Committee had to choose among priorities and it had a charge to cut. At the end of
the process it may have been perceived by the Supervisor members that the School Board did not cut as
much as they did. That doesn’t mean their intent was wrong. He wondered if the process can be tweaked
and refined since the process may not be broken but could always be improved. He said there are a lot of
good reasons why this was not a good year to cut capital projects even though there were not sufficient
revenues. In some ways it may have been better to hold onto those three pennies and been more brutal
on the operations side. There is no way for that deliberative process to be a part of the CIP Oversight
Committee’s prioritization of capital projects. He wonders if the boards should ask staff to suggest
different approaches to how the process might continue (assuming it will choose the path Mr. Rooker
stated earlier).
Mr. Tucker said that is the next step. If it is the consensus of both boards that capital and debt
shouldn’t be added to the 60/40 split for operations, then staff will come back with how the Oversight
Committee process might be tweaked.
Mr. Slutzky asked that anyone who had not yet spoken give their opinion now.
Mr. W heeler pointed out that the reason this topic is on the agenda was not because of the CIP
process this year but because the County’s consultants recommended that it be discussed.
Mr. Rooker said things arose this year that gave the impression the process could be improved.
Also, he is in favor of having a vote by the CIP Oversight Committee on what they are recommending.
Mr. Dorrier said there was one vote at the end of the meeting, but it was a 2-2 tie, so the
tiebreaker had to vote.
Mr. Stokes said in the past there hadn’t been a need for a vote because it was all done by
consensus, but in hindsight he wished there had been a vote on every project so Mr. Boyd would have had
an opportunity to vote one way or the other.
Mr. Boyd said he looks at this whole thing differently. The recommendation in the Utilization
Resource Study suggests that Debt Service be put over on the School Board side. If that were done, it
was assumed a different formula would be needed. He still thinks the Schools’ debt service should be on
the School Board side of the budget. That doesn’t mean the allocation process needs to be changed, but
once it is decided he thinks that should be part of the School Board’s budget so it can be recognized every
year as part of their expenditures.
Ms. Mallek asked if that was done, what it would change from the School Board’s point-of-view.
Mr. Boyd said it would give them some level of accountability as to how much their level of debt
service is.
Mr. Rooker said it would need to be altered every year because of the nature of capital projects.
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. W heeler asked why the consultants made that recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said the per-pupil expenditure for education is talked about but debt service is not
included because it is not in their budget. Should it be included in that number?
Ms. Thomas said the chart shown to the Board suggests that even Chesterfield County does not
do it the way the Resource Utilization Team suggests it be done.
Mr. Boyd said he was curious as to why Prince W illiam County was not included in staff’s
research. Their information may be a little dated but they have a very sophisticated model for calculating
their CIP. Mr. Foley replied that they didn’t respond despite numerous phone calls.
Ms. Thomas said the different personalities involved were analyzed by Mr. Slutzky. She said the
two “most eager to cut our budget” Supervisor members were on that committee, and that was not the
frame of mind for the School Board’s representation. She thinks that has brought the two boards to the
table today as much as anything. Since there is a joint committee, she would like to see a discussion of
how each project is a community project. There has been discussion about the Jail situation which came
in too late to be considered in this process. Those sorts of things should be thought of earlier; the policy
on the Supervisor’s side says that almost every capital project now has to be considered as a multi-use
building.
Mr. Slutzky said there is a point early in the cycle which looks at projects before they get into the
CIP. The degree of urgency for each of them can fluctuate over time. He doesn’t know if there is a
sufficient process in place now on an annual basis to separate projects that must be done versus ones
that could be delayed. The Supervisors are driven by maintaining a tax rate and looking at what that
implies in terms of available capital budget. It does not look at weighing that against operating, and it is
not weighed against how urgent needs may or may not be. Staff might make recommendations about
how each of these interdependent variables can be best reflected in the process to the extent that they
may not be quite as fine-tuned as they could be. He asked if everybody was comfortable with that tasking
for staff.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks staff should proceed to make recommendations on this, so it can move
forward quickly for the upcoming budget session.
Mr. Koleszar said he agrees with the general consensus stated, but from a long-term perspective,
he thinks there has been a tendency to look at School projects as just School projects and County projects
just as County projects. He asked if the Crozet Library has ever been looked at as a joint project.
Ms. McKeel said that goes back to what Ms. Thomas was saying - things need to be looked at
through that “lens” better.
Ms. Thomas said there has been discussion about whether the downstairs part of the new Crozet
Library could be used by other County departments – continuing education sorts of things, not as a school.
She said that is not a good example because it is not a multi-use building.
Mr. Koleszar said he is just saying that the boards need to think in a broader perspective.
Ms. Thomas said when Monticello High School was being built there was discussion about
whether it could have a community library, but that did not work out.
Mr. Dorrier said there is a need to define the timeframe of the CIP; is it five years, ten years or
three years? Mr. Foley said it is a five-year period for an adopted plan, but every other year the County
looks ten years out so they can see what’s on the horizon.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Supervisors are “shooting” for a Committee that looks at the overall
capital needs of the County and makes priority recommendations based upon that view. All the members
should feel comfortable asking questions about any project on the list, so everybody is educated and
understands where the money is going.
Ms. Mouly said she served on the committee for a year when there was no need to cut, so they
weren’t even aware of the possibility that they might want to go back to their board to prioritize. She is not
adverse to that idea – she feels it is a good idea to include it in the process somehow. She does not
remember anything in the process that required them to go back to their board and get the priority for their
projects clearer.
Mr. Slutzky said one difference between the Capital budget and the Operating budget is that there
is more inherent fundability in the operating budget in a given year. Before it gets to the point of losing
staff, things can be stepped back and picked up the next year without it being a huge problem. W ith a
capital project there is a 20-year debt service attached, a revenue stream commitment – it is a different
animal. There needs to be a good effective process in place to look harder at prioritizing capital projects
in terms of the urgency of need, and in those years where there are not lots of urgent needs and there is
extra money, more projects might be picked up. If it is a year where revenues will be down, anything not
urgent can be sliced off. Having a way to integrate all of those things is probably what is missing.
Mr. Rooker said the other thing that needs to be considered by the Committee to the extent
possible, and which needs to be included in staff’s presentation of information, is the increased operating
July 1, 2009 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
expense a particular capital project brings with it. That needs to be included in the prioritization
consideration.
Ms. Mouly said she was interested in knowing why the Utilization Review Team made this
recommendation about debt service.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think they gave a reason.
Mr. Slutzky said they may have felt it was a way to break through the 60/40 rigidity which they did
not embrace, but that is just guessing.
Ms. Mouly said in the Resource Utilization Study for the Schools it seemed that every conclusion
had some support. Mr. Tucker said he thinks they felt there was disproportionate spending between the
two.
Mr. Slutzky said another way is to change the process of decision-making within the Committee,
and that is what is being talked about today. That seems to be a consensus, and that was the feedback
staff asked for.
Mr. Foley said staff may come back with some revisions to the by-laws as well as a list of criteria
with weights on different factors. They will do more research on other localities and how they handle this
matter.
Mr. Slutzky said the staff has clear directions. He asked if there were other matters to discuss.
There being none, Mr. Koleszar moved that the School Board adjourn its meeting. Mr. W heeler gave
second and all members present voiced ayes.
(Note: At 4:27 p.m. the School Board left the room.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Slutzky mentioned an article in the newspaper concerning an expensive meal held by the
Rivanna W ater & Sewer Authority. He thinks they took appropriate action to make a change so that
circumstance does not happen again. It reminded him of something. He remembers that from his years
of doing government consulting, there were federally mandated rules concerning meals and lodging for
Federal contractors. Everybody pays their own bill; it is an absolutely rigid rule. W ith respect to this Board
and County staff, he wonders if the Board wants to ask staff to recommend a policy regarding this issue.
Ms. Thomas said the Supervisors paid for their own meals when the visitors from Italy were here.
Mr. Tucker said that’s true of staff as well.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is a formal policy that articulates what those rules are with respect to
when you can or can’t pay for a meal. Mr. Tucker said he will have to see how much of the County’s
policy is actually written out.
Mr. Slutzky said it is his sense that it doesn’t happen, but he was hoping that fact could be codified
so the public understands it can’t happen because there is a process in place to prevent it. Unless anyone
objects he would like to ask Mr. Tucker to touch base with the policy, and tweak it if necessary.
Mr. Tucker asked Mr. W heeler if the School Board has a policy that could be looked at as a
model.
Mr. W heeler said he is not aware of any policy; the Schools operate the same way as Local
Government does.
______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. At 4:31 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 10/07/2009
Initials: EWJ