The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-06-02June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 2, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane Snow and Mr. Rodney Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4a. Thomas McQueeney – Economic Development Authority. Ms. Mallek said the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors expresses its gratitude to Thomas A. McQueeney for his dedicated service to the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County. Mr. McQueeney served on this Authority continuously from 1982 through 2009, including a term as its Chair. Arriving in our community in the 1970s, Mr. McQueeney moved a business he founded along with his business partner, David Bowerman, former Chair of the Board of Supervisors, to the Downtown Mall. Money Market Directories, a division of McGraw Hill Publishing, continues to reside in Charlottesville long after both Mr. McQueeney and Mr. Bowerman retired from the business. Mr. McQueeney has been an active community participant. To the EDA he brought his wisdom, a steadfast sense of humor and the gift of sharing the belief that business can responsibly improve all of our lives materially. Mr. McQueeney‟s hard work and passion for the community will be remembered because of his exemplary government service for many years to come. Ms. Mallek then presented Mr. McQueeney with a Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. McQueeney said that he made the decision to move to the Charlottesville area in 1977, which was “a terrific decision.” He expressed his gratitude for being able to live and work in such a great community. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Dorrier asked when the Board would be scheduling a meeting with the Library Board. Mr. Tucker said that the Board had indicated at one point they wanted to have their Strategic Planning Retreat first, which is scheduled for later this month. Mr. Dorrier agreed that it would be best to have the retreat first. Board members concurred. __________ Mr. Thomas said he has a couple of issues. The first is that he met with the new owners of the quarry on Rio Mills Road that is scheduled to reopen on August 1st. He also has some questions about the Ag/Forestal District Committee‟s recommendation for a proposed application fee. Mr. Thomas handed out copies of maps of the property on Rio Mills. This property is the site that Dr. Hurt offered the land to be used for the material dredged out of the Reservoir. He said that he met with Roanoke-based Rockydale Quarries Corporation President Kenneth Randolph and Vice -President David Mills on May 18th. The company has purchased the quarry and all adjacent acreage where the quarry is located off of Rio Mills Road. Mr. Thomas explained that Rockydale has contracted with the State and is planning to reopen the quarry on August 1, 2010. This will be their fifth location in Virginia. Ms. Amelia McCulley, County Zoning Administrator, was also in attendance at the meeting. He noted that this quarry was used during I-64 construction, and after that was completed Dr. Hurt bought the property and owned it up until the transfer to Rockydale. Mr. Thomas said that the property is permitted for mining/quarrying rock, and also has the proper zoning – which is “natural resource extraction.” He stated that the meeting was set up to ask and encourage Rockydale to notify each property owner that will be affected by the operation. Mr. Thomas reported that Mr. Randolph indicated that the company‟s typical practice was to go to each house and have a meeting with the owners of the property and tell residents what to expect in terms of noise, number of trucks, truck traffic, etc. He said that there would be eight employees plus contract haulers. Ms. McCulley said that Rio Mills Road is an area of significant concern, due to its condition. A commercial entrance was constructed when it was sti ll owned by Dr. Hurt – and the permit VDOT granted allowed for the quarry to be opened. She stated that at the time, the quarry was not going to be opened to the general public, but the current owners are allowing this. Ms. McCulley said that because the use is expanded, she asked VDOT if the current approval stands for the expanded use. She reported that Joel DeNunzio‟s responded that “they have a commercial entrance permit for the northern entrance to the June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) quarry, which VDOT previously checked for adequate site distance. Increased truck traffic is not a desirable situation for VDOT because it will cause an increase to the deterioration of Route 643 and an increase in maintenance costs, but VDOT cannot restrict the use because of the road condition.” Ms. Mallek asked if VDOT had any comment about their previous decision that was going to force the trucks to go north, as that has been the greatest concern to residents and for Earlsyville Road. She added that she is in favor of VDOT encouraging the quarry owners to direct the traffic down to Route 29, a shorter distance where the road is in better condition. Ms. McCulley responded that VDOT did not feel they had legal authority to direct traffic in just one direction or the other, and with this change in use – being open to private haulers, who will be the majority users – it would be difficult to direct which way they turn when they exit from the quarry. She said that the quarry owners can suggest it, but the ability to influence that is very limited. If the haulers have a load to drop in Earlysville, she would assume they are going to go north on Rio Mills Road. Ms. McCulley said that Mr. Slutzky had worked with Dr. Hurt when he owned the property, but the County‟s hands are somewhat tied. Mr. Rooker asked about the volume of truck traffic anticipated. Ms. Mallek replied that one a minute is what she had heard. Mr. Thomas said that there were no specific numbers talked about at his meeting with Rockydale, but it is not up to the County to tell them what to do. Mr. Rooker responded that it would be helpful to know what kind of traffic is anticipated. He also recalled the firm mentioning “a truck leaving every minute or so.” He noted that it would add a lot to VDOT‟s maintenance cost on the road, and would also impact that entrance onto Route 29. He asked if there was still a possibility that this property would be leased out for the fill in the event dredging ever takes place. Mr. Thomas responded that the company‟s intention is to quarry rock, and they have a contract with the State. He added that the materials mined are useable for asphalt and concrete. Mr. Rooker commented that maybe they can use some of the materials to repair the road. Mr. Thomas said that he suggested to them that they reinforce the road and build it back up, but the private haulers cannot be dictated to – even though coming back to Route 29 would be better for everything. He added that the company stated that they would rather come to Route 29. Ms. Mallek noted that it‟s an even greater concern when they come to the Airport and then go south on Earlysville Road because the road is so narrow. Mr. Snow commented that he does not know why the Board is having this conversation, as it is already zoned for this use by-right, nothing can be dictated, and nothing can really be done about the roads. Ms. Mallek said that she appreciates being informed because all the Board members are going to get phone calls about this, not just Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas mentioned that concerns from residents in that area prompted him to bring it before the Board for discussion, and Rockydale is going to explain every facet of it to each neighbor individually. The County cannot say no to them at this point because they are licensed and permitted to mine the rock. The property is zoned for natural resource extraction. He was making Board members aware of the situation. Mr. Rooker said that if Mr. Thomas desired, the Board could pass a resolution requesting that Rockydale consider directing their trucks toward Route 29 when they exit instead of going in the other direction. It is not binding, but is something the Board would like to see done. Mr. Thomas supported that idea. Ms. Mallek agreed. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Davis draft a resolution for Board adoption either later today or next week. Mr. Davis said he would prepare something for the Board‟s consideration next week. __________ Mr. Thomas noted that he is the Board‟s representative to the Ag/Forestal Committee. About two meetings ago it was suggested that fees be put on applications because their processing costs quite a bit of money. He said that staff member, Eryn Brennan was asked to look into various options for streamlining the Ag/Forestry application process and the possibility of charging an additional application fee to recover some of the costs of the process, and present this information to the Ag/Forestal Committee. Mr. Thomas said that staff gave a presentation at the Committee‟s May 10th meeting, with information indicating that it takes approximately five months to process an application and costs the County roughly $200 to $250 per application in legal advertising fees and staff time – at no cost to the applicant. He reported that additional applications in the past decade have numbered about three per year, but last year and this year there has been an exponential increase – with 67 applications processed last fall at a cost of June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) $11,000 to Albemarle County in legal ads alone. This spring another eight applications were received, at an estimated cost of $3,200 for legal ads; additional applications have already been received for the upcoming fall deadline as well. Mr. Thomas said that after some discussion, after some reflection on the various options by staff , the Ag/Forestal Committee recommended the initiatives as follows: 1) the consensus of the committee was that a change in the Code of Virginia should be pursued to reduce and/or eliminate some of the legal ad requirements for the Ag/Forestal addition application process; 2) the Committee felt that this would be a better long-term solution than instituting an application fee based on superfluous legal ad requirements and would necessitate a higher application fee; and 3) following a change in the Code of Virginia, the Committee recommended that the cost of the Ag/Forestal addition process be re-evaluated and the possibility of an application fee be reconsidered in light of an overall cost reduction for processing applications. Ms. Brennan offered to answer any questions, noting that a long time ago she was asked to look at the cost analysis for the Fall 2009 additions – and the Ag/Forestal Committee eventually asked her to do more research and explore options on how the County might be able to recapture some of the costs for processing Ag/Forestal addition applications. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the influencing factor with the costs last year was that there were a large number of applications in response to revalidation – and that is continuing this year. He said that what the County has been experiencing for many years is that the State Code requirement extends the timeframe within which the applications are processed to many months, and that creates a lot of confusion when notices are sent to landowners as they are thinking they are being put into a district. In talking with people around the State, he has heard a number of people who work with Ag/Forestal Districts in other counties say that the process is just not necessary to be as convoluted and as long as it is. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Albemarle had one ad last fall in the newspaper that ran for two pages, and said the same thing for each Ag/Forestal District – as required by State law. He said that he has talked with David Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison, to see how he would see this potentially proceeding, and the County would need to work with VACo and the Farm Bureau. From staff‟s perspective, if the County could take out a couple steps in the process it would still be very similar to rezonings and special use permits. He said that it would drop one legal ad and some other requirements that are time-consuming and costly. Ms. Mallek asked if the County had to send a letter to each abutting property owner, in addition to the ad. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is required, adding that if the first legal ad could be dropped, then the questions can be answered – noting that the legal ad last fall that he referred to cost approximately $5,000. The staff has not seen where that legal ad is accomplishing anything. Ms. Mallek commented that the process is far less intrusive on others than any other kind of rezoning, subdivision, or anything else – and many adjacent property owners are glad that the properties will not be developed. She also serves on VACo‟s Ag/Forestal Committee, and will be happy to carry this request to them. Mr. Davis pointed out that this legislation has been on the books unchanged since 1977. Inertia in Virginia is an interesting concept. Ms. Mallek said that given the budget situation, perhaps the legislature will now be more amenable to the suggested changes. Mr. Davis stated that there are three public hearings required for an Ag/Forestal District, three large ads – one containing very detailed specific requirements, and it is at least a five-month process. Everyone agrees that the process is pretty onerous, but he thinks we are going to have to articulate why it needs to be changed to the people that draft it. Ms. Mallek suggested including the financial specifics. Mr. Cilimberg said that there are only a few words that actually need to be removed from the Sta te Code that would greatly simplify the process. Mr. Boyd asked if this is something that should be taken directly to delegates, rather than working through VACo. Ms. Mallek responded that she thinks VACo would support it, but that does not replace going directly to legislators. Mr. Davis added that there would need to be sponsors for the bill, and it would be helpful to have support from both Delegate Toscano and Delegate Bell. Mr. Rooker said that with all the money spent on these ads, in the 12 years he‟s been involved, there has never been one person show up to oppose an application. He stated that he doesn‟t really recall people showing up to support one either – as there is an assumption the addition will be approved. It is a huge amount of time, effort, and money wasted – throughout the State, not just here. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff will pursue it. __________ Mr. Thomas asked for a reminder of the Places29 open house dates. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Ms. Lee Catlin, Community Relations Director, responded that the open houses are scheduled for Thursday evening at the Senior Center; Monday evening at the Hollymead Fire Station; and Wednesday prior to the Board‟s public hearing at the County Office Building in the Auditorium. She stated that the timeframes are between 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and all of the information is on the County‟s website but there are also CD copies at the libraries and other locations around town. Mr. Thomas asked if a PSA was done on radio. Ms. Catlin responded that they have run ads in all the newspapers, have sent out A-mail notice, and have done a press release – but will certainly do more over the next few days to get the word out. Mr. Rooker noted that there was a technical memorandum done that compares the various improvements – the Berkmar Bridge, the six-laning of Route 29, and several other projects – and it is worth taking a look at. He said that it is up on the T homas Jefferson Planning District Commission‟s website, noting that it was handed out at the last MPO meeting. The information shows that the most cost-effective improvement was determined to be the widening of Route 29 – noting that it would save six minutes of future travel time for each traveler, looking out 20 years. Mr. Dorrier asked if the public hearing would be held on June 9th. Ms. Mallek confirmed that it would be. __________ Mr. Boyd reported that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority met last week and had a proposal put forward by the engineering consulting firm (Schnabel) regarding the Ragged Mountain Dam; that was presented at a public meeting last night as well, which Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow also attended. He stated he is concerned that every time the issue has been raised at the Board of Supervisors level, it‟s established that the Board is behind the 50-year plan – yet delays with studies continue. Mr. Boyd said that the City has appropriated $350,000 to study raising the existin g dam, and he has been trying to figure out how to move the project forward because he is concerned that the bidding environment will be lost – perhaps costing $8.0 to $10.0 million. He stated that he‟s also concerned that based on growth predictions, the biggest brunt of this is going to be borne by ratepayers in the County. He suggested that the Board have a meeting with City Council to work through some of the issues and their concerns to see if this can be moved along more quickly and take advantage of the construction bidding climate. Mr. Rooker commented that the Board and Council met before and it helped a lot, adding that they should do it as soon as possible so that it doesn‟t drag out another three or four months. He agrees 100% with Mr. Boyd‟s comments. He thinks that if we are not careful, we are going to lose a favorable bidding climate which could save our ratepayers a lot of money. Mr. Dorrier added that there are other issues the Board should talk to the City about that he does not feel are being addressed by the group that was set up, i.e., revenue sharing. Mr. Tucker responded that committee meetings are in the works. Mr. Boyd said that he would like to focus solely on the water supply issue, as it has been delayed two years now because of additional studies. He really is concerned that this might be driven by a very small but vocal group of individuals that are causing these delays, and he is concerned about County residents and ratepayers. Board members agreed unanimously to move forward with setting a meeting with City Council. Ms. Mallek stated that one fact that is often overlooked is that if the existing reservoir system continues to be used, the pipeline from Sugar Hollow – which is 13 miles long – will continue to be relied upon. And, the one that is there is just about shot – the huge amount of money to replace that is not even in the counter-plan. Mr. Boyd said that some students at Monticello High School interviewed him for a paper they were doing, and it became apparent how complicated the issue is. He thinks that we need to make a decision and move forward and it would help him to have some direction from this Board as to how he should conduct himself on the RWSA Board as well. __________ Ms. Mallek mentioned an article in Monday‟s newspaper by Brian McKenzie about the Congressional bill that is challenging the ability of local wine-producers to direct-ship to customers all over the world and country. She will be coming back next week with more information about this. She has been in contact with most of the wineries in the White Hall District, and some others in the County to solicit their opinions as this is something that could be really detrimental to our rural businesses. Ms. Mallek asked fellow Board members to join her in sending a letter to Congress, and particularly the two Congress people from Virginia who are co-sponsoring this bill. She added that the Congressman‟s office has not received any comments from local producers yet; they have only heard from the distributors. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. Ms. Pam Evans addressed the Board, stating that deregulation has led to both the Wa ll Street debacle and the Gulf Oil catastrophe. Years of work were undone because regulations were not in the interest of business; greed and political posturing clouded balanced, hard work, and review . Ms. Evans said that there are many reasons locally why heavy industry has been separated from light industry, and June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) there are concerns over excessive water use. She was raised in a family business and understands the need for streamlining and review of policy. She is also aware of how difficult it is to get any protections passed as they are never done without just cause. She said that deregulation made money for BP in the short term, but didn‟t work out well for anyone in the long term. Ms. Evans stated that she worked with Sherman Evans, former Governor of New Hampshire and former Chief of Staff under President Eisenhower. She said that he is an “old -fashioned conservative” and appointed her to serve with him on a community council. Ms. Evans emphasized that Mr. Evans wanted representation from everyone – especially people in the community he disagreed with. Great men and women are not afraid of debate – they learn from it. She said that she learned from him that the best decisions are the ones where everyone could have real input, and these were the decisions that had lasting power. Technically, it is not a roundtable if everyone there has the same agenda. Ms. Evans commented that the County made many promises to citizens that were later broken because it was fiscally or politically expedient, and when large businesses here don‟t get what they want they meet with local government and staff on roundtables, etc. It is hard for regular County residents to find their way through the circular paperwork and Catch-22s. Corporations can have lawyers who within a couple of years will have a text amendment. She mentioned that in Florida, voters are voting on Amendment Four – which will mean that changes on the growth plans will go through citizens instead of the BOS. Ms. Evans noted that she doubts it will pass as developers have hired a boatload of lawyers, but people have had enough and change is coming. She said that nationally, eyes are on Florida – but locally they are on the Board of Supervisors. The Board has the rare opportunity this year to bring the community together. Instead of having more roundtables working together to empower citizens to find innovative ways to fiscally support the schools and not raise taxes, the Board voted for the status quo and left a divided apathetic community. The Board must do a better job of bringing everyone to the table. She appreciates what the Board does but hopes they can find more ways to bring residents in as well as the other interests they represent. __________ Mr. Ed Lowery said that he is present representing 16 County employees who took early retirement based on an offer of a supplemental retirement package offered by the County. Each of these employees took time to think about whether they could afford to retire given the supplemental package. Mr. Lowery stated that the employees later found out that the County declared that it had made a mistake in what it had offered to them and was unilaterally going to change and reduce that amount significantly. He noted that the losses range from a little over $2,000 to over $26,000 individually, which is a lot of money for these people who are now on fixed incomes and who would still be faithful County employees if they had not been induced to take early retirement. Mr. Lowery said that the y believe the County is both legally and morally obligated to these people to honor the commitment it made. He has provided Board members with a copy of an exchange of letters with Mr. Davis; unfortunately, they have not been able to see eye-to-eye on the issue. He stated that as a matter of simple contract law, which involves three elements – offer, acceptance, and the passing of consideration – there was a contract that the County should be bound to. There was an offer made to these people; they did accept it, and the consideration was to take early retirement which saved the County a substantial amount of money in terms of personnel costs over an extended period of time. They ask from a moral standpoint to send a message to these people and other County employees that the County does stand behind its commitments and will take care of them. __________ Mr. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Board, handing them a binder of information related to Places29. As a City resident, he is concerned that a small group of citizens has “swift boated” the W ater Supply Plan, and have been successful in establishing a cheaper alternative and making it all about City growth. Mr. Werner said that the RWSA Executive Director, Tom Frederick‟s frustration is starting to show in the memorandums he is issuing. He thinks this Board needs to communicate to citizens what is going on. Mr. Werner said he has provided Board members with copies of the technical d ocuments that were prepared leading into the Places29 Master Plan – developed with TJPDC, VDOT, and County Planning staff. Mr. Werner said that the information he presented includes traffic modeling and traffic data. He said that the north and south/east and west traffic must cross each other at some point and that is where the problem is. He stated that this report identifies how much traffic is local and how much is projected in the future. Mr. Werner added that unless the intersections are addressed in some way, Route 29 will fail. These are not his numbers – they are what the engineers have come up with. He stated that there is discussion of Route 29 becoming an expressway with 55 mph, and it is clear that that will not happen – even with the improvements. Mr. Werner added that the Access Management Plan does not necessarily close or modify entrances to existing businesses. There are a lot of facts in these documents compared to a lot of misinformation and disinformation being circulated in the community. He encouraged the Board to read the information before making a decision on Places29. Mr. Dorrier asked if there was a summary of the report that could be read. Mr. Werner suggested that the Access Management Plan, and Technical Memos #9 and #11 have good information. He added that the information is an eye-opener relative to the facts. __________ Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he would be careful with the data presented, as there is no modeling for the Bypass alternative – and it was the mission of the Board not to model it. He commented that there are many good things in Places29 that the community can rally June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) around, and he encouraged the Board to look for the things that can be agreed to, and can be accomplished. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to approve Items 7.1 (as noted) through 7.6 on the consent agenda, to pull Item 7.7 for further discussion, and to accept the remaining items as information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. (Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that item.) Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. __________ Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: Approval of Minutes: March 10(A) and April 22, 2010. Ms. Mallek asked that her minutes of March 10, 2010 be pulled. Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of April 22, 2010, and found them to be in order. By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes which had been read. The remaining minutes were carried forward to the next meeting . __________ Item No. 7.2. Road Name Change of Woodpecker Way to Raven Stone Road. The executive summary states that pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manuel, road name change requests shall be forwarded to the Board for approval upon validation of the following: That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by 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 (i.e., that it is not a duplicate name, is limited to three words, and does not exceed sixteen characters and/or spaces). A majority of the landowners of the properties served by Woodpecker Way submitted a request to change the road name of Woodpecker Way to Raven Stone Road (Attachment A-on file). 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. A map showing the location of the road is attached (Attachment B-on file). There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowners will be responsible for the costs associated with new signage. Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Woodpecker Way to Raven Stone Road and authorize staff to implement the change. By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved changing the road name of Woodpecker Way to Raven Stone Road and authorized staff to implement the change. __________ Item No. 7.3. FY 2010/11 Resolution of Appropriations. The executive summary states that the County‟s FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 7, 2010, for a total estimated amount of $292,417,560. On May 13, 2010, the School Board officially adopted the School Fund and the School Self -Sustaining Fund budgets. The attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2011 provides the authority from the Board of Supervisors for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1, 2010. This Resolution is a comprehensive Resolution which appropriates the total County budget, including both operating and capital funds in a single resolution, and the initial Special Revenue Fund appropriations. Staff recommends approval of the attached (on file) Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 10/11 that allocates a total of $292,257,596 to various General Government and School Division operating, capital improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 10/11. This appropriation is made up of the following major funds: General Fund $213,266,298 School Fund 142,863,633 School Self-Sustaining 23,045,976 Special Revenue 14,109,326 Capital Projects 8,960,606 Debt Service 16,694,172 TOTAL $418,940,011 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Less Inter-fund Transfers ($126,682,415) GRAND TOTAL $292,257,596 The FY 10/11 total budget recommended for appropriation is $159,964 less than the budget formally adopted by the Board on April 7, 2010 due to changes in the School Self -Sustaining Funds. The appropriated budget reflects the School Fund and School Self-Sustaining Funds that were approved by the School Board at its May 13, 2010 meeting. Staff also recommends approval of the attached (on file) Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing. This would allow the County to use bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget for expenditures incurred prior to the future planned issuance of bonds. By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved following Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 10/11 that allocates a total of $292,257,596 to various General Government and School Division operating, capital improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 10/11; and approved following the Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing: ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2011 A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS: Refunds and Abatements $207,500 Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT Board of Supervisors $582,695 County Attorney $912,860 County Executive $1,073,789 Department of Finance $4,158,557 Department of Human Resources $673,346 Department of Information Technology $2,492,866 Voter Registration/ Elections $462,346 $10,356,459 Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL Circuit Court $103,061 Clerk of the Circuit Court $708,680 Commonwealth's Attorney $911,601 General District Court $22,806 Juvenile Court $148,717 Magistrate $4,425 Sheriff's Office $1,995,195 $3,894,485 Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department $6,678,976 Building Codes and Inspections $1,072,951 Community Attention Home $60,149 Department of Police $12,483,891 Emergency Communications Center $1,982,766 Fire Department Contract (City of Charlottesville) $764,647 Fire/Rescue Tax Credit $57,500 Forest Fire Extinguishment $23,786 Juvenile Detention Center $673,926 Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) $155,382 Regional Jail Authority $3,154,209 SPCA Contract $379,100 Thomas Jefferson EMS Council $19,066 VJCCCA $52,231 Volunteer Fire Departments $1,251,343 Volunteer Rescue Squads $418,183 $29,228,106 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) Paragraph Five: GENERAL SERVICES / PUBLIC WORKS Facilities Development Department $999,077 General Services $350,000 Rivanna Solid Waste Authority $3,156,872 $4,505,949 Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES AIDS Support Group $4,715 Arc of the Piedmont Infant Development Program $8,880 Boys and Girls Club $12,915 Bright Stars Transfer $727,746 BRMC - Latino Lay Health Promoter $5,173 Charlottesville Free Clinic $111,198 Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) $94,604 Commission on Children & Families (CCF) $85,117 Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $2,510,747 Computers4Kids $14,729 Department of Social Services $11,727,918 Health Department $551,444 JAUNT $866,902 Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) $280,478 Jefferson Area CHIP $313,405 Legal Aid Justice Center $36,569 Madison House $10,266 Music Resource Center $5,702 Piedmont CASA $8,836 Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) $22,301 Piedmont Workforce Network $13,805 Region Ten Community Services $569,531 Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) $22,000 Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) $87,995 Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $1,000,000 United Way $115,922 $19,208,898 Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE African American Festival $2,700 Ash-Lawn Highland $9,148 Darden Towe Park Transfer $156,838 Department of Parks & Recreation $2,198,752 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library $3,173,138 Literacy Volunteers $25,037 Municipal Band $16,371 Piedmont Council of the Arts $11,585 Virginia Discovery Museum $11,030 Virginia Festival of the Book $10,764 Virginia Film Festival $14,742 Visitors Bureau $603,852 WHTJ Public Television $2,459 WVPT Public Television $2,459 $6,238,875 Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $395,512 Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation $6,175 Central Virginia Small Business Development Center $7,800 Charlottesville Transit Service $648,004 Department of Community Development $4,068,161 Housing Office $528,130 Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) $114,500 Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) $37,889 Planning District Commission (TJPDC) $108,292 Soil and Water Conservation $96,372 Stream Watch $10,275 VPI Extension Service $201,290 $6,222,400 Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $259,148 Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund $259,148 Transfer to Storm Water Fund $261,250 $779,546 Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT Revenue Sharing Agreement $18,454,658 Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS Board Contingency Reserve $210,372 Revenue Shortfall Contingency $1,048,837 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Salary Contingency - Reclassifications $25,000 VERIP Program $627,795 Transfer to General Government Debt Service $3,181,282 Transfer to School Division Debt Service $13,018,632 Transfer to School Fund - Recurring $96,057,504 $114,169,422 Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $213,266,298 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $183,458,594 Revenue from Local Sources - Transfers $2,692,166 Revenue from the Commonwealth $22,559,124 Revenue from the Federal Government $4,464,724 Revenue from Fund Balance $91,690 Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $213,266,298 SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND (Fund 2000) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND Administration, Attendance & Health $6,372,846 Facilities Construction/ Modification $334,600 Facilities Operation/ Maintenance $14,474,585 Instruction $104,045,029 Pupil Transportation Services $8,523,823 Technology $2,522,187 Other Uses of Funds $6,590,563 Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $142,863,633 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $96,057,504 Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,072,610 Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over, Transfers $2,200,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $40,865,213 Revenue from the Federal Government $2,668,306 Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $142,863,633 SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES (Fund 3000) Maintenance/ Operation of School Cafeterias $4,971,314 Summer Feeding $303,500 Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,274,814 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $3,380,232 Revenue from the Commonwealth $74,500 Revenue from the Federal Government $1,820,082 Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,274,814 Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3205) Special Ed Pre-School Program $67,416 Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $67,416 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government $67,416 Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $67,416 Paragraph Three: McINTIRE TRUST FUND (Fund 3501) Payment to County Schools $10,000 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $10,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Investments Per Trust $10,000 Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $10,000 Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM C. B. I. P. Severe (Fund 3201) $1,006,038 E. D. Program (Fund 3202) $788,172 Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,794,210 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Tuition and Fees $1,794,210 Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,794,210 Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS Adult Education (Fund 3115) $126,500 Carl Perkins (Fund 3207) $150,000 Chapter I (Fund 3101) $1,789,581 Migrant Education (Fund 3103) $147,000 Title II (Fund 3203) $450,000 English Literacy/Civics (Fund 3221) $166,500 Economically Dislocated Workers (Fund 3116) $60,000 Title III (Fund 3215) $120,000 21st Century Grant (Fund 3219) $163,177 Technology Challenge Grant (Fund 3131) $15,777 Race to GED (Fund 3309) $30,000 Families in Crisis (Fund 3304) $70,000 Safe Schools (Fund 3316) $778,766 Healthy Students (3317) $704,360 ARRA (Fund 3162) $2,855,590 Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $7,627,251 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $80,000 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $820,869 Revenue from the Federal Government $6,726,382 Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year June 30, 2011: $7,627,251 Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3300) Community Education $1,621,906 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,621,906 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $1,590,745 Revenue from Fund Balance (Fund 3300) $31,161 Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,621,906 Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL (Fund 3310) Summer School $460,561 Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $460,561 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $149,621 Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $171,440 Miscellaneous Revenues $2,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $137,500 Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $460,561 Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT (Fund 3905) School Bus Replacement $1,510,000 Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,510,000 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $1,510,000 Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,510,000 Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND (Fund 3145) AIMR Summer Rental $446,010 Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $446,010 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (rental) $446,010 Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $446,010 Paragraph Ten: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 3910) Vehicle Maintenance 799,536 Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $799,536 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Charges) $799,536 Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $799,536 Paragraph Eleven: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3133) General Adult Education $15,000 Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $15,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $5,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $10,000 Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $15,000 Paragraph Twelve: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND (Fund 3305) Drivers Safety Fund $435,600 Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $435,600 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $375,100 Revenue from the Commonwealth $60,500 Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $435,600 Paragraph Thirteen: OPEN DOORS FUND (Fund 3306) Open Doors Fund $123,000 Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $123,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $119,000 Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements) $4,000 Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $123,000 Paragraph Fourteen: STATE PROGRAMS Special Education Jail Program (Fund 3212) $144,606 Algebra Readiness (Fund 3152) $28,104 Individualized Student Alternative Education (Fund 3142) $23,576 Teacher Mentor Program (Fund 3151) $9,586 Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $205,872 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Commonwealth $205,872 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $205,872 Paragraph Fifteen: COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL Community Charter School (Fund 3380) $18,800 Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $18,800 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $18,800 Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $18,800 Paragraph Sixteen: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 3907) Computer Equipment Replacement Fund $2,000,000 Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $2,000,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $2,000,000 Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $2,000,000 Paragraph Seventeen KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY (Fund 3157) Kluge-Club Yancey $20,000 Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $20,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $20,000 Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $20,000 Paragraph Eighteen: FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE (Fund 3502) Foundation for Excellence $12,000 Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE appropriations for fiscal year ending $12,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Miscellaneous) $12,000 Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $12,000 Paragraph Nineteen: Textbook Replacement Fund Textbook Replacement $500,000 Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer) $500,000 Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $500,000 Paragraph Twenty: American History Grant American History $104,000 Total AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $104,000 Total AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $104,000 GRAND TOTAL - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS $23,045,976 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND (Fund 1551) Comprehensive Services Act Program Expenditures $7,250,000 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $7,250,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $2,510,747 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $1,040,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth $3,458,840 Revenue from Fund Balance $240,413 Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $7,250,000 Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND (Fund 1553) Bright Stars Program $1,094,577 Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,094,577 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $727,746 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $95,535 Revenue from the Commonwealth $271,296 Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,094,577 Paragraph Three: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND (Fund 4200) Darden Towe Memorial Park $245,574 Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $245,574 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from the General Fund) $156,838 Revenue from Other Local Sources $88,736 Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $245,574 Paragraph Four: MJ HEALTH GRANT (Fund 1563) MJ Health Grant $5,000 TOTAL MJ HEALTH GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue From Local Sources $5,000 Total MJ HEALTH GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,000 Paragraph Five: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 9150) Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $40,409 TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $40,409 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $40,409 Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $40,409 Paragraph Six: TOURISM FUND (Fund 1810) Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund) $1,248,750 Total TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,248,750 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $1,248,750 Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $1,248,750 Paragraph Seven: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND (Fund 1520) Criminal Justice Grant Programs $751,590 Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $751,590 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $35,000 Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $716,590 Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $751,590 Paragraph Eight: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND (Fund 1225) Victim-Witness Program $110,656 Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $110,656 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $27,807 Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $82,849 Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $110,656 Paragraph Nine: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND (Fund 1208) Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding $12,000 Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $12,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant) $9,600 Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $1,200 Local Funds (Transfer from the General Fund) $1,200 Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $12,000 Paragraph Ten: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND (Fund 1227) Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to General Fund) $308,780 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments $2,680,200 Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $2,988,980 To be provided as follows: Revenue from the Federal Government $2,988,980 Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $2,988,980 Paragraph Eleven: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 9200) Vehicle Replacement $361,790 Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $361,790 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $359,440 Revenue from Other Local Sources $2,350 Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $361,790 GRAND TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $14,109,326 SECTION V - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) Paragraph One: COURTS Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $207,955 Old Jail Facility Maintenance $16,720 $224,675 Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY ACRJ Security System $36,513 Police Mobile Data Computers $329,175 $365,688 Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS County Facilities - Maintenance/Replacement $914,375 Ivy Landfill Remediation $559,075 Keene Landfill Closure $52,250 Moores Creek Septage Receiving $178,695 Storage Facility Lease (Tr to General Fund) $58,000 $1,762,395 Paragraph Four: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE Parks - Maintenance/Replacement $407,550 $407,550 Paragraph Five: LIBRARIES City-Co Branch Library Maintenance/Replacement $64,268 $64,268 Paragraph Six: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $397,100 Paragraph Seven: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program $365,750 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $3,587,426 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $259,148 Other Local Sources (including Proffers) $252,593 Loan Proceeds $0 Use of Fund Balance $3,075,685 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $3,587,426 SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION) Administrative Technology $182,875 Maintenance/Replacement $3,581,215 Storage Facility Lease $144,000 Technology Grant $785,840 Wide Area Network Upgrade $418,000 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,111,930 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $259,148 Proffers $0 Interest Earned $20,000 State Technology Grant $752,000 VPSA Bonds $2,917,000 Fund Balance $1,163,782 Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,111,930 SECTION VII: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100) That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Paragraph One: STORM WATER PROJECTS Storm Water Control Program $261,250 Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $261,250 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $261,250 Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $261,250 SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9900) Debt Service Payments - School Division $13,018,632 Debt Service Payments - PREP $211,081 Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $13,229,712 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $13,018,632 Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees) $211,081 Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $13,229,712 Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9910) Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt Service Payment $826,556 Debt Service Payments - General Government $2,624,514 Bond Issuance Cost $13,390 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $3,464,460 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources $283,178 Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $3,181,282 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $3,464,460 GRAND TOTAL - DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $16,694,172 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2011 RECAPITULATION: Appropriations: Section I General Fund $213,266,298 Section II School Fund $142,863,633 Section III Other School Funds $23,045,976 Section IV Other Special Revenue Funds $14,109,326 Section V General Government Capital Improvements Fund $3,587,426 Section VI School Division Capital Improvements Fund $5,111,930 Section VII Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund $261,250 Section VIII Debt Service $16,694,172 $418,940,011 Less Inter-Fund Transfers General Fund to School Fund ($96,490,634) General Fund to Special Revenue Funds ($3,783,778) General Fund to Capital Improvements Funds ($779,546) General Fund to Debt Service Funds ($16,199,914) Special Revenue Funds to General Fund ($1,557,530) Special Revenue Funds to Capital Improvements Funds ($40,409) School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds ($4,980,490) School Fund to Special Revenue Funds ($1,135,535) School Fund to General Fund ($474,538) June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Self-Sustaining Funds to School Fund ($400,000) Capital Improvements Funds to General Fund/School Fund ($840,041) ($126,682,415) GRAND TOTAL - ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $292,257,596 SECTION IX: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: Paragraph One: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND Emergency Communications Center $5,022,847 Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,022,847 To be provided as follows: Albemarle County $1,982,766 City of Charlottesville $1,647,045 University of Virginia $553,503 Revenue from Other Local Sources $276,387 Revenue from the Commonwealth $550,000 Revenue from the Federal Government $13,146 Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2011: $5,022,847 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution. SECTION IX All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Richard Wiggans) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Jordan) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional, and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors Paragraph Two All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation. Paragraph Three No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be re sponsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual. In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors. Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) Paragraph Four Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates. Paragraph Five All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance. Paragraph Six All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Seven This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and ten. ***** RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”); and WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that: 1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax -exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $19,324,839. 2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt. 3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower. 4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower‟s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Proj ect is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years. 5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official inten t” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Exhibit A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BONDED PROJECTS FY 2010/11 Schools Amount 1. School Maintenance Projects $2,917,000 Schools Subtotal $2,917,000 TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – FY 2010/11 PROJECTS $2,917,000 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED PROJECTS TO BE BONDED Schools Amount 1. School Maintenance Projects $3,269,000 2. Gymnasium HVAC & Lighting Replacement $1,794,000 4. Greer Elementary School Addition/Renovations $80,000 5. Crozet Elementary School Improvements $395,000 6. Henley Auxiliary PE/Meeting Space $200,000 Schools Subtotal $5,738,000 General Fund Amount 1. Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Renovations $3,650,000 2. Pantops Fire Station $250,000 3. Ivy Fire Station $250,000 4. Fire Rescue Apparatus $1,016,000 5. Crozet Ladder Truck $1,138,000 6. Hollymead Fire Apparatus $415,000 7. Crozet Streetscapes Phase II* $1,890,839 8. Crozet Library* $1,800,000 9. County IT Infrastructure/Server Upgrade $260,000 General Fund Subtotal $10,669,839 TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – ALL PROJECTS $19,324,839 *Project previously anticipated to be funded or partially funded with cash. __________ Item No. 7.4. VDoT Revenue Sharing Program Application, FY 2010/11 Resolution. The executive summary states that the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program (“Program”) is a competitive funding program for road improvements which requires , at a minimum, a dollar for dollar match from participating localities. The County has participated in this Program since 1988. The Program provides an opportunity for the County to receive up to an additional $1.0 million for road improvements. Last year, the County provided a $1.5 million match and received the full award of $1.0 million, which was applied to the Jarmans Gap Road Project. The Revenue Sharing Program funding priorities (Tiers) were modified two years ago to make projects that are administered by the locality the highest priority for funding (Tier One) and projects in which the locality has provided a match in excess of a dollar for dollar match the second highest priority for funding (Tier Two). To date, the County‟s requests have qualified under the Tier Two criteria. Tier One project requests will be fully funded before any funds are made available for Tier Two project requests. Due to the State‟s limited funding of the Revenue Sharing Program in FY10-11 (State Code minimum of $15 million as opposed to up to $50 million in prior years), it is likely that only the projects qualifying under the Tier One criteria (locally administered projects) will be funded in FY10-11. The only project administered by the County that would meet the Tier One criteria of the Revenue Sharing Program is the Crozet Streetscape Project. Therefore, staff is recommending that the County request FY10-11 Revenue Sharing funds for the Crozet Streetscape Project. VDOT staff concur that this is an eligible and viable project for Revenue Sharing Program funding. If the request is approved, the project would receive up to $1.0 million in funding, which would consist of up to $500,000 in State Revenue Sharing funds and $500,000 in matching local funds. The FY10-11 budget adopted by the Board included the retention of $500,000 from previous allocations in the CIP for a possible Revenue Sharing application in FY10-11. The estimated cost for the Crozet Streetscape Project is $3.25 million. Previously planned funding for this project included debt financing of approximately $2.8 million and other VDOT grants totaling a little over $400,000. Leveraging the additional Revenue Sharing funds would: 1) ensure that adequate funding will be available for the project; 2) reduce the long term cost of the project by reducing borrowing costs; and/or, 3) allow some County funds now allocated to the streetscape project to be moved to other priority projects, as needed (such as the Jarmans Gap Road, Georgetown Road or the Broomley Bridge projects identified in the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Program). A total of $500,000, all previously appropriated, is available under unencumbered funds in the CIP‟s Revenue Sharing Road Supplemental budget line item (9010 41020 950223). This balance was maintained in the budget to allow for a future Revenue Sharing Program request, potentially to address anticipated shortfalls in funding for the Jarmans Gap Road Project. The Jarmans Gap Road Project is currently adequately funded for the anticipated construction year in the Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Program. Pursuit of Revenue Sharing funding for the Crozet Streetscape Pro ject will provide an additional infusion of funding for transportation projects, and potentially allow some local funding currently allocated to the streetscape project to be reallocated to other priority transportation projects. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to participate in VDOT‟s Revenue Sharing Program for FY10-11, which requests $500,000 in State Revenue Sharing funds for the Crozet Streetscape Project. This request will be matched with $500,000 from the current unencumbered balance in Revenue Sharing Supplemental funds in the County‟s CIP. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to participate in VDOT’s Revenue Sharing Program for FY10-11, which requests $500,000 in State Revenue Sharing funds for the Crozet Streetscape Project: RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to $500,000 of revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2010/11 Revenue Sharing Program; and WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit a $500,000 match in order to compete for Tier Two funding; and WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the Crozet Avenue (Route 240) streetscape and road improvements project between Tabor Street and Three Notched Road, which will provide new and upgraded sidewalks, travelway, and turn lane improvements along Crozet Avenue, as we ll as drainage and stormwater detention improvements that serve both the Crozet Streetscape Project and the Jarmans Gap Road Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to provide $500,000 of matching funds in its application for up to $500,000 of revenue sharing funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation approve the County‟s application. __________ Item No. 7.5. Authorize County Executive to execute Interoperable Emergency Communications Planning Grant (IECPG) Resolution. The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) has awarded a $114,000.00 grant through its Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) to the Regional Preparedness Advisory Committee (RPAC)-Region 3. RPAC-Region 3 is comprised of 20 jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia including the County of Albemarle. The purpose of the grant is to hire an emergency communications consultant to survey the jurisdictions and identify key regional stakeholders in order to prioritize regional interoperable communications initiatives. The work plan is proposed to include developing the framework for Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as well as policies and procedures for interoperable communications. The Charlottesville UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center (“ECC”) has agreed to serve as grant administrator for this planning grant. Because the County of Albemarle serves as the fiscal agent for the ECC, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the County Executive to execute all grant-in-aid documents required for implementation of this program in order for the ECC to administer the grant. Based upon the critical need to have effective and efficient interoperable communications during times of emergencies, staff supports this program. The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for the RPAC Region 3. Funding being made available by VDEM is 100 percent reimbursable with no additional funding required by the County. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached Resolution (Attachment A-on file). By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the following Resolution: Governing Body Resolution BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors____________________ (Governing Body) OF THE _________________________ County of Albemarle, Virginia___________________ (Name of Applicant) ECC Executive Director, OR________________ (Name or Title of Authorized Agent) County Executive, OR_________________ (Name or Title of Authorized Agent) _______________________________________________________________ , (Name or Title of Authorized Agent) June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security and sub -granted through the State of Virginia. _______________ Item No. 7.6. Petty Cash Resolution to Amend Petty Cash Fund for the Sheriff‟s Office. The executive summary states that Virginia Code Section 15-2-1229 provides that the County may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact daily County business. Currently the petty cash fund for the Sheriff‟s Office is established at $100.00. The Sheriff has determined that he no longer desires to have a petty cash fund and requests that it be eliminated. The Board of Supervisors last established petty cash funds by a Resolution adopted on November 5, 2008. Staff recommends adoption of a new Resolution to: Eliminate the petty cash fund for the Sheriff‟s Office. Maintain all the petty cash funds in the same amounts as previously established. There is no budget impact from this action. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to reestablish the current petty cash funds as well as amend the petty cash fund for the Sheriff‟s Office. By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to reestablish the current petty cash funds as well as amend the petty cash fund for the Sheriff’s Office. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any county may establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each for the payment of claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on November 5, 2008 establishing petty cash funds; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to amend certain petty cash funds for the above stated purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia establishes the following petty cash funds: Finance Department $ 4,350.00 Social Services 200.00 Community Development 100.00 Police Department 1,800.00 Fire and Rescue 150.00 Fire and Rescue - Monticello Fire Station 200.00 Fire and Rescue – Hollymead Fire Station 500.00 Commonwealth‟s Attorney 300.00 Parks & Recreation 100.00 Total $ 7,700.00 _______________ Item No. 7.7. Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Plan Changes - Authorize Pick-up of Employee‟s Contribution. The executive summary states that the Virginia General Assembly adopted several benefit plan changes for the Virginia Retirement System (“VRS”) for employees hired on or after July 1, 2010. One change stipulates that employees hired on or after July 1, 2010 with no prior service credit must pay their VRS member contribution unless the employer elects to pick -up (in whole or in part) the five percent (5%) member contribution. This report summarizes some of the VRS plan changes and includes a recommendation regarding the employee member contribution. VRS Plan Design Changes VRS is a defined benefit plan, with a benefit calculated based on a formula. Factors that are included in the formula include: age at retirement, average final compensation, and years of VRS service. VRS has implemented changes to this plan design for em ployees hired on or after July 1, 2010, referred to as Plan 2. Current members will remain in the current unchanged plan structure, which is referred to as Plan 1. Some of the differences between the two plans are shown, below: June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) VRS Plan 1 (Hire date prior to July 1, 2010) VRS Plan 2 (Hired on or after July 1, 2010) Average final compensation Average of employee‟s 36 highest consecutive months of creditable compensation Average of employee‟s 60 highest consecutive months of creditable compensation Normal retirement age 65 Public Safety (VaLORS) 60 Normal Social Security Age Public Safety (VaLORS) 60 (no change) 5 Percent Member contribution Employer contributes 5% of the employee‟s compensation Employee contributes 5% of compensation Localities and school divisions may elect to pick-up, in whole or in part (in one percent (1%) increments) the five percent (5%) member contribution for new employees (VRS Plan 2). The decision to pay all or a portion of the member contribution for new employees is not irrevocable, however that decision must remain in effect for a full fiscal year (July 1 – June 30). Any change becomes effective the beginning of the next fiscal year. VRS requires that a resolution be adopted by any county or school board that elects to pay any portion of the employee contribution. Requiring new employees to pay a portion of the contribution would create equity issues with regard to total compensation. The impact on recruiting new hires cannot be ascertained yet, nor can we obtain reliable data regarding the Board of Supervisors/School Board adopted competitive market. The limited market data we have obtained (from Nelson County Schools, Prince William County Government, Fauquier County Schools and Government, and Charlottesville Schools) generally shows that localities and school divisions will continue to contribute the five percent (5%) employee member contribution for Plan 2 employees, at least for the present time. Based on these factors and the limited number of new employees that are expected to be hired over the course of the upcoming year, staff recommends that the Board elect to pick-up the five percent (5%) member contribution for the next fiscal year. The School Board will be considering the same recommendation at its next meeting. Staff will assess market trends and present a recommendation for FY2011-12 to the Joint Boards in early fall. The budget implications will be minimal due to the limited number of employees that are expected to be hired for the upcoming fiscal year. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution authorizing Albemarle County to pick-up the five percent (5%) member contribution to VRS for employees hired on or after July 1, 2010, effective July 1, 2010. (Discussion: Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board needs to take a closer look at this issue for new employees coming into the system. Mr. Snow agreed. Ms. Mallek asked if the Board wanted to bring this issue back for discussion. Mr. Tucker said the Board can discuss this today or bring back at a later time, but a decision must be made before the end of the moth. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the numbers should be examined, possibly with Kimberly Suyes addressing it with the Board. Mr. Boyd stated that he agrees with Mr. Rooker that this requires more discussion, and suggested pulling it off the Consent Agenda, and dealing with it separately. It was the consensus of the Board to discuss this matter later in the meeting.) _______________ Item No. 7.8. Resource Management Review Update – 1st Quarter Calendar Year 2010 was received for information. 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 ac tions in evaluating and implementing the recommendations of CEPI‟s assessment. This report represents the 4 th update to the Board on progress being made by staff and other stakeholders in implementing recommendations from this analysis. 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: 47 recommendations have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) 23 recommendations are in the process of being implemented. 4 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. 11 recommendations will require further evaluation by staff before they can be co nsidered 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. Since the 4th Quarter Calendar Year 2009 report to the Board, seven (7) items have been moved from the “Underway” Status to “Completed” while two (2) items were moved from “Budget Concerns” to “Completed” status. Implementation of the EMS Cost Recovery Program and further development of the County‟s Performance Management System were among the recommendations completed during the 1st quarter of this year. 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. Recommenda- tions 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. This report was provided for the Board’s information. No action was necessary. _______________ Item No. 7.9. 2009 Website Annual Report/Return on Investment Analysis was received for information. The executive summary states that since 1995, Albemarle County has deployed an evolving and dynamic digital government program including, but not limited to, an interactive and vibrant website, an electronic news service (“AMail”) and podcasting of public meetings. Each year, the Office of Community Relations provides an Annual Report which offers an overview of activity related to this program . Featured in this year‟s report is an analysis of our website‟s return on investment, or ROI. This analysis is being provided to gauge the effectiveness of programmed funds allocated for the website in enabling citizens and guests to obtain timely inform ation on programs and services. Information in this report will serve as an important baseline benchmark for measurement of the redesigned website which is currently scheduled to be unveiled in mid-June. The attached (on file in Clerk‟s office) Annual Report contains statistics on the use and value of the digital government program. Highlights of the Report are noted below. Generally speaking, the County continues to experience significant increases in the use of all aspects of online services resulting in improved customer accessibility and convenience as well as efficiencies and cost savings for the County. The website provides an accurate, current online presence for Albemarle County Local Government. It has continually been upgraded and enhanced since its inception to provide improved functionality and interactivity to meet the growing demand for online information and service. The website facilitates communication, community engagement and business transactions between citizens and County government. Website Mission Statement: To create and maintain a dynamic, interactive online government presence that educates and informs citizens and allows people to conduct business with the County in ways that increase our accessibility and customer service and improve our operational efficiency. Report Highlights: Page views increased 79.4% between 2005 and 2009, with 29,000 average page views per day in 2009 Site visits increased 96.3% between 2005 and 2009, with 4,806 average site visits per day in 2009 File downloads increased 31.2% between 2005 and 2009, with 1.4 million files downloaded in 2009 Podcasts of Board meetings were accessed over 162,000 times in 2009 Total return on investment (ROI) for the website for 2009 totaled over $872,000. Please see the attached report for details related to these highlights. In 2009, Albemarle County was named among the top ten most technologically advanced, cutting edge county governments of its size in the U. S. by the Center for Digital Government and the Nat ional Association of Counties (NACo) representing the seventh year the County has made the top ten list. Albemarle County ranked sixth in the nation in 2009, up from ninth place the previous year, in utilizing information technology to deliver high qualit y service to its customers and citizens based on a population category of 150,000 or less. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) It is significant to note that after accounting for the ongoing operational expenditures associated with maintaining the website, even considering that a one-time cost of $30,000 was incurred for a website upgrade and redesign, the website produced a return on investment of over $850,000 in 2009. This report was provided for the Board’s information. No action was necessary. (Discussion: Ms. Mallek asked if changes should be emailed. There are some things she would like to discuss further. Mr. Tucker said that would be fine. Mr. Rooker commented that he appreciated the return on investment computation on the website improvements, as it clearly shows the website has been a cost-saving measure for the County and a great benefit to citizens in terms of accessing County information.) _______________ Item No. 7.10. Virginia Department of Transportation June Monthly Report, was received for information. (Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if this report would be on the consent agenda from now on and the Board would not have someone coming on a monthly basis . Mr. Tucker responded that if Board members have questions or concerns ahead of time, the County can request that Karen Kilby of VDOT attend the meeting. Ms. Mallek noted that VDOT would be routinely sending a monthly email. Mr. Tucker said he also provided Board members with a contact list so that they can communicate with individuals directly when they have questions. Mr. Boyd said in the past when Board members had constituents to call about VDOT issues, they forwarded the matter onto Mr. Sumpter. What do they do now? Mr. Tucker said Board members can still forward questions/concerns to Mr. Sumpter and he will forward it to the appropriate person. Mr. Thomas said that he received a few complaints about lights blinking on Route 29, so he called Mr. Sumpter. Although he was at the beach, Mr. Sumpter had technicians out there in 20 minutes, and he commends him for that. Mr. Boyd added that he hates losing Mr. Sumpter as a resource. He said that he was upset to see all of the political signs in the median when he was driving down Route 29 today, and asked if they were illegal. He asked if someone is picking the signs up. Ms. Mallek responded that they are not illegal, because the Governor last year exempted political signs from the VDOT rules. Mr. Davis explained that the policy is that the State will not remove them unless they are blocking visibility on the roadways. Mr. Rooker said that technically they violate the law, but when he was Attorney General he wrote a statement saying the State would not enforce the law against political signs. Mr. Rooker said he thinks they are an eyesore. He added that the County got permission from VDOT to enforce the statute that prohibits signs in rights-of-way locally – but that doesn‟t apply to political signs. Mr. Davis added that the unlawfulness applies to advertisements, and the opinion was these were not advertisements as defined in the statute. Of course, they do not have permission to put them there so the State could still remove them because they are on State property without permission. But, the policy has been not to aggressively enforce that. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8a. Quarterly Update: Albemarle County Service Authority, Gary O‟Connell. Mr. John Martin said that he is Vice-Chair of the Albemarle County Service Authority. He was present to formally introduce the newly hired Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, Mr. Gary O‟Connell. The Service Authority appreciates having their Executive Director come to the Board periodically to speak. Mr. O‟Connell said that he has been on the job for about six weeks and it has been a great welcoming period. He said that the ACSA‟s Financial Director, Lisa Breeden, also present today, has 22 years of financial experience with the Authority. Ms. Breeden will talk a little more in-depth about the Service Authority‟s new connection policy, the rates and how they work. Mr. O‟Connell said the ACSA Board is now considering the proposed budget for FY 2011 and there is a public hearing scheduled for June 10th on the proposed budget and rates, with consideration and adoption on June 17th. The ACSA‟s operating budget totals almost $19.0 million, with a capital budget of $15.7 million – totaling almost $35 million for next year. For an agency their size, that is quite a budget. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) Mr. O‟Connell stated that nearly two-thirds of their operating budget is the purchase of water and wastewater treatment from the RWSA. They have reduced expenses by about $335,000 to help balance their budget and to respect the economic times that customers are in. He said that their goal was to produce a budget with no rate increase, and they were able to achieve that although that may not be attainable in the future. Mr. O‟Connell stated that the budget proposes a slight decrease in rate - .3% or 1 cent – a slight decrease for the average residential customer and no rate increase for all other custome rs. Mr. O‟Connell explained that the ACSA uses a four-tiered system for water and sewer usage, which was adopted six years ago and was updated a year ago. He said that the levels reflect the wholesale rate times one, times two, times three, and times f our – based on the amount of usage. Mr. O‟Connell stated that this is known as an “inclining block rate structure”, which is meant to help promote water conservation – by allowing those who conserve more to reduce their monthly water and sewer bills. He added that it also makes it more affordable for lower-income customers. Based on the rate-study work done last year, he said, 82% of customers are in level one and two. With the ACSA being in large part a residential system, it makes sense that over three-fourths of their customers are smaller water users. Mr. O‟Connell said that the Authority has adopted and is implementing a very aggressive Capital Improvements Program for an agency its size to look at needs for repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement within their water and sewer system. He said that over the course of two years they would undertake about $25.0 million in capital projects. There are 26 projects currently either going on or about to commence – noting that they are all over the urban parts of the County. Mr. O‟Connell then presented a map of the jurisdictional area in which the Authority operates, with about 5,000 less customers who do not have sewer out of the 17,000 total customers. He explained that the largest project about to get underway is the North Fork Regional Pump Station, which will be financed through bonds. Easement acquisition is expected to go fairly quickly with bids out by the end of summer. Mr. O‟Connell said that the new pump station and related sewer lines would allow the ACSA and RWSA to abandon the Camelot Treatment Plant, which has outlived its use, has problems and issues, and cannot handle the capacity in the area. He stated that this project was planned with the understanding that new growth within this area would pay its respective share of the project cost, and this will be done through a recently-adopted Special Rate District (North and South Zones), with special connection fees to help finance the costs. Mr. O‟Connell said he was recently asked about “I & I” – inflow and infiltration – into the sewer system. This is a problem in almost every sewer system in the country. The City, Rivanna, and the ACSA have studies underway to look into repairs that need to be made throughout the system to try to reduce wet-weather water that gets into sewer lines and fills up the treatment plant – which allows it not to be treated. He explained that there are major projects underway in the Meadow Creek drainage basin, and a study in Crozet is just finishing up to consider improvements needed there. Mr. O‟Connell noted that a number of the changes that need to be done are on private property – simple things that homeowners can do – so the ACSA will be meeting with property owners to make them aware of these issues. He said that this is a multi-year, multi-million dollar project that takes lots of studies and lots of effort. Mr. Rooker asked if there are ways of identifying individual property owners where there is more of a problem. Mr. O‟Connell responded that a number of the caps used for cleanouts on a sewer line were broken and not even there, so water flows right into it. He noted that about 60 were found . A letter with a photograph and explanation will be sent to the property owner; most of them are pretty simple fixes. Mr. Dorrier asked him if he agreed with the contention that growth follows water and sewer. Mr. O‟Connell responded that the ACSA stays within the service area, and new projects would be considered by their Board after the Supervisors m ake any decisions regarding urban areas. The Service Authority follows the lead of the Supervisors. Mr. Tucker added that the ACSA can only provides services or lines within areas that the Board approves – only where the boundaries that they extend or expand. This Board would have to approve expansion of any of these boundary areas in order for them to expand those lines. Mr. Dorrier commented that Scottsville is hurting economically, but is not a growth area in the County. He said that more water and sewer is needed there. Mr. O‟Connell stated that the ACSA has current service in Scottsville within the boundary, and the focus is also to rehabilitate the current system. Mr. Tucker noted that before Scottsville expanded its town limits several years ago, Scottsville was a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan – and the ACSA‟s boundary areas included that. When the town expanded, he said, those boundary areas for the Authority remained the same. He said that the town boundaries and the ACSA‟s boundaries for operation are now one and the same. Mr. Dorrier said that the Service Authority might get caught in the m iddle between the town and the County, as it relates to possible growth. Mr. Rooker stated that people in the area could petition for a change in the Comprehensive Plan. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) Mr. Davis clarified that the town controls the land-use regulations, and the County controls the jurisdictional area for the Service Authority. Mr. Boyd commented that last week the RWSA moved ahead with a CIP including the five-year plan and construction of the Ragged Mountain Dam . He asked at what point the ACSA would put into its CIP the cost that would be passed onto ratepayers in the County. Mr. O‟Connell responded that the ACSA‟s CIP is Service Authority projects – water supply and waste-management treatment projects already underway come to a County customer through the wholesale rate that‟s charged to the Service Authority, which in turn charges its customers. He said that it would not show up as a capital project, so their financial planning is going to be around the rate Rivanna would have to charge for the projects – the biggest being sewer, which is already in the rate as of July 1. Mr. Boyd said that he is trying to determine how the cost would be split bet ween the City and the County, as he was under the impressions there was a formula in the works. Mr. O‟Connell replied that it is a negotiation. There are two levels of negotiation that are going on. Currently there is a negotiation that‟s been on the table that‟s not finalized about the cost for the Meadow Creek sewer project – City, County. And then, there is a second negotiation that will have to occur and until we know the cost, it is going to be difficult to get to this negotiation, which is a water-cost allocation that is based on the adopted water supply plan, once a decision is made as to what specifically is to be done. Mr. Boyd asked who would make that decision. Mr. O‟Connell replied that it is a negotiation between the City Council and the ACSA Board of Directors. He said that there still are a lot of questions, and the hope is by the end of the summer answers to all those questions would be on the table. He encouraged the Board to consider that there are four boards involved: the Supervisors, City Council, ACSA, and the RWSA. If there is a meeting, then all four partners need to be there. He added that it may be frustrating, but he does not think the information will be available until closer to the end of the summer. Mr. Rooker commented that this has been done in the past; it has generally been done in an objective fashion. There are a lot of components to be considered but a formula acceptable to all parties has been able to be reached in the past. Mr. O‟Connell said that ultimately the Four-Party Agreement would probably need to be considered by the Boards and revised. Mr. Boyd stated that the particularly methodology should not affect the formula. Ms. Mallek responded that the formula is based on where the growth is anticipated. Mr. O‟Connell explained that the two components are what is needed for maintenance, and what is needed for new growth, and that becomes a bit of a negotiation as to how much each piece is. Mr. Boyd stated that the water supply mechanism would not impact how that is divided out, because it is based on potential growth – not whether it is going to be a dam or a dredge. Mr. O‟Connell emphasized that it must be resolved between the City and the Service Authority, through an agreement about the project. He said that Meadow Creek is one and the water supply projects are another. Mr. Rooker commented that the allocations might differ depending on the project. Ms. Mallek added that each jurisdiction has responsibility for the upkeep and renovation of their old pipes. That is not something that will be shared. Mr. O‟Connell said that this would focus on the Meadow Creek project – which is $22.0 million; and the other focus is the water supply. He thinks that if an agreement can be reached with the sewer items first, that paves the way for an agreement on the water supply. Ms. Mallek stated that there has been some discussion among landowners in Earlysville regarding right-of-way sales for Jarman‟s Gap, and VDOT had the notion that connections were not going to be allowed along the road which affected the amount of money the landowners received. Mr. O‟Connell responded that it is likely that will go to Court. Ms. Mallek asked if there has been any change ACSA change with regard to connections, building permits, etc. Mr. O‟Connell said that the ACSA policy is generally first come, first serve – subject to availability – so as a development comes forward they look at the availability to serve that development. Mr. O‟Connell stated if it‟s a single-family residential house, that‟s different from a large development. They have some issues in Crozet, Rivanna has some issues in Crozet, so they are taking it development by development. He does not know of anything at this point that‟s going to slow down any plans that somebody has. He said that a change in the financial market and a large development could change that. That is the reason June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) the Service Authority is spending the energy to study, do projects and get the Crozet system in better shape and increase its capacity, but it will take about one to two years. Ms. Mallek mentioned that there are 4,000 approvals granted sitting out there “waiting to pop.” Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. O‟Connell if he anticipates the cost of water increasing. Mr. O‟Connell replied that the sewer expenses – with increasingly aggressive federal regulations – will likely go up. He said that they have been planning the water supply and it is beginning to get built into the rate, along with long-term debt, so that should cushion the rate impact on customers. He added that they are going to go up. He added that what Rivanna decides is a big part of what the rate has to be. Ms. Mallek commented that the water rate has been very affordable over the years. She is supportive of the new tiered system and it will help people to understand the true costs of their behavior, especially with the change in rates for irrigation. Mr. Boyd said that if the cost breakdown for the water supply falls by population, then 70% of the cost of a new water supply system would fall within the County residents. He thinks that personally that gives the County more stake in this decision than the City does, and that is the point he would like to bring into the negotiations. He noted that as far as users, it is more like 50/50, then that is a different situation. Mr. O‟Connell responded that it is both; it is what is currently needed to provide water for all City and County customers, and with the sediment going into the South Fork that is a declining number, adding that there is an expense just to keep the supply at the same amount. He said that the debate is going to revolve around needed capacity, based on growth projections and where they fall. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the City side includes the growth of the University. Even if the City population is not growing, UVA is growing. Replacement of the pipeline from Sugar Hollow to Ragged Mountain is a maintenance thing – but a new pipeline includes a maintenance component as well. It is not just a population thing. Mr. O‟Connell said that many people don‟t seem to realize the growth that has occurred in the City, and the changes City Council made to the Comp Plan eight years ago provide for a lot of future growth. He noted that there is a demand study to be reviewed that will relook at all this. In terms of new connections, Mr. O‟Connell explained that the logic is that new growth pays to buy in to have capacity in the system, and the calculation used is a nationally-accepted standard. Ms. Breeden said that the ACSA bases its connection fees on a customer buy-in method, with the two largest components of fees being system development and Rivanna capacity – and they are based on system values. She explained that for system development fees, the ACSA uses audited figures to determine their total assets – the distribution lines, collection lines, pump stations, etc. – and decrease them by contributed capital from the developer. Ms. Breeden explained that they then take the total value of the system plus any future planned improvements and divide it by the number of equivalent residential customers. She said that is an 8% change from last year, with the proposed fees being $17.72 for water and $21.55 for sewer. Ms. Breeden presented a pie chart showing how small the connection fees are relative to the ratepayers investment in the system – with almost $48 million of investment. She explained that Rivanna capacity fees are handled in much the same way, with the ACSA using their latest audited numbers then adding a component that factors the debt Rivanna has incurred to date in planning for the water supply. Ms. Breeden noted that it is based on new debt figures derived from the cost allocation agreement. That figure was the 73% Mr. Boyd was talking about, Mr. Boyd. Ms. Breeden said that the total system value is divided by the equivalent number of customers that the ACSA can connect to the system for Rivanna. She then presented another pie chart showing recovery from new connections – so it reimburses customers who have paid for all the improvements through their user fees. Mr. Boyd asked for information about commercial properties. Ms. Breeden replied that this refers to everyone. Mr. Boyd said he is receiving complaints from those commercial property owners, stating that they have $30,000 connection fees. Ms. Breeden explained that each equivalent residential connection is one single-family unit, and large developments – such as multi-family units, hotels, mobile home parks, hospitals, assisted living facilities, etc. – have portions of equivalent residential connections. She said that in the case of an apartment in a larger building, it would be counted as one-half unit, not one unit, and that this is based upon statistical usage information. Ms. Breeden added that the larger the meter, the more equivalent residential connections are assigned to it; a three inch meter could be 15 ERCs, unless it was a large apartment complex or hotel – in which case the ACSA would use a formula that has a portion of the ERCs. They are based primarily for standards developed by the American Waterworks Association best practices. Mr. Dorrier asked about the information in her report stating that seven builders would be coming up with $1.8 million. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) Ms. Breeden explained that the figure reflects the prepaid connection fees that were outstanding as of March 31. She said that the ACSA waited until March to raise rates for connection fees, instead of implementing them in September. Mr. Dorrier commented that the figures would come from the buyers of the homes. Ms. Breeden responded that those were connection fees that were prepaid at the lower rates, because the developers already had approval for their plans and active building permits. Mr. Dorrier asked if any of that was proffered by the developer. Ms. Breeden replied, “no”. Mr. Rooker explained that those were actually prepaid by the developer as a matter of choice in order to take advantage of the lower rate. Ms. Breeden confirmed that what went into effect in March was the full increase, and there would be another one in July. They will increase whenever system values increase; they are based on system value. She noted that those customers are the only ones who took advantage of the rate savings so far, but there would be more by June 30th. Ms. Mallek commented that she was surprised that the senior housing uses a higher amount of water. Ms. Breeden responded that it depends on if it is assisted living versus independent living, an assisted living is .5 – the same as a multi-family house or apartment complex. Mr. Rooker noted that the ACSA‟s combined budget – operating and capital – comes out to $2,000 per customer. Ms. Breeden said that the connection fees combined are scheduled to go up 5% this year, so that is a rather modest increase. Ms. Mallek stated that she heartily agrees with the philosophy that others have paid in the past, and it is incumbent upon people who are attaching now to pay in. Ms. Breeden responded that these fees reduce the charges that the ACSA have to pass onto its‟ current customers. Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. O‟Connell and Ms. Breeden for their presentations. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8b. Quarterly Update: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Tom Frederick. Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, of the RWSA and RSWA, stated that on April 1st, the RWSA issued a notice to proceed to a contractor for the Meadow Creek Interceptor. They are actually moving dirt. He said that there is construction work taking place at about the m iddle of the system in the area near where the parkway is also being built, and that coordination has gone well. Mr. Frederick explained that the sewer had to go in first, and there will be construction over many areas of the proposed interceptor – with the two areas starting in the City being the Locust Meadows and Greenbrier Park areas. He said that there would be work in the City and County over the next few months, and by late summer 2011 the project is expected to be completed. Mr. Frederick said that while water supply may be getting a lot of the press, sewer is a very big issue. He is very pleased to report that within the last three months the RWSA has reached terms at the staff level with the ACSA and the City of Charlottesville on a key quest ion that‟s been negotiated – how much inflow and infiltration is a reasonable goal for the two entities to remove from their system, and how much that is not reasonable will the RWSA have to transport and treat in the future. RWSA can‟t establish a master plan for our system and establish the sizing for their interceptors and treatment plant without knowing the answer to that question. He stated that about a year and a half ago, RWSA‟s consultant came up with a “straw” proposal for negotiations, and they were asked to come up with a starting point for negotiations based on what they know about the local system and others around the country. Mr. Frederick reported that during the negotiations it came out to the Rivanna staff from the ACSA and the City that they thought the consultant was a little bit too ambitious in terms of how much inflow and infiltration can cost-effectively be removed from the system. So the negotiation went to a point where under the current agreement, he said, Rivanna is needing to go back through its CIP and upsize its earlier plans for transmission systems and treatment capacity. He said that the RWSA had incorporated into the nutrient upgrade currently taking place at the wastewater treatment plant some additional wet-weather capacity up to a peak pipeline capacity equivalent to 37.5 million gallons per day. They are now adding to that plan and will be coming forward to the Rivanna Board within the next month or two some plans to make some changes to that project in order to carry up to 45 million gallons per day. Mr. Frederick added that the RWSA is also designing an upgrade to the Moore‟s Creek pump station – so all the area in the southern half of the City and all the County area of Biscuit Run, Crozet, and goes to Moore‟s Creek. He said that they are working to upgrade the wet - weather capacity for that station, which will pump into the treatment plant. Mr. Frederick noted that they are starting the same process on the Rivanna pump station side, which carries all the flow from the ACSAs new North Fork pump station and all the areas in the Places29 area. On that end of the system, he said, they don‟t know if it‟s going to be expanding an existing pum p station or building a second pump station. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) Mr. Frederick mentioned that in the coming months the RWSA would be doing a lot of public relations and input work, especially with the City‟s Woolen Mills community since they are housing the location, in orde r to take full account of neighborhood concerns. Mr. Rooker asked if the infiltration goals that are ultimately worked out are the same for the City and the County. Mr. Frederick replied that the goal was developed looking at the system as a whole, and as a whole the goal is to reduce inflow and infiltration by 25% by 2020. He said that he has suggested that the RWSA needs to rethink its CIP to get a little bit bigger transmission system than previously forecasted. Twenty-five percent by 2020 is a prett y ambitious goal, and it‟s going to require more effort by the ACSA. He thinks it is going to require substantial effort by the City of Charlottesville . The indications they are getting from the data so far is that the City has the bigger job to do in that area. Mr. Frederick stated that if goals are to be achieved, sewer rates, in the future, are going to have to go up some. They have neglected their sewer infrastructure as a community for too long, and it‟s time to put environmental goals in eliminating sewer overflows at the forefront of their thinking and planning. He is glad they have a framework of an agreement now from which to move forward. Mr. Rooker commented that if infiltration isn‟t stopped, the treatment plants must be oversized – which imposes a cost on the ratepayers. Ms. Mallek noted that intuitively it seems that the treatment at the end is the most expensive, and she is disappointed that it is only 25% as it seems to be a very small goal. That is still putting 75% of rainwater into the sewage treatment plant, at millions and millions of dollars of operation. Mr. Frederick explained that removing inflow and infiltration from a system is a very complex and difficult task. The first step is looking for the “low-hanging fruit,” such as the manhole covers Mr. O‟Connell mentioned. He said that other components are more complicated – such as a 40-year old clay pipe with numerous cracks and m isaligned joints underground. You are talking about significant expenses to rehabilitate that particular line. Mr. Frederick stated that when privately-owned leaders that run from people‟s homes to the street need to be replaced at a cost of $1,000 to $1,500 to replace; that is a big expense that you‟re asking a homeowner to take and those get more complicated. He said that following national trends, the optimum is a balance between both – some transmission system capacity increases and an extensive amount of inflow and infiltration reduction work, which includes a lot of details on a lot of streets in a lot of locations. Mr. Frederick mentioned that the three agencies working together have prioritized the areas they should go first, with one being lower Rivanna – the area south of Free Bridge – much of which is in the City with the ACSA‟s pipes feeding that system coming from the Pantops area. He added that the investigations done in the Pantops area so far are showing that most of the Service Authority‟s pipes are tight, and it seems that a lot of that problem will need to be addressed by the City with some of the older neighborhoods in the eastern part of the City. The second area of priority, he said, is the Crozet area, which of course is Service Authority territory. He said that Rivanna is investigating in detail the condition of the Crozet Interceptor from the Lickinghole Creek Reservoir west to the western edge of Crozet. Mr. Frederick stated that that system will be tightened up, and there will money invested in it, and the goal is to restore capacity for the plans made for the Crozet area. Mr. Rooker asked if there is sewer leaking out from the clay pipes. Mr. Frederick responded that more goes in, but depending on the type of defect some can leak out. He said that in the case of the missing lid previously mentioned, it‟s probably almost all going in, and it would require a blockage in the system to go the other way – which is rare. If the groundwater table is low due to a drought, it‟s possible that some can leak out of a cracked pipe; when the table goes back up, it is likely most going in. Mr. Frederick stated that the goal is to provide for the comprehensive planning work that the County and City are doing, and what is anticipated to be coming to the community – but the biggest issue is keeping overflows from going into streams. That is an issue that must be addressed. He added that the three organizations are working together to get that done. Mr. Snow said that Biscuit Run was mentioned, but is now out of the picture. Mr. Frederick responded that the Service Authority does operate a pipeline in the Biscuit Run area that serves some of the developments that already exist; the pipeline happens to run along the Biscuit Run area. Ms. Mallek asked if there is anything like a detention basin for a system to hold onto water temporarily, somewhere remotely, until the traffic in the interceptor is available. Mr. Frederick replied that there is, noting that engineers refer to them as “flow equalization basins,” that act similarly to a detention basin and will hold wastewater durin g a wet period and release it back to the system during a dry period. He said that it is not permitted to seep into the ground – it must be held until it can be released back in, and the most cost-effective is probably a circular tank that extends 10 to 12 feet above ground – which can be landscaped around. Mr. Frederick said that the agencies talked about that for a few locations, but the current focus is to get as much inflow and infiltration out as possible, particularly in Crozet. If necessary, he sa id, that option may need to be considered for the Crozet area as an alternative to building long lengths of costly pipeline. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Mr. Snow asked if the inflow and infiltration measures would result in savings down the road to the ratepayer. Mr. Frederick responded that every bit of rainwater or wastewater that can be removed from the system is less water that has to be treated. Ms. Mallek commented that it would reduce the increases, but would not go down from the rate now. Mr. Frederick said that there is some design work modification of construction at the wastewater plant, and there is still 15 million gallons per day on an average day‟s use – but it can carry at a peak time up to 45 million gallons per day without bypassing to the enviro nment. He noted that there are holding ponds at the treatment plant that serve the function just being discussed, and if the modifications are made along with the 25% reduction goal the community is in a good position for the long term. He thinks they have a good plan. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the protection of the Chesapeake Bay pushes to states – and in turn, localities – and asked if the new treatment plant design is capable of meeting what are expected to be the most stringent regulations. Mr. Frederick replied, “no.” He explained that the RWSA has positioned itself to exceed the waste load allocations that the State has adopted for nitrogen and phosphorous – which means it can sell credits – but the EPA through the Total Maximum Daily Load as defined in the Clean Water Act is pushing Virginia to tighten point sources even further. He thinks that Virginia has taken a stance that is very responsible, and that is they adopted these allocations for the point sources; [Virginia wastewater plants] are t he only sector in the entire Chesapeake Bay region that is going to meet its goal by 2010. Everybody else is now talking 2025. He said that now the discussion at the EPA level is they are doing such a good job, let‟s just put the entire burden on them and make them do more. Mr. Frederick stated that if that happens, there will need to be even further redesign. Mr. Dorrier said that the Rivanna River Basin Commission is setting up some high standards for the County to meet. Mr. Frederick added that the County‟s own Water Protection Ordinance is a model for other communities; many communities west of I-95 haven‟t incorporated similar measures yet, but those east of I-95 have because they have been forced to. Albemarle has played a leadership role in that issue, and should be commended. Ms. Mallek commented that as progress is made with non-point source, it will hopefully help out the RWSA and their obligations. Mr. Frederick responded that there are studies that show that meeting best practices in how people fertilize their lawns, how agricultural property is used and developed, deposition of nitrogen through improved air quality, etc. can accomplish the goals for the Chesapeake Bay with less energy consumption than making more stringent requirements to the very fine levels on how public wastewater is treated. If they are going to address the Bay and they are going to address carbon, the warming issue and other things, they need a comprehensive strategy that addresses all of them and not pinpointing what ‟s the easiest thing for a regulator to do to solve one problem but it creates other problems. He said that the debate he‟s hearing from the federal discussions is taking a more segregated approach. Rivanna is closely following those discussions. Mr. Snow mentioned the meeting on the dam held the previous evening, and asked how the building of the dam would affect the hook -up fees and water rates if it were built at the amount budgeted last night. Mr. Frederick responded that Ms. Breeden would need to address the hook-up fee issue, but as far as the wholesale rates from RWSA to ACSA is that the RWSA has been planning for this project for some time on the financial level. About 60%+ of the project is already financed through existing rates that they have today. He explained that they have built some reserves and plan to term any bonds to optimize rates, adding that delay in implementation has meant that financially they are in very good shape especially since they have a plan that stays inside the budget that was adopted in 2006. Mr. Frederick added that he doesn‟t see much impact on wholesale rates to implement the water plan, noting that the pressure on the rates will likely be more on the sewer side. He added that if they can take advantage of the favorable construction market and the bid prices are down, then even higher than 60% could be achieved. Mr. Rooker asked if other Board members had received copies of the “Pros and Cons of the Three Pipelines” and encouraged them to read it. Board members indicated they hadn‟t, and Mr. Frederick agreed to email it to them. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Update from Chiefs, Chief Tim Cersley, ACFRAB. Mr. Tucker noted that Chief Tim Kirsley was not present. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) Ms. Mallek indicated that he contacted her last night to say that if he didn‟t show up it was because of his firefighter duties, so she asked him to come next week instead. ________________ Agenda Item No. 10. Conservation Easement/ACE update, Ches Goodall. Mr. Ches Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program, said he was present to discuss the ACE Program and its accomplishments over the last 10 years. He reported that ACE began as a fledgling program but is now regarded as one of the most effective, eff icient, and progressive local conservation easement programs in the State – and possibly the entire Southeast. Mr. Goodall said that program coordinators from around Virginia have contacted him numerous times requesting copies of the ACE deed of easement, the ACE Ordinance, or ACE brochures – which they have copied almost verbatim. He said that ACE has been very lucky to have a Board that is so dedicated to funding the broad ideals of ACE and they have been lucky to have an ACE Committee dedicated to overseeing the program, making it work effectively and upgrading it as needed, which has improved it over time. Mr. Goodall stated that one-half of the original ACE members serve on the committee today – including Anne Mallek, Bill Edgerton, and Sherry Buttrick, who has chaired the group for the entire 10 years. He said that the program has protected 37 properties and 7,200 acres from future development; 70% of these have been working family farms, and for many of these landowners “ACE has been a real godsend” as it has allowed them to save their farms from division and has allowed them to make upgrades to their property – either with new equipment or buildings to make their farms more efficient and productive. Mr. Goodall said that it has also allowed them to lessen the heavy burden of debt that they may have inherited or accumulated over time. In addition, the ACE Program has allowed families to preserve a legacy and pass it on to future generations. In return, he said, their contributions have been important in preserving the rural character of the County, protecting the water quality, and helping to sustain large blocks of land and forest land – which makes the agricultural base more sustainable and stable. In many ways, he said, the ACE Program is a shining example of a voluntary, non-regulatory tool that truly has worked. Mr. Goodall stated that the funding ACE has received over the last 10 years has made a huge difference in the County and the quality of life for people who live here. Mr. Goodall then presented a slideshow that highlighted pictures of ACE easements and facts about the program, as well as its accomplishments. Noting the logos presented on the last slide, he said that there are various conservation organizations that work within the Piedmont – including PEC (Piedmont Environmental Council), TNC (The Nature Conservancy), and VOF (Virginia Outdoors Foundation) – and this has been a combined effort of those working toward a common goal of land conservation. He mentioned that the PRFA, which started out as an organization to protect rural preservation develop- ments, has been receiving a lot of donated easements over the last four or five years – due in part to the Virginia Land Conservation tax credit. Mr. Goodall reported that they are now up to 63 properties and over 7,000 acres, and has really stepped up to the plate especially with properties that don‟t fit the niche of TNC or VOF. He indicated that as of yesterday, the ACE Program received notice of an additional $61,000 grant from the Virginia Farmland Trust. Mr. Dorrier noted that the Ag/Forestal properties are not shown. Mr. Goodall stated that this map presented just shows the permanent conservation easement. Ms. Mallek mentioned that a recent article in the Virginia Business Journal or similar economic development publication focused on agricultural imports, and as Todd Haymore says agriculture is “the number one producing industry in Virginia by far.” She said that the focus of the Commonwealth is to increase exports around the world, and that will never happen if the best soil is not available to do it. Mr. Rex Linville, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that as of today, there are just over 81,000 acres of permanently protected private land in Albemarle County – making it the second most protected in the Commonwealth, with Fauquier County being first. He said that over 15,000 acres are identified as having prime agricultural soils, with about 55,000 acres of forestland; 356 miles of stream frontage adjoins conservation easement properties – along with 153 miles of rural roadways that are protected with conservation easements adjoining them. Mr. Linville stated that Virginia is losing farm and forestland at the rate of 50,000 acres per year, and these trends are expected to continue. Absent more stringent zoning requirements in the rural area, permanent conservation easements are one of the few tools that is available to preserve those resources. He read some of the “guiding principles” that are in the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan: “to protect Albemarle County‟s agricultural lands as a resource base for its agricultural industries and for related benefits they contribute toward the County‟s rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health” and “to permanently preserve and protect Albemarle County‟s rural land as an essential and finite resource through public ownership or through conservation easements.” Mr. Linville commented that the reason for the ACE Program is to try to achieve the goals set forth in the Comp Plan, and it is important to draw that link. He said that the protection of 81,000 acres could not have been achieved without the County and its support of the ACE Program, adding that all of the agencies work together as a team to help landowners find the best tool available for them. Mr. Linville stated that he is more fortunate than many of his colleagues in other areas of the state because he has more tools available – donated conservation easements, the ACE Program, purchased easements, the Public Recreation Facilities Authority, etc. He added that the County has stepped up to the plate to hold a lot of donated easements through the PRFA. Mr. Dorrier asked if property values go up or down when they are put in conservation easements. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) Mr. Linville responded that there is no doubt property values go down as it removes some of the rights of ownership. That is inherent in the reason you‟re paying for them and purchasing easements, and also that assumption is the reason that landowners get tax benefits when they donate a conservation easement. Ms. Mallek pointed out that it does increase the value of all the properties around it though. The people who live there are very appreciative of the fact that they have stability next door, and pred ictability is really important. Mr. Linville added that they want the rural area to be a desirable place for agricultural practices and forestry and timber industries to occur. That‟s a good thing. Theywant to keep it protected and intact. That‟s a good thing. They have seen that as easements grow, the desirability of an area grows. That does result in those lands in general going up in value, but on a parcel-by-parcel basis there is no question that an easement on an individual parcel has the impact of reducing the value of that parcel. Mr. Thomas asked who contributes funding to the ACE Program. Mr. Linville explained that it comes from Albemarle County and the State, with some federal dollars. He said that approximately $1.4 million has come from matching dollars from outside the County. Mr. Thomas commented that he is a fan of the program, noting that he visited the Powell property for the dedication. He asked where the 55,000 acres are being lost. Mr. Linville replied that that‟s a statewide figure of land that‟s being lost from ag and forestry resources converted to other urban and suburban uses, with numbers coming out of the Ag Cen sus. Mr. Thomas asked if that was in Northern Virginia. Mr. Linville responded that it could be assumed that Northern Virginia and Tidewater were big areas of loss. Ms. Mallek noted that there was at least 3,000 acres in Earlysville lost in the last th ree years. Mr. Thomas asked how much has been lost in Albemarle County. Mr. Linville responded that he doesn‟t have specific numbers of lands that have been converted, but the Community Development department could probably provide those. Mr. Dorrier noted that Governor Kaine put 400,000 acres in protection during his administration. Mr. Linville said that the new governor has promised to meet that number as well , but he thinks he realizes that it is going to be a little more difficult for his administration to protect 400,000 acres than it was for the previous administration, just because there are fewer acres available to protect and they do not have the same level of funding to be able to put into the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation funding. Mr. Snow asked what the total acreage of Albemarle County is. Mr. Linville responded that it‟s approximately 430,000 acres. Mr. Rooker mentioned that a little over 20% of the land in the County is in either conservation easement or parkland. Mr. Linville indicated that a landowner has the option of selling an easement to Albemarle County through the ACE Program if the funding is available; they can donate an easement to the County through the PRFA, and there has been an increase in landowners doin g that; they can work with the State and entities like VOF or DOF; historic easements can be donated to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources; and at the private level through the PEC, TNC, and ACE. He said that ACE and other agencies are doing a lot of outreach and education with landowners, and this year his goal is to have direct communication with 200 to 300 landowners in the County – talking with them about easements and sorting through various options. Mr. Linville noted that in 2000, there were 17,000 acres of land protected – prior to the implementation of the Virginia Land Preservation Tax Credit Program – and now ten years later, there are 81,000+ acres protected. He said that that‟s due largely to great financial incentives through sale of easements through ACE or donated easements through tax benefits. They do a lot of lobbying at the State and Federal levels to make sure that those tax policies are in place and that they do exist so that they are the right mix of incentives to donate conservation easements. He said that he would be leaving this meeting and going to D.C. to talk with Senator Udall‟s office about estate tax benefits for conservation easement donations. Mr. Linville added that PEC is not only working to protect land, but protect agricultural businesses through the “Buy Fresh Buy Local” Program to ensure a viable agricultural economy with local markets for product sales. He noted that the State is also working to try to increase agricultural exports, as Ms. Mallek mentioned earlier. They need to protect that land base if they intend to continue to have locally grown and sold products, and be able to export our products overseas. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) Mr. Dorrier said that the area is the number one wine-producing region of Virginia, and asked Mr. Linville how he sees it fitting in with the large concentration of conservation easements. Mr. Linville replied that it fits in very well, and Bill Moses worked with him on an article in the Grape Press – the vineyard owners association newsletter. Mr. Moses commented in the article that a winery is a long-term proposition with a lot of capital investment to get the vineyard on the ground and get all of the infrastructure in place. He said that the large up-front investment is recouped over a fairly long period of time, which is consistent with putting land in conservation easement – giving a landowner an opportunity to get some immediate tax benefits to help offset the capital investment. They are very compatible. Mr. Rooker said that the ACE Program is a means-tested program, so you get more money if you are at a lower income bracket than if you are in a higher income bracket. That helps individuals like Mr. Linville be able to steer somebody that may not be able to use all the tax benefits toward the ACE Program where they can get full value, whereas somebody who‟s a real high income person might only get 20% of the value there or less. Ms. Mallek commented that there needs to be more publicity of the Program to moderate-income people who can sell their tax credits for cash to buy tractors, build barns, etc. Mr. Linville agreed, adding that that‟s one of the things that has made the Virginia Land Preservation Tax Credit Program as successful as it is. He mentioned that historically, a landowner needed a fairly high income to be able to use the federal income tax deduction that might come from donating a conservation easement – but that changed a few years ago and the feds expanded the ability for lower and more modest income landowners to use it by extending the carry-forward that people could have when using the deduction and extending the rate at which people can use it. Mr. Linville said that it is hoped the Senate would pass a bill next week to extend that legislation for 2010. At the State level the General Assembly designed the tax credit program to benefit landowners across the income spectrum by making the tax credits transferrable. If you do not have a high income, you are able to sell your tax credits to somebody else who might be able to use them. Mr. Rooker commented that they can get about 75 or 80 cents on the dollar. Ms. Mallek thanked everyone for all they do with these programs. ________________ Note: At 11:24 a.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 11:36 a.m. ________________ Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Downtown Crozet Streetscape Right-of-Way Dedications. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), the Board will consider dedicating portions of two parcels along Crozet Avenue (Rte 240), consisting of .087 acres of TMP 56A2-01-18 and .096 acres of TMP 56A2-01-19, to the Virginia Department of Transportation necessary for improvements to Crozet Avenue as part of the Downtown Crozet Streetscape Project. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24, 2010.) Mr. Tucker said the Downtown Crozet Streetscape Project was identified in the Crozet Master Plan as an essential part of the plan to achieve the goals for Downtown Crozet. A major focus of the project is the improvement of Crozet Avenue, for which the County has been acquiring rights -of-way from property owners along the Avenue. In addition, the County has acquired approximately two acres at 1171, 1183 and 1185 Crozet Avenue (Parcels 056A2-1-18, 56A2-1-19, 56A2-1-19A) for the site of the future Crozet Library and the proposed Main Street. As the owner of the future Library site, the County is an owner of property needed for sidewalk and street improvements that are part of the Project. The Crozet Avenue streetscape improvements and the construction of Main Street require the dedication of public rights-of-way from TMP 56A2-01-18 and TMP 56A2-01-19; two parcels owned by Albemarle County. Because Crozet Avenue is a primary highway owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the portion of County property identified as right-of-way for the Crozet Avenue improvements must be dedicated to VDOT. The attached plats show the 0.087-acre (parcel 18) and 0.096-acre (parcel 19) County parcels proposed for dedication to VDOT for improvements to Crozet Avenue (Attachment A). Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), the “disposal” of County property, even to VDOT, requires a public hearing. In addition, 0.487 acres of County property (parcel 19) must be dedicated to public use for the construction of the proposed Main Street (Attachment A), which would be a County-owned secondary road providing access to the future Library site. The dedication of the proposed Main Street does not require a public hearing, but does necessitate the Board‟s approval and authorization for the County Executive to sign the plat and deed of dedication. This project is being funded through the Capital Improvements Plan, with partial funding coming from a VDOT Transportation Enhancement Grant. Mr. Tucker said after the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisor‟s approve the dedications to both Crozet Avenue and Main Street, and authorize the County Executive to sign the plats and deed of dedication. At this time the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) Ms. Mallek then moved to approve the dedications to both Crozet Avenue and Main Street and to authorize the County Executive to sign the plats and deed of dedication. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. TAX MAP # 56A2-1-18 and 56A2-1-19 RW -______ Revised _____ PREPARED BY VDOT UNDER SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Exempted from recordation taxes and fees under Sections 58.1-811(A)(3), 58.1-811(C)(5), 58.1-3315, 25.1-418, 42.1-70, 17.1-266, and 17.1-279(E) This Deed, made this 11th day of October 2010, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter designated as Grantor, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Grantee, WITNESSETH: In consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by the Grant ee to the Grantor, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee in fee simple, with Special Warranty Title, the land located in White Hall Magisterial District, in the County of Albemarle, and described as follows: Parcel “T” All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land shown and designated as PARCEL “T” on that certain "SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING PARCEL „T‟ BEING A PORTION OF TAX MAP 56A2 PARCEL 1-19, HEREBY DEDICATED TO COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ALSO SHOWING PARCEL “T-1” BEING A PORTION OF TAX MAP 56A2 PARCEL 1-19 HEREBY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USE, LOCATED ON CROZET AVENUE, WHITE HALL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA" dated October 24, 2008, and last revised April 22, 2010, prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., said plat being attached hereto and recorded herewith. AND BEING a portion of the property acquired by the Grantor herein by Deed from Edwina Crawford Harris, dated June 12, 2006 and recorded June 28, 2006 in Deed Book 3239 at page 326 among the land records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. Parcel “U” All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land shown and designated as PARCEL "U" on that certain " SUBDIVISION PLAT SHOWING PARCEL „U‟ BEING A PORTION OF TAX MAP 56A2 PARCEL 1-18, HEREBY DEDICATED TO COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, LOCATED ON CROZET AVENUE, WHITE HALL DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA " dated October24, 2008, and last revised April 22, 2010, prepared by Thomas B. Lincoln Land Surveyor, Inc., said plat being attached hereto and recorded herewith. AND BEING a portion of the property acquired by the Grantor herein by Deed from Thomas Amato and Martha B. Amato, husband and wife, dated November 16, 2006 and recorded December 1, 2006 in Deed Book 3329 at page 737 among the land records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. The Grantor by execution of this instrument acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect its property have been fully explained to its authorized representative. The Grantor covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that the consideration hereinabove mentioned and paid to it shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for land, and for damages, if any, to the remaining lands of the Grantor which may result by reason of the use to which the Grantee will put the land to be conveyed, including such drain age facilities as may be necessary. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY:___________________________ Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive _______________ June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: The Old Crozet School Arts Lease Agreement for Part of the Old Crozet Elementary School. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), the Board will consider renewing the lease with the Old Crozet School Arts for a portion of the old Crozet Elementary School property, located at 1408 Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia 22932 (Parcels 05600-00-00-06100 and 05600- 00-00-06200), for use as a private school. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24, 2010.) Mr. Tucker said that the Old Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924 and was used as a public school until 1990. From 1990 through 2007, the Charlottesville Waldorf School leased the property. The Old Crozet Elementary School was then vacant until June 2009, when the County began leasing part of the facility to the Field School of Charlottesville and, in August 2009, a part to the Old Crozet School Arts (OCSA). The two tenants together currently occupy approximately 15,165 square feet of the facility. The current OCSA lease term ends July 31, 2010. Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing County-owned property. Since occupying the facility, the OCSA has been an excellent tenant and is requesting to continue to lease the facility. For the most part, the proposed lease agreement would continue the same conditions as the current lease. However, the tenant would like to increase the term of the lease from the current one-year term. Proposed changes from the current lease include: ● automatic renewal of the lease for up to four additional one-year terms beyond the initial one-year term, unless notice is given by the Landlord or the Tenant no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of any term; ● discontinuance of the County‟s reimbursement through a rent credit for the cost of any pre-approved alterations, additions, or improvements made by the tenant; ● an increase of 871 sq. ft. in lease space that includes access to an additional entrance as well as the girl‟s restroom currently leased by the Field School. The lease amendment for the removal of this restroom from the Field School lease was approved by the Board May 5, 2010. With the inclusion of the additional space, the rent for the first term of the proposed lease agreement would be $18,387.06. This amount is based on a rental rate of $3.81/sq. ft. that was also applied to the recently approved lease for the Field School. This rental rate includes both rent and a utility charge based on projected use. At the end of September 2010, when a full year‟s utility data for the building with occupants is available, staff will evaluate utility consumption and adjust the utility cost component of the rent if warranted. The renewal of this lease would result in annual revenue of $18,387.06 during the first year. Mr. Tucker said after the public hearing, staff recommends the Board approve the lease with the OCSA and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the County. Ms. Mallek commented that it is wonderful to see the building “hopping.” The Chair opened the public hearing. Ms. Sharon Tolczyk, Artistic Director of Old Crozet School Arts, addressed the Board, and introduced Administrative Director, Mollie Washburne. Ms. Tolczyk reported that since beginning their lease last year and occupancy last August, the School transformed one of the old classrooms into a dance studio – replacing carpeting and light fixtures – and laid a sprung dance floor covered with a non-slip matte dance floor; they installed new, energy-efficient fluorescent lights, wooden ballet bars, and applied three coats of fresh pains to the walls. She said that after the dance studio renovation, their efforts switched to thoroughly cleaning and painting remaining classrooms and hallways – with significant help from members of the community, school faculty, and the Western Albemarle High School Key Club. Ms. Tolczyk reported that they opened for classes on September 8th and have since enrolled over 180 students, primarily from the Western Albemarle community – from preschoolers to seniors, in 26 different classes in dance, music, visual arts, theatre, yoga, pilates, and zumba – taught by 17 faculty members. As part of community outreach efforts in the fall, she said, they co-sponsored with Field School a free concert by the United States Air Force Heritage of America Band Langley Winds Woodwind Quintet. In December, Ms. Tolczyk said, the school hosted a holiday open house with class demonstrations and held their first benefit concert with Stephanie McCausian and Hodd O‟Brien and Generation Jazz in April. She reported that they have opened their doors to the newly-formed Crozet Garden Club, the Crozet Women‟s Club, and the Charlottesville Cello Club. She stated that Old Crozet Arts is currently a Virginia non-stock corporation and will file its 501(c)3 application in the next few weeks for tax -exempt status. Ms. Tolczyk indicated that they will then begin applying for grants that support educational outreach to and collaboration with the community and schools. She said that they have received a warm welcome from the community and look forward to Old Crozet Arts‟ continued growth towards becoming a vibrant and valued asset to the Western Albemarle community. Mr. Dorrier asked how long the school has been in existence. Ms. Tolczyk said that they began their lease on August 1, 2009. She said that there is a real desire in the community not to have to drive to Charlottesvi lle for classes. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) Mr. Dorrier stated that there is a similar center in Scottsville – The Scottsville Center for the Arts and Nature – but they have had difficulty with finances. Ms. Tolczyk said that their goal is to build enrollment to support their financial needs, and also to apply for grants. Mr. Rooker congratulated the school on what they‟ve been ab le to accomplish in the first ten months. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Ms. Mallek moved that the Board approve the lease with the Old Crozet School of the Arts, and to authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the county. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. (Note: The lease is set out in full below.) AGREEMENT OF LEASE THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of April 8, 2010, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and the OLD CROZET SCHOOL ARTS, a Virginia non -stock corporation, Tenant. ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, Landlord hereby leases to T enant, and Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof together with any and all improvements thereon (the "Leased Premises”). The Leased Premises shall be occupied by the Old Crozet School Arts. ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet enjoyment, use and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the Landlord or anyone claiming by, through, or under Landlord. ARTICLE III. TERM Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The term of this Lease shall commence on 1 August 2010 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire 31 July 2011. All references to the “term” of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to be a reference to the term described herein. Section 3.2. Renewal. This Lease shall automatically renew for up to four additional 12-month terms unless notice is given by either Landlord or T enant no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of any term. ARTICLE IV. RENT Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing upon the Date of Commencement, during the first year of this Lease, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord annual rent of $18,387.06, paya ble in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof. Gross square feet shall be calculated within the perimeter of the area to be used solely by the Old Crozet School Arts as shown in Exhibit A. After the first year of this Lease, the rent for subsequent years of the term of the Lease shall be indexed for inflation and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the level of the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of that month which is two months before the month in which the Date of Commencement occurs in the subsequent years, and the denominator of which shall be the level of the CPI Index as of the first day of that month which is two months befo re the initial Date of Commencement. The resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed upon or established for the first year of the term of the Lease to determine the annual rent due for the year. The rental figure shall be revised each year based upon this formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (all items, all urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI Index shall be discontinued, Landlord shall designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having the same general acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute shall be used as if originally designated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the rent due for any lease year decrease below the rent payable for the first year. Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payment. All payments of rent due Landlord pursuant to Section 4.1 shall be made to Landlord at the address specified in Section 18.3, or to such other party or at such other address as hereinafter may be designated by Landlord by written notice delivered to Tena nt at least ten (10) days prior to the next ensuing monthly rental payment date. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES Landlord shall provide water, sewer, electricity, and heating services as part of Tenant‟s rent. Tenant shall exercise reasonable and responsible care to conserve these utilities. The Tenant agrees that the monthly rent stipulated above may be adjusted to reflect any change in the cost to the Landlord of providing those utility services above. The Landlord shall provide the Tenant with pr ompt notice of any such change, and shall make available evidence of its actual utility costs. Tenant shall provide telephone, janitorial, garbage disposal, snow removal and all other services. ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises as a private school. No other use of the Leased Premises is permitted without the prior consent of the Landlord. Section 6.2. Parking. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of parking spaces in the parking lot and an access easement to the Leased Premises. Landlord reserves the nonexclusive right to use the parking lot after 5 p.m. in conjunction with the community use of the Upper Athletic Field. ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant. (a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non -structural alterations, additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased Premises, provided that Landlord's consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that Tenant shall obtain all required governmental permits for such alterations, additions or improvements. All such alterations, additions or improvements shall be at the sole expense of the Tenant. (b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or improvements, only with Landlord's prior written consent to plans and specifications therefor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. All such alterations, addit ions or improvements shall be at the sole expense of the Tenant. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable upon sixty (60) days notice to Tenant except in the case of a termination of this Lease d ue to a default by Tenant, in which case no such notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole cost and expense any and all improvements made by Tenant to the Leased Premises or to elect to keep such improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant is required to remove any improvements, (i) Tenant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant fails to properly remove such improvements or provide for the r epair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may perform the same at Tenant's cost and expense. Section 7.2. Signs. Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior of the Leased Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord. ARTICLE VIII MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES Section 8.1. Maintenance. Tenant shall keep the Property clean, neat, orderly, presentable and in good repair at all times. Landlord shall deliver the Property to Tenant at the beginning of the term in its present condition. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the Leased Premises, except as provided below, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non -structural, foreseen or unforeseen, including, but not limited to, plum bing, heating, electrical, plate glass and windows. Tenant shall be responsible for routine repairs and maintenance (excluding repairs and maintenance of the building and structural components identified above), except that the Tenant‟s obligation for suc h routine repairs and maintenance shall not exceed $2,500.00 in any one year of the initial or subsequent term(s). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible for all maintenance and repairs necessitated by the negligence of Tenant, its employees and invitees. Section 8.2. Right of Entry. Landlord reserves the right for itself, its agents and employees to enter upon the Leased premises at any reasonable time to make repairs, alterations or improvements; provided, however, that such repairs, alterations, or improvements shall not unreasonably interfere with Tenant‟s operations. Such right to enter shall also include the right to enter upon the leased premises for the purposes of inspection. Section 8.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby created, Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to Landlord at the place then fixed for the payment of rent and shall inform Landlord of all combinations on locks, safes and vau lts, if any, which Landlord has granted permission to have left in the Leased Premises. At such time, the Leased Premises shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair, commensurate with its age. If Tenant leaves any of Tenant's personal property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may remove and store any or all of such property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord. ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and property damage insurance with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by Tenant and any sub -tenants of Tenant on the Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) damage shall not be less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, combined s ingle limit. The policy shall name Landlord as additional insured. The policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to all named insureds. Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that it will, during the initial and any renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its respective successors in interest, the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being. Such policy shall contain coverage against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and protected against, at standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the same may exist from time to time. Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy, as its interest may appear. Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the insurers) for insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other upon the issuance of such insurance and thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates th ereof. Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Tenant hereby releases the Landlord from any and all liability or responsibility to Tenant or anyone claiming through or under it, by way of subrogation or otherwise, from any loss or damage to property caused by any peril insured under Tenant‟s policies of insurance covering such property (but only to the extent of the insurance proceeds payable under such policies), even if such loss or damage is attributable to the fault or negligence of Landlord, or anyone f or whom the Landlord may be responsible; provided, however, that this release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect to loss or damage occurring during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the releasor‟s policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releaser to recover thereunder. ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste or any nuisance upon the Leased Premises. Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal, state, federal and other applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Leased Premises or Tenant‟s use and occupancy thereof. ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY If the Leased Premises shall be damaged so as to render two -thirds (2/3) or more of the Leased Premises untenantable by fire or other casualty insured against under the insurance required to be carried by Landlord pursuant to Section 9.2, Landlord may elect to either terminate this Lease as of the date of damage or repair the Leased Premises. Unless Landlord elects to terminate this Lease, such damage or destruction shall in no way annul or void this Lease except that Tenant shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of the rent payable under Article IV while such r epairs are being made, such proportionate reduction to be based upon the proportion of the Leased Premises rendered untenantable as a result of such damage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any damage or destruction from any cause whatsoever has not been repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date thereof, Tenant may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to Landlord. ARTICLE XII CONDEMNATION If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent domain, then this Lease shall terminate as to the part so taken on the day when Tenant is required to yield possession thereof, the Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations a s may be necessary in order to restore the part not taken to useful condition; and the rent payable under Article IV shall be reduced proportionately as to the portion of the Leased Premises so taken. If the amount of the Leased Premises so taken is such as to impair substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the same are hereby leased, then either party shall have the option to terminate this Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield possession. ARTICLE XIII DEFAULT OF TENANT Section 13.1. Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall be deemed a "default" under this Lease: (a) Tenant fails to pay when due any amount of rent, additional rent or other monies due under this Lease, including Articles IV and V, and such payment is not received by Landlord within ten (10) days after written notice of such failure is received by Tenant; or (b) a default in any of the other provisions of this Lease, and such default continues uncured for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Landlord. Section 13.2. Remedies. In the event of any default or breach hereof by Tenant, Landlord shall have the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law) to terminate this Lease or to re- enter and take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or by force, and to remove any property June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) therein without liability for damage to and without obligation to store such property, but may store the same at Tenant's expense, and to collect from Tenant all rent then due and which would accrue for the unexpired portion of the term hereof, together with reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, in the event of a failure to pay rent, additional rent or other money within five (5) days of it s due date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the greater of Twenty-Five and no/100 Dollars ($25.00) or one half (1/2) of one percent (1%) of such sum for each day after the fifth day such rent or other money is late. ARTICLE XIV HOLDING OVER, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS Section 14.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof, with the consent of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month -to-month at the same rent herein specified (prorated on a monthly basis) and shall oth erwise be on the terms and conditions herein specified as far as applicable. Section 14.2. Showing the Leased Premises. During the last ninety (90) days of the term hereof, Tenant shall allow Landlord, or its agents, to show the Leased Premises to prosp ective tenants or purchasers at such times as Landlord may reasonably desire. Section 14.3. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the respective parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrat ors, successors and permitted assigns of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord shall be deemed the covenants, representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Leased Premises and Landlord shall be automatically released of all liability under this Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord of the Leased Premises. All covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be deemed the covenants, representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises. ARTICLE XV. BROKER‟S FEES Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in connection with this Lease. ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises, either directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord. No assignment, sublease or transfer of this Lease by Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or tran sferee expressly assumes in writing Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and Tenant shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Tenant under this Lease whether arising before or after such assignment, sublease or transfer. ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in all respects to (1) any mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting t he Leased Premises, including any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions, supplements and extensions thereof, and (2) each advance made or to be made thereunder. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly upon the request of Landlord execute and deliver an instrument in recordable form satisfactory to Landlord evidencing such subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such instrument within ten (10) days after request therefor, Tenant h ereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord as Tenant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to execute, acknowledge and deliver any such instruments on behalf of Tenant. Tenant further agrees that in the event any such mortgagee or lender requests reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of such financing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its consent thereto. ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by Landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein. The subsequent acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any breach by Tenant or Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease regardless of knowledge of such breach at the time of acceptance or payment of such rent. No covenant, term, or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the waiver be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby. Section 18.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and forming a part hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between Landlord and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein set forth. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding upon Landlord or Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them. Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be, or is required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed: June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) (a) if to Landlord, at County of Albemarle County Executive‟s Office 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice; (b) if to Tenant, at Old Crozet School Arts 260 Deer Crest Heights Charlottesville, VA 22903 or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice. Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers appearing in this Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they affect this Lease. Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. Section 18.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be executed and recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which either party requests except for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The cost of recording such memorandum of lease or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation. Section 18.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Section 18.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first above written. TENANT OLD CROZET SCHOOL ARTS, a Virginia non-stock corporation By: Print Name: Title: LANDLORD This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, following a duly-held public hearing, and pursuant to a Resolution of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA By: Print Name: Title: EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: FY 2010 Budget Amendment. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23, 2010.) Mr. Richard Wiggans, Director of Finance, summarized the executive summary which was forward to Board members. Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc. The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $4,108,006.51. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) The proposed increase of this FY 2010 Budget Amendment totals $4,108,006.51. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 487,494.31 Special Revenue Funds $ 2,393,074.97 School Fund $ 735,916.63 School Program Funds $ 140,266.07 Emergency Communication Center Funds $ 313,664.00 Capital Improvements Funds $ 37,590.53 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 4,108,006.51 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 438,658.94 State Revenue $ 89,310.04 Federal Revenue $ 2,411,093.39 Proffer Revenues $ 267,054.06 Other Fund Balances $ 901,890.08 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 4,108,006.51 The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-eight (38) separate appropriations, thirty of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below: Approved December 2, 2009: One (1) appropriation (#2010050) totaling $2,500.00 for the Go Green Virginia Grant; One (1) appropriation (#2010051) totaling $5,900.00 for various education programs; and One (1) appropriation (#2010052) totaling $32,681.00 for the FY2009 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Approved January 6, 2010: One (1) appropriation (#2010053) totaling $69,331.00 for the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant; Two (2) appropriations (#2010054 and #2010059) totaling $105,871.85 for various education programs; One (1) appropriation (#2010055) totaling $4,730.65 for the Fugitive Apprehension Task Force; One (1) appropriation (#2010056) totaling $144,556.63 for the Route 20 Visitors Center; One (1) appropriation (#2010057) recognizing $ 8,316.80 in other revenue sources (proffers) in the Capital Improvements Fund and reducing the anticipated use of CIP fund balance by the same amount; and One (1) appropriation (#2010058) totaling $40,000 for the Internet Crimes Against Children grant. Approved January 13, 2010: One (1) appropriation (#2010060) totaling $1,500,000.00 for the ECC U. S. Department of Justice COPS Technology Grant Approved February 3, 2010: One (1) appropriation (#2010061) totaling $32,500.00 for the R. K. Mellon Family Foundation Grant; One (1) appropriation (#2010062) totaling $95,000.00 reappropriating the uncompleted FY09 Fire Department Mobile Data Computer project; One (1) appropriation (#2010063) totaling $406,000.00 for the Department of Energy‟s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program; Approved March 3, 2010: Three (3) appropriations (#2010064, #2010067, and #2010068) totaling $79,751.25 for Education donations/programs; and One (1) appropriation (#2010066) totaling $14,500.00 for operational costs of the EMS Cost Recovery program. Approved April 7, 2010: One (1) appropriation (#2010069) totaling $133,362.00 for various Commission on Children grants; One (1) appropriation (#2010070) totaling $15,161.88 for various school programs; One (1) appropriation (#2010071) totaling $43,105.00 for a Virginia Health Care Foundation Department of Social Services; One (1) appropriation (#2010072) totaling $19,199.00 for the Internet Crimes Against Children One (1) appropriation (#2010075) transferring $100,559.76 to the Byrom Park Project Approved May 5, 2010: One (1) appropriation (#2010073) totaling $17,000.00 for a Homeland Security grant; Three (3) appropriations (#2010074, #2010076, and #2010080) totaling $364,887.04 for various school programs; One (1) appropriation (#2010077) totaling $27,500.00 for the R. K. Mellon Family Foundation June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 42) Grant; One (1) appropriation (#2010078) totaling $5,500.00 for Sheriff Reserve Program Contributions; and One (1) appropriation (#2010079) totaling $199,664.00 for the ECC Sprint/Nextel 800 MHz Re - banding. The eight (8) new appropriations are as follows: Two (2) appropriations (#2010081 and #2010088) totaling $17,068.99 for various school programs; One (1) appropriation (#2010082) recognizing $ 28,605.04 in other revenue sources (proffers) in the Capital Improvements Fund and reducing the anticipated use of CIP fund balance by the same amount; One (1) appropriation (#2010083) totaling $230,132.22 for the Crozet Streetscape Phase II project; One (1) appropriation (#2010084) totaling $387,904 for the public safety workers back -pay; One (1) appropriation (#2010085) totaling $200.00 for donation towards the plaque for Burley High School Coaches; One (1) appropriation (#2010086) totaling $330,418.16 for the School Division‟s requested portion from the FY 09/10 Revenue Shortfall Contingency or “lockbox” to fund early retirement incentives; and One (1) appropriation (#2010087) totaling $114,000.00 for a federal Interoperable Communications Planning Grant awarded to the Emergency Communications Center. A description of this request is provided in Attachment A. Mr. Wiggans said after the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2010 Budget Amendment in the amount of $4,108,006.51 and approval of Appropriations #2010081, #2010082, #2010083, #2010084, #2010085, #2010086, #2010087 and #2010088 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A. * * * * Attachment A Appropriation #2010081 $890.00 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 890.00 Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $890.00. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $32,186.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $39,052.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $285,947.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. Appropriation #2010082 $28,605.04 Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenue: $ 28,605.04 Since the original appropriation of the FY10 Capital Improvements budget, the following additional revenue sources have been identified, which will reduce the planned use of $28,605.04 from the CIP fund balance. The schedule below identifies the revenue source, amount, and the project to be funded. Revenue Source Description Capital Project Amount ($) Avon Park Proffer Avon Sidewalk Project $ 42.46 Stillfried Ln Proffer Ivy Road Sidewalk Project $ 55.20 Hollymead Town Center A1 Proffer Rt 29 Corridor Study $28,507.38 Appropriation #2010083 $230,132.22 Revenue Source: Proffer Fund: $ 230,132.22 The Office of Facilities Development has requested $230,132.22 in available funds from proffers listed below to extend the Crozet Main Street component of the Downtown Crozet Streetscape Phase II project. Originally, Main Street was to be designed/constructed from Crozet Avenue to the existing alley parallel to Crozet Avenue, approximately 200 feet in length, where the parking lot entrance to the new Crozet Library was to be located. When the Crozet Library Steering Committee and the consultant finalized the conceptual plan, it was determined that the Crozet Library entrance had to be moved to the rear of the parcel. Because Crozet Main Street provides the only access to the Crozet Library parking lot, the Main Street design/construction must be extended an additional 200 feet. The schedule below identifies the revenue source and amount: Revenue Source Description Amount ($) Grayrock Proffer $75,644.06 Wickham Pond Proffer $73,764.89 Westhall (1.1) Proffer $53,728.70 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) Westhall (1.2) Proffer $10,896.30 Liberty Hall Proffer $16,098.27 Appropriation #2010084 $387,904.00 Revenue Source: Fund Balance: $387,904.00 This appropriation of $387,904.00 will fund back-pay for overtime for certain public safety employees. The County has correctly paid overtime as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); however, this appropriation is necessary to comply with additional Virginia state law overtime requirements. This appropriation includes $27,566.00 in FICA costs in addition to the overtime wages. Appropriation #2010085 $200.00 Revenue Source: Fund Balance: $200.00 The Board of Supervisors agreed at its May 12, 2010 meeting to donate $200.00 towards a plaque for former Burley High School coaches to be purchased by the Burley High School Varsity Club. Appropriation #2010086 $330,418.16 Revenue Source: Transfer General Govt. CIP Fund $ 330,418.16 At a meeting with the School Board on April 22, 2010, the Board of Supervisors agreed to provide $330,418.16 to the School Division in order to fund early retirement incentives offered in FY 09/10. These funds are being transferred from the Revenue Shortfall Contingency or “lockbox” created by the Board of Supervisors. Appropriation #2010087 $114,000.00 Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $ 114,000.00 On March 31, 2010, the Interoperable Communications Planning Grant for the 20 Jurisdictions within the Region 3 Regional Preparedness Advisory Committee (RPAC) was awarded to Albemarle County as the fiscal agent for the Emergency Communications Center through the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This reimbursable grant will be managed by the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center for Region 3. The grant funds will be used to hire a communications consulting group to survey the 20 jurisdictions and identify key region al stakeholders to help identify top priority regional interoperable communications initiatives. In addition, they would assist the region in developing the framework for regional communications SOP‟s, policies, and procedures for interoperable communications initiatives. Appropriation #2010088 $16,178.99 Revenue Source: Local Revenue: $ 16,178.99 The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund. The following donations were made to specific schools: Mr. Anthony Alimenti donated $30.00 to be split between Murray High School and Monticello High School. Each school will receive $15.00. Ann Willms donated $500.00 to Henley Middle School Mr. Roger Gildersleeve donated $100.00 to Western Albemarle High School Western Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $13,912.00. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Western Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 WAHS Synthetic Turf Project is $15,187.00, including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $19,161.66 for a grand total of $34,348.66. The high s chools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Western Albemarle High School to raise an additional $290,651.34 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. Albemarle High School received various cash donations totaling $1,050.00. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $33,236.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $40,102.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional $284,897.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00. Woodbrook Elementary School has received several donations totaling $586.99. Kathleen Looney donated $100.00, Jason H. Daniel donated $25.00 and the Carson Raymond Foundation donated $461.99. The donors have requested that their contribution be used towards purchasing a basketball hoop for the Woodbrook Elementary School playground. This hoop would be a tool for the development of hand-eye coordination, and would aid in developing shooting, passing, dribbling and basic ball -handling skills. __________ June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) The Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Rooker moved to approve the FY2010 Budget Amendment in the amount of $4,108,006.51, and to approve Appropriations #2010081, #2010082, #2010083, #2010084, #2010085, #2010086, #2010087 and #2010088 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and pr ograms as described in Attachment A. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010081 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2010 BATCH# EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: April 22, 2010 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations - Turf Project J 2 890.00 1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 890.00 9001 0501 Est. Revenue 890.00 0701 Appropriation 890.00 TOTAL 1,780.00 890.00 890.00 _____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010082 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2009 BATCH # EXPLANATION: Proffer revenue offset to projects: Avon Park Proffer; Avon Sidewalk Project; Stillfried Ln Proffer: Ivy Road Sidewalk Project SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 9010 51000 512055 Trs. - Avon Park Proffer J 2 42.46 2 9010 51000 512058 Trs. -STILLFRIED LN PROFFER J 2 55.20 2 9010 51000 512066 Trs. -Hollymead Town Ctr A-1 Proffer J 2 28,507.38 2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - F/B J 2 (28,605.04) 2 8534 15000 150101 Avon Park-Interest J 2 42.46 1 8534 93010 930010 Avon Park - Trsf to CIP J 1 42.46 8534 0501 Est. Revenue 42.46 0701 Appropriation 42.46 2 8533 15000 150101 Stillfried Ln - Interest J 2 55.20 1 8533 93010 930010 Stillfried Ln - Trsf to CIP J 1 55.20 8533 0501 Est. Revenue 55.20 0701 Appropriation 55.20 2 8545 51000 510100 Hollymead Town Center A1-F/B J 2 28,507.38 1 8545 93010 930010 Hollymead Town Center A1-Trsf to CIP J 1 28,507.38 8545 0501 Est. Revenue 28,507.38 0701 Appropriation 28,507.38 TOTAL 57,210.08 28,605.04 28,605.04 _____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010083 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2009 BATCH# EXPLANATION: Proffer revenue to increase Crozet Streetscape Phase II Project: Grayrock Proffer, Wickham Pond Proffer, Westhall (1.1) Proffer, Westhall (1.2) Proffer, Liberty Hall Proffer SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 9010 51000 512063 Trs. -Grayrock Proffer J 2 75,644.06 2 9010 51000 510100 Trs. -Wickham Pond Proffer J 2 73,764.89 2 9010 51000 512064 Trs. -Westhall (1.1) Proffer J 2 53,728.70 2 9010 51000 512059 Trs. -Westhall (1.2) Proffer J 2 10,896.30 2 9010 51000 512065 Trs. -Liberty Hall Proffer J 2 16,098.27 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 45) 1 9010 41023 800605 Crozet Streetscape Ph II- Construction J 1 230,132.22 9010 0501 Est. Revenue 230,132.22 0701 Appropriation 230,132.22 2 8523 51000 510100 Grayrock-Approp F/B J 2 75,528.66 2 8523 15000 150101 Grayrock-Interest J 2 115.60 1 8523 93010 930010 Grayrock - Trsf to CIP J 1 75,644.26 8523 0501 Est. Revenue 75,644.26 0701 Appropriation 75,644.26 2 8540 51000 510100 Wickham Pond-Approp F/B J 2 57,531.57 2 8540 15000 150101 Wickham Pond-Interest J 2 103.47 2 8540 18940 189911 Wickham Pond-Proffer Revenue J 2 16,129.05 1 8540 93010 930010 Wickham Pond - Trsf to CIP J 1 73,764.09 8540 0501 Est. Revenue 73,764.09 0701 Appropriation 73,764.09 2 8541 51000 510100 Westhall (1.1)-Approp F/B J 2 53,646.73 2 8541 15000 150101 Westhall (1.1)-Interest J 2 81.97 1 8541 93010 930010 Westhall (1.1) - Trsf to CIP J 1 53,728.70 8541 0501 Est. Revenue 53,728.70 0701 Appropriation 53,728.70 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 8542 51000 510100 Westhall (1.2)-Approp F/B J 2 10,879.69 2 8542 15000 150101 Westhall (1.2)-Interest J 2 16.61 1 8542 93010 930010 Westhall (1.2) - Trsf to CIP J 1 10,896.30 8542 0501 Est. Revenue 10,896.30 0701 Appropriation 10,896.30 2 8544 51000 510100 Liberty Hall-Approp F/B J 2 6,481.48 2 8544 15000 150101 Liberty Hall-Interest J 2 16.79 2 8544 189911 Liberty Hall-Proffer Revenue J 2 9,600.00 1 8544 93010 930010 Liberty Hall - Trsf to CIP J 1 16,098.27 8544 0501 Est. Revenue 16,098.27 0701 Appropriation 16,098.27 TOTAL 920,527.68 460,263.84 460,263.84 _____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010084 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2010 BATCH# EXPLANATION: Backpay for Public Safety Workers SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1000 31031 120000 Police Prior Overtime - OT Wages J 1 245,541.00 1 1000 31031 210000 Police Prior Overtime - FICA J 1 18,784.00 1 1000 32090 120000 Fire Rescue Prior Overtime - OT Wages J 1 114,797.00 1 1000 32090 210000 Fire Rescue Prior Overtime - FICA J 1 8,782.00 2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 387,904.00 1000 0501 Est. Revenue 387,904.00 0701 Appropriation 387,904.00 TOTAL 775,808.00 387,904.00 387,904.00 _____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010085 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2010 BATCH# EXPLANATION: Board of Supervisor's Donation for the Burley High School Coaches Plaque SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1000 89000 568760 BURLEY HS COACHES PLAQUE J 1 200.00 2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 200.00 June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) 1000 0501 Est. Revenue 200.00 0701 Appropriation 200.00 TOTAL 400.00 200.00 200.00 _____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010086 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2010 BATCH# EXPLANATION: Revenue Shortfall Contingency for Schools SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 9010 11010 999999 Board Contingency/Lockbox J 1 (330,418.16) 1 9010 93010 930001 Transfer-School Fund J 1 330,418.16 9010 0501 Est. Revenue 0.00 0701 Appropriation 0.00 1 2100 621100 223000 Early Retirement J 1 306,937.45 1 2100 621100 210000 FICA J 1 23,480.71 2 2000 51000 512090 TRS. FR.- G/F CIP J 2 330,418.16 0501 Est. Revenue 330,418.16 0701 Appropriation 330,418.16 TOTAL 660,836.32 330,418.16 330,418.16 ______ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010087 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2010 BATCH# EXPLANATION: U S Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Planning Grant SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 4100 33000 330325 FEDERAL INTEROP. GRANT J 2 114,000.00 1 4100 31041 301210 ECC CONTRACT SERVICES J 1 114,000.00 4100 0501 Est. Revenue 114,000.00 0701 Appropriation 114,000.00 TOTAL 228,000.00 114,000.00 114,000.00 _____ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010088 APPROPRIATION DATE 6/2/2010 BATCH# EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: May 13, 2010 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 1,216.99 1 2212 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 586.99 1 2252 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 500.00 1 2302 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 100.00 1 2303 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 15.00 1 2304 61101 601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES J 1 15.00 2000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,216.99 0701 Appropriation 1,216.99 2 9001 18100 181107 AHS DONATIONS-TURF PROJECT J 2 1,050.00 1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYN TURF FIELD J 1 1,050.00 9001 0501 Est. Revenue 1,050.00 0701 Appropriation 1,050.00 2 9002 18100 181107 WAHS DONATIONS-TURF PROJECT J 2 13,912.00 1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS TURF FIELD PROGRAM J 1 13,912.00 9002 0501 Est. Revenue 13,912.00 0701 Appropriation 13,912.00 TOTAL 32,357.98 16,178.99 16,178.99 ________________ June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: ZTA-2010-00001. Industrial Uses. Amend Sec. 27.2.2, By special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 27.2.2 by adding as uses permitted by special use permit in the Light Industry (LI) zoning district all of those uses permitted by right in the Heavy Industry (HI) zoning district that are not oth erwise permitted by right in the LI zoning district. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 2010.) Ms. Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator, summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members. In 2009 the Board of Supervisors adopted an update of the Economic Development Policy wherein one of the short-term priority items was: “Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light-industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts.” In January, the Board passed an Action Plan which included the following: “the report on available light industrial zoning should be expedited and a report on the possibility of expansion of this type of zoning in these areas should be brought back to the Board in the first-quarter of the year for discussion and possible action.” In February, staff presented an Industrial Land Inventory that documented a shortage of vacant heavy-industrial land and challenges with the industrial zoning districts. The Board directed staff to consider and recommend HI uses that should be moved into the LI district by special-use permit. On April 6, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the attached zoning text amendment (Attachment A) to the Board. After public comments about the need to consider and mitigate traffic and other impacts from the HI uses, the Commission also requested that updated Performance Standards for industrial uses be brought forward as soon as possible. Staff expects to complete a draft of updated Perform ance Standards by June, with public review expected in August. Regarding concerns for unmitigated traffic impacts, all special use permits are reviewed under Zoning Code Section 31.6.1, which states: “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.” Traffic impacts are assessed as part of this review and recommendations regarding the special use permit proposal (approval, approval with conditions, denial) are based in part on this assessment. Special use permit review will be subject to the $1,020 application fee in Section 35 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff anticipates the potential for additional revenue generation from local business expansion that may result from this amendment. Ms. Stimart presented a summary of the current overlap in uses that are called out in the different districts, showing a slide that compares the LI uses allowed by special use permit versus the current HI industrial uses allowed by-right that are being considered today to be allowed in LI by special use permit. She noted that sawmills are allowed in the rural areas as well, and hospitals are allowed in HC District. Ms. Stimart said that staff looked into other regulations that go into effect with HI uses – fire code regulations, DEQ regulations, and other regulations such as EPA and OSHA requirements at the federal level. Ms. Stimart said staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Board approve ZTA 2010-0001 as proposed in Attachment A. Ms. Mallek said that concerns have been expressed about impact on current neighborhoods, and emphasized that the special use permit process would be the opportu nity to address those issues. She asked if we are within our rights to have those high standards if it‟s a situation where a use is coming closer to a more populated area. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned the SOCA facility on Polo Grounds Road in the rural areas, which was denied because of its impacts. This will be subject to a special use permit under the same criteria for review that were used there – plus staff does have, with any approval, the opportunity to attach whatever conditions are necessary to alleviate the impacts if you feel it is a use you want to allow but there are impacts that need to be addressed. He added that he looks at special use permits as a second level of zoning – as it is a minimal but site-specific type of rezoning in that it is reviewed for similar impacts, and conditions can be imposed. Mr. Dorrier asked how this would affect the Yancey site in Crozet. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it wouldn‟t affect it, because it is an HI use already. Mr. Rooker said that if it were rezoned LI then it would have an effect on it because it would allow other things on the site by special use permit. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48) Mr. Cilimberg stated that the exception would be if in the rezoning there were uses that were proffered out. Ms. Stimart noted that the Yancey property is in the rural area, so LI use is not allowed. Mr. Rooker added that if it were rezoned, the other uses could potentially go in there. Everything that‟s zoned LI – either now or later – will have these potential additional uses. He is not saying it‟s a positive or a negative at this point, but that is the way it would be. Mr. Snow said that Section 36.1.1 states that everything will be looked at in terms of what the adjacent property is like and if there‟s any detriment to the character of the district, so you still have that option of looking at the project to ensure that it won‟t have an adverse impact. Mr. Dorrier mentioned the Willow Glen property – which Mr. Cilimberg indicated was a rezoning – and noted the industrial land conversion there. Mr. Rooker clarified that the applicant took some industrial land and rezoned it for residential, adding that if he had kept it LI, it would have had some additional potential uses but wouldn‟t have been usable for the purposes intended. Mr. Rooker said that he doesn‟t see the ZTA as a problem, as the special use permit process allows the Board to shape conditions affirmatively to deal with any specific circumstances that arise – it could be denied, there could be conditions placed, etc. Mr. Rooker added that one advantage is that proffers have to be voluntarily submitted, but with the special use permit process, the conditions can be scripted and changed at the meetings based on public input. This may be a more useful way of trying to deal with specific circumstances. Mr. Snow agreed, stating that this does provide neighbors with adequate protection and gives them an opportunity in the special use permit process. Ms. Mallek said that she is encouraged b y the businesses who have made big changes in technology over the last 20 years ago and thus will be more compatible in closer-in locations. At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board. Mr. Rooker said that Pam Evans, who spoke earlier, seemed to be addressing this and was apparently not in favor of the change. He commented that even taking that into cons ideration, this is a better way of dealing with these kinds of applications by being able to fashion conditions that fit specific circumstances. Mr. Thomas agreed. Mr. Rooker then moved for approval of ZTA 2010-0001. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. ORDINANCE NO. 10-18(6) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT 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 III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit Chapter 18. Zoning Article III. District Regulations Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the LI district: . . . 19. Uses permitted by right in the Heavy Industry (HI) zoning district that are not otherwise permitted by right under section 27.2.1. ________________ Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: Development Review Process Improvements: Subdivisions and Site Plans. Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members: June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 49) “The purpose of this work session is to consider changes to site plan and subdivision review processes for the purpose of reducing the time and cost of processing applications. This effort addresses a Board interest in reviewing the priority recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (“DRTF”, Attachment A) and the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan adopted by the Board on January 6, 2010 (Attachment B). That Action Plan called for staff to bring forward recommendations for “…reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shortening approval times.” Staff was also tasked with bringing forward “…outcomes from the Development Review Process that were designed to streamline the process…”. The status of the DRTF recommendations was reviewed by the Board on February 3, 2010 as part of Community Development’s work program and focused on legislative review processes (e.g. rezoning and special use permits). An additional Board work session to further discuss the legislative review process is being planned for the Fall 2010. Today’s work session focuses on site plans and subdivision processes. Staff believes that site plan and subdivision plat processes (“ministerial applications”) should be the highest priority in addressing the goal of reducing the time and cost of applications. While there has been considerable interest in rezoning applications, the County is currently receiving one-third of the number of rezoning applications as it has in prior years, and there has not been a major new rezoning application in the last three years. Market conditions and the large inventory of approved rezonings suggest the market will focus on drawing down this inventory through subdivision plats and site plans rather than rezoning additional property in the foreseeable future. Current site plan and subdivision processes include a preliminary plan or plat and a final plan or plat (“plan”). For approval of the final plan, an applicant must also receive approval of a stormwater management plan, erosion and sediment control plan, road and drainage plan (VDOT for public roads), water and sewer plans (ACSA) or well and septic approvals (Health Department). Additionally, if the property is located on an Entrance Corridor, a Certificate of Appropriateness must be issued by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Recognizing this co mplexity, staff has developed the following strategies to achieve the goal of reducing the time and cost of applications: 1. Avoid Review Delays. Review delays are largely associated with waiting on others to act. (e.g. scheduling a Planning Commission revie w) . 2. Reduce Resubmissions. While reducing review delays is important, reducing the number of resubmissions is equally as critical to reducing time and costs. 3. Assure Predictable Outcomes. Uncertainty (risk) has been the largest complaint by the development community. Predictable outcomes should reduce the number of submittals required to reach approval. 4. Maintain County Development Quality. While lowering the development quality is the easiest way to reduce costs, the Board has never suggested that quality standards should be lowered. As such, staff has focused on assuring the standards are appropriately administered rather than altering the quality level. To achieve these objectives staff recommends that changes focus on simplifying the process and increasing staff’s decision flexibility, rather than altering the County‟s development standards. The key points of staff‟s proposal are: A. Administrative review of plans and modifications. To decrease review and approval times, the County must minimize the number of people and steps involved in a decision. Staff reports and Planning Commission presentations increase both time and costs for the County and applicants, and a Planning Commission decision significantly increases the decision complexity. B. Clearly specify required changes. To assure predictable outcomes, the County must have clear ordinance standards and review to those standards. Waivers and modifications must also be reviewed against objective standards to reduce uncertainty. Staff ca n continue to offer recommendations on how the project may be improved, but applicants must know what is required versus recommended. C. More focus by the ARB‟s and Planning Commission‟s on assuring appropriate ordinance requirements and guidelines rather than case by case reviews. Administrative processes provide the Planning Commission and ARB the time and opportunity to focus their attention on assuring the ordinance standards and guidelines represent the community‟s values. D. Conditional approvals. Despite providing applicants with detailed checklists, staff continues to receive applications where simple requirements have been checked as complete, but are not actually included on the plans. In many cases, staff could conditionally approve these plans, noting the necessary changes needed to bring the plan into compliance with the requirements. This approach would avoid the need for an additional and expensive resubmission. Suggested process change: Attachment C provides a flow chart that outlines the new process that would be incorporated into the County Code. The applicant would submit a concept plan for review and within ten (10) days, County staff would administer a quick, “red flag” review of the plan. During the 10 day review period, staff would put together all the necessary information needed to allow the applicant to make a formal plan submittal. Staff would identify any significant issues that could slow the process down such as waivers, variations, VDOT review, ARB review, and other issues that would need to be resolved or applied for during the formal submittal process. Staff would then meet with the applicant to explain the issues and provide a folder containing all the information noted during this review, including all the applicati ons, checklists, and June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 50) forms needed for the formal plan submittal. If the applicant failed to apply for all of the required approvals, failed to submit all of the required information or if the plan lacked the required content, the plan would be rejected and the applicant would be required to resubmit an application with all of the required information. After the formal submittal, the site review committee (SRC) would review and provide comments as needed. After comments were given, there would be an SRC meeting where the plan would be given approval with conditions or would be denied. Allowing the plan to be approved or denied at this point would address the State Code requirements for timely review of preliminary plans and plats, as well as give the applicant a vested approval and a year to submit the associated plan approvals described above. This process would include a possible administrative extension when the applicant had demonstrated diligence in seeking approval but had been delayed by factors outside of its control. Finally, this process would allow the SRC to authorize issuance of a grading permit before final plan approval when no conditions would prevent this. An “early grading permit” has been one of the most frequent requests by applicants, as it allows them to avoid costly delays while working through conditions. Other suggestions: To make this process more effective, the Board may wish to consider further streamlining of processes. For example, the recent ordinance amendment to provide f or countywide Certificates of Appropriateness (ARB) could be expanded to include site plans that meet specified conditions. This appears to be consistent with an objective of the draft Economic Development Action Plan that is currently being considered by the Board. That plan calls for increasing staff ’s assistance in helping small businesses through County processes, which fits the described circumstance. With respect to public participation, staff recommends continuing public notices as currently done. For those applications already administratively approved, there is no change in the process. For the applications no longer receiving Planning Commission review, the notice would refer the public to the meeting of the Site Review Committee. Staff believes this change may improve public satisfaction in many situations. Currently, a Planning Commission meeting provides time for a 3 minute comment, but no opportunity to ask follow up questions or provide clarifications. The Site Review Committee meeting provides an opportunity for an informal dialogue between all. No additional staff resources or funding are anticipated with the proposed alternative. The recommendations can provide reductions in staff’s workload and applicant’s costs. As the selected process is finalized and brought to the Board for public hearing, staff will be able to better estimate any cost savings for the reviews. Staff requests Board direction regarding the above proposals to achieve the goal of reducing the time and cost of processing site plan and subdivision applications. Based on that direction, staff will prepare appropriate resolutions of intent for Board consideration at an upcoming meeting.” __________ Mr. Graham said that this is partially in response to a request to bring back some of the Development Review Task Force recommendations as well as the Board‟s Action Plan to reduce regulations and shorten approval times, as well as streamlining the process. Today‟s steps are to talk about the goal and the work session objectives, talk about best practices and the current status of the County‟s process, talk about current County regulations and how they are applied, then present the staff proposal with respect to site plans and subdivisions. Mr. Graham said that the Action Plan indicates an intent to shorten approval times and cost of the development review, while avoid ing unnecessary regulations. He added that staff also believes the Board has indicated they want to maintain those opportunities for public input in the process as well as maintaining the community‟s quality of development. He explained that this work session objectives are: 1) to inform the Board as to opportunities for achieving the goal with site plans and subdivisions; 2) to determine if the Board is interested in proceeding with the staff recommendations – noting that there are no final decisions being made, this is just telling staff to proceed to work on these steps; and 3) to determine if the Board has any additional regulations or policies they would like staff to evaluate with respect to the site plans and subdivisions . With best practices for streamlining the County‟s current status, Mr. Graham said, the best source he has found is a combination of the American Planning Association and the National Association of Homebuilders. He stated that there are a large number of those practices the County has already done – assessment of processes, cross-training of staff, central permitting information, one-stop permitting, simple language in ordinances, checklists and flowcharts for all application processes, concurrent reviews such as VDOT reviews along with other reviews, pre-application conferences, lead planner acting as a review coordinator, and permit expediting and tracking via CountyView. Mr. Graham said that Albemarle has also specified the timeframe for inspections of construction improvements and release of bonds, and is doing well comparatively; the County also combines inspections while they‟re in the field. He added that allowing sufficient timeframes between approvals with the possibility of extensions is built into all County processes, along with self-certification of inspections. Mr. Graham said that one that may need to be revisited is self - certification of plans, as staff previously brought an expedited engineering process forward that didn‟t quite work as hoped. Mr. Graham said that today what would be focused on is: 1) clearly stating the submittal requirements and require the appropriate level of detail, adding that this isn‟t going to be about changing the requirements, but making sure that the right level is required with the plans to match the County‟s expectations; 2) allow more decisions to be handled administratively; and 3) presumption of approval – which means clearly specifying requirements, not watering them down. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 51) Mr. Rooker cited the cell tower process as an example of a situation where the County moved from Planning Commission and Board approval of every application to creating tiers with different approval requirements, along with standard conditions. He asked if a broad number of things were moved to administrative approval, would that same level of public protection be built in through standardization of conditions and other things of that nature so that the County continues to achieve a reasonable balance of improving application speed and efficiency, while protecting other elements of the public interest. Mr. Graham indicated that it would be addressed through the presentation, and staff will ensure that it is covered. Mr. Graham said that a lot of people focus on review times, and that has al ways been a key performance indicator for the Department and is presented to the Board every year as part of the budget review process. Mr. Graham said that with review times for site plans and subdivisions, the goal is to do 90% of plans within 21 days – and staff is getting pretty close, steadily improving over the last few years. He stated that Chesterfield County is used as a model often because they won the Senate Productivity and Quality Award, and their standard is to get 50% of their plans approved in 50 days or less. He added that review times are not the issue and is basically the bottom line. They are finding that it really is about approval times – how they can improve approval times, reduce the number plans that come back and forth. He emphasized that the reason for those delays is multiple resubmissions, as there is still a large number of applicants who simply fail to put the items on the plan that were addressed in a comment or on a checklist. Mr. Graham said that the other thing that can cause delays is the Architectural Review Board, as an applicant must go through a Certificate of Appropriateness – which is a timeframe from the application to getting the hearing – and sometimes there is a delay on doing a second hearing. He stated that the Planning Commission approval on waivers and modifications is another one whereas administratively the decision could be made on the spot, but it could take up to two months to get it scheduled. Mr. Graham added that the same is true with the review of plans. He explained that the final potential area of delay is outside agency approval, which is entirely out of County control – VDOT, the Albemarle County Service Authority, the Health Department, etc. Mr. Graham said that in shortening approval times, staff believes they need to allow more decisions to be handled administratively, simplify the process and provide more applicant guidance at the start, and clearly state submittal requirements and review t o that appropriate level of detail. With respect to County regulations, he said, most of those actually come from the Board as a result of constituent concerns and are not things that staff raised as issues . The primary issues tend to include drainage issues, traffic and neighborhood safety, etc. He added that the other is the Board looking toward the future to ensure there is adequate infrastructure, and everyone is concerned with protecting community assets such as environmentally sensitive areas. The final area of focus is preserving community quality, as the Board has had a strong interest historically in ensuring a high level of quality in the County. Mr. Graham commented that one of the most interesting charts that came out of the Development Review Task Force helps people understand the respective roles of staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board – which shows that staff is primarily focused on implementing regulations and how they are enforced, with the Board focused on exactly what those regulations are. He added that when you talk about “what,” there are increasing amounts of subjectivity and time in terms of getting things accomplished. Mr. Dorrier commented that once the ARB phase is passed, it seems to go more quickly. Mr. Graham stated that the ARB can be, but isn‟t always, a critical path to approval. In terms of examples of development quality, Mr. Graham said that there have been some ordinance changes that have added something to the process, but have also resulted in significant improvements in our quality. Mr. Graham presented examples/photographs of changes in driveways – stating that someone driving into the first garage would never be able to see something small in the garage, such as a dog or child; the County thus came up with a new ordinance to address those issues. He presented photographs on road sections with street design, showing an example of a road with lots of drainage complaints; and presented an example of a road after the ordinance standards changed. Mr. Graham showed an example of the lack of a stream buffer in an adjoining county compared to one in Albemarle County. He also presented a comparison of sign and landscaping projects , and entrance corridor projects. Mr. Graham stated that there are a number of regulatory changes currently in the works: 1) Entrance Corridors (process amendment approved in May, guidelines to follow); 2) Home Occupations, Rural Churches (reduce/eliminate need for special use permits); 3) Critical Slopes (revised regulations to better protect important resources and exclude slopes that are not important resources); 4) I ndustrial Uses (broaden uses allowed in Light Industrial zoning category); and 5) S igns (resolution of intent adopted in May, engaging public on common ground for sign regulation). Mr. Rooker asked if critical slopes could be categorized and objective standards identified. Mr. Graham replied, “yes”; there are lots of ways to do that in terms of proximity to other sensitive resources, etc. Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said that staff took the information and started working on what actual changes could be made to the site plan and subdivision process. He stated that some of the key concepts staff used were predictable outcomes for everyone – the applicants and citizens; maintaining public opportunities for input; maintaining the quality of the review; and reducing overall approval times. He said that the key features of the process presented are treating it as a project instead June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 52) of breaking it into component parts; assisting the applicant by clarifying submittal requirements, the review process, and the design criteria; establishing clear standards for the submittal and design requirements; and making use of some self-certification of compliance with well-defined design requirements. Mr. Rooker asked who would typically do that certification. Mr. Fritz responded that staff has not come up with any firm idea of what things should be self- certified, what the design criteria should be, and how it should be done – as they feel it should be discussed as the details are established. It is a concept that self-certification should be discussed when they are coming up with this. Mr. Snow commented that he likes the concept. Mr. Graham added that right now there is just intent to explore it moving forward. Mr. Fritz said that the process, as illustrated in the flowchart are: a pre-submittal – where staff determines what waivers are required and any special things that need attention, along with an y design issues; submittal and review of the project; a meeting with the applicant and the public to discuss the project, the review and to explain any particular details of the project to the public and the requirements to the applicant; an action of approval, denial, or approval with conditions; early grading, which allows creation of “pad-ready” sites; and then final approval and issuance of building permits – or approval of subdivision plat. Mr. Thomas asked if the meeting would involve the applicant and the citizens. Mr. Fritz commented that he would go through each step individually. He then added t hat this process is all administrative. Mr. Fritz explained that in pre-submittal there would be an application submitted, with submittal standards that are fairly minimal. Within ten days, staff would review the submittal, verify that the use is permitted, determine which process needs to be followed, what kind of waivers will be needed and then present applicants with a complete packet that includes the items they need to submit and the process they need to follow. He said that this would typically not require a site visit by staff, but would essentially formalize the pre-application conferences that staff has now with applicants – and hopefully improve the quality of the pre-application process. Mr. Snow asked what type of fees would be involved in the first step. Mr. Fritz said they are undecided at this time. Staff is just going through the process; they have not calculated fees for any of these items. For example, for self-certification, they are currently unsure what would be self-certified. This is the general idea. He also cannot tell the Board, at this point, what the minimal standards for the application are. Mr. Rooker said his understanding is that this would require a process where for various components of this proposal, you could have roundtables. Mr. Fritz said staff is going to outline process they are going to recommend to follow for implementation. Mr. Dorrier asked what information the applicant would get. Mr. Fritz said this process would formalize the currently informal pre-submittal or pre-application conferences and improve the quality. The applicant then gets the packet and has the opportunity to meet with staff before they actually make application. He said that the applicant would then submit their information, and staff would verify if all items in the submittal packet were submitted so they meet the minimum requirements for submittal. Mr. Fritz stated that if the minimum requirements are not met, the application is rejected and they are formed as to what was missing or deficient to give them an opportunity to resubmit. At this point, he said, staff would also notify abutting property owners that the p roject has been submitted, and would review the project to ensure it meets the requirements – specifically the design requirements – of the project, and also review any waiver requests against the criteria in the ordinance. Mr. Dorrier asked if there would be any money required at this stage. Mr. Fritz responded that as this is an application, there would be a fee associated with this – and it would need to be determined what those fees would be. Mr. Rooker noted that there are fees in place now. Mr. Fritz explained that there would then be a meeting with the public, which basically takes the place of the site review meeting that occurs now – and the Site Review Committee will meet, present the findings to both the applicant and the public, then would respond to all comments and questions from the public or the applicant. He said that this may have benefits over the public hearing process because there wouldn‟t be a three-minute time limitation, and there would be dialogue between the County, the applicant, and the public. Mr. Fritz stated that at the meeting, the committee would be advising the applicant of things they must do, that the ordinance requires, and those things must be done in order for the project to occur. He said that it is hoped that there would be conversation about things that are requested to be changed, as abutting owners may be able to request features that cannot be mandated by the County – providing an opportunity to differentiate between required and requested revisions. Mr. Fritz mentioned that at that meeting, the County would be able to approve the project, deny the project, or approve it with conditions. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 53) Mr. Rooker asked what allows the County to impose conditions. Mr. Davis explained that these would be standard conditions that state certain things had to be done in order to meet the ordinance requirements; it would not be like a special use permit condition. He said that if a plan is deficient under certain standards, the approval would be conditioned upon meeting those standards. Mr. Fritz emphasized that these are not negotiating conditions, but are conditions that are required by the ordinance. They are still holding with the concept that the applicant does not have to submit detailed engineering work at the beginning of the process. Mr. Snow commented that it saves the applicant a lot of money up front, until they see how things are going. Mr. Thomas agreed. Mr. Fritz added that it also makes the review easier. Mr. Fritz reported that the County would be able to issue an early grading permit once one of two things happens: either the Site Review Committee grants approval of the project and there are no more conditions, which would require a change in the ARB process – which could include administrative approvals, County-wide permits, and changes in the scope of review. The other possibility is that the Site Review Committee could grant conditional approval of the project, and one of the conditions would be that the grading permit could not be issued until certain conditions are met. Mr. Fritz said that one of those conditions would be erosion and sediment control plan approval, but there may be others that are required as established during the discussions to create this new procedure. Mr. Rooker asked how the standards that have already been adopted for planting and stabilizing graded areas fit into this process. Mr. Graham responded that those requirements still stand and are in the Water Protection Ordinance; an applicant has nine months to get the permanent vegetation, with possibility of an administrative waiver for an additional three months. Mr. Fritz pointed out that this process is only for site plans and subdivisions, not rezonings. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant has to prove financial capabilities before grading is allowed. Mr. Fritz responded that there is a bond required, just as there is for erosion and sediment control. Mr. Davis commented that the biggest challenge of the grading would be if there is some significant feature that the ARB might want to consider, and how they interact with that process. Mr. Fritz reiterated that staff doesn‟t know what the scope of the conditions ought to be before the early grading should be done. Mr. Rooker asked about the critical slopes waivers as they would be needed before grading. Mr. Davis replied that this assumes that would be administrative, and approved prior to the early grading. Mr. Rooker commented that there should be caution exercised here. If you don‟t have the right conditions and process in place here, you could end up with somebody spending a lot of money to grade and ultimately for some reason not getting an approval and then you‟ve got a problem because they have wasted money. On the other hand, you could have the public harmed by the grading, etc., for something that is ultimately not put in place the way everybody expects it is going to be . He thinks this is one the County needs to be very careful on how they approach it. Ms. Mallek expressed concern about someone turning over a lot of dirt and then going out of business, and if there is a prequalification – such as what the Airport does for contractors – that would be an added protection measure. Mr. Davis responded that the County could require bonds until the grading is stabilized, but probably couldn‟t require someone to bond that they would actually build the project. Ms. Mallek said they should not be taking a hill and making it flat; this is the dilemma. It absolutely changes the character of everything permanently, and if you can‟t get it back then what have you done that have helped the County in the long run? Mr. Graham agreed that it is a concern, adding that staff sees people getting site plans approved with the intent of just creating a pad-ready site to put on the market. If that is already happening, staff is saying let‟s give those people who are legitimately trying to expedite a project the ability to get to that early grading and get that pad ready so they can get that building built quicker. Ms. Mallek responded that a pad is one thing, but a big cleared area is different. Mr. Graham said that differentiating by size could be considered in this process, and the task force has discussed the possibility of a certificate of appropr iateness by the ARB for sites over a certain size. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 54) Mr. Thomas asked if the ARB could get on the same timeline/schedule as the Commission. Mr. Graham responded, “yes”, but the idea is to take away the Commission step to make it administrative. Mr. Fritz reiterated that the scope of the conditions has not yet been established “by any stretch of the imagination,” and staff just tried to craft something that would start the conversation. Mr. Fritz reported that with the final approval step, preliminary appr oval will have already been granted and the applicant has up to five years to meet the conditions of approval – and those timelines are largely up to the applicant. Once all the conditions have been met and addressed, the applicant receives their ultimate final approval and at that point their building permits may be issued or a subdivision plat can be recorded. In terms of changes from the current process, it‟s all administrative and there is no Commission or Board review – unless a project is denied or a waiver is denied and it is appealed. It includes a formal pre-submittal review; it allows for grading prior to approval of the entire project; and it contemplates changes to the ARB process and standards, including administrative review. Mr. Rooker noted that changes had already been made there, and asked if this goes beyond those changes. Mr. Fritz responded that it contemplates that, with the idea of achieving more administrative approvals or different County-wide permits. Mr. Dorrier commented that the idea is to get away from the subjective nature of the ARB. Mr. Rooker said that there must be some subjectivity. The Board just made changes to County- wide permits, where standardization makes sense. Mr. Fritz responded that there has not been a full opportunity yet to incorporate those into what this process would look like. They may be adequate, but we have to ask if we need to look at some more or not. He emphasized that just because something is considered for evaluation doesn‟t mean it is an endorsement for certain change. Mr. Snow commented that right now staff is painting a broad picture. Mr. Fritz agreed, adding that the focus right now is to ensure that key concepts are still being adhered to. Mr. Fritz continued, stating that it contemplates the establishment of clearer submittal standards, clearer design criteria, and clearer waiver standards. Mr. Rooker stated that the County just went through the changes with the ARB process, got feedback from the ARB, and the recommendations came forth from that process. He would assume that a similar process would be followed here. Mr. Fritz continued, stating that the next step would be ordinance amendments to create the administrative process, to ensure that the design standards result in the desired style of development, to improve the criteria considered when waivers are being requested. He said that the recommended process includes: a public roundtable; Planning Commission and ARB review of con cepts and public input: guidance to staff: staff drafting of recommended changes; another public roundtable to discuss the draft; ARB and Commission review of the draft at a work session; a Planning Commission public hearing; a Board of Supervisors public hearing; and then implementation. It‟s a lengthy process; and it involves a lot of public input, and about 12 to 18 months to do that. If you don‟t do the roundtables you cut some time off of that; the time is reduced down to about 8 to 12 months without the roundtables. He said that these are ambitious timelines, and if the roundtables are contentious the timelines could stretch. Ms. Mallek suggested that a roundtable be formed on a specific issue, and so on, so there is a small chunk to deal with at a time. Mr. Fritz said that there would need to be one roundtable that would paint the picture with a broad brush, and at that time general questions would come back. For example, today, staff has heard about tiers, early grading, self-certification, etc. Mr. Dorrier commented that one benefit is that the applicant doesn‟t have to come up right away with an expensive engineering plan that will have to be changed. Ms. Mallek noted that the critical slopes roundtables were effective and excellent. They were an example of how there could be a good dialogue of people. Mr. Fritz agreed that the roundtables went well and they are the kind of format and concept staff is attempting to do. Mr. Fritz asked for other Board comments. He asked if the Board believes staff should proceed based on the recommendation presented. He asked if the Board believes the outlined process and public participation are appropriate. He also asked if the Board has any additional regulation changes they wish staff to include in the conversations. Mr. Snow said that he likes this direction and wants to include roundtables, but would like to shoot for 12 months instead of 18 months. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 55) Mr. Boyd said that he is also bothered by the long timeframes, but doesn‟t want to give up the roundtables and wants to find a way to do this in a quicker time. He also hears comments about “subjectiveness,” and if appropriate requirements are set ahead of time and everyone follows them that would be the best thing they could do to come up with a better process. Mr. Dorrier commented that if there is a war between the developer and the County at a lower level, there should be an appeal process to the Board of Supervisors for that one issue. Mr. Fritz responded that staff will always push for an administrative appeal process. Mr. Rooker said that he supports the first two items. He thinks that today‟s presentation was excellent. He thinks the process could result in establishing criteria that are objective that achieves the kind of results to protect the public interest on the other side. Mr. Dorrier stated that he supports all three. He also thinks the developers should have a chance to look at this. Mr. Fritz said that most of the credit for this goes to the current development staff. Mr. Thomas commented that it is very appropriate, and he supports it 100 percent. Ms. Mallek stated that having served on the Development Review Task Force and she is grateful that this type of progress has been made. She said that it is important to her not to go ahead unless the needed studies are submitted, and the staff has received the necessary compliance. “There has to be a hard-stop and once there is awareness that the hard-stop exists and that it is not always just a negotiation, then people will step up and do it. Ms. Mallek said that her constituents have expressed pos itive experiences working with County staff, but there is always room for improvement. Ms. Mallek emphasized that if the County is not going to raise its fees to cover the cost of the work on big projects, then perhaps self-certification should be considered for the places where it‟s appropriate. She said that it needs to be emphasized in the timetables that when the “ball is out of the court of the staff,” that is when the clock stops. The staff gets a lot of criticism that it is taking years and years when staff has three months of work on something and then it goes away for a long time with other people making changes or deciding what to do. She is totally supportive of the clarifications with the good detail included. Mr. Tucker said that while he understands concern about an 18-month timeframe, once the item gets into the hands of the Board and the Commission, the clock is out of staff‟s hands. Mr. Rooker commented that some things will move more quickly than others. Mr. Davis stated that the next step will be for staff to prepare resolutions of intent, and bring them back to the Board at a future meeting. ________________ Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting. At 12:45 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Thomas that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees, and commissions; under Subsection (1) to discuss the performance of a specific individual appointed by the Board; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation arising from a claim against the County related to retirement compensation; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation arising from a donation by the County to the YMCA; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff specific matters requiring legal advice related to an inter-jurisdictional agreement. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting. At 2:15 p.m. the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. 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. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________ June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 56) Agenda Item No. 18a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appointments/reappointments: Chad Zakeb to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Board, to fill the unexpired term of Larry Wilson, with said term to expire June 30, 20102; Emily Scolic to the Commission on Children and Families, as the Youth representative, with said term to expire June 30, 2011; and Llizbeth Palmer to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board as the Samuel Miller District representative, with said term to expire December 31, 2013 . Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. _______________ NonAgenda. Mr. Boyd moved to adopt a resolution to disallow claims for payment of VERIP Retirement Compensation that exceeds the amount authorized by the VERIP. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION TO DISALLOW CLAIMS WHEREAS, Teresa Agee, Cindy Camirand, Gordon Carter, Deborah Chambers, Larry Claytor, Roger Craig, Glenn D. Fink, Dennis Harvey, Juanita Irvine, Ron Kesner, George Noteman, Janet Pandy, Michael David Schnur, Patty Jo Scites, John Shepherd, James Shifflett, Mary Tim berlake and Bruce Woodzell, by counsel, have asserted claims against the County of Albemarle as set forth in the letter dated April 6, 2010 from Edward B. Lowry to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the payment of retirement compensation which exceeds the amount authorized under the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (“VERIP”); and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claims are not supported by the facts or by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia disallows the claims of Teresa Agee, Cindy Camirand, Gordon Carter, Deborah Chambers, Larry Claytor, Roger Craig, Glenn D. Fink, Dennis Harvey, Juanita Irvine, Ron Kesner, George Noteman, Janet Pandy, Michael David Schnur, Patty Jo Scites, John Shepherd, James Shifflett, Mary Timberlake and Bruce Woodzell for the payment of VERIP retirement compensation that exceeds the amount authorized by the VERIP. ________________ Agenda Item No. 19. Work Session and Public Comment: Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan. The following draft Economic Development Action Plan was forwarded to Board members: DRAFT Economic Development Action Plan PREAMBLE: Albemarle County‟s commitments to education and infrastructure form the cornerstone of Albemarle‟s quality of life, and, by default, its business growth. In partnership with the University of Virginia and the Piedmont Virginia Community College, Albemarle County Public School‟s education programming – ranging from the County “bright stars” kindergarten program to the Math-Engineering-Science Academy (MESA) magnet school – help ensure a very highly educated, capable local workforce. The County has a proven track record in managing growth to best utilize our infrastructure dollars in a manner that protects and preserves the area‟s abundant natural resources as well as those industries depending on the natural resources. With these two commitments, the community has achieved managed growth without sacrificing the quality of life. The following economic development action plan builds on these existing, proven commitments. PRIMARY GOAL: Increase the County‟s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base. o The following measures will be utilized in monitoring and regularly reporting on success in achieving this goal: The percentage mix of commercial versus residential real estate tax revenues* June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 57) The following commercial revenues: Machinery and Tools Tax; Business, Professional & Occupational License Fees; Bank Franchise Tax and Public Service Tax The following additional indicators: Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Meals Tax and job growth by sector *Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate OBJECTIVES: I. Improve the County‟s business climate and image. STRATEGIES 1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) that Albemarle County is “open for business.” o Actions  Develop and implement a plan within six months to promote County efforts at facilitating business growth with the VEDP and others. (e.g. Economic Opportunity Fund as a match for the Governor‟s Opportunity Fund)  Maintain active participation in the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) programs  In 2010, implement an outreach program utilizing TJPED‟s prospect proposal system, which will create marketing collateral for business targets. This will include communicating economic development opportunities with target companies, VEDP, broker/consultant community, and the entrepreneur 2. INCREASE THE VISIBILITY OF THE COUNTY‟S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STAFF – Enhance the visibility and priority of economic development efforts by the County. o Actions  In next three months, make the Business Development Facilitator a part of the County Executive‟s Office and provide regular updates to the Board of Supervisors on efforts  Within the next three months, enhance the presence of economic development on the County‟s web site. 3. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY – Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance of business development for the economic vitality of the community. o Actions  Within next three months, begin regular presentations by various business interests to staff, with a focus on how the County‟s land use regulations and policies affect business decisions. This will provide opportunity for staff to better understand the customer‟s issues and concerns.  Beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2010, provide the business community a quarterly update of emerging and current development issues. This will focus on staff or community identified concerns rather than project specific issues.  Starting immediately, as part of pre-application discussions, assign a staff member to serve as a single point of contact for addressing new issues on projects. Also, provide handouts and webpage links for information on development review (e.g. review process flow-charts, points of contact) that help applicants better understand the processes for ZTA, ZMA, Rezoning, Special Use Permit, Zoning Clearance, Sign Review, ARB review  Continue routine survey of applicants as to accuracy and ease of understanding of processes, tracking of application status, staff‟s assistance with the application and any other issues of concern. Survey results will be shared with the County Executive to determine effectiveness of programs and where changes should be considered. II. Simplify and create certainty in the development review process, giving the applicant a reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development review. STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY OF PLAN APPROVAL – Recognizing a complex plan review can create barriers to new businesses, eliminate unnecessary requirements and provide for simplified administration decisions. o Actions  In the first half of 2010, hold a work session (already scheduled for May) with the Board of Supervisors on changes to the process for a Certificates of Appropriateness (ARB review).  In the first half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for ministerial applications (e.g. site plans, subdivisions). This will include timetables for recommended changes.  In the second half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors for legislative applications (e.g. rezoning, special use permits). (Note: This is considered a lower priority to ministerial applications as no complex applications have been submitted in the last 2 years due to the economy and few are expected for the next several years.) June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 58) 2. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES TO FACILITATE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNTIES – Recognizing small businesses often lack the financial resources and management expertise to navigate the plan review process, provide for expedited administrative reviews, including waivers and modifications, using a single point of contact for approval of simple site plans. o Action  As part of the proposed ordinance changes under #1, include consideration of how a simplified review process could be created for small businesses that have no experience with development review. This should include consideration of how a single point of contact for those businesses may assist in the processing of an application. III. Strategically grow and attract capital-intensive private sector employers that provide a diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident workforce. STRATEGIES 1. PROMOTE AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT - Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County‟s aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses. o Actions  Identify & address existing business needs. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED and the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), implement regularly scheduled local business panels and provide a larger forum to collect information, identify and address workforce and other needs of local business clusters 2. EXPAND DESIRABLE BUSINESS CLUSTERS - Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County‟s existing businesses and identify barriers to profitability. o Actions  Determine target industries; work with a task force (including TJPED) to determine the region‟s target business sectors. These business targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development efforts.  Cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED and SBDC, provide technical support seminars to support entrepreneurs in targeted business clusters 3. ATTRACT TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT- Create an environment that attracts companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County‟s business development objective. o Actions  By the first half of 2011, create a plan for developing workforce training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center, UVA and the County school system) tied to target industry or key sectors.  By the second half of 2010, review peer jurisdictions‟ polices and practices in attracting targeted business and investment.  Via continued support of local job fairs, continue to showcase our local workforce talent and local corporate partners.  Utilize TJPED‟s ExecutivePluse CRM, JobsEQ and other tools to provide an online feedback loop for policymakers. This should include trend analysis, identify key issues negatively affecting local companies, and strategies designed to address key negative issues. 4. CONNECT OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESIDENTS - Develop and connect the workforce to existing and new opportunities to serve the entire employment spectrum in Albemarle County through workforce programs and other strategies. o Actions  By the first half of 2011, determine demand occupations for the retraining or training of dislocated workers and low-income adults, and youth populations in those occupations.  Market local opportunities to qualified resident workforce with a multi-channel approach, then connecting people with opportunities through TJPED.  Align targets and demand occupations with student awareness, education and participation in County public schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways IV. Remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users. STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE – recognizing the changing nature of industrial uses, provide greater flexibility through reliance on performance standards and lessening dependency on lists of specific uses. o Action  In first half of 2010, bring proposed ordinance change to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. 2. DESIGNATE MORE DEVELOPMENT AREA LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – Consider alternatives for expanding land designated in the development areas for various industrial uses. o Action  As part of future master plans and updates to the County‟s Land Use Plan, include consideration of designating more land for industrial uses. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 59) 3. REZONE LAND WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES – For those property owners interested, consider rezoning RA and R-1 parcels located within the development areas that are currently designed for industrial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. o Action  In the second half of 2010, the County will initiate a county wide rezoning to LI for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the Development Areas that are designated as industrial use on the County‟s Land Use Plan. Only properties where the property owner has agreed to accept this zoning change will be included in this rezoning. 4. MODIFY THE USES ALLOWED AT THE INTERSTATE INTERCHANGES – Consider allowing lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at those intersections located in the rural areas but are also served by highway access. o Action  As part of the current effort to update the County‟s Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board‟s consideration a modification of the Interstate Interchange Policy that would address this strategy. V. Promote agribusiness and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. STRATEGIES 1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM – Work with current partners to evaluate strengths and weaknesses. o Action  Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with the CACVB will complete a series of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an interest in agribusiness and tourism in the County. After completing the roundtables, County staff will present the roundtable findings to the Board of Supervisors along with any other data or findings that may assist the Board in setting policy direction. 2. EVALUATE AND REFINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM – Assure that policies, goals and objectives support current priority needs including consideration of areas such as cottage industries, heritage tourism, and agri-tourism. o Action  Based on the above assessment and Board direction, include consideration of this information in updates of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan and in the agreement with the CACVB. 3. IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS TO MORE AGRESSIVELY PROMOTE IN SUPPORT OF AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM – Build on existing assets and offerings to expand options for experiencing the beauty and heritage of the rural areas. o Action  Based on the above Board direction, establish specific strategies and action items for promoting and supporting agribusiness and tourism in the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan. Resources:  Adopted Board of Supervisors „2010 Albemarle County Act ion Plan – January 6, 2010‟  Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce letter of January 26, 2010  This „draft‟ economic development action plan builds on the 2009 adoption of the Updated Economic Development Policy, which focused on the following three short-term priorities: o Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the purchase of local products, establishing a rural-support program and continuing a dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders. o Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light -industrial uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning districts. o Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as:  A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the needs of “underemployed” and those not in the labor force (as defined by the VA Employment Commission) as well as employer needs.  A software database, such as Executive Pulse©, to identify workforce training needs and promote workforce training opportunities. __________ Mr. Tucker said that the format for this work session is that staff would provide a brief overview of each objective and a brief summary of the strategies and actions; afterward, the Chair will open the work session for public comment. After public comment there will be an opportunity for the Board discussion of each objective; after hearing from the staff and public, Lee Catlin will facilitate discussion with the Board for any changes or additions to those objectives. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 60) Mr. Tucker stated that this draft plan was prepared in response to the Action Plan adopted by the Board in January of this year, which directed staff to work closely with the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development and the Chamber of Commerce to develop a plan in the first six months of this year to increase non-personal tax revenues through economic growth. He said that it‟s important to note that the concepts of the plan are consistent with several existing high-level documents and policies of the County, and the plan tries to bring elements from those various sources into a more focus, action -oriented document. For example, the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan was updated in March of last year following work sessions and public hearings at the Planning Commission and Board levels, and that policy recognizes that existing growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human, economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community – and notes that a high-quality, diversified economic environment provides our citizens with improved job opportunities, competitive wages, workforce development opportunities, and a growing and diversified tax base – all concepts that are reflected in the draft plan that is before the Board. Mr. Tucker said that the goal of this policy is: maintaining a strong and sustainable economy; benefiting County citizens and existing businesses, and providing diversified economic opportunities, being supportive of the County‟s growth management policy and consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals, and taking into consideration the greater Charlottesville metropolitan region. He stated that none of the strategies or actions in the draft plan presented are intended to be in conflict with anyth ing in this policy goal. Mr. Tucker said, as an example, the County‟s Strategic Plan states that by June 30, 2010 the County will continue to maintain a strong, sustainable economy, increase the economic vitality of the County‟s development areas, and increase the ability to those individuals and families who are living in lower - income households to be self-sufficient. Specific strategic plan statements are: encourage business growth in urban cores of the development areas; increase support for agricultural businesses; support the regional economy; increase emphasis on workforce development and career ladder jobs; and assist residents in need to become self-sufficient. Mr. Tucker said all these are themes which again are reflected in the draft action plan that‟s before the Board. He said that the plan envisions very strong continued community involvement and input . Under Objective 3 it states “to work with a task force to determine the region‟s target business sectors and to attract targeted businesses, investment, and create a plan for developing workforce training programs in partnership with a number of community partners including the School system. Objective 5 states “complete a series of roundtable discussions with individuals and groups with inter est in agribusiness and tourism. He stated that it is important to note that broad and inclusive community involvement is very important to the success of the draft plan. Mr. Tucker stated that the plan would not require any new staff but would require reprioritization of other staff efforts to meet stated timelines. If a point is reached where work on the action plan would impact other work plan priorities of the Board, staff would come back for a discussion on how to best address that. Mr. Tucker said that he would move into a discussion of the draft Economic Development Action Plan. He said that Objective 1 is “Improve the County‟s business climate image,” and the first strategy is to expand communications and outreach to the business community, with the first action being to develop and implement a plan within six months to promote County efforts at facilitating business growth with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and others – for example, the Economic Opportunity Fund as a match for the Governor‟s Opportunity Fund. A second action is to maintain active participation in the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development and their programs. A third action, is in 2010 to implement an outreach program utilizing TJPED‟s prospect proposal system – which will create marketing collateral for business targets. A second strategy is to increase the visibility of the County‟s business development staff. Actions under that strategy include making the current Business Development Facilitator position a part of the County Executive‟s Office and provide regular updates to the Board of Supervisors on efforts that have been accomplished. A second action is within the next three months to enhance the presence of economic development on the County‟s website. Ms. Mallek asked if this is the best way to approach the meeting – with Mr. Tucker reading all six pages prior to getting any input. Mr. Tucker responded that this is the plan. The Board will then hear comments from the public, and then the Board will have an opportunity to talk about any additions or changes. Mr. Rooker asked if there is anyone out in the audience who doesn‟t have a copy of the document. He asked if it was necessary to read this whole thing. At this point the Board agreed to continue with the presentation from staff. Mr. Tucker continued, stating that Mr. Graham‟s portion would begin. Mr. Graham referred to the third strategy under the first objective, adding that it is something that has been talked about in the past that he‟s excited about. They are going to be bringing in people from the development industry as well as others somewhat associated with it to talk about what it takes to get a project to happen, to give staff a better appreciation. The next item is just an update of emerging issues, which is something staff can easily do, and the pre-application discussions would actually formalize some things that are already in plan. Mr. Graham June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 61) stated that the routine survey of applicants is something staff is already doing – as with every completed application there is a survey that is sent out, with him cataloging the results. The second objective of creating more certainty in the process has a first action item under the first strategy to have a work session on the process on the certificates of appropriateness – and that‟s already done. Mr. Graham said that the second one regarding ministerial plan review was done this morning, and the third action regarding legislative applications is already in the work program to be brought forward in September. Under the second objective, the second strategy focuses on small businesses recognizing that they have special needs as far as trying to get through the process, and don‟t have the people who are experienced with the applications. He said that this could be built in easily to the whole ministerial process. Regarding Community Development, Mr. Graham stated that all of the objectives and strategies fit neatly within their existing work program and no reprioritization would be needed. Mr. Mike Harvey, of TJPED, said that he sees a need to focus on the “working poor,” the out commuting workforce, and rebalancing the tax base. He said that he feels strongly that it needs to be addressed from a “top down, bottom up” type of perspective – from an economic development, creation of opportunity type of approach but also from a workforce development – bottom up – establishing a workforce to work in the jobs that are here or slated for creation in the future. Mr. Harvey emphasized that we need to know what types of businesses we want to focus on here and what we want to become as a County. He said that the process of “targeting” would include looking at the workforce here, what their skill sets are, and where they are working – through a “regional workforce analysis” targeting businesses with a higher ROI (capital-intensive type companies), and an analysis on existing business clusters. We are looking at competitive advantage; trying to build this list. Mr. Harvey added that it would be nice to do an entrepreneurial assessment based on the technologies that are coming out of the University, with tech transfer opportunities and so forth. He emphasized the importance of trying to find out what types of companies fit best with the region. Mr. Harvey then suggested putting a task force together – with input from staff, the community, and the Board – that provides recommendations on types of industries that would thrive here. “Tell us the pros and cons of pursuing this type of investment.” He said that this should be open to members from all different sectors and interests. Mr. Harvey stated that the first and foremost thing that needs to be focused on is the businesses that are already here, as well as entrepreneurs. He said that they have also recently initiated a program that helps existing business through training of incumbent workers and new hires, focusing on domestic and global sales and sourcing, business planning, and financing assistance. He emphasized that 80% of new jobs come from that, so 80% of efforts should be focused there. Mr. Harvey said that TJPED still does site selection assistance, and the companies that are most compatible need to be targeted. Mr. Harvey said that the third primary area of focus is workforce development, and TJPED now oversees the Area 6 Workforce Investment Board – which gives them a great opportunity to work with the dislocated workers, adult and youth programs to match those folks with these demand occupations. He stated that the School system is another important player, as they can help focus on career paths for students here. Ms. Susan Stimart then presented Objective 4 – “Remove Obstacles and Expand Options for Industrial Land Users,” which was discussed earlier and approved as Phase One. She said that Phase Two would be looking at the Zoning Ordinance to help remove those obstacles. The second objective, she said, was looking at more land through the comprehensive planning process to accommodate industrial land users; three and four look at ways to more proactively expand o pportunity for industrial users. Objective 5 is promoting agribusiness and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. She said that this goes back to the Rural Area Plan 2007 updates and pulls out some priority actions from that plan – through the use of stakeholder roundtables to develop assets and strengths for promoting agri-businesses in the rural area and fostering better products for tourism in the rural areas. Mr. Tucker stated that public comment would be next, starting with Ms. Diantha McKeel‟s comments from the School Board. Ms. Diantha McKeel said, from the viewpoint of the School Board, this is an opportunity for “scratching the surface” of the dialogue that the School Board and Board of Supervisors should have as far as partnering to establish an economic vision for Albemarle County. She stated that they want to help partner in producing a workforce for the County, and want to be the type of school division that families want so that they really want to live in Albemarle County. Ms. McKeel said that there is a direct link between education and economic development, and she has brought a report on public schools and economic development – that documents studies and the cause and effects of a strong education system. She stated that she also has the Community Profile from the Virginia Employment Commission and the report “Reviving the Education Engine,” and national and state information on the connection between public education and economic development for a vital community. Ms. McKeel said that students must be ready for college, workforce, and citizenry when they graduate high school. The Commonwealth is working on workforce skills, which blend with national and local established priorities. She stated that Governor McDonnell has formed a Commission on Higher Education Reform in Virginia, and Dr. Moran is the only K-12 educator who has been appointed to that Commission directly because of her interest in, skill, and knowledge in how to make workforce development and public education a partnership. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 62) Ms. McKeel said that Albemarle, Virginia, and the nation have no young people to lose as contributors to economic vitality. A strong pre-K through 5 program is a cost avoidance, with fewer dropouts, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer incarcerations, etc. She stated that U.Va.‟s tuition right now is $16,000; Albemarle County‟s cost per student is $11,500; and incarceration for a teenager is $30,000. Ms. McKeel said that locally, that is money that can be used on sidewalks, parks, etc., and it makes a lot more sense in the big picture for the long term . She stated that the AHS “Math, Engineering and Science Academy” is “our research and development school,” and STEM should be the norm – not the exception for students focusing on those skills. Ms. McKeel said that those skills are the same they would use in the workplace, whether they are an engineer or not – including critical thinking and cultural diversity. She stated that 20 years ago, the workforce skills identified by Virginia‟s employers would not have identified internet applications, conflict resolution, creative problem-solving, diversity awareness, or career and technical education strands – which are now musts for all students regardless of whether or not they are going to college. This connection is really now, in this country, she said, a bi -partisan concern. Ms. McKeel noted that President Obama has said that by 2020 the United States should become #1 in college degrees in the world again, as the country has slipped over the last 20 years. She said that education is America‟s future, security, and prosperity, and she believes that it begins right here, right now in Albemarle County. Ms. McKeel stated that this is the opportunity to make that connection, adding that parents, business owners, real estate people, the Chamber, etc. have all agreed with the School Board. She said that the School Board requests a roundtable to sit down and have a discussion about economic development and education in Albemarle County and how they should blend, and what they can do to partner in the County‟s efforts. Ms. McKeel stated that the Board has already received some information from the School Board, which links economic development and public schools locally – which shows some very interesting facts, including the fact that school quality has a direct and positive influence on residential property values; a 5% increase in test scores leads to a willingness to pay more for homes; and per pupil expenditure and low student/teacher ratio increases property values. She said that investments in school facilities make a difference in economic outcomes in a community. Mr. John Chavan, a County resident, said that the economic development plan plays a very vital role in terms of schools, education, funding, etc. One of the items in the plan focuses on the Route 250 Corridor and the interstate exchange. He said that while some of it was zoned Rural Area years ago, some of the properties face on Route 250 – where there are about 47,000 cars per day. Mr. Chavan said that the LI proposition would be “perfect for such a thing,” and would boost finances and the tax base, in turn helping the school systems. He stated that this is an open and shut scenario, and if anything could be done to speed up the process for changing this property from RA to LI would be desirable. Mr. John Lowry, Chair of the Economic Development Authority for Albemarle County, said that in the preamble of the staff‟s draft plan, it says that business growth is recognized as a “critical component” to Albemarle‟s quality of life. He said that he endorses more, responsible economic growth in the County, as business vitality will offer more jobs to those who live in Albemarle as well as increasing the tax base. More economic activity creates more sales dollars and offers the prospect of reviving the County‟s real estate base. Mr. Lowry stated that properly managed there could be a geometric rise in activity for the general benefit of all. He said that huge effort is at work for restoring national, state, and local growth – and should also be in Albemarle. Mr. Lowry stated that the County has been touted by numerous sources as one of the best counties in the nation to work, raise a family, be healthful, be educated, and retire to. He said that new residents are gained each year, and pathways need to be built for businesses and service providers. Mr. Lowry stated that when there is a knock on the door, it is polite to invite them in. He suggested companies such as Apple, Google, and Northr op Grumman – which already has two fine subsidiaries here in the County – and is moving to Washington, D.C. We need to be inclusive in a healthful discussion. The stakeholders are all welcome but the final authority on an action plan needs to be County government. Mr. Lowry stated that stakeholders are all welcome at the table, but the final authority in an action plan needs to be the County government – coming from the Supervisors and carried out by staff. He said that the Chamber, TJPED, businessmen and women, the Patent Foundation all can contribute ideas, but government has the final say in the plan. He asked the Supervisors to be upbeat and supportive and the staff to be enthusiastic about an outreach plan; they all may marvel at the results. He cautioned that stakeholders can be helpful but they are going to serve their own interests first. The County must look out for the County. Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, said that the “speed and certainty” with which the economic development action plan is being pushed forward brings to mind an observation from Mark Twain: “It ain‟t what you don‟t know that gets you into trouble; it‟s what you know for sure that just ain‟t so.” He said that the enthusiasm for this scheme is claimed to be motivated by the need to expand the commercial tax base to increase tax revenues without increasing tax rates. Mr. Marshall stated that neither the County staff or Board, nor the developers who helped draft the plan, have provided examples of communities in which this scenario has led to lower taxes for ordinary people. He added, “That is because it doesn‟t happen.” Mr. Marshall said that the action plan is based on wishful thinking. It is what you and the Chamber of Commerce knows for sure, but it just ain‟t so. He asked why there hasn‟t been any evidence brought forth to show that it works, adding that the County‟s low-key approach to development for the past several decades has resulted in one of the best places to live i n America. Mr. Marshall stated that ASAP applauds the plan‟s support of agri-business and tourism, but the new approach will change the County‟s direction and leave the community with a diminished quality of life and a more rapid degradation of natural resources. He said that research conducted by ASAP informs us that residents of the community are not living sustainably, and more growth – spawned by deliberate economic development and its impacts on open space – will increase the ecological deficit that our children will inherit. Mr. Marshall said that the economic development action plan smacks of the “drill baby June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 63) drill” mentality – and such a single-minded drive for economic gain has both short-term risks and long-term costs. He noted that there is presumably an obligation to the business community that backed Supervisor campaigns, but you also have a responsibility to the rest of us to maintain our quality of life and protect our natural environment. Mr. Marshall said that ASAP asks that the Board do three things: move slowly and judiciously, provide facts that justify an escalation in local growth and consider contrary evidence, and seek broader input than what was included in the plan development process. Ms. Elizabeth Burdash, a resident of Earlysville, said that it is common knowledge that the amount of money newly built homes yield in real estate tax doesn‟t come close to covering the infrastructure needs of the family‟s occupying them – and this funding shortfall is typically made up by increasing the tax burden of the community as a whole and/or by cutting back on government services. Ms. Burdash said that residential construction over the past several decades has been significant, and it seems reasonable to conclude that the upsurge in population attracted by the combined allure of the community and the availability of new housing has contributed appreciably to the County‟s current budgetary problems. She stated that Mr. Boyd has been an enthusiastic supporter of development, so it is hardly surprising that he proposes even more development now – this time in the industrial/commercial sector. Ms. Burdash asked if the County‟s joining land developers “to sell our community to the commercial world” have the effect of containing tax increases for homeowners and lessening the burden of unemployment by providing additional jobs. She stated that the last County survey showed the most common reason new residents gave for coming here was to take a job in the area, and most of the time people who relocate are bringing a family with them – adding to the already overburdened infrastructure needs. Ms. Burdash said that she supplemented Mr. Steve Allhouse‟s chart on tax revenue with three additional columns – population size, tax rate, and unemployment rate. She stated that the three most populous counties had the highest tax rates – 95 cents, $1.30, and 87 cents. She stated that the three counties with the lowest population size had tax rates of 81 cents, 74.2 and 77 cents. Ms. Burdash noted that Albemarle has the lowest of the six considered, despite the revenue-sharing arrangement. Tax rates seem to be more of a function of population size than of the ratio of residents to commercial tax contributions, as you maintain. Ms. Burdash said that Supervisors Mallek and Rooker cautioned that this economic action plan needs to be looked at very closely before any action is taken, and she agrees. Ms. Mason Graham said she is a commercial real estate agent and a resident of Albemarle County. Ms. Graham said that revenues in the area have continued to decline and the need for additional funding to sustain roads, the quality of schools, public buildings, and resources, has been brought to light – but the burden continues to be placed on homeowners. She emphasized that more business revenue is needed, but her experience working with businesses who want to relocate here has been “difficult and arduous.” It has been so difficult that State economic officials have been known to steer businesses away from here for fear of losing potential state tax dollars – due to difficulties with site planning and review boards. Ms. Graham stated that the new Board is now focusing on simplifying these processes, and helping corporations and small businesses navigate, simplify, and lessen the cost of opening for business in the area. She thanked them for that and expressed support for continuation of those efforts. Mr. Jim Kennan addressed the Board, expressing his congratulations for the crafting of a pragmatic and visionary economic development plan. Mr. Kennan said that successfully recruiting businesses is a function of knowing what kind of business is wanted, and the methodology in that respect was suggested earlier in the meeting. He stated that criteria to consider are whether the business will provide employment for today‟s unemployed or underemployed, and generations to follow; and opportunities to work up through the ranks. Mr. Kennan stated that he has been involved with United Way here for over 30 years, and businesses definitely have a positive impact on local nonprofit organizations . Many nonprofits have been affected by businesses leaving the area. He said that there are a lot of service jobs with little realistic anticipation of advancem ent, with an overall downturn in employment in general – with many workers holding down two or more of these jobs and the gap between the wealthy and the poor in the community expanding further. When recruiting a business, it is important to have realistic opportunities to remedy this situation. Mr. Kennan asked the Board to keep in mind the needs of farmers as they develop economic policy related to agriculture. He has become convinced over many years that charity, no matter how well intended, and low pa ying service jobs are a tactical strategy effectively addressing only the immediate problems at hand. He is convinced that the ultimate strategic strategy is economic development as outlined in this document. Mr. Tom Olivier, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said that the draft economic action plan has been developed largely by representatives of the business community in a process that doesn‟t meet the standards of openness and inclusiveness we should ex pect from the local government. Not surprisingly, the plan promotes a far narrower set of values than a local government plan should address. He stated that the preamble claims the County has “a proven track record” in protecting our abundant natural resources, but a more accurate statement would be that those resources have been greatly reduced by human activities and are undergoing continued threat due to population growth, while recent County funding cuts have starved implementation of protection measures. Mr. Oliver stated that the draft states that the primary goal of the action plan is to increase the County‟s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding its commercial tax base. He stated that promotion of better jobs for the working poor and maintenance of affordable housing should be among primary goals. Mr. Olivier noted that the ASAP ecological footprint study showed the community already uses far more biological productivity than the landscape can generate. The Piedmont Group believes that an economic action plan should reject strategies that require or promote population growth or otherwise seek to recruit new residents. The draft plan says that the County should make clear that it is “open for June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 64) business.” He asked if that means businesses trumps public education and the environment or that the County will cut environmental regulations to promote business growth. Mr. Oliver noted that that type of thinking led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and “we don‟t need it here.” The Piedmont Group believes that local food production and local direct marketing is key to survival of local agriculture, and has been dismayed by the continued unwillingness of the Board to fund the Rural Economic Development Planning Position called f or in the RA Chapter of the Comp Plan. Mr. Olivier stated that they believe all frozen RA planning positions should be unfrozen before new burdens are placed on the Planning staff. He also said that recently, some Supervisors succeeded in cutting financial support for vital areas of County government – such as planning and education – but some of those same members are proposing an economic development plan that requires a major expansion and intrusion of local government into the local economy. He said that there is concern that as the ability of local government to serve the general public is reduced, it is acquiring a “new and problematic role” as an instrument of some local business interests. Mr. Olivier said that the Piedmont Group urges that the County recognizes that economic growth cannot be maintained indefinitely and that the quality of life will come from the pursuit of general sustainability and an economy compatible with that goal. Ms. Cynthia Neff, a resident of the County, said that she came to the Board four years ago when she bought a piece of property that was right across from the area that would soon become North Pointe. She said that she is skeptical about the new rush for an economic development plan, noting that she called Mr. Boyd about the growth area question and he suggested that she get he r neighbors together and try to get into the growth area. Ms. Neff stated that no one she has ever talked to wants to become part of expanding the growth area. She said that Mr. Rooker voted against North Pointe and spoke of the impact of stream runoff on the Rivanna River, and the impact of traffic, and the impact on quality of life – but it still got approved. Ms. Neff stated that the vast majority of attendees at that meeting had buttons on expressing their support of the project – but they all worked for the developer, so of course wanted it approved. She said that she started being skeptical, and four years later she continues to feel that way. She does not know how there can be an honest conversation about growth and development until all of the growth and development that‟s already been approved is addressed. Ms. Neff stated that there is room to accommodate thousands more people once newly approved developments are built out. Sh e said that there are other people from the business community and the community at large that need to be considered, adding that the nonprofit community should have a voice – as they hire lots of people here. Ms. Neff commented that what she hears concerns about relates to what‟s happening to green space, what‟s happening to the roads, what‟s happening to the farms, and what‟s happening to the water. She asked what is happening to this place we all love to live in – and she does not hear anybody talking about what‟s happening to development, [and] how come there isn‟t more of it. She suggested that the focus be on finishing how to make already cleared developments part of the community, and redeveloping places like Shopper‟s World and Albemarle Square, and worry about the small businesses that already exist. Mr. Glenn Short, a County resident of Birnam Drive, off of Hydraulic Road, said that the discussion here today is about what County citizens think their future should be – what their home community should look like 30 or 40 years from now. He stated that those who support ongoing, endless growth believe that we should change and become another Fairfax County. Mr. Short stated that limitless growth should no longer be the goal, but sustainability sh ould be the goal in almost every aspect of modern life. He said that if plans are not sustainable, they are doomed to failure over time. Mr. Short said that economic development as proposed will inevitably bring new residents to fill the desirable, high -technology jobs being sought. More residents mean more traffic, residential building of homes, roads, sewers, electric grids, shopping malls, et cetera. Early on, property taxes will rise. Check our taxes against Fairfax County today. He stated that an economic development plan isn‟t needed to draw in new residents, as growth will come regardless. Mr. Short noted that when coastal sea levels rise, Tidewater area residents will move inland – many to Central Virginia – and only in recent years have world leaders realized the “nefarious consequences” of a world population explosion. He said that UN demographers predict a more than 40% global population increase by mid-century, and the same increase is predicted for the U.S. – a 450 million population by 2050 versus 330 million today. Mr. Short said that there will surely be mass migration as shortages of water, oil, iron ore, balksite, and arable land happen. He stated that the rural and natural resources here are finite and can be exhausted, and the ASA P study shows today we use more per capita than can be sustained. Mr. Short commented that how we adapt to those changes will determine whether anyone will want to live here. He stated that the future is in the hands of this Board of Supervisors. Mr. Dennis Mockler, a County resident, commended the Board for the action plan adopted on January 6th and for the work staff has done relative to that plan. Mr. Mockler said that the recently released Chamber of Commerce Directory notes on its cover that the Ch amber is dedicated to representing private enterprise, promoting business, and enhancing the quality of life in the community. Unfortunately, he said, some people try to portray business as villains out to ruin their communities and overlook the fact that businesses are made up of people – from the owners to the people who receive their livelihoods from these businesses. Mr. Mockler said that these are people who want to live and raise their families in great communities – and we all need and want strong, balanced, healthy communities. He stated that the first item that the Chamber focused on in providing input to the plan was education, and the importance of education to a strong community and in developing a workforce. Mr. Mockler said that enhancing the quality of life is as important to businesses as it is any individual. He stated that most people are able to provide for their families because they work for these businesses. The business community wants to work together with citizens to make this a great place to live – and a great place to do businesses. Mr. Mockler said that the process will take some time and the payoff will not be immediate, but he firmly believes that it needs to be done with a sense of urgency to work towards a more balanced tax base that doesn‟t place so much of a burden on individual tax payers and make it over-burdensome to do business in the County. He asked the Board to move forward in a diligent and deliberate manner, and June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 65) to utilize the business community as part of its many resources to help it to accomplish its objective of enhancing the quality of life for all citizens of the community. Mr. Craig Evans said he has lived in the county for three years after moving here from Florida – where he lived for 15 years. Mr. Evans said that the future of Albemarle is in the Board‟s hands, as they make decisions that will affect the lives of this community for years to come. He stated that he hopes that the goals in the preamble in the plan will be worked towards. Mr. Evans commented that everyone who has spoken talked about the quality of life, and he hopes the Board will take steps to provide economic opportunity for the people who are here. Having lived in Florida, he has heard many presentations like this and has had the opportunity to do fiscal impact analysis as plans were being made and subsequently. He added that most of these Board members will not be sitting here when the results of the decisions it makes today actually come to pass. Mr. Evans emphasized that usually with economic development there is an infusion of money and a lot of activity, which many people benefit from. The unfortunate thing is if the economic development is not done correctly, after 10 or 15 years there are some very negative things that can happen. He said that his concern is that the approach being taken is not as well thought out as it should be and hasn‟t brought in as many people to look at it as should be. Mr. Evans said that he has seen communities take off on this course, but local communities have been overtaken by sprawl and farmland and quality of life have been diminished – with local businesses displaced by franchises. There was a vision, but that vision was not built on sustainable fact. He encouraged the Board to take its time, look carefully at what they are doing, and proceed with caution. Mr. Bill May said that he is a resident of Polo Grounds Road. Mr. May commented that Supervisors have been quick to point out that there hasn‟t been a rate increase, but as property values have increased tax bills have gone up. He said that there is a budget dilemma because of a stagnated real estate market, and encouraged them to create a revenue stream to relieve revenue shortfalls from the backs of homeowners. He asked the Board to create an economic growth plan that grows tax revenues and provides jobs for constituents. Mr. May stated that the economic plans of surrounding counties has resulted in economic growth and increased sales tax revenue. Mr. Bill Howard said he has lived in the County for the last 40 years and is a commercial realtor. Mr. Howard said that he was here when Nimbus Records (Technicolor) wanted to move to the County but was not invited by officials. He said he was also here when a publishing facility wanted to move here, but instead moved to Orange County. He stated that he has been told many times by people in Richmond that businesses are not welcome in the Charlottesville area. Mr. Howard said that he is excited that this meeting is even taking place, and finally something is going to be done about economic development. He stated that sometimes even simple zoning clearances tak e 30 days for a business to move into offices. Mr. Howard said that one he worked on recently took only two days, and commented the County for the improved efficiency. He again thanked the Board for having this meeting. Mr. Jeff Werner, of the PEC, said that he is tired of the rhetoric that Albemarle is anti-business. Mr. Werner said that about a month ago, an official from the State Economic Development office was visiting and stated that there is “a very positive business environment in Albemarle Cou nty.” He stated that the County has paid money to be a member of the Chamber for all these years, and the rhetoric needs to stop. Mr. Werner said that as far as losing retail sales, there are 2.5 million square feet of approved retail space in the County that have not been built yet. He asked what more can be done. He commented that the book company that moved to Orange County, millions of dollars were given by the locality and many provisions were waived. Mr. Werner stated that in reviewing the action plan, his concern is the divide between this plan, the Rural Areas Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan – which includes provision for an Ag/Forestal support person. He does not believe Board members are serious about the ag economy. He added that there‟s nothing in the plan about the impact of the agricultural economy. This new plan is simply a revision to the Comprehensive Plan but without the appropriate and the necessary public process. Mr. Werner said that, using Mr. Harvey‟s analogy that a ship has b een built and now needs a rudder, now other interests are being invited to the table – but the ship has already been built. He stated that the PEC has always argued for community participation in all matters, and would welcome the opportunity for the community to participate in a reopened process. Mr. Werner said there are quite a few people in this community who have become convinced that the majority of Board members are not interested in what the community has to say – that the Board is going to move forward with this plan regardless. He said that Loudon County thought that they could grow their way to lower taxes. He asked where that is being done in Virginia. Mr. Werner stated that currently in Loudon, 24.2 cents of their tax rate goes toward their $175 million debt obligation, and projects the need for eight new schools by 2016. Mr. Timothy Hulbert, a City resident and Executive Director of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board. He applauded Mr. Boyd for raising the issue in January, and for sustaining the conversation. He also applauded their appointment of Chad Zakiab to the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau, adding that he is an excellent advocate for the wine industry and agriculture in general. Mr. Hulbert said that the Chamber thinks the plan is a great start, and is flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances. He stated that the reason the area has the image of not being business-friendly is because there are regulators who “insist on imposing one shade of white over another shade of white,” and most people feel that is mission creep of a governmental regulator. Mr. Hulbert said that there are a lot of companies that have grown organically here – PRA, World Strides, and even State Farm. He encouraged the Board to approve the plan, and said that education is indeed the top priority. Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that much of what has been set forth in the plan is fairly vague. Many of the actions the plan sets forth lack enough detail to get enough sense of what the specific proposals that could result from this plan might look like. As a result, he does not have many specific responses or reactions to offer. He said that some of the general ideas set June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 66) forth sound reasonable and may be worth pursuing, but he shares the concern that the plan was developed by a group that did not include important segments of the community who could have provided valuable input. Mr. Butler stated that the preamble talks about the importance of strong educational system and prudent growth management that protects natural resources – which are key factors in attracting and sustaining jobs – but the group that came up with this plan didn‟t include any educators or representatives of environmental groups. He said that it is no surprise therefore that some of the statements made in the plan conflict with the preamble – for example, one of the strategies in Objective 2 that mentions providing for sim plified administrative decisions. Mr. Butler noted that some of the concepts discussed during the work session on site plans and subdivisions held just earlier today could easily undermine the County‟s key environmental protections. He said that there ar e a number of different purposes behind the County‟s critical slopes ordinance, and as a result it would be difficult to develop an objective, one-size-fits-all set of standards that will protect against all of the legitimate concerns that arise from disturbing a critical slope. Mr. Butler stated that Objective 4, Strategy 2 could be read to advocate expanding the growth areas to add more industrial land. W ith over 900 acres of land already set aside in the existing growth areas for those uses, there is no need to expand the growth areas to set aside even more. This would not be an example of what the preamble calls wisely managing growth in a way that protects natural resource. He said that this plan could have benefitted from including environmental representatives, and there are educators as well as people from the agricultural and tourism businesses that could have provided useful input as well. Mr. Butler said SELC would urge the Board to reconvene the group and to add representatives from some of these other segments of the community, and to work through this plan again before vot ing on it. At the very least, there needs to be an earnest effort to open up involvement to more segments of the community as the proposals set out in this plan are fleshed out more fully. Mr. Will Yancey, a resident of the Samuel Miller District, said that he has been involved in the development review process for a number of years. He urged the Board to adopt this plan – specifically Objective 3 of streamlining the amount of time for review and setting clear expectations for people when they decide to do something with their land. He said that 21 months ago , on September 2, 2008, he submitted what he thought was a straightforward Comp Plan Amendment, and it shouldn‟t tak e two years to get a matter before the Board for vote. Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum , said that the strategy of “increasing the visibility of the County‟s business development staff” was discussed about five years ago with respect to what to call the “Business Development Facilitator.” In the section “understanding customer issues and concerns”, contemplates people coming in as fee payers vs. people who are customers, are different. He volunteered to be a part of the task force that determines what industries are targeted, and whatever can be done to create them or bring them here should be a priority. He applauded the Board making this effort and its consideration of the plan. Ms. Valerie Long said she is present as an individual and as a representative of the Chamber of Commerce. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to have this discussion, and they appreciate being asked for input and partnering with the County in helping develop the plan. Ms. Long said that these are some important steps in the process, adding that she represents many commercial entities as well as nonprofit clients. She stated that while there have been many improvements made to the County system, it is still a very, very challenging process. Ms. Long com mented that the perception that businesses which are considering relocating here have is that they will face a long and expensive development process. She believes that we can follow the rules, follow and implement the goals, but also make the process mor e streamlined, less expensive, and faster for everyone. She commented that the relationship between education and economic development is “symbiotic,” and businesses want to come to communities that have a strong public school system. It‟s not an either or – it‟s a together. Ms. Long added that there should be investment in early childhood education, as they can benefit the business community and the quality of life for the long term. She asked the Board to endorse the plan today. There being no further public comment, the Board began its discussion. Mr. Rooker said that prior to discussing the specifics of the proposed plan, he would like to discuss the appropriateness of moving forward at this time. He handed out the current Economic Development Policy adopted by the Board on March 4, 2009 – which was endorsed by the Chamber, the Free Enterprise Forum, the Piedmont Environmental Council, and the Southern Environmental Law Center. In fact, the Board did not have a single party speak against this policy. Mr. Rooker asked if other Board members had taken time to read it recently, noting that it covers most of the things that are in this plan today, but there are things that are covered in here that are not covered in the plan, and that‟s part of what troubles him. He reported that on Page 3 of the existing plan, the second item under the first goal says “economic development supportive of the County‟s growth management policy and consistent with the other Comprehensive Plan goals.” Mr. Rooker added that this is not mentioned in the proposed plan. Mr. Boyd asked if there is something in the new plan that says it is inconsistent with the goals. Mr. Rooker stated that he thinks the plan should specifically mention that it should be pursuing objectives that are consistent with the County‟s existing growth management goals. Mr. Boyd asked the Board to move forward with the plan rather than attacking it. He thinks that is all Mr. Rooker wants to do because he did not vote for it to begin with. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 67) Mr. Rooker responded that he wants to discuss the process of getting to a plan that is a more balanced plan which would be accepted by the whole community. He emphasized that there was “a split” in the comments from the public today. This was passed unanimously by the Board and if you read through it, it covers almost everything that‟s in this [new] plan. Mr. Boyd asked if the Comp Plan has measurements, objectives, timeframes, etc. Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with including those things. T he preamble of the plan being presented today talks about “attractive community, sustainable community, and infrastructure.” Sustainable is a reference to the County‟s sustainability accords in the Comp Plan. He noted that there is nothing in the new plan about infrastructure investment – nor is there anything in the new plan about education, even though both are referenced in the preamble. Mr. Boyd said there is nothing in the plan that says we will not invest in education. Mr. Rooker said if we highlight education as an important ingredient of a viable economic development plan in the community, it should be addressed somewhere in the action plan. Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker wanted it stated in the plan that 60 percent of new dollars would be devoted to education. Mr. Rooker said that he applauds the people who invested time in drafting this plan, but wants to make sure that other people are included who can make suggestions – such as inclusion of educational support – so that the plan is more acceptable to the entire community. Mr. Boyd commented that the Board is totally invested in education and always have been. Mr. Rooker replied, “Are we? We‟re talking about trying to produce jobs here, yet we approved a budget that resulted in laying off 41 people in education this year. Those are jobs, those are people. Mr. Boyd said that is a different issue and the idea is to bring in more dollars so that those cuts don‟t happen. Mr. Rooker said that the roundtable convened to form the new plan included two developers, representatives of the Chamber, representatives from TJPED, Mr. Boyd, and an attorney who represents developers in the community. He stated that others in the community didn‟t even know a plan was being drafted. He is grateful something has been brought forward and he thinks it is a good starting point. He does not want to dwell on the process except to say that he thinks the Board could improve this by spending a couple of months going forward with a plan that may have some things added to it; it may have some language changed – but he thinks will end up being a plan that is more likely to be supported by the entire community, rather than people in the community feeling like they had the blanket pulled over their eyes. Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with that, but he wants to avoid another six months of studying what needs to be studying. People had a month to come back with specific recommendations, changes, inclusions, etc., but all they talked about was hypotheticals and he does not see that as being productive. Ms. Mallek suggested that the Board members go paragraph by paragraph and discuss the plan. Mr. Boyd said he is agreeable to that. Mr. Rooker said that if there is agreement to allow two to three months for the process to continue with an expanded, so that education can make direct input, and environmental groups contributing, then there is no need to go through this document paragraph by paragraph. He pointed out that there are a number of these things that have already been done. He noted that the ARB process was recently changed for efficiency, and the Board voted today for more streamlining and administrative treatment of most things that go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rooker added that today the Board also voted to allow heavy industry uses in Light Industrial zoning by special use permit. All of these things were adopted unanimously. Mr. Snow commented that there were several misstatements made tonight by the public – such as an intention by the Board to expand the growth area – and suggested going through this plan to move it ahead in the next month. Mr. Rooker said that what he is suggesting is get back in two months to allow some of the other organizations to sit down with the original drafters and provide input. He cannot say what the education people would want to put in here. He also cannot tell this Board what the environmental people would want to put in here. We can only do that by allowing them to be at the table, which we did in this policy, which is longer than the plan – and supported by everybody. Mr. Dorrier stated that an action plan puts it all on the table and creates a different atmosphere for Albemarle as being open for business. He said that when he came on the Board in 2000, the County was not a member of the Chamber or TJPED, and there was no economic development plan. Mr. Dor rier stated that there was strong opposition to those memberships, and their help needs to be accepted with the Board moving ahead with this. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 68) Mr. Rooker responded that he is willing to accept their help, but is suggesting that the plan have input by more than just one group of people. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the plan is pro-education. Mr. Rooker clarified that education representatives here today talked about wanting to participate in the process, as well as people from the environmental community and the agricultural community. Mr. Boyd suggested that if those people have input, they should be invited to contribute specific recommendations in the next month. Mr. Rooker said that this was arrived at by a roundtable that included a variety of people. He asked if there is some reason why the Board couldn‟t include the other individuals in a roundtable discussion. Mr. Boyd stated that this plan is about meaningful accomplishments with measurable objectives and timeframes. We need to put this into an action plan; it is not a part of the Comp Plan. There are people who are not in favor of economic development, but it is important to the community to create good- paying, career-ladder jobs. Mr. Boyd commented that there are a lot of people whose kids graduate and move away because there isn‟t enough employment. Mr. Rooker responded that there will always be more opportunities in larger metropolitan areas than there are in communities the size of Charlottesville. The sky isn‟t falling. This community is among the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Last year we created more jobs than all but three localities in Virginia. He said that in 2009, over 2,000 jobs were created in the County; the DIA is coming here with another 800 jobs; and the Research Park recently reported that they had the best leasing period in their history to defense contractors. Mr. Rooker said that Kohl‟s is being built, and Albemarle Place will break ground next year. He added that North Town Center is under construction with a total of 200,000 square feet, and there is another 1.5 million square feet between North Town Center and Hollymead Town Center. Mr. Rooker also mentioned that the Fontaine Research Center wants to double its size, and they have plans to do that. He agrees that it is important to have a plan, but the process should include some broader input. Ms. Mallek asked if the intent of this plan is to replace the Comp Plan chapter with this plan. Mr. Boyd responded that this is an action plan, not a Comp Plan revision. Mr. Rooker read from the strategies under the existing Economic Development Policy, adding that while the entire Board voted for it, the newly proposed plan eliminates some of that language. Mr. Boyd said that he and Mr. Rooker are looking at the plan differently. Just because there is not specific language relating to water quality does not imply they are not concerned with water quality. None of the people involved in the proposed plan believes that. Mr. Rooker again said having some other input into the plan might reflect some things that are already in the County‟s policy. Mr. Boyd said that he is willing to allow another roundtable, but it needs to happen in the next month. Mr. Rooker suggested having the group do that and bring it back at the Board‟s August 4th meeting. Mr. Boyd responded that he doesn‟t want to waste another two months. He is willing to sit down with anyone and go through the plan and get it done. Ms. Catlin asked if the Board members want to go through this plan now, and then seek the further public input. It may be helpful in that the Board members discussion will highlight some areas where the input will be important and will help people in the community see what they are thinking. Board members agreed to proceed with specific comments. Ms. Catlin suggested going through the plan with each objective and action. Mr. Rooker commented that items mentioned in the preamble should be included in t he plan‟s objectives, such as “attractive, sustainable community,” “the need to invest in infrastructure.” He thinks the Board needs to focus on the things they expect government to do – and that‟s provide good education, good infrastructure, a network of utilities, etc. – and right now, we are not doing that. Mr. Rooker stated that this plan needs to include mention of investment in infrastructure. Mr. Dorrier responded that this is an economic development plan, not an infrastructure development plan. Mr. Rooker pointed out that you‟re not going to have economic development if you don‟t have the transportation networks out there to support it, the utility networks out there to support it, et cetera. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 69) Ms. Catlin noted that some of this was included in the Economic Development Policy chapter of the Comp Plan, but not reflected in this plan. Mr. Rooker stated that his concern is that these things are mentioned in the preamble of this economic development action plan, but not in the body of the plan. If those things are important to economic development, why are there no action elements in here addressing those items that we say at the beginning are important in the plan. Mr. Boyd responded that the idea of the plan was to come up with things that are accomplishable. It is not accomplishable in the next six months to build an extra lane on Route 29 or to build interchanges. These are things that we can actually get done. Ms. Mallek suggested that there be specific mention of partners who will be involve d in moving the economic development plan forward – such as the School system. The consequences are something people want to understand, and she is one of them. Mr. Dorrier said that infrastructure involves government money, and that‟s not what this plan is about. Mr. Rooker replied that Mr. Dorrier is suggesting growth can take place in the community without the necessary infrastructure. Mr. Dorrier stated that the infrastructure is there, it just needs to be improved. Mr. Rooker commented that there is no money to do that. Mr. Snow said that the idea here, in his opinion, is to encourage businesses to move into existing developments – not creating new rezoned areas that require additional infrastructure. Mr. Rooker stated that perhaps there should be a statement that says “additional growth should be consistent with the development of infrastructure in the County necessary to accommodate that growth.” Mr. Thomas commented that economic development does not necessarily mean growth. Mr. Rooker responded that there will very likely be about 300 to 400 new school children coming in with the DIA people, plus the new defense contractors. Mr. Boyd stated that the School system is already meeting with those people as a separate endeavor. They have big projections, a CIP and a methodology they always follow when companies move into the County; all of that is in place and in process now. Mr. Rooker replied that he is simply suggesting that this plan include a statement that says the County will undertake to provide the infrastructure necessary to support growth and invest in education. Mr. Boyd said he agrees with that comment. He then asked if the first objective “Improve the County‟s business climate and image” takes into account infrastructure. Mr. Rooker said that under actions, it states “Develop and implement a plan within six months to promote County efforts at facilitating business growth with the VEDP and others” and he would like a clarifying statement that refers to “growth that‟s consistent with our economic development policy,” and suggesting adding that language. Mr. Dorrier agreed. Ms. Catlin said in the preamble, the Board has referred to language that mentions some higher level goals and things in other documents. The idea is are there places throughout the rest of the plan where that language needs to be referred to so that it is clear this is not going outside of already established policies in the Economic Development chapter of the Comp Plan. Mr. Rooker said that these things are “sprinkled throughout” the current Economic Development Policy, and the same should hold true for this plan so it‟s clear as to what kind of growth the County is looking for. Mr. Dorrier stated that there should be a cooperative effort with U.Va. to develop an “incubator program” with small businesses for the Research Park. Mr. Rooker said that there would be an investment required in order to do that. Ms. Catlin said she has heard from Mr. Rooker to include language under Objective 1, Strategy 1, to make sure that growth is consistent with the Economic Development Policy. Mr. Rooker said he would also like to remove the language “convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Partnership that Albemarle County is open for business,‟” – as it is inflammatory to environmental groups. That language could be worded another way such as “Albemarle County is interested in working with them to develop its economic resources or to improve its business condition.” June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 70) Mr. Boyd suggested changing it to “improving our marketing and communication with the State Economic Development Department.” Ms. Mallek agreed that rephrasing it that way is a very positive statement. She also said that in the recruiting and business image section, there needs to be a focus on what types of businesses the County is interested in having here, as Mr. Harvey suggested. At a previous meeting of TJPED, Mr. Harvey made the following statement “looking to build a strategy around the workforce that lives here with a focus on training and transportation to come up with the best fit. Companies coming to the area expect cash or tax breaks but can leave before the locality can recoup costs or reap benefits. Homegrown businesses are more likely to stay in the area. Small businesses have the best opportunity for adding jobs.” Ms. Mallek said that the targeting Mr. Harvey has talked about is language that needs to be in the front of the plan. Mr. Rooker also mentioned that Mr. Harvey had suggested identifying the existing workforce and understanding their skill levels and how they may need to be improved. This is talking about helping out our existing citizens. Mr. Dorrier suggested that TJPED and the Tayloe Murphy Institute to develop an a cceptable methodology acceptable to the Board. Ms. Mallek asked how long it might take TJPED to get a workforce analysis done. Mr. Harvey responded that there is an underemployed community here; there are thousands of people who drive out of the community to work. W hen he worked in Knoxville, his organization did a 1,200-household survey. He said that a comprehensive survey could cost as much as $100,000, which would involve a regional workforce analysis, existing business clusters, shift sharing analysis, location, etc. Mr. Boyd stated that it seems that the logical time for other groups to weigh in would be during the implementation phase. Mr. Rooker said he would also like for them to give input up front, adding that one area of focus is attracting companies that are likely to employ existing underemployed residents. There should be some criteria on the target companies the County is looking for. He would just like that specifically mentioned as a criteria. Mr. Boyd said that is easy to do. He added that looking at “I”, Objective 1, Strategic 1, is an entire discussion within itself that needs to occur. There is also no reason why the task force or whoever is assigned to this objective cannot add to the item. Mr. Rooker said he is concerned that the Economic Development Policy gets reflected in the actions that are taken under this plan. Ms. Catlin summarized the Board‟s revisions thus far as rewording the “open for business,” to make it not so “in your face” and antagonistic. The other revisions are adding language that refers to any growth being consistent with already established policies, building strategies arou nd businesses that are already here, the employment and underemployment of local people. Under the section referencing an outreach effort, Ms. Mallek suggested changing “implement” to “continue,” noting that “we are already doing this things.” Mr. Dorrier mentioned that viticulture should be mentioned and the Workforce Development Program at PVCC. Ms. Mallek said that is why education needs to be woven throughout this – where training programs are needed – and a workforce network. Ms. Catlin then referred to Objective 2 – “increase the County‟s Business Development staff”. Mr. Rooker said he had no problem with that objective. Ms. Mallek said that one of the most frequent questions asked of Ms. Susan Stimart is the procedural steps for their business – and having her located in Community Development provides easy access to the pertinent staff members who can answer those questions. She is not sure that moving Ms. Stimart to the County Executive‟s office is a good idea. Mr. Boyd said that is only giving direction to the County Executive. Ms. Catlin said she is hearing Ms. Mallek say however that there needs to be a strong connection maintained with the Community Development processes so that piece of the work does not get lost. Ms. Mallek replied that was correct. Mr. Rooker said that under Objective 1, he would like the strategy of “develop and implement a plan…” to have language that states that the task force assigned to doing it will include representatives of various broad-based segments of the community. Mr. Boyd agreed. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 71) Strategy 3: “Improve interaction between Community Development staff and the business community” Mr. Rooker said that the County is already doing the things that are mentioned. Referring to the language “regular presentations”, Ms. Mallek said she would also like for Board members to be invited so that they can also listen. In the third bullet, after “discussions” add “continue assigning…” She does not want this perceived as being a smack at staff when many of the things are already underway or have been thought about since the Development Review Task Force. In the fourth bullet, after “County Executive” add “and the Board of Supervisors…” That helps fill out the reporting and gives the community an awareness that there is transparency and they can call up their Supervisor to find out what is going on. In Strategy 3, Mr. Rooker suggested in the sentence “Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance of business development for the economic vitality of the community” adding “and the importance of quality of life and education to business development and economic vitality…” Mr. Boyd stated that there was nothing intentional meant about the removal of the references to education in the plan. Mr. Rooker said that is why it‟s helpful to have a multitude of viewpoints. Ms. Catlin summarized that it is the consensus to include language about the quality of life and education on the business development in creating the econom ic vitality we want for the community. Mr. Rooker agreed. Ms. Catlin said the other suggestion was to “Board of Supervisors” throughout these bullets as being invited to participate in the presentations and to share the survey results that go to the County Executive with the Board. Board members concurred. Ms. Mallek commented that there needs to be some acknowledgement here that it is often the developer‟s failure to follow procedure that slows down the process. The next section was “Consider amendments to the Development Review processes to facilitate small business opportunities”. Mr. Boyd commented that the processes are already being done. Moving into Section III starting with “…Strategically grow and attract capital-intensive ….” Ms. Catlin said there was some discussion on this section earlier. Mr. Rooker said that he would like to preface the language of the goal with “Consistent with the goals of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan, strategically grow….” He also said that he would prefer that the desired businesses be referred to as “knowledge-based” rather than “capital intensive.” Mr. Boyd said that that would limit the targets somewhat. Mr. Rooker asked why capital intensive was mentioned then. Ms. Mallek commented that both could be included. Mr. Rooker then suggested that both be removed, leaving the language as: “Consistent with County‟s Comprehensive Plan, strategically grow and attract employers that provide a diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident workforce.” Mr. Boyd noted that some of the action steps do flesh that out somewhat. Mr. Snow suggested leaving both “capital intensive” and “knowledge-based” in the text. Ms. Mallek commented that under the first bullet under actions, she would like to weave in the local School Division, PVCC, and the workforce network – as they are going to be involved in the training provisions for new and expanding businesses. She said that mentioning them will also he lp raise their awareness that they need to help. Mr. Boyd asked if “schools” is all inclusive and includes the University of Virginia. Ms. Mallek said it can include Albemarle County Public Schools, UVA, PVCC and PWN. Ms. Catlin asked if the Board had any revisions to the section regarding “expand desirable business clusters” and “attract targeted business and investment.” Mr. Rooker commented that this “smacks of an intrusion of government into business.” He asked how many successful businesses really want government knocking on their door and telling them “we want to assist them in what they do.” June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 72) Mr. Dorrier mentioned incubator business models. Mr. Rooker responded that investing in an incubator is another matter, noting that the SBDC is already doing this – and so is TJPED. He asked if there is anything that the County needs to be doing in this area that isn‟t being done right now. Mr. Harvey replied supporting it with ore money. Ms. Mallek emphasized that that‟s where we cannot have both sides of the argument. We are assigning all these tasks to them and we have to understand it takes money. Mr. Harvey said that businesses actually do want government knocking on their door and asking what localities can do for them, adding that TJPED‟s “Business First” program has been very well received in terms of outreach to businesses. Mr. Rooker pointed out that this type of work is done through agencies, and with a County action plan it‟s really “put your money where your mouth is.” He added that the agencies are set up to do this, and he is not sure where to go with this. Mr. Boyd said he is not supportive of giving big incentives to lure businesses to come here, but he is in favor of is communication with businesses so if the County is somehow obstructing their ability or not providing the necessary zoned areas for expansion, that‟s the type of interaction that needs to occur. Mr. Rooker said he sees that being covered in Section III as all that is designed towards communication. He suggested that the section targeting industries be modified to say, “With a broad- based task force, determine target industries; work with the task force including TJPED to determine the region‟s target sectors, etc.” Ms. Catlin summarized proposed changes to Section III. Under 1 add: UVA school community, Education community, PVCC, and Workforce Network. Under #2, desirable business clusters, add something about improved communication, and partnering with other agencies. Mr. Rooker said you could take out #2. Expanding desirable business clusters is not something the County is going to do. You could include the action item under #1, determine target industries. He suggests adding “with a broad based task force, determine target industries, work with the task force, including TJPED to determine the region‟s target sectors…” Mr. Boyd said that he is having trouble spelling out all of the education entities in the plan, and suggested having it state education community as a broad partner instead of individual players. Ms. Mallek said she thinks we need to mention our own public school system and higher education institutions. It may also be better to include in #1 rather than the action bullet, “in partnership with…” Mr. Boyd agreed. Ms. Catlin stated that the Board wants to remove #2 as a specific strategic and leave the actions as part of #1. Board members concurred. Mr. Rooker then referred to Strategy #3, and stated that there needs to be some language such as “make certain that the County‟s investment in infrastructure is consistent with business activities.” Mr. Boyd said that “as funds are available” should be added also. Mr. Rooker indicated that citizens expect that the Board will make infrastructure improvements along with inviting population growth. Mr. Boyd stated that he doesn‟t know how all of the demands can be resolved prior to having new businesses come in. This is not a matter of saying attracting growth, because it also relates to internal companies and companies that are moving here, i.e., DIA. Mr. Snow commented that the plan could make a general statement that infrastructure will be provided as money becomes available, but there cannot be a timeframe assigned to it. Mr. Rooker said that the focus here is the growth of existing businesses, not attracting new companies to come in. Mr. Boyd responded that it is about that too. Mr. Rooker asked if he thinks citizens are going to support bringing in thousands of jobs here when we don‟t have any new money, we have no roads, etc. Mr. Boyd said that that‟s why there are fiscal impact studies done, asking if developments like Albemarle Place should be cut off because they might bring new families here. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 73) Mr. Rooker suggested then that the plan should say that targeted industries should be those that are clearly fiscally positive for the County, considering the infrastructure investment necessary and associated with them. Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with that. Mr. Harvey agreed that it is important to consider the impact on infrastructure when targeting various industries. Mr. Rooker said that the Service Authority is approaching it very intelligently, by saying that new growth in the system is going to pay for the infrastructure it imposes, on an incrementa l basis – but it needs to be ascertained that it will take place. Mr. Boyd responded that perhaps money should be set aside from new developments for new schools, if that‟s the type of asset managing that‟s being suggested here. You can do that in a Service Authority, but it is difficult for the Board to do that here. Mr. Rooker noted that that‟s why other localities have created service districts in their growth areas where they have an incremental tax that‟s used for that purpose. Ms. Catlin said she heard general agreement on a statement in that section #3, “targeted industries should be fiscally positive to the County considering their required infrastructure…” Ms. Catlin asked if there were any comments regarding section #4. Mr. Rooker said he thought that section was fine the way written. Ms. Catlin then moved to Objective IV and asked for comments. Mr. Rooker said he thinks language needs to be added “Consistent with the County‟s Comprehensive Plan, remove obstacles…” He also is concerned with Strategy #2 with the language in the proposed plan that considers designating more development area for industrial use. Mr. Graham responded that the suggestion comes straight from the Economic Development Policy where during the master planning process, the County was looking at opportunities for designating additional lands within those development areas for industrial uses. Mr. Rooker said that he does not agree with such a flat statement, noting that considering additional industrial use land in a development area is a whole lot different than a fiat to designate more development area land for industrial use. Mr. Boyd stated that the wording is just “include consideration…” Mr. Rooker replied that it‟s just added in as an afterthought. Mr. Boyd commented that he doesn‟t think the County has the right industrial development land needed in order to promote economic development. Mr. Rooker said that there have been numerous rezonings where the landowner has asked to be taken out of industrial zoning. He also stated that he doesn‟t mind including exploring opportunities for industrial zoned land on a case-by-case basis when master planning is done. Ms. Mallek said she would support to take the action bullet under #2 and put it under the description for #3, and remove the header for #2. She was confused because the two actually go together. Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd agreed. Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Graham where the clarification of the redefining of light industrial would fit in here. Mr. Graham responded that it‟s not an action item, but is a strategy in the Economic Development Policy. Mr. Rooker said that he would like to see it as an action item that says “take steps to prevent the conversion of light industrial property into other uses.” Mr. Davis commented that he foresees a legal problem with taking uses out of the existing LI. He thinks staff would propose that for future land zoned to LI – to create a new zoning district for those lands where office uses are to be avoided. Mr. Rooker said he would also like to eliminate #4, but leave in the action item. He does not like the mandate. The one example he remember is land on 5th Street. Mr. Boyd said he would also like to see the I-64/Shadwell area readdressed. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 74) Ms. Catlin confirmed with the Board that they wish to take the statement, “Modify the uses allowed at the interstate interchanges” and instead just have the action item bullet “As part of the current effort to update the Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board‟s consideration a modification of the interstate interchange policy that might allow lower-impact, industrial, and rural serving uses.” Moving onto the fifth goal of promoting agriculture and tourism, Mr. Rooker said that people from the Farm Bureau, the Sierra Club, etc. should be included in the process. Ms. Mallek suggested that the current group working on agribusiness and tourism could just continue in this capacity. Mr. Dorrier suggested including Monticello, Michie Tavern, Ash Lawn, and the Journey Th rough Hallowed Ground. Ms. Mallek noted that they are all part of the CACVB, and are represented there. Ms. Mallek said it may be appropriate to make links to the Comprehensive Plan in various places in the document so that people know that actions in the plan are based on well adopted procedures. Mr. Rooker said that staff has to go back and incorporate the edits, and after that‟s done it should be put out to the Board and also posted. He would like to give the public six weeks then to weigh in on the plan, so that what is brought back represents broader participation. Ms. Mallek stated that it‟s really well worth the County‟s time to allow for more public input. Mr. Boyd said that he would prefer having public hearings as the forum for providing input, with suggestions made at the roundtable noted in a revised version of the plan. He also stated that six weeks is too long of a timeframe, and suggested bringing it back in July. Ms. Mallek pointed out to Mr. Boyd that if there had been an opportunity for other Board members to have a little bit of preemptive conversation, the discussion would be further along. Ms. Catlin clarified that what would come back to the Board would be the revised document as discussed today, plus specific changes suggested by people at the two roundtable meetings. Board members agreed that the item would come back on the agenda of the July 14th meeting. Mr. Boyd asked if some part of the conversation should be consideration of adding to the growth area to make up for the loss of Biscuit Run, noting that 800 acres were lost. Board members suggested that that be studied and discussed at a later time. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that it is already being considered as part of the Comp Plan work, which will be started this fiscal year. He emphasized that this is a complete review of the Plan, so it‟s a pretty involved process. Mr. Boyd asked when any kind of decision from the Board could be expected. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed with Mr. Graham that that would be in about two yea rs. Mr. Boyd commented that that‟s “too long” of a timeframe. Mr. Cilimberg commented that staff has a lot of things to look at. Mr. Rooker said that there is a huge amount of unfilled growth area; there is already a lot of approved retail in the community. Mr. Boyd stated that there is a lack of retail in the Biscuit Run area of the County, which creates traffic congestion if everything continues to be built north. Ms. Mallek mentioned that Avon Park is already approved and would be built out. Mr. Rooker said approving another area is not going to come on line any quicker than Avon Park. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Biscuit Run had about 150,000 square feet of commercial approved, and the 5th Street Avon project is really the big project for that area. He said that the County would have an opportunity to establish a plan for replacing any lost retail space. Mr. Boyd commented that it bothers him to see all the development on Route 29 North. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the only way to push development where you want it to go is to not let it go somewhere else first. He stated that there is more and more being built on Route 29 North, and that‟s going to make it harder for development elsewhere to support itself. Mr. Boyd said that Avon Park would probably not go up because of the proffers required. Ms. Mallek responded that they are already there, and the hindrance has been the economy. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 75) Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle Place is definitely moving forward. Mr. Boyd said that the project took a very long time to come on line. Ms. Mallek mentioned that the parcel‟s owner died and it took two years to settle the estate. Mr. Rooker also explained that a developer must have a cluster of tenants in order to make a commitment to finalize a site plan and start spending more money. It‟s really a function of tenants. Mr. Boyd asked if the cost of square footage doesn‟t have an impact on what tenants come in. Mr. Rooker responded that the cost of developing there is no greater than they‟ve spent in other areas. He has talked to them about it. He said that over the last two years, the retail climate has disintegrated for tenants, but now it is starting come back. Ms. Catlin said staff has received guidance from the Board. She reiterated that staff wi ll bring the document back to the Board for public hearing on July 14th. Mr. Rooker then asked where this economic plan would fit in as far as its status, as it is not part of the Comprehensive Plan and doesn‟t go through the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker noted that this would be more of a policy action plan. Mr. Dorrier said that the Board doesn‟t want to get into a situation where they are picking and choosing their plans, where there are two or three plans that all say something different. Mr. Rooker stated that‟s why he distributed a copy of the Economic Development Policy the Board had adopted just last year. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff could cross-reference sections of the Economic Development Policy in the Comp Plan as part of this document, so a link can be established. Board members said that would be helpful. Ms. Mallek then asked if anyone else from the public had any other comments to make based on the Board‟s discussion. Mr. Jeff Werner, of the PEC, said that he and Morgan Butler, of the SELC, had discussed the likelihood of the project-specific items eliciting a response from their organizations at that time. He emphasized that there are some very specific items in the Rural Area Plan and the Economic Development Policy relative to the rural areas that they would expect the recommendations to be “fully respected”, “referred to” and “enthusiastically implemented”. He would like to see some actions related to their implementation. Ms. Mallek said that there is a category for that, and they should be put in as suggestions. Mr. Werner commented that people come to this community because of what it is, and it is what it is because of everything we‟ve done to create that. He said that this is a location that people come to and want to part of. Greene County will take anything and have gotten a Lowe‟s and a Wal-Mart. Mr. Werner stated that he is interested to see what will be taken out of the regulations, adding that they are intended for the community, not for the applicant. When you said that regulations are unnecessary, he questions who are they unnecessary for? He added that the Chamber has actively opposed Places29 and some of the transportation improvements that this community has fought for . The relationship the County has with the Chamber is questionable – given that the County isn‟t members of other organizations, i.e., PEC, Sierra Club, ASAP, etc. People in the community know what the Chamber actively works against and t hat makes folks uncomfortable. Mr. Boyd asked if the County should come to PEC and SELC to work on economic issues. Mr. Werner replied that he would have something to offer. Mr. Rooker mentioned that he opposed joining the Chamber, and the reason is the Chamber is a lobbying organization – just like PEC. When they come before us to lobby, we don‟t have somebody lobbying before us that is representing a group that we‟re a member of. Mr. Boyd said that if you are going to work on economic development, you must bring in business expertise. Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that the community at large should also be engaged. Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he also gets questions and comments from people – many of them related to what kinds of jobs will be brought here. He thinks it is disingenuous to put the Chamber in the negative position with regard to Places29 when he knows Mr. Hulbert have spoken about many things in Places29 that they agree with. The Chamber does not agree with the whole plan, but they representative the business environment. He said that he has been through countless hours of meetings discussing regulations, and he welcomes Mr. Werner at any roundtable. It is important to engage the business community in this document and that it move forward with all deliberate speed. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 76) Mr. Rooker stated that one speaker mentioned benchmarking against other communities – such as Chesterfield, Loudon, Hanover, Henrico, and James City County. The 2007 tax rates of those communities were: Chesterfield at 95 cents, plus a service district; Loudon is $1.30, plus a service district; Hanover is 81 cents, plus a service district; James City is 77 cents; and Henrico is 87 cents. He stated that the average of those is 90 cents, not even considering the service district o n top of that. Albemarle has the lowest tax rate of all of them, and they spend a lot more money on economic development than he would guess we have. In fact, the City of Charlottesville spends $500,000 per year on economic development yet most of the jobs have occurred in the County. Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle has been one of the highest job-producers in the state, with one of the lowest tax rates, so something must have been done right. Mr. Robert Humphris, a County resident, said that he got the impression that the goal of the overall Economic Development Plan was to bring in jobs and more tax money. He recalled a prior study that showed that the cost of services to residents outweighed what they were adding to the tax base. If you‟re going to court new industry to come in, why not put a caveat requiring they hire a certain percentage of local people for a certain percentage of the jobs that they might be bringing in. ________________ (Note: At this time the Board went back to Item 7.7 from the Consent Agenda.) Mr. Tucker said that the State made some changes this year effective July 1, 2010, and staff recommended adopting a resolution that authorizes the County to cover the cost of the 5% member contribution for new employees hired after July 1. Mr. Tucker said that the staff felt that requiring new employees to pay a portion of the contribution would create equity issues with regard to total compensation. Staff did a limited market data study and found that those localities were going to contribute the 5% employee member contribution. He stated that on the local government side, the staff felt that not many people would be hired in the near future – given the frozen and eliminated positions. After further addressing market trends, staff will make a recommendation to the Board and School Board in Fall 2010 on what to do for FY 11-12. In the meantime, staff thinks the costs for next year should be covered by the County. Mr. Boyd asked if this is a one-time irreversible decision. Mr. Tucker said the Board can change it next year, but those employees who are hired on July 1, 2010, would have to start paying the 5% retroactively. Mr. Rooker said that is a problem. He just doesn‟t think you should consider hiring somebody and then two years from now say you are going to have to start making that contribution. Mr. Boyd asked if this action has to be taken now. Mr. Tucker said that the law states that any action to be taken for next year would need to be done by the end of June 2010. Ms. Mallek asked if there was a ball-park amount estimated for the cost of the contribution. Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Director of Human Resources, said she does not have a figure because they do not anticipate any new hires; if so, it would be minimal for public safety. Mr. Davis explained that it is 5% of salary, and the option is for a fiscal year period so it could be changed next year. He added that there is no option to do this for existing employees. Ms. Suyes reported that there would be two plans – VRS Plan 1 and VRS Plan 2. The decision must be made by July 1, 2010, as Mr. Tucker mentioned. Mr. Davis said that there are two classes of employees – those hired before July 1, 2010 and those hired after July 1, 2010 – and those employees within the classes have to be treated the same. Mr. Boyd said if he were going to do it, he would do it now, not wait. Ms. Suyes commented that the problem is the Board strategy is to be at market, so there may be issues in the future with equity between Local Government and the School Board. In her opinion, the School Division did not seem interested in passing the expense on to the employees. Mr. Tucker said the equity issue would be there for existing employees also, and someone hired after July 1. Ms. Mallek commented that it‟s not a major issue for her. Ms. Suyes noted that turnover for local government is low, and the hire rate is low. She added that she could do a forecast and bring that back to the Board. Mr. Boyd suggested that it be brought back at the next Board meeting, adding that he‟d like to know what the School numbers are also. Ms. Suyes stated that the average amount of teachers being hired most years is 150, and this year there will be 30 to 40 teachers hired. June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 77) Mr. Tucker said staff can bring this back for discussion next week if the Board is not prepared to make a decision. Mr. Boyd asked for historical data on turnover for the last five years. Ms. Suyes said she would also included associated costs with average salary for local government and schools. Mr. Davis noted that if someone is hired by Albemarle County and has prior years of service with VRS, their 5% portion must be picked up by the County. It creates an incredibly complicated pay system from an equity standpoint. Mr. Foley said that the equity issues play across different groups, and it would be helpful if Human Resources had time to lay out these issues and bring them back to the Board and School Board in a joint meeting. He noted that the resolutions were given to localities from the State last week, with a three-week turnaround required. Ms. Jordan confirmed that she had tentatively set aside 4:00 p.m., next week for a joint meeting with the School Board to discuss this issue, if needed. _________________ Agenda Item No. 20. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Boyd then moved to adopt a Resolution to Set the FY11 Compensation and Benefits for the County Executive. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION TO SET FY 11 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle operates under the County Executive Form of Government; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors determines the compensation and benefits to be paid to the County Executive for the performance of his duties and responsibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby deems that Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, shall receive the following compensation and benefits for FY 11, beginning July 1, 2010: 1) Annual salary of $177,721. 2) Annual vehicle allowance of $9,650. 3) Deferred Compensation paid by the County in the amount of $23,500. 4) Benefits provided to all County employees in the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual. 5) VERIPlus benefits to consist of the VERIP benefits provided to County employees under the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual with the following additions and modifications: a) VERIPlus benefits shall extend for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of retirement regardless of age; b) VERIPlus benefits shall be equal to 150% of the base V ERIP benefits (stipend and health insurance contribution). c) The retirement requirement for VERIPlus will be met if retirement is approved under any of the retirement plans of the Virginia Retirement System (hereinafter “VRS”), including any disability retirement provision. d) VERIPlus benefits shall accrue to the benefit of a designated survivor, as designated for purposes of VRS, if death should occur prior to receiving twelve (12) years of VERIPlus benefits. ________________ June 2, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 78) Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to June 9, 2010, 4:00 p.m. At 5:29 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to adjourn this meeting until June 9, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the School Board in Room 241. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, and Mr. Snow. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 09/01/2010 Initials: EWJ