2010-10-06October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October
6, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, and Director of Community Development, Mark
Graham.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions:
Item No. 4b. Sherriff‟s Office Reaccreditation, Chip Harding.
Mr. Gary Dillon, the Program Manager for Virginia‟s Law Enforcement Accreditation Program, said
he was present with Charlottesville Police Chief, Tim Longo, a member of their Executive Board. He said
they were present to honor the County Sheriff‟s Office for its continued participation in the Accreditation
Program. Mr. Dillon said that all accreditation programs are designed to measure and confirm compliance
of the participating agency in whatever discipline or profession they are involved in – which is one of the
only means by which citizens and government leaders can be assured that an agency is maintaining high
performance marks to which the community has a right. He stated that in Virginia, participation in the
Program is completely voluntary which distinguishes Albemarle‟s Sheriff‟s Office for their commitment to
professionalism and willingness to be measured by and be compared to the best in the profession.
Mr. Dillon said that the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission was
formed in the early 1990s to provide agencies with an avenue to demonstrate that they meet over 180
commonly accepted standards for best practices for law enforcement. Since then – out of 400 agencies
in Virginia that are eligible – only 82 are accredited through this Program, including both the Sheriff and
Police departments in Albemarle. He explained that each agency that participates must meet or exceed
the criteria in the standards that are contained in their policies and procedures. In August a team of
certified assessors visited the Albemarle County Sheriff‟s Office and issued their report to the Executive
Board advising that they had found this agency to be in compliance with all applicable standards as
required by the Program. On September 9th, Mr. Dillon said that the Executive Board met in Williamsburg
and unanimously approved the Sheriff‟s Office for reaccreditation. He added that this is not a process that
stops the day after the team leaves; it is ongoing.
Mr. Dillon said that on behalf of the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the Secretary of
Public Safety, he would like to congratulate the Sheriff‟s Department, Sheriff Harding, Accreditation
Manager, Sgt. Chan Gianinni and Assistant Accreditation Manager, Master Deputy Kevin Sprouse for their
attention to detail in maintaining the very large volume of files it takes to maintain the Program. He then
introduced Chief Tim Longo to make the official presentation.
Chief Longo said that this is the third time in the last decade he has come before the Board to
recognize the Sheriff and Police Departments, noting that both Mr. Dillon and Sheriff Harding are products
of the Charlottesville Police Department. Chief Longo said that when the assessors come to the
community, they are doing more than just evaluating the department – they are looking at it in the context
of the entire community. He then congratulated Sheriff Harding. Chief Longo also thanked Mr. Tucker for
his many years of service to the community and expressed pleasure in working with him over the last ten
years.
Sheriff Harding said that he wanted to give credit to Master Deputy Kevin Sprouse and Sgt. Chan
Giannini – the first female to be promoted to a supervisor position since the establishment of the office.
__________
Item No. 4c. Albemarle Firefighters Association for their fundraising in support of the MDA, Liz
Nixon.
Ms. Nixon thanked Chief Dan Eggleston, Kevin Boyer, Robbie Gilmer and the entire Albemarle
County Fire Department for supporting the Muscular Dystrophy” Fill the Boot” Program again this year.
Albemarle County raised a record breaking $14,910. All of the money will remain locally to benefit the
2,100 Muscular Dystrophy families in Central Virginia who are living with a neuromuscular disease. Now
locally 83% of every dollar raised goes directly towards research, services and education.
Ms. Nixon said that the money will help their local healthcare services, from their support groups
to their four clinics, two of which are in the Charlottesville area, and two are in Richmond, their children‟s
summer camp, and much more. Not only did the Albemarle Fire Department help fill the boot this year,
but they also volunteered at their children‟s summer camp in Wakefield Virginia. She invited anyone
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
would like to come to please visit the camp. She then presented a plaque to Chief Eggleston of the Fire
Department.
Chief Eggleston thanked Ms. Nixon and added that this has been a tremendous partnership that
helps to support a great cause.
__________
Item No. 4d. Proclamation recognizing the 100th Anniversary of the Crozet Volunteer Fire
Company.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Chief Preston Gentry and other
members present of the Crozet Fire Department.
Proclamation
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department 100th Anniversary
Whereas in 1910 the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department was founded by farmers and business owners
in Crozet, who began a tradition of public service to their community, through fundraising,
purchasing equipment, getting training, and fighting fires; and
Whereas over the 100 year history of the Fire Department, hundreds of volunteers have served their
community by dedicating their time with the support of their families and employers; and
Whereas in the early 1910‟s the early fire notification was a siren that was installed on the Apple Cold
Storage building, now Mountainside Senior Living, with a single phone number for the fire
station. Six people had this phone number on a phone in their house and when called it
would activate the siren; and
Whereas during that time Crozet was divided into four quadrants and the siren would tell the members
which quadrant to go to. For structure fires the signal was repeated several times on the
siren. The original water supply was four and six inch lines gravity fed from Mint Springs; and
Whereas the original fire house was built in 1930 on Route 810, a new fire house built next to the old
one in 1965; and the current fire house built on Route 240 in 1985. In 1937 a brand new
1937 Seagrave engine was bought and delivered to the fire station by train car. The 1937
Seagrave is still in working order, pump and all, and still stationed at the Fire Department;
and
Whereas in 1990 Crozet was the first fire station in the County to have Class B foam piped in to the
pump on an engine; in 1992 Crozet was the first fire station in the County to have Class A
foam piped into a brush truck for more effective brush fire fighting; and in 2003 Crozet was
the first fire station in the County to purchase a brand new engine with Compressed Air Foam
System (CAFS).
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors does hereby recognize
and express its appreciation to the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department for their many
accomplishments during their 100 years of service and look forward to their second century
of service.
Chief Gentry said that it is an honor to have served the community for 100 years and they greatly
appreciate the support the County has offered. They look forward to continued community service.
__________
Item No 4e. Virginia Wine Month - October 2010, Lee Catlin.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation and presented to Ms. Lee Catlin:
Proclamation
Virginia Wine Month
Whereas, Virginia has become is a nationwide leader in wine and is now fifth in the nation both for
wine production and number of wineries. Wine consumption has risen for 14 consecutive years in the U.S.,
and the proliferation of wine magazines, websites, blogs, and even a reality television show about wine, attests
to the fact that wine is becoming more a part of mainstream American culture. Even in the middle of a
recession, the sales of Virginia wine in FY2010 increased nearly 13% from FY2009, with the industry
employing approximately 3,000 people and contributing almost $350 million annually to the Virginia economy;
and
Whereas, many of Albemarle‟s vineyards are run by families, promoting the possibility of successful
agricultural enterprises that can be passed on to future generations. Active, viable farm wineries provide
economic benefit not only for the winery owners and employees but also for other Albemarle ru ral area
ventures that are supported by the patronage and purchasing power of the winery visitors and with fine wine
invariably comes good food. This area‟s commitment to producing fine wines has inspired many local farmers
to cultivate heritage and heirloom “boutique” crops. Several of our local restaurants and stores are equally
committed to selling local where possible; and
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Whereas, Albemarle County values its rural areas and the County‟s wineries practice stewardship in
keeping their land active and protected in agricultural uses. Albemarle wineries are among the most scenic in
the state, with mountain and forest vistas, waterside picnic spots, historic sites and a host of other amenities to
accompany that special glass of wine. Albemarle wineries are places of entertainment, culture, enjoyment and
social engagement whose proprietors are very focused on providing a quality experience to all their visitors,
and Albemarle wineries are a vibrant part of that culture, including a starring role in the rece nt PBS
documentary Vintage, the Winemakers Year; and
Whereas, wines from the Commonwealth, including those from Albemarle County, are winning
national and international recognition for their elegant qualities. Virginia‟s terroir – those special characteristics
of the land that affect wine – helps vintners create stylish and distinct wines. Everyone, including visitors, are
benefitting from the resulting, unique culinary experiences; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, does
hereby recognize Albemarle County‟s contribution to the Virginia wine industry‟s success and encourage
County residents to visit a winery or purchase Albemarle County and Virginia wines through local restaurants,
grocers and specialty shops during October 2010, Virginia Wine Month.
Ms. Mallek added that agriculture is the #1 industry in Virginia.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that there is a PBS documentary on Virginia winemaking – which aired on
October 5, 2010 and would air again on October 7, 2010, at 9:30 p.m. She stated that 10 of the 12
wineries in the feature are Albemarle County wineries.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the documentary would also be shown November 6, 2010 at the
Virginia Film Festival.
Ms. Catlin commented that the documentary in November will be a featured film followed by a
wine tasting reception. She added that a copy of the resolution along with a letter of appreciation will be
sent to County wineries as a part of Virginia Wine Month.
__________
Item No. 4a. Farmington Country Club/The First Tee National School Program, Rodney Thomas.
Mr. Thomas said that in June 2006, Farmington Country Club became the first recognized
Chapter Affiliate to the Charlottesville Chapter of The First Tee - a national youth development
organization which teaches character education and life skills through the medium of golf. Farmington
has generously provided use of their facilities for teaching the Life Skills curriculum, golf instruction and
hosting local and regional events. In May 2007, Farmington established The First Tee Invitational Golf
Tournament to provide additional funding of Chapter services to its participants. The tournaments have
been a tremendous success and strongly supported by the regions business community. Proceeds from
the 2009 tournament were used to augment payment and establish The First Tee National School
Program in all 16 Albemarle County elementary schools. The NSP, a NASPE approved curriculum,
introduces and reinforces the Nine Core Values of The First Tee while teaching children a basic golf skill
with age appropriate equipment. County Physical education teachers were trained and began
implementation during the 2009/2010 school year in grades 3-6.
Mr. Thomas said that it is with much appreciation and gratitude that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors recognizes and extends a thank you to the Farmington Country Club‟s Board of Director‟s
and its Club Members (especially Michael Millen and Meg Gilmer, who also serve on the Chapter‟s
Advisory Board) for their support of Chapter services to area youth and assistance in establishing The
First Tee National School Program in Albemarle County Schools. The Board also extends a special thank
you to Wayne Hall – Farmington Assistant General Manager and Rob McNamara – Farmington Head Golf
Professional. for their support of NSP and promoting positive youth development in both the County and
region.
Mr. Phillip Seay, Director of the First Tee Program , thanked the Board for the recognition, noting
that it is rare that private clubs come in and help the Program. He added that the First Tee Program have
199 chapters throughout the United States and six locations abroad. He mentioned that in a given year,
approximately 58-62% of Program participants within the chapter are County residents.
______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Rooker reported that at the last MPO meeting, the new Commonwealth Transportation Board
representative from the Culpeper District – Mr. Jim Rich – came to the meeting. Mr. Rooker said that Mr.
Rich expressed a strong interest in context-sensitive design, and thinks the State can do a much better
job on building projects that fit in the communities and that do not become divisive in the communities
from a physical standpoint. They talked a little bit about the Meadow Creek Parkway design and he was
pleased about it was designed and is being built.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that it would be helpful to send out to constituents a communication that explains
the W ater Plan and why the Albemarle County Service Authority and Board of Supervisors have jointly
supported the Plan, as there is a terrific amount of misinformation that is circulating. He suggested
sending out a bullet-point communication that sets out the reasons the Service Authority and Board have
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
unanimously supported the W ater Supply Plan, and also talks about the misinformation circulating. He
has mentioned this idea to a couple of Service Authority members and they agree that it is a good idea.
Mr. Boyd said that he believes the Board should go on record, similar to the way City Council has,
with what they support. He thinks it is an excellent idea. He said that there is a lot of misinformation out
there – a lot of which is being circulated by people who are opposed to the 50-year plan.
Mr. Snow agreed, adding that he supports a resolution to do so.
Ms. Mallek said she also agrees.
Mr. Rooker noted that all of the information developed by the paid experts indicates that on a per-
gallon basis the cost of acquiring capacity by dredging – as opposed to building additional height on the
dam – is 10 times as expensive per gallon.
Mr. Snow noted that people who are putting out misinformation are doing a better job than the
ones putting out correct information.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff would have only about 10 days to get such a mailer completed in
order to get it into the tax mailing, and it might be better to get it into the Service Authority‟s monthly billing
statement.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would like for it to go out to all County residents, not just
ratepayers. He does not think the information should be any more than a page with bullet points.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Service Authority could consistently include some type of
information in their monthly bills.
Mr. Boyd said that he is aware of several community organizations that support the 50-year Water
Supply Plan and would suggest asking if they are willing to go on record with this Board expressing that
support.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if it might be helpful to have a joint meeting with the Service Authority Board in
the near future.
Board members agreed.
__________
Mr. Snow reported that there is an open house tomorrow, beginning at 6:00 p.m., at the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, as they have added a new conference room and media room.
The rooms are open to the public for rent.
__________
Mr. Thomas said that he and Ms. Mallek participated in a parade honoring the 100 year
celebration for the Crozet Fire Department. He congratulated the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department for all
their hard work and diligence put into fighting fires in the Crozet area for 100 years.
__________
Mr. Thomas said that he and Ms. Mallek met with the Volunteer Chiefs and/or a representative
from each fire and rescue stations on September 21, 2010. They were able to get a lot of suggested
changes to the coordinated fire and rescue ordinance. Mr. Thomas stated that there is another session
scheduled for October 12th, and it is hoped that there would be enough progress made so that the
ordinance can go to the County Attorney for review.
__________
Mr. Thomas said that he has been concerned that there has not been County staff at the City-
County meeting, and asked if the four-person committee should be discussing fire/rescue consolidation.
Mr. Thomas stated that at their last meeting they discussed – without any staff – the subject of
consolidation, and he had already voiced his concern about having no staff in attendance. He would like
to know if it is the wish of the Board for this committee to continue discussions concerning consolidation.
He noted that consolidation has already been studied through the Matrix Consultants study, and he does
not think the two staffs should spend time getting the same information together for the committee to look
at. Mr. Thomas said that his understanding of the committee‟s charge was to look at cooperation through
joint programs with the goal of saving expenses for County and City fire and rescue – not consolidation.
He stated that he is not comfortable taking any further action related to studying consolidation of the two
departments without first conferring with the full Board, and his sense is that the Board is not in favor of
consolidating the two departments. Even if the Board desires to examine this option, it seems to him that
the 2007 City-County merger analysis, prepared by Matrix Consulting and paid for by both the County and
City, is the most reasonable starting point for discussions – rather than asking staff to engage in further
analysis and data gathering.
Ms. Mallek commented that the only suggestion made was to ask VACo and other counties if
there had been similar consolidations in the State – and the answer is no, which she was going to take
back to the group on Friday. There certainly was no stampede from my listening ears as far as there
being an interest in doing something preemptively in their committee. She said that it was just a question
that was raised – is anybody interested?
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Thomas commented that there were more than one question asked. He personally does not
want to give staff direction to gather more information.
Mr. Snow asked if there was any opportunity to save money by combining any part of the system
with the City.
Mr. Thomas responded that it would save one and a half employees, with elimination of two and a
half employees to be able to do the consolidation. He said that he would rather pursue saving money
through joint ventures of the two departments at this point.
Ms. Mallek commented that the true functional unity is what will be of benefit immediately, rather
than any change in ownership or investment.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not really feeling the spirit of collaboration with the City right now, as they
have not been living up to their end of the bargain. The Water Supply Plan and Meadow Creek Parkway
are excellent examples. Even when the Board comes to arrangements with them after bending over
backwards, they do not live up to their end of the bargain. He is not in the mood to trust them in any kind
of discussions about consolidation or ways to save money. It always seems to cost money in the County.
Ms. Mallek suggested continuing to ask the County‟s Fire Chief to work with the City‟s Fire Chief
and the staffs to work together because there are many different activities that already go on that serve
both departments really well and therefore serve the communities really well.
Mr. Rooker also mentioned the joint mutual aid agreement with the City, and the idea of the
meetings was to find as many ways as possible to work together with the City to save money or provide
better services with the same cost. There is significant cooperation with the fire departments now with the
mutual aid agreement. The County pays the City a certain amount of money each year - $600,000+ – to
cover certain areas in the County. The County responds to calls in the City as a backup frequently. He
commented that in the past when evaluating this issue there have been concerns with consolidation
eroding the volunteer aspects of the current system, and the study did not show any potential money
savings.
__________
Mr. Snow asked if it is true that the Best Buy exit ramp was going forward in 2012.
Mr. Rooker responded that with any road project there is some uncertainty, but that project has a
very good chance of being under construction in late 2012. He commented that all of the money is
together now and the City is designing the project, and the design engineering funding for that has already
passed the House. Mr. Rooker noted that there are revenue-sharing funds already set aside as well as
approximately $1.0 million in proffer money from Albemarle Place. It is probably the most important
project in the area to get done, because that is where the most traffic is, and this will significantly alleviate
the stack-up there getting on the Route 250 Bypass.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that in the VML Journal distributed in the Board packets, there was a discussion
of the economic benefit to the town of Galax because of the arts school built there. She stated that at
PVCC, beginning in January, would be the only artisans studio school in the state – featuring crafters that
will be able to study and improve their craft skills as well as those who are teaching classes. In Albemarle,
there are hundreds of world-famous people who make their livings out in the country quietly at their art.
Mr. Rooker asked if the program is intended to be permanent or short-termed.
Ms. Mallek replied that it is intended to be self-supporting, to be run as part of the Workforce
Center during the day.
______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, commented that he lives in the home of the
former Monticello Wine Company winemaker.
Mr. Werner said that he wanted to address the community W ater Supply Plan, which was adopted
by both the City and County in 2006 and was subsequently permitted by regulatory agencies that praised
the public process leading to the plan. He said that in 2005 when the option for the W ater Supply Plan
appeared to be a pipeline to the James River, PEC pulled together a number of organizations and
individuals to find a solution in the local watershed to meet the projected demand. Mr. Werner stated that
the group included a number of people who are now opposing the plan, adding that he shares the
frustration Board members are feeling regarding this lack of support. He reiterated that PEC remains
supportive of the current plan. He said that he agrees with Mr. Boyd that some action needs to be taken,
as there is a lot of misinformation circulating in the community.
As a resident of the City, Mr. Werner proposed a “Dredge Fresh, Dredge Local” proposition
suggesting that each of the 53,000 households in the City and County take responsibility for 80 cubic
yards of “spoils” to address the 4.2 million cubic yards of material in the reservoir. It could then be
removed over the next 50 years.
__________
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that the Forum stands firmly behind the
Community Water Supply Plan. They are also big believers in Virginia wines. He said that a recent round
of “Tweets” speculated on how long it took Albemarle to get a new movie theatre approved compared to
one approved in Waynesboro the day before. Mr. Williamson said he called Waynesboro Planning
Director, Michael Barnes, who told him the process took four to five weeks. In investigating Albemarle‟s
change in use Mr. Williamson said he found out it took about five weeks here as well. He has been
hearing from applicants and people bringing requests forward that County staff is embracing the “open for
business” idea. He said that he thinks the community is well-served as these things move forward and
receive prompt but careful consideration. Mr. Williamson said that since he complains so frequently, he
thought it was time he came forward with a compliment.
______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Snow, to approve Items 7.1 (as read) through Item 7.9, and to accept the remaining items as information.
(Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: June 9(A), June 9(N), and July 7, 2010.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of June 9(A), 2010, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of June 9(N), 2010, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of July 7, 2010, pages 22 (begin Item #13) – end,
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd asked that his portion of the minutes of July 7, 2010, be pulled and moved to the next
meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________
Item No. 7.2. FY 2010 ACE Appraisals and Easement Acquisitions.
The executive summary states that on April 7, 2010, the Board approved the Acquisition of
Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee‟s request to have the top three ranked properties from the
Round 10 applicant pool (FY 10) appraised: the Lively, Pugh/Stanerson, and Barksdale properties (see
Attachment A). Based on estimated easement values for these properties prior to the official appraisals,
the ACE Committee believed that the ACE Program fund balance would be enough to purchase most or
all of the easements. Even if it were not, the Committee believed it would be prudent to obtain appraisals
on extra properties in the event that any applications were withdrawn.
The Board of Supervisors determines which easements are to be purchased in the ACE Program.
County Code § A.1-111(A) provides in part: "From the list of applications received under section A.1-
110(D), the board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation
easements to be purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement
purchases in the current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the pool
established under section A.1-111(B)." Because it is possible that not every invited applicant will submit
an actual offer to sell, if one or more applicants were to drop out of the pool, other applicants would
be substituted until the eligible applicants or available funding were exhausted.
All three appraisals were completed in early August and submitted to the Appraisal Review
Committee (ARC) (Attachment B). On August 13, the ARC met and officially approved each of the
appraisals.
With $538,918 of remaining funds from FY 10 (after recent budget reductions), $350,000 from the
FY 2010-11 appropriation, and $143,832 from two grants from the Office of Farmland Preservation, the
ACE Program has a total of $1,032,750 for easement acquisitions. With a projected net cost of
$1,029,000, the ACE Program has just enough funding to acquire these three, highest ranked properties
from the FY 10 applicant pool (see Attachment C).
The ACE Committee therefore recommends the purchase of all three easements, over the Lively,
Pugh/Stanerson, and Barksdale properties. Acquisition of these easements would eliminate 36
development rights and all three properties have significant tourism value. The acquisition of all three
appraised properties would also result in the following resource protection:
Protection of 546 acres of farm and forestland
3,386 feet of state road frontage
8,129 feet of riparian buffer, including 4,100 feet on the Rivanna River
40 acres of mountain top protection
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
7,236 feet of common boundary with other protected lands, including 1,076 feet on
Walnut Creek Park
255 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements comes from the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the three (3) appraisals by Pape and Company for applications from the year FY 10
applicant pool (see Attachment B);
2) Approve the purchase of ACE easements on the top three ranked properties from the year FY 10
applicant pool, (Lively, Pugh/Stanerson, and Barksdale properties); and
3) Authorize staff to invite these three applicants to make written offers to sell conservation
easements to the County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the (3) appraisals by Pape and Company
for applications from the year FY 10 applicant pool; approved the purchase of ACE easements on
the top three ranked properties from the year FY 10 applicant pool, (Lively, Pugh/Stanerson, and
Barksdale properties); and authorized staff to invite these three applicants to make written offers
to sell conservation easements to the County.
__________
Item No. 7.3. FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
The executive summary states that 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 $1,483,264.84. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of four (4) FY 2010 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010100) totaling $11,860.92 relating to the CCF JABG grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2010101) totaling $7,8000.00 for the Carl Perkins Grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2010102) totaling $40,571.25 for General Fund over-
expenditures; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010103) totaling $ 1,423,032.67 for School CIP Fund Balance;
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $ 1,483,264.84 and the
approval of Appropriations #2010100, #2010101, #2010102, and #2010103.
*****
Appropriation #2010100 $11,860.92
Revenue Source: Fund Balance $ 11,860.92
In FY 08/09, $10,024.92 was received for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) grant and was
inadvertently deposited into an incorrect grant fund. This will move the $10,024.92 out of the Great
Grant 2006 fund and into the JABG grant fund.
On August 5, 2009, the JABG grant was appropriated and included a transfer in from the Commission
on Children and Families (CCF) fund totaling $1,836.00. This corresponding transfer from the CCF fund
was not appropriated at that time. This will also appropriate the $1,836.00.
Appropriation #2010101 $7,800.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 7,800.00
The Carl Perkins Grant provides funding for career and technical education. The mission of the grant is
to develop challenging academic and technical education courses in support of the School Division‟s
strategic plan. Funding for this grant has increased and expenditures have exceeded current
appropriations for FY 09/10. This item requests appropriation of additional funds to cover this increase
and to balance this fund.
Appropriation #2010102 $40,571.25
Revenue Source: Fund Balance $ 40,571.25
Additional appropriations are requested to cover required County obligations in FY 09/10 that exceeded
initial budgeted amounts. This request will appropriate $40,571.25 from the General Fund Balance as
follows:
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Circuit Court (juries/employee benefits) $ 16,500.00
Forest Fire Extinguishment $ 1,130.10
Fire Rescue Tax Credit $ 8,770.01
Juvenile Detention Center $ 13,839.64
SPCA Sterilization Program $ 331.50
Appropriation #2010103 $1,423,032.67
Revenue Source: CIP Gen. Govt. Fund Bal $1,423,032.67
This appropriation temporarily transfers funds from the Local Government CIP fund balance to the
School‟s CIP Fund balance to maintain positive balances in the funds pending receipt of Virginia Public
School Authority (VPSA) loan proceeds in late October. During fiscal years 2010 and 2011, staff has
made a conscientious effort to delay borrowing as much as possible and utilize accumulated cash
balances in the Capital Fund to avoid interest cost. In this particular case, the County deferred $5.7
million in borrowing for a year, thus saving over $350,000 in interest costs. Ultimately, of course, the
County will need to proceed with the borrowing to restore the cash balances used to bridge this financing.
Upon receipt of the VPSA proceeds, a second action will be requested to transfer the equivalent amount
back to the Local Government CIP to restore the original fund balance.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$1,483,264.84 and approved Appropriations #2010100, #2010101, #2010102, and #2010103.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010100
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Appropriate budget for miscellaneous transfers
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1578 51000 512000 Transfer from Other Funds J 2 10,024.92
2 1578 33000 330001 Grant Revenue - Federal J 2 (10,024.92)
2 1518 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance J 2 10,024.92
1 1518 93010 939999 Transfer to Other Funds J 1 10,024.92
1518 0501 Est. Revenue 10,024.92
0701 Appropriation 10,024.92
2 4400 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance J 2 1,836.00
1 4400 93010 930200 Transfer-Grant Projects J 1 1,836.00
4400 0501 Est. Revenue 1,836.00
0701 Appropriation 1,836.00
TOTAL 23,721.84 11,860.92 11,860.92
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2010101
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: August 26, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins Grant J 2 7,800.00
1 3207 61190 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 7,800.00
3207 0501 Est. Revenue 7,800.00
0701 Appropriation 7,800.00
TOTAL 15,600.00 7,800.00 7,800.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010102
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: FY10 General Fund Overexpenditures
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Approp Fund Balance J 2 40,571.25
1 1000 12030 223000 Early Retirement J 1 140,000.00
1 1000 95000 223000 Early Retirement J 1 (140,000.00)
1 1000 21010 331100 Circuit Court - R&M Equip -
Office
J 1 7,705.00
1 1000 21010 580900 Circuit Court - Jurors &
Witnesses
J 1 8,795.00
1 1000 32040 560500 Forest Fire Extinguishment J 1 1,130.10
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
1 1000 34050 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 30,000.00
1 1000 41110 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 (30,000.00)
1 1000 39000 561405 Fire/Rescue Tax Credit J 1 8,770.01
1 1000 39000 563400 Juvenile Detention J 1 13,839.64
1 1000 39000 565510 SPCA Sterilization J 1 331.50
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 40,571.25
0701 Appropriation 40,571.25
TOTAL 81,142.50 40,571.25 40,571.25
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2010103
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Temporary FY10 CIP School Fund Transfer from General Government CIP Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation F/B J 2 1,423,032.67
1 9010 93010 930004 Trs. To School CIP J 1 1,423,032.67
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 1,423,032.67
0701 Appropriation 1,423,032.67
2 9000 51000 512090 Trs. To from G/F CIP J 2 1,423,032.67
1 9000 62420 800949 Building Serv: Facility Maint J 1 1,423,032.67
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,423,032.67
0701 Appropriation 1,423,032.67
TOTAL 5,692,130.68 2,846,065.34 2,846,065.34
__________
Item No. 7.4. FY 2011/12 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar.
The executive summary states that the process of developing the County‟s Operating Budget for
FY 11/12 and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY12-16 is underway. The proposed calendar
is provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the budget and
CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned community meetings, public
hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and CIP.
There are several dates in the budget presentation and approval process that are driven by state
code requirements and are reflected in the attached calendars. The first is the requirement that the tax
rate be adopted by April 15th for localities with a first-half tax year collection in June. In addition, the
Virginia Code requires that there be at least seven days between the public advertisement of the budget
public hearings and the actual hearing dates, and at least seven days between the public hearing and the
adoption of the budget. During the 2007 session of the General Assembly, legislation was enacted that
requires localities to provide at least 30 days notice of the tax rate public hearing if the reassessment
would result in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the
prior year‟s tax levies. In addition to these state requirements, the School Board has requested that the
second public hearing be scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 11/12 budget process that
conforms to the Virginia Code requirements and meets the School Board‟s request. This calendar
includes additional work sessions with the School Board as directed by the Board at its June Strategic
Planning Retreat.
This calendar can be used if real estate tax levies resulting from the reassessment are less than
101% of the prior year‟s tax levies, as current projections indicate. If real estate tax levies resulting from
the reassessment equal or exceed 101% of the prior year‟s tax levies, staff will have to make adjustments
to the calendar.
Because it is unlikely that the 2011 reassessment will require the 30 day notice for the tax rate
public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar set forth in
Attachment A.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following preliminary budget calendar:
FY 11/12 BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2010
6 CIP project requests due to OMB
11 BOS Budget Work Session
17 Joint BOS/School Board Retreat – Increase understanding of School Budget in context of
County Budget
September 2010
13 Operating budget manual and instructions available for County departments
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
October 2010
6 Joint Compensation meeting with BOS and School Board
12 BOS Work Session – Local government departments‟ base budgets and future needs
13 BOS/School Board Joint Work Session – School baseline review and future needs
15 Complete budget request packet due to OMB
November 2010
3 CIP project information to Oversight Committee
3 BOS Work Session – five-year financial plan
9 CIP Oversight Committee meeting #1
10 BOS Work Session – five-year financial plan
12 Community agency submittals due to OMB
16 CIP Oversight Committee meeting #2
23 CIP Oversight Committee meeting #3 (if needed)
December 2010
1 BOS Work Session – five-year financial plan
8 Final BOS Work Session – five-year financial plan
8 Joint CIP meeting with BOS and School Board
February 2011
25 County Executive‟s Recommended Budget document distributed
March 2011
2 6:00 p.m. - Public Hearing on County Executive‟s Recommended Budget
7 9:00 a.m. - BOS Work Session
9 1:00 p.m. - BOS Work Session – School Division
14 9:00 a.m. - BOS Work Session – CIP
16 9:00 a.m. - BOS Work Session (if needed)
20 Advertize Tax Rate - Daily Progress
30 6:00 p.m. - Public Hearing on Board‟s Proposed Budget
30 6:00 p.m. - Public Hearing on the 2011 calendar year tax rate
April 2011
6 BOS sets the 2011 calendar year tax rate
6 BOS adopts FY 11/12 budget
__________
Item No. 7.5. Rivanna River Basin Commission Memorandum of Understanding regarding grant
for Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project.
The executive summary states that in 2009, The Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC)
received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) for a program entitled: Pulling
Together: A Watershed Approach for the Rivanna. The County, as a member of the RRBC, provided
technical assistance for the preparation and filing of the grant application as well as a letter of support
(Attachment A) for the project.
The RRBC is allocating a portion of its grant proceeds to member localities to support NFWF
projects; including a $107,000 allocation to Albemarle County.
It is proposed that the $107,000 grant allocation being provided by RRBC to the County be utilized
to facilitate the design and construction of the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. A
memorandum of understanding (MOU) associated with the grant has been prepared (Attachment B) that
summarizes the responsibilities of both parties. As described in the MOU, the County will assume
responsibility for all aspects of design, construction and maintenance of this project, assist the RRBC with
the development of project signage and public relations initiatives and provide documentation to the
RRBC for the purposes of fulfilling NFWF grant administration requirements.
A request is being presented to the Board on October 6, 2010 to appropriate the $107,000 of
grant funds from the RRBC to the Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. The County‟s responsibilities
outlined in the MOU will not result in any expenditure of County funds beyond what is being provided
by RRBC; however, in order to receive this funding, the County is required to report to RRBC
information pertaining to its in-kind efforts as stipulated by the NFWF.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the Memorandum of
Understanding (Attachment B).
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd commented that the Memorandum of Understanding says there is “no
cost to the County,” but 60% of expenses are in personnel and it seems that this will be a lot of work for
somebody to manage the project, and that is not considered as part of the cost. Mr. Boyd emphasized
that the biggest expense in projects is time and people, and it should be included as a budget expense.)
Mr. Boyd said the same thing applies to Items 7.6 through 7.8. He added that one example is the
Homeland Security Preparedness – as the County undertakes the cost for the County, City and University
in that effort, and there is some expenses related to time involved.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Tucker noted that there are usually administrative costs built into projects with the University
or the City when the County is the fiscal agent, but sometimes with grants administrative costs are not
always taken out.
Mr. Rooker said that the time to consider those things is on the front end, before applying for a
grant. He stated that one of these grants is $400,000 and does not seem to have much in the way of
oversight requirements – other than reporting on the backend how the funds are used.
Mr. Boyd said he is not opposed to them, but there are personnel costs.
Mr. Tom Hanson, Emergency Communications Center Director, said, in terms of the grants
related to ECC, one of the things they do is assess two percent of their budget back for administrative
fees which they pay to the County.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to sign the
following Memorandum of Understanding:
Memorandum of Understanding
between
Albemarle County and the Rivanna River Basin Commission
for a
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant
Pulling Together: A Watershed Approach for the Rivanna
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made this 15th of October, 2010, by and between the
Rivanna River Basin Commission (“RRBC”) and the County of Albemarle (“the County”).
WHEREAS, the Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC) has received a grant – “Pulling Together: A
Watershed Approach for the Rivanna” – from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) in the
amount of $725,000 in Federal Funds; and
WHEREAS, the County is one of four participating RRBC member localities partnering in this grant; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2009, the County signed a letter of support for the grant and indicated its
intention to complete the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project (hereafter, the “Project”), a
stormwater capital project including a forebay, engineered wetlands, and channel improvements to be
located on Parcel ID 56-11 in Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the RRBC has agreed to reimburse the County up to $107,000 of the County‟s expenses
incurred in association with the Project, provided certain terms specified herein are met.
NOW, WHEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. County Responsibilities. The County agrees to:
a. Submit an itemized invoice to RRBC requesting reimbursement of $107,000 towards the
design of the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. This invoice will include
appropriate material supporting the invoice and a letter from the County‟s project
manager certifying that the Project design has been completed and all necessary permits
have been secured for construction. The invoice seeking reimbursement will be sent
directly to the Rivanna River Basin Commission at 706 Forest Street, Suite G,
Charlottesville, VA 22903.
b. Upon completion of the construction of the Project, submit a letter from the County‟s
project manager certifying that the Project was constructed according to the design
specifications and its performance is consistent with the design intent.
c. Provide documentation of overall Project costs and in-kind efforts suitable for use by
RRBC in documenting non-Federal match for the NFWF grant.
d. Provide technical specifications of the Project, as installed, and photo-documentation of
the installation and operation of the Project under wet-weather conditions.
e. Coordinate RRBC access to the site for periodic monitoring for at least the duration of the
grant performance period.
f. Consult with RRBC on the educational signage content and installation at the site.
g. Coordinate with RRBC press coverage regarding the Project and provide RRBC with
notice of and digital and paper copies, web-links, and email announcements of all press
coverage of the Project.
h. Provide Project status information to RRBC for use in interim and annual reports due from
the RRBC to NWFW on reporting dates following the date of this document.
i. Acknowledge in print, signage, web materials and press, dedication events, and reports
the RRBC partnership and the Federal grant monies from NFWF and its sponsors
(Environmental Protection Agency and Chesapeake Bay Program).
j. Operate and maintain the Project.
k. Work with RRBC and its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on identifying barriers to
accelerating innovative stormwater management practices on private County lands by co-
hosting workshops, seminars, and roundtables for County staff and community
stakeholders.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
l. Work with RRBC and its TAC on identifying incentives for developers to utilize innovative
stormwater management practices by co-hosting workshops, seminars, and roundtables
for County staff and community stakeholders.
2. RRBC Responsibilities. The RRBC agrees to:
a. Provide Project management and overall coordination with County staff of NFWF grant
Project activities.
b. Upon receipt of the itemized invoice referenced above and upon RRBC receipt of funding
from NFWF for this grant component, provide reimbursement to the County for up to
$107,000 in costs associated with the Project.
c. Request permission of the County for all access by RRBC and its guests, contractors,
and partners to the site for any purpose, including monitoring, Project documentation, and
tours.
d. Provide durable educational signage regarding the NFWF stormwater management
Project at the site in accordance with NFWF grant requirements and those of any other
grantors to the County wetland Project and with input from the County.
e. Provide support to County staff in identifying barriers to and opportunities for incentives
that will accelerate the implementation of innovative stormwater BMPs on private lands by
co-hosting workshops, seminars, and roundtables for County staff and community
stakeholders.
3. Term. This MOU shall run concurrently with the RRBC‟s NFWF grant, from January 1, 2009
through August 31, 2011.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RRBC and the County of Albemarle have executed this MOU effective as of the
date of the final signature below.
For the County of Albemarle:
(Signed) Robert W. Tucker, Jr. October 13, 2010
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Date
For Rivanna River Basin Commission:
(Signed) Leslie B. Middleton October 15, 2010
Leslie B. Middleton, Executive Director Date
__________
Item No. 7.6. 2008 State Homeland Security Grant; Citizen Preparedness (CFDA # 97.073)
Resolution.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)
has awarded a $9,800.00 reimbursable grant through the National Preparedness Directorate, US
Department of Homeland Security, 2008 State Homeland Security Grant (CFDA # 97.073) Program to the
Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Management Office (EMO) of the ECC. The purpose
of the grant is to purchase emergency equipment and training for the Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT).
The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management is the grant
administrator for this State Homeland Security 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, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive
Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents required for implementation of this program in order for the
Emergency Management Office of the ECC to administer the grant.
The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for this State Homeland Security Grant.
Funding being made available by VDEM is 100 percent reimbursable with no additional funding
required by the County.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2009 State Homeland Security Grant.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2009 State Homeland Security
Grant:
Governing Body Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors______________
(Governing Body)
OF THE ______________________County of Albemarle, Virginia________________ THAT
(Name of Applicant)
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator, ________________ OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
the ECC Executive Director, ________________ OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
_______________the County Executive_____________________________________ ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
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. 7.7. 2009 State Homeland Security Grant; Citizen Preparedness (CFDA # 97.073)
Resolution.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)
has awarded a $6,500.00 reimbursable grant through the National Preparedness Directorate, US
Department of Homeland Security, 2009 State Homeland Security Grant (CFDA # 97.073) Program to the
Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Management Office (EMO) of the ECC. The purpose
of the grant is to purchase emergency equipment and training for the Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT).
The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management is the grant
administrator for this State Homeland Security 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, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive
Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents required for implementation of this program in order for the
Emergency Management Office of the ECC to administer the grant.
The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for this State Homeland Security Grant.
Funding being made available by VDEM is 100 percent reimbursable with no additional funding
required by the County.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2009 State Homeland Security Grant.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2009 State Homeland Security
Grant:
Governing Body Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors______________
(Governing Body)
OF THE ______________________County of Albemarle, Virginia________________ THAT
(Name of Applicant)
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator, ________________ OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
the ECC Executive Director, ________________ OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
_______________the County Executive_____________________________________ ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
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 f or 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. 7.8. 2009 State Homeland Security Grant; Regional Emergency Operations Center Plan
Project (CFDA # 97.073) Resolution.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)
has awarded a $400,000.00 reimbursable grant through the National Preparedness Directorate, US
Department of Homeland Security, 2009 State Homeland Security Grant (CFDA # 97.073) Program to the
regional Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Management Office (EMO) of the ECC. Local
partners are revising the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to
incorporate the Emergency Support Functions structure and to align the EMO‟s local EOP with the
Commonwealth EOP and National Response Framework. Extensive training will be provided to all
regional partners to effectively implement the changes to the regional EOP.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management is the grant
administrator for this State Homeland Security 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, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive
Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents required for implementation of this program in order for the
Emergency Management Office of the ECC to administer the grant.
The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for this State Homeland Security Grant.
Funding being made available by VDEM is 100 percent reimbursable with no additional funding
required by the County.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of this 2009 State Homeland Security Grant.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the EOC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of this 2009 State Homeland Security
Grant:
Governing Body Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors______________
(Governing Body)
OF THE ______________________County of Albemarle, Virginia________________ THAT
(Name of Applicant)
the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator, ________________ OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
the ECC Executive Director, ________________ OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
_______________the County Executive_____________________________________ ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
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. 7.9. Resolution requesting roads in Retriever Run Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of
October 2010, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Retriever Run Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated October 6, 2010, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Retriever Run Subdivision, as described on
the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated October 6, 2010, to the secondary system of state highways,
pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Labrador Lane (State Route 1762) from Route 1761 (Retriever Run) east to the end of the
cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 2654, page 466, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.17
miles.
2) Retriever Run (State Route 1761) from Route 637 (Dick Woods Road) south to Route 1762
(Labrador Lane), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2654, page 466, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.09 miles.
3) Retriever Run (State Route 1761) from Route 1763 (Chesapeake Bay Place) east to the
end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2654, page 466, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.41 miles.
4) Retriever Run (State Route 1761) from Route 1762 (Labrador Lane) south to Route 1763
(Chesapeake Bay Place), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2654, page 466, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.17 miles.
5) Chesapeake Bay Place (State Route 1763) from Route 1761 (Retriever Run) west to the
end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 2654, page 466, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.08 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.92
__________
Item No. 7.10. Resource Management Review Update, 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 actions in evaluating and implementing the
recommendations of CEPI‟s assessment. This is an update to the information presented in May for the
Board‟s information.
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:
51 recommendations have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing
County processes or practices
19 recommendations are in the process of being implemented.
5 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.
10 recommendations will require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered
for implementation. Staff will proceed with these evaluations as soon as possible
recognizing that existing staffing levels in some departments and the scope of
organizational change required by certain recommendations will determine their timing for
implementation.
A list of the recommendations included in each category is set forth in Attachment A. Staff will
continue to provide quarterly updates to the Board on the status and results of the Resource Management
Review‟s recommendations.
There is no budget impact in analyzing the report‟s recommendations at this time.
Recommendations that will require additional resources to analyze or implement beyond the
reallocation of existing resources will be presented to the Board for its consideration and action.
This update is presented for the Board‟s information.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said that he has a lot of questions about the status of some of these
items. He is particularly concerned that a lot of the things mentioned that staff is working on do not have a
timetable. He also thinks that a lot of the information needs to be updated. He asked that the next time
this come back on the agenda, it be on the regular agenda so that the Board and staff can work through
them.
Ms. Mallek said that she would appreciate when something is changed that it be in italic or some
other defining way to determine where the changes are.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Tucker asked that Board members forward any comments to staff.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are a number of items that need to be updated. Some things
are listed as needing to be done and have already been done. He thinks that someone needs to go
through each category to insure they are in the correct category and the comments are time relevant.
Mr. Boyd provided an example of one item that had not been updated: “reconsider the frozen
Auditor‟s position in the Finance Department,” with the follow-up text stating, “this position is in the
process of being filled as part of the County‟s current staffing relocation efforts.” He noted that since this
has been done, it should be removed from the list.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, pointed out that this is the second quarter report, so
it reflects activity through June 30th. He added that the Auditor position was not filled until July 1st – so
there is a timing issue with the reports.
Mr. Snow said that any item that has been completed for over a year needs to be removed from
the list. Items that were completed within the last three months should show they are complete with the
date of completion.)
__________
Item No. 7.11. Library Analysis Scope of Work, was received for information.
The executive summary states that on June 30, 2010 the Board conducted a strategic planning
session which resulted in the development of a succinct two-year action plan that focuses staff and Board
efforts on the County‟s most immediate and critical needs. On August 4, 2010 the Board formally
approved this action plan and associated five (5) goals including the following related to library services:
Goal 4: By June 30, 2012, The County will explore options and identify the most desirable
library system structure for the future.
This report provides the Board with the scope of work to be used by staff to conduct the analysis
of library services as well as a proposed timeline for presentation of the findings of this analysis to the
Board.
The desired outcome for the work associated with the analysis of library services is to provide the
Board with detailed information on the current Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) agreement as
well as identify and evaluate alternative service delivery model(s) in order to allow the Board to determine
the most desirable library system structure for the County in the future. To complete this analysis, staff
intends to conduct research and prepare information for the Board to include:
Background information on the current JMRL agreement, contractual obligations of the
County and level of service afforded by JMRL to County citizens.
A review of federal, state and local mandates/requirements regarding library service
specifically related to the receipt of state financial assistance
Comparison of the current JMRL contract and operating model with models employed by
peer communities
An overview of potential CIP and operating budget impacts of library projects
Options for Board consideration
Staff intends to present its findings to the Board at a work session in early January 2011.
The County‟s adopted FY2010-11 Operating Budget includes an appropriation totaling $3,173,138
for JMRL. It is anticipated that the FY2012 funding request for JMRL will be evaluated consistent with the
terms and conditions of the existing operating agreement and/or availability of County funds. It is
expected that the results of this analysis will be utilized by the Board to consider future funding requests.
This report is for information only. Staff will schedule a work session for the Board to consider the
findings of this analysis in January 2011.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek commented that she believes this is way too late in the budget process.
She reiterated her request to have a meeting with the Library Board to gather information about their
operations, etc.
Mr. Rooker said that his understanding was that staff would provide information before the
meeting in the fall, and it should occur soon if the item will be included or have an impact on the budget.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think a meeting with the Library Board is going to be too worthwhile
without having the necessary data.
Mr. Dorrier asked about reaching out to Fluvanna County and Buckingham County for financial
contributions. Mr. Tucker responded that that would be more of a regional issue and he thinks that should
come from the Library Board.
Mr. Snow noted that currently the County is spending $3.5 million to $4.5 million for the regional
library system. He thinks that for that type of investment the County could likely take care of the libraries
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
in the County. He wants access to that information as soon as possible so if the Board decides it wants to
go in another direction, the proper notifications can be done.
Mr. Tucker responded that the way the agreement is written, the County could not pull out any
earlier than 2012 anyway. This scope of work that the Board has asked for is more in-depth than originally
thought and taking more time.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be helpful prior to that date to be well-educated in what the options
are and how much the County is spending per capita on library services compared to other localities.
Mr. Davis explained that the regional agreement requires that any locality that wishes to withdraw
from a regional agreement must provide two years notice of the intent to withdraw. Under the library
agreement when a locality gives notice of its intent to withdraw it provides that a committee is formed to
determine how the resources of the regional library system are allocated to the jurisdiction that is leaving –
because there are joint resources involved. Before the Board can give that notice of its intent, you really
need to have a lot of background information and understanding of the consequences to the regional
library system and to library services in the County. It is not a decision that can be made quickly. He said
that staff is recommending taking time to get the needed information, then meet with the regional library
system, and then enable the Board to make an informed decision about whether to break from the
regional system. There may be good reasons not to do that as well as financial reasons which may be an
incentive for the County to do it. The staff does not have enough information at this time to make that
decision.
Mr. Dorrier said that it is also important to find out how much is allocated to the County from the
State for being part of the regional system. Mr. Tucker responded that that information is part of the
scope of work.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with meeting with the Library Board and talking about
their budget, but he does not want a report from them about the reason the County needs to stay in the
regional system. He would prefer that the County did its own independent study.
Mr. Dorrier said he sees no reason why the Board could not meet with the Library Board to
develop a plan of action. It seems that the County has ignored the Library Board‟s request to meet with
them. Mr. Tucker responded that staff has not ignored that request. Staff has just become available to do
the work.
Mr. Rooker said that there still is some urgency to get information as soon as reasonably possible,
and then meet with the Library Board – as the two years notice period is required to pull out of the system.
Mr. Boyd commented that there are some significant CIP improvements required for the libraries,
and it seems that County residents are being underserved because the County is dumping money into
City facilities. It also concerns him that the Library Board was threatening to close one of County library
offices.
Mr. Rooker replied that the County allocates a certain amount of money to the Library, and they
take their capital out of that allocation. They have their own CIP projects and fund those with the money
they receive.
Mr. Davis pointed out that there is a funding formula that requires the County to contribute a
specific amount towards the Downtown Library project, in addition to operating expenses.
Mr. Rooker said that the County would have to decide whether it wanted to do that project.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, commented that even if the Board made a decision
today on the agreement, it would not affect the County until the third budget year out. He added that they
are still in a window that works, as staff is going to work this into the five-year financial plan over the next
six months. In terms of the CIP, this is an amendment year, so the Board has an opportunity to make
changes to projects.
Ms. Mallek said that she wants to make sure that the library is supported in the upcoming budget
and not have a replay of last year‟s debate as it is one of the most needed core services.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he would like to study the possibility of the County staying in the regional
system, but having more influence over their budget.
Mr. Snow mentioned that last year when the Library Board found out the Board had suggested
reducing their budget by five to ten percent, they immediately called a press conference and said they
were going to close one or two of our County libraries. He did not see any desire to talk about what could
be done to make it fair and equitable to everyone.
Ms. Mallek noted that it was clearly explained that their funding formula dictated this would
happen, as they were the only branches they could control.
Mr. Dorrier said he believes there was a communication breakdown and that is the reason for the
need for a joint meeting with the Library Board. )
__________
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Item No. 7.12. FY10 End-of-year Preliminary Financial Report, was received for information.
The executive summary states that the attached Financial Report provides information on the
County‟s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2010. The financial report includes a
bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous
fiscal year.
It is important to remember that these are preliminary numbers. The County‟s outside auditor will
be reviewing County financial activity for FY 10 during October and November. Final figures will be
available in December in the County‟s Annual Financial Report.
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Preliminary Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are
estimated to be $4.932 million (2.3%) less than appropriations of $217.145 million, a
$0.836 million increase over the previous estimate presented with the Third Quarter
Financial Report. Revenues combined with the use of $2.477 million in transfers from
other funds and $1.512 million in fund balance (Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund
Balance) total $216.200 million, $5.120 million (2.3%) less than Budget.
Recent economic data has reduced fears about a double-dip recession. Wholesale
sales, business fixed investment, narrowing trade deficits, the credit environment, and
other indicators are all slowly moving in positive directions. Retail sales remain weak and
continue to suggest sluggish consumer sales in the near term. The underlying trend is
still positive but consumers continue to think through buying decisions. The real estate
market has not recovered and continues to face on-going challenges. Until the labor
market and job situation recuperates, the economy will continue its seesaw movement
with little chance of significant improvement.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY10 fiscal year:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $1.436 million (1.3%) less than
Budget, a decrease of $1.213 million from the previous Financial Report. The
decrease is due to reduced new construction estimates as well as setting aside
$0.925 million of revalidation rollback for fund balance building. Revalidation
revenues attributed to prior year roll-backs are set aside for one-time uses and
not classified as general fund revenues.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to be $2.127 million (10.1%) less
than Budget, a decrease of $0.405 million from the previous Financial Report.
The decrease is due to continued market deterioration since the end of the Cash
for Clunkers program.
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.929
million (42.7%), an increase of $0.374 million since the previous Financial Report.
Additional compliance enforcement through the DMV Stop and Department of
TAX Set off Debt programs has generated additional revenues. Delinquent fees
previously implemented have also encouraged payment of delinquent taxes to
avoid additional fees.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.877 million (7.0%) less than Budget,
an increase of $0.446 million since the previous Financial Report. Taxpayers
continue to be cautious with their discretional spending. Since April, $0.385
million has been identified by the new auditor and approved by the state to be
transferred to Albemarle from other localities over a six month period with an
additional estimated $0.171 million in process. Annual receipts should increase
approximately $0.229 million based on the approved adjustments. Additional
misallocated revenues have been identified since June 30th. Significant revenues
continue to be lost to internet sales and sales to developing adjacent localities.
Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to be $0.557 million (5.5%)
less than Budget, an increase of $0.335 million since the previous Financial
Report. BPOL revenues are dependent upon economic activity. Sales tax
revenue trends are a good indicator of BPOL revenues.
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.430 million (4.6%) less than Budget,
an increase of $0.316 million since the previous Financial Report. Utility tax
revenues are dependent upon a combination of weather and economic activity.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.360 million (6.3%) less
than Budget, an increase of $0.090 million since the previous Financial Report.
Consumers are continuing to eat more at home and visiting restaurants less
frequently while minimizing discretionary spending.
Other Local Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.515 million (5.0%) less than
Budget, an increase of $0.320 million since the previous Financial Report. The
improvement is due to Public Service, transient occupancy, and recordation
taxes.
Other Local Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.567 million (12.7%),
an increase of $0.286 million since the previous Financial Report. The increase
is primarily due to increased permits and fees as well as charges for services.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
State Revenues are estimated to be $0.316 million (1.3%) less than Budget, an
increase of $0.113 million since the previous Financial Report. The increase is
due to an increased allocation of state recordation taxes.
Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.200 million from Budget have
not been analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are expected to total $210.890 million, a
4.7% savings of $10.431 million from Budget. The savings include frozen positions,
operational savings, and reduced transfers including schools and capital.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $77.456 million, a 6.5% savings
of $5.421 million from Budget:
A significant portion of departmental expenditure savings is attributable to
savings in salaries and benefits from the County‟s expanded hiring freeze
and salary lapse, totaling $1.007 million.
The savings include operational savings across all functional areas for
expenditures related to fuel, utilities, telecommunications, travel and
training and other areas.
The savings are allocated by functional area as follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to be $10.263 million, a
savings of $0.664 million.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.647 million, a savings of
$0.206 million.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.598 million, a
savings of $1.197 million
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.242 million, a savings
of $0.792 million.
Human Services expenditures are expected to be $17.561 million, a
savings of $1.523 million.
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.188 million, a
savings of $0.221 million.
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.925
million, a savings of $0.818 million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment,
reserves, and refunds are expected to total $18.112 million, a savings of $0.474
million.
iii. Transfers are expected to total $115.322 million, a 3.8% savings of $4.563 million
from Budget:
Transfer to the School Division is expected to be $97.042 million, a
savings of $3.108 million.
Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are $18.280 million, a savings of
$1.428 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report indicates that the fiscal year will end with $5.310 million of revenues in excess
of expenditures. Revenues and transfers are projected to experience a $5.120 million
shortfall which should be offset by $10.431 million in expenditure savings. This is an
increase of $2.331 million from the $2.979 million surplus amount projected in the Third
Quarter Financial Report. The increase, as detailed in this report, reflects an increase in
projected revenues from the Third Quarter Financial Report of $1.172 million and a
decrease in projected expenditures from the Third Quarter Financial Report of $1.160
million. The $5.310 million surplus, combined with one-time revalidation revenues of
$0.925 million, results in a Projected Available Fund Balance as of 6/30/10 of $23.748
million, which equals approximately 8.9% of the FY 2010 General Fund and School
Budgets. This slightly exceeds the 8.0% level specified for this indicator in the County‟s
Financial Policies. The Policies state that funds in excess of the 8.0% level “may be
considered to supplement pay as you go capital expenditures or as additions to the fund
balance”. Staff will present to the Board, during its consideration of the CIP this fall, a
recommendation of the use of these additional funds, which equate to approxim ately
$2.38 million.
.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Utility Tax, Other Local Tax including delinquent revenue, Other Local Revenue,
Federal Revenue, and Transfers from other funds show positive growth over
FY09.
Real Estate Tax, Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Business License, Food &
Beverage Tax, State Revenue, and Use of Fund Balance show decreases from
FY09.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Expenditures:
Judicial, Public Safety, Parks & Culture, and Non-Departmental expenditures
show anticipated increases over FY09.
Administration, Public Works, Human Services, Community Development, Non-
School transfers, and School Transfers show anticipated decreases from FY09.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
Had an Audited FY09 Undesignated Fund Balance of $19.845 million as of June
30, 2009,
Appropriated $1.603 million for Budgeted FY10 Initiatives and Reappropriations,
Has a remaining June 30, 2009 Fund Balance of $18.242 million,
Recorded revenues over expenditures of $5.310 million,
Recorded revalidation revenues of $0.925 million,
Has a Preliminary Fund Balance of $24.477 million,
Has proposed reappropriations of $0.729 million,
Has Projected Available Funds of $23.748 million as of October 06, 2010.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on audited FY09 financial data and twelve months of
unaudited financial data for FY10. Audited financial results for FY10 will be presented to
the Board in February 2011.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary June 30, 2010 End-of-Year Financial Report.
__________
Item No. 7.13. VDoT Monthly Report, was received for information.
______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 26, 2010.)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, summarized the following
executive summary that was forwarded 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 2011 appropriations, itemized below, is $18,842,469.76.
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted
budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2011 Budget Amendment totals $18,842,469.76. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 638,715.01
Special Revenue Funds $ 1,626,547.85
School Fund $ 145,110.09
School Programs $ 246,457.54
ECC $ 648,737.00
Capital Improvements Funds $ 14,416,083.75
Stormwater Funds $ 1,120,818.52
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 18,842,469.76
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 398,492.09
State Revenue $ 41,297.11
Federal Revenue $ 2,127,240.32
Loan Proceeds $ 4,817,192.62
General Fund Balance $ 729,470.33
Other Fund Balances $ 10,728,777.29
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 18,842,469.76
The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-seven (37) separate appropriations as follows, 20 of
which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved August 4, 2010:
One (1) appropriation (#2011010) totaling $132,499.48 re-appropriating the Crozet Meadows
Rehabilitation project funds;
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
One (1) appropriation (#2011011) totaling $5,500.00 for the sale of surplus items by the Sheriff‟s
Office;
One (1) appropriation (#2011012) totaling $ 5,613.18 for other revenue sources (reimbursement)
in the General Fund and reducing the use of General fund balance by the same amount;
One (1) appropriation (#2011013) totaling $105,100.00 for various Commission on Children and
Families grants;
Two (2) appropriations (#2011014 and #2010018) totaling $97,685.00 for various education
programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011015) totaling $66,802.00 for various Police Department Grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2011016) totaling $250,000.00 for a supplemental Virginia Department of
Transportation TEA grant received for the Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 project;
One (1) appropriation (#2011017) totaling $383,523.11 to re-appropriate the Federal Energy
Grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2011019) totaling $74,947.00 for a DCJS grant to OAR/JACC; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011020) totaling $91,186 for the one-time donation to WARS for the re-
chassis of an ambulance; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011021) totaling $405,000 for the replacement purchase of the totaled
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department Tanker 26.
Approved September 1, 2010:
One (1) appropriation (#2011022) totaling $2,000 to re-appropriate and appropriate restitution
fees for the Sheriff‟s Office Hunting Control Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2011023) totaling $38,000.00 for the Avemore Bond Default;
One (1) appropriation (#2011024) totaling $319,906.65 to re-appropriate general government
capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011025) totaling $11,020.00 for the revenue received for the Meadows
Center rent and Lane field lights;
One (1) appropriation (#2011026) totaling $54,000.00 for a grant received by the Police
Department from DMV grant - Enhancing Traffic Safety;
One (1) appropriation (#2011027) totaling $266,982.63 for various education programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011028) totaling $18,437.00 for a grant received by the Emergency
Communications Center from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011029) totaling $19,320.00 for a grant received by the Sheriff‟s Office
from DMV – Operation Hammerdown.
The sixteen (16) new appropriations requested for Board approval on October 6th are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011031) totaling $18,974.32 for various police grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2011032) totaling $20,000.00 for landscaping and parking at the
Hollymead Fire Station;
One (1) appropriation (#2011033) totaling $585,750.51 to re-appropriate uncompleted general
fund local government projects from FY10;
One (1) appropriation (#2011034) totaling $721,321.99 to re-appropriate various grants and
seized asset accounts;
Two (2) appropriations (#2011035 and #2010042) totaling $28,050.00 for various school
programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011036) totaling $4,386.00 to adjust Fire Rescue and the Office of
Facilities Development operating budgets;
One (1) appropriation (#2011037) totaling $30,058.50 to re-appropriate funding for outstanding
POs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011038) totaling $12,172,008.91 to re-appropriate funding for various
General Government CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011039) totaling $1,068,892.14 to re-appropriate funding for various
School CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011040) totaling $1,013,818.52 to re-appropriate funding for various
Stormwater CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011041) totaling $100,000.00 for the Grants Leveraging Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2011043) to reallocate funding necessitated by reorganization among the
Office of Management and Budget, County Executive‟s Office, and Community Development;
One (1) appropriation (#2011044) transferring $100,000.00 from the Brownsville Elementary
School Renovation/Addition project to the Vehicle Maintenance Facility project;
One (1) appropriation (#2011045) totaling $214,000.00 to re-appropriate funding for various ECC
capital programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011046) totaling $107,000.00 to appropriate a grant received from the
Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC) for the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands
Project; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011047) totaling $ 416,300.00 for various ECC grants
Additional details for the sixteen October 6, 2010 appropriation requests are provided in
Attachment A.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2011 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $18,842,469.76 and approval of Appropriations #2011031, #2011032, #2011033, #2011034,
#2011035, #2011036, #2011037, #2011038, #2011039, #2011040, #2011041, #2011042, #201143,
#201144, #2011045, #2011046, and #2011047 to provide funds for various local government and school
projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Appropriation #2011031 $18,974.32
Various Police Grants:
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 16,459.00
Fund Balance $ 2,515.32
Grant #2010-DJ-BX-0920: The U.S. Department of Justice awarded the Albemarle County Police Department
a grant in the amount of $25,459.00. The purpose of this grant is to assist in funding overtime hours by
current officers in support of reducing crime and improvement of public safety for more "Community Policing".
There is no local match.
Grant #154AL-2011-51211-4153: This request amends a previously approved Appropriation (#2011-026) by
-$6,484.68: The Commonwealth of Virginia - DMV awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant
in the amount of $45,000 with a local match of $9,000 ($2,515.32 FICA; $6,484.68 "in kind") for a total grant of
$54,000. This grant assists in the purchase of radar units, breath testing units, as well as funding training for
Basic Crash Investigation School. In addition, the grant helps fund overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and
increased saturation of trouble spots both on primary and secondary roads. Appropriation 2011-026 originally
included the "in-kind" match.
Appropriation #2011032 $20,000.00
Hollymead Fire Station: Landscape, Lawn Restoration and Lot Repairs:
Revenue Source: Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal $ 20,000.00
Significant portions of the lawn and landscaping at the Hollymead fire station have not survived. In order to
prevent erosion and higher long-term maintenance costs, and to conform to the requirements of the approved
site plan, it is necessary to redress the lawn and replace some trees and shrubs. The cost for this work is
estimated at $14,000.00.
Additionally, a portion of the parking lot pavement has begun to fail, with heavier than expected loading, and
needs to be replaced to prevent additional asphalt failure. The cost estimate is $6,000.00.
Appropriation #2011033 $585,750.51
Local Government Projects:
Revenue Source: GF Fund Balance $ 585,750.51
The following departments had FY 09/10 funds for specific projects. All but one of these projects was
uncompleted as of June 30, 2010 and requires re-appropriation for use in FY 10/11:
Finance: Re-appropriates funds to perform an actuarial valuation on the County‟s Annual Cost of
Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) – $12,000.00. As part of the regulations of the
Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) #45, the County is required as part of the annual
audit have a biannual actuarial valuation done on its VERIP Plan.
Voter Registrar and Elections: Re-appropriates funds for part-time wages to assist with the office‟s
mandated functions – $6,459.00, repairs to the Free Bridge voting precinct required by the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) – $6,000.00, and replacement of voting machine equipment – $3,447.00.
Clerk of Circuit Court: Re-appropriates funds for overtime wages to assist with the office‟s current
workload mandated functions – $3,768.00.
Sheriff: Re-appropriates the contributions made in support of the volunteer reserve programs such as
Project Lifesaver and child fingerprinting – $5,676.51.
Fire Rescue: Re-appropriates funds for operating supplies including the replacement of both EMS
training equipment, Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs), mobile printers, mattresses and new
state-required traffic cones – $33,400.00, and funds related to Volunteer Recruitment and Retention
initiatives– $118,000.00
General Services: Re-appropriates the Go Green Virginia Grant – $2,500.00. This grant was awarded
by the Virginia Municipal League (VML) in 2009 and supports the County‟s continued efforts in the
areas of sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection.
Community Development: Provides funding from the County‟s Fund Balance for a Citizen Survey to
be completed as part of the County‟s five-year update to the Comprehensive Plan - $14,500.00.
Beginning in 2002, the County conducted citizen surveys every other year to determine residents‟
opinions about relative importance and level of satisfaction with County services as well as obtain
residents‟ views of the County‟s quality of life and planning and growth. The last citizen survey was
completed in 2008. This survey will be a critical component of the public input process for the Comp
Plan update and maximizes staff resources and time as the results will also inform the County‟s
Strategic Planning and the County‟s Performance Management efforts. Staff will strongly consider
utilizing ICMA‟s National Citizen Survey in order to be able to benchmark the County‟s results with
other communities throughout the nation.
Office of Housing: Re-appropriates Community Development Loan Fund, which currently provides
down payment assistance to first time homebuyers – $130,000.00.
Economic Opportunity Fund – Re-appropriates $250,000.00 for the Economic Opportunity Fund. The
Fund is to be used as local match for federal or state economic development projects with an
emphasis on creating jobs for local County residents.
Appropriation #2011034 $721.321.99
Re-appropriate Grants and Seized Asset Accounts
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 41,297.11
Federal Revenue $ 332,730.85
Fund Balance $ 347,294.03
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
The following grants and seized asset accounts had not expended all funding as of June 30, 2010 and will
require re-appropriation. No additional local funding is required.
Seized asset monies were received from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the Police
Department and Commonwealth‟s Attorney and deposited into seized asset account funds. The
balances remaining in these funds are $67,130.76 for the Police Department and $29,281.61 for
Commonwealth‟s Attorney. These monies will be used to purchase evidence equipment and traffic
enforcement items for the Police Department and office supplies, furniture, and training/conferences
for the Commonwealth‟s Attorney‟s office.
In FY 09/10, the Commonwealth of Virginia - DMV awarded the Albemarle County Sheriff‟s Office an
Operation Watchdog grant in the amount of $15,000.00 with a local match of $3,000.00 for a total
grant of $18,000.00. This grant provides funding for the purchase of two additional radar units as well
as funding overtime hours for DUI checkpoints and speed enforcement. The amount to bring forward
into FY 10/11 is $4,427.79.
The Crozet Crossings Housing Trust Fund Trustees provided funding in the amount of $246,400.00
for the Treesdale Park. The project was anticipated to begin in FY 09/10, but it has been delayed. The
project is expected to begin in September 2010. The funds will be contributed to AHIP, a partner in
development.
In FY 09/10, the Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the Albemarle County Police
Department a grant from the State Homeland Security Program in the amount of $17,000.00. The
purpose of this grant is to purchase a license plate reader system to assist in detect ing, deterring,
disputing, and preventing acts of terrorism. This system can capture license plate numbers and
compare these numbers to a database which then communicates crime or infractions associated with
the vehicle and/or registrant. There is no local match. The amount to be brought forward into FY
10/11 is $17,000.00.
In FY 08/09, the Department of Homeland Security awarded the Fire/Rescue Department a grant in
the amount of $392,000.00 to assist in the marketing and advertising components of volunteer
recruitment. The funds are used for advertising and supplies including but not limited to radio, TV,
pamphlets, door hangers, banners, etc. The grant is funded over a four-year span. The amount to be
brought forward into FY 10/11 is $155,302.31. In addition, this appropriates the third year amount of
$104,000.00 for a total appropriation of $259,302.31.
Beginning in FY 09/10, the Department of Justice awarded Bedford County a grant to assist in the
investigations of Internet Crimes against Children. Bedford designated Albemarle County as being an
area district and provided Albemarle County $80,000.00. Half of the funds are being used by the
Albemarle County Police Department (PD), while the other half are being distributed by the PD to
other Agencies as expenditures arise. The amount to be brought forward for FY 10/11 is $27,069.93.
The County‟s Department of Social Services (DSS) received renewed Child Care Quality Initiative
funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These funds are us ed in
conjunction with the City of Charlottesville DSS to fund a contracted service that provides training,
mentoring and developmental materials to child care providers. This service is provided by Children,
Youth and Family Services. (CYFS) and serves both jurisdictions. The revenues from this grant are 100%
federal with no local match requirements. The amount to be carried forward into FY 10/11 is
$25,127.00. The grant runs through May 31, 2011.
Albemarle County Department of Social Services in partnership with United Way – Thomas Jefferson
Area has been awarded grant funds from the Virginia Health Care Foundation (VHCF) for the
implementation of Project Connect, VHCF‟s children‟s health insurance enrollment initiative. This is a
20-month grant that began February 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. Total grant funds are
allocated 60% to United Way-Thomas Jefferson Area for an Outreach Worker position and 40% to
Albemarle County Department of Social Services for an Eligibility Worker position at UVA Medicaid.
This grant is 100% reimbursable. The amount to be carried forward into FY 10/11 is $41,297.11.
In FY 07/08, the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department received $12,000.00 from the J & E
Berkley Foundation. These monies enable the continuation of a free smoke detector program to bring
single family residences into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
recommendations. This program targets groups that are at risk and usually cannot afford smoke
detectors. The amount to bring forward into FY 10/11 is $3,201.83.
In July 2009, a private donation was made to support the work of the Natural Heritage Committee
(NHC). The chair of the NHC requested that $1,083.65 be re-appropriated so the committee can
utilize the funds to support their mission which is to maintain and restore the County‟s native biological
diversity and provide a healthy environment for the citizens of Albemarle County.
Appropriation #2011035 $17,950.00
Various School Programs
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 17,950.00
From the August 26, 2010 School Board Meeting agenda:
Utopian Wireless has agreed to pay the Albemarle County Public Schools in monthly installments for the lease
of its broadband channel capacity. Two checks from Utopian Wireless totaling $17,300.00 were received for
their July payment. Albemarle County Public Schools is committed to maximizing student achievement and
fostering collaboration among professional learning communities and stakeholders. Funds received from
Utopian Wireless will be used to acquire specialized contracted services needed to migrate the current ACPS
Intranet system to a new, functionally enhanced platform that will also serve as the foundation for future
development. This foundation will serve as an optimized environment that will allow for increased collaboration
and communication. Future development will involve deployment of a security gateway, single sign -on
platform, collaboration environments, social networking and user profiles.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
“On May 15, 2009, the Superintendent received a letter from Ms. Linda Perriello proposing that the band room
at Henley Middle School be named for Gary Holmes Fagan who has served as band director at the school for
32 of his 34 years of teaching in ACPS. At the June 11th, 2009 School Board meeting, the School Board
approved naming the band room at Henley after Gary Holmes Fagan. On August 18, 2010, ACPS received a
check from the Dr. Vito A. Perriello, Jr. Memorial Fund in the amount of $650.00. The intent of the donor is
that the funds be used to purchase and install a plaque dedicating the Henley Middle School band room to
Gary H. Fagan.”
Appropriation #2011036 $4,386.00
Adjustments to Fire Rescue and the Office of Facilities Development operating budgets
Revenue Source: GF Fund Balance $ 4,386.00
This appropriation funds two adjustments to the FY 10/11 budget:
Two reclassifications totaling $6,913 in the Office of Facilities Development, which will be funded
through the County‟s budgeted Salary Contingency Reserve that is designated for this purpose. This
component of this appropriation reallocates funding and will not increase the total County budget.
During the FY 10/11 budget development process, $4,386.00 in telecommunications expenses was
erroneously omitted from Fire/Rescue‟s budget. This appropriation restores this funding.
Appropriation #2011037 $30,058.50
Funding for Outstanding Purchase Orders
Revenue Source: GF Fund Balance $30,058.50
Several departments had funding for projects approved in FY 09/10 that had not been com pleted as of June
30, 2010. This request re-appropriates the remaining balances for the uncompleted projects for which
purchase orders were outstanding as of June 30, 2010.
Appropriation #2011038 $ 12,172,008.91
Re-appropriates funding for various General Government CIP Projects
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $3,622,991.61
Gen Govt CIP Fund Bal $ 8,549,017.30
App 2011-038 General Government Active Projects
Each year, staff presents to the board a list of projects that were appropriated to the Capital fund in a prior
year, but remain unfinished at year end, in this case June 30, 2010. A board “re -appropriation” of these
remaining balances is required to allow staff to continue with execution and completion of these efforts. This
year, staff presented a partial list of re-appropriation requests in July to address the more time sensitive
projects; this request would re-appropriate funds remaining in the rest of the active projects. Below is a brief
description of the projects and the corresponding re-appropriation amount.
This request re-appropriates remaining balances of active General Government Capital Improvement projects
that were underway, but as yet incomplete as of June 30, 2010:
Project Description Amount ($)
IT ADP Equipment: Funding supports the evaluation/procurement of services and
equipment to upgrade/replace county-wide phone systems. 150,000.00
Access Albemarle: Funding supports the implementation of Microsoft Dynamics GP
v.10, Buy Speed Online and Enterprise reporting within Albemarle County to achieve the
following objectives: Standardize our business operations in a technology supported
server based environment; improve operational efficiency; reduce paper flow and
redundant processes; provide better access to data and reporting, while providing “one-
stop shop” for citizens and staff and ultimately enabling Data Driven Decision making.
This funding covers contracted project management assistance, software maintenance
and ADP equipment/data processing software. Milestones include setting up Enterprise
Reporting for the School Division, deployment of Purchasing and Enterprise Reporting to
Local Government departments through the end of Calendar Year 2010; payroll
deployment in January 2011 and HR in July 2011.
419,225.04
Voting Machine Replacement: Funding supports the purchase of new voting machines
to meet legal requirements based on anticipated County precincts. 91,175.77
Court Building Repair and Maintenance: Funding supports an ADA restroom upgrade
in Court Square and associated improvements. 1,173.09
Juvenile Court Building Renovation: Funding supports the County‟s share of costs
associated with producing "as-built" documents; project completion is anticipated by the
third quarter of calendar year 2010.
10,000.00
Circuit Court Clerk Document Imaging: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances
for document imaging equipment and back-filing of records. 89,508.00
Police Technology Upgrades: Funding supports the completion of this project which is
90% complete. Regional infrastructure components, radio hardware, computer
hardware, and some software components are in place. The custom developed system
software is 75% complete. One major component of the software is incomplete. The
County is under contract to deliver the remaining balance once the vendor has
completed their work on the system software and the project team has completed
acceptance testing.
746,037.67
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Police Video Equipment: Funding supports the replacement and emergency repairs of
video cameras and equipment. Video cameras in police vehicles are a crucial tool in the
prosecution of various traffic and criminal cases.
44,909.20
Fire Department Contingency: Funding supports large unexpected expenditures for
both career and volunteer stations or equipment; i.e. hvac, apparatus repairs, buildings,
etc.
93,779.24
Pantops Fire Station: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances; remaining funds
will be used for Phase I Environmental Assessment and subdivision/site plan process. 225,969.27
VFD Contingency: Funding supports unexpected expenditures for other equipment
needs; most of these funds ($15,551) were re-appropriated in July; balance represents
miscellaneous adjustment to balance.
231.00
Ivy Fire Station: Funding supports engineering/planning for fire station; currently
negotiating MOU/lease with UVA and County anticipates A/E contract issuance for
schematic design upon approval of lease terms.
194,499.24
Ivy Landfill: Funding supports Memorandum of Understanding with City for cleanup of
old landfill site. 593,614.81
Street lights: Funding supports two primary purposes: (1) allow more flexible and
consistent funding for public requests for street lighting projects; and (2) anticipated
need to provide street lighting along public sidewalk projects and new crosswalks: Rio
Road/Four Seasons intersection, Four Seasons Drive, Hydraulic/Rio /Earlysville Road
intersection and crosswalks On Rio Road (at Berkmar Dr., Old Brook Rd., and Hillsdale
Dr.)
185,231.74
Meadow Creek Parkway: Funding supports the completion of the Path connecting
Meadow Creek Parkway Phase 1 to neighborhoods on west side of Rio Road. Following
the completion of Meadow Creek Parkway Phase 1, which is anticipated to be
December 2011, design will begin for a landscape plan.
47,247.03
Records Management System: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances; most of
the prior-year balance ($237,304) has been re-appropriated in July; the balance of
$20,000 represents adjustments after budget closeout. A significant portion ($200,000)
of the original appropriation has been liquidated last year.
20,000.00
Airport Road Landscaping: Funding supports the County‟s share of outstanding costs.
9,323.85
Street Improvements-Local: Funding covers VDOT funding shortfalls for high priority
road projects in the planning and development stage: Jarmans Gap Road, Georgetown
Road, Crozet Main Street/Eastern Avenue. If no shortfalls occur with above projects,
funds may be used for location and design work for Rt. 29 north six-lane widening,
Berkmar Drive extended/bridge location and design, or match for future Revenue
Sharing applications. Funding for design component of priority transportation projects
identified by Transportation Funding Options Working Group or other County high
priority transportation projects.
1,187,485.07
Crozet Streetscape Phase II: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances. Design
completion is anticipated by the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010 or first quarter
calendar year 2011; anticipate giving notice-to-proceed once all easements are
obtained: Comcast and Embarq utility relocations. Construction funds are for Crozet
Streetscape Phase 2 and Phase 2A. Phase 2A (Main Street) currently under
construction; anticipate completion by mid-November 2010. Bid advertisement for
Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) is anticipated by the second quarter calendar year 2011
(dependent upon receiving all necessary easements.)
483,216.62
South Pantops Sidewalk: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances. The project is
close to bid phase, final design plans are in review, and advertisement for bid is
anticipated for Fall 2010. This project provides pedestrian safety along the north side of
South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm Blvd by constructing 3500 feet of curb,
gutter and sidewalk.
7,883.35
Avon Street Sidewalk: Funding supports sidewalk, curb and gutter at Avon Street from
Lakeside Apartments to City limits; the project is anticipated to start by FY12. 70,992.22
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and
provides pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of
sidewalk and drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from St.
George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School and continue to Ballard Dr. “Safe Routes
to School” grant awarded to extend design /construction to Ballard Drive. Design of the
sidewalk extension to Ballard Drive will begin late summer 2010.
63,783.39
Route 250/Westminster Sidewalk: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances. In
the construction phase of this project with work commencing upon finalizing construction
contract.
4,197.56
Ivy Road Sidewalk: Funding supports sidewalk, curb and storm drainage system from
Kluge Rehab Center to City Line. The project is anticipated to start by FY12. UVA has
expressed interest in upgrading corridor possibly through application for grant funds.
422,063.34
Route 250 West Sidewalk: Funding supports sidewalk, curb, and gutter at Route 250
West from Bellair Market to Farmington/Ednam. The project is anticipated to start by
FY12.
156,571.88
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk: Funding supports the installation of sidewalk (short
distance of ~160‟) from the Research Park to the City Line. The project corrects a gap
between sidewalks which may create safety issues. The project is anticipated to start by
FY12 and a right-of-way is required for project.
87,524.66
Public Works Facility Maintenance: Funding supports an environmental abatement
project currently in process. 9,568.92
Public Works Roadway Landscaping: Funding supports repairs outside normal
maintenance work as well as the Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping project. 258,626.68
Park Enhancement Projects: Funding supports the completion of the Crozet Park
Tennis/skate park; the completion of a Vault Toilet at Walnut Creek park and a mountain
bike parking area requested by Crozet Park Board.
138,932.21
Park Maintenance Projects: Funding supports the completion of the Crozet Park
basketball court replacement requested by Crozet Park Board. 22,700.00
Parks Athletic Field Study/Development: Funding supports outstanding
encumbrances for the Crozet Field project. 13,270.00
Parks Recreation Facilities: Funding supports the County‟s YMCA contribution; Board
commitment reaffirmed at April 2010 Board budget work session. 2,030,000.00
Simpson Park Project: Funding supports the Simpson Park Shelter highly desired by
Esmont Community. 58,913.70
Parks Crozet Greenway Project: Funding supports the Crozet Park perimeter trail; this
improvement is requested by the Crozet Park Board and is part of the greenway plan. 95,340.00
Tourism - Greenway Project: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances for the
Free Bridge Trail design. 3,113.00
Tourism - Byrom Park Project: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances for
construction; project is expected to be substantially complete in Mid-October. 546,997.78
Tourism - Preddy Creek Park Project: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances
for the A & E contract; the project is in construction project and is expected to be
substantially complete by the end of October .
6,593.18
Tourism - Rivanna Free-Bridge Connector Project: Funding supports outstanding
encumbrances; the remaining balance also supports storm damage repair to Free
Bridge trail to qualify for grant reimbursement
2,034.65
Library Maintenance Projects: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances for the
Gordon Ave Library ADA improvements; the balance represents the County‟s share for
joint maintenance projects with City.
142,041.92
Crozet Library: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances; the site plan is currently
under review by Community Development and the remaining funds support construction
of the parking lot (anticipated construction start date 4th quarter 2010).
382,694.13
Acquisition of Conservation Easement Program (ACE): Funding supports
outstanding encumbrances and future acquisitions as approved by the Board of
Supervisors and in accordance with the established program.
593,137.69
GIS Project: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and project priorities
identified in the five-year GIS implementation plan and schedule as recommended by
the GIS Steering Committee.
450,235.86
City View: Funding supports expenses related to migration to CityView 9 platform. 8,339.32
Crozet Main Street: Funding supports the design of the extension of Main Street to the
east of Crozet Ave in Crozet. 92,084.62
Places 29 Master Plan: Funding supports implementation of the master plan: design of
Six-Lane Widening of Rt. 29 (river to Hollymead Town Center); Berkmar Dr. extended
& bridge location and design; priority sidewalk and crosswalk improvements.
1,385,000.00
Pantops Master Plan: Funding supports implementation of various identified projects.
"Priority crosswalk" improvements (at Rt 250/Rt. 20 and Rt. 250/Rolkin intersections) are
next priority after current sidewalk projects in Pantops area are completed. Other
projects include Rt. 250/Rt. 20 intersection improvement design; other pedestrian
crossings various locations; traffic calming/management improvements on connector
roads (S. Pantops Blvd./Fontana); and/or potential funding of Old Mill Trail
construction/bridge installation.
198,731.45
Rivanna Master Plan: Funding supports implementation of the master plan, including
future pedestrian/bike connections related to re-construction of the Route 250 bridge
over the RR (Shadwell). Alternatively, funds could be moved to Pantops Master Plan to
fund needed improvements.
50,000.00
Neighborhood Plan Contingency: Funding supports contingency of unexpected costs
for master plans 50,239.61
This request also re-appropriates balances of the General Government Capital Improvement Fund remaining
as of June 30, 2009 as follows:
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Project Description Amount ($)
Hollymead-Powell Creek Sidewalk: Funding is requested from the balance of
Hilltop/Tabor sidewalk project. (The Hilltop/Tabor will not be proceeding as the required
easements were unobtainable.)
194,499.24
Court Square Enhancements: Funding supports further study of downtown Courts
facilities, with particular reference to the Levy Building and future space needs for
General District Court, Commonwealth Attorney and Clerk Office operations.
Engagement of a consultant is anticipated upon availability of funds. (This re-
appropriation request appropriates the balance of funds for a different although similar
purpose than originally appropriated by Board.)
35,870.72
Hillsdale Sidewalk: Funding adjustment to reflect updated amount of the grant being
received. (2,598.81)
Appropriation #2011039 $1,068,892.14
Re-appropriates funding for various School CIP projects
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $998,665.36
School CIP Fund Bal $ 70,226.78
This request re-appropriates remaining balances of active School Capital Improvement projects that were
underway as of June 30, 2010:
Project Description Amount ($)
School Board ADA Structural Changes: Funding supports on-going projects addressing
ADA concerns 13,051.70
Brownsville Elementary School Renovation/Addition: Funding supports outstanding
encumbrances; project is substantially complete and final completion is estimated for
December 2010.
28,419.55
Crozet Elementary School Parking Lot: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and
project is substantially complete. 267,669.85
Greer Elementary School Renovation/Addition: Funding supports outstanding
encumbrances; Phase 1 is complete and Phase 2 is on hold. 294,695.31
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and
project is complete (punch list remaining). 3,990.75
Albemarle High School Renovation/Addition: Funding supports outstanding
encumbrances; project is substantially complete, and final completion is estimated for Fall
2010.
6,737.01
CATEC Maintenance Projects: Funding supports reimbursement to the City of
Charlottesville for the County‟s portion of expenses related to maintenance projects. 155,354.44
Vehicle Maintenance Facility: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances; project is
substantially complete, and final completion is estimated for December 2010. 26,808.72
Classroom/Instruction-ADP Equipment: Funding supports on-going projects addressing
ADP Equipment. 1,983.00
School Maintenance Projects: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and on-going
maintenance projects.
214,989.73
School CIP Donation 145.00
Albemarle High School Turf Field: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and
completion of the project is dependent upon receipt of donations. The Site plan is approved
and project construction ready once it‟s fully funded.
28,264.08
Western Albemarle High Sch Turf Field: Funding supports outstanding encumbrances and
completion of the project is dependent upon receipt of donations. The Site plan is approved
and project construction ready once it‟s fully funded.
26,783.00
Appropriation #2011040 $1,013,818.52
Re-appropriates funding for various Stormwater CIP Projects
Revenue Source: Stormwater CIP Fund Bal $1,013,818.52
This request reappropriates remaining balances of Stormwater Management projects that were uncompleted
as of June 30, 2009:
Project Description Amount ($)
Stormwater Management: Funding supports several projects that are listed in the CIP,
including three that are in various stages of development. 868,071.16
Woodbrook Lagoon: Funding supports project management; the project is designed and
ready to advertise for bid. 30,976.70
Turtle Creek: Funding supports the on-going project; construction is anticipated to begin
this fiscal year; grant funds are applicable 52,028.55
Crozet Stormwater: Funding supports the on-going project; construction is anticipated to
begin this fiscal year; grant funds are applicable. 57,821.58
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
COB Biofilters-Stormwater: Funding supports the on-going project; this project is nearing
design completion with review by the City and construction is expected to begin this fiscal
year.
4,920.53
Appropriation #2011041 $100,000.00
Establishment of Grants Leveraging Fund
Revenue Source: Fund Balance $100,000.00
This request appropriates the initial funding of $100,000 for the Grants Leveraging Fund from the County‟s
FY09/10 year-end operational expenditure savings as approved by the Board on September 1, 2010. The
Grants Leveraging Fund better positions the County to take advantage of short-term grant offerings that will
benefit core operations. Use of the fund would be in accordance with established guidelines, recommended
by the County‟s Grants Committee, and approved by the County Executive. All requests for Grants
Leveraging Fund appropriations will be approved Board of Supervisors.
Appropriation #2011042 $10,100.00
School Donations
Revenue Source: Donations $10,100.00
From the September 9, 2010 School Board Meeting agenda item:
“Albemarle High School (“AHS”) received cash donations totaling $1,100.00. These donations were made to
help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at AHS. The current balance for the FY 10/11 AHS Synthetic
Turf Project is $1,100.00 including this donation. The balance from previous fiscal years is $41,867.88 for a
grand total of $42,967.88. $7,441.92 has been spent on the project to-date and $6,161.88 was previously
appropriated in July (#2011-006). The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching
funds from an anonymous donor, requiring AHS to raise an additional $282,032.12 to secure matching funds.
The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $8,000.00 from the Stone Robinson
PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to supplement teacher purchases of
instructional/ recreational supplies for classrooms at Stone Robinson Elementary School.
In the Spring of 2010, University of Virginia students came to several of our schools to tutor any of our
students who were interested. These students are in UVa‟s Teacher Prep program. UVa sent $25.00 per
student to the respective school:
Albemarle High School - $200.00
Jack Jouett Middle School - $325.00
Burley Middle School - $400.00
Sutherland Middle School - $75.00
These amounts will be appropriated into each school‟s educational and recreational supply budget code.”
Appropriation #2011043 $372,451.00
Reorganization involving the Office of Management and Budget, County Executive’s Office, and
Community Development
Revenue Source: Transfers $372,451.00
This appropriation reallocates $281,287 for the reorganization of the Office of Management and Budget:
Reallocates funding for the Office of Management and Budget from the Finance Department to an
independent office ($174,343.00).
Reclassifies the Manager of Strategic Planning and Performance position to the Director of Budget
and Performance Management and moves this position and associated expenses from the County
Executive‟s Office to the Office of Management and Budget ($106,944).
It also reallocates $91,164 to move the economic development function from the Community Development
Department into the County Executive‟s Office.
This appropriation does not require any additional funding.
Appropriation #2011044 $100,000.00
Transfer of funds from Brownsville Elementary School Renovation/Addition Project to the Vehicle
Maintenance Facility project
Revenue Source: Transfer $100,000.00
This request transfers $100,000.00 from the Brownsville Elementary School project to the Vehicle
Maintenance Facility project. The Brownsville project is substantially complete and estimated to reach final
completion in December 2010. The increase to VMF is requested to cover costs of unfo reseen
circumstances: primarily, soil conditions, rock & stormwater issues.
Appropriation #2011045 $214,000.00
Emergency Communications Center (ECC) Capital Programs:
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $214,000.00
The ECC Management Board approved the following re-appropriation of funds from the ECC Fund Balance
Account for CIP Projects for FY-2010/2011 at their meeting on May 18, 2010:
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Data System Backup Phase II: The purchase of this Cisco server is the second part of a three part
equipment procurement that allows more flexibility in how the ECC will manage its data workload on fewer
physical servers. The Cisco UCS Server along with VMWare‟s vSphere system allows the ECC to consolidate
lots of different data onto more powerful servers which will reduce electrical, heat and space usage while
providing for more redundancy of workloads between physical assets. These servers position the ECC to
respond more quickly and with more flexibility to future public safety data/server needs. $25,000
Replacement UPS/Batteries for Tower Sites: Each ECC Tower site has dual UPS Systems that are used in
the event of a power failure. We are past due to replace the 600 batteries located at each tower site. As a
matter of fact some of the old batteries are starting to go bad and a few are leaking. We are presently working
with the procurement office in developing an RFQ for this replacement process which will include removing the
old batteries from the tower site. $100,000
Replacement Fire/RMS Server: FY-2012 is the scheduled time to replace the server for the Fire Records
Management System for the City and County Fire Departments. The server is housed at the ECC Building
and is maintained by ECC staff. $6,000
ECC Carpet Replacement: The carpeting in the ECC is now 10 years old. Since it is used 24/7 it actually has
the wear of 30 years worth of use. ECC will be using special equipment that raises the consoles during the
replacement phase. $25,000
800 MHz Microphones for the Cache Radio’s : ECC‟s current radio‟s in the regional radio cache do not
have shoulder mic‟s and we will be purchasing 60 of these microphones that will be attached to the radio‟s.
This allows the user to have the radio at the hip and the microphone at the ear for better use. $8,000
HVAC System Replacement: The City Maintenance Department oversees our HVAC System and has
recommended we start replacing our internal HVAC units. This process will be over a three year timeline with
us replacing the first unit in FY-2012. The current units are 10 years old and run 24/7 and we are starting to
experience problems. $20,000
Miscellaneous Other Servers: ECC has some smaller servers that we maintain that need replacement such
as the tape/data backup server, snap page messaging server, authentication server etc. These servers are
over 4 years old and need replaced. $30,000
Appropriation #2011046 $107,000.00
Rivanna River Basin Commission Grant
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $107,000.00
The Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC) has awarded a grant to the County of Albemarle towards the
completion of the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. The RRBC, in coordination with several of
its member localities, including Albemarle County, received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) to construct capital projects, monitor at least one of these projects, provide public
education, and identify ways to incentivize the implementation of innovative stormwater best management
practices on private lands. This allocation will pay for a portion of the stormwater project. The County will
commit to various obligations, including constructing the project, allowing educational signage to be posted at
the project site, and documenting project progress and costs. Though no local match is required, to receive
funding from the RRBC, the County is required to provide information to the RRBC regarding in-kind efforts
and the County‟s total project cost. The RRBC in turn can provide that documentation to the NFWF in lieu of a
local match.
Appropriation #2011047 $416,300.00
Various Emergency Communication Center (ECC) Grants
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $416,300.00
This request appropriates three federally funded, non matching, 100% reimbursable grants award ed to the
Emergency Communications Center (ECC) from Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM).
These are pass-thru from the federal government.
EOP Restructuring Grant Award Amount: $400,000
This non matching reimbursable Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Restructuring Grant will be used by the
local Emergency Management Office to restructure the Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency
Operations Plan to incorporate the Emergency Support Functions (ESF) structure and align our local plan with
the Commonwealth‟s EOP and National Response Framework. To effectively validate this comprehensive
overhaul of our current regional concept of operations, we will develop and implement an extensive training
and exercise strategy, with the objective of thoroughly institutionalizing the new EOP concepts across all local
response partners.
CERT Grant #1 Award Amount: 9,800.00
This non matching reimbursable Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Grant #1 will be used to
provide training and equipment for citizens who take the local Community Emergency Response Team
training.
CERT Grant #2 Award Amount: $6,500.00
This non matching reimbursable CERT Grant #2 will be used to provide training and equipment for citizens
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
who take the local Community Emergency Response Team training.
__________
Ms. Allshouse stated that these are mostly re-appropriations for School and local government
projects, outstanding purchase orders, and CIP projects that are underway and have not been completed
by year-end. She added that $14.3 million of the requests are CIP re-appropriations for local government,
School and stormwater CIP projects.
Ms. Mallek opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker referred to Appropriation #2011033, Office of Housing-Reappropriation of Community
Development Loan Fund, and said that he thought the Board had talked about the potential for using
some of these funds for other purposes because there wasn‟t significant demand for the downpayment
assistance funds.
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, responded that staff would like to combine these funds with
about $115,000 in proffer money and issue an RFP to the nonprofit community for housing projects they
may be doing. He said that the Housing Committee would review the proposals and make
recommendations as to what projects would be funded. Mr. White stated that the money PHA has on
hand should be sufficient to cover the downpayment assistance program for this year, but they could
come in on the RFP process and request a portion of these funds for downpayment assistance. He
added that this money plus the proffer money will make a little more generous pot of money to put an RFP
out for.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like this to come back to the Board if these funds are going to be
used for a different purpose, adding that it is entirely possible that the County would get back to a situation
where there is not enough donwpayment assistance money. He noted that there are developers who
have proffered for that specific purpose, and the County needs to make sure the money is there to meet
that demand. He said that he is a little concerned about diversion, and just want to make sure that before
that is done that this Board makes that decision – that it is not administratively made.
Mr. White stated that what was proposed to the Housing Committee was to take their
recommendations back to the Board before final approval or commitment to any project. He added that
his office would give the Board an idea of all types of applications that came in, along with Housing
Committee recommendations so that the range of requests can be seen as well. Mr. White added that
they would do this even for downpayment assistance, so the Board has a clear idea of everything going
out.
Mr. Rooker asked for an explanation of Appropriation #2011034, as it has been appropriated and
re-appropriated before. He asked the status of the program.
Ms. Mallek said she had a question about that as well, specifically where the $140,000 was spent.
Ms. Allshouse explained that this is a Department of Homeland Security grant awarded to Fire
and Rescue for $392,000 for marketing and advertising for volunteer recruitment.
Mr. Eggleston said that working with Human Resources, the Committee hired a part-time
marketing person who is currently working with Fire and Rescue to put together an overall marketing and
recruitment plan for the Department. It has been slow going because the Committee wanted to work
through Human Resources and a consultant. He said that there has been some activity related to Fire
Prevention Week, and more details could be provided at a future Board meeting. Mr. Eggleston stated
that FEMA has granted an extension for the activities since the movement has been somewhat slow.
Mr. Rooker asked if the salary for the part-time person is coming out of the $392,000. Mr.
Eggleston responded that it was.
Mr. Thomas suggested that someone come and make a presentation to the Board on the status
of the project. He agreed that the project has been moving slowly. He added that there has been
discussion of a possibly hiring a local designer to design a new brochure, but it would probably have to go
out to bid.
Ms. Mallek commented that each of the volunteer companies does have materials and they
wanted to do radio advertising, but there seemed to be some obstacle to that.
Mr. Eggleston said this has been a Human Resources, ACFRAB and consultant driven process
thus far. He reiterated that the staff working on it could come back and report to the Board.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that with a grant of almost $400,000, it needs to have measurable
outcomes. He does not want the County to just run through the money, pay a consultant and a few
scattered things are done and there is no cohesive approach from which some success could be judged.
This is an opportunity to get some volunteers.
Mr. Tucker clarified that the award is approximately $100,000 over four years.
Mr. Rooker stated that after that four-year period there should be some success in getting
volunteers signed on.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Boyd asked about the $100,000+ that this Board approved.
Mr. Eggleston responded that that money is targeted toward an Officer Leadership Program,
which is underway. The Advisory Board felt it was appropriate to hire someone to put together a
comprehensive program to help influence why people leave. He said that the plan is to implement the
program over the next year, and the Training Committee out of the Advisory Board is managing it.
Mr. Boyd commented that he thought that was volunteer work; he did not know money was being
spent for it.
Mr. Eggleston said the money is to be used to develop the curriculum as well as deliver the first
class for company officers.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would like to see a comparison of the before and after of the program ,
and whether the County is achieving any goals.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Washburne if the $91,000 for the voting machine replacement would be
sufficient to cover the new precincts and new requirements.
Mr. Jake Washburne, Voter Registrar, responded that it would for the time being, but when
redistricting and the 2012 elections take place they could reach a point where there are not enough voting
machines to cover the number of registered voters in the precincts. He said that unless the State lifts the
moratorium on purchasing touch-screen machines, the County would have to purchase a new fleet of
optical scan machines or would need to purchase one optical scan machine per precinct to be used in
conjunction with the touch-screen machines currently operating. He does not think either of those are
good options. Mr. Washburne noted that training election officials on two different types of machines
would be difficult.
Mr. Rooker asked about Appropriation #2011034 in the amount of $721,321 to re-appropriate
various grants and seized asset accounts. He asked if the seized asset money stays local or goes into a
state or federal fund.
Mr. Tucker responded that it is split, with much of it going to the JADE Program and the remainder
going to the State.
Mr. Dorrier then moved to approve the FY 2011 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$18,842,469.76 and to approve Appropriations #2011031, #2011032, #2011033, #2011034, #2011035,
#2011036, #2011037, #2011038, #2011039, #2011040, #2011041, #2011042, #201143, #201144,
#2011045, #2011046, and #2011047 to provide funds for various local government and school projects
and programs. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011031
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Various Police Grants (Amends previously approved 2011-026 which appropriated
a grant awarded to the Police Department by DMV (Enhancing Traffic Safety)
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1539 33000 330001 Grant Revenue - Federal J 2 -$9,000.00
2 1539 51000 512004 Transfer - General Fund J 2 $2,515.32
1 1539 31013 550100 Travel/Training J 1 -$6,484.68
1539 0501 Est. Revenue (6,484.68)
0701 Appropriation (6,484.68)
2 1537 33000 300001 Revenue - Federal J 2 25,459.00
1 1537 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 23,649.79
1 1537 31013 210000 FICA J 1 1,809.21
1537 0501 Est. Revenue 25,459.00
0701 Appropriation 25,459.00
TOTAL 37,948.64 18,974.32 18,974.32
*****
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011032
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Hollymead Fire Station 12 landscaping and parking
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 $20,000.00
1 9010 32017 800605 Hollymead FS - Construction J 1 $20,000.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 20,000.00
0701 Appropriation 20,000.00
TOTAL 40,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011033
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: FY 10/11 General Fund Reappropriations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 43007 510130 Energy Star J 1 $2,500.00
1 1000 21070 301230 Reserve Programs J 1 $5,676.51
1 1000 81030 563150 Community Dev Loan Fund J 1 $130,000.00
1 1000 32020 392000 Contractual Services (R&R
Strategic Initiative)
J 1 $118,000.00
1 1000 32013 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 $700.00
1 1000 32015 600400 MEDICAL & LAB.
SUPPLIES
J 1 $13,000.00
1 1000 32015 600000 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES J 1 $1,200.00
1 1000 32015 800201 FURNITURE & FIXTURES-
REPL
J 1 $3,500.00
1 1000 32012 550100 TRAVEL/TRAINING/EDUCA
TION
J 1 $15,000.00
1 1000 12141 310000 Professional Services J 1 $12,000.00
1 1000 81022 312391 ICMA Citizen Survey J 1 $14,500.00
1 1000 21060 120000 Overtime Wages J 1 $3,500.00
1 1000 21060 210000 FICA J 1 $268.00
1 1000 13020 331607 R&M - Voting Machines J 1 $9,447.00
1 1000 13020 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR J 1 $6,000.00
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA J 1 $459.00
1 1000 95000 999987 Job Opportunity Fund J 1 $250,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 $585,250.51
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 585,250.51
0701 Appropriation 585,750.51
TOTAL 1,171,001.02 585,250.51 585,750.51
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011034
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Seized Asset and Grant Fund reappropriations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1214 33000 330011 Federal DMV Grants J 2 4,427.79
1 1214 21070 120000 Overtime J 1 4,038.33
1 1214 21070 210000 FICA J 1 334.52
1 1214 21070 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 54.94
1214 0501 Est. Revenue 4,427.79
0701 Appropriation 4,427.79
2 1220 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 246,400.00
1 1220 81030 950165 Treesdale Park J 1 246,400.00
1220 0501 Est. Revenue 246,400.00
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
0701 Appropriation 246,400.00
2 1234 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 29,281.61
2 1235 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 1,856.08
2 1236 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 65,274.68
1 1234 22010 320000 Temp. Help Services Fees J 1 2,200.00
1 1234 22010 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 15,500.00
1 1234 22010 600100 Office Supplies J 1 1,900.00
1 1234 22010 800200 Furniture & Fixtures J 1 1,900.00
1 1234 22010 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 7,781.61
1 1235 39000 580905 State Drug Asset Seizures J 1 1,856.08
1 1236 39000 580905 State Drug Asset Seizures J 1 65,274.68
1234 0501 Est. Revenue 29,281.61
0701 Appropriation 29,281.61
1235 0501 Est. Revenue 1,856.08
0701 Appropriation 1,856.08
1236 0501 Est. Revenue 65,274.68
0701 Appropriation 65,274.68
2 1511 33000 330001 Federal Revenue J 2 17,000.00
1 1511 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 17,000.00
1511 0501 Est. Revenue 17,000.00
0701 Appropriation 17,000.00
2 1525 33000 330214 Fed Revenue - DHS J 2 259,106.13
2 1525 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 196.18
1 1525 31092 110000 Salaries J 1 142,498.18
1 1525 31092 160320 Stipend - Cell Phones J 1 5,000.00
1 1525 31092 210000 FICA J 1 11,804.13
1 1525 31092 550100 Travel/Training J 1 40,000.00
1 1525 31092 600000 Materials & Supplies J 1 60,000.00
1525 0501 Est. Revenue 259,302.31
0701 Appropriation 259,302.31
2 1528 33000 330033 DOJ Pass-thru: Bedford
County
J 2 27,069.93
1 1528 39000 560010 Contribution - Other
Localities
J 2 27,069.93
1528 0501 Est. Revenue 27,069.93
0701 Appropriation 27,069.93
2 1561 33000 330001 Grant Revenue - Federal J 2 25,127.00
1 1561 53115 301204 CDC Services J 1 25,127.00
1561 0501 Est. Revenue 25,127.00
0701 Appropriation 25,127.00
2 1565 24000 240616 VHCF - Project Connect
Grant
J 2 41,297.11
1 1565 53153 110000 Salaries - Regular J 1 27,630.65
1 1565 53153 210000 FICA J 1 2,113.46
1 1565 53153 221000 Virginia Retirement System J 1 3,969.00
1 1565 53153 231000 Health Insurance J 1 4,697.00
1 1565 53153 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 169.00
1 1565 53153 240000 VRS Group Life Insurance J 1 293.00
1 1565 53153 270000 Worker's Compensation J 1 190.00
1 1565 53153 520300 Telecommunications J 1 640.00
1 1565 53153 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 1,545.00
1 1565 53153 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 50.00
1565 0501 Est. Revenue 41,297.11
0701 Appropriation 41,297.11
2 1576 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 3,201.83
1 1576 31092 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 3,201.83
1576 0501 Est. Revenue 3,201.83
0701 Appropriation 3,201.83
2 8407 51000 510100 Appropriation Fund Balance J 2 1,083.65
1 8407 79000 568755 Natural Heritage Committee J 1 1,083.65
8407 0501 Est. Revenue 1,083.65
0701 Appropriation 1,083.65
TOTAL 1,442,643.98 721,321.99 721,321.99
*****
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011035
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: August 26, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 15000 150510 Royalties - Cable J 2 17,300.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 650.00
1 2115 62420 300201 Parts & Maintenance - DP J 1 17,300.00
1 2430 62150 301200 Contract Services - Other J 1 650.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 17,950.00
0701 Appropriation 17,950.00
TOTAL 35,900.00 17,950.00 17,950.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011036
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Budget Adjustment - Fire Rescue and Facilities Development
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 32013 520300 Telecommunications J 1 4,386.00
1 1000 41110 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 5,222.00
1 1000 41110 210000 FICA J 1 400.00
1 1000 41110 221000 VRS J 1 791.00
1 1000 41110 241000 Life Insurance J 1 58.00
1 1000 41110 270000 Worker's Comp J 1 82.00
1 1000 41110 160320 Cell Phone Stipend J 1 360.00
1 1000 95000 999908 CONT-RECLASSIFICATIONS J 1 -6,913.00
2 1000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 4,386.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 4,386.00
0701 Appropriation 4,386.00
TOTAL 8,772.00 4,386.00 4,386.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010037
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation of Outstanding Purchase Orders
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Approp - Fund Balance J 2 30,058.50
1 1000 11010 312346 BOS-Resource Management J 1 4,000.00
1 1000 12142 350200 Finance - Binding of Records J 1 2,060.50
1 1000 13020 331100 Registrar - R&M Office Equip. J 1 1,050.00
1 1000 31013 800125 Police - Firearms & Equipment J 1 992.00
1 1000 31013 350000 Police - Print & Bind - External J 1 2,720.00
1 1000 32020 601104 F/R Turnout Gear J 1 1,220.00
1 1000 32020 601400 Other Operating Supplies J 1 1,950.00
1 1000 43002 332100 Maintenance Contract J 1 12,666.00
1 1000 43006 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 2,125.00
1 1000 81024 312700 Prof. Ser. Consultants J 1 1,275.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 30,058.50
0701 Appropriation 30,058.50
TOTAL 30,058.50 30,058.50 30,058.50
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011038
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted general government capital
projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 12200 800700 IT ADP Equipment J 1 150,000.00
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
1 9010 12210 312105 Access Alb Consulting
Serv
J 1 7,740.00
1 9010 12210 332115 Access alb Maint. Contract J 1 214,985.04
1 9010 12210 800710 Access Alb Data
Processing
J 1 196,500.00
1 9010 13020 800736 Voting Machine
Replacement
J 1 91,175.77
1 9010 21000 331000 Court Repair & Maint J 1 1,173.09
1 9010 21000 950135 Court Square
Enhancements
J 1 35,870.72
1 9010 21050 800901 Juvenile Court Building
Renov
J 1 10,000.00
1 9010 21060 800708 Circuit Ct Document
Imaging
J 1 89,508.00
1 9010 31010 800714 Police Technology
Upgrade
J 1 746,037.67
1 9010 31010 800733 Police Video Equipment J 1 44,909.20
1 9010 32010 999999 Fire Dept Contingency J 1 93,779.24
1 9010 32018 312350 Pantops FS Eng/Plan J 1 225,969.27
1 9010 32020 810099 VFD Contingency J 1 231.00
1 9010 32021 312350 Ivy FS Eng/Planning J 1 194,499.24
1 9010 41000 700006 Eng-Ivy Landfill J 1 593,614.81
1 9010 41000 800960 Eng-Street Lights J 1 185,231.74
1 9010 41000 950039 Eng-Meadowcreek Pkwy
Eng
J 1 27,247.03
1 9010 41000 950061 Eng-Meadowcreek Path J 1 20,000.00
1 9010 41000 950110 Eng-Records Mngmt Sys J 1 20,000.00
1 9010 41020 950115 St Improv-Airport Rd
Landscape
J 1 9,323.85
1 9010 41020 950136 St Improv-Transp Local J 1 1,187,485.07
1 9010 41023 800605 Crozet St PII-Construction J 1 35,839.30
1 9010 41023 800750 Crozet St PII-Purch.
Property
J 1 155,306.88
1 9010 41023 800755 Crozet St PII- Right-of-Way
Purch
J 1 292,070.44
1 9010 41350 950510 Sdwalk-S. Pantops J 1 7,883.35
1 9010 41350 950511 Sdwalk-Avon St J 1 70,992.22
1 9010 41350 950514 Sdwalk-Crozet Ave N. J 1 63,783.39
1 9010 41350 950516 Sdwalk-RT
250/Westminster
J 1 4,197.56
1 9010 41350 950517 Sdwalk-Ivy Road J 1 422,063.34
1 9010 41350 950518 Sdwalk-Rte 250 West J 1 156,571.88
1 9010 41350 950519 Sdwalk-Fontain Ave J 1 87,524.66
1 9010 41350 Sdwalk-Hlymd-Powell
Creek
J 1 194,499.24
1 9010 43100 800666 PubWorks-Fac Maint J 1 9,568.92
1 9010 43100 950169 PubWorks-Roadway
Landscap
J 1 258,626.68
1 9010 43100 950174 PubWorks-Hillsdale Sdwk J 1 (2,598.81)
1 9010 71000 800940 Park Enhancements J 1 138,932.21
1 9010 71000 800949 Park Maint Projects J 1 22,700.00
1 9010 71000 950044 Parks Ath. Field
Study/Devel
J 1 13,270.00
1 9010 71000 950074 Parks Recreation Facilities J 1 2,030,000.00
1 9010 71000 950121 Simpson Park J 1 58,913.70
1 9010 71000 950202 Parks Crozet Greenways J 1 95,340.00
1 9010 72030 950026 Tourism-Greeway Prgm J 1 3,113.00
1 9010 72030 950177 Tourism-Byrom Park J 1 546,997.78
1 9010 72030 950233 Tourism-Preddy Creek
Park
J 1 6,593.18
1 9010 72030 950520 Tourism-Rivanna Free
Bridge conn
J 1 2,034.65
1 9010 73020 800949 Libray Maint Projects J 1 142,041.92
1 9010 73020 950114 Crozet Library J 1 382,694.13
1 9010 81010 580409 Planning-ACE J 1 593,137.69
1 9010 81010 950147 Planning-GIS Project J 1 450,235.86
1 9010 81010 950178 Planning-City View J 1 8,339.32
1 9010 81010 950199 Planning-Crozet Main St J 1 92,084.62
1 9010 81110 950550 Places 29 Master Plan J 1 1,385,000.00
1 9010 81110 950560 Pantops Master Plan J 1 198,731.45
1 9010 81110 950565 Rivanna Master Plan J 1 50,000.00
1 9010 81110 999999 Nbrhood Plan-Contigency J 1 50,239.61
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 8,246,553.74
2 9010 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 3,622,991.61
2 9010 51000 512056 Trs. -Wickham Pond
Proffer
J 2 73,764.89
2 9010 51000 512055 Trs. -Proffer: Avon Park J 2 64,596.33
2 9010 51000 512058 Trs. -Proffer: Stillfried Ln J 2 83,379.07
2 9010 51000 512059 Trs. -Proffer: Westhall 1.2 J 2 10,896.30
2 9010 51000 512064 Trs. -Proffer: Westhall 1.1 J 2 53,728.70
2 9010 51000 512065 Trs. -Proffer: Liberty Hall J 2 16,098.27
9010 0501 EST. REVENUE 12,172,008.91
0701 APPROPRIATION 12,172,008.91
1 8534 93010 930010 Avon Park - Trsf to CIP J 1 64,596.33
2 8534 51000 510100 Avon Park - App F/B J 2 64,596.33
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
8534 0501 Est. Revenue 64,596.33
0701 Appropriation 64,596.33
1 8533 93010 930010 Stillfried Ln - Trsf to CIP J 1 83,379.07
2 8533 51000 510100 Stillfried Ln - App F/B J 2 83,379.07
8533 0501 Est. Revenue 83,379.07
0701 Appropriation 83,379.07
1 8540 93010 930010 Wickham Pond - Trsf to
CIP
J 1 73,764.89
2 8540 51000 189911 Wickham Pond-Proffer
Revenue
J 2 73,764.89
8540 0501 Est. Revenue 73,764.89
0701 Appropriation 73,764.89
1 8541 93010 930010 Westhall (1.1) - Trsf to CIP J 1 53,728.70
2 8541 51000 510100 Westhall (1.1)-Proffer
Revenue
J 2 53,728.70
8541 0501 Est. Revenue 53,728.70
0701 Appropriation 53,728.70
1 8544 93010 930010 Liberty Hall - Trsf to CIP J 1 16,098.27
2 8544 51000 189911 Liberty Hall-Proffer
Revenue
J 2 16,098.27
8544 0501 Est. Revenue 16,098.27
0701 Appropriation 16,098.27
TOTAL 24,927,152.34 12,463,576.17 12,463,576.17
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011-039
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs associated with uncompleted School projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION COD
E
AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60100 800665 Sch Board ADA Structural
Changes
J 1 13,051.70
1 9000 60202 312350 Brownsville ES-
Engineering/Plan
J 1 18,564.55
1 9000 60202 800200 Brownsville ES-Furn&Fixt J 1 9,855.00
1 9000 60203 312350 Crozet ES-Eng/Planning J 1 5,145.00
1 9000 60203 312370 Crozet ES-Site Testing/Insp J 1 2,455.40
1 9000 60203 800605 Crozet ES-Construction J 1 260,069.45
1 9000 60204 312350 Greer ES-Eng/Planning J 1 292,312.31
1 9000 60204 800605 Greer ES-Construction J 1 2,383.00
1 9000 60206 800673 Meriwether LES-HVAC
Improv
J 1 3,990.75
1 9000 60301 312350 Albemarle HS-Eng/Planning J 1 6,737.01
1 9000 60410 800949 CATEC-Maint Projects J 1 155,354.44
1 9000 60510 800605 VMF-Construction J 1 8,649.09
1 9000 60510 800901 VMF-Building Renov J 1 18,159.63
1 9000 61101 800700 Class/Instr-ADP Equip J 1 1,983.00
1 9000 62420 312315 Sch Maint-HVAC A/E
Design
J 1 33,114.18
1 9000 62420 312410 Sch Maint-CIP A/E Proj
Study
J 1 18,425.73
1 9000 62420 800140 Sch Maint-Playground Equip J 1 4,571.54
1 9000 62420 800634 Sch Maint-Locker Refurb J 1 54,728.35
1 9000 62420 800665 Sch Maint-ADA Structural J 1 42,931.23
1 9000 62420 800949 Sch Maint-Maint Projects J 1 51,718.70
1 9000 62420 950250 Sch Maint-WAHS Irrigation J 1 9,500.00
1 9000 62422 580000 CIP Donation J 1 145.00
2 9000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 15,179.70
2 9000 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 998,665.36
9000 0501 EST. REVENUE 1,013,845.06
0701 APPROPRIATION 1,013,845.06
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYNTHETIC TURF
FIELD
J 1 28,264.08
2 9001 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 28,264.08
9001 0501 EST. REVENUE 28,264.08
0701 APPROPRIATION 28,264.08
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS SYNTHETIC TURF
FIELD
J 1 26,783.00
2 9002 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 26,783.00
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
9002 0501 EST. REVENUE 26,783.00
0701 APPROPRIATION 26,783.00
TOTAL 2,137,784.28 1,068,892.14 1,068,892.14
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011040
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs associated with uncompleted Stormwater projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION COD
E
AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41000 800975 Engineering-Stormwater J 1 868,071.16
1 9100 41059 312400 Woodbrook Lagoon-Prof
Engin
J 1 25,042.14
1 9100 41059 800605 Woodbrook Lagoon-
Construction
J 1 5,934.56
1 9100 41062 800975 Turtle Creek Stormwater J 1 52,028.55
1 9100 41063 800605 Crozet Stormwtr-
Construction
J 1 7,821.58
1 9100 41063 800692 Crozet Stormwtr-Buffer
Enhanc
J 1 50,000.00
1 9100 41064 800975 COB Biofilters-Stormwtr J 1 4,920.53
2 9100 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 1,013,818.52
9100 0501 Est. Revenue 1,013,818.52
0701 Appropriation 1,013,818.52
TOTAL 2,027,637.04 1,013,818.52 1,013,818.52
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011041
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Appropriates the Grants Leveraging Fund as adopted by the Board September 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 95000 999974 Grants Leveraging J 1 100,000.00
2 1000 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 100,000.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 100,000.00
0701 Appropriation 100,000.00
TOTAL 200,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011042
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: September 9, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 9,000.00
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 8,000.00
1 2251 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 400.00
1 2253 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 325.00
1 2255 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 75.00
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 200.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 9,000.00
0701 Appropriation 9,000.00
2 9001 18100 1811070 AHS Donations-Turf
Project
J 2 1,100.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 1,100.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 1,100.00
0701 Appropriation 1,100.00
TOTAL 20,200.00 10,100.00 10,100.00
*****
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011043
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Create OMB as an independent office and move business development function to
County Executive‟s Office
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 12010 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 (71,521.00)
1 1000 12010 210000 FICA J 1 (5,484.00)
1 1000 12010 221000 VRS J 1 (10,853.00)
1 1000 12010 231000 Health Insurance J 1 (6,910.00)
1 1000 12010 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 (241.00)
1 1000 12010 241000 Group Life J 1 (796.00)
1 1000 12010 312390 Strategic Plan J 1 (1,000.00)
1 1000 12010 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 (150.00)
1 1000 12010 600100 Office Supplies J 1 (650.00)
1 1000 12010 601700 Copy Expense J 1 (300.00)
1 1000 12013 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 66,109.00
1 1000 12013 210000 FICA J 1 5,056.00
1 1000 12013 221000 VRS J 1 10,006.00
1 1000 12013 231000 Health Insurance J 1 6,596.00
1 1000 12013 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 230.00
1 1000 12013 241000 Group Life J 1 734.00
1 1000 12013 520100 Postal Services J 1 100.00
1 1000 12013 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 200.00
1 1000 12013 580650 Business Development Init J 1 1,600.00
1 1000 12013 600100 Office Supplies J 1 333.00
1 1000 12013 601700 Copy Expense J 1 200.00
1 1000 12148 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 (117,739.00)
1 1000 12148 210000 FICA J 1 (9,007.00)
1 1000 12148 221000 VRS J 1 (17,826.00)
1 1000 12148 231000 Health Insurance J 1 (15,076.00)
1 1000 12148 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 (526.00)
1 1000 12148 241000 Group Life J 1 (1,307.00)
1 1000 12148 270000 Worker‟s Compensation J 1 (188.00)
1 1000 12148 332104 Maint. Cont – DP Equip. J 1 (1,199.00)
1 1000 12148 350000 Print & Bind External J 1 (1,000.00)
1 1000 12148 360000 Advertising J 1 (300.00)
1 1000 12148 520100 Postal Services J 1 (85.00)
1 1000 12148 520300 Telecommunications J 1 (700.00)
1 1000 12148 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 (200.00)
1 1000 12148 600100 Office Supplies J 1 (1,000.00)
1 1000 12148 600104 Budget Prep Supplies J 1 (2,500.00)
1 1000 12148 601200 Books & Subscriptions J 1 (190.00)
1 1000 12148 601700 Copy Expense J 1 (5,500.00)
1 1000 12150 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 196,593.00
1 1000 12150 210000 FICA J 1 15,040.00
1 1000 12150 221000 VRS J 1 29,765.00
1 1000 12150 231000 Health Insurance J 1 21,986.00
1 1000 12150 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 767.00
1 1000 12150 241000 Group Life J 1 2,174.00
1 1000 12150 270000 Worker‟s Compensation J 1 188.00
1 1000 12150 332104 Maint. Cont – DP Equip. J 1 1,199.00
1 1000 12150 350000 Print & Bind External J 1 1,000.00
1 1000 12150 360000 Advertising J 1 300.00
1 1000 12150 520100 Postal Services J 1 85.00
1 1000 12150 520300 Telecommunications J 1 700.00
1 1000 12150 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 1,150.00
1 1000 12150 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 200.00
1 1000 12150 600100 Office Supplies J 1 1,650.00
1 1000 12150 600104 Budget Prep Supplies J 1 2,500.00
1 1000 12150 601200 Books & Subscriptions J 1 190.00
1 1000 12150 601700 Copy Expense J 1 5,800.00
1 1000 81021 110000 Salaries-Regular J 1 (60,686.00)
1 1000 81021 210000 FICA J 1 (4,641.00)
1 1000 81021 221000 VRS J 1 (9,185.00)
1 1000 81021 231000 Health Insurance J 1 (6,596.00)
1 1000 81021 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 (230.00)
1 1000 81021 241000 Group Life J 1 (674.00)
1 1000 81021 520100 Postal Services J 1 (100.00)
1 1000 81021 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 (200.00)
1 1000 81021 580650 Business Development Init J 1 (1,600.00)
1 1000 81021 600100 Office Supplies J 1 (333.00)
1 1000 81021 601700 Copy Expense J 1 (200.00)
1 1000 95000 999908 Contingency –
Reclassifications
J 1 (9,039.00)
1 1000 95000 999908 Contingency –
Reclassifications
J 1 (6,719.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
*****
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011044
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Transfer project balance of Brownsville Elementary School Renovation/Addition to the
Vehicle Maintenance Project
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60202 800650 BES Construction (100,000.00)
1 9000 60510 800901 VMF 100,000.00
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011045
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: FY10/11 ECC Fund Reappropriations
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4100 31041 800700 ADP Equipment J 1 169,000.00
1 4100 31041 331800 R&M Buildings J 1 45,000.00
2 4100 5100 510100 ECC Fund Balance J 2 214,000.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue
0701 Appropriation
TOTAL 428,000.00 0.00 0.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP #2011046
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: The Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC) awarded a grant to the County of
Albemarle for the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Project.
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9100 33000 330034 Fed Rev: Fish/Wildlife
Found
J 2 107,000.00
1 9100 41063 312353 Dwntwn Crozet St/wtr -
Design
J 1 107,000.00
9100 0501 Est. Revenue 107,000.00
0701 Appropriation 107,000.00
TOTAL 214,000.00 107,000.00 107,000.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011047
APPROPRIATION DATE 10/6/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: ECC Grants: EOP Restructuring Grant, CERT Grant #1, and CERT Grant #2
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 4130 31063 569990 Reimbursbale Expenses J 1 238,500.00
1 4130 31063 312500 Instructors and local
instructors
J 1 14,500.00
1 4130 31063 601306 Video Instructional J 1 7,000.00
1 4130 31063 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 30,000.00
1 4130 31063 580000 Misc. Expense training
exercises facilities and
logistics
J 1 33,000.00
1 4130 31063 601700 Copying J 1 18,500.00
1 4130 31063 600200 Food Supplies J 1 10,000.00
1 4130 31063 600000 Materials and Supplies J 1 48,500.00
1 4130 31064 550100 Training J 1 1,100.00
1 4130 31064 312500 Instructors J 1 300.00
1 4130 31064 601100 Uniforms/Apparel J 1 400.00
1 4130 31064 600200 Food J 1 350.00
1 4130 31064 601700 Copying J 1 500.00
1 4130 31064 600000 Materials and Supplies J 1 2,550.00
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
1 4130 31064 600100 Office Supplies J 1 500.00
1 4130 31064 601315 Equipment J 1 4,100.00
1 4130 31066 550100 Training J 1 2,400.00
1 4130 31066 312500 Instructors J 1 600.00
1 4130 31066 601315 Equipment J 1 2,000.00
1 4130 31066 600100 Office Supplies J 1 300.00
1 4130 31066 600000 Materials and Supplies J 1 900.00
1 4130 31066 601700 Copying J 1 300.00
2 4130 33000 330217 Cat. Aid – Federal
VADEM – UD Dept. Hm
Sec – EOP
J 2 400,000.00
2 4130 33000 330218 Cat. Aid – Federal
VADEM – UD Dept. Hm
Sec – CERT 1
J 2 9,800.00
2 4130 33000 330219 Cat. Aid – Federal
VADEM – UD Dept. Hm
Sec – CERT 2
J 2 6,500.00
4130 0501 Est. Revenue 416,300.00
0701 Appropriation 416,300.00
TOTAL 832,600.00 416,300.00 416,300.00
______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To consider granting an easement to 1100 Crozet Avenue,
LLC across property owned by the County known as Parcel ID 05600-00-00-01100. This easement
would be for the construction and maintenance of a sanitary sewer line by 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC on
the County property to provide sewer service to 1100 Crozet Avenue (Parcel ID 056A2-01-00-00700).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27, 2010.)
Mr. Gregor Patsch, Project Manager, Office of Facilities Development, summarized the following
executive summary that was forwarded to Board members:
The proposed site plan submitted by 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC for the Crozet Animal Wellness
Veterinary Clinic located at 1100 Crozet Avenue (TMP 056A2-01-00-00700) shows a sanitary sewer
lateral across County property (TMP 05600-00-00-01100) to connect to an existing Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority public sewer manhole (see Attachment E). This proposed connection would require a
sanitary sewer easement across County property.
In a separate matter, the County has requested the dedication of drainage easements on the
privately-owned 1100 Crozet Avenue property (TMP 056A2-01-00-00700) (Attachment B) and on TMP 056A2-
01-00-007A0 (Attachment C) for the Downtown Crozet Streetscape and Stormwater Projects. The owners
have indicated their willingness to grant the requested drainage easements in exchange for the County
granting the sanitary sewer easement.
This conveyance of County property requires a public hearing pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-
1800. By prior agreement of the Board, staff has advertised this item for a public hearing, allowing the
Board to act on this conveyance today, if it so chooses.
Though a sewer connection could be made on the 1100 Crozet Avenue property without crossing
County property, such a connection would create a significant disturbance to the flood plain and water
resources buffer located on that property and would be more expensive than the proposed connection.
An exchange of the desired easements would be a benefit to the Veterinary Clinic by allowing for a more
cost-effective sewer connection with less environmental impact and to the County by facilitating its
Downtown Crozet Streetscape and Stormwater Projects.
There are no budget impacts associated with the granting of this easement; however, this
action will expedite the acquisition of easements necessary to complete the Downtown Crozet
Streetscape and Stormwater Projects.
Staff recommends that following a public hearing, the Board authorize the County Executive to
sign the following documents, each in a form acceptable to the County Attorney:
a. the proposed Agreement between the County, 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC, and Gwendolyn H
Smith (Attachment A);
b. the proposed Deed of Easement from 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC to the County for a drainage
easement across TMP 056A2-01-00-00700 (Attachment B);
c. the proposed Deed of Easement from Gwendolyn H. Smith to the County for a drainage
easement across TMP 056A2-01-00-007A0 (Attachment C); and
d. the proposed Deed of Easement from the County to 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC for a sewer lateral
easement across TMP 056A2-01-00-00700 (Attachment D).
__________
Mr. Patsch added that one of the property owners, Mr. Henry Smith, who owns two fairly large
parcels adjacent to the County‟s property – and as part of his site plan submittal for an animal wellness
center he has requested an easement from the county to connect a sewer lateral to a manhole that lie just
within the county‟s property line. If the County grants Mr. Smith his requested easement, he has agreed to
grant the County a couple of drainage easements across his property. Mr. Smith has already signed the
agreement.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Davis noted that a public hearing is required for the County to grant the sewer easement. The
action requested, after the public hearing, is to approve granting of the sewer easement and then
authorize the County Executive to accept the various agreements set forth in the recommendation.
Ms. Mallek said that the alternative for the connection for the animal wellness center is a very long
pipe with lots of environmental destruction down through the wetlands.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Ms. Mallek then moved to approve granting the sewer easement and authorized the County
Executive to execute the four separate documents, each in a form acceptable to the County Attorney: the
proposed Agreement between the County, 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC, and Gwendolyn H Smith; the
proposed Deed of Easement from 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC to the County for a drainage easement
across TMP 056A2-01-00-00700; the proposed Deed of Easement from Gwendolyn H. Smith to the
County for a drainage easement across TMP 056A2-01-00-007A0; and the proposed Deed of Easement
from the County to 1100 Crozet Avenue, LLC for a sewer lateral easement across TMP 056A2-01-00-
00700. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into 29th day of September, 2010, by and between 1100
CROZET AVENUE, LLC (hereinafter called the “LLC”), GWENDOLYN H. SMITH (hereinafter called “Ms.
Smith”), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter called the “County”).
WITNESSETH, that
WHEREAS, the County is the owner of certain real property described as Albemarle County Parcel ID
Number 05600-00-00-01100, by a certain Deed from the Joanne L. G. Moyer Family Trust, recorded
December 16, 2009 in Albemarle County Deed Book 3830, at page 168, hereinafter called the „Property”; and
WHEREAS, the LLC is the owner of certain real property described as Albemarle County Parcel ID
Number 056A2-01-00-00700, by a certain Deed from Gwendolyn H. Smith, Henry W. Smith, II and Lisa S.
Crawford, Trustees of the Family Trust Created Under the Will of Charles E. Smith, deceased, dated the 4th
day of March, 1992, recorded June 24, 2008 in Albemarle County Deed Book 3613, at page 454; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Smith is the owner of certain real property described as Albemarle
County Parcel ID Number 056A2-01-00-007A0, by a certain Deed from National Residential
Nominee Services, Inc., recorded June 8, 2005 in Albemarle County Deed Book 2995, at page
190; and
WHEREAS, as part of its ongoing Downtown Crozet Streetscape and Stormwater Projects, the
County is seeking new permanent drainage easements across Parcels 056A2-01-00-00700 and 056A2-01-00-
007A0 and
WHEREAS, the LLC is proceeding to build and develop its property at 1100 Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia
as the office of Crozet Animal Wellness; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Site Plan, Revision Dated June 16, 2010, for Crozet Animal Weliness
(hereinafter called the “Plan”), which is expressly made part hereof, as approved or to be approved by t he
County, provides for the connection by the LLC to the existing public sewer as shown on. Attachment D
hereto; and
WHEREAS, as designed, the LLC‟s proposed connection to said existing public sewer will require an
easement across County-owned Parcel 05600-00-00-01100; and
WHEREAS, the parties are agreeable to convey the requested easements upon certain conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in. consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants contained
herein, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree that:
1. Upon request of the County, the LLC shall convey and dedicate to the County a new
permanent drainage easement across Parcel II) Number 056A2-01-00-00700, in a form
substantially similar to the Deed attached as Exhibit A.
2. Upon request of the County, Ms. Smith shall convey to the County two new permanent
drainage easements across Parcel ID Number 056A2-01-00-007A0, in a form substantially
similar to the Deed attached as Exhibit B.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
3. Upon receipt of clear title to the aforesaid easements from the LLC and Ms. Smith, the
County shall convey to the LLC a sewer easement in a form substantially similar to the Deed
attached as Exhibit C, subject to the conditions listed herein.
4. The LLC, its successors and/or assigns may connect to the existing public sewer as shown
on Attachment D.
5. The connection to the public sewer, including any pump stations or facilities, shall be
constructed by the LLC, its successors and/or assigns, at their sole expense, in accordance
with the plans and specifications identified in the Plan. The LLC, its successors and/or
assigns, shall be responsible for paying any connection or tap fee(s) incurred. The LLC, its
successors and/or assigns shall provide as much advance notice as practicable to the
County before commencing any such construction.
6. This Agreement imposes no liability of any kind whatsoever on the County. The LLC agrees
to hold the County harmless from any liability in the event the sewer lateral, pump stations
and/or facilities fail(s) to operate properly.
7. This Agreement shall survive the conveyance of the respective easements, and shall remain
binding on the parties and their respective successors and assigns.
8. This Agreement and the conveyance of County-owned property are subject to and
conditioned on final approval by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
1100 CROZET AVENUE, LLC
By: .
Gwendolyn H. Smith, Member
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By .
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
__________
Parcel ID Number 056A2-01-00-00700
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(A)(3) and from Clerk’s fees under Virginia Code §
17.1-266.
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made this 7th day of December, 2010 by and between 1100 CROZET
AVENUE LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of that certain real property (hereinafter the “Property”) located in
Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described as follows:
That certain real property shown and designated as “New Permanent Drainage Easement Hereby
Dedicated to Public Use”, shown on the plat of Lincoln Surveying, dated August 26, 2009 and last
revised April 8, 2010, entitled “Plat Showing A New Permanent Drainage Easement Across Tax Map
56A2 Parcel 1-7 Located on Crozet Avenue, White Hall District, Albemarle County, Virginia”, a copy of
which is attached hereto to be recorded with this deed (hereinafter, the “Easement” and the “Plat”).
Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the easement conveyed herein.
WHEREAS, the Property is described further as a portion of that certain lot or parcel of land situated
in the White Hall Magisterial District of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, designated as Lot 2, on plat by Hugh
F. Simms & Son, C.L.S., dated August, 1955 and recorded in the Clerk‟s Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 321, page 363; also being the same property conveyed to the
Grantor herein by deed of Gwendolyn H. Smith, Henry W. Sm ith, II and Lisa S. Crawford, Trustees of the
Family Trust Created Under the Will of Charles E. Smith, deceased, dated May 21, 2008, recorded in said
Clerk‟s Office in Deed Book 3613, Page 454; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Grantor to dedicate, grant and convey the Easement for
public use in accordance with this Deed of Easement; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Grantor to dedicate, grant and convey all rights, title and
interest in all ditches, pipes and other improvements and appurtenances within the Easement established for
the purpose of conveying stormwater (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Improvements,” whether
referring to existing Improvements or those to be established in the future by the Grantee), excluding building
connection lines.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and TEN DOLLARS ($10), cash in hand paid,
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does
hereby GRANT, CONVEY, and DEDICATE to public use with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH
COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual exclusive easement as
shown on the Plat and as referred to herein as the Easement.
FURTHER, pursuant to the consideration described herein, the Grantor does hereby GRANT,
CONVEY, and DEDICATE to public use the Improvements.
The Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. Right to construct, reconstruct, install, maintain, repair, change, alter and replace the
Improvements. The Grantee shall have the right to construct, reconstruct, install, maintain,
repair, change, alter, and replace present or future Improvements (hereinafter referred to as
“inspecting, maintaining and operating” or derivations thereof) for the purposes of collecting
storm water and transmitting it through and across the property, protecting property from
flooding, protecting water quality, and otherwise controlling stormwater runoff. All
Improvements within 240 feet of Crozet Avenue shall be underground.
2. Ownership of the Improvements. All Improvements within the Easement, whether they were
installed by the Grantee or any predecessor in interest, shall be and remain the property of
the Grantee.
3. Right of ingress and egress. The Grantee shall have the right and easement of ingress and
egress over any lands of the Grantor adjacent to the Easement between any public or private
roads and the Easement, to inspect, maintain and operate the Improvements.
4. Right to inspect, maintain and operate the Improvements. The Grantee may enter the
Easement to inspect, maintain and operate the Improvements.
5. Right of Grantee to disturb and maintain the Easement premises. The Grantee shall have
the right within the Easement to trim, cut or remove any trees, brush or shrubbery, remove
fences, structures or other obstructions, and take other similar action reasonably necessary
to provide adequate and fully functioning Improvements; provided, however, that the Grantee,
at its own expense, shall restore as nearly as possible, the premises to their original
condition. This restoration shall include the backfilling of trenches, the replacement of fences
and shrubbery, the reseeding or resodding of lawns or pasture areas, and the repair or
replacement of structures and other facilities located outside of the Easement that were
damaged or destroyed by the Grantee. However, except as otherwise provided herein, the
Grantee shall not be required to repair or replace any structures, trees, or other facilities
located within the Easement, but be required only to repair or replace groundcover within the
Easement that was disturbed, damaged or removed as a result of installing or maintaining
any of the Improvements. In addition, the Grantee shall remove from the Easement all trash
and other debris resulting from the installation, maintenance or operation of an Improvement,
and shall restore the surface thereof and any Grantor-installed improvements to their original
condition as nearly as reasonably possible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee shall
not be required to repair or replace anything identified in this paragraph if to do so would be
inconsistent with the proper maintenance or operation of the Improvements. In addition,
neither the Grantee nor any other public agency, including the Virginia Department of
Transportation, shall be responsible for conducting routine maintenance as described in
paragraph 6 except as expressly provided in this paragraph. The Grantee will use its best
efforts to minimize all disruptions to Grantor's business. Grantee agrees to exercise its rights
under this easement in a manner which does not adversely impact the buildings and
improvements situated on the Property, or the vehicular and pedestrian access of Grantor, its
employees and customers to the Property.
6. Right of Grantor to maintain the Easement premises. The Grantor shall have the right to
perform routine maintenance of the Easement premises, including the removal of trash and
landscaping debris, mowing and manicuring lawns and groundcovers, and making any other
aesthetic improvements desired by the Grantor that are not inconsistent with the rights herein
conveyed, and which do not adversely affect the proper operation of any Improvement.
Included within this right is the right of the Grantor to perform sidewalk and driveway
improvements not inconsistent with the drainage Improvements, either at its own option or
because of County requirements. The right to maintain the Easement premises does not
include the right to maintain the Improvements.
7. Temporary construction easement. The Grantee shall have a temporary construction
easement on the lot on which the Easement is located in order to construct, install, maintain,
repair, change, alter, or replace an Improvement. This temporary construction easement
shall expire on the earlier of (i) completion of construction; (ii) abandonment of the easement
by Grantee; or (iii) if construction does not commence by December 31, 2012. If construction
has commenced by December 31, 2012, construction shall be completed by December 31,
2013.
8. Exclusivity; restrictions. The Easement conveyed herein is an exclusive easement. Except
as otherwise provided herein, neither the Grantor nor any person acting under the Grantor‟s
express or implied consent shall modify, alter, reconstruct, interfere with, disturb or otherwise
change in any way the land within the Easement or any Improvement located within the
Easement. Except as otherwise provided herein, such persons shall not construct or
maintain any roadway, or erect any building, fence, retaining wall or other structure within the
Easement. The Grantor has the express consent of the Grantee to construct and maintain a
bridge within the Easement. Grantor retains the right to build an appropriate roadway or
bridge across the Easement as to facilitate future use and development of any and all of the
developable property; provided, however, that the location and design of any such roadway or
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
bridge shall be subject to the Grantee‟s approval and shall not interfere with the proper
operation and maintenance of Grantee‟s Improvements within the Easement. Grantee shall
not unreasonably withhold such approval.
9. Grantee‟s right to assign. The Grantee shall have the right to assign this Easement as its
interests may require.
10. Binding effect. The Easement and the rights and obligations established herein shall run with
the land in perpetuity, and shall be binding upon the Grantor, the Grantee, and their
successors and assigns. All references herein to the “Grantor” and the “Grantee” include
their respective successors and assigns. All references to the “Grantee,” when exercising
any right or obligation herein, includes the Grantee‟s officers, employees and agents.
11. Replacement bridge. Grantee agrees, at its sole expense, to replace the existing bridge now
on the property with a bridge a minimum of 10 feet in width with a load capacity of a minimum
of 20,000 pounds. Replacement shall be completed within one month of the removal of the
existing bridge. Following the Grantee‟s completion of said initial replacement bridge,
Grantor shall be solely responsible for any subsequent expansion, replacement, or relocation
thereof, all of which shall be subject to the Grantee‟s approval, as provided herein.
12. Stream channel. The existing channel has not been identified as a “natural stream” and does
not require buffers under any current County or State code or ordinance. The Grantee shall
not construct any improvements that change the channel‟s designation to a “natural stream,”
as that term is defined in the current Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance, or that
per se require a stream buffer under any current County or State code or ordinance. Both
parties expressly acknowledge and agree that changes to applicable law may affect the
future application of any buffer requirement to the subject property. Nothing herein shall
affect the continued application of the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance and
other applicable law to the subject property. Nothing herein shall affect the right of the
Grantor to just compensation in the event of a regulatory taking, if required by law.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to
Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the County Executive‟s signature hereto and the recordation of
this Deed.
WITNESS the following signatures.
GRANTOR: 1100 CROZET AVENUE, LLC
By _________________________________
Gwendolyn H. Smith, Member
GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By ________________________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
__________
Parcel ID Number 056A2-01-00-007A0
This deed is exempt from taxation under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(A)(3) and from Clerk‟s fees under Virginia
Code § 17.1-266.
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made this ___ day of __________, 201___ by and between
GWENDOLYN H. SMITH, Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of that certain real property (hereinafter the “Property”) located in
Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described as follows:
That certain real property shown and designated as “New Permanent Drainage Easement Hereby
Dedicated to Public Use”, shown on the plat of Lincoln Surveying, dated August 26, 2009 and last
revised April 8, 2010, entitled “Plat Showing Two New Permanent Drainage Easements Across Tax
Map 56A2 Parcel 1-7A Located on Crozet Avenue, White Hall District, Albemarle County, Virginia”, a
copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded with this deed (hereinafter, the “Easement” and the
“Plat”). Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the easement conveyed
herein.
WHEREAS, the Property is described further as a portion of that certain lot or parcel of land situated
in the White Hall Magisterial District of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, designated as Lot No. 1, on a plat by
Hugh F. Simms dated August 1955 and recorded in the Clerk‟s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County, Virginia in Deed Book 321, Page 363, also being the same property conveyed to the Grantor herein by
deed of National Residential Nominee Services, Inc., recorded in said Clerk‟s Office in Deed Book 2995, Page
190; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Grantor to dedicate, grant and convey the Easement for
public use in accordance with this Deed of Easement; and
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the Grantor to dedicate, grant and convey all rights, title and
interest in all ditches, pipes and other improvements and appurtenances within the Easement established for
the purpose of conveying stormwater (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Improvements,” whether
referring to existing Improvements or those to be established in the future by the Grantee), excluding building
connection lines.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and TEN DOLLARS ($10), cash in hand paid,
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does
hereby GRANT, CONVEY, and DEDICATE to public use with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH
COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual exclusive easement as
shown on the Plat and as referred to herein as the Easement.
FURTHER, pursuant to the consideration described herein, the Grantor does hereby GRANT,
CONVEY, and DEDICATE to public use the Improvements.
The Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. Right to construct, reconstruct, install, maintain, repair, change, alter and replace the
Improvements. The Grantee shall have the right to construct, reconstruct, install, maintain,
repair, change, alter, and replace present or future Improvements (hereinafter referred to as
“inspecting, maintaining and operating” or derivations thereof) for the purposes of collecting
storm water and transmitting it through and across the property, protecting property from
flooding, protecting water quality, and otherwise controlling stormwater runoff. All
Improvements within 30 feet of Crozet Avenue shall be underground.
2. Ownership of the Improvements. All Improvements within the Easement, whether they were
installed by the Grantee or any predecessor in interest, shall be and remain the property of
the Grantee.
3. Right of ingress and egress. The Grantee shall have the right and easement of ingress and
egress over any lands of the Grantor adjacent to the Easement between any public or private
roads and the Easement, to inspect, maintain and operate the Improvements.
4. Right to inspect, maintain and operate the Improvements. The Grantee may enter the
Easement to inspect, maintain and operate the Improvements.
5. Right of Grantee to disturb and maintain the Easement premises. The Grantee shall have
the right within the Easement to trim, cut or remove any trees, brush or shrubbery, remove
fences, structures or other obstructions, and take other sim ilar action reasonably necessary
to provide adequate and fully functioning Improvements; provided, however, that the Grantee,
at its own expense, shall restore as nearly as possible, the premises to their original
condition. This restoration shall include the backfilling of trenches, the replacement of fences
and shrubbery, the reseeding or resodding of lawns or pasture areas, and the repair or
replacement of structures and other facilities located outside of the Easement that were
damaged or destroyed by the Grantee. However, except as otherwise provided herein, the
Grantee shall not be required to repair or replace any structures, trees, or other facilities
located within the Easement, but be required only to repair or replace groundcover within the
Easement that was disturbed, damaged or removed as a result of installing or maintaining
any of the Improvements. In addition, the Grantee shall remove from the Easement all trash
and other debris resulting from the installation, maintenance or operation of an Improvement,
and shall restore the surface thereof and any Grantor-installed improvements to their original
condition as nearly as reasonably possible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee shall
not be required to repair or replace anything identified in this paragraph if to do so would be
inconsistent with the proper maintenance or operation of the Improvements. In addition,
neither the Grantee nor any other public agency, including the Virginia Department of
Transportation, shall be responsible for conducting routine maintenance as described in
paragraph 6 except as expressly provided in this paragraph. The Grantee will use its best
efforts to minimize all disruptions to Grantor's business. Grantee agrees to exercise its rights
under this easem ent in a manner which does not adversely impact the buildings and
improvements situated on the Property, or the vehicular and pedestrian access of Grantor, its
employees and customers to the Property.
6. Right of Grantor to maintain the Easement premises. The Grantor shall have the right to
perform routine maintenance of the Easement premises, including the removal of trash and
landscaping debris, mowing and manicuring lawns and groundcovers, and making any other
aesthetic improvements desired by the Grantor that are not inconsistent with the rights herein
conveyed, and which do not adversely affect the proper operation of any Improvement.
Included within this right is the right of the Grantor to perform sidewalk and driveway
improvements not inconsistent with the drainage Improvements, either at its own option or
because of County requirements. The right to maintain the Easement premises does not
include the right to maintain the Improvements.
7. Temporary construction easement. The Grantee shall have a temporary construction
easement on the lot on which the Easement is located in order to construct, install, maintain,
repair, change, alter, or replace an Improvement. This temporary construction easement
shall expire on the earlier of (i) completion of construction; (ii) abandonment of the easement
by Grantee; or (iii) if construction does not commence by December 31, 2012. If construction
has commenced by December 31, 2012, construction shall be completed by December 31,
2013.
8. Exclusivity; restrictions. The Easement conveyed herein is an exclusive easement. Except
as otherwise provided herein, neither the Grantor nor any person acting under the Grantor‟s
express or implied consent shall modify, alter, reconstruct, interfere with, disturb or otherwise
change in any way the land within the Easement or any Improvement located within the
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Easement. Except as otherwise provided herein, such persons shall not construct or
maintain any roadway, or erect any building, fence, retaining wall or other structure within the
Easement. The Grantor has the express consent of the Grantee to construct and maintain a
bridge within the Easement. Grantor retains the right to build an appropriate roadway or
bridge across the Easement as to facilitate future use and development of any and all of the
developable property; provided, however, that the location and design of any such roadway or
bridge shall be subject to the Grantee‟s approval and shall not interfere with the proper
operation and maintenance of Grantee‟s Improvements within the Easement. Grantee shall
not unreasonably withhold such approval.
9. Grantee‟s right to assign. The Grantee shall have the right to assign this Easement as its
interests may require.
10. Binding effect. The Easement and the rights and obligations established herein shall run with
the land in perpetuity, and shall be binding upon the Grantor, the Grantee, and their
successors and assigns. All references herein to the “Grantor” and the “Grantee” include
their respective successors and assigns. All references to the “Grantee,” when exercising
any right or obligation herein, includes the Grantee‟s officers, employees and agents.
11. Replacement bridge. Grantee agrees, at its sole expense, to replace the existing bridge now
on the property with a bridge a minimum of 6 feet in width with a load capacity of a minimum
of 4,000 pounds. Replacement shall be completed within one month of the removal of the
existing bridge. Following the Grantee‟s completion of said initial replacement bridge,
Grantor shall be solely responsible for any subsequent expansion, replacement, or relocation
thereof, all of which shall be subject to the Grantee‟s approval, as provided herein.
12. Stream channel. The existing channel has not been identified as a “natural stream” and does
not require buffers under any current County or State code or ordinance. The Grantee shall
not construct any improvements that change the channel‟s designation to a “natural stream,”
as that term is defined in the current Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance, or that
per se require a stream buffer under any current County or State code or ordinance. Both
parties expressly acknowledge and agree that changes to applicable law may affect the
future application of any buffer requirement to the subject property. Nothing herein shall
affect the continued application of the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance and
other applicable law to the subject property. Nothing herein shall affect the right of the
Grantor to just compensation in the event of a regulatory taking, if required by law.
13. Consent of trustee and beneficiary to subordinate lien. By deed of trust dated June 6, 2005
and recorded June 8, 2005 in the Office of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court in
Deed Book 2995, page 194, the Grantor herein conveyed the subject Property to R. Brian
Ball Trustee, to secure outstanding obligations owed to National City Mortgage, a division of
National City Bank of Indiana, Beneficiary. Pursuant to the authorization of PNC Mortgage, a
subsidiary of PNC National Association, successor in interest to the Beneficiary, as
evidenced by its signature hereto, the Trustee joins in this deed to subordinate the lien of
such deed of trust to the easement conveyed hereby.
The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, accepts the conveyance of this property pursuant to
Virginia Code § 15.2-1803, as evidenced by the County Executive‟s signature hereto and the recordation of
this Deed.
WITNESS the following signatures.
GRANTOR: GWENDOLYN H. SMITH
_________________________________
Gwendolyn H. Smith
BENEFICIARY: PNC MORTGAGE
By:________________________________
______________, _______________
TRUSTEE: R. BRIAN BALL, TRUSTEE
________________________________
GRANTEE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ________________________________
_____________________, County Executive
__________
Parcel ID Number 05600-00-00-01100
This deed is exempt from grantor‟s tax under Virginia Code § 58.1-811(C)(4).
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, is made and entered into on this ________ day of
____________________, 201_____, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantor, hereinafter referred to as the “County,” and 1100
CROZET AVENUE, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Grantee, whose address is 1514 Ballard Drive,
Crozet, Virginia, 22932, hereinafter referred to as the “Grantee.”
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the County does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY to the
Grantee, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, a sewer line lateral easement and right-of-way
(hereinafter, the “Easement”) to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend a sewer line lateral
consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, over, under and across the real property of the County known
as Parcel 05600-00-00-01100 in Albemarle County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
A sewer line lateral easement across Parcel 05600-00-00-01100, located off of Crozet
Avenue in Albemarle County, Virginia, as shown on that certain plat prepared by S.L. Key
Incorporated, Land Surveyors & Land Planners, entitled “Plat Showing a Private Sanitary
Sewer Easement, Located on Tax Map 56, Parcel 11, For the Benefit of Tax Map 56A2,
Parcel 7, Located in Crozet, Whitehall District, Albemarle County, Virginia”, dated January 6,
2011, (the “Plat”), as “Private Sanitary Sewer Easement 1,118 s.f.”
Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith, for the
exact location and dimensions of the sewer line lateral easement hereby granted and the property over which
the Easement crosses.
This Easement shall be subject to the following:
1. Location of Improvements. The Grantee shall construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and
extend improvements (hereinafter, the “Improvements”) only within the Easement. The
Improvements shall be underground.
2. Right to Enter; Ingress and Egress. The Grantee shall have the right to enter upon the
Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and
extending the Improvements within the Easement. The Grantee also shall have the right of
ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair,
replace and extend the Improvements.
3. Excavation and Restoration. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the
Easement, the Grantee shall backfill the excavation in a timely, proper and workmanlike
manner so as to restore the surface conditions to the same condition as they were prior to
excavation, including the restoration of all paved surfaces that were damaged or disturbed as
part of the excavation. This restoration shall include the backfilling of trenches, the reseeding
or resodding of lawns or pasture areas, and the repair or replacement of structures and other
facilities located outside of the Easement that were damaged or destroyed by the Grantee.
4. Ownership of Improvements. The Improvements shall be the property of the Grantee.
5. Maintenance and Remediation. The Grantee, its successors and/or assigns shall perform
any work necessary to keep any Improvements in good working order as appropriate. The
Grantee shall remediate any damage caused by the operation or failure of Grantee‟s
Improvements (including, but not limited to, any discharge of sewage or other waste).
Following any such damage, the Grantee shall restore Grantor‟s property to its prior
condition.
6. Grantor‟s Right to Repair. In the event the Grantee, its successors and/or assigns fail to
maintain any Improvements in good working condition acceptable to the Grantor, the Grantor
may take whatever steps necessary to correct any deficiencies and to charge the costs of
such repairs to the Grantee, its successors and/or assigns. It is expressly understood and
agreed that the Grantor is under no obligation to routinely maintain or repair said
Improvements, and in no event shall this Agreement be constructed to impose any such
obligation on the Grantor.
7. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The Grantee shall at all times indemnify and save
harmless the County, its employees, agents, officers, assigns, and successors in interest
from any claim whatsoever arising from Grantee‟s exercise of rights or privileges stated
herein.
8. Covenants Running with the Land. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall be
covenants running with the land.
9. Temporary construction easement. The Grantee shall have a temporary construction
easement on the lot on which the Easement is located in order to construct, install, maintain,
repair, change, alter, or replace an Improvement. This temporary construction easement
shall expire on the earlier of (i) completion of construction; (ii) abandonment of the easement
by Grantee; or (iii) if construction does not commence by December 31, 2012. If construction
has commenced by December 31, 2012, construction shall be completed by December 31,
2013.
The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors on October 6, 2010, does hereby convey the interest in real estate made by this
deed.
By its acceptance and recordation of this Deed of Easement, the Grantee acknowledges that it, its
successors and assigns, shall be bound by the terms herein.
WITNESS the following signatures.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
GRANTOR: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _______________________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
GRANTEE: 1100 CROZET AVENUE, LLC
By: _______________________________________
Gwendolyn H. Smith, Member
______________
Agenda Item No. 10. JAUNT‟s Annual Report, Donna Shaunesey.
Ms. Donna Shaunesy, Executive Director of JAUNT, thanked the Board for their ongoing support
and their appointment of Juandiego Wade (President), Robert Burke (Secretary), Ray East (former
President), and Cliff Buys (Finance Committee member) to the JAUNT Board.
She presented statistics on JAUNT‟s ridership over the last few years, noting that the public
ridership has remained relatively stable but continues to grow. Ms. Shaunesey said that JAUNT currently
has 64 vehicles, with 31 new ones coming into JAUNT to replace vehicles and to provide a few more for
the fleet.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many miles they put on the vehicles before selling them. Ms. Shaunesy
said they put anywhere from 150,000 to 250,000 miles.
Ms. Shaunesey said that there are more riders from Albemarle County than any other jurisdiction.
She stated that on-time performance continues to improve, with a 99.8% average of timeliness. JAUNT is
providing service in conjunction with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) and federal law requires that they
must provide service to those with disabilities no matter how inconvenient it might be, noting that they only
had two ADA turndowns last year. She noted that the service is only required where there is fixed-route
transit, and every place it is expanded JAUNT needs to be accommodating as well. Ms. Shaunesey noted
that JAUNT leaves “hang tangs” if people are not there to be picked up – and have to pay anyway. She
added that JAUNT finished under budget last year. She said that local funding makes up the largest part
of their budget, state money is shrinking and federal money has held. Agency funding and fares make up
the other part of their budget.
Mr. Dorrier asked if fares are based on mileage. Ms. Shaunesey said they have zone fares and
then there is a financial incentive for people to ride together.
Mr. Boyd asked if federal and state money covers the mandates. Ms. Shaunesey said that they
do not. It is an unfunded m andate. Mr. Boyd asked if it makes sense to take their money if they do not
pay for the service. Ms. Shaunesey said if they did not take the money, they would not be able to fund the
service. She added that there is no obligation to provide rural service.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they expanded into Dillwyn. Ms. Shaunesey said they expanded into
Buckingham three years ago and they have three very productive routes that come up Route 20 daily, one
runs seven days a week and the other runs five days a week. One of the routes goes all the way up
Route 29 to NGIC. Mr. Dorrier asked how much it costs for this route. Ms. Shaunesey said the cost is
$3.00 each way. She added that the rural routes are a bargain because the federal government pays one-
half the cost, therefore, JAUNT can afford to keep the cost low. Ms. Shaunesey added that in the urban
area there is a maximum amount the federal government allows; it cannot be more than twice that of the
City bus fare. The City bus fare is $.75, so they can only charge $1.50 in the urban area. That does
present some difficulties in the City and County because the fare cannot be raised but the service is
increasing.
Mr. Snow asked if each county pays its share. Ms. Shaunesey replied, “yes”. If they do not pay
their share, JAUNT either cuts the service and/or raises the fare. In fact last year they cut two routes in
Fluvanna County. They is no shifting of cost over to another county.
Mr. Rooker asked if the operating revenues also include capital revenues. Ms. Shaunesey
responded that they do not. For JAUNT, capital is funded 80% by the federal government with the
remaining funded up to 19% of the 20% by the State. She added that sometimes the vehicles are funded
100%, and in the past JAUNT has asked local governments to fund the remainder – but this year they will
not make any capital requests.
Mr. Snow asked what happens to the money from selling old vehicles. Ms. Shaunesey said that
money goes into their general fund and is used to offset future capital needs.
Ms. Shaunesey presented information on ridership trends in the area, with medical trips
increasing steadily and ridership for FY10 being artificially low partly because of the snowstorms. She
added that the Scottsville route has been very heavily used and Crozet ridership also increased. She
added that the JABA ridership goes to the senior centers or Adult Day Healthcare Centers. Ms.
Shaunesey said that public ridership, which is what the County helps pay for, increased 5% for the fiscal
year – slowing down a bit from the 8% to 10% increases, perhaps due to the snow.
Mr. Boyd asked if the public routes are like a taxi service. Ms. Shaunesey said most of the routes
are door-to-door, but they are not like taxi service. For taxis you can call the same day and someone will
be there shortly; for JAUNT, you have to call at least a day ahead and sometimes as much as a week
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
ahead especially if you want to make sure you get the time you want. Also, they make sure that as many
people as possible ride together to be as efficient as possible.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they transport people at night. Ms. Shaunesey replied that they do, especially
in the urban area. Since CAT is open until midnight, JAUNT provides that service in the urban area until
midnight. They run services until 10:00 p.m. in the rural areas. She added that itt is more expensive for
nights and weekends.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are people in the rural areas with disabilities who are able to
remain in their homes and get to their jobs via JAUNT. What it gives to the people who are using JAUNT
to be able to get to work to have a job actually is a sensational thing.
Mr. Boyd asked if all counties in Virginia offer this kind of service. Ms. Shaunesey responded that
the number is increasing, with more and more counties seeing its value for economic development
reasons. She noted that one-third of the trips JAUNT provides are getting people to work.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of the ridership is unable to drive. Ms. Shaunesey replied that
they have not ascertained that exact figure, but she is guessing that over one-half of the riders cannot
drive. She noted that people who are not seniors or who do not have disabilities pay full fare, with others
paying about one-half the fare. She added that people with disabilities comprise 82% of the ridership.
Mr. Rooker said that the cost for JAUNT is about $16 per rider, with a $4 voucher, which is
substantially cheaper than using a private service. You have a whole group of people being served that
basically would not have transportation but for something like this. The net cost to the locality, given the
fact that the total capital component is paid pretty much by federal and state dollars, is a significantly good
deal.
Mr. Boyd asked what the County‟s budget is for JAUNT. Ms. Shaunesey replied that this year it is
approximately $866,000. She said that having transportation for elderly parents has enabled people to
work instead of being the sole provider of transportation.
Mr. Boyd commented that he understands the value of JAUNT.
Ms. Mallek mentioned the Ride Home Program that would provide service to someone who had to
get home because of an emergency. Ms. Shaunesey said that the Guaranteed Ride Home Program is
funded through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, and that program is to lure more people into
leaving their cars home and take advantage of alternative ways to get to work. There would be no cost to
the individual to get home in the case of an emergency.
Mr. Dorrier commented that JAUNT is one of the most successful services offered in the County.
Ms. Shaunesey said that a supervisor in Louisa told her that this is one of their most visible
services because no matter where you live in Louisa you can several JAUNT busses every day. They get
a lot of credit for having the JAUNT busses come into that county. She also noted that JAUNT had to
purchase a larger 24-passenger vehicle for its Buckingham route.
Ms. Shaunesey said that Wintergreen decided to fund its own route from Barracks Road to
Wintergreen. This route caters primarily to foreign workers and refugees through the IRC but also
accommodate skiers. Wintergreen also funds a route Amherst and Nelson counties to the top of the
mountain.
Mr. Boyd asked if JAUNT had ever talked with medical facilities such as Martha Jefferson and
U.Va. about compensating JAUNT for some of the routes that are bringing in patients.
Ms. Shaunesey responded that JAUNT is talking right now with Martha Jefferson about how
people will get to the new hospital, as there are a lot of CAT routes that currently go to MJH. She said that
nobody seems to be willing to put out any cash. As far as they are concerned the people are getting there.
Ms. Shaunesey added that occasionally U.Va. social work will pay for a person who has no alternative to
ensure that at least the fare is covered.
Mr. Rooker said that it‟s a little different than the Wintergreen situation, as they have a single
drop-off and pick-up point at the same time.
Ms. Shaunesey noted that JAUNT has met with many employers over the years, in conjunction
with rideshare, to see if there are solutions or things that folks would be willing to pay.
She reported that JAUNT does an annual passenger survey each year, breaking results down by
County – and 98% of respondents said they would recommend JAUNT to a friend.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many accidents JAUNT has each year. Ms. Shaunesey replied that they
have very few. They have an Accident Review Committee to evaluate each accident. She said that the
majority of the accidents are non-preventable, such as another driver hitting a parked JAUNT vehicle. Ms.
Shaunesey indicated that they have never had a fatality despite running for 35 years, with about two
million miles per year and they are carrying very frail people. She said that they have safety meetings
every three months and drivers are awarded for a safe record, and one driver who has been driving for 20
consecutive years just received an award for no accidents and no tickets. She added that safety is
important because it keeps their insurance costs low.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Ms. Shaunesey also said that a number of the folks who are choosing to ride on JAUNT are
choosing it because they don‟t have a choice. She added that if the riders are certified to ride on JAUNT
they could ride on CAT free. She stated that the rural demand-response service has remained level,
which is helpful as it is far more expensive than running regular routes. She added that JAUNT has not
raised its fares since 1994.
Mr. Boyd asked how much of the population is using JAUNT. Ms. Shaunesey responded that she
does not know the number specific to Albemarle but system-wide it is 3,000 to 4,000 people.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the County comprises about 50% of the overall demand.
Ms. Shaunesey said that JAUNT would be starting a service from Culpeper under a federal grant,
at no cost to the County, to accommodate people who need to get to Charlottesville for medical
appointments. Ms. Shaunesey said that they are also working through a senior “shopping” grant, at no
cost to the County, which will take seniors to local farmers markets throughout the area. The seniors are
loving it. She added that they are starting a Transit Development Plan which is State mandated, to plan
their future for the next six months. She mentioned that JAUNT is celebrating its 35th anniversary by
raising money for its nonprofit – to promote ticket scholarships, which were provided to 200 riders last
year. Ms. Shaunesey noted that JAUNT, Inc. is not a nonprofit, but they have formed a nonprofit arm –
JAUNT Friends - so that they can accept private donations.
To conclude her presentation, Ms. Shaunesey presented a photo of the JAUNT staff with a quote
from an Albemarle County passenger about the organization‟s exceptional personnel.
Mr. Dorrier asked to what she attributes JAUNT‟s smooth-running operation.
Mr. Tucker said that he attributes it to Ms. Shaunesey, as she has been with the organization for a
very long time. He mentioned that he served on the JAUNT Board years ago, when the maintenance
location was under a tree for shade. She has grown this organization into a top-notch, one of the best in
the state, if not the best.
Ms. Shaunesey recognized the strength of JAUNT‟s Board of Directors and staff.
______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Update on Proposed Tethering Ordinance.
Ms. Jenny Lyttle, Assistant County Attorney, summarized the following executive summary that
was forwarded to Board members:
On July 8, 2009 the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code to bring the County‟s animal laws into conformance with State law.
The comprehensive amendment included the adoption of animal welfare laws as well as an amendment to
the County‟s running at large restrictions. Dogs are permitted to run at large on properties zoned as rural
areas unless an area is specifically restricted by designation in the ordinance.
Board members have recently received requests and petitions from the public to consider
adopting an ordinance to regulate the number of hours a dog may be tethered. Currently, the Albemarle
County Code does not have a specific ordinance to prohibit or limit the tethering of dogs or other
companion animals; however, does regulate the welfare and care of animals by defining adequate shelter
and space for animals and basic tethering regulations intended to protect animals from injury. The Board
has never previously considered adopting a specific tethering ordinance, and thus directed staff to review
this matter and research tethering ordinances in other localities.
Tethering in Virginia
The Virginia Code does not specifically authorize localities to ban tethering. Rather, Virginia Code
§ 3.2-6543 (A) authorizes localities to adopt certain animal ordinances which are parallel to or more
stringent than the Virginia Code. Tethering and certain conditions of a tether are set forth in the Virginia
Code definition of “adequate space”, which is the same definition used in Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl,
Section 4-100 Definitions of the County Code (See Attachment A). The “adequate space” definition sets
forth the minimum length of a tether, requires such tether to be attached to a proper collar, halter or
harness and requires that the animal be protected from injury or becoming entangled. Section 4-105(A) of
the County Code requires all companion animal owners to provide such “adequate space.” Initial violations
of Section 4-105 are a Class 4 misdemeanor, with subsequent violations being a Class 2 or Class 3
misdemeanor, as set forth in section 4-105(B) of the County Code.
Approximately 10 localities (8 Cities, 2 Counties) in Virginia have adopted ordinances to restrict
the number of hours an animal may be tethered. Those localities are the City of Alexandria, City of
Charlottesville, City of Danville, City of Martinsville, City of Norfolk, City of Richmond, City of Staunton, City
of Virginia Beach, Fauquier County, and Northhampton County. (See Attachment B) The time limitation
for tethering varies among the localities, from 1 hour in a 24 hour period up to 12 hours in a 24 hour
period. The City of Charlottesville restricts tethering to no more than 10 hours in a 24 hour period. Both
the City of Martinsville and Danville restrict tethering to no more than 4 hours in a 24 hour period, and
have additional restrictions based on weather. The City of Staunton has taken a different approach and
only prohibits tethering between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Only 2 of the localities adopted a stand-
alone tethering ordinance. Most of the localities incorporate the tethering restrictions in their ordinances
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
defining or addressing adequate shelter. The City of Richmond was the only locality to incorporate the
tethering restriction in its animal cruelty ordinance.
Albemarle County
Since this matter was first brought to the Board‟s attention in June of this year, approximately 50
Albemarle County citizens have submitted to the Board of Supervisor‟s office a petition in support of
Albemarle County adopting a tethering ordinance. The Albemarle County Animal Control Officers (ACO)
assessed the number of complaints received regarding tethering concerns by reviewing their call logs for
the years of 2008-2010. During that two year period, ACOs received approximately 101 calls regarding
animal welfare concerns and 6 calls specific to tethering concerns. Of the 6 calls specific to tethering
concerns, ACOs found the tether to not be in compliance with the County Code in all 6 cases. No charges
were placed, as the ACO‟s first approach to such violations is to educate the animal owner, and provide a
“Notice to Comply”, which provides an opportunity for the violation(s) to be corrected. All noted violations
were corrected by the animal owner once the ACO explained the concern and violation(s). During animal
welfare checks, the ACOs often find the dog to be in a pen, not tethered, and generally there are no
violations of the County Code, but the ACOs do spend time educating the animal owner on the welfare
concerns reported. Based on the number of complaints received from 2008-2010, the ACOs have not
found tethering to be a significant animal safety issue in Albemarle County.
Staff is concerned that a tethering ordinance would be difficult to enforce, and would not address
the welfare concerns reported by citizens. Additionally, there is concern that a tethering ordinance would
not be compatible with the County‟s running at large ordinance, which permits dogs to run at large in the
rural areas unless specifically prohibited by designation in the ordinance. An ordinance that restricts the
number of hours a dog may be tethered could discourage dog owners from tethering their dog and
increase the likelihood that such dog be allowed to run loose. Lastly, dogs which are generally properly
cared for while being tethered during the day would become subject to such tethering ordinance
restrictions, despite the lack of specific animal welfare concerns. This could cause an increase in
reported animal welfare calls for ACOs related to tethering, in turn increasing the number of animal
welfare inspections for dogs and dog owners which are otherwise in compliance with the County‟s animal
laws and for dogs that are otherwise being cared for properly.
Rather than adopt an ordinance which would limit the amount of time a dog can be tethered
outside, the ACOs believe amendments to the definition of “adequate shelter”, “adequate space” and
“treatment/adequate treatment” would more appropriately address the concerns reported to and seen by
the ACOs. For example, an amendment to the adequate shelter definition to provide examples of the
types of structures not deemed adequate would address reported animal shelter concerns, and an
amendment to the “adequate space” definition to further define the length and weight of a tether and/or a
running line, and prohibiting dogs six (6) months of age or younger and female dogs in heat from being
tethered, would provide more clarity to citizens as to what is appropriate for dogs. While the ACOs can
adequately handle the reported welfare concerns under the existing County animal laws, amendments to
these definitions would provide the ACOs additional tools when responding to animal welfare calls and
greater clarity to animal owners and concerned citizens.
Based on feedback received from the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA (CASPCA) Executive
Director, the CASPCA takes the position that tethering for twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week is
not appropriate, but has not specifically commented on a tethering ordinance. The CASPCA also
recognizes that any tethering ordinance considered by the County should be balanced with and looked at
congruently with other County animal laws. The CASPCA was part of a staff-citizen committee when the
City of Charlottesville considered adopting a tethering ordinance, and such committee drafted the
proposed City ordinance, which was adopted by City Council in 2006. The CASPCA advocates this same
committee process be used in the County should the Board decide to consider adopting a tethering
ordinance.
The Police Department is concerned that the adoption of a tethering ordinance could lead to a
significant increase in the number of calls for service in a couple of areas. One area would be where
ACOs are requested to check on the compliance of pet owners with this new ordinance. This could be
very time consuming if an ordinance is adopted where a specific time limit is placed on tethering. Another
area indirectly related to the enactment of such an ordinance could be the increase of complaints of dogs
running at large. The Police Department fears that having a tethering ordinance without a running at
large ordinance applicable to the entire County, could lead to instances where dog owners allow dogs to
run loose rather than deal with the new restrictions on tethering. This will increase the population of the
dogs running at large and ACO‟s and the community could be dealing with dogs that have been tethered
for years that are now at large and potentially dangerous or vicious.
The Police Department currently has four ACOs that are responsible for a very heavy call volume.
Any significant increase to their calls for service would require another ACO to be hired at the following
costs:
Total salary and benefits for ACO ($43,246.57) + Operating and Capital Costs ($47,600) +
Overtime ($3,000) = $93,846.57
In addition, there is currently only one ACO on duty in the evenings and none on the weekends. A
tethering ordinance could increase the call volume on the weekends to necessitate either moving one of
the current daylight officers to weekend coverage or use a new officer to handle weekends and assist on
evenings. Moving an ACO off of the regular Monday-Friday daylight coverage would create a significant
delay in answering calls for service and conducting follow-up investigations.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Staff does not recommend a tethering ordinance at this time because historical ACO data does
not indicate tethering to be a significant animal safety issue in the County, it would subject otherwise
responsible dog owners and properly cared for dogs to an additional restriction, enforcement would be
difficult, and such an ordinance may not be compatible with the County‟s running at large ordinance. Staff
does recommend that the Board consider amending the definitions of “adequate shelter”, “adequate
space”, and “treatment/adequate treatment” of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, to better clarify and define
suitable space and treatment. (See Attachment C) If the Board desires to pursue adopting a tethering
ordinance, staff recommends a staff-citizen committee be formed to develop a consensus approach.
__________
Ms. Lyttle stated that they spoke with the Charlottesville‟s Animal Control Officer to see what the
impact has been in the City. Since they adopted the ordinance in 2006, they have had a total of five
complaints – but no one has been cited. She said that Charlottesville also indicated that 10 hours is
almost unenforceable, and when they have gone out to investigate complaints they have found dogs not to
be aggressive, nor to be in bad condition. Ms. Lyttle said that Fauquier reports similar findings, with very
few complaints regarding tethering and difficulty enforcing their 12-hour restriction.
Ms. Lyttle reiterated that if the Board does choose to adopt a tethering ordinance, staff
recommends forming a staff-citizen committee to help develop it.
Mr. Boyd asked her to reiterate how many tethering complaints there had been. Ms. Lyttle replied
that there were six in a two-year period.
Mr. Boyd said that his impression has been that there are many more cases than this.
Ms. Mallek stated that perhaps people are not complaining because they feel nothing can be
done. She does not think it is a good idea to look the other way.
Mr. Davis said there are two separate issues here. He pointed out that a situation with a dog
improperly tethered to such a degree that it is having trouble moving or is being injured, or is not attached
to a proper collar can be addressed now under existing County Code under violations of adequate space.
He said that he is not sure that a tethering ordinance that limits tethering to a certain amount of time will
address those issues any better than what the County currently has in its ordinance. He noted that the
other issue is whether dogs should be tethered or tethered for long periods of time in a day. The other
ordinances that limit tethering may not have led to a marked increase in calls because people do not know
how long dogs have been tethered unless they‟re observing them the entire time. Unless somebody
thinks that a dog that is being tethered is being hurt or injured in some way, you may not get those calls.
Whether or not the ordinance can be enforced is a real problem because it is hard to prove that someone
has tethered a dog for 10 consecutive hours or 12 consecutive hours or whatever the requirement is in the
ordinance. Mr. Davis added that under a new anti-tethering ordinance, Animal Control would have to
investigate any complaints of a dog being tethered too long – and it is unclear as to how many additional
calls that might bring. He emphasized that even as they respond, it is going to be very unlikely that they
will be able to cite an owner for violation – but they would have an opportunity to observe the dog for
adequate space. He added that staff does not know if a tethering ordinance will improve any situation that
the Police can already respond to and deal with. It might lead people to believe that animals are not being
properly cared for simply because they are tethered. If the Board thinks that dogs being tethered for a
certain amount of time should not be allowed, then there needs to be a tethering ordinance. If the Board
thinks that dogs should not be tethered only when they are not being properly cared for, then the County
probably does not need a tethering ordinance.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that there was a situation in Orange where a family pet has been tethered
for a long time and killed a child, as the animal becomes very territorial and cannot cope with that. She
said that she certainly does not want to look the other way and have something dreadful like that happen
because the County didn‟t take adequate steps to educate people. She added that she would support
having a citizens committee to talk about next possible steps.
Officer Kim Maddox, of Albemarle County Police, stated that the State Code requires that a tether
be three times the length of the animal, from the point of the nose to the end of the tail. Their
recommendation is to extend it to five times the length.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is a size of chain stipulated in the ordinance. Officer Maddox
responded that there is no specification at this time, but their recommendation is that it can only be about
one-eighth the weight of the animal. She said that there is concern that an anti-tethering ordinance might
make people let their dogs run loose, which is a problem if they are aggressive.
Mr. Rooker mentioned a case in Nelson County where an Afton woman was killed by a pack of
dogs running loose. He said the concern here is to see that the welfare of the dog is considered. A
problem he sees with the tethering ordinance is that it is unlikely that anyone will be cited.
Mr. Snow pointed out that Staunton disallows any tethering at night, and asked Officer Maddox if
she had seen major abuse – such as a collar growing into a dog‟s neck.
Officer Maddox said that with one recent case she is citing for abuse because there were issues
with the overall care – such as a short chain, no house, no water, etc. It is the overall care of the animal
that she is charging the owners.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Dorrier said the length of the chain can determine if a dog is being properly treated. He added
that you can act right now with the present laws and prevent cruelty to animals.
Officer Maddox agreed, stating that putting in provisions as to specific types of shelter – with no
metal or plastic barrels allowed – will also help address concerns. She added that another recommended
provision would be no tethering of a dog under six months old.
Mr. Boyd said that he was impressed with the program presented to the Board a few months ago,
whereby a group working with the Boy Scouts made houses for dogs and educated owners on care. He
asked if there is any reason the County could not work with that organization or a similar one, and let the
private sector deal with a lot of it.
Officer Maddox stated that she has met with and the County works with that organization to help
get dog houses to those homeowners.
Mr. Boyd commented that the recommendations from staff are excellent, and are not really
looking away but are dealing with the situation in a practical way.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be possible to require a pulley system or running line instead of a
fixed chain.
Officer Maddox commented that she is not sure every area has space available for a pulley
system.
Mr. Davis explained that the proposed ordinance that Ms. Lyttle worked with Officer Maddox on is
minimum requirements for a pulley system, but it does not require that all dogs be put on a pulley system.
Mr. Rooker said that it seems to be a whole lot better for the animal to have a pulley system so
that they can move around.
Mr. Davis stated that staff would like to bring back the ordinance amendments as to adequate
space and adequate care to provide greater clarity as to what a violation would be. He added that right
now this is based on an officer‟s judgment. If the Board wants to pursue a tethering ordinance, then staff
recommends involving a citizen process.
Mr. Snow said that he is more in favor of a comprehensive ordinance rather than one focusing
exclusively on tethering.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that he would like Ms. Mallek‟s suggestion for a required pulley system
be examined.
Mr. Davis responded that staff could certainly research that with other ordinances and make
recommendations to the Board. Mr. Davis added that if there is Board consensus, staff has direction to
develop final ordinances that would address the issues outlined in the executive summary (set out above).
Staff will then bring an ordinance to the Board for public hearing. He suggested that any concerned
citizens provide input to staff while they are working on the proposed ordinance over the next few weeks.
Ms. Mallek said if she is the only Board member supportive of a committee, she will not pursue it.
Board members concurred.
______________
Agenda Item No. 12. County Owned Properties Overview, Bill Letteri.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Director of Facilities Development, said this item is the result of a work session
from earlier in the Spring where several Board members had asked about the status of County owned
properties. The County has ownership interest in about 140 different properties – some of which are
owned solely by the County and others being owned jointly with other agencies or jurisdictions. The
purpose of this discussion is to provide a general overview of the nature and status of the various
properties.
He said that the properties under consideration are those titled to the County, transferred to the
School Board, titled jointly by the County and the City, owned jointly with fire groups such as East Rivanna
and Scottsville, and property interests such as the Regional Jail Authority. Mr. Letteri stated that staff has
categorized these as Parks and Recreation properties, which comprise mostly of County-owned land at an
assessed value of about $60.0 million; School properties, which comprise about 776 acres; Government
operations, which occupy about 300 acres; and land-banked properties, which have been acquired but are
not in current use. He noted that the total acreage is approximately 4,400 acres with an assessed value of
approximately $523.0 million.
Under Parks and Recreation, the facilities are used for parks and recreational facilities in active
use, community centers, reservoirs, and various greenway spaces and trails. Mr. Letteri said that the
School property category includes elementary, middle, and high school facilities, including CATEC, as well
as recreational facilities on school sites, and operations such as Building Services and Vehicle
Maintenance facility off of Hydraulic Road. He explained that the government facilities include the County
offices complexes, the Courts facilities, the Jail complex, Fire and Rescue facilities, radio towers, libraries,
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
stormwater management facilities throughout the County, right-of-way and easements in connection with
roadways and projects, buildings jointly owned with the City, and the Old Keene landfill site.
Mr. Letteri then reviewed the County‟s current land banked properties: an 8.5-acre parcel near
Earlysville Forest for Earlysville Village; a residual 6-acre parcel that remains adjacent to Agnor-Hurt;
property at Polo Grounds Road that was acquired for a possible elementary school site; a small 4.75-acre
piece proffered at Forest Lakes and contemplated for use as a northern library site; residual property
adjacent to Monticello High School that is currently being used for the athletic program; 32-acres behind
Monticello Fire Station; a seven-acre parcel in Scottsville associated with the Keene landfill site; and the
Old Jai/Jailor‟s House and courtyard in downtown Charlottesville. He said that the total holding is 92 acres
with an assessed value of approximately $9.7 million.
Mr. Letteri said that the Earlysville Village parcel was donated to the County as a condition of a
rezoning. An appointed park committee met to consider whether the parcel could be used for some kind
of active recreation, but the group concluded that it was not desirable to have it as part of the community
so no action was taken. A good deal of the property is encumbered with a drainage easement in
conjunction with neighboring development areas.
Mr. Rooker asked if the parcel has any development rights associated with it. Mr. Letteri
responded that he was not sure.
Ms. Mallek noted that because of the way it is wooded it may not have development rights, adding
that the drainage from the post office, etc. was designed to go into a swail on the parcel.
Mr. Tucker clarified that there are drainfield easements from the properties around it as well.
Mr. Davis said that from a zoning standpoint, it has been considered to be passive open space,
and if it were transferred it could probably only be used as such.
Mr. Rooker commented that the $256,000 assessment is probably overly aggressive. Mr. Davis
responded, “yes”.
Mr. Davis added that the property was envisioned to be a neighborhood park as part of the
Earlysville Forest rezoning, but there was a community process and they decided they did not want an
active recreation area. The community did not want a public recreation area open to the entire community
and therefore the property was left undeveloped.
Mr. Rooker commented that this could be a prime piece of property that the County could sell if
there is no planned use for it. He reiterated that the assessment is unrealistic if it has no use.
Mr. Davis said staff has not thoroughly examined what could be done with the property. If the
County wanted to make it a developable parcel they have the authority to do that, but it may be an
unpopular decision to people in the area.
Mr. Boyd suggested that maybe the neighbors would want to purchase it to make sure it stays the
way it is now.
Mr. Snow asked if the process for this discussion was for the Board to earmark any properties that
it wanted to consider for disposal. He added that he would like to add this parcel to the list. He also added
that if the County considers disposing the property, the process should include making it available to
anyone, not just the homeowners association.
Mr. Rooker concurred.
Mr. Boyd suggested listing the property for sale and then see what the public comes forward to do
with it.
Mr. Tucker indicated that there is a process that must be undertaken for the County to sell a
parcel, and suggested that the Board review the entire list first before making that determination.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Agnor-Hurt parcel was owned by the school originally. Mr. Tucker
explained that there was a residue amount left and maintained by local government when they built the
school.
Mr. Thomas noted that the parcel was considered for the Seminole Fire Department.
Mr. Boyd asked about ownership of adjacent recreation property at large complexes like
Hollymead and Sutherland. Mr. Letteri responded that in the case of Monticello High School, the property
is owned by the school and was recorded as a residual parcel.
Mr. Davis explained that when school sites are acquired, sometim es the School Board contracts
for the property directly – but in the case of Monticello High School the County acquired a large tract for a
number of different intended uses, such as the school, a road extension, a fire station and other public
facilities. He said that after the County acquired the property, it subdivided it for future use and transferred
all of the Monticello High property to the School system. Mr. Davis mentioned that the County retained a
4.93-acre piece, a small portion on the side of the school.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Boyd asked if all 56 acres for Baker-Butler School was turned over to the School Board. Mr.
Davis replied, “yes”.
Mr. Tucker noted that with Agnor-Hurt the County purchased the parcel in one tract but only
transferred the amount the school needed, which is why there is some residual left.
Mr. Letteri mentioned that there is a sewer easement running along the edge of the Agnor-Hurt
property. He noted on a map the location and its proximity to Route 29 and Berkmar Drive. He said that
the property has frontage along Route 29, and the sewer easement runs along the southern edge of the
property.
Ms. Mallek noted that the commercial properties to the south are cut into the hill, and there is a
pretty steep grade there. Mr. Thomas commented that it is extremely steep.
Mr. Letteri pointed out that there is a ravine on this property as well.
Mr. Boyd said that it is a valuable property.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that it isn‟t particularly valuable to the schools.
Mr. Davis mentioned that the site has been considered as a site for a dog pound or other urban
services. If the County needs a five-acre site in that part of the County in the future, it would be very
difficult to find one, if this is sold.
Mr. Tucker said that the goal for today was just to have staff identify what land the County owns,
and the uses for which the Board can contemplate in the future.
Mr. Letteri said that parcel on Polo Grounds Road was acquired in connection with subdivision
work. It was originally purchased as a potential site for a new Northern Elementary School.
Mr. Davis also stated that a private owner offered the County the site at below market value for an
elementary school, and took a tax donation for part of the purchase price. At that time the County
recognized that this was a potential elementary school site that could work, but it would have to acquire an
additional piece of property. After a decision was made on Baker-Butler, the County did not proceed to
purchase the additional piece of property. It is a parcel that could be acquired for a school now if needed.
This is not the ideal site under current conditions, but staff felt it would be prudent to acquire this site at a
good price at the time and hold onto it.
Mr. Tucker added that at one time there was discussion of the extension of Meadow Creek
Parkway around to connect to Route 29.
Mr. Boyd asked if this property had som e homes on it. Mr. Davis said that there is a house on this
particular property, as well as a house on the piece of property the County does not own.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know the maintenance cost for the County to regularly mow the
grass and maintain the property. Mr. Letteri said there is no maintenance being done on the building; he
believes just minor mowing to keep the grass cut.
Mr. Rooker asked how realistic it is to hold onto this property for a school site, given the limitations
of Polo Grounds Road – with the railroad tunnel being unsafe and requiring millions of dollars to widen.
He added that there are also already two elementary schools near this location, and it would be helpful to
have the School system provide a realistic assessment as to their future use for it.
Ms. Mallek commented that if there is significant population growth in the high-density areas near
Rio Road, it might be wise to have a school site there – and Polo Grounds is already improved in the
direction that would be used for school traffic. The children do not come from the other side of the tunnel.
Mr. Davis pointed out that when the County acquired the site, they didn‟t intend to use it for 20, 30
or 40 years – and if Board members can envision what the area might look like at that time it might help
inform their decision. There are many places in Spotsylvania County where they have two or three
elementary schools within spitting distance of each other because they have a concentrated high
population and they do not want large elementary schools.
Mr. Boyd said that will be part of the Places 29 discussion. His biggest concern is a CIP that is
doing nothing, and a library that needs to be built. He asked if it is better to hold onto this piece of property
or get that library built. He suggested looking at this parcel in the context of their Places 29 discussions.
Board members agreed.
Mr. Letteri discussed the five-acre parcel at the entrance to Forest Lakes South, which was
acquired as a proffer in connection with the rezoning for South Forest Lakes. He said that it was
considered at one time as a potential site for a northern library – but the size and topography made it an
unlikely candidate. It may also be used in connection with the construction of a future grade-separated
interchange.
Mr. Boyd asked if this site was abandoned as a potential library site given the proffered site at
North Pointe.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Davis responded that the North Pointe site is small and may not meet the Library Board‟s
space requests for a northern facility, but that remains to be determined. The Forest Lakes parcel would
have adequate land.
Mr. Rooker commented that the current Northside Library location seems more central.
Mr. Tucker noted that the County had considered this new northern location as a main site, with
Northside being eliminated.
Mr. Thomas asked how much of the property would be removed when Route 29 is widened.
Mr. Letteri replied that he isn‟t certain where the widening would impact, but if the light were
eliminated and an interchange were put in then it would definitely take some of that land. He is not sure if
the widening would occur towards the median or towards the east.
Mr. Rooker said that the area is very low on the list of priority mobility areas, as there is no traffic
coming in from the west. He stated that an interchange there wouldn‟t provide any east-west flow. Also,
there is no destination point on the west side.
Mr. Boyd commented that this is another property for which the County should consider its other
options.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was any problem legally with selling property that was accepted by the
County as a proffer.
Mr. Davis responded that the deed doesn‟t have any restrictions on it, but the zoning application
plan showed it as a public use site – so that issue would need to be examined.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, pointed out that the property is located at the base of the
expansion area the Board is currently considering, so it would provide access at the lower end of that area
to Places 29. It is also intended to be more of a grade separation than a true interchange, but there would
be jug handles similar to the Dairy Road concept. He said that the Forest Lakes Board has indicated their
preference for any jug handle or connection to be on this property instead of the north side.
Ms. Mallek commented that the properties‟ transportation aspects are significant.
Mr. Dorrier said that it would become more important as more people get out there.
Mr. Boyd said that this is a time just to explore options and opportunities.
Mr. Letteri stated that there are also four different parcels around Avon Street, including one
residual parcel adjacent to Monticello High, which is actually titled to the County of Albemarle. He said
that the parcel was once considered for an indoor pool facility but that has now been abandoned. The
parcel is now land banked for future public use. Mr. Letteri said that there are three parcels adjacent to
Monticello Fire Station. These parcels were purchased as potential sites for an elementary school or a
possible future governmental/courts complex.
Mr. Rooker commented that it does not seem wise to sell those parcels, as there is a good block
of adjacent property that could have multiple uses, the location is close to I-64, and it is very valuable.
Mr. Dorrier asked the total size of these properties. Mr. Davis responded that altogether they are
about 33 contiguous acres.
Mr. Davis said that the County had originally considered the site for a middle school to be on the
same grounds as the high school, but even without that it is an ideal location for a long-term future county
complex.
Mr. Dorrier noted that if the County would ever want a pool for school use, this would be a great
location for it.
Mr. Boyd said that given the flat topography, if it would not make sense to consider an alternate
use of the site in the interim, i.e., soccer field or some other use.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that the County has a design for a complex that includes a middle school,
with the road coming up to the fire station extending into the property.
Mr. Boyd commented that the School Board hasn‟t shown any interest in that complex. Mr.
Tucker responded that they are not currently.
Ms. Mallek said that it is too far away from kids down south to be a feeder school.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the parcel will become even more important as Biscuit Run Park develops.
Board members agreed that it should hold onto this property.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Letteri stated that the Keene property is a small seven-acre parcel that was acquired to
accommodate a transfer station with the closure of the landfill there.
Mr. Tucker clarified that the property lies right at the intersection of Scottsville Road and Plank
Road in Keene. He said that the County held numerous hearings on the site as a potential transfer station
when Keene was closed, and the public was not particularly pleased with the proposal.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the County needs to hold onto that property because it could possibly
develop into something more than it currently is.
Mr. Snow mentioned that the parcel might be used to help complete the “village” look of that area.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the property is zoned RA, as designated in the Comp Plan. It could not
be rezoned and be consistent with the Plan.
Mr. Dorrier said that since the post office is located in the area, it makes it more than just rural.
Mr. Snow and Mr. Rooker suggested that it be added to the list of properties to look at further.
Mr. Letteri said that the last property for discussion is the Old Jail property which is physically
located in the City, within the complex of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court site. He said that the
Historical Society is currently assessing the property for use as a museum .
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that Mr. Steven Meeks had told him that there was a delay in getting a plan
together for the Old Jail site, and said that he is considering approaching Mr. Hank Brown for some ideas.
Mr. Letteri then reviewed his understanding of the outcomes from the Board‟s discussion of land
banked properties: further evaluate the Earlysville Village, Forest Lakes and Agnor-Hurt properties for
other potential uses; discuss with the School Board the Polo Grounds property and its viability as a school
site in the future; maintain the Forest Lakes and Monticello properties for future public use; and explore
the Keene property for potential other uses.
Board members concurred.
______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Closed Meeting.
At 12:45 p.m., Mr. Thomas offered motion that the Board go to into Closed Meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to Boards,
Committees, and Commissions; under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for a
public safety facility because a discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining
position or negotiating strategy of the Board; under Subsection (7) to consult with Legal Counsel and staff
regarding a specific matter requiring legal advice relating to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision; and
under Subsection (7) ) to consult with Legal Counsel and staff regarding a specific matter requiring legal
advice relating to an interjurisdictional agreement. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting and Mr. Thomas moved that the Board
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member‟s knowledge, only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the
closed meeting. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Snow offered motion to appoint/reappoint the following individuals:
appoint Peter Wiley to the Historic Preservation Committee, with said term to expire June
4, 2013.
reappoint Wallace McKeel to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, with said term to expire
October 20, 2012.
reappoint Robert Burke and Raymond East to JAUNT, with said terms to expire
September 30, 2013.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
reappoint William Schrader to the Joint Airport Commission with said term to expire
December 1, 2013.
reappoint Steve Elliott to the TJ Emergency Medical Services Council, with said term to
expire January 1, 2013.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
______________
NonAgenda. Mr. Rooker moved to authorize an appeal of the BZA approval of SP- 2010-024
Liberty Hall/Ryan Homes offsite sign. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
______________
Agenda Item No. 16. TMDL Update, Rivanna River Basin Commission, Leslie Middleton.
Ms. Leslie Middleton, Executive Director, Rivanna River Basin Commission, stated that she is
speaking on behalf of the steering committee for the Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL. Ms. Middleton said that her goal in being here today is to give the Board a glimpse of a very
complex regulatory process that will be in place in the near future. She explained that the Chesapeake
Bay TMDL is the outgrowth of many years of trying to put into place voluntary activity to clean up the
Chesapeake Bay. Ms. Middleton emphasized that it has not worked, as the Bay has a significant dead
zone due to the way land has been used throughout the entire 64,000 square mile watershed. She said
that as a result of that, the EPA took control of the matter and has mandated that localities develop a
clean-up plan, generally known as the Bay TMDL. Ms. Middleton said that TMDL stands for total
maximum daily load, referring to the amount of a certain pollution – in this case, nitrogen and
phosphorous – that a water body can absorb and still remain healthy. She noted that it is a numeric level,
and it has allocations per pollution source. She said that TMDL also refers to the process by which the
numbers are derived and the process by which the clean-up will happen.
Ms. Middleton reported that the Bay TMDL is very complex because the ecosystem is quite large,
and in order to develop the TMDL the whole watershed had to be divided up into 92 segments. She
stated that waters already impaired must be cleaned up as part of this process. Unlike other impaired
water processes, she said, the Bay clean-up is being developed in parallel with setting numeric limits –
which has caused some consternation. Ms. Middleton reported that this TMDL process has strict
accountability requirements, with two-year goals that must be met 60% of the way by 2017 and 100% of
implementation expected by 2025. She said that the clean-up has essentially moved from a voluntary into
a regulatory phase, and the EPA is exercising the regulatory muscle that has been conferred upon it by
the Clean Water Act.
Ms. Middleton noted that the EPA‟s major source of regulatory oversight pertains to point sources
or discrete sources – so focus will shift to those things the EPA can regulate, unless there is legislation
that starts pushing the effort in other directions. She said that the EPA will act within its NPDES permit
process to address issues related to: point sources such as wastewater treatment plants, large confined
animal-feeding operations, and permitted sources such as industrial wastewater and urban stormwater.
She stated that the regulations don‟t address just farm and urban users, but apply to everyone. It is about
everyone being much more thoughtful and constrained about how they use fertilizer on their lawns to
upgrading sewage treatment plants that are not meeting their required goals to addressing combined
sewer overflows, et cetera. Everyone is going to have to comply with more increased oversight as a result
of this Bay TMDL. Ms. Middleton added that a significant amount of the nitrogen impacting the Bay is
coming from air emissions from power plants and automobiles, and the Bay TMDL takes that into
consideration and those avenues are being pursued very aggressively to comply with that portion of it.
Ms. Middleton said that the timeline for developing this is very aggressive, and the actual draft Bay
TMDL is out for public comment now and can be found online on the EPA‟s website. She stated that
concurrent to that is a public comment period for the Draft W atershed Implementation Plan – or WHIP –
developed one per state or jurisdiction. Ms. Middleton said that the first comment period for organizations
ends November 8, with the Virginia portion ending November 11. She mentioned that the final Bay TMDL
will be developed by the end of 2010, with implementation starting to happen in earnest at the local level.
She explained that the stormwater regulations are a key component but are not the whole story because
stormwater is not the only source – although the promulgation of stormwater regulations is linked to the
Bay TMDL. Ms. Middleton reported that Virginia‟s draft implementation plan was found by the EPA to be
insufficient to meet the goals. She said that there are regulation implications for smaller wastewater
systems, alternative systems for onsite septic, nutrient trading, and emphasis on redevelopment for
stormwater, as well as categorizing larger areas under the MS4 system.
Ms. Middleton said a group of individuals – along with the Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District, the Planning District Commission, River Basin Commission, members of the
Secretary of Natural Resources Advisory Committee to the Bay TMDL, the SELC, the Chesapeake Bay
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Program, and Supervisors from Greene and Nelson – banded together and were designated as a pilot
project by the EPA with a task of trying to make sense of how this Bay TMDL might play out at the local
level. Ms. Middleton said that they are using this to get early information to local governments so that they
stay ahead of the curve. They have been hosting a series of focus groups with stakeholders – such as
staff, agriculture, local elected officials, economic development, building and development interests, and
permitted sources for wastewater, MS4s, and small industrials. She stated that the plan to is bring this
back to local governments so that they have the final word as to what is reported back to the Virginia DCR
and EPA about what this really means for localities. Ms. Middleton said that there is a work session
planned with County staff and Mark Graham on November 3rd.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a past point in time that has been isolated so that there is some goal
as to where the Bay should be. He questions whether or not the standards that will be ultimately imposed
are capable of being achieved.
Ms. Middleton responded that it is a good question that may not have a clear answer, noting that
in the mid 1980‟s there was a significant die-off of the Bay‟s oyster population – which was a fairly marked
turning point. Also, there were not a lot of environmental controls at that time.
Mr. Rooker stated that it would be a lot more believable and acceptable to the public if there were
some specifics as to levels of pollutants, etc., instead of this broad menagerie of imposed standards that
do not seem to necessarily relate to anything that is tangible.
Ms. Middleton replied that a fair amount of time could be spent looking at water quality levels, but
her guess is that they are looking at something prior to 1950. There is material available that can help tell
the story.
Ms. Mallek commented that a lot of the improvements made in policies and procedures have
been overwhelmed by the population growth.
______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Work Session: Places 29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development
Areas, David Benish/Judy Wiegand.
Mr. Benish summarized the following executive summary that was forwarded to Board members:
At its September 1st work session, the Board discussed with staff modifying the Future Land Use
Map to eliminate some of the interconnecting roads identified on the map. The Board requested a review
of the revised Map prior to the scheduled public hearing in November. Attachment A is a draft of the
revised Future Land Use Map with these changes.
The Future Land Use Map has been revised to reflect a proposed roadway network that includes:
All roads modeled as necessary improvements to the transportation network (Hillsdale
Drive, Berkmar Drive, etc.).
All roads approved as part of development approvals (ZMAs, SPs, site plans/plats), such
as roads in the North Pointe development in the Hollymead Town Center area.
Roads that have been identified in the previous Comprehensive Plan, MPO Regional
Transportation Plan (e.g., east west connecting road from Hollymead Drive to Earlysville
Road)
In addition, staff is in the process of modifying the Places 29 Master Plan to explain that although
interchanges are ultimately necessary based on the traffic modeling, due to budget constraints and other
more immediate improvement needs, the interchange concepts will be revisited as part of the small area
planning process with the next five-year update of the Master Plan.
The priority projects for the next five years are:
Additional lanes on Emmet Street (US 29) and the ramp from Hydraulic to the US 29/250
Bypass west and construction of Hillsdale Drive (both in the City)
Widening of US 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Hollymead Town Center.
Planning and design of Berkmar Drive extended, including a bridge over the South Fork
of the Rivanna River.
Maintenance and strategic enhancement of transit service
Staff recommends that the Board, after reviewing the draft revision to the Future Land Use Map,
provide any additional comments or direction to staff.
__________
Mr. Benish said that most of the roads taken out were in the small area plan around Rio Road.
There were a number of conceptual roads in the area that have been eliminated with the remaining being:
Hillsdale Drive Extended, Berkmar Drive Extended, roads in Albemarle Place, one midpoint crossing
between Berkmar Drive and Route 29, going north of the railroad the connection between Rio Mills Road
and the proposed Berkmar Drive, the Ashwood Boulevard crossing, and the Hollymead Drive east/west
connection.
Mr. Thomas asked about the road across from Carrsbrook Drive to the south on Route 29 going
back up to Berkmar – running by Schewel‟s and Better Living.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Benish responded that the road was included in the network modeling as a “mid-block”
crossing between Berkmar Drive, and the TJPDC/Berkmar Drive study also included that in its modeling.
He said that there is a lot of traffic that will be using Berkmar Drive as an alternative to Route 29 North –
so this mid-block road along with Hilton Heights and Woodbrook Road will allow for traffic to flow between
Berkmar Drive and Route 29 North.
Mr. Boyd asked why this crossover needs to be added, given that there is a crossover at Sam‟s
Club and at Hilton Heights Drive – and given that there are concerns from property owners about leaving
this on the map. It is also a very difficult slope and will have to eliminate a couple of businesses.
Mr. Benish said that the modeling indicated a very high level of traffic on Hilton Heights Drive, and
east to west options between Berkmar Drive and Route 29 offer better opportunity for that traffic to diffuse
– taking pressure of Woodbrook Drive as well as Hilton Heights Drives. He added that there is a traffic
light there that provides access to Better Living, but traffic management does not necessarily see the road
as essential if there is a connecting road put in.
Mr. Thomas stated that there is already a left turn lane there that goes into the Stellar One Bank
on the east side of Route 29.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is a traffic study that says you need a cut-through every 100 yards or so.
Mr. Benish explained that the traffic load on those roads will put a lot of pressure on those
intersections to function adequately and part of the need driving some of the grade separations is the
volume at those intersections. The concept of additional east-west links allows for better diffusion of that
traffic and may delay the need for those intersections to fail.
Mr. Rooker suggested taking the dotted line off of the map and referencing in the text that “it may
be advisable at some point to complete a connection from Route 29 to Berkmar”. He said that the
problem with putting a line down is it gives the impression the road will definitely go there – when in reality
the County would work with property owners there to determine the best alignment. He would prefer to
refer to it in the text that at some point these other intersections may become overloaded and at that point
it may be advisable to complete connection, and not leave a dotted line on a map in a specific location.
Mr. Tucker commented that the property owners have already looked at an alignment and how
that would connect to Berkmar, and he thinks it goes between the businesses.
Mr. Boyd said the property owners are not going to allow the condemning of any property unless it
is forced on them because it will take out a portion of their business.
Mr. Rooker said at some point, in the future, the property owners along Route 29 that do not
presently have access from Berkmar Drive to their properties are going to want that access. Mr. Boyd
said he agrees.
Mr. Dorrier said that the problem with the dotted line is that once it is on the map it stays there and
nobody knows where it came from.
Mr. Snow said he agrees.
Mr. Benish said it is a text note identifying the roadway in the Comprehensive Plan; it will not be
found on a Comprehensive Plan map.
Mr. Thomas said there is a road coming from Rio Mills over to Berkmar and asked if trucks could
use that road coming from the quarry.
Mr. Boyd said that he still takes exception to the small area plans, stating that he would rather
focus on the priority transportation items.
Mr. Benish responded that those are the amendments being made to the plan now, and the dotted
lines were left on to show areas of importance.
Mr. Rooker commented that at some point it would be wise to do a plan that included the property
owners in these areas.
Mr. Benish said the dotted lines were left on for the long range 20 year period to understand those
areas of importance.
Mr. Boyd asked whether staff might be able to provide information about the Polo Grounds Road
area, as there is a potential elementary school site there.
Mr. Benish replied that they would, but the timeframe is likely further out. He said that in
assessing school sites, the North Point school site satisfied the mid-term need and the long-term planning
committee has identified potential elementary, middle, and high schools – and even though the growth has
not been as rapid among the school-age population, but it will eventually catch up.
Mr. Boyd stated that there must be some planning based on the density allowed there – as it is not
known what the impact DIA might bring, and future growth if they decide to expand further.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Benish responded that staff can provide that information with the site assessment. He added
that staff will make the change to the midblock area and place it in the text. Mr. Benish concluded by
stating that the tentative schedule for the public hearing on Places 29 is November 10, 2010.
______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Work Session: Solid Waste Management Options, Mark Graham.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive
summary which was forwarded to Board members:
In 1990, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville entered into an agreement
(Attachment A) to form the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) for the purpose of managing solid
waste generated in the County and the City. The agreement designated the RSWA as the sole provider
for solid waste disposal services for both the County and the City. The agreement anticipated that the
RSWA would be self-supporting, primarily through the collection of tipping fees at the Ivy Facility. This
arrangement worked well until 2001, when the last landfill cell at the Ivy Facility was closed, and tighter
regulations, as well as public opposition, made it highly unlikely that the RSWA could open a new landfill
cell. From that point, the RSWA has provided a limited capacity transfer station at the Ivy Facility for
garbage (MSW) and construction debris (CDD). This Facility is not adequate to handle the total demands
of both the County and the City. To compensate, the RSWA accepted MSW and CDD through a
contractual arrangement at a private transfer station at Zions Crossroads.
As a result of losing the tipping fees generated by the Ivy Facility, the RSWA was no longer self-
sustaining. The County and City entered into a Local Government Support Agreement in December, 2007
(Attachment B) to fund RSWA‟s operational deficits. Since entering into that agreement, other disposal
options have become available and the RSWA has determined that it is no longer in a position to serve as
the sole provider of solid waste disposal services for the County and the City. Currently, there are at least
four options for disposal of MSW and CDD generated in the County: the Ivy Facility, two private transfer
stations at Zion‟s Crossroads, and a private transfer station in Greene County. Acknowledging the City‟s
interest in exploring other service options, in June, 2010, the County and City amended the 2007
agreement to end the County/City funding of RSWA‟s operational deficits as of December 31, 2010
(Attachment C). The County must now determine its service needs and delivery options with the
assumption that the City is discontinuing its financial support of the RSWA, except for a prior commitment
to fund the environmental mitigation at the Ivy Landfill.
The purpose of this work session is to define the solid waste disposal services the Board believes
are needed in the County. This will be followed by a November work session to consider options for
providing those services.
Staff initiated its analysis by considering levels of service and developed the attached table that
defines a low, medium, and high level of public service for solid waste disposal (Attachment D). The
County currently provides a medium level of service. Staff believes the public would perceive the level of
service to be low if there were a significant drop in the level of service and that they would perceive the
level of service to be high if there were a significant increase in the level of service. Staff recognizes that
these are debatable standards. The rationale for defining the existing level of service at medium is that
there have been few complaints received at the current level of service. While there have been
complaints about curbside recycling options in the past, those complaints have diminished since the Zions
Crossroads transfer stations started extracting recyclable materials from both MSW and CDD. It appears
people interested in curbside recycling have largely found that those transfer stations addressed their
needs. Thus, staff does not see an immediate need for increased services.
With this framework, the County involvement and costs were compared to peer communities
(Attachment E). From this, it appears Albemarle has a lower level of service in solid waste disposal
services and also has much less tax support than most of the peer localities. Stafford County is one of a
few localities that still operates its own landfill. Similar to the RSWA‟s experience prior to 2001, revenue
generated from Stafford‟s landfill appears to allow that locality to fund a number of solid waste related
services to their constituents. Complicating this analysis, Albemarle appears to be unique since the public
is now served by a private transfer station that incorporates a materials recovery facility (recycling) in its
process. To perform an accurate total cost analysis would require merging the fees charged by private
haulers with the localities‟ support. That data was not available for this analysis. Additionally, there are
subjective values that would need to be included in a total cost analysis. For example, what value does the
typical citizen place on a curbside service that provides co-mingled recycling?
Next, the RSWA FY 11 budget anticipates a deficit of $385,000 for operations, while the County
has budgeted $350,000 for RSWA support in the current year. Pursuant to the amended support
agreement, that cost is shared by the County and the City through December 2010. Staff notes the
current financial data suggests that there will be a higher deficit than budgeted, but it is too early in the
fiscal year to verify this. (Attachment F) This data suggests that even if the City were not to contribute in
the second half of FY 11, it may be possible for the County to continue receiving the current level of
services with little or no service adjustment in FY 11.
The final factor staff considered in its analysis was the current demand for services and whether
alternatives exist. Based on the RSWA‟s records and prior surveys of residents, staff believes there
remains a significant need for a drop-off center in the County. This need is not only for MSW, but for other
materials such as woody debris and appliances. For MSW, it was noted that RSWA continues to see a
sizable number of residents who are not served by commercial trash haulers. Many of those are due to
their remote location, while others are people who generate very little trash and/or have limited income. If
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
a convenience center/transfer station were not available to those residents, staff anticipates the County
would see an increase in illegal dumping and complaints over the service reductions. With respect to the
McIntire Road Recycling Facility, staff notes that the recycling offered continues to be a very popular
program for both County and City residents, though the need appears to be reduced due to expanded
curbside recycling options available in both the County and the City. Staff believes there will continue to
be some need for drop-off recycling services.
Based on the above, staff believes the County should maintain the current RSWA operations, with
the possible exception of the McIntire Road Facility. The comparison to peer communities indicates that
the RSWA is providing a cost effective service and service demands have not dramatically changed.
While an expansion of services could allow the County to better match peer communities, there appears
to be little public demand for expanded services, perhaps because there are multiple private options
currently available to County residents and businesses, many of which are not available in those peer
communities. If the Board is interested in expanding services (and funding support), staff believes those
changes should be permanent. The County‟s experience in closing the Keene landfill suggests there
would be significant citizen dissatisfaction and increased illegal dumping if the County expanded services,
then later reduced them. Conversely, while a reduction of services may be possible, staff noted many
residents and businesses continue to rely on the RSWA‟s programs at the Ivy Facility. Therefore, staff
recommends keeping those services in place. If the City does not continue to fund the Ivy Facility, then
the RSWA should implement a fee system for its use by City residents.
With respect to the McIntire Road Facility, staff notes this Facility receives a similar per capita
usage by County and City residents, but the City has not committed to continuing its support. If the City is
not willing to continue its support, staff believes the RSWA should consider the cost savings that could be
realized by consolidating services at the Ivy Facility. If the City is willing to continue its support, staff
recommends continuing to support the McIntire Road Facility. Staff would also ask that the RSWA
consider restoring the fluorescent bulb and battery programs that were recently eliminated at the McIntire
Road Facility. While restoration of those programs would likely require additional funding, there are
currently no alternatives available to County residents, and those programs appear to be important for
environmental reasons.
Finally, staff notes that while the RSWA provides a cost effective service, the organizational
agreement provides the County and the City equal votes in setting the RSWA budget. When the costs of
those services are shared by the localities, that arrangement is appropriate. However, if the County were
to become the sole funding source for the RSWA, it would be inappropriate to allow the City to continue to
have an equal vote in setting the RSWA‟s operations budget. If the Board agrees with staff‟s
recommendation for the County to continue to fund the RSWA and if the City discontinues its partnership
with the County in funding the RSWA, staff recommends that the Board consider amending the RSWA
Organizational Agreement at its November work session.
The County has $350,000 budgeted in FY 11 to support RSWA FY 11 operations. Based on
the RSWA adopted budget for FY 11, it was anticipated that RSWA‟s operational deficit would total
$385,000. It appears that County and City funding for the period of July, 2010 through December
2010, combined with County funding from January 2011 through June 2011, will cover the RSWA‟s
FY 11 operational deficit. If inadequate, it appears RSWA would need to use its reserves. Staff‟s
recommendation focuses on maintaining services without any significant increase in the County
support to RSWA.
Staff recommends that the Board 1) continue support of services currently provided at RSWA‟s
Ivy Facility (it appears this will require little, if any, increase in current County support payments); 2)
continue support of RSWA‟s McIntire Road Facility if the City agrees to continue its support (otherwise,
staff recomm ends requesting RSWA to consider consolidating those services to the Ivy Facility, with the
goal of not increasing current County support payments; and 3) consider changes to the RSWA
Organizational Agreement at a November work session with the goal of assuring the organization matches
operations and support by both the County and the City.
__________
Mr. Graham noted that there is a separate City/County/University agreement for funding the
environmental clean-up of the Ivy facility that runs until at least 2030. Most of the work, in terms of putting
the measures in place, has been done.
Mr. Graham said that some other localities provide a higher level of service with solid waste
disposal, but they are also spending substantially more in tax dollars for their service. He stated that this
only includes governmental services – not private services – as there is not good data from other localities
as to how much those private entities cost in addition to government services.
Mr. Boyd commented that some localities may not have private services. Mr. Graham responded
that most of them do use private haulers, and some rely much more heavily on citizens dropping off their
disposables at sites around the locality – such as Spotsylvania County. In this community, there is much
more convenience for curbside pickup.
Mr. Boyd said the dilemma for the County is competition with the private sector. Mr. Graham
stated that Albemarle seems to be in a unique position as far as the number of private enterprises that are
providing the services. He is not saying government should be competing with private enterprise but there
are additional services not being provided by those enterprises which are still desired or needed by the
public.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Rooker said that if you have an area that does not have a private, single-stream recycling
center it presents an entirely different picture of the level of governmental services needed.
Mr. Graham commented that private providers are offering cost-effective services for residents,
but they are not providing all services or serving all residents. He added that the County continues to have
demands that are not being met by those private enterprises, but they can be cost-effectively addressed
by funding the RSWA services. He is not sure whether he has identified any way that the County can
come close to doing it other than an arrangement with RSWA. Mr. Graham said that staff recommends
continuing the services offered by Rivanna at Ivy, which are largely self-supporting but may eventually
need subsidies; continuing support of the McIntire Recycling Center, provided that the City shares in that
cost – but if they do not the County should ask Rivanna about consolidating serves at the Ivy operation.
Mr. Rooker asked about the subsidy cost that would apply to McIntire. Mr. Graham responded
that the total subsidy cost is about $125,000 – with $80,000 paid by the County and $40,000 paid by the
City – and the cost varying depending on the price of paper.
Mr. Graham said that the final recommendation from staff is to consider changes with the
contracts with Rivanna on how the services would be provided going forward. Mr. Graham added that the
County is in an awkward position with the City and County equally represented on the Rivanna Board – but
for a unilateral service that only serves the County. RSWA does need to continue to exist as an entity for
this environmental liability. He stated that he would like to come back and discuss the contract changes in
November, if the City pulls out of McIntire or the County contracts separate services.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to have those discussions regardless of what happens with their
decision, specifically to address the fairness issue regarding the funding of McIntire and the represent ation
on the Rivanna Board.
Mr. Graham replied that staff would like that discussed as well, adding that any changes to the
organizational agreement would require the approval of both the City and the County.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is going to be necessary to make capital improvements to the Ivy
facility if it is going to continue to operate.
Mr. Graham agreed, adding that those decisions can be deferred for now – as Ivy is permitted to
operate at about 150 tons per day but is currently operating at about 80 tons per day. He said that prior to
the Zions Crossroads facilities being open, a lot of the commercial haulers were going to Ivy – but now
they are going to Zions. Mr. Graham stated that it is operating more as a convenience center now, rather
than a true transfer station.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that the volume is less than what they are permitted to do, but there
is still the issue of the equipment.
Mr. Graham added that Mr. Frederick, the Executive Director, is out of town and was not able to
be here today, but he indicated that under their existing permit they can continue to operate under the
present infrastructure. Longer terms they may have to look at some additional things, but he is hoping in
the interim that the County will get a better handle on how the private enterprises are working. Is Van der
Linde‟s facility out at Zions Crossroads going to continue to be the major destination for a lot of these
private haulers?
Mr. Boyd asked if it is possible to use the front-end loaders without having to put the cover on it,
as most modern facilities do. Mr. Graham replied that he would like to have Mr. Frederick answer that
question, as he is uncertain about the operations of a landfill or transfer station.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the Board Chair write a letter to the Mayor of Charlottesville saying that if
the City isn‟t interested in participating, the County will pull out.
Mr. Tucker said that the City has asked that question.
Mr. Rooker said that the position as he sees it is that the County will stay in it if the City stays in.
Mr. Graham pointed out that if the City is not willing to go with McIntire, the County will need to
thoroughly study how a facility at Ivy might operate – as it might be a comingled facility.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Graham draft a letter for the Chair‟s signature. Board members
concurred.
Mr. Snow suggested having a deadline. Mr. Tucker said that both localities must make a decision
by the end of December.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that there was a solid waste agreement struck in 2001 that the City didn‟t
honor for the first six years – they simply paid what they wanted to pay. He is very cautious about relying
on the City to live up to any of their obligations. There needs to be a very concrete contract, more than
just an agreement.
Mr. Rooker asked about the solid waste agreement that was binding through 2030.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Davis said that the agreement is binding on both jurisdictions until 2030. At that time either
party can withdraw from the agreement. The agreement provided that all the solid waste generated by the
City or County would go to Rivanna or to Rivanna-designated facilities.
Mr. Rooker noted that the agreement has been violated. He added that one of the biggest holes
with the Rivanna budget is that the City did not do what they had agreed to do.
Mr. Boyd also expressed concern that some of the recyclables at the materials distribution center
are not recycled, and the public may be concerned with that as an adequate recycling facility.
Ms. Mallek said that Van der Linde will not provide the information, so a valid report cannot be
made to the DEQ.
Mr. Rooker commented that with single-stream recycling, there is never a guarantee as to how
much is being recycled.
Mr. Graham pointed out that there is a regional solid waste plan that requires a 25%-ratio be met
for recycling, but Van der Linde takes solid waste from within and material from outside the regional area
so there is no telling how much material is coming from inside and outside the region. It has become
difficult to report the region‟s true recycling ratio. This has been pointed out to DEQ and they are looking
at the issue. Mr. Graham added that Mr. Van der Linde provides annual reports to DEQ; he self -certifies
how many tons he received and how many tons were recycled. He can provide Board members with that
information.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see that information. He asked if Mr. Van der Linde knows how
much material he is receiving on the frontend from this area. Mr. Graham said that is correct. He just
knows what he is getting from hauler “x”. From hauler “x” he is getting a certain amount of tonnage, but
does he does not know if the hauler is coming from within or outside of the area, or both. Mr. Van der
Linde can provide gross tonnage, but not a net tonnage from within the region.
Ms. Mallek commented that if the white paper could be captured, especially from big-business
producers, then the value of the recycling could go up as it is a higher-priced commodity.
Mr. Graham responded that paper is the biggest question mark, as some of it goes to
Harrisonburg to be burned in a waste-energy facility.
Mr. Thomas said that the paper from his business is picked up and hauled to Spotsylvania, where
it is put on the second market and reused.
Mr. Graham noted that that kind of paper can actually be worth a lot of money.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would like to explore the possibility of having alternate smaller recycling
sites, where no staff is required.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that Rivanna is already operating drop-off facilities, such as the one at Sam‟s
Club.
Mr. Davis said that pursuant to their agreement, Rivanna can do whatever they wish on behalf of
the City and County – but would have to pay for it out of their own revenues – and if the City or County
wanted a service that the other jurisdiction does not, the existing agreement provides that either party can
request that Rivanna enter into an agreement as a sole-payer for that service, with Rivanna agreeing that
they provide that service at no cost to the City or Rivanna. The County government could pay for the
service or if feasible, set up tipping fees or service charges to offset or pay for the service.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that Rivanna also has the authority to bill.
Mr. Davis responded that if Rivanna chooses to continue providing a service on behalf of all the
citizens served by the authority, Rivanna has the enabling authority to impose service charges and to bill –
and could pay for it without contributions from the City or County.
Mr. Boyd said that if there are to be additional unmanned drop-off facilities provided, it should be
done through Rivanna.
Mr. Davis said another issue is if the County decides to contract, for example for the Ivy services,
on behalf of County citizens, and if they continue to be used by City residents, is there a way to capture
that cost from City residents? It may create practical issues to charge City residents for entering the Ivy
facility to drop off recycling or solid waste, but if that isn‟t done in some fashion then the County will be
subsidizing the City usage of that facility.
Mr. Boyd said the City residents should be charged, if McIntire is closed or the County goes to
some other service.
Mr. Rooker responded that he is not sure how that would be determined; it should be negotiated
in the Rivanna contract.
Mr. Graham said that currently, visitors to Ivy are asked what jurisdiction they are from. He said
that with Ivy about 85% of users are County residents and 15% are City.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Mr. Davis added that usage at Ivy may increase if that is the only replacement facility for the
McIntire center.
Mr. Rooker stated that this needs to be part of the discussion moving forward.
Ms. Mallek mentioned an article that she would send to Board members about a school in
Missouri that has made a lot of money from their recycling.
______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Thomas said that he did not really get any direction from the Board regarding the
consolidation of fire and rescue.
Ms. Mallek responded stated that from her point of view it shouldn‟t be pursued any further, as
there is no precedent at all according to VACo.
Mr. Boyd stated that it was studied in 2007 and there is no reason for significant changes now.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that the question is whether there may be opportunities for future
cooperation and cost savings for both jurisdictions.
______________
(Note: At 3:28 p.m., the Board recessed and then reconvened in Room 241 at 4:00 p.m., for
a joint meeting with the School Board.)
______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Call to Order. JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Ms. Pamela Moynihan, Mr.
Ronnie Price, Sr., and Mr. Eric Strucko.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Ms. Diantha McKeel and Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly.
SCHOOL BOARD STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent, Dr. Bruce Benson,
Assistant Superintendent for Planning and Operations, Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Executive Director of
Fiscal Services, Ms. Annie Kim, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, School
Board Clerk.
__________
Ms. Mallek, Chair, called the Board of Supervisors meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.
Mr. Price, Chairman, called the School Board meeting to order at the same time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Total Compensation Report.
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Acting Director of Human Resources, summarized the following executive
summary which was forwarded to the Boards:
In November 2000, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board approved a Total
Compensation Strategy to target employee salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits
slightly above market levels. The adopted market approved by the Boards is shown in Attachment 1 and
consists of 26 school divisions, 26 localities, 1 combined school division/local government and three other
organizations.
The Boards have continued to recognize the importance of providing competitive salaries and
benefits. As indicated in the recent Human Resources Annual Report, an increasing number of
employees reach eligibility for retirement benefits every year. As it is critical for Albemarle County to focus
on retaining existing employees and recruiting skilled new employees, the County‟s total compensation
plan is designed and evaluated in light of those objectives.
This report details the supporting analysis for the recommendations to achieve the adopted Total
Compensation Strategy for last year and for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the
County Executive and Superintendent for next year. These projections are presented to the Boards for
their information regarding the FY11-12 budget process. It is noted that all final funding to implement
these recommendations is subject to, and based upon, available revenues and Board direction. This
report provides information on:
1) Compensation Strategies ( Attachments 2 and 3)
2) Benefits Strategies: Medical, Dental and VRS (Attachments 4 and 5 )
3) Wellness Updates (Attachment 6)
1) Compensation Strategies
The adopted Total Compensation Strategy, jointly adopted by the Board of Supervisors and
School Board, is detailed in Attachments 2 and 3. Last year, the projections based on the adopted
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
strategy presented in October were to increase the classified salary scale by 1%, fund a classified merit
increase of 2.88% and fund teacher increases by 2.25%. However, due to revenue shortfalls and the
prevailing market trend of no increases, the Boards neither changed the salary scale nor funded any
salary or step increases for a second year. The attached information on the compensation strategy is
provided to both Boards to consider regarding development of the FY11-12 budget.
As the information in attachment 2 indicates, based on a review of our adopted market and the
Worldatwork projection of 1.95%, the actions necessary to achieve the adopted strategy include: a 1%
scale adjustment, 2.3% salary increase, and a teacher scale and step increase of 1.95%.
2) Benefits Strategies
The adopted Benefits Strategy, jointly adopted by the Board of Supervisors and School Board, is
to maintain a benefit program that is slightly above market. Medical and Dental insurance and the VRS
benefit are the largest components of that benefit strategy. The information provided in the attached
Benefits Strategies (attachment 4) details the analysis of those benefit programs and recommendations to
remain consistent with the jointly adopted strategy.
Medical and Dental Coverage
To provide options for employees designed to meet individual needs and offer affordable health
care choices, three medical plans with varying deductibles, co-pays and premiums have been offered for
several years. In order to maintain comparability with other health plans and for cost savings, a number of
plan design changes were implemented, particularly to the high plan which has a rich benefit compared to
the Boards‟ adopted market. Market data on the total cost of the medical and dental plans is shown,
indicating that the individual plan relative to our market is high, yet the total cost of the family plan is
somewhat lower than market. Staff plans to further review this data and bring forward recommendations in
the future to assure we are more in line with market for both individual and family coverage.
Regarding premiums for the coming fiscal year, our projected medical cost increase is 5% and
our projected dental cost increase is 7%. However, based on the current projected Health Care Reserve
Fund balance, staff recommends utilizing our strong reserves to offset the projected medical increase in
the coming fiscal year.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS)
Employees hired after July 1, 2010 and not currently in the VRS Plan 1 are provided retirement
benefits under VRS Plan 2 and are currently required to pay the 5% member contribution. The Boards are
enabled by state law to either elect to pay this contribution or require the VRS Plan 2 employee to do so.
The Boards directed staff to assess market trends and present a recommendation for FY2011-12. Market
data included in attachment 4 indicates that only one school division (out of 26) and ten localities (out of
27) in the Boards‟ adopted market are requiring newly hired employees to fund the member contribution.
Most localities and school divisions throughout the state have chosen to fund that amount.
Based on the Board‟s adopted strategy to target benefits slightly above market, it is recommended
that the Joint Boards fund the employee member contribution for FY2011-12. In addition, based on the
market and state-wide data, staff also believes the County will have a hard time recruiting new hires not
currently in VRS. At the previous meeting of the two Board‟s regarding the VRS benefits, it was
suggested that higher salaries could be offered to newly hired employees required to contribute the 5%
member contribution in an effort to offset that contribution. As indicated in attachment 4, creating a
second salary scale is not a desirable option for several reasons. The salary costs would actually be
increased due to higher payroll taxes and benefits costs. Additionally, inequities are not alleviated by
offering higher salaries, as those employees with inflated salaries would receive greater VRS and Social
Security benefits.
Health Care Reserve Fund
As the information on the Health Care Reserve Fund indicates (attachment 4), the opportunity
exists for the Boards to fund a one-time lump sum bonus payment for employees. Because the reserve is
stronger than projected due to our claims experience, the budgeted medical increase for FY 2010-11 was
funded from the Health Care Reserve Fund, resulting in a cost savings in the General Fund. Staff
recommends that the Boards consider utilizing this savings by providing a one-time bonus payment of
$350 to employees to show appreciation of their dedicated service during times of employee cutbacks,
assuming additional duties and staffing reallocation.
3) Wellness Updates
Information on the comprehensive wellness program for employees is detailed in Attachment 6.
These projections are presented to the Boards for consideration in providing direction for FY011-
12 budget preparation. It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available revenues
and Board direction.
Staff recommends approval of the following:
1. Establish a budget target for providing a 2.3% salary increase for classified employees
and a 1.95% increase for teachers based on WorldatWork data. Final recommendations
by the County Executive and Superintendent will be based on additional market data and
the availability of adequate funding.
2. Increase the classified salary scale by 1%
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
3. Use a portion of the Health Care Reserve Fund to offset any increase in employee and
employer premium costs for the coming year. The projected increase in medical is 5%.
4. Plan for a 7% increase in dental plan costs.
5. Fund a one-time $350.00 lump sum bonus out of cost savings resulting from using
reserves to fund the medical premium increase for FY10-11.
6. Pick-up the five percent (5%) member contribution to VRS for VRS Plan 2 employees,
effective July 1, 2011.
__________
Ms. Gerome said that the compensations targets agreed upon by the boards are market median
for classified staff and top quartile for teachers. She reported that Albemarle is at approximately the same
level as it was two years ago, as verified by market data through actual surveys. Ms. Gerome stated that
teachers are paid on a set scale, with salary points gathered at specific benchmarks so that actual
salaries can be compared. She said that the County has moved to a lower place in the quartile but is still
reaching its target.
Mr. Snow asked if this means everyone remained at a status quo, with no raises across the
board.
Ms. Gerome confirmed this to be the case. She also said that WorldatWork is projecting a 1.95%
increase for the eastern region, which would mean a 2.3% increase for classified employees in order to
meet the benchmark. Ms. Gerome stated that a 1% scale adjustment is recommended based on the set
strategy – but this only impacts new hires and current employees who are below the minimum. She
added that the teacher‟s scale is in line with the market, so the recommendation there is for a 1.95%
increase, which would include step, based on the Boards‟ adopted methodology.
Mr. Boyd asked if median or average is used for classified employees. Ms. Gerome responded
that they use median when dealing with classified employees, based on the original strategy
recommended by the task force in 2000.
Ms. Gerome reported that the joint Boards adopted strategy for benefits is to be slightly above
market, with the two main components of benefits being the VRS contribution and medical insurance –
although there are life insurance, annual, holiday and sick leave, and EAP benefits offered as well. She
stated that there is a Health Insurance Committee that meets several times per year and evaluates the
County‟s health insurance plan as it relates to the market. In this plan year, changes have been made in
terms of copayments, co-insurance, prescription costs, etc., in order to get the County‟s plan more in line
with the market.
Ms. Mallek noted that the change in hospitalization would go from a flat fee to a 5% which is a
monstrous change for an employee, and nobody was notified about that. Ms. Gerome responded that that
is correct, but Albemarle‟s policy was far out of line with that of its market competitors.
Ms. Mallek asked if employees were notified of that change.
Ms. Gerome responded that Human Resources did try to emphasize that changes were coming
during the open enrollment period. She is aware that a lot of employees do not read the information
because they are not changing anything in particular with their enrollment.
Ms. Mallek said that is exactly what she thought when she got the little yellow post card.
Ms. Gerome said Human Resources did send out a communication last week to all employees
emphasizing these changes.
Mr. Rooker asked if the high plan was profitable or unprofitable when looking at the whole plan.
Ms. Gerome replied that employees on the middle and low plan have been kind of subsidizing the care for
the high plan, so they would find that it is not profitable.
Mr. Rooker said that this seems to indicate that more should be charged for the high plan, and
noted that the two ways to approach this would be reducing benefits or charging more.
Mr. Price commented that they should be paying more if they have a higher plan.
Ms. Gerome commented that the differential between plan costs is still fairly substantial. She
emphasized that the individual benefit costs (medical and dental) for Albemarle look high when compared
to other localities, but when family benefit costs are considered Albemarle is on the low side. Based on
market data, this needs to be looked at over the next couple of months.
Mr. Boyd stated that for years he has said the County should be considering the total cost of its
benefits, not deductible costs, etc.
Ms. Mallek noted that the data presented indicates that the monthly costs to the County are the
same – about $600 per month.
Ms. Gerome said that in the spring, HR reported that based on claims running below projections
the County would be able to offset what was previously requested in the budget for the medical increase
within that reserve amount. She stated that it is critical that a healthy balance be kept within that reserve
because the County is self-insured and that is how claims are paid – and there are also some unknowns
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
as to the impact of healthcare reform on plans. She believes that the County will be able to fund the cost
increase for this coming fiscal year out of the reserves. Based on that, Ms. Gerome said that HR is
proposing a one-time lump sum bonus for employees based on the cost savings – equating to about $350
for all benefits-eligible employees. She said that the bonus would go a long way in recognizing employee
services. A lot of staff is being asked to do more with less and this would reward employees who are not
in the higher salary range.
Mr. Snow asked what the total amount is. Ms. Gerome responded that it totals $1.2 million.
Mr. Rooker commented that, as a policy matter, he does not think it is a wise approach to take
reserves out of the medical plan and distribute it out in bonuses.
Ms. Gerome said that last spring HR recognized that it had enough money to fund the healthcare
increase out of reserves, so basically they are using the cost savings of $1.2 million that wasn‟t used or
needed.
Mr. Price clarified that the increase in healthcare expected didn‟t occur – even though it was
budgeted – so instead of those dollars going back to reserve, it is recommended that they go back to staff.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, pointed out that reserves in the medical insurance
line item were strong enough not to transfer over to the health program. The funds could be left in the
operating budget and be reallocated for the bonuses.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County also has no money going into the Capital Improvements
Plan. He is in favor of meeting compensation goals and he wants to retain as many employees as
possible – but even in bad times, salary targets seem to be met. He stated that localities are having
difficulty making ends meet, and it does not seem like a wise time to be paying out a surplus.
Mr. Price commented that this gesture goes a long way in intrinsic and monetary value toward
County employees. He emphasized that the money was earmarked for increases in healthcare, and it
would be “worth its weight in gold” to give employees the $350 each that wasn‟t spent. Mr. Price noted
that the 3% bonus being given by U.Va. is going a long way toward morale and retention of loyal
employees.
Mr. Koleszar mentioned that there are peer groups doing one-time bonuses, and perhaps this is a
way to keep up with them.
Mr. Snow said he is concerned because the Boards are just three months away from setting a
new budget, and it seems unwise to enter a budget cycle like last year when there were shortfalls. He
thinks it would be better if the Boards wait until after the budget process to see if the money is still
available.
Mr. Dorrier commented that it is also uncertain what the state allocations will be.
Mr. Price mentioned that the Board is already sitting on $5.4 million in their reserves and this is an
additional $1.2 million in healthcare that was to go toward employees. He thinks that it is prudent to be
fiscally conservative, but the people side needs to be put in here, or the best ones will move over to U.Va.,
State Farm, or some other place. An organization‟s human resources are the biggest asset in the
community. Mr. Price added that others might find it silly that the Board is quibbling over $350. There are
individual employees who are hurt.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to think about it because there are too many gaps of
information that needs to be filled in.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that it is not really $350 to be considered, it is $1.2 million, and it needs to
be decided whether that money is better spent now in a bonus – or helping the County to meet the 2.3%
salary increase discussed.
Mr. Rooker stated that none of these recommendations have been quantified, and he would like
to see those specifics in the context of total dollars in the overall budget.
Mr. Price said that given revenue dollars, it is unlikely that the 1.9% or the 2.3% increases will be
met.
Mr. Rooker said that is why he would like to see the total dollar amounts. He repeated that none
of the recommendations were quantified in terms of dollar impact. In fact if they were quantified, it would
probably be more than the $5.4 million in carryover reserve.
Mr. Boyd said that a lot of the $5.4 million going into the CIP would be allocated to school projects
as well.
Ms. Mallek added that it also goes to employment all around to keep everybody building.
Mr. Price stated that there were dollars taken out of the CIP that came back to the local
government side also.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Foley confirmed that the math is complex, but that is essentially what happened. He also said
that the recommendation before the Board is not slated for implementation until January, so staff will have
this completely costed out for them in about another month.
Ms. Gerome said that last spring the General Assembly created the VRS Plan II and changed
some of that design. HR came to the Boards in June and asked them to fund the 5% member
contribution, although there was little market data available from other localities. She said that the County
now has that market data, noting that most employers picked up that 5% contribution – with the adopted
localities for comparison picking up that cost also, except for one school division and 10 local
governments. Ms. Gerome said that Albemarle is clearly not leading its market in terms of benefits with
regard to the VRS plan right now.
Mr. Boyd asked if the localities paid it for schools but not for local government. Ms. Gerome
responded that they did, because many of them do not have commonality.
Mr. Koleszar noted that last time this was discussed, there wasn‟t sufficient information about the
tax consequences – and now it is known that the tax consequences clearly make it disadvantageous to
both the County and employees to pay it as additional salary, rather than to pay it into the retirement fund.
Mr. Boyd said that if the County is going to pay it, it should be done that way for tax reasons.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is a cost estimate for making that move. Ms. Gerome replied that staff
will bring that back to the Board, adding that there has not been a lot of hiring except for teachers – many
of whom were already in the VRS system. She said that she does not think the costs would be very
significant because the County has not done a whole lot of hiring.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that it is important to establish that number because it may influence
whether to implement it based on its total cost.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that it wouldn‟t take effect until July 1, 2011. The decision for 2010 has
already been made.
Mr. Rooker asked how much this entered into the employment discussion with employees. Ms.
Gerome responded that it is having an impact. She added that the County does orientation alongside the
Regional Jail – and they have decided to fund it.
Mr. Tucker noted that the City is in a different system, but City schools did decide to fund it.
Mr. Rooker said that it seems to be wise for the County to pick up the cost. He stated that the
competitive market direction is to go to contributory plans, and at some point the state will force that – but
they have not yet.
Ms. Mallek asked Ms. Gerome if she had seen a change in the ratio of applications to hires. The
County should want to protect its attractability when it needs to hire somebody and it wants to be able to
get somebody who is highly qualified.
Ms. Gerome responded that the County had already hired most of its teachers by the time this
decision was made.
Mr. Boyd asked when HR comes out with its retention and recruitment report. Ms. Gerome
replied that it comes out the first of the year.
Mr. Boyd noted that he heard there were more teacher applications last year than could possibly
be hired. Ms. Moran commented that if the County does not position itself for a future upturn, it will find
itself back in the situation it was in a few years ago when it was not able to compete for some talented
employees.
Mr. Koleszar noted that those situations often come up by surprise, and perception changes.
Mr. Boyd said that over the last two years that hasn‟t really been the case.
Mr. Strucko stated that school systems tend to keep their best employees, so if there have been
layoffs or downsizing those seeking jobs may not be the best.
Mr. Rooker commented that he does not see bad economic times playing into that. Organizations
always want to keep their best employees.
Mr. Strucko said if there is a forced downsize because of economic reasons and some other
things, the decisions that you make in terms of your human resources are to keep the most productive,
best employees and the downsizing will be those employees who have not been performing well. He
believes the applicant pool may have a disproportionate number of those kinds of applications.
Mr. Rooker noted that in the private sector that is not true at all, as there are many qualified
applicants in the market who were laid off due to downsizing.
Mr. Dorrier asked if school system transferred some teachers from one classroom to another
classroom.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Price said that some teachers were placed in other classrooms where they could be useful.
Mr. Strucko stated that some of them were hired on a part-time basis.
Ms. Moran indicated that if they were not certified to teach in an area that was vacant, they ended
up with no job.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that he had a client with one opening in his business and ended up with 80
applicants for that job, most of which were overqualified.
Mr. Thomas said that the technology market in his businesses is also very flooded right now, and
he has ended up with some good employees.
Mr. Koleszar noted that this issue will impact future employees, not current ones as much.
Ms. Mallek suggested that one option would be to establish a budget for this and put it in a
reserve fund for possible future use. If the County had the money set aside in a bank account and if
things start to shift, it would have that opportunity without throwing the rest of the budget into confusion.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the County will lose about $2.8 million from the state this year. The
goal here should be to stay on target with compensation and benefits – with the 5% really just being part
of the total benefits package. As Mr. Boyd said, he thinks they need to look at that in the overall, not just
by medical plan. Overall, are they providing a package of benefits that is better than average throughout
the County‟s competitive markets. Based upon doing that, he thinks it is probably a wise idea to go ahead
and make the decision to pick up the 5%, but the Board‟s have to recognize there is a cost to doing that,
and that is factored into overall what the County provides in benefits.
Mr. Price commented that there is a uniqueness to teachers – with certifications and
endorsements – and not every applicant in a pool is going to have that. They want to try to stay ahead of it
and not be reacting to it, because by the time they react to it they will fall behind, particularly with
compensation strategies. He added that Albemarle‟s peer group is high quality and very competitive.
Mr. Rooker said that he doesn‟t understand that position, as every year the Board makes
decisions on compensation, tax rates, etc., to try to keep the County in the top quartile for teachers –
which, in the past, both Boards supported. The County is not below.
Mr. Price stated that the County missed the mark on VRS for the competitive market.
Mr. Snow said that decision has not been made yet.
Mr. Rooker responded that that decision cannot be made until July – and there were not very
many people hired last year anyway.
Mr. Price noted that it is part of a total compensation package.
Ms. Moran said that it is helpful to have that information to help build the budget.
Mr. Rooker stated that it is something he sees as necessary in order to remain competitive in the
market, especially on the school side.
Mr. Boyd commented that the County is in a lot better position in offering it back to employees,
rather than taking it away.
Ms. Gerome pointed out that out that statewide, of the 131 school divisions, only seven are asking
their employees to contribute.
Mr. Koleszar said that about 10 years ago, both he and Mr. Boyd served on the committee to
develop retention strategies – and those have been very effective in making the County competitive. He
stated that the overall concept seems to work much better now than before that strategy was in place.
Mr. Benson suggested that it would be helpful for the schools to have this information in order to
make budget projections, adding that they are not intending to move forward with the lump-sum bonus at
this time.
Ms. Mallek and Mr. Boyd commented that this meeting was only intended to be informational.
Mr. Strucko asked what percentage of the average compensation $350 represents, adding that
this bonus may be negligible when compared to what the State and University have done.
Ms. Gerome commented that the bonus would apply to all benefit eligible employees which would
apply to part-time employees, teachers, bus drivers, police officers, etc.
Mr. Boyd responded that if you compared over the past seven years what the County has done for
its employees versus what the State has done, Albemarle would be way ahead. It has been more than
two years that State employees have not received an increase.
Mr. Strucko said he understands that, but the County is proposing a bonus that is less than 1%.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
Mr. Rooker said that he isn‟t really comfortable with immediately deciding to spend the $1.2 million
without seeing what lies ahead with the upcoming budget. He does not want to give away $1.2 million now
and then have to lay employees off halfway through the year.
Mr. Foley commented that the $350 is budgeted in the current fiscal year, and is a decision the
Board can make when staff comes back with the Five-Year Plan. It would be helpful to know if they could
use the $350 as a planning target. He said that the market data says that the 2.3% and 1.95% would be
necessary to bring the County‟s pay level up to par, and the VRS model is something that would pertain
primarily to new employees. Those are budget-planning tools that come out of this meeting that help staff
as they prepare over the next month. The $350 is kind of a set-aside issue; these other items are more
about budget planning.
Mr. Snow stated that he would rather have it added in later than taken out of numbers already built
in. He would prefer to prepare a lean budget.
Mr. Foley said that he understands and staff could use a different target.
Mr. Boyd said that it is not necessary to have a different target, because when staff comes back
for budget planning purposes, they usually indicate that based on projected revenues, the County can
afford “x amount” of salary increases – and base tax rates accordingly. He would suggest that staff plan
what the County can afford to do, and then tell the Board what it needs in terms of either a tax increase or
savings other places.
Mr. Foley stated that it is a decision for the Board to make regarding where the priorities are going
into the budget process.
Mr. Rooker commented that WorldatWork was wrong the last two years, and he thinks they are
wrong again. He said that NaCo and VaCo news report layoffs of teachers and public employees, and the
unemployment rate is even higher today than it was last year at this time. He wants the County to remain
competitive and to meet its goals, but he finds it hard to believe that there are going to be any significant
raises out there by these competitive markets or elsewhere. Generally speaking, the state of municipal
finances is terrible right now. Mr. Rooker added that there are a number of localities even considering
defaulting on their debt because they cannot meet their bond obligations. He is committed to meeting the
County‟s targets but he does not believe there will be raises given around the country or even in this
market. The question is what is the best starting point for compensation in the competitive market?
Mr. Tucker said that staff will be able to find some revenue projections soon with the Five Year
plan, which would provide a better picture.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is more committed to meeting targets, but he does not believe the
targets.
Mr. Foley noted that this year the County is on target with projected revenues, which is a better
situation than last year.
Mr. Boyd commented that the $5.4 million surplus doesn‟t mean that revenue went up – it means
that revenues went down, but expenses went down even further. He does not want to set some target
amount at this time until he sees what the rest of the picture looks like.
Mr. Koleszar said that the minimum the Board will want to do is the .35% increase to meet the
target.
Mr. Rooker responded that he is always committed to meeting compensation goals and the
County should try to make up that .35% differential.
Mr. Thomas said that he agrees with the comments made by Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, and Mr. Boyd
– and more will be known with the Five-Year Plan figures.
Mr. Foley stated that there will need to be some assumptions made in order to craft the Five-Year
Plan – and the .35% would certainly be a part of that.
Mr. Thomas commented that there isn‟t anyone here who would not like to give teachers – and all
employees – a raise.
Ms. Moran pointed out that the issue of teacher pay is one for the School Board, and this pertains
to school classified staff.
Mr. Price said the School Division and Board may not have commonality on this issue.
Mr. Rooker said that he assumes the schools will try to meet the goals that are established, and if
they go out in front of those goals, they should drop back. He would support building in a 1% increase for
the purpose of looking at the Five-Year Plan, and suggested asking other localities what their plan is for
giving raises. Generally speaking, they have made decisions where they are better off keeping people
and dividing up labor rather than giving somebody raises over here and laying off two more people over
here.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Ms. Mallek noted that two years ago, she got that message from teachers that they would rather
have teachers working than to get a raise. She thinks that the County is understaffed on both sides of the
division for many of the current County functions.
Mr. Foley said that the statement under recommendations says that “final recommendations by
the County Executive and Superintendent will be based on additional market data and the availability of
adequate funding.” He stated that checking the market would be part of the recommendation and there
would be more information available by then. He reiterated that the Board is comfortable with a 1%
placeholder for budget planning purposes.
Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Boyd said the 1%.
Mr. Koleszar commented that because of the change and makeup of teaching staff, the average
teacher pay this year is 1.16% lower than it was last year – primarily because teachers leaving were on the
higher end of the scale and those hired were at the lower end of the scale.
Mr. Boyd said that that‟s expected to happen over the next few years anyway because of the baby
boomers, etc.
Mr. Price agreed.
Mr. Benson said that the School staff also needs some planning direction for teaching staff.
Mr. Koleszar said that he would like to start with the recommendation.
Mr. Price agreed.
Ms. Moynihan stated that she would be OK with starting there for planning to see how it goes, but
it is way too early to tell whether a bonus should be given and she thinks they have to expect further cuts.
She added that this should not be taken by the press or media as any kind of gospel.
Mr. Benson clarified that those final recommendations by the Superintendent will be based upon
additional market data and availability of adequate funding.
Ms. Moynihan said that is the most important thing to let people know and that no promises can
be made at the current time. In terms of the $350, she thinks they should look at bonuses and reward
best performers as opposed to everyone.
Mr. Dorrier said isn‟t that called merit pay.
Ms. Moynihan said it is, but this is some extra money, and it might be a good way to reward some
of the County‟s excellent performers.
Mr. Strucko said that the State mandated a 3% bonus for everybody, regardless of performance –
which has frustrated the University – so the UVA Health Systems making adjustments to base it on
performance with an average of 3%. He agrees that if they are going to do bonuses, it should be
performance-based. He added that he would support a 1.95% teacher step in scale, as they have asked
their teachers to do a lot more this year than they have done in past years with schedule changes and
class size increases. He does not like comparing us to other jurisdictions because Albemarle has its own
circumstances in terms of what teachers are experiencing in the classroom. They have a lot more
headaches for the same pay that they received last year.
Mr. Thomas said he has heard several times that County teachers should be compared to what
other teachers in the market are making.
Mr. Strucko said a benchmark can be used, but teachers are going to look at the working
conditions as well as the pay. They have to look at working arrangements in addition to compensation.
Mr. Rooker stated that if pay is based on other factors, then there should be some other points of
comparison – such as class sizes in other localities. He thinks it is disingenuous to bring in to the
compensation discussion subjective statements that go outside of the agreed upon compensation
approach without objective analysis.
Mr. Strucko said that he doesn‟t know what class sizes are in other localities, but he does know
that they are bigger in Albemarle than they were last year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it had been determined how many teachers were lost this year because of
compensation.
Mr. Price responded that they had not done that type of analysis.
Mr. Strucko said he thinks that there should be comparisons and factors with other benchmarks
should be looked at because it is becoming part of an employment decision. He reiterated that he does
not know what other jurisdictions are doing, but he does know about the changes in Albemarle. The
County teachers are and feel like they are doing more.
October 6, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
Mr. Snow emphasized that it could be said that people in every type of office have been asked to
do more than they have in previous years.
Mr. Price expressed concern about not using WorldatWork data since the County is paying for it.
He asked why pay for the data if it is not being used.
Ms. Gerome explained that the County pays for the association and participates in the surveys,
not specifically to acquire this data. She said that while they have been wrong the last two years, they
have been on the mark in the past.
Mr. Rooker noted that their projections have been pretty well aligned with inflation projections
being made by economists, but prices right now are relatively flat.
Mr. Price said the County‟s compensation strategy may now need to look at a new normal.
Ms. Moynihan said that the Boards need to approach this with objectivity, even though both would
like to give employees raises. She does not think the Supervisors are any different than School Board
members. She said that they should want to start the process this year with a show of unity if they can,
and work on this together. She suggests moving forward with what they have and if they have to modify it
in unity.
Mr. Strucko commented that he is prepared to support a 1.95% increase for teachers and is
willing to make a budget adjustment someplace else to achieve that.
There was no further discussion.
______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn to October 12, 2010, 9:00 a.m., Room 241.
At 5:32 p.m., Mr. Koleszar moved to adjourn the School Board meeting. Ms. Moynihan
seconded the motion. On a voice call vote, all voted aye; there were no nays.
__________
Mr. Rooker moved to adjourn the Board of Supervisors until October 12, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in
Room 241. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 05/04/2011
Initials: EWJ