2010-07-07July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 7,
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 9:04 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. (Removed from agenda.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Thomas provided Board members with a copy of a request he received from the family of Mr.
George Frazier to name to the bridge on Route 600, Rea‟s Ford Road, as the “George Frazier Memorial
Bridge”. He noted that Mr. Frazier served in World War II. He asked Board members to review the
materials and let him know if they support going forward with the request.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that a situation has arisen with a new development at Ashcroft – which is an
existing neighborhood under PRD zoning. He stated that the development wanted to put in roads
similar to what they have now, which are narrower than boulevard standards. He believes that most
people will agree it isn‟t the most environmentally sound approach to put a road in through the
mountainous terrain there. Mr. Boyd explained that County ordinance doesn‟t allow a smaller grade of
road. He asked if the Board would consider having staff look at a change that would allow for a waiver of
road standards to be heard on a case by case basis for existing PRDs.
Mr. Rooker asked if the road is public or private.
Mr. Davis explained that it is a private road, but under current ordinance must be built to VDoT
standards if there are more than five lots in the rural area – which Ashcroft is. He said that staff has done
a preliminary review of this issue and determined that it may be reasonable to have a waiver provision to
bring back to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the mountain terrain standards that VDoT allows, but they typically don‟t
permit them east of Afton. He asked if the County could get a waiver under certain circumstances that
could pertain to those standards.
Mr. Boyd commented that those standards could be used in Albemarle.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, noted that because this is a private street, the
subdivision must meet VDoT standards, but the County can administer the mountain terrain standards –
which it has been doing for years. He said that in 2005, VDoT changed its standards and the developer
wants to use the standards they had in place when the PRD was originally established.
Mr. Rooker said it makes sense to him to take a look at it.
Mr. Boyd said if there is concurrence, he would ask staff to bring back an amendment to an
ordinance to allow for a waiver of road standards in old planned developments.
There was no opposition expressed.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that he and Mr. Thomas had met with the Fire and Rescue Ordinance Committee,
as directed by the Board, and the meeting revealed that the Fire and Rescue community has not changed
their opinion that there is no need for an ordinance. He said that both he and Mr. Thomas told them the
Board wanted to move forward with it and wanted to give them the chance to give any additional
information or input. They asked them to get back to him and Mr. Thomas by July 15th with any
suggestions or modifications, but they stood behind the vote that they took last year opposing this
ordinance. He added that they are still trying to move forward with the ordinance. He was hoping to move
forward with the public hearing on August 11th, but that date is on the Board‟s agenda to cancel. He asked
if the Board wanted to consider holding the public hearing on that date instead of cancelling it or moving
the public hearing to September. Mr. Boyd added that it is important for the Board to move forward on the
proposed ordinance if it wants to.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Thomas said the goal is to make sure the Board still wants to move forward on the ordinance.
He does not know the atmosphere of this Board but he knows that the Fire and Rescue community has
not changed. It would be nice to know how the Board feels.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks that the Board should meet on August 11th and move forward with this,
as they have indicated fairly recently its support for moving forward with an ordinance – while working
through revenue recovery and some other issues. He supports going ahead and dealing with the issue.
Mr. Snow said he also supports moving ahead.
Ms. Mallek said it would be good to get a decision one way or the other.
__________
Mr. Snow said that he has received numerous calls regarding mowing or the lack of it in the
County. He has sent several letters to Mr. Sumpter at VDoT asking for his assistance.
Ms. Mallek responded that this is usually the month VDoT goes out and cuts back brush, and
people can take action locally if this doesn‟t happen in sufficient time.
Mr. Thomas said he has also spoken with VDoT folks, but the residents of Carrsbrook have been
cutting their own brush.
Mr. Boyd added that there was a schedule in the VDoT report this week stating that they are
working down from primary to secondary to rural roads.
Ms. Mallek also mentioned that VDoT is still picking up the pines that were knocked down by
March‟s ice storm.
Mr. Rooker stated that when he was driving down I-95 recently, it was noticeable how inferior the
road conditions, mowing, landscaping, etc., in Virginia are compared to that of North and South Carolina.
He thinks that we are in for a shock here in terms of maintenance and aesthetics of our state.
Mr. Thomas commented that Virginia just did not put funds into their roads like the Carolinas did.
Mr. Snow added that he did email Mr. Sumpter and he has taken care of most of the issues fairly
quickly.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is discouraging driving down Route 29 and other places where the
County used to keep up, but now does not allocate the funding for it.
Mr. Thomas noted that Mr. Wood‟s group cut the grass in front of North Town Center, as it was so
tall the sidewalk was no longer visible.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that there are many abandoned properties that are not being kept up, as
the bank ownership is often not local. She knows that staff is working on pursuing some of those.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that Board members had received a letter from Jefferson Coin Shop regarding
vendors from outside the area that may or may not be paying sales tax, and do not have to abide by
County regulations. He noted that just a few days after that, an ad in the Daily Progress announced that
an outside vendor would be setting up at the Holiday Inn to buy and sell jewelry. Mr. Rooker also stated
that he had received a letter from someone in the brick business complaining that they were being
underbid by out-of-state firms that did not register to do business locally or pay local taxes.
Mr. Davis indicated that staff is looking into the Jefferson Coin issue, as there is a state and local
ordinance requirement that these types of operations get a permit from the Chief of Police. He said that
there is some question as to the requirement of a fixed and permanent location, but his staff is looking into
the applicability of that measure. Mr. Davis stated that the Police Department indicated there were six
permits issued last year, including some to local businesses that have a fixed location and some from
outside that operate at hotels. He indicated that his office, in conjunction with the Police Department and
the Commonwealth‟s Attorney office are looking into the issue and will report its‟ conclusions back to the
Board.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County needs to make sure that there‟s a level playing field out
there. He does not want local merchants to be undercut by people coming in and opening up shop
temporarily and they do not have to pay fees, taxes, etc., that local operations have to pay.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that about a month ago, he and Mr. Thomas met with the Secretary of
Transportation and his Deputy – along with some interns from State colleges, in Richmond. Mr. Cilimberg
and Mr. Benish also attended and it was a nice, cordial meeting. He explained that Albemarle
representatives took maps and traffic modeling information to show the measures they are doing to try to
improve the traffic flow in the US 29 Corridor, how land use and transportation planning are being
integrated, collaborative studies with the State and the City in an effort to jointly improve traffic conditions
in the corridor, and specific traffic improvement projects – some of which are being paid for by developers.
He said that he thinks it was a good meeting and they were impressed with what the locality is doing. Mr.
Rooker said that they are having another meeting August 5th in Charlottesville to also include
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
representatives from Lynchburg, and have invited him and Mr. Thomas to attend. They talked about the
bypass and the Secretary of Transportation made it clear that they did not have the money for it; in fact,
they do not have money for much – secondary road funds are down 94% from where they were four or
five years ago. He commented that there are some political issues with Danville and Lynchburg, and he
and Mr. Thomas are hoping to extend a hand of friendship and see what might be accomplished.
__________
Mr. Dorrier reported that Scottsville had a very successful 4th of July event – with between 8,000
and 10,000 people in attendance at the parade. He said that he floated down the river between Warren
and Hatton, and there were about 800 cars parked at the ferry. He added that this community is so
fortunate to have the James River, and we should all use it more than we do.
Mr. Thomas commented that he has floated the river twice – once when it‟s low like it is now, and
once when it was about four feet up. He added that it was fun both ways.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the County receives tax revenues from those who rent tubes.
__________
Mr. Rooker mentioned that in County Connections there was a notice of the Government Reform
Commission holding town hall meetings around the State, and the one nearest here is being held at the
same time as the Board‟s meeting. He said that the South Hill town hall meeting will be held July 16th at
1:00 p.m. There is another one being held in Hampton Roads.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to go, and would try to attend the one in South Hill. He added
that he appreciates any thoughts from people if they have any comments.
Ms. Mallek commented that if reform means just saving State money and dumping more
responsibility and costs on localities, she is not in favor of that.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
__________
Ms. Mallek asked if Board members had received the DCR letter about the scenic byway with
Albemarle and Nelson, and asked if there were any concerns.
Mr. Snow said he would like to go ahead with a resolution.
Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Benish is working on that and would bring something back to the Board.
Mr. Davis noted that in the past the Board has held a public hearing before adopting the
resolution, although that is not required. The Board could also request VDoT to hold a public hearing
before the Board adopts the resolution. He said that the last one he recalled was for Batesville, and after
hearing opposition to it the Board declined to adopt a resolution.
Ms. Mallek suggested scheduling a public hearing when staff is ready to bring it forward.
Mr. Rooker said that there are some substantial differences between the Batesville designation
and this one, and he doubts there would be much public opposition although they should be heard
regardless.
__________
Ms. Mallek reported that she met with the E-85 Fuel Clean Cities group that is trying to facilitate
the sale of flex fuel around the State. There is a station in Albemarle at Greenbrier and Route 29. They
were directed to work with staff to find a way to work within their original sign plans to do a better job to get
the word out.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that there have been some great panel discussions where she has been asked to
talk about Albemarle‟s role in rural areas protection – some aimed at the Chesapeake Bay, some aimed at
the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, how rural agribusiness is such a major player in open space
protection and resource protection. She also participated at the biomass conference in Richmond where
people are looking at different crops that can be used as energy sources. She will share additional news
in the future.
__________
Ms. Mallek said she met Liz Povar, of the Partnership for Economic Development in Richmond,
when she was speaking to the LEED Virginia alumnae group at Morven a few weeks ago. She said word
is getting out there that the Workforce Group is moving ahead.
__________
Mr. Boyd mentioned that he was recently appointed to the VACo Administrative Committee, as he
is very concerned about the future of VRS and he is hoping that might be an issue for the Committee to
consider.
Ms. Mallek encouraged Board members to volunteer for a VACo committee, as it is a great way to
meet people around the State and become more aware of what other localities are doing.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker commented that he serves on VACo‟s Transportation Committee.
__________
Mr. Snow asked Ms. Mallek if she wanted to mention the Rockdale Quarries correspondence.
Ms. Mallek stated that Board members received the notice from the quarry on Rio Mills, and that
County concerns are being addressed as a result of the Board‟s resolution.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. John Martin, Vice-Chair of the Albemarle County Service Authority said that the ACSA has
received a CDBG grant for the Oak Hill sewer project in the amount of $712,500. Mr. Martin said that this
is great news for the residents, and great news for Biscuit Run as it will improve water quality. He thanked
Service Authority staff and Mr. Ron White for all of the work they put into this to make it possible.
__________
Mr. Steven Meeks, representing the Albemarle-Charlottesville Historical Society and the Hatton
Ferry, addressed the Board with an update of the Ferry. He said that the Ferry has operated 12
consecutive weeks, but there wasn‟t enough water in the river to operate over the past weekend.
Although it isn‟t operating, there will still be staff on hand to meet with visitors and explain the Ferry
operation.
Mr. Meeks reported that earlier this year he trained about six individuals to run the Ferry so when
it does run there are two people there at all times, and typically they have been running nine trips on
Saturday and five trips on Sunday. About 150 regular trips have been run since the season began as well
as 25 special excursions during weekdays to accommodate groups. Due to Coast Guard regulations, he
said, only six passengers on each trip can be accommodated; about 1,000 people have been transported
so far this year with another 1,000 greeted who did not go out on the Ferry. They are very pleased with
the operation thus far; everything has been going very smoothly. He mentioned that they have had to do
some major repair work on the Buckingham side of the river, as there was a washout earlier in the
season. Mr. Meeks said that they are now undertaking some long-needed repair work to the cable towers,
and are slowly making enhancements to the Buckingham side.
He stated that they have a good relationship with Albemarle Parks and Recreation, the Albemarle
and Buckingham Sheriff‟s Departments, as well as VDoT and James River Runners. Mr. Meeks said that
Mr. Dorrier raised the issue of the number of cars parking at the Hatton Ferry, as these are just people
using the river and not the ferry nor the float company. It is creating a safety issue. This past weekend
there was great difficulty in the ability of an ambulance to get to the river to attend to somebody that was
having some heat exhaustion issues. He encouraged the Board to address the safety and access issues
with the necessary agencies.
Ms. Mallek asked if people were just parking in any available field.
Mr. Meeks responded that the Ferry can accommodate 20 vehicles, but this past weekend people
were actually pulling the “No parking” signs out of the ground so they would have a place to park. They
are impeding the flow on the public right of way; they‟re parking on the hard service road back up the hill
above James River Runners. He added that the Ferry is responsible for the parking off-surface, but
people are parking on the hard surface – and most of it is in the VDoT right-of-way.
Mr. Dorrier said that there is an issue with the busses having a place to turn around. He
suggested that Ike W right – a deputy with the Sheriff‟s Department – be enlisted to help with signs and
such, as he is there on a regular basis.
Mr. Meeks commented that residents are having trouble with people blocking the entrance to their
property.
Mr. Snow stated that it is great people are using it, and perhaps someone could dedicate a field
for parking and charge for it.
Mr. Meeks said he spoke with Mr. Sumpter who is looking into the issue, and Parks and Rec has
offered to help with some “no parking” signs at the Ferry site.
Ms. Mallek suggested that someone could run a van service that would make everything run a bit
more smoothly.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Ferry is charging at this time.
Mr. Meeks responded “no”; they ask for donations, and people have been contributing.
Mr. Rooker commented that the numbers of attendees seem to have increased substantially.
Mr. Meeks said that it is remarkable, with people coming just to see the Ferry even if they are not
planning to ride.
__________
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Sharon Ackerman said that she is here to discuss the Code of Virginia‟s definition of “shelter”
for County dogs. This will lead into Ms. Norris‟ introduction of her Houses of Wood and Straw project.
The Code of Virginia begins by defining shelter as that which protects an animal from extremes of
temperature, sunlight, rain, and sleet. In the next section, however, it specifies a structure that does not
provide for any of that. The Code defines the housing structure as “three sides, a top, and a bottom,” and
this is where the law breaks down in translation and does not provide what it intends to provide. This is
the legal standard for shelters in Virginia and this is the inadequacy of law that our Animal Control Officers
toil under. Dogs are legally chained in barrels, crates, and Rubbermaid containers, and other receptacles
that were never intended to be shelters and that do not provide the protection necessary to prevent
suffering. She stated that the County Code mirrors the State law, which is nebulous and poses difficulties
for Animal Control Officers. Ms. Ackerman said that she would be meeting with her State delegate next
week, but she hopes the County Code can be updated to address the places where State law has failed to
go. She provided Board members with copies of two examples of model shelter ordinances and an
excerpt from the State Code.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County Code can be stronger than the State minimum for the definition of
shelters.
Mr. Davis replied, “yes”.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County can have anti-tethering ordinances in terms of numbers of hours
per day.
Mr. Davis said he is not aware of any jurisdictions that have adopted an anti-tethering ordinance,
but the County does have the authority.
Ms. Ackerman added that Northampton County, Richmond, and Charlottesville all have
restrictions on tethering – and Staunton now does.
__________
Ms. Stacy Norris addressed the Board, demonstrating a three-foot chain tether for a dog. She
commented that all animals seek to avoid suffering. In 2008 she founded The House Project – a
community service project that builds wooden dog houses with the help of area schools and Boy Scout
troops. Ms. Norris said that the group distributes the houses – along with straw bedding, nylon collars,
leashes, and food and water bowls – with the help of Animal Control Officers, to outside dogs in need of
more appropriate shelter. She stated that in the last two years, they have seen a lot of suffering, with lots
of dogs that are legally sheltered but have nothing close to respectable outdoor living conditions – dogs
with holes in their roofs, dogs whose only shade is provided by metal or plastic barrels in high heat, dogs
with heavy tow chains wrapped around their necks, dogs with kinked chains who cannot reach their water
bowls, dogs who step in their own feces because of the size of the area in which they are limited, and
dogs in cold weather who are ill-prepared for harsh conditions. Ms. Norris said that regardless of whether
it is a case of ignorance or apathy, the people who keep their dogs tied up in these conditions are doing
nothing illegal; but as Animal Control will attest to, it is a very sad situation for these dogs. She stated that
the House Project exists as a mere band-aid, and helps to improve the living conditions of many outside
dogs in need – but the problems can best be solved by changing laws. She asked that the Board consider
legislation to help with anti-tethering in Albemarle County.
Ms. Mallek commented that there is a correlation between dog biting and attacks and long-term
chaining. She thanked Ms. Norris for the model ordinances, and asked fellow Board members if they
agree to proceed.
Mr. Rooker responded that he would like to find out exactly what the County can do, and would
like to hear from Animal Control. He added that there is also the problem of enforcement. It is one thing
to pass an ordinance; it‟s another thing to recognize whether or not you‟ve got the manpower to actually
enforce your ordinances. He commented that he supports the measures, and doesn‟t understand why
people get a dog only to chain it up – adding that he would like to see how these ordinances have helped
improve the conditions.
Ms. Ackerman commented that North Carolina has found that a 10-hour ordinance is not
enforceable; it needs to be one hour or nothing.
Ms. Norris said that Animal Control has called her on many occasions, and she has alerted them
as well. Animal Control have been an asset to finding animals for her project ad they need this as much
as the dogs.
Ms. Mallek noted that Animal Control already knows where these situations exist, so this would
not be an additional burden on them.
Mr. Boyd asked how the program is received, given that the dog owners are being made aware of
a bad situation. He asked if the homeowners are cooperative.
Ms. Norris responded that they approach them very non-judgmentally, and explain that this is a
free service that offers better materials for the pet. She said that she always mentions that the houses are
built by Boy Scouts and schools, which tends to lighten the mood. Ms. Norris stated that the group has
distributed 105 houses total, and only two people have turned them away.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Boyd asked if the situations were caused more by apathy or ignorance.
Ms. Norris replied that what is presented to her is ignorance, whether it is real or feigned. It
seems as though people are very open and they have had really good reception, but again it is the
approach.
Mr. Boyd thanked her for the program, commenting on how much he liked it.
Mr. Rooker said the program is terrific.
Ms. Mallek thanked her for coming forward, noting that it is a great example of how citizens can
make a difference.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Mr. Rooker moved to approve Items 71- through 7.4, to
remove Item 7.4a, and to accept the remaining items for information. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: April 7, April 14 and May 12, 2010.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of April 7, 2010, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of April 14, 2010, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of May 12, 2010, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded the vote, the minutes were approved as read.
__________________
Item No. 7.2. 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 $304,929.49. 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 six (6) FY 2010 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010089) reallocating $35,168.00 of a Department of Justice
grant awarded to the Police Department to different expenditure lines within the grant;
Two (2) appropriations (#2010090 and #201091) totaling $180,741.49 for various school
programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2010092) totaling $53,668.00 for costs associated with the June
8, 2010 primary elections;
One (1) appropriation (#2010093) totaling $9,800.00 for equipment and training for the
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), and
the Fire Corps from the 2007 Homeland Security reimbursable grant; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010094) totaling $60,720.00 for the ACE program from the
Farmland Preservation Grant
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $304,929.49 and the
approval of Appropriations #2010089, #2010090, #201091, #2010092, #2010093, and #2010094.
* * * * *
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010089 $35,168.00
Revenue Source:
Grant #2009-SB-B9-1924: The Department of Justice has approved an amendment to the grant awarded to
the Albemarle County Police Department in the amount of $113,138.00. The purpose of this amendment is
to reallocate $35,168 of funds currently budgeted for overtime to cover training and additional equipment to
support more Community Policing in problem solving, crime prevention, and safety enhancement through
working directly with citizens. There is no local match.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Appropriation #2010090 $176.548.63
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $108,991.68
Fund Balance $ 67,556.95
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $735.68 from Henley‟s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment
Time before 9” program for the month of April at Henley Middle School.
Albemarle High School (“AHS”) received various cash donations totaling $620.00. These donations were
made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at AHS. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS
Synthetic Turf Project is $33,856.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a
grand total of $40,722.88. 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 $284,277.12 to secure matching funds.
The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Monticello High School was awarded a grant in the amount of $345.00 from the Nest Realty Group. These
funds will be used to build a vegetable garden at the school. The garden will primarily be a project of the
school‟s Ecology classes.
Crozet Elementary School was awarded a grant in the amount of $625.00 from the Williams Companies,
Inc. These funds will be used to purchase a pair of lacrosse goals.
Greer Elementary School was awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Junior League of
Charlottesville. These funds will be used to cover the costs of a field trip to Lowes where garden supplies
and materials will be purchased. Remaining funds will be used to purchase books about gardening.
The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local
Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund.
The following donations totaling $410.00 were made to specific options:
$100.00 was donated to Albemarle High School;
$100.00 was donated to Red Hill Elementary School;
$110.00 was donated to School Division Capital Improvements; and
$100.00 was donated to the MESA program at Albemarle High School.
The Special Education Local Improvement Grant (SLIVER) has a fund balance in the amount $2,645.95,
which may be used for FY 09/10. These funds will be used to furnish preschool classrooms.
The Teaching American History Grant is based on a partnership of five public school systems in central
Virginia (Charlottesville City and Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Greene Counties). The City of
Charlottesville is the fiscal agent and Albemarle County Schools will seek reimbursement for salary and
compensation expenses incurred. The purpose of this grant is to create a sustainable, long-term project
that will become a model to share both teaching strategies and content-based activities as well as inform
future historical projects. The grant totals $105,256.00.
Various Miscellaneous Grants have an unexpended fund balance from FY 08/09. Holders of these grants
have been encouraged to expend these balances. This request is to reappropriate available funds totaling
$52,078.36 for use in FY 09/10.
Various Shannon Foundation Grants have an unexpended fund balance from FY 08/09. Holders of these
grants have been encouraged to expend these balances. This request is to reappropriate available funds
totaling $12,832.74 for use in FY 09/10.
Appropriation #2010091 $4,192.86
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 4,192.86
Albemarle High School (“AHS”) received various cash donations totaling $145.00. These donations were
made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at AHS. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS
Synthetic Turf Project is $34,001.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a
grand total of $40,867.88. 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 $284,132.12 to secure matching funds.
The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local
Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund.
The following donations totaling $560.00 were made to specific options:
$350.00 was donated to Murray Elementary School;
$10.00 was donated to School Division Capital Improvements;
$100.00 was donated to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School; and
$100.00 was donated to Red Hill Elementary School.
Virginia L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,487.86 from the Murray
PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to fund the M3 after school enrichment
program at Murray Elementary School.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Appropriation #2010092 $53,668.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $53,668.00
Pursuant to Va. Code § 24.2-518, the Department of Voter Registration and Elections requests an
appropriation to be made for the costs of the June 8, 2010 primary election for the Republican Party
nomination for: Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Virginia 5th District. This primary election
included all Albemarle County voting precincts.
Appropriation #2010093 $9,800.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $9,800.00
This request is for a 2007 Homeland Security reimbursable grant. The funds are being used for equipment
and training for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) $3,600, Medical Reserve Corps
(MRC) $1,370 and the Fire Corps $4,830. The grant is managed through the Regional Emergency
Management Office. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2010094 $60,720.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $60,720.00
Farmland Preservation Grant - The VA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of
Farmland Preservation has awarded Albemarle County an additional amount of $60,720 to preserve
farmland through local Purchase of Development Rights programs, or the County‟s ACE program. The
funds will be used to compensate landowners who permanently preserve their land by voluntarily placing a
conservation easement on it. The original grant was received in FY 2008.
By the above-recorded the vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount
of $304,929.49 and the approved Appropriations #2010089, #2010090, #201091, #2010092,
#2010093, and #2010094.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010089
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Community Policing Grant Amendment
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUN
D
DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION COD
E
AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1543 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 ($32,669.00)
1 1543 31013 210000 FICA J 1 ($2,499.00)
1 1543 31013 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 $2,508.00
1 1543 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 $32,660.00
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010090
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: May 27, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 1,035.68
1 2207 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 100.00
1 2252 61101 160300 Stipends-Instructional J 1 683.40
1 2252 61101 210000 FICA J 1 52.28
1 2301 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 200.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 1,035.68
0701 Appropriation 1,035.68
2 3104 18000 189900 Miscellaneous Grants J 2 1,970.00
2 3104 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 52,078.36
1 3104 60201 312500 Prof Serv Instructional J 1 375.00
1 3104 60201 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,005.75
1 3104 60203 312500 Prof Serv Instructional J 1 325.00
1 3104 60203 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 2,874.00
1 3104 60204 420100 Field Trips J 1 800.00
1 3104 60204 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60205 312500 Prof Serv Instructional J 1 1,550.00
1 3104 60205 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,642.96
1 3104 60206 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 18.24
1 3104 60207 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 369.12
1 3104 60209 420100 Field Trips J 1 353.78
1 3104 60209 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,105.29
1 3104 60210 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,262.19
1 3104 60211 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 5.31
1 3104 60212 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 656.03
1 3104 60213 420100 Field Trips J 1 222.45
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
1 3104 60213 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 341.76
1 3104 60214 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 332.17
1 3104 60215 312500 Prof Serv Instructional J 1 200.00
1 3104 60215 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 2,051.90
1 3104 60216 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,600.49
1 3104 60217 312700 Prof Services - Consultant J 1 1,070.48
1 3104 60217 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,184.18
1 3104 60251 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 20.56
1 3104 60252 312500 Prof Serv Instructional J 1 4,641.77
1 3104 60252 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00
1 3104 60253 800700 Data Processing Equip -
New
J 1 3,397.32
1 3104 60302 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 600.00
1 3104 60304 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 347.27
1 3104 61101 420100 Field Trips J 1 510.49
1 3104 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 48.77
1 3104 61311 580500 Staff Development J 1 183.63
1 3104 62421 800621 Solar Panels - Henley J 1 18,952.45
3104 0501 Est. Revenue 54,048.36
0701 Appropriation 54,048.36
2 3158 18000 181273 Teaching American History
Grant
J 2 105,256.00
1 3158 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J 1 59,228.00
1 3158 61101 160100 Stipends - Career Incentive J 1 22,810.00
1 3158 61101 210000 FICA J 1 6,276.00
1 3158 61101 221000 VRS J 1 8,795.00
1 3158 61101 231000 Health Insurance J 1 7,553.00
1 3158 61101 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 253.00
1 3158 61101 241000 VRS Group Life J 1 341.00
3158 0501 Est. Revenue 105,256.00
0701 Appropriation 105,256.00
2 3211 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 2,645.85
1 3211 61102 800200 Furniture/Fixtures J 1 2,645.85
3211 0501 Est. Revenue 2,645.85
0701 Appropriation 2,645.85
2 3502 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 12,832.74
1 3502 60606 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 12,832.74
3502 0501 Est. Revenue 12,832.74
0701 Appropriation 12,832.74
2 9000 18100 181105 Donation J 2 110.00
1 9000 62422 580000 Miscellaneous Expenses J 1 110.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 110.00
0701 Appropriation 110.00
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS DONATIONS-TURF PROJ 620.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYN TURF FIELD 620.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 620.00
0701 Appropriation 620.00
TOTAL 353,097.26 176,548.63 176,548.63
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010091
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: June 10, 2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9001 18100 181107 AHS Donations - Turf
Project
J 2 145.00
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS Syn Turf Field J 1 145.00
9001 0501 Est. Revenue 145.00
0701 Appropriation 145.00
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 4,037.86
1 2215 61101 152100 Wages-Substitute Teacher J 1 3,240.00
1 2215 61101 210000 FICA J 1 247.86
1 2215 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 350.00
1 2206 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 100.00
1 2207 61101 420100 Field Trips J 1 100.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 4,037.86
0701 Appropriation 4,037.86
2 9000 18100 181105 CIP Donations J 2 10.00
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
1 9000 62422 580000 Misc Expenses J 1 10.00
9000 0501 Est. Revenue 10.00
0701 Appropriation 10.00
TOTAL 8,385.72 4,192.86 4,192.86
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010092
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Cover costs associated with the June 8, 2010 primary elections
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 1000 51000 510100 Approp. Fund Balance J 2 53,668.00
1 1000 13020 120000 Overtime Wages J 1 2,294.79
1 1000 13020 312510 Election Officials J 1 26,745.00
1 1000 13020 210000 FICA J 1 2,215.42
1 1000 13020 331607 R&M - Voting Machines J 1 17,572.45
1 1000 13020 520100 Postal Services J 1 34.72
1 1000 13020 520300 Telecommunications J 1 70.00
1 1000 13020 540200 Lease/Rent-Buildings J 1 550.00
1 1000 13020 550100 Travel/Training/Education J 1 920.00
1 1000 13020 600100 Office Supplies J 1 150.00
1 1000 13020 601700 Copy Expense J 1 505.12
1 1000 13020 360000 Advertising J 1 800.00
1 1000 13020 390000 Other Purchased Servies J 1 1,810.50
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 53,668.00
0701 Appropriation 53,668.00
TOTAL 53,668.00 53,668.00 53,668.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010093
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: 2007 Homeland Security re-fundable grant for equipment and training for the
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) $3,600, Medical Reserve Corps (MRC)
$1,370 and the Fire Corps $4,830
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 J 2 9,800.00
1 4100 31045 312500 PROF. SER.
INSTRUCTIONAL
J 1 500.00
1 4100 31045 550100 TRAVEL/TRAINING/EDUCA
TION
J 1 7,400.00
1 4100 31045 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES J 1 1,200.00
1 4100 31045 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J 1 700.00
4100 0501 Est. Revenue 9,800.00
0701 Appropriation 9,800.00
TOTAL 9,800.00 9,800.00 9,800.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2010094
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Farmland Preservation Grant to ACE Program
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 24000 240767 Revenue - State (VDACS) J 2 60,720.00
1 9010 81010 580409 ACE J 1 60,720.00
9010 0501 Est. Revenue 60,720.00
0701 Appropriation 60,720.00
TOTAL 60,720.00 60,720.00 60,720.00
__________________
Item No. 7.3. 2007 State Homeland Security Grant Program (CFDA # 97.073) Resolution.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)
has awarded a $9,800.00 grant through the 2007 State Homeland Security Grant Program (CFDA #
97.073) to the Emergency Communication Center‟s (“ECC”) Regional Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
County Emergency Management Office (Emergency Management Office). The purpose of the Grant is to
purchase emergency equipment and training for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT),
Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) and the Charlottesville Fire Corps.
The Emergency Management Office of ECC is designated as the grant administrator for this
Homeland Security Grant. Because the County serves as the fiscal agent for the ECC, the Board must
adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive, the ECC Emergency
Management Coordinator or the ECC Executive Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents required
for the receipt and implementation of this Grant.
The County will serve as the fiscal agent for this Homeland Security Grant; however, it is a
100 percent reimbursable program with no matching funds required by the County.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing either
the County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2007 State Homeland Security Grant.
By the above-recorded the vote, the Board adopted the following resolution authorizing
either the County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC Executive
Director to execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2007 State Homeland
Security Grant:
__________________
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Item No. 7.4. FY 2010/11 Bright Stars Funding Update.
The executive summary states that due to uncertainty in state funding at the time the FY 10/11
Budget was adopted, Bright Stars Program employees in the Department of Social Services were
programmed to be transitioned from 12 to 11 month status. Since adoption of the budget, the state has
revised the VRS and group life insurance benefit rates for certain categories of employees in the program
which has generated additional cost savings. Staff requests and recommends utilizing these savings to
restore the program employee positions to 12 month status for FY 10/11.
The savings from the revised VRS and group life insurance benefit rates more than offsets the
increase in salaries if the Bright Stars program employee positions are restored to 12 month status:
FY 10/11 Adopted Budget
Salaries $733,322 – based on 11 month positions
Benefits $318,075
Total Personnel Costs $1,051,397
FY 10/11 Revised Requested Budget
Salaries $751,598 – based on 12 month positions
Benefits $297,007
Total Personnel Costs $1,048,605
The additional salary and benefit costs associated with restoring these positions to 12 month
status will be funded utilizing the benefit savings from certain employees in the program. Therefore, there
will be no budget impact in FY 10/11.
Staff recommends approval of the restoration of the Bright Stars program employee positions to
12 month positions for FY 10/11.
By the above-recorded the vote, the Board approved the restoration of the Bright Stars
program employee positions to 12 month positions for FY 10/11.
__________________
Item No. 7.4a. Cancel August 11, 2010, Night Board Meeting.
Based on earlier discussion, this item was removed from the agenda.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he would not be able to be in attendance at the meeting.
__________________
Item No. 7.5. VDOT, Culpeper District Monthly Report, for Albemarle County, July 2010, was
received for information.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27, 2010).
Ms. Laura Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst with the Office of Management and Budget,
summarized the following executive summary:
“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 $15,939,815.11.
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 $15,939,815.11. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 28,757.00
Special Revenue Funds $ 3,735,678.13
School Fund $ 4,323.34
Capital Improvements Funds $ 12,171,056.64
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 15,939,815.11
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 59,888.13
State Revenue $ 0.00
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Federal Revenue $ 412,019.80
Loan Proceeds $ 10,266,166.93
Other Fund Balances $ 5,201,741.05
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 15,939,815.11
The budget amendment is comprised of eight (8) separate appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011001) totaling $28,757.00 that will partially fund a position in the
Department of Social Services using federal revenues. This position will primarily work to
administer the County‟s Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) funding;
One (1) appropriation (#2011003) totaling $3,675,790.00 for the Belvedere bond funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2011004) totaling $59,888.13 for rental income and expenses related to
the Old Crozet Elementary School;
One (1) appropriation (#2011005) totaling $10,294,455.73, reappropriating general government
capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011006) totaling $775,798.23, reappropriating school capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011007) totaling $1,025,922.68, reappropriating stormwater capital
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011008) totaling $4,323.34 for various education programs and grants;
and
One (1) appropriation (#2011009) totaling $74,880.00 for the Downtown Crozet Regional
Stormwater project.
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
Ms. Vinzant said after the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2011 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $15,939,815.11 and approval of Appropriations #2011001, #2011003,
#2011004, #2011005, #2011006, #2011007, #2011008, and #2011009 to provide funds for various local
government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
* * * * *
Appropriation #2011001 $28,757.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $28,757.00
The FY 10/11 Adopted Budget includes transferring the administration of the County‟s Comprehens ive
Services Act (CSA) from the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) to the Department of Social
Services. This program will be administered by a Child Welfare Services Supervisor and funded through 1)
the $50,892 previously approved for this position in the adopted budget; and 2) this appropriation of
$28,757.00, which will be 100% reimbursed through federal revenues. In addition to managing the County‟s
CSA funding, this position will provide supervision and administrative oversight to the department‟s child
care and independent living programs. This appropriation will increase the department‟s authorized FTE
count by 1.0.
Appropriation #2011003 $3,675,790.00
Revenue Source: Other Fund Balance $3,675,790.00
This request is to reappropriate the Belvedere bond funds so that they are available, if needed, in FY 10/11.
The developer of Belvedere Subdivision, Belvedere Station Land Trust (BSLT), provided performance
bonds to the County for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase 1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A covering
water protection (erosion control & stormwater management), roads, drainage and related site work, and
water and sewer improvements. The bonds totaled $3,675,790.00 and were secured by letters of credit
from Wachovia Bank. In November 2008 the County received notice from Wachovia Bank that the letters of
credit securing the bonds would not be renewed beyond their current expiration. Since BSLT was unable to
get Wachovia Bank to renew the letters of credit and did not provide replacement performance bonds, the
County demanded payment on the six (6) letters of credit securing the bonds in January 2009.
BSLT is currently keeping the project area in compliance with County requirements and is seeking a longer
term funding solution for the project. However, the appropriation is necessary for the County to expend the
funds should BSLT be unable to fund critical work. This will assure that the subdivision residents have the
required infrastructure and are protected from any lack of required maintenance.
Appropriation #2011004 $59,888.13
Revenue Source: Rental Income (Local) $59,888.13
This request is to allocate rental revenues generated from the Old Crozet Elementary School leases to fund
the operating costs of the Old Crozet Elementary School and to fund major capital replacements/repairs that
may be necessary in the future (e.g. boiler replacement, roof repairs, asbestos abatement, etc.). It is
anticipated that the County‟s leases with the Field School and the Old Crozet School Arts will generate
$59,888.13 during FY11.
Appropriation #2011005 $ 10,294,455.73
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 330,062.00
Loan Proceeds $ 9,653,839.00
Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal. $ 310,554.73
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of active General Government Capital
Improvement projects that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this
request are several park projects, several public safety projects, the Access Albemarle project, various
maintenance and repair projects, the Crozet Library, and the Crozet Streetscape project. The remaining
project reappropriations will be presented to the Board in October for consideration.
Appropriation #2011006 $ 775,798.23
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $ 612,327.93
School CIP Fund Balance $ 163,470.30
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of active School Capital Improvement projects
that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are various
maintenance/repair projects as well as construction projects at the Crozet Elementary School, Vehicle
Maintenance Facility, Brownsville Elementary School, Greer Elementary School and Albemarle High School.
The remaining project reappropriations will be presented to the Board in October for consideration.
Appropriation #2011007 $ 1,025,922.68
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 53,200.00
Stormwater CIP Fund Bal. $ 972,722.68
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of Stormwater Management projects that
were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are Downtown Crozet,
Woodbrook Lagoon and COB Biofilters. The remaining project reappropriations will be presented to the Board
in October for consideration.
Appropriation #2011008 $4,323.34
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $4,323.34
The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local
Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund.
The following donations were made to specific options:
$3,650.34 was donated for School Division Instructional Support;
$50.00 was donated to Western Albemarle High School;
$250.00 was donated to Greer Elementary School;
$273.00 was donated for miscellaneous instructional needs within the school division; and
$100.00 was donated to Henley Middle School.
Appropriation #2011009 $74,880.00
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenue: $74,880.00
This request allocates the available Grayrock Proffer revenue of $74,880.00 to the Downtown Crozet
Regional Stormwater project as previously approved by the Board on July 1, 2009.
Mr. Rooker asked why there would be appropriations designated if there is a project not included
for funding in the current CIP, such as the Crozet Library.
Ms. Vinzant responded that it would be funding that was previously appropriated that is being
carried forward.
Mr. Rooker asked how much of the appropriation is for the Crozet Library.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, explained that those funds are to carry forward
monies – as the County has engaged an architectural and engineering firm to do some site work as part of
the parking area for the library, and there is continued coordination with Community Development. He
added that it is not the project per se.
Ms. Mallek confirmed that the parking lot is being done now as part of the Main Street Extension –
which was just put to bid; R.E. Lee was awarded the contract.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to get a breakdown of the projects that are included in
Appropriation #2011005 and #2011006. It would be helpful in the future that staff include a breakdown for
these type of larger appropriations.
Mr. Boyd asked why money is being spent on the Crozet Library, given that the project has been
taken out of the 10-year CIP plan.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, responded that the funding is to do the site work,
remove the house that is onsite, and do some grading – as well as putting a parking lot in there that
eventually the Library will use. The Board had actually approved the project a while ago. The project is not
going to be started or moved forward in any other way.
Ms. Vinzant stated that the total cost for doing that is $769,000.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, and the public
hearing was closed.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker stated that he would prefer to vote on this when there is a list of individual items and
costs available, and suggested that it be brought back after the lunch break today.
Ms. Mallek stated that a decision on this request would be postponed until later in the meeting.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. PROJECT: SP-2010-00001. Earlysville Service Center.
PROPOSED: Amend SP-2008-00025 to increase the building size from a maximum of 5,000 sq.
ft. to provide adequate interior space for the service bays; special use permit would be on approx.
2.17 acre portion of an 11.833 acre parcel.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development density).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: West side of Earlysville Rd (Rt 743) approx 775 ft. north of Reas Ford Rd (Rt 660).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03100-00-00-01400.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28, 2010).
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a request that follows a prior approval of the Earlysville Service
Center, which originally allowed for a 5,000 square foot garage. The applicant found in their planning work
that they need a larger building. He said that this is a rural area location adjacent to the existing garage
that is zoned for commercial use – and across from some properties in the prior Earlysville Village that
had the Village land use designation when it was in the Comp Plan as a development area.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the location is along Earlysville Road, north of Reas Ford Road, noting the
location of the existing garage and the proposed site for the new garage and associated parking. He
stated that the building would be slightly larger, and there are no other changes proposed. The building is
in the vicinity of the Jacob‟s Run Ag/Forestal District.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that there were several favorable factors from the prior review that are
unchanged with this application. One unfavorable factor in the prior review is also unchanged. He said
that it was approved originally, and staff does not feel that the new building would be detrimental to the
area or would change the original findings in the approved special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
there are 15 conditions that are carried over from the original special use permit, with changes in those
conditions pertaining to the size of the building – up to 6,200 square feet – and also some additional
language in Condition #4 regarding the fence used to separate the property from neighbors.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Thomas then moved approval of SP-2010-00001 subject to the 15 conditions as presented.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Amendment to Special Use
Permit SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center, 4036 Earlysville Road Earlysville, VA 22936”,
prepared by DW Enterprises and dated April 2, 2010 (hereafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Concept Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development
essential to the design of the development:
a. The general area designated for the special use (public garage);
b. The size, height and location of the proposed building (no more than six thousand two
hundred [6,200] square feet/maximum thirty-five [35] feet high);
c. The location of the perimeter landscaping and limits of clearing, with the exception of
minimum clearing possible to install drainfields and utilities; and
d. The number of parking spaces (maximum fort y-six [46] spaces) and general location/
arrangement of the parking spaces;
2. A public garage use on the C-1 Commercial district portion of TMP 31-14 shall be permanently
terminated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the garage constructed with SP-2008-25;
3. Additional landscape materials, either replanted from the area to be cleared for the garage site or new
landscape materials, shall be installed in the undisturbed buffer area inside the boundary of the
special use permit as may be necessary to achieve very little visibility between the garage site and the
public right-of-way and adjacent properties, as depicted on Attachment B;
4. A minimum six (6) feet high fence shall be constructed in the location shown on Attachment B (twenty
[20] feet inside the special use permit boundary and outside the seventy-five [75] foot front setback)
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
with the finished side of the fence towards the neighbors, unless the applicant chooses to put up a
two-sided fence, to provide an additional buffer for the adjacent property (TMP 31-14H);
5. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
6. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
7. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited. All storage shall take
place inside the storage shed and/or inside the building;
8. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage;
9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking spaces
depicted on the Concept Plan;
10. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 A.M. nor later than 10:00 P.M., Monday through
Friday and no earlier than 8:00 A.M. nor later than 1:00 P.M. on Saturdays and the public garage shall
not be open for business on Sunday. These hours do not prohibit customers from dropping off
vehicles before or after the permitted hours of operation;
11. A maximum of twelve (12) employees shall be permitted on-site at any one time;
12. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at the north, west, and south property lines and the east
boundary of the area designated to the special use permit to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval;
13. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality shall be required prior to issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy;
14. Approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit; and
15. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by August
5, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon
terminate.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts – Ordinance to amend
Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to certain districts and to make corrections to certain
district ordinances to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts, as specified below:
a. AFD-2010-6 Fox Mountain AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance would
amend Section 3-212, Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 14-
26A, 14-26C and 15-1 to the district.
b. AFD-2010-2; 2010-5 Hardware AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance
would amend Section 3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 74-
28B, 75-4A, 75-5 and 87-16A to the district, to identify TMPs 86-27A, 88-24B, 99-10(part)
and 99-52B as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the
district), and to identify TMP 73-39C7 as being in the district (this parcel is currently in the
district; this is a correction of the parcel reference from TMP 73-39C to 73-39C7).
c. AFD-2010-8 Hatton AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-215, Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 136-6B, 136-8H,
136-9A2, 136-9C, 136-9D1 and 136-9E to the district, to identify TMPs 135-13A, 135-13B
and 135-15C as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in
the district) and to delete TMP 135-30(part) (this parcel was previously withdrawn from
the district).
d. AFD-2010-7; 2010-10 Jacob’s Run AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance
would amend Section 3-218, Jacob‟s Run Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs
31-1and 31-4K to the district.
e. AFD-2010-3 Kinloch AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 66-3G to the district
and to identify TMPs 65-94B, 65-94C and 65-121A1as being in the district (these parcels
were created from parcels already in the district).
f. AFD-2010-4 Moorman’s River AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance
would amend Section 3-222, Moorman‟s River Agricultural and Forestal District, to add
TMP 41-19 to the district, to identify TMPs 28-13A, 28-30A1, 29-79E, 29-79F, 30-10C, 30-
12C1, 41-50C, 41-65A1, 42-8B, 43-30B1, 43-30B2, 43-30B3 and 43-30B4 as being in the
district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the district), to identify TMPs
42-42B1 and 43-2B as being in the district (these parcels were inadvertently removed
from the ordinance in a prior amendment; this is a correction), to identify TMP 44-26B as
being in the district (this is a floating tax parcel for an undefined travelway that exists
within TMP 44-26C, which is within the district), to delete TMPs 41-67, 43-3, 43-3C, 43-
3D and 43-4C (the land in these parcels was distributed to other parcels in the district),
and to delete TMPs 29-70G and 43-43A1 (these parcels were never in the district; this is
a correction).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 21 and June 28, 2010).
Mr. Cilimberg said that these are all additions to existing districts that have come in under the
most recent application deadline, and include additions to the Jacob‟s Run District. He said that there are
proposed additions to the Hardware District, the Hatton District, the Moorman‟s District, the Fox Mountain
District, and Kinloch District – with the total added acreage just under 546 acres in 17 parcels.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Ag/Forestal Advisory Committee, staff, and the Planning
Commission have recommended approval of all of the additions.
Ms. Mallek asked that Attachment B to the Jacob‟s Run be corrected; it shows “Chris Greene
Lake,” in the middle of the page, which is actually several miles from the lake.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Cilimberg said he would get it corrected.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak and the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt Ordinance No. 10-03(2), Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 10-03(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District
3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
3-218 Jacob‟s Run Agricultural and Forestal District
3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District
3-222 Moorman‟s River Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 14, parcels 26A, 26C; tax map 15, parcels 1,10A. This district, created on
December 2, 2009 for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44; tax map 74, parcels
6N, 26, 28, 28B; tax map 75, parcels 4A, 5; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 27, 27A; tax
map 87, parcels 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres), 16A; tax map 88, parcels 2A, 3V, 6A, 20A,
20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B, 26B, 29, 40, 42; tax map 99, parcels 10(part), 29, 52, 52B.
This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on September 12,
2007, shall next be reviewed prior to September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-3(4),
12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A; tax map 136, parcels
2A, 6B, 8H, 9A2, 9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-
10)
Sec. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 20, parcel 6J; tax map 30, parcel 32B; tax map
31, parcels 1, 1B, 4K, 8, 8E, 16, 16B, 44C, 45, 45B, 45C. This district, created on January 6, 1988 for not
more than 6 years, since amended to continue for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on December 2,
2009, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
(3-2-94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-
3(2), 7-7-10)
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 49, parcels 5C, 6A1; tax map 50, parcels 13, 19; tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86,
89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 94B, 94C, 95, 95A, 100, 121, 121A1; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3C, 3G,
10G1, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B. This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-
04; Ord. 09-3(5), 12-9-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10)
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural- and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 34A, 40, 40A, 40A1, 42, 42A; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3,
4, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 13A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 23B1, 30, 30A, 30A1, 30B 32B,
32D, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 4E, 8, 8B, 8E, 8E1, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C,
40B, 40C, 40D, 45, 45H1, 45H2, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F,
70F1, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76, 78, 78A1, 79C, 79E, 79F, 80, 84, 85; tax map 30, parcels
10, 10A, 10C, 12, 12C, 12C1, 12D, 17A, 18E, 23; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E, 15, 15A, 17C, 18, 19,
41C, 41H, 44, 50, 50C, 65A1, 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 72D, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 7, 8, 8A, 8B,
8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H2, 41, 42B, 42B1, 43, 43A, 44; tax map 43,
parcels 1, 1F, 2A1, 2B, 3A, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B2, 16B3, 18E4, 18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 2l,
21A, 24, 25A, 25B, 30, 30A, 30B, 30B1, 30B2, 30B3, 30B4, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 30N, 32H, 33, 33E, 34D1,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45C, 45D; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30,
30A, 30B, 31, 31A, 31A1, 31D, 31F, 31G, 31H; tax map 57, parcel 69; tax map 59, parcels 32, 32A, 34, 35,
82A; tax map 60E3, parcel 1. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than 10 years and
last reviewed on December 1, 2004, shall be next reviewed prior to December 1, 2014.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99; Ord.
00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 04-3(4), 12-1-04; Ord. 05-3(2), 7-6-05; Ord. 08-3(2), 8-6-08; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord.
10-3(2), 7-7-10)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, Ron
Price, School Board Chairman.
Mr. Price thanked the Supervisors for attending area high school graduations. He was happy to
hear that during its Strategic Planning Retreat the Supervisors talked about a more positive relationship
with the School Board. He encouraged the Supervisors to get questions together for the School Board
regarding the budget for County schools.
Mr. Price reported that the School Division is finishing up with the first year of their instructional
coaching model, and feel it is still a successful model from a talent development standpoint. This is a
national model that other school divisions are using and it is working. He also stated that the eight-period
hybrid schedule has meant that all high schools are now on the same schedule, and no students have
missed out on opportunities. The Division believes that the schedule is a good cost-cutting measure but
will also offer a lot of benefits towards closing and eliminating the achievement gap, and the public
gradually accepting the transition.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County is to the point where a student can join a class at another school
via virtual technology.
Mr. Price responded that that capability is still “spotty.” In certain locations they are better able to
handle that situation. It is the infrastructure within the schools being able to handle that. They would need
a camera installed to pan with a teacher, but right now most of the technology they use is very stationary.
Mr. Price added that during the summer the Division has been working on several cost
containment initiatives. They are looking into moving toward electronic formats for publication. They will
be looking at that with the City of Charlottesville collaboratively including sharing some copyright privileges
across student bodies. Mr. Price stated that they are also rerouting busses to save on mileage, and they
have implemented a “pocket time clock” system – which is essentially an IPod Touch that allows bus
drivers to time their routes. He explained that whenever they‟re near a School Division or the County
Office Building they can send their data into a system that electronically logs their hours. This hand held
device will allow the bus drivers to electronically log their time and work hours. Mr. Price said that
combined with the GPS system, Albemarle is state of the art in bus and transportation efficiency. They
are also doing a lot with energy management.
Mr. Price said that the Division has worked hard on talent and development, and succession
planning – and were able to fill openings for principals internally from assistant principals. Mr. Price noted
that Albemarle added an African-American assistant principal at Monticello, and also an African-American
principal in Crozet. By nurturing and developing their own, they can assure that they are getting the best,
but also people who are familiar with our community and will stay with us for some time.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Price stated that there would be a student-run credit union opening at Albemarle High School,
where students actually run the branch. Students will be responsible for all financial transactions; the
Credit Union will have someone from their staff who will also work at the site. The School Board believes
that this is a good tool towards financial management.
Mr. Price reported that the Virginia Lottery has given out the “Teacher of the Year” award for the
last three years, and for three straight years Albemarle has won one – with only eight given in the entire
state. He noted that Albemarle teachers were the only teachers recognized for the CBIC Red Apple
Award this year. All nominees were from Albemarle County. He also noted Dr. Pam Moran being
appointed to the new Governor‟s Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation and Investment.
These recognitions are a signal that Albemarle is doing the right thing with respect to its School Division.
Ms. Mallek said she is planning to have a representative from the School Board and/or School
Division attend meetings with her in the White Hall District beginning in September. This is a way to get
responses to questions so that the public has a thorough understanding of what is going on with School
operations.
Mr. Price said any time Board members are meeting with their constituents or attending
neighborhood association meetings, and would like a School Board member to attend, just let them know.
He is looking forward to working with the Board this year.
Mr. Thomas thanked Mr. Price for his open attitude and open feelings. He also thanked Vicky
Miller for her job well done at Murray High School.
Mr. Price noted that he was interviewed recently by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, as Albemarle
still has the majority of charter schools in the state – and they were very interested in what is going on with
the Burley art-infused school. He cited Ms. Miller as a big reason that Murray has done so well. He added
that Ashby Kindler, the new Principal at Murray, will continue to carry the torch and do a great job.
Mr. Snow asked if schools were moving toward electronic books as well as electronic publications.
Mr. Price responded that the schools would like to do a lot more publishing of electronic books,
but not all publishing houses are on board with that yet as they still want to print in paper.
Mr. Snow stated that a lot of districts in Florida are moving in that direction.
Mr. Snow asked if the County is going for the composite index money again this year.
Mr. Price said he cannot speak for the entire School Board, but it is something they are seriously
considering, as he believes there is a fundamental problem with the way the composite index is being
calculated. He added that he thinks Delegate Toscano would like there to be some consideration for
dollars given back via revenue sharing at the local level. They will look for an agreement locally before
going outside.
Mr. Boyd mentioned an upcoming meeting with Delegate Toscano, County government, and the
School Board.
Board members thanked Mr. Price for an excellent report.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 12. CIT and the Mental Health/Criminal Justice Cross Mapping Project, Tom
von Hemert.
Mr. Tom Von Hemert addressed the Board and introduced Lt. Ernie Allen and Sgt. Amos
Chiarappa from the Albemarle County Police Department, who also serve on the Criminal Justice Board
and Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Task Force. Mr. Von Hemert presented a PowerPoint to accompany
information he had distributed to the Board. He presented a chart showing the number of mental health
beds in the United States during the 1950s – 500,000 at that time, which would extrapolate to about 1.0
million today with population increase considered. He explained that during the 50s and 60s there was
great concern that those hospitals were just warehouses where people were caged in deplorable
conditions, so the government responded by closing those down. The problem was that they didn‟t follow
up with providing the funding and the services back into our general state or into our local communities for
housing, transportation, support services, medications, etc., and with people not having those services
available to them locally, people de-escalated and unfortunately descended back, landing on the streets.
Mr. Von Hemert said that many ended up in the only place available – the prison system – and the prison
population has absolutely skyrocketed over that time.
He reported that Western State Hospital in Staunton had over 3,000 mental health beds in the
1950s and 60s, covering the region from Lexington to Alexandria to Fredericksburg; at this point, there are
less than 250 beds for the entire part of the same region. In this region, Mr. Von Hemert explained that in
the last 15-20 years, over 236 mental health beds have been lost; U.Va. has been renting “Rucker Three,”
the 3rd Floor at Martha Jefferson – and when MJH moves to Pantops they are not adding any mental
health facilities and U.Va. is not expanding any services. He said that “Five East” in the U.Va. Hospital will
be the only mental health facility “in our backyard,” having only 16 beds – with Rucker Three shutting down
completely. Mr. Von Hemert emphasized that there is only one place in town that is open 24/7, 365 days,
and that‟s the Jail. He said that the State-rated capacity for the local regional jail is 329 inmates, and the
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
current count is 572 – running 174% over rated capacity. Mr. Von Hemert indicated that he is working on
a jail study with the National Institute of Corrections on examining jail population issues – as there is no
new funding for expansion of the regional jail. He stated that of the 572 inmates within the jail, 17-18%
have serious mental illnesses – which is approximately 97-102 people. He said that they have been
diagnosed and are receiving psychotropic medications, so our local jail has become the #1 mental health
facility within our region.
Ms. Mallek asked if jail personnel are trained to administer the drugs and know when things are
not going well.
Mr. Von Hemert responded, “yes”; this regional jail is one of the best run. He expressed his
appreciation for Colonel Matthews and Dr. Juanita Morris – the Medical Director; they have better medical
services and facilities than most regional jails. He added that a big part of that effort is knowing who the
inmates are when they enter.
He explained that the need for CIT, prompted by looking at caseloads at OAR Community
Corrections and Probation & Parole, is based on the fact there are 400-500 offenders with mental
illnesses in the Charlottesville/Albemarle regional area. Mr. Von Hemert added that there is an incredibly
high recidivism rate among offenders with mental illness (over 70%), and national studies have shown that
these inmates have been incarcerated four to five times longer for the same offense as a person that does
not have a mental illness. He explained that usually what happens is they begin to de-escalate and act
out – bringing more charges forth against them. It is a horrible spiral that keeps people within the criminal
justice system, and they are not allowed or not able to access the appropriate services and mental health
services for them to take care of their mental health needs. Mr. Von Hemert mentioned that one-third of
the patients coming out of Western State are being arrested at a 70% rate; Region Ten has documented
that their total evaluations for mental health clients has increased four-fold within the last five years. He
said that this is due to the economy, cutbacks in medical services, and reductions in medical financing
such as Medicaid and Medicare. Mr. Von Hemert emphasized that there are two wars going on, and there
are 34,000 suicides in the U.S. each year now – with 20-25% of those by veterans. He added that these
wars have brought on serious cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injuries
(TBI) from all the IEDs. They are seeing more vets that may be coming through the criminal justice
system and they want to be able to make sure that officers can recognize veterans that need the support
and services of the mental health system.
Mr. Von Hemert said that before the State budget collapsed a few years ago, it was looking at four
new prisons – at $100 million to build, not including operating costs of $25 million each annually. He
stated that the regional jail locally receives approximately $67 per inmate per day – but that only covers
basic services such as food, cots, and maintaining a prisoner, but not the cost of dealing with serious
mental illness. Mr. Von Hemert said that just in the last year, $475,000 was put into dealing just with
psychotropic drugs.
Mr. Rooker asked who was paying for that.
Mr. Von Hemert responded that it is all paid for locally, which is an incredible burden to the
financial systems of the County and City. He said that five years ago, Jim Hengley – the public defender,
with the Public Advisory Committee – wanted to take a look at developing alternatives to incarcerations for
people with serious mental illness. The CCJB took on the task of looking at the issue and examined the
front end and back end of people coming out of the system. Mr. Von Hemert stated that over that year
they included judges, commonwealth‟s attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, community members, and mental
health consumers to be a part of the task force – and the consensus was to develop CIT, a front-end
approach.
He explained that CIT is an exemplary pre-booking jail diversion program for the mentally ill, and
is a process for addressing the system of change for crisis care with the community as a whole. It‟s about
responsibility to the community, family members, and consumers of mental health services. Mr. Von
Hemert said that CIT is a mindset. They have received a four-year BERN grant from DCJS; he thanked
Mr. Dorrier for his work on that. He stated that they were able to provide trainings for law enforcement
officers, which was ultimately opened up to correctional officers, 911 supervisors, and sheriff‟s deputies.
Mr. Von Hemert said that they were able to develop a 40-hour training based on the Memphis models and
the outcomes of the raining were: to keep as many people with mental illness out of the criminal justice
system when appropriate; to allow people with mental illness to receive the necessary treatment to
become stabilized in recovery; to coalesce the criminal and mental health systems; and to reduce officer
and civilian injuries. There was a fear in the community about calling 911 for family members who weren‟t
sure that somebody would be arrested or injured or hurt. He added that an additional goal was to reduce
the time that officers spend with mental health related calls, as they are very difficult to handle especially
when there is not sufficient training.
Mr. Von Hemert reported that they completed the four-year grant last month, and were able to
train over 300 officers in the nine jurisdictions to get trained in CIT. He explained that it is a 40-hour
training Monday through Friday, and they have had incredible support from the Police Department –
especially Sgt. Chiarappa and Chief Miller. Mr. Von Hemert said that the law enforcement and police
officers are not always receptive to new trainings and programs, but the feedback after the 40-hour
training was extremely positive. He read several quotes from participants, many stating that it was the
“very best training” they had received in their careers. Mr. Von Hemert emphasized that “CIT is more than
just training”, as stated by the program‟s founder in Memphis – Major Sam Cochran. He said that in
addition to the positive feedback from officers who have done the training, there must be measurable
goals. Mr. Von Hemert stated the vision of CIT is threefold: safety for the officers first, safety for the
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
community, and safety for the person in crisis. He said that before CIT, all the different agencies working
with this clientele were working in their own silos; after CIT they are all being brought together.
Mr. Von Hemert stated that the CIT team here is in the process of summarizing information and
sharing it with the participating jurisdictions, evaluating it and documenting it along with feedback from
officers and families. He said that the group is getting feedback from Col. Matthews and Dr. Morris that
people are being appropriately diverted from the jail, and with Region Ten stating that people are
accessing the services better. Mr. Von Hemert added that when someone calls 911 and an officer
responds, the officer has four choices to make: resolve it at the location, voluntarily transport the person
somewhere such as a hospital, involuntarily transport that person, or jail. Before CIT, he said, jail was
used as an easy out, as an officer could be back on the street quickly. If an officer took someone
involuntarily to U.Va. Hospital for a mental health evaluation, they would be stuck there for a minimum of
4-6+ hours, which has a huge effect on safety as it removes an officer from service. Mr. Von Hemert
stated that now most of the CIT officers are able to resolve the crisis at location. Before CIT, he said, the
only information that was provided to 911 was that a person was being transferred to a hospital – without
notification given to the hospital or Region Ten; now there is better communication. Mr. Von Hemert noted
that the program has a very strong custody exchange process where a U.Va. officer will exchange custody
with the Charlottesville or Albemarle police officer. They are also documenting the time someone is in
custody to the amount of time the originating officer is working with somehow to how quickly a mental
health evaluator is evaluating someone.
He reported that one major issue now being considered is the need for an appropriate crisis
diversion facility at U.Va. Hospital. He explained that there are two medical rooms there – with the
hospital running at over 300% rated capacity – with one-third of patients now being seen in the hallways.
Mr. Von Hemert said that through working with Mr. Leonard Sandridge and Dr. Ed Howell, U.Va. Hosptial
CEO, they have been able to obtain a commitment that when the ER is being renovated there will be a
two-three bedroom site facility built that can be used at the ER. He added that there are only two places
where custody exchange can take place: the jail and U.Va. Hospital. It would be great to develop the
services at U.Va. Hospital. Mr. Von Hemert said that the grant money has been used in part to provide
funds to U.Va. for the custody exchange, but in August the money will run dry and they will be approaching
localities for that support. They do not know at the time what the cost is. He stated that the program has
received funds to do a four-year study on the cost of CIT, as well as funding for mentorship programs.
Mr. Von Hemert reported that the CIT Program has received awards from DCJS, and of the 23
CIT programs now established in Virginia the local program has been deemed “the best” in the State, as
well as being the largest. He mentioned that the program has received the Police Chief of the Year Award
and the national “PIN” award; in the State the program has been designated as one of the three
mentorship programs. Mr. Von Hemert noted that the program has received an award from the Region
Ten Consumer Advisory Council – comprised of those who provide support and feedback to the County
and City about mental health issues. On this award, it stated for the “deep gratitude for the CIT Officers
commitment to the ideal of knowledge and sensitive intervention with individuals experiencing a mental
health crisis”. The people who are receiving the services are saying CIT is working.
Mr. Rooker commented that this is a terrific report and an education presentation. He then asked
about the revenue sources mentioned in the report for custody exchange. He asked if the County is going
to have to look at budgeting money for this program in the coming year.
Mr. Von Hemert responded that the ultimate decision will come from Chief Mike Gibson, U.Va.
Police Department, and he needs to provide information on the cost of custody exchange. He said that
the Chief has officers who will meet with a City or County officer to do the exchange, and the program is
now training hospital security officers to do this as well. Mr. Von Hemert stated that the program received
a $75,000 grant from DCJS to do a statewide study on how CIT works, as well as $23,000 to do a
mentorship program. The funds for the mentorship program can be used to continue CIT training for new
officers, accreditations for existing CIT officers and some can be used to help underwrite part of the
custody exchange process. At some point he knows that they will have to come back to all the
jurisdictions involved in the custody exchange program for support of services. He said that one
recommendation is that the funds should not come out of individual law enforcement funds, as mental
illness is not necessarily a criminal justice issue. Mr. Von Hemert emphasized that it is a community
issue; not just law enforcement.
Mr. Rooker said that the cost of dealing with someone in jail is a whole lot higher than properly
intervening at an earlier point, and he applauded the effort. This program prevents a lot of people from
going to jail.
Mr. Von Hemert said that the gratitude goes to the Albemarle County Police Department and all
the other criminal justice agencies within the County - Sheriff‟s department, the 911 supervisors and
dispatchers, Jail Correctional Offices, and mental health officials at Region Ten. He noted that the Officer
of the Year Award for the nine counties went to Greg Davis of Albemarle County Police; Lisa Fitzgerald of
911 and Randy Keffer from the jail have also shown exemplary work.
Mr. Dorrier asked if judges have been made aware of the situation of mental illness in jails, and
how they are reacting with sentencing.
Mr. Von Hemert responded that long-term the program is looking to do a better job of educating
the judicial branch. They did the first CIT magistrate training in the State; they do need to take it to the
next step to get judges trained. He added that they have also opened the trainings up to prosecutors, and
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
he is working with the Supreme Court to allow Continuing Education Credits (CLE) for attending the
trainings.
Mr. Boyd asked if the 17% of people in jail are driven to create crime because of their mental
illness, or if they are a danger to themselves or others.
Mr. Von Hemert responded that there must be a crime committed for them to end up in jail. The
program is examining what crimes are being committed to land someone in jail – whether it‟s a
misdemeanor or felony. They are not saying that because someone has a mental illness and commits a
crime, it gives them a hall pass get out of the criminal justice system. He emphasized that there are
appropriate avenues or options that a law enforcement officer has to work with.
Mr. Boyd asked if persons with mental illnesses are being warehoused in the jail because there is
nowhere else to take them.
Mr. Von Hemert replied, “yes”; their crime is primarily having the mental illness, and it is based on
the behavior. It might be somebody trespassing or it might be somebody that is intoxicated.
Mr. Rooker said that disorderly conduct is the typical intervention, and an officer shows up; if he
has not had this kind of training, you can end up with an assault on the officer. That is the downhill slide,
and the recidivism rates are significant.
Mr. Boyd asked if this program is supported, if it will reduce the population in jails.
Mr. Von Hemert replied, “absolutely.”
Mr. Snow asked how much the program costs to run each year.
Mr. Von Hemert replied that the grant was for $165,000 per year over the four years – with
$45,000 or 25% of it coming from local match funds, which was met by the Police Departments, the
Criminal Justice Board and other agencies within the community. The $75,000 is for the longitudinal study
of CIT on a statewide basis. He said that his own salary is covered in part from localities as a Criminal
Justice Planner, and DCJS has said that the CIT Program is part of his job. Mr. Von Hemert also stated
that $50,000 each year of the grant was used to cover the cost of the custody exchange process at U.Va.
Hospital, but the future cost is not yet known.
Ms. Mallek asked if the cost would be to hire extra staff.
Mr. Von Hemert said it would be for those services appropriate for the safety of the person being
taken to the Hospital or safely supported and guarded during the evaluation process.
Mr. Tucker said that the City and County Police would basically be contracting with U.Va. Police to
take that over, once an individual is brought to the University Hospital.
Mr. Von Hemert noted that the law just changed a year and a half ago where a sworn officer can
exchange custody with a non-sworn officer at an appropriate medical facility if that facility is willing and
able to do that. The Program is currently trying to train those non-sworn officers and ensure there is an
appropriate facility as the ER now can only be used about 20% of the time. He reiterated U.Va.‟s pledge
to provide space when the ER is renovated.
Mr. Boyd asked if the data shows what percentage is coming from the various jurisdictions as it
looks like it is a regional issue.
Mr. Von Hemert replied, “yes” and added that the Program is doing an economic analysis of the
impact of officers being taken off the street to deal with these individuals, and the cost of having the
person end up in a correctional facility.
Mr. Boyd asked if Region Ten has allocated any of its resources to this project.
Mr. Von Hemert responded that they have designated a tremendous amount of staff resources to
the Program, and they are mandated by the State to do prescreens for emergency custody orders. He
added that in the past a lot of their programming was unfunded, and are having to cut back even more
services given State cuts.
Mr. Von Hemert thanked the Board, and Mr. Dorrier for his work and attendance at the CIT
awards.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 13. LEAP Update, Cynthia Adams.
Ms. Cynthia Adams said that she is Executive Director for the Local Energy Alliance Program
(LEAP) – located in Charlottesville. Ms. Adams reported that this afternoon they would be announcing the
launch of the Home Energy Makeover Contest, some incentives and rebates, and the residential program
in general. She stated that one year ago, LEAP announced that Charlottesville and Albemarle had won
the competitive grant from the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance for $500,000 – which has been used
to start up an organization that would deliver unprecedented energy and water savings. Ms. Adams said
that the challenge of the grant was to deliver a 20-40% efficiency gain per structure, to look at residential
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
and commercial structures, and to try to achieve a 30-50% market penetration. Again, the goal was to get
to scale. She reported that the approach was through a public/private partnership and to develop a self -
sustaining revenue model that could be replicated in other areas of the State, and throughout the
Southeast.
Ms. Adams reported that LEAP has a Governance Board, a staff – including herself and
Residential Energy Services Manager, Guy Caroselli – who is responsible for LEAP‟s Home Performance
with ENERGY STAR Program. She said that their job is to provide outreach and marketing on energy and
water efficiency to the local community. She said that they have partnered with the University Credit
Union to offer a loan program of secured and unsecured loans that will be delivered exclusively through
the LEAP Program. Ms. Adams stated that LEAP is a quality assurance provider for their program, so
they pre-qualify contractors to participate in their Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program – and
staff also goes behind the contractor to test out, check the work scope, make sure it was done correctly,
and ensure that all diagnostic readings are being reported. She said that LEAP is an alliance partner with
Dominion Power, which has installed 50,000 “smart meters” in the community – and LEAP would like to
work with them to help homeowners understand what kinds of choices they can make to save money
through their utility bills by being aware of their energy use. Ms. Adams stated that LEAP hopes to
become an aggregator of energy efficiency benefits for the community that then can be commoditized and
sold – to the utility company or perhaps on the voluntary carbon market.
She explained that one important component of the LEAP Program is the “alliance” nature of what
they do, as they have a number of partners – including Albemarle County, State and Federal government,
U.Va. (research and outreach), and PVCC (workforce training for them and their contractors). Ms. Adams
said that the electric/gas/water utilities are also partners, as well as local businesses, contractors, retail
vendors, lending institutions, foundations and real estate agencies. She added that nonprofit agencies,
especially those that work in the building field such as AHIP, are important alliance partners. Ms. Adams
presented a list of groups that participate on the LEAP Governance Board, or on subcommittees to that
Board – including a Municipal Advisory Subcommittee, a Technical Advisory Subcommittee, and a
Nonprofit Advisory Committee. She said that the core value propositions for LEAP are having customers
implement sensible energy improvements that will save them money, with LEAP providing the delivery
system, the financing, and the quality management to make it safe for them to invest; having contractors
and trade partners get certified to do energy audits and guarantee their work, and in return LEAP brings
them motivated customers who have prearranged financing; and having lending and financial partners
make a market in the community by providing low-interest energy loans – with much of the risk taken off of
the table.
Mr. Rooker asked her to explain the “risk” portion of that statement.
Ms. Adams responded that because the contractors are prequalified and LEAP also verifies that
the quality is high through the retrofits, the Program helps to ensure that homeowners will have a cushion
of capital to help pay back those loans.
Mr. Boyd commented that LEAP is not guaranteeing the loans.
Ms. Adams replied that they are not, as the lender is doing the underwriting.
Mr. Rooker asked if they have lender participants.
Ms. Adams responded that the University Credit Union is a partner, and today they have a press
release out on their “Green Sense” lending program . There will also be an additional program that will
include a buy-down from LEAP for interests that will be launched in the fall. They have been great to work
with.
She reported that LEAP has approximately 20,000 homes in the local area that were built before
there were any insulation standards in code, so there are many retrofitting opportunities. Ms. Adams
stated that homeowners main concerns are energy savings, health and safety, and having comfort in their
homes; some are also concerned with energy conservation because of broader climate change issues.
She commented that our home is an integral part of the American dream, and is the place where most
people invest most of their money. Ms. Adams stated that the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
program intends to address the poor performance of our homes and ensure that our homes are more
durable. This Program is implemented and administered locally – with the general framework for the
program coming from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, which require that
programs do marketing, mentoring, and provide quality assurance. She noted that ENERGY STAR is a
national program, and LEAP is the one provider in Central Virginia.
Ms. Adams explained that there are some important elements to a Home Performance Program,
including the energy audit or home performance assessment – which provides the homeowner with a
customized report on what the needs and opportunities are for their home. Based upon those diagnostic
tests and reports, she said, a solution is offered which then can be bid upon by a local contractor who will
then do the retrofit work. At the end of the work, there is a “test out” from the energy auditor as well as the
quality assurance component that LEAP provides.
Mr. Rooker asked if LEAP would be doing the first two of these.
Ms. Adams responded that they would not be, adding that it is all market-based. She explained
that LEAP prequalifies contractors and has certain standards and certifications that they hold participating
contractors to. Ms. Adams noted that there are local business people who do the home performance
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
assessments and the actual retrofit work. She explained that home performance assessors or energy
auditors are required to be Building Performance Institute Building Analyst Certified – a national program
that requires a field and written test that shows they can run the equipment correctly, know what to look for
in the home and is ready to do an energy audit. Ms. Adams added that the second qualification is for the
contractors doing the work, so insulation and air sealing can be done without the certification. She
mentioned that the standard business practices for prequalification including Better Business Bureau or
Dunn & Bradstreet ratings, ensuring that contractors have the correct insurance and licensing, no
outstanding liens.
Mr. Rooker said that a lot of homeowners want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes,
but right now it is not necessarily well organized as to how to move forward with that process. He asked if
people would call LEAP to get recommendations.
Ms. Adams replied that she is hopeful they are receiving those phone calls. In the new Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR market a lot of leads come through the program because homeowners
are not familiar with it; the homeowner downloads a participation agreement, select an energy auditor, and
off they go. She said that often contractors will bring homeowners to LEAP, as they have financing,
rebates, and incentives – adding that they find a value in that certification because it demonstrates the
measures taken to make a home more efficient, making it more marketable in the future.
Ms. Adams added that the whole house approach is the essence of Home Performance with
ENERGY STAR, and the percentage of savings from one particular measure is never as much as can be
gained from focusing on the house as a whole – looking at the behavior, the delivery systems (ducts), the
shell of the house, the leaks, and the furnace or heat pump. She noted that these things combined can
provide 20-50% energy efficiency savings instead of getting stuck at 10 or 15%, and another advantage is
equipment can be downsized as air infiltration rate is improved. Ms. Adams said that there is a loading
order, and there are fundamentals that should get done first – including air and duct sealing, insulation,
looking at base load, water conservation, etc.; after those things are done, other measures such as major
systems replacements can be considered, followed by renewable.
She reported that the fundamentals provide a higher annual rate of return on a home energy
investment than any of the other measures, and if it is looked at as an investment there is a small risk of
any loss and the payback is actually higher. Ms. Adams said that looking at the future, there are
investments that the state and utility companies are making in terms of new power generation – with the
state currently importing about 40% of power and demand increasing along with new development. When
you look at the levelized cost for new power generation, energy efficiency comes in at about three cents a
kilowatt hour versus some of our other options – nuclear, solar, or coal – which can be much higher in a
kilowatt per hour cost. She stated that labor is the primary cost of home performance improvements,
which translates into job creation and economic stimulus.
Ms. Adams said that the goals stemming from the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance grant are:
a 30% average efficiency gain and a 30% market penetration within the City of Charlottesville and County
of Albemarle, creating over $5,200 of savings per household over seven years and $90 million in utility
savings over that period – with 1,500 to 2,000 jobs. She said that this is based on DOE and EPA statistics
that say for every million spent in a Home Performance program, 18-25 jobs are created. Ms. Adams
emphasized that this is just for the City and County, and the program could have a much larger impact.
She said that starting today, LEAP has their Home Energy Makeover Contest as a marketing initiative and
education/outreach initiative; the contest is open to City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle
residents, who are eligible to receive up to $10,000 worth of energy conservation measures for their
home. She added that eight runners-up will also get a professional home assessment, and the contest is
open until August 20th with winners announced on September 12th. They are being selected based upon
some criteria. Ultimately they are looking for homes that demonstrate acceptable, average kinds of
energy conservation measures that one would recommend in a home performance program, and homes
that have a lot of opportunities. Ms. Adams added that if a person has ridiculously high energy bills, they
would be a good candidate – and the goal is to select one winner from the City and one from the County.
She reported that LEAP is particularly excited about rebates and incentives for homeowner, and is
able to offer through a “Retrofit Through Ramp-Up” grant several rebate options: with support from
Albemarle County and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds, a $250 rebate to
homeowners that participate in the Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program; through Retrofit
Ramp-Up money, a 50% incentive up to $1,000 for a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR job – a
20% efficiency gain, with a $500 match for every 10% gain beyond the 20%; and for residents doing
specific improvements or replacements, a $300 rebate for the installation of an ENERGY STAR furnace or
heat pump – combined with Virginia appliance rebates that could total 50% coverage of costs for units.
Mr. Boyd asked where the money comes for this.
Ms. Adams responded that the money comes from the Retrofit Through Ramp-Up grant award,
which comes through the Department of Energy. She said that the City and County sent them letters of
support, and LEAP participated directly in an aggregate proposal to the DOE that the Southeast Energy
Alliance spearheaded; the award for that grant was $20 million, which came to the group of communities
shown on the map she presented. Hampton Roads was the other community from Virginia that received
the grant. Ms. Adams explained that the program is set up to award performance, and for every dollar put
towards incentives or rebates they will match it at the end of the first year; LEAP‟s initial allocation was
$800,000 for the first year and of that every bit moved through the community can be reinstated. She
noted that the total allotment over the three-year time period could be $2.5 million, and her intent is to take
as much of that money as possible to drive the work. Ms. Adams mentioned that Atlanta received $1.2
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
million, Jacksonville received $1.2 million, New Orleans received $1 million, and Charlottesville received
$800,000. LEAP sees that as a tremendous vote of confidence and acknowledgement of the capacity that
they have, and the good work that they have done over the last year in preparing to launch their programs.
Mr. Boyd asked how LEAP is sustaining itself, and if it relies on taxpayer dollars.
Ms. Adams explained that LEAP has fee-for-service products that will be marketed in the near
future – licensing fees, ad revenue fees, owner-advocate fees, business retrofits, etc. She said that the
grants could technically be used for administration, but LEAP wants to use them for incentivizing the work
and driving the work in the local community. Ms. Adams said that they are using some of the initial grant
for administration until they are able to self sustain once revenue is created. They want to use as much of
this money as possible for marking, rebates, loan buy downs, incentives, to actually drive the work. As
they start to scale up and create buzz in the community, that will create revenue for them.
Mr. Snow asked what the typical cost is for a home assessment.
Ms. Adams responded that it usually costs between $300-$600 for a high performance
assessment, depending on the size of a home and the number of gas-fired appliances. One of the
reasons the BPI Building Analyst certification is so important is because it requires health and safety
checks for gas-fired appliances – looking for carbon monoxide back drafting, gas leaks, etc. They also
perform a custom appliance zoned test.
Mr. Rooker congratulated LEAP on getting to this point.
Ms. Adams thanked the Board for their support since the program‟s inception.
Mr. Rooker commented that when smart-grid technology units are installed locally, it will help
make the assessments of energy savings.
Ms. Adams commented that the retrofit is just one step in the process. There is a whole back
side that has to do with measurement, verification, maintenance of savings, maintenance of house, etc.
Ms. Mallek added that this will help the locality to build out of the slow economy without creating a
whole lot of new empty housing stock because there is so much work to be done on existing houses.
__________________
NonAgenda. At 11:38 a.m., the Board took a brief recess, then reconvened at 11:49 a.m.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 14. Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said that this is an Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional area amendment request to designate sewer service for six parcels totaling
186 acres, located on the west side of Old Lynchburg Road just outside of the County‟s Southern Urban
Area. The property is located entirely within the rural areas in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. He
noted that the parcels are designated for water service only, and the applicant is requesting service for the
Whittington PRD – which was originally approved by the Board in 1977, for a total of 96 lots. Mr. Benish
stated that the existing water service designation on the property was approved in the 1970s at the time of
the rezoning, and was prior to establishment of the current policies for the provision of water and sewer
service in the County.
He said that the Board considered the request for sewer service designation in 2006, and did not
set a public hearing on the request thereby denying the request. There has been no change in
circumstance since their prior action. Mr. Benish stated that the Comp Plan provides policies for the
extension of water and sewer service that indicate that the jurisdictional area designations should follow
the development area boundaries, and that water and sewer only be provided within those designated
areas. For areas outside the development area, he said, the policy is only to allow changes to the
jurisdictional area in cases where the property is adjacent to existing lines and public health and safety are
endangered. Mr. Benish said that the Virginia Department of Health has indicated that the soils in these
parcels are adequate to support septic systems for the proposed 96 units, and because the parcels are
located in the rural areas and there is adequate service there is no perceived health or safety issue in this
particular case. He stated that the basis for the policy on provision of water and sewer service is one of
the primary tools for implementing growth management policies and implementing the County‟s land use
plan. The extension and proximity of water and sewer service can be a catalyst for growth in areas that
aren‟t designated. Mr. Benish added that providing service in the rural areas consumes treatment
capacities that are reserved for the development areas, and will add to infrastructure maintenance costs
over the long term.
Mr. Benish said the request is not consistent with the principles and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan for the provision of public sewer service outside of the designated development
areas. Staff does not recommend approval of the request or setting a public hearing for the request.
Should the Board choose to do that, he said, there are available times in August and September.
Ms. Mallek commented that basically this would mean 96 two-acre lots crammed in onto slopes.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Benish said that is correct. He added that the applicant is present to respond to any
questions.
Mr. Rooker said that he was on the Board in 2006, along with Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Boyd, and the
decision at that time was unanimous not to do this. As staff said, there hasn‟t been any change between
then and now. The reasons why the Board did not do it then are still here. He added that one of the
primary tools used to manage growth in the community has been limiting the availability of sewer to only
the growth area – and this is a rural area. The exceptions to that policy are when someone is adjacent to
a line, there is already a structure and there with a safety and health issue that can only be alleviated by
extending that structure to sewer. Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is an entirely different case, where
sewer would be extended to allow an unbuilt community to allow it to be built in the rural area.
Mr. Snow asked if the 96 houses can be built by-right anyhow.
Ms. Mallek confirmed that they could, with septic fields.
Mr. Rooker also stated that the community is spending a huge amount of money right now on
upgrading treatment capacity, and that may have to be boosted even further just to serve existing growth
areas.
Mr. Snow asked if Biscuit Run wasn‟t going in close to the area.
Mr. Rooker replied that Biscuit Run was a growth area development, and not off Old Lynchburg
Road. This would be a significant policy change in the Board‟s growth management policies.
Ms. Mallek commented that from 2000-2008, about 4,000 dwelling units were approved for Crozet
– and many of those are not occupied yet in that tiny little section – so future capacity needs to be
considered.
Mr. Boyd clarified that the issue is not with capacity, but is more related to new EPA requirements
that mandate treatment measures – as the proposed upgrade in process now was projected to include
Biscuit Run‟s 3,000 homes that will now not be built.
Mr. Rooker responded that the size of the treatment plant isn‟t based on Biscuit Run, but on
estimates of growth within the growth area. Zoning land does not create people to buy houses, so he
does not think that changes the capacity issues a bit. They are still going to have whatever growth they
have in the community. He added that the primary tool for growth management going back to the 1970s
was the provision of sewer, or lack thereof – as it impacts the density with which parcels can be developed
even more so than provision of water.
Mr. Snow commented that it seems it would be better to have all of that going into one system,
instead of separate sewage fields.
Mr. Thomas responded that he would like to see this parcel go into the growth area, and take it
out of the 800 acres of Biscuit Run.
Mr. Rooker said that if that is the case, then the County should open this up and let the people out
there come and talk about the traffic on Old Lynchburg Road that have been caused by dense County
developments being developed with that road as the only outlet. Whether or not they can actually build
this with septic fields remains to be seen; it‟s a rural area, and if they want to amend the growth area
boundary, then that‟s fine. Bring this forward as a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
notify people who would have an interest. This is a back door. There is nobody here from Old Lynchburg
Road because they do not even know this is going on.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Benish to clarify the statement in the staff report that says “the current
rezoning request is not a new proposal but an amendment in response to a Zoning Administrator
determination that the development plans for the site would be subject to approval of an application plan
that meets the provisions of Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.” He asked what is being referred to there.
Mr. Benish explained that at the time this was reviewed in 2006, there were conditions of that PRD
that the applicant was amending, and it may have had to do with setbacks – but that has been resolved
and the rezoning has taken place. He emphasized that those conditions have been addressed, and they
do not really pertain to this request but are just provided for background.
Mr. Boyd said that there have been reports that providing sewer there would be more
environmentally friendly, and asked Mr. Benish to comment.
Mr. Benish replied that adequately done, septic systems can be a viable alternative; 95% of the
County‟s land area is dependent on the ability to do that. He said that there are advantages to having
central treatment of water and sewer, but it is sort of a complex question because the land use policies of
proliferation of utilities in the rural areas have certain costs and issues that need to be balanced on a site-
specific basis. They want development areas served because of the densities being encouraged on
public systems. Mr. Benish stated that rural areas at lower densities should be adequately managed
under septic systems.
Mr. Boyd asked if the density of this project would be impacted by not having sewer.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Benish responded that it would not impact what has been approved within the development,
but perhaps there would be sites where septic approvals might be difficult. He emphasized that according
to the Health Department, the soils seem to be adequate so there shouldn‟t be an issue with the density.
Mr. Davis stated that historically, the County, without exception, has held strictly to the
Comprehensive Plan policy that Mr. Benish referred to. If the Board starts looking at case-by-case
extension requests, there are a lot of properties that are adjacent to sewer lines that are in the rural areas
– many with preexisting zoning that‟s inconsistent with the Comp Plan – where there will be lots of
applications that will have a very sympathetic reason why sewer extension would be an advantage. This
policy is intended as a management policy to restrict growth to the development areas and that‟s why
conforming to the policy is important, rather than reviewing these on a merit case-by-case basis. He
added that there are properties all over that would have rationale as to why to have sewer extended, but if
all of those are considered on a case-by-case basis, you‟re going to blow up your growth management
policy. Mr. Davis said that that‟s the concern staff would have by going outside of this policy, unless the
Board wishes to change the policy.
Mr. Rooker commented that what Mr. Thomas said is valid – that he wouldn‟t mind seeing this
parcel become part of the growth area – but that is a process and if it is gone through it might be decided
that it should be added.
Mr. Snow commented that it would then be done correctly.
Mr. Rooker agreed and added that the Board would have the right to expand the growth area.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Board would have to think about it in comparison to all the other places
where it might find a better location or not, but at least they would have the information at that point.
Mr. Snow stated that the process needs to be approached correctly, and doing otherwise might
lead to the County being flooded with applications and use of precedence. He thinks that if they are going
to look at this, they need to bring it back as a change to the growth area.
Ms. Mallek noted that the applicant would do that; that is their burden.
Mr. Rooker then moved that the item not be scheduled for public hearing. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion.
Mr. Benish indicated that if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is decided to the best
alternative, that process is already underway to begin next spring. He is not sure of the applicant‟s
schedule for this issue. The applicant‟s interest in bringing this back was to have a discussion of this prior
to their planning and developing of the site which they intend to begin this winter. He thinks the best
approach to take with this type of concept is a comprehensive approach during the Comprehensive Plan
update.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant can file a CPA application in September.
Mr. Snow asked if the applicant would have to wait for two years to be able to move forward.
Mr. Benish responded that typically in a CPA process, staff asks the Commission and the Board
to withhold taking individual requests while the plan is being updated – but that will be the prerogative of
the Supervisors and Commission. He said that there is a submittal deadline in September that is
available.
At this time, the Chair asked the applicant if he had any comments.
Mr. Frank Stoner said his goal is to encourage the Board to allow this request to go to public
hearing. He said that this really is not a growth management issue, as that was made in the 1970s when
this project was approved with one-acre lots. The reality is it is approved for one-acre lots; it can be built
with one-acre lots. He mentioned that the County is now paying to run sewer to Northfields, and if septic
systems fail, the County will ultimately be forced to come in and run sewer or the houses will be rendered
worthless. Mr. Stoner said that this property used to be in the growth area, and why it was removed he is
not sure. The plan is approved as an R-1 plan which would be consistent with a growth area density. He
reiterated that the decision got made to approve this project with one-acre lots in 1977. That hasn‟t
changed. It‟s now inconsistent; the land use plan is inconsistent with the overlying County growth
management plan. He said that it probably should be addressed at that level, but they are already going
through the process of final engineering. It is not an option for them to go through a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process to valid that a wrong decision was made in 1977. Mr. Stoner stated that the area is
already designated for water service, and the sewer system in that area of the County is going to be
grossly under capacity because Biscuit Run is not being built. He added that it is a unique situation, but
there is not this specific instance elsewhere in the County to his knowledge. He think it is prudent at a
Board level to look at situations on a case-by-case basis where you‟ve already made growth management
decisions. The Board has already approved this growth.
Mr. Snow asked if this property had been in the growth area.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek indicated there wasn‟t a growth area in 1977.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Stoner explained that it was zoned R-1, and one-acre lots were platted. The Board created a
growth area at the time it zoned the property.
Mr. Rooker said that before the 1980 change, you could have one lot per two acres throughout the
rural area. This was not designated in the growth area; a plan was put in place which was consistent with
what was allowed at that time in 1977.
Mr. Stoner emphasized that everything around it was in the growth area, and he‟s not sure why it
wasn‟t designated that way since sewer and a water line is effectively on the property.
Mr. Rooker stated that his concern is that there has been a long-standing policy, which has been
the primary growth management tool in the County to not extend sewer into the rural areas. He would not
be unsympathetic to looking at this as a Comprehensive Plan change so that the process is followed.
Mr. Stoner responded that if they could get through a CPA in six months, that would be great; but
in 2006 the expectation was the project would be built with septic and those sites have already been
identified and approved, and the engineering has been done for the road. This was an initiative of his that
was fundamentally based around the notion that their vision for the project was one in which they are not
clear-cutting that mountain in order to make room for septic fields. They want to keep it a largely wooded
site which is the right thing to do environmentally and long range planning for the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be a problem with initiating a Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Stoner replied that he isn‟t opposed to the concept, but is concerned about the time it might
take to get that through. He emphasized that this is an unusual situation; they just want to take it to public
hearing.
Mr. Rooker said that not pursuing the CPA might result in even further delay if he applies for the
jurisdictional change then has it denied.
Mr. Stoner said that sewer is a more expensive option. Septic copies $8,000-$10,000 per lot;
sewer is $8,000, plus $5,000-$6,000 for the tap. He stated that the most expedient solution is to go ahead
and develop the property with septic, as a large part of the mountain would be clear cut to install individual
septic systems.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Stoner had talked to the Service Authority Board and what guidance they
gave him.
Mr. Stoner responded that they have spoken with staff members at the Authority, and they are
open minded to serving the area if the Board so chooses.
Mr. Benish said that staff hasn‟t asked the ACSA Board what their opinion is on the validity of
doing this, as the normal approach is to send the application to the County for the Board to approve the
jurisdictional area. If a public hearing is pursued, further information from both RWSA and ACSA would
be requested as part of the consideration.
Mr. Rooker stated that after hearing from the applicant he has changed his mind, and wants to
take this to public hearing. He then withdrew his previous motion. He also encouraged Mr. Stoner to
consider the CPA process and find out how fast it might get through.
Ms. Mallek agreed and said she has also changed her mind.
Mr. Benish emphasized that this is not a unique situation, although he is not sure how many
others there are – stating that there are som e adjacent to the Rivanna Village, and much of Ivy has this
type of zoning. He added that most of the area in Ivy will have similar circumstances if they have
undeveloped parcels. This could be extensive. He added that if the Board wants a comprehensive
evaluation, he could not bring that information back within a month.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in a Comprehensive Plan change, staff must review the circumstances
that are similar because this looks not only at land use, but at utility policies.
Mr. Rooker asked if that same information would be needed in order to have an adequate public
hearing on this request.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that what will be needed for that hearing is whether there is adequate
capacity to provide for the sewer service. That is not a land use issue; it is not a policy issue; it is just a
capacity issue.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to know how many similar parcels are in the County and whether
the Board is jumping on a slippery slope.
Mr. Tucker and Mr. Snow stated that most of those other areas have already been developed, so
they are different than this case.
Mr. Snow added that a sewer line runs directly in front of his home, but he is not concerned with
being connected to the service. He said that this development is going to go in regardless, and there are
96 acres that would be clear cut to make room for septic systems.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Mallek stated that it would be small sections of each.
Mr. Stoner explained that there would be about 25 acres of clearing, and secondary fields need to
be reserved although not cut right away.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there are some undeveloped zoned properties that have not been
developed which are adjacent to develop areas that could be changed to allow for public utilities – such as
Re‟store „N Station, which is limited by the amount of water they can discharge and must have a special
permit for water usage. He said that if a CPA is pursued and the Board decides to move forward, that will
affect the timeline for the overall Plan review as staff resources will need to be assigned to that particular
amendment work.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the applicant pursue the CPA concurrently, and Mr. Stoner said that he
certainly could do that. He stated that he supports bringing it back for public hearing, and again
encouraged Mr. Stoner to pursue it at the same time so the window is not lost.
Mr. Cilimberg added that procedures require that staff get a report to the Planning Commission on
an amendment application within 90 days, and they decide whether or not to pass a resolution of intent to
further consider it.
Mr. Dorrier said he supports taking this to public hearing. He commented that it is hard to look at
this parcel and not look at all of the growth area that is around it.
At this time, Mr. Snow moved to set the Whittington PRD request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional area for public hearing at a time to be determined by staff. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to see the comparable properties as part of their review.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 15. Old Jail Reuse Study, Bill Letteri.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, said that this item concerns the
adaptive reuse and disposition of the old jail complex in downtown Charlottesville. He said that last year,
the Board directed staff to form a committee to study the various options – and the committee included
staff, Sally Thomas, and representatives from the Albemarle/Charlottesville Historical Society (Steven
Meeks). Mr. Letteri reported that early action of this committee was to issue an RFP to engage a
consultant to study the physical, legal, and operational concerns and issues related to reuse of the facility.
He stated that through the County‟s procurement process they selected firm – Bushman-Dreyfuss
Architects – to help with the study, and part of that scope was to include a public engagement process.
Prior to engaging the architects formally, he said, the County received a letter of interest from the
Historical Society for reuse of the jail for historic and museum purposes. The Board directed staff to
suspend any further action on the study until it could be evaluated.
Mr. Letteri said that his purpose in the presentation is to brief the Board on staff comments
regarding the proposal and suggest ways forward as far as the process. Mr. Letteri stated that staff is
extremely supportive of all the ideas outlined in the Society‟s proposal, and feels it represents an ideal use
of the facility and the complex. He said that some of those ideas include preservation of all the
components of the facility – including the jail wall, the jail itself, and the jailer‟s house. Mr. Letteri reported
that they have also proposed making it publicly accessible as a use, and providing museum space in the
jailer‟s house or parts of the old jail. He noted that the group plans to support the annual Spirit Walk
event, a possible Civil War-themed library housed in the jail, and a host of other pertinent educational and
community opportunities.
As acknowledged by the Historical Society, he said, the first phase of this effort to get to a place
where the uses can be pursued will require a detailed evaluation of the physical, legal, and operational
conditions that would impact the use of the site. Mr. Letteri explained that their proposal also states that
some of the funding to stabilize, rehabilitate, and maintain the grounds may be in part required from the
County. Staff believes that answering the outstanding questions would best be accomplished by
proceeding with the study that was originally contemplated by the Steering Committee, and that the
Historical Society participate directly with staff. Mr. Letteri stated that the consultant would then develop a
specific scope of work and probably cost estimates associated with them, which would serve as the
foundation for any agreement with the Historical Society going forward.
Staff thinks that the proposal offers a very attractive and effective use of the complex, but as a
precedent to an agreement the County must first fully understand the physical requirements, the legal
status and zoning implications, and the operational impacts related to the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court. Mr. Letteri concluded that staff recommends engaging Bushman-Dreyfuss Architects to
assist in this effort, with the focus of the work in align with the proposal of the Historical Society. Mr.
Letteri said he anticipates that the work could essentially be completed in four to six months to be brought
back to the Board for consideration. He and Mr. Meeks have discussed this general strategy, and he
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
believes Mr. Meeks is in agreement. Mr. Letteri said he or Mr. Meeks would be happy to answer any
questions or concerns from Board members.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the physical condition of the jail is known.
Mr. Letteri responded that there was a physical condition survey done on the facility about four
years ago. It was a non-invasive, general observation look at the facility geared toward understanding
what must be done to preserve the existing structure. It was not intended to answer questions about other
potential public uses, safety issues, operational impacts in coordination with the courts environment, or
parking or any of those other things. These are the sorts of questions that would be answered in the
study.
Mr. Dorrier asked if they could be answered in-house; if a consultant was required to tell them that
the jail was deteriorating.
Mr. Letteri replied that there are a number of complicated questions, particularly tying the facility‟s
conditions with these intended uses. He does not think the County has the staff or capability of answering
the questions satisfactorily.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Davis if he could weigh in on any legal constraints.
Mr. Davis replied that the jail has a unique legal history, as it was acquired by the County in 1870
– at the time when it was not included in the City of Charlottesville jurisdiction, but was later annexed. He
said that when the City Charter was amended at the time of the annexation, it identified the property as
being under joint jurisdiction for all police powers to be exercised – and there has never been any
application of a joint exercise of power over this property; for example, it probably has no zoning. Mr.
Davis stated that one primary issue to be resolved will be what legal approvals are necessary for any use
to be established there, which is probably going to require a joint effort with the City to establish what the
police power regulations are for this property. He noted that his office would help the consultant with that
legal analysis for the potential uses being recommended.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is sympathetic to Mr. Dorrier‟s line of questioning – can this
process move forward without engaging a consultant for $30,000. He said he would like to hear from Mr.
Meeks as to whether the Historical Society‟s proposed uses would require that kind of information.
Mr. Meeks said that back in February when he sent the letter of interest, part of the rationale
would be to have the Society undertake a lot of that work and save the $30,000 which could be redirected
toward maintenance of the building – but legal issues would not be able to be accomplished.
Mr. Rooker commented that the consultant would not be dealing with the legal issues.
Mr. Tucker stated that when this first came forward, the County thought that the money could be
saved, but the Society has indicated they cannot undertake that study now. He does not think that they
would be saving money because it is going to have to be used for the study.
Mr. Meeks replied that they could do the analysis and study, but their biggest concern is the cost
of ongoing maintenance. He added that money might be required to study certain aspects of the property
use though, such as stormwater maintenance.
Mr. Snow asked if there would be grant money available if the Society took over the project.
Mr. Meeks responded that there may be private money, but as far as state and federal money all
those wells have dried up for the most part.
Mr. Boyd said that he is not sure why the County is involved in the project since it is being offered
to another organization.
Mr. Davis indicated that the County owns it entirely.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Historical Society is willing to take it over though.
Mr. Letteri emphasized that he does not think the County can ever really entirely relinquish its
interest and liabilities and risk associated with operations of the facility.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County could sell it.
Mr. Letteri responded that he might not advise selling it, given its critical location within the courts
complex.
Mr. Rooker said that unless the building is going to be demolished to free up that land, all the
County has is an historic building that is deteriorating year by year – noting that the last public execution in
Virginia was carried out there. He stated that this conversation has been going on for years, and one
alternative is to work with the Historical Society – perhaps even deeding the property to them, subject to
limitations on use and preservation of the property to protect the historic interest.
Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the committee considering this included Don Swofford, who is a
renowned architect dealing with historic buildings and old structures, and he could provide expertise
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
instead of consultants. He said that the public sentiment doesn‟t need to be decided by consultants, as
public meetings could be used instead.
Mr. Rooker said he does not think we need a series of charettes on the building; they are talking
about trying to preserve its historic aspects and develop some uses consistent with that.
Mr. Letteri stated that staff sees the objective here as supporting the Historical Society‟s proposal
and trying to move as quickly and efficiently as possible towards an agreement. He emphasized that there
is certain information that is needed as a precedent to that agreement, and an alternative could be staff
outlining what those requirements are and hand those over to the Society to address prior to staff making
a recommendation on the proposal.
Mr. Rooker said that another approach would be having the Society come up with a proposal to
take the property, along with a plan for its use; the property is then conveyed to them, subject to
appropriate agreements protecting that use. That then gives them a basis from which fundraising can
take place.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the Historical Society has shown its capability through the Hatton Ferry
project, that they can do very much with very little.
Mr. Boyd said that his concern with the proposal is that it calls for the City and County to provide
the maintenance costs, and he would prefer that the County not be involved. He would rather the County
open the process to anybody who wants to make a proposal for the use of the property, purchase or
gifting, but he does not see a long term commitment on the part of the County for maintenance which
would be just adding to the Parks and Recreation budget.
Mr. Rooker said he agrees but he thinks it would be different if the County conveyed the Society
the property subject to agreements.
Mr. Boyd said that he also thinks preserving the property is important and whomever it is
conveyed to, they would need to maintain the integrity of the historical building.
Mr. Davis commented that the study is required simply to get the base information in order to
evaluate the decision making. They need to know how much money it‟s going to take to restore that
building to a salvageable condition to go forward for various options that may be acceptable to the
Historical Society or others, but without that information staff does not feel that good decisions can be
made.
Mr. Boyd stated that the County shouldn‟t be responsible for providing that information – the
eventual user should be.
Mr. Davis said that if the Historical Society is willing to take an unknown liability on, then that‟s
their decision.
Mr. Boyd said he thought Mr. Meeks said the Society would be willing to take on the study.
Mr. Meeks commented that it was never the Society‟s intent to take title to the building, and
through research he‟s done around the state he‟s identified 11 former jails that have been turned into
museums – one owned by the National Park Service, and the other 10 still owned by the counties with an
arrangement with historical entities to occupy those structures. There‟s a joint commitment on both
parties toward the overall maintenance and operation of the building. The Society‟s interest was to work
with the County and occupying the building, not necessarily interested in the initial maintenance costs on
badly needed repairs.
Ms. Mallek noted that the jail in Standardsville went through the same type of renovation recently,
and was probably done in partnership with Greene County and a private group.
Mr. Thomas asked if the County has had to do any maintenance on the building over the last 20
years.
Mr. Meeks responded that the County has done some maintenance, and the study done four
years ago identified a much more extensive and immediate need for maintenance. He mentioned that at
one point there was $800,000 in the CIP, but that has been liquidated in light of this new direction.
Mr. Thomas asked if today‟s proposal would bind the County to any agreement right now for
expenses.
Mr. Rooker explained that this request asks for authorization to go forward with signing the
contract for the $30,000 study that would provide the information discussed today. He then asked the
square footage of the building.
Mr. Letteri replied that the building is between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet footprint range.
Mr. Rooker said the County would be paying $30,000 and somebody‟s going to come back with a
proposal for how to spend $800,000 on a 2,000 square-foot building to preserve it, when there still is really
no defined public use for it? That‟s a real dilemma here.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that there has already been that level of costly improvement
identified as being needed, and the Historical Society certainly doesn‟t have that kind of money to
renovate the facility.
Mr. Dorrier suggested using existing resources and do an in-house analysis of the building –
perhaps contracting with an architect like Mr. Swofford. He thinks they can come up with a plan of action
for a lot less than $30,000.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Meeks to reiterate the plan the Society has for the building.
Mr. Meeks said that Mr. Letteri‟s outline is a pretty good one, and basically the first step is to
preserve the building and do as little alteration to it as necessary to accommodate what they would like to
do. He stated that the jailer‟s house would likely be used as museum space to chronicle the history of the
community; the jail itself would be left more or less as it is now, and interpreted as a jail; and opening it up
to the community with educational programs.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Society has the resources at its disposal to come up with a plan that deals
with the physical needs of the structure.
Mr. Meeks responded, “yes.”
Mr. Rooker suggested then that an acceptable next step would be for the Historical Society to
come back with the information in these questions so that there is a further elaboration of what needs to
be done physically – and some estimate of the cost, without commissioning a third party to get that same
information.
Mr. Snow asked what access the Society has for determining what private grants may be
available.
Mr. Meeks replied that they have made some preliminary inquiries regarding grant funding, but it
is difficult to get commitment without an agreement from the County in hand.
Mr. Snow commented that he is in favor of having private money invested in this, rather than
having county money put into it.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to see what the next gaps are, and where the specialty
investments need to be made to finish the preparation for a decision.
Mr. Meeks added that it would also be important to get an opinion on the legal use of the property,
as the lot lines now have been somewhat ignored with the additions to the courthouse and the parking
garage. He also mentioned that the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review has actually found the
County to be in violation of maintenance on the building.
Mr. Davis responded that they probably have no jurisdiction over it at this point, but that does not
negate the fact it is deteriorating. His office cannot do a survey of the property; they can give a title report
on the property to the extent that they can say what the ownership of the property is, but Mr. Letteri‟s office
would have to survey and determine where the historical property lines exist. He stated that the City and
County jointly owned the Juvenile Court lot, and this building and property have been wrapped into that
project with shared parking, access, and other things that have been designed for the use of the J&DR
Court. Someone has to figure that out. Someone has to look at this building and determine if you are
going to occupy it, what are going to be the minimum improvements that are going to be required to
occupy the space under the building code. Mr. Davis added that there may be simple ways to meet the
building requirements in order to meet code that would destroy the historical significance of the building.
Someone with some expertise is going to have to figure out how to restore a historical jail and still have it
meet minimum building codes that are required for occupancy.
Mr. Dorrier suggested having Planning and Zoning staff look at it. This is something that could be
done in house.
Ms. Mallek replied that the Board has already given staff three years worth of work to do in the
next six months.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that it is beyond staff‟s capability to make all of the determinations
mentioned here, but they will do what they can. He asked the Board to provide some direction to Mr.
Meeks so that he can move forward on his end.
Mr. Boyd asked what information the previous study provided that yielded the $800,000 figure.
Mr. Letteri responded that it did not study use issues, but talked about the condition of the mortar,
the walls, and the structural foundations – and the problem of water filtration that continues to undermine
the foundation. He said that what needs to happen next is gaining an understanding of those problems
and tying that to the intended uses. As an example, if they were to make the building accessible, what
structural changes would be required? The issue then is how to modify the building to accommodate
accessibility.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Rooker asked if there was enough talent on the committee to take that report and glean the
necessary information to do a survey of the facility and determine some plan that might be implemented
by the Historical Society or someone else if they are not interested to adapt the property for use.
Mr. Meeks said that it is currently a three-member committee, and to accomplish what is being
discussed he will need to get more assistance from the community. He is willing to do that.
Mr. Dorrier suggested that perhaps a “Save the Jail” organization could be set up to engage in
fundraising, and use private money to jumpstart the project.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that if the Historical Society can get in a position where they
understand their proposed uses – and what it would take to get there – it would put them in a position to
strike an agreement with the County and eventually raise the money needed to put the jail to good public
use.
Mr. Boyd asked if the intent here is to have the Society and staff come back with a better
proposal.
Mr. Rooker clarified that this simply asks for further information at the front end – which both the
County and the Historical Society need in order to move forward.
Mr. Boyd asked if Board members agree with him that the County should not be operating or
providing funds for remodeling the facility; that it should be done through other funding sources.
Mr. Rooker said that it may be wise for the County in the future to make a contribution to a
fundraising effort, as there is some public responsibility to do something. It may be wise to develop a
partnership with the Historical Society.
Mr. Tucker commented that it is right in Court Square, and any tourism dollars would benefit the
City – and this would be a great project for revenue-sharing dollars. He added that Mr. Meeks has
indicated that the Society would seek funds from both the City and the County in the future.
Mr. Dorrier then suggested a motion to review this issue again in 90 days; that Mr. Meeks and the
Historical Society would review the issue for a future proposal; the Board review the issue from a planning
and zoning perspective; Mr. Letteri‟s office review the building from a structural standpoint; and with a
formal proposal being considered when it comes back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks everyone understands what the Board is looking for and since the
Board is not accepting a formal proposal, there is no need for a formal motion.
Mr. Dorrier said that some deadline is needed as a formality.
Mr. Tucker commented when Mr. Meeks gets some information he will bring it back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker responded that Mr. Meeks understands what the Board is looking for, and he wouldn‟t
want to put a timeframe on that.
__________________
(At this time the Board went back to Agenda Item No. 8.)
Mr. Tucker said he has copies of the re-appropriation itemized list, deferred from earlier in the
meeting. He noted that the next to last item on the first page is the Crozet Library.
Mr. Rooker asked if the street improvements were allocations of grant monies.
Ms. Mallek responded that there were two stages of federal grant funding for those projects.
Mr. Tucker explained that during the Board‟s CIP work session, each item was considered and
that is why this is now coming forward in this format.
Mr. Letteri commented that normally appropriations would be entertained in the August/
September timeframe – but that would put the County in the awkward position of needing to execute
contracts and work, but without the formal authority to do so. He said that staff has tried to identify the
most critical, ongoing items that would be germane for proceeding this summer. They will be coming with
the balance of the list in September.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve the FY 2011 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$15,939,815.11 and to approve Appropriations #2011001, #2011003, #2011004, #2011005, #2011006,
#2011007, #2011008, and #2011009 to provide funds for various local government and school projects
and programs as described in Attachment A. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011001
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Social Services Child Welfare Services Supervisor
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 53013 110000 Regular Salaries J 1 57,686.00
1 1000 53013 210000 FICA J 1 4,413.00
1 1000 53013 221000 Virginia Retirement Sys. J 1 8,734.00
1 1000 53013 231000 Health Insurance J 1 7,538.00
1 1000 53013 232000 Dental Insurance J 1 263.00
1 1000 53013 241000 Group Life Insurance J 1 640.00
1 1000 53013 270000 Worker's Compensation J 1 375.00
1 1000 53011 999998 Strategic Initiative J 1 (50,892.00)
2 1000 33000 330020 Administration - Soc
Serv.
J 2 28,757.00
1000 0501 Est. Revenue 28,757.00
0701 Appropriation 28,757.00
TOTAL 57,514.00 28,757.00 28,757.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APP #
2011003
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Re-appropriate uncompleted Belvedere Bond Default
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9011 51000 510100 Re-Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 3,675,790.00
1 9011 90900 940080 Belvedere Bond Default J 1 3,675,790.00
9011 0501 Est. Revenue 3,675,790.00
0701 Appropriation 3,675,790.00
TOTAL 7,351,580.00 3,675,790.00 3,675,790.00
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APP #
2011004
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Old Crozet School Rental Account
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 8610 15000 150262 RENT: OLD CROZET
SCHOOL
J 2 59,888.13
1 8610 91081 301221 MAINT CONT -
LANDSCAPING
J 1 4,200.00
1 8610 91081 331000 R&M EQUIP.-
BUILDINGS
J 1 1,000.00
1 8610 91081 331200 R&M EQUIP.-
BUILDINGS
J 1 5,200.00
1 8610 91081 332100 MAINT. CONTRACT-
EQUIP
J 1 1,000.00
1 8610 91081 332200 MAINT. CONTRACT-
BUILDING
J 1 1,380.00
1 8610 91081 510100 ELECTRICAL
SERVICES
J 1 6,500.00
1 8610 91081 510210 HEATING/FUEL OIL J 1 18,000.00
1 8610 91081 510300 WATER & SEWER
SERVICES
J 1 1,810.00
1 8610 91081 530200 FIRE INSURANCE J 1 5,500.00
1 8610 91081 600700 REPAIR & MAINT.
SUPPLIES
J 1 2,200.00
1 8610 91081 800949 MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS
J 1 13,098.13
8610 0501 EST. REVENUE 59,888.13
0701 APPROPRIATION 59,888.13
TOTAL 119,776.26 59,888.13 59,888.13
_____
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APP #
2011-005
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various general government capital projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9010 12210 312105 Access Alb Consulting
Serv
J 1 114,509.94
1 9010 12210 312366 Access Alb Fac Dev
Coord
J 1 35,500.99
1 9010 12210 800700 Access Alb ADP Equip J 1 150,000.00
1 9010 21000 331000 Court Repair & Maint J 1 77,175.92
1 9010 21000 950301 Old Jail Maintenance J 1 30,014.38
1 9010 21050 331000 Juvenile Court Repair &
Maint
J 1 14,327.52
1 9010 31000 800305 Police Radio System J 1 5,889.35
1 9010 31010 800714 Police Technology
Upgrade
J 1 6,000.00
1 9010 31010 800733 Police Video Equipment J 1 45,000.00
1 9010 32018 312366 Pantops FS Fac Develop
Cord
J 1 5,225.73
1 9010 32020 810099 VFD Contingency J 1 15,551.49
1 9010 32020 810806 Seminole Eng 82 J 1 726,000.00
1 9010 32021 312350 Ivy FS Eng/Planning J 1 50,000.00
1 9010 32018 312366 Ivy FS Fac Develop
Coord
J 1 5,500.76
1 9010 32030 815102 CARS Squad 133 J 1 300,000.00
1 9010 41000 312366 Eng-Fac Develop Coord J 1 770.11
1 9010 41000 950059 Eng-Keene Landfill J 1 50,000.00
1 9010 41000 950110 Eng-Records Mngmt Sys J 1 237,304.65
1 9010 41020 312366 St Improv-Fac Develop
Coord
J 1 55,007.65
1 9010 41020 950171 St Improv-Sunridge Rd J 1 10,000.00
1 9010 41020 950136 St Improv-Transp Local J 1 1,083,463.09
1 9010 41020 950081 St Improv-Rev Shar
Roads
J 1 1,074,697.90
1 9010 41020 950223 St Improv-Rev Shar J 1 500,000.00
1 9010 41023 312350 Crozet St PII-Eng/Plan J 1 7,300.00
1 9010 41023 312366 Crozet St PII-Fac
Develop coord
J 1 8,000.00
1 9010 41023 800605 Crozet St PII-
Construction
J 1 1,380,000.00
1 9010 41023 800670 Crozet St PII-Utilities
Reloc
J 1 604,829.56
1 9010 41023 800750 Crozet St PII-Purch.
Property
J 1 56,532.27
1 9010 41350 312366 Sdwalk-Fac Develop
Coord
J 1 40,193.56
1 9010 41350 950510 Sdwalk-S. Pantops J 1 455,502.68
1 9010 41350 950514 Sdwalk-Crozet Ave N. J 1 10,000.00
1 9010 41350 950516 Sdwalk-RT
250/Westminster
J 1 266,000.00
1 9010 41350 999999 Sdwalk-Contingency J 1 113,823.11
1 9010 43100 312366 PubWorks-Fac Develop
coord
J 1 13,892.46
1 9010 43100 800666 PubWorks-Fac Maint J 1 340,419.78
1 9010 43100 950174 PubWorks-Hillsdale
Sdwk
J 1 90,000.00
1 9010 43100 950222 PubWorks-Health Dept
Maint/Rep
J 1 32,940.74
1 9010 43100 950169 PubWorks-Roadway
Landscap
J 1 150,000.00
1 9010 43101 312366 COB Renov PII-Fac
Devel Coord
J 1 2,750.38
1 9010 43101 800200 COB Renov PII-
Furn&Fixt
J 1 10,000.00
1 9010 43101 800605 COB Renov PII-
Construction
J 1 103,431.17
1 9010 43101 999999 COB Renov PII-
Contigency
J 1 10,000.00
1 9010 71000 800949 Park Maint Projects J 1 213,311.88
1 9010 71000 950044 Parks Ath. Field
Study/Devel
J 1 231,395.26
1 9010 71000 950232 Byrom Park J 1 48,658.92
1 9010 71000 950252 Walnut Crk Playground J 1 60,000.00
1 9010 71000 Preddy Creek J 1 14,461.58
1 9010 72030 950026 Tourism-Greenway
Prgm
J 1 119,692.12
1 9010 72030 950177 Tourism-Byrom Park J 1 21,442.98
1 9010 72030 950233 Tourism-Preddy Creek
Park
J 1 302,191.85
1 9010 72030 950520 Tourism-Rivanna Free
Bridge conn
J 1 3,595.13
1 9010 73020 800949 Libray Maint Projects J 1 200,000.00
1 9010 73020 950114 Crozet Library J 1 768,918.64
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
1 9010 73020 312366 Library Fac Develop
coord
J 1 20,627.87
1 9010 81010 312366 Planning-Fac Develop
Coord
J 1 2,604.31
2 9010 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 9,653,839.00
2 9010 33000 330062 TEA Grant J 2 330,062.00
2 9010 51000 512054 Trs. -Old Trail Proffer J 2 1,837.85
2 9010 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 308,716.88
9010 0501 EST. REVENUE 10,294,455.73
0701 APPROPRIATION 10,294,455.73
1 8537 93010 930010 Old Trail Proffer - Trsf to
CIP
J 1 1,837.85
2 8537 51000 510100 Old Trail Proffer - App
F/B
J 2 1,837.85
8537 0501 Est. Revenue 1,837.85
0701 Appropriation 1,837.85
TOTAL 20,592,587.16 10,296,293.58 10,296,293.58
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APP #
2011-006
APPROPRIATION DATE 6/7/2010
BATC
H#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs associated with School projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9000 60202 800200 Brownsville ES-Furn&Fixt J 1 14,160.96
1 9000 60202 800650 Brownsville ES-Building
Construction
J 1 175,605.50
1 9000 60202 999999 Brownsville ES-Contingency J 1 33,344.76
1 9000 60203 800605 Crozet ES-Construction J 1 35,673.59
1 9000 60203 312370 Crozet ES-Site Testing/Insp J 1 3,040.00
1 9000 60204 999999 Greer ES-Contingency J 1 43,023.47
1 9000 60216 800909 V L Murray ES-Athletic Track J 1 377.60
1 9000 60301 999999 Albemarle HS-Contingency J 1 5,082.87
1 9000 60510 800200 VMF-Furn&Fixt J 1 6,000.00
1 9000 60510 800901 VMF-Building Renov J 1 116,228.64
1 9000 60510 999999 VMF-Contingency J 1 60.00
1 9000 61101 800700 Class/Instr-ADP Equip J 1 127,972.05
1 9000 62190 800700 Admin Tech Services ADP
Equip
J 1 29,060.71
1 9000 62420 312310 Sch Maint-A&E Roof Repl J 1 20,000.00
1 9000 62420 800949 Sch Maint-Maint Projects J 1 13,044.83
1 9000 62420 950182 Sch Maint-Environ Compliance J 1 13,696.41
1 9000 62420 950183 Sch Maint-ETV Replacem J 1 1,195.53
1 9000 62420 950184 Sch Maint-Lighting Upgrades J 1 59,241.52
1 9000 62420 800634 Sch Maint-Locker Refurb J 1 64,995.00
1 9000 62420 950250 Sch Maint-WAHS Irrigation J 1 1,500.00
1 9000 62420 950229 Sch Maint-WAHS Girls Locker
Rm
J 1 6,057.25
2 9000 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund Balance J 2 157,032.76
2 9000 41000 410500 Loan Proceeds J 2 612,327.93
9000 0501 EST. REVENUE 769,360.69
0701 APPROPRIATION 769,360.69
1 9001 60301 950245 AHS SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD J 1 6,161.88
2 9001 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 6,161.88
9001 0501 EST. REVENUE 6,161.88
0701 APPROPRIATION 6,161.88
1 9002 60302 950245 WAHS SYNTHETIC TURF
FIELD
J 1 275.66
2 9002 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 275.66
9002 0501 EST. REVENUE 275.66
0701 APPROPRIATION 275.66
TOTAL 1,551,596.46 775,798.23 775,798.23
_____
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011-007
APPROPRIATION DATE 6/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs associated with Stormwater projects
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9100 41000 800975 Engineering-Stormwater J 1 580,000.00
1 9100 41000 312366 Engineering-Fac
Develop coord
J 1 34,654.82
1 9100 41059 800605 Woodbrook Lagoon-
Construction
J 1 183,032.50
1 9100 41062 312366 Turtle Creek Fac
Develop Coord
J 1 1,471.45
1 9100 41063 312366 Crozet Stormwtr-Fac
Develop Coord
J 1 4,125.57
1 9100 41063 800605 Crozet Stormwtr-
Construction
J 1 131,152.34
1 9100 41064 800975 COB Biofilters-Stormwtr J 1 89,010.66
1 9100 41064 312366 COB Biofilters-Fac
Develop coord
J 1 2,475.34
2 9100 33000 330034 FISH/WILD FOUND -
FEDERAL
J 2 53,200.00
2 9100 51000 510100 APPROPRIATION - F/B J 2 972,722.68
9100 0501 Est. Revenue 1,025,922.68
0701 Appropriation 1,025,922.68
TOTAL 2,051,845.36 1,025,922.68 1,025,922.68
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011008
APPROPRIATION DATE 6/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting: June 10,
2010
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 51000 510100 Fund Balance J 2 4,323.34
1 2111 62422 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 3,923.34
1 2302 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 50.00
1 2204 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 250.00
1 2252 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 100.00
2000 0501 Est. Revenue 4,323.34
0701 Appropriation 4,323.34
TOTAL 8,646.68 4,323.34 4,323.34
_____
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011009
APPROPRIATION DATE 7/7/2010
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Increase Downtown Crozet Regional Stormwater Project as approved at previous Board
meeting on July 1, 2009: Grayrock Proffer
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9100 51000 512063 Trs. -Grayrock Proffer J 2 74,880.00
1 9100 41063 800750 Dwntwn Crozet Strmwtr-
Property
J 1 74,880.00
9100 0501 Est. Revenue 74,880.00
0701 Appropriation 74,880.00
2 8523 51000 510100 Grayrock-Approp F/B J 2 74,880.00
1 8523 93010 930010 Grayrock - Trsf to CIP J 1 74,880.00
8523 0501 Est. Revenue 74,880.00
0701 Appropriation 74,880.00
TOTAL 299,520.00 149,760.00 149,760.00
__________________
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting.
At 1:04 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into closed meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees,
and commissions; under Subsection (1) to discuss the performance of a specific individual appointed by
the Board; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation arising
from a claim against the County related to retirement compensation; and under Subsection (7) to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice related to an interjurisdictional
agreement. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:19 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board certified by 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
session 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. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
There were none.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 19. Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS) Comparative
Study.
Mr. Elliott said that the presentation today intends to provide additional information on issues staff
has studied regarding possible consolidation of City and County Departments of Social Services. He said
that part of their review has included an assessment of the challenges that other Virginia localities have
faced when considering consolidation of their respective departments. Mr. Elliott indicated that the rest of
the conversation today would be discussing the ramifications if the Board decides to move forward, and
finally seeking direction from the Board in terms of fully engaging the city in the evaluation. He stated that
since 1969 there have been three studies conducted – resulting in no action or inconclusiveness as to
whether consolidation of respective departments would result in enhanced efficiencies and more effective
delivery of services.
Mr. Elliott indicated that staff has highlighted 20 areas of consideration, noting that with
Rockingham and Harrisonburg – which consolidated very recently – one of the main driving points was the
desire for a single location. He said that transposing that to Albemarle and Charlottesville would mean
providing an office area for approximately 200 individuals, as the existing configuration and 5th Street COB
would not be sufficient. They would need to look at location to allow for public transportation, ensuring
that the location is contiguous to the courts and other non-profit community partners that rely on DSS and
vice versa for services to citizens. Mr. Elliott stated that the burden under that scenario would be capital
costs, costs of renovations, and lost cost of rent currently received from the State for COB-5th. He said
that the client base for both jurisdictions in the Rockingham/Harrisonburg consolidation was relatively the
same, with both having the same amount of reimbursement; with Charlottesville and Albemarle there is
some disparity. Mr. Elliott noted that there is a higher level of eligibility in the City for the SNAP (Food
Stamp) program, and a higher reimbursement rate in TANIFF for City residents than County. They would
have to reconcile that, and it is very likely that the State would not provide additional funding if it was the
desire to bring Albemarle County citizens up to that level – which would induce additional local costs.
Beyond those considerations, he said, the City and County operate on two different information technology
platforms – with the County‟s system just recently revamped – so one system would need to be created in
order to share information with the State. He added that pay and benefit plans for City and County
employees are different, and one other consideration is the Bright Stars and Family Support program –
which would also need to be reconciled in order to combine those two programs.
Mr. Elliott stated that some of the issues identified might not meet the core principal of the Board‟s
April meeting, which was to look at increasing the level of services in both jurisdictions at the same cost or
provide the same level of service at a lower cost to taxpayers in both jurisdictions. Mr. Elliott said this
report is provided for information. Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, is present, and can also
respond to any questions from Board members.
Mr. Snow commented that having read the report, he found 19 reasons why not to do it. He
asked if there are any reasons to move forward with consolidation.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Elliott responded that with mergers, there is always a culture change that occurs, and if it were
possible to pull off one collocated agency, working under one system, it would have a lot of synergy and
would make a lot of sense. He emphasized though that in these economic times, it is difficult to find and
afford facilities that would be able to accommodate that.
Mr. Boyd asked if he broke down functions to see if there was a possibility of combining functions
instead of entire departments.
Mr. Elliott replied that this was just a cursory look, and they already work with the City in terms of
CSA and have in the past worked with assessment teams that look at individual child cases; only recently
have those two teams merged. He said that in reviewing the benefit programs, they are driven by the
relative wealth of the jurisdiction – which is where disparity occurs.
Mr. Boyd added that it‟s also critical that clients are able to reach the service area, and that also
differs in the County and City.
Mr. Rooker asked about the difference in reimbursement rates, and asked why the City would
want to engage in a combination that resulted in lower benefits.
Ms. Ralston explained that the benefit for TANIFF is a difference of about $70-$75 per month,
with the difference in Medicaid being $100-$200. She said that she could not imagine that the City would
be willing to go to what is called a Group Two agency versus a Group Three agency, and lower the
benefits to their citizens. These are federal and state benefits, and the City does not have any money in
them. She added that Albemarle County should be a Group Three, and all it takes is a memo from her to
the Board for approval, then approaching the State Board. She believes that they would get hung up
where the General Assembly would not provide the money.
Mr. Rooker said if the departments combined they would have to operate at one of the two levels.
Ms. Ralston responded that they would operate part of the agency with a Group Two for the City
residents and part of the agencies a Group Three. She added that there are federal reporting guidelines
that allocate FIPS codes and you still have to keep the codes because they are locality-specific; they‟re
not agency specific. Ms. Ralston said that the department would still have to do dual reporting if the
County and City were combined. She also indicated that while the analysis hasn‟t been done on rent
reimbursement, it‟s a question of whether a department is in a locality-owned building or free market
building. On the free-market, there is actually a little higher reimbursement because it is based on rent
locally. In a locality-owned building, the rent is based on depreciation of the building, but the State is not
going to provide any more money for that, but it is possible that more money could be provided from the
federal pass-through.
Mr. Rooker asked if the City and County could combine their rent reimbursement so there would
not necessarily be a net loss.
Ms. Ralston said that is possible, but it depends on the depreciation costs.
Mr. Davis replied that the County would continue to have the cost of the public buildings, and the
net loss would be determined by how much rent would need to be paid in a private building. He added
that the rent would probably exceed the amount of the reimbursement.
Mr. Rooker asked how much the County is getting reimbursed for social services now.
Ms. Ralston replied that she is not certain, adding that it is based on depreciation. It is not as
much as what they could get if they were paying actual rent to someplace.
Ms. Mallek asked about children that switch jurisdictions, as mentioned at a previous meeting.
Ms. Ralston explained that there are several ongoing collaborations with the City, as well as a
variety of other cooperative grants.
Mr. Rooker asked what the possibilities might be for eliminating positions, assuming you can
solve other operational issues. It is just like when a company buys another company. He said that unless
you cannot realize some savings on staff costs, it doesn‟t make sense to go through all of the other
issues. Mr. Rooker asked what happened when Rockingham and Harrisonburg combined.
Ms. Ralston replied that when Rockingham and Harrisonburg combined, they added positions.
She explained that they had two small agencies and combined into a large agency – so they needed an
Assistant Director. Ms. Ralston said that in previous studies, it showed that one position would be lost and
that was the Director. It is the same number of customers. There is not any loss of customers in this
because they do not duplicate that with each other. She stated that each agency is already understaffed,
so perhaps office support staff could be reduced but Harrisonburg/Rockingham turned them into eligibility
screeners and thus retained all of their staff.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that without reductions in employees, it doesn‟t make much sense to
consolidate as there wouldn‟t really be much savings if any.
Mr. Boyd agreed. He wondered if there is information on ratios, caseloads, population, etc., to
use to gage the number of people needed. He asked if it the recommendation is to not talk to the City.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Elliott replied that they have not approached the City, as staff wanted to share this with the
Board first.
Mr. Boyd said that in the spirit of cooperation, it would be good to have a preliminary meeting, but
if it has already been established that cost savings aren‟t realized, there may not be any point in doing
that.
Mr. Snow agreed.
Mr. Rooker said it would be good to know if the City has a different take on this, but if they think
the same, he is in agreement.
Ms. Mallek stated that the only other reason would be greatly improving services to clients.
Mr. Dorrier said that perhaps it needs to be considered for long-term savings.
Ms. Ralston commented that there haven‟t been any studies of consolidated agencies that have
looked at the long term to see if there have been savings, and Harrisonburg/Rockingham indicated that
they did not. She noted that Bristol and Washington County engaged a firm to look into merging their
departments several years ago, but a study determined that it would not be in Washington County‟s
interest to consolidate. Ms. Ralston said that the State office and League of Social Service Executives
asked that the firm to put together a CD with Excel spreadsheets that would allow localities to plug some
numbers in and do some preliminaries, and she has requested a copy of the CD. She also mentioned
that Frederick County and Winchester just let it die in considering a merger.
Mr. Rooker commented that the challenges of pulling off a merger are only worth it if it results in
reduced costs and/or substantially better service.
Ms. Mallek said even if this does not proceed, it is a help to have this information to be able to
respond when citizens ask questions.
Mr. Snow stated that he appreciates the steps that have been taken, but he cannot see investing
any more time and energy in this now.
Mr. Boyd suggested having a sit-down meeting with the City and going through the list.
Mr. Rooker asked who should be present at the table.
Mr. Tucker explained that the original idea was to create a committee similar to those considering
fire and rescue and revenue sharing, but before that happened staff wanted to present information to the
Board. He added that the City‟s DSS Director has retired, and they thought this might be an opportunity to
talk.
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps the next step is to have Ms. Ralston talk to her counterpart in the City.
Ms. Mallek suggested that the two Board members – Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Snow – meet with the
City Councilors, as a follow-up and have a formal presentation of these facts so that everyone is aware of
the findings.
Mr. Elliott noted that Mr. Huja and Ms. Edwards were the two City Councilors who wanted to move
this forward, and perhaps they should be included.
Mr. Tucker said he would look into convening a meeting of the committee and have County staff
present what was presented to the Board today.
Mr. Thomas asked if different projects might be meshed together, instead of the entire
department.
Mr. Elliott indicated that there are a number of areas that both departments are already
collaborating, but the idea stemming from the April meeting was to consider a full merger.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 20. Board Policy Related to Volunteer Fire/Rescue Funding, Dan Eggleston.
Mr. Elliott said that this matter relates to funding appeals from East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department and Western Albemarle Rescue Squad for apparatus either currently funded or programmed
in the Board‟s adopted five-year CIP. He said that East Rivanna is seeking supplemental funding from the
county to provide sufficient resources to replace a tanker that was totaled in a recent accident; Western
Albemarle is requesting a cash donation from the Board for re-chassing an existing ambulance. Mr. Elliott
stated that staff recommends that the Board authorize them to proceed with procurement for the
replacement of the tanker unit, with the understanding that East Rivanna would transfer insurance
proceeds received from the damaged unit to the County to provide the basis of the funds for the new unit.
He added that the procured unit would be coordinated through County purchasing and co-titled with the
County and East Rivanna, and the balance of funds – which are currently programmed into year three of
the CIP – would be advanced and moved to FY11.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
He said that staff also recommends that the Board authorize them to move forward with
development of a policy applicable to the system, regarding maintaining replacement value coverages on
a timely basis for all volunteer fire and rescue apparatus.
Mr. Elliott stated that the Board may consider the request by Western Albemarle, and if they
choose to do so the funds identified for that could possibly be their FY2011 Board reserve, where there is
currently approximately $210,000. He added that another possibility is a CIP balance, or the undesignated
fund balance. Mr. Elliott said staff recognizes Western Albemarle‟s efforts to be judicious and save
County funding for this in the sense that the Board‟s appropriation for FY2010 was for a complete
replacement. The Western Albemarle Board took it upon themselves to find a more economical way to
achieve the same results which was to re-chassis their existing vehicle and extend its life for an additional
five years. Staff recommends that if the Board finds cash funding for the donation, that it do so based
upon the re-chassis ambulance be properly co-titled with the County through DMV and asks that they work
with ACFRAB to update the 2006 policy to clearly indicate that County procurement be adhered to
whenever the County funds or appropriates dollars for the acquisition or rehabilitation of any apparatus in
the system. He added that representatives of East Rivanna and Western Albemarle are also present to
respond to any questions.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff is certain that the insurance doesn‟t provide replacement value
coverage, adding that there are policies that can be purchased based on the total fleet.
Mr. Elliott responded that the policy is for individual apparatus in the fleet, and he would check into
a policy that would provide better coverage in these situations.
Mr. Dorrier asked if staff had considered a donation of less than $166,000.
Mr. Elliott answered that the request from Western is just over $91,000 while the total
replacement cost was $162,000. Last Fall, Western‟s Board opted to go with re-chassing of the unit, so
that decreased the cost.
Mr. Rooker said that his initial thought was to donate an amount equal to one-half the expenditure
as a contribution. This did not come through the process that is supposed to be followed for a capital
expenditure. He added that the decision as to whether to replace the vehicle or re-chassis it should have
been discussed.
Ms. Mallek responded that the Chief‟s Board at ACFRAB did discuss it.
Mr. Snow said it may have been done there, but they are not responsible for the funding.
Mr. Rooker stated that CIP requests need to come to the Board here, so essentially a request that
was never made is being asked for reimbursement. He reiterated that he would support providing one-
half of the cost if the vehicle is co-titled. It is possible the best decision was made.
Ms. Mallek said the forms filled out were co-titled forms, but were not completed correctly, but that
can easily be corrected.
Mr. Thomas asked if the $165,000 that they were allotted had ever been appropriated for a new
vehicle.
Ms. Mallek explained that it is in the budget now.
Mr. Elliott stated that the appropriation was made in the budget for FY10. In the past several
years, the County has moved away from cash-purchasing its fleet to borrowing money for fleet
replacement. He added that once the money is appropriated, the Virginia Public Procurement Act kicks in
– and the donation is not possible from borrowed funds.
Mr. Rooker commented that the East Rivanna request is pretty straightforward, as they are asking
for a capital allocation to replace the vehicle. The vehicle needs to be replaced and the insurance
proceeds were not sufficient, and they are coming to the Board through the normal process.
Mr. Elliott noted that East Rivanna would like for some consideration to be made, as most units
have additional add-ons paid for by the squad; so that unit is requesting up to about $10,000 to be taken
out of their proceeds so that the amount going in for the County would be just a little bit higher. The total
would be approximately $85,000 to replace the unit in-kind, and move the item out of the CIP.
Mr. Lanny Moore, President of East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, said that the equipment
that was totaled was solely owned by East Rivanna and was not co-titled to the County because it was
purchased through fundraising. He said that the insurance company wrote a check for $319,000 to East
Rivanna that is in their bank account at this time. They do want to go through County procurement to
purchase the piece of equipment. He added that they had considered using the funds in their account to
prepay for part of the apparatus. The company they are purchasing the equipment from under State
contract offers a 7% interest on the funds while they are building the apparatus, so the additional funds
were going to be used to go towards the add-ons. He added that they have no problem co-titling the
equipment.
Mr. Boyd asked how the $10,000 relates to the 7%.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Moore stated that the 7% falls just short of what is needed for add-ons.
Mr. Elliott said that the intent is the County would take full advantage of any discounts that down
payments may provide, and use the savings to purchase any additional equipment needed to outfit the
vehicle.
Mr. Boyd commented that it seems to be a no-brainer to move forward with it, adding that while
there may be a loss of opportunity cost initially it would result in a considerable savings.
Mr. Rooker stated that his only concern is the possibility of any credit risk if an item is paid off
ahead of time.
Mr. Moore noted that this is the largest fire equipment m anufacturing company in the U.S., and
Oshkosh is the parent company – which makes military equipment; the money is bonded regardless of
what happens to that firm. He added that larger cities and municipalities are pre-paying to get a better
interest rate.
Mr. Rooker said it sounds like a good idea, but he wants to make sure the County crosses all its‟
“t‟s” and dots all its‟ “I‟s” so nothing goes wrong and forfeiting the deposit.
Mr. Moore added that he could put the company‟s representative in touch with Mr. Davis so
everything is bonded.
Ms. Mallek commented that she is glad no one was injured in this accident.
Mr. Moore said the driver did a good job in creating as little damage as possible, with no injuries.
He added that in the last year EPA standards for apparatus have added about $25,000 in cost for one
truck – as well as NFPA changes that caused another large spike.
Mr. Rooker asked what happens to the old vehicle.
Mr. Moore responded that the insurance company paid for it then took the truck, and everything
salvageable was removed.
Ms. Mallek asked about the delivery time once the process starts.
Mr. Moore said that from the time a contract is signed, it takes a minimum of 8-10 months to build
a new vehicle.
Mr. Greg Paquin, Vice-President of Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, said that the whole idea
behind their proposal is saving the County $70,000. They had no idea that borrowed money comes from
different budges. He said that they were told they could have $165,000 to purchase an ambulance, but
knew they could do it for less. There have been no other re-chassing projects done in the County so there
are no guidelines to follow. Mr. Paquin said the first they knew the County would not pay for this was
when they went to pick up the vehicle and the company said no check had came, and they found out they
did not go through the CIP process. The Rescue Squad then had to write the check. In terms of titling, he
put Albemarle County on the form but it did not come out on the printed copy. Also, at that time the
County was not paying for the ambulance so he didn‟t argue about it. Mr. Paquin said that partial funding
would be a “slap in their face” for the County to not fund the whole thing, as they are essentially saving the
County a lot of money. They were in good faith doing this and had no idea it was going to cause a stir.
There wasn‟t a policy to follow; they just did what they thought was best in not spending all of the County‟s
money. They County received a brand new ambulance with a new floor and new interior, and the shell
and wiring are the same; the ambulance has a street value of approximately $140,000.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the vehicle selected was approved by ACFRAB or the County.
Mr. Paquin said that their three-bid process was only approved by the squad, as they had no
inclination that they had to get other approval. ACFRAB originally approved the re-chassing in fall 2009,
and he wasn‟t involved in that process.
Mr. Rooker asked how it was approved by ACFRAB and never submitted to the County.
Ms. Mallek responded that there were some mix ups in transmission, and procedure. Around that
same time Crozet had done a re-chassing of theirs with Scottsville starting the same process. She said
that she didn‟t know until about 10 days ago that the State policy required the procurement process, and
she understands that the squad thought this was more of a maintenance issue than a capital one.
Mr. Paquin said that a lot of localities consider re-chassing maintenance. He added that the
previous replacement was prior to the County process coming forward, so the squad purchased it
themselves a year ago with their own funds of $140,000.
Mr. Dorrier said that since all this occurred in good faith, he is in favor of reimbursing the rescue
squad for the full amount.
Mr. Thomas agreed.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Ms. Mallek noted that it‟s important to iron out the process so that it‟s clear to all units how to
handle re-chassing.
Mr. Thomas said that the insurance policy is going to be really important, and he would like it to be
right on the number when something like this occurs.
Mr. Rooker said he is not saying anything was done in bad faith, but given the tight budget
situation, it is helpful if the process is laid out ahead of time and where the funds will come from.
Mr. Boyd stated that his initial thought was if the rules are not followed, then that sets a dangerous
precedent – but he‟s been involved in detailed discussions with ACFRAB that have revealed a lack of trust
with the County and City. He said that in the interest of good faith and demonstrating that this Board is
committed to dealing with the volunteers, he is in favor of full reimbursement.
Ms. Mallek seconded that.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board needed to identify a source of funds at this point, adding that it‟s
problematic to take this out of a $210,000 contingency so early in the fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd said that it should come from other fund balances, noting that $30,000 was saved today
with the jail item.
Mr. Rooker responded that the jail item would be coming back to them at some point.
Mr. Boyd said it should not come out of the Board‟s reserves.
Mr. Elliott suggested that staff could look further at the fund balances and come back with some
recommendations, asking if the Board would be willing to have some of their reserve funds used for this.
Mr. Rooker said that his preference would be not to touch the reserve at this time.
Mr. Elliott mentioned that there is the Board‟s contingency and a revenue contingency shortfall
built into the budget.
Mr. Tucker suggested the funds come out of capital reserve.
Mr. Snow asked if it would be possible to contribute in several different chunks over time.
Mr. Thomas said that there may be some money coming back from East Rivanna‟s 7% savings.
Mr. Elliott responded that there wouldn‟t be any excess cash realized from that, just less spent.
The County is purchasing East Rivanna a new vehicle, replaced in-kind.
Mr. Rooker asked if the appropriations could be brought back at a later time to be finalized.
Mr. Tucker agreed that they could.
Mr. Davis clarified that there would be no procurement for Western; it would be a donation from
the County to that squad – conditioned upon their titling of the vehicle.
Ms. Mallek then moved to follow staff‟s recommendation to approve East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department‟s request that the County initiate procurement for the immediate replacement of the requested
tanker truck in accordance with County policy with the understanding that the insurance proceeds for the
damaged tanker will be applied to this procurement and planned funding for this replacement vehicle in
the out years of the CIP would be eliminated; and to approve a one-time cash donation in the amount of
$91,186 be made to Western Albemarle Rescue Squad to reimburse them for the reduced cost of their
new ambulance. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis added that in both cases, the vehicles would be co-titled with the County, and staff
would bring back a recommendation for an appropriation to fund that approval.
Ms. Mallek stated that that was included in her motion, adding that the motion also covers the
stipulation that ACFRAB would work with County staff to ensure that the policies and process are uniform
and followed for the purchase or restoration of apparatus.
Mr. Snow agreed to the additions in the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
__________________
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd asked when staff might provide an inventory/value of County-owned property.
Mr. Tucker responded that staff is working on it, and he‟s not certain when it would be ready.
__________
Mr. Thomas mentioned an issue of a Certificate of Occupancy not being issued for Abingdon
Place in Hollymead because the walkway hadn‟t been paved and completed on the original proffer.
Mr. Davis explained that at the time the property was rezoned there was a proffer that said the
developer would dedicate a public trail and pave it with a 10-foot width paved trail. Although the staff was
not pleased with the proffer at the time, it stated that it would be completed prior to the issuance of the last
Certificate of Occupancy. Several months ago the builder who had bought the last six or seven lots got
building permits and was proceeding toward completion of those units and Planning staff informed him of
the proffer, and that the last occupancy permit could not be issued until the trail was paved. Mr. Davis
said that last Friday the builder came in for the last occupancy permit with an innocent buyer in abeyance,
wanted the occupancy permit, but the trail had not been paved. Staff was unable to issue the CO, but
tried to accommodate the situation by offering to allow it to be issued if it was properly bonded. They were
unable to bond the property on Friday, but are working through the process this week to try to complete
the bonding even though technically the proffer requires it to be constructed.
Mr. Thomas commented that it was not a great situation because the family was here living in a
hotel waiting to move in.
Mr. Davis said that it was an unfortunate situation but there was no way legally to avoid that
situation and he thinks Planning staff made the right decision. Mr. Davis said that by State Code, the
General Assembly now requires that any cash proffers that have been made that are outstanding through
July 2014 cannot be collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit and cannot be collected
any earlier than the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Davis said that with all the cash proffers
that the County has on a per-unit basis that are outstanding, the County is likely to run into this exact
scenario again on a recurring basis. He said that the County is taking steps to avoid those situations by
giving people notice at the time of the building permit and providing additional notices so there is an
understanding of the process. Hopefully people will elect to pay the money earlier still, but by statute the
County now has a situation that could recur. The County will do everything it can to avoid the situation
because the people who are really injured by this are the innocent third-party buyers who may not be
aware of this circumstance that would keep them from actually moving into their house.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, added that the builder of the home posted the cash
bond and the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
Mr. Davis said that the County would now give the builder a notice that they need to complete the
trail, and if they don‟t the County will have to revoke the cash bond and become the contractor for that
trail.
Mr. Tucker noted that the path is there, but it is not paved yet.
Ms. Mallek said that part of the problem is these things are not fixed before the property flips to
the second, third, and fourth owner.
Mr. Davis commented that typically the improvements are tied to some specific event in the
development process, because it‟s not desirable to have builders build it before there is a development.
He said that the preference is that before a building permit is issued, at some point in the project the trails
and other improvements are completed. This is one where the developer just did not agree to do it that
way.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a way to describe the requirements stemming from the legislation
so it is not called a “cash proffer.”
Mr. Davis responded that the problem with the statute is the proffers that have already been
accepted, as they say the money can be collected at the building permit stage – which the General
Assembly now says cannot be done. They overrode our proffers.
Mr. Rooker asked who the developer was that made the proffer.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the developer was Burkhead LLC, and Steve Runkle was the signatory.
Mr. Davis said that it has changed hands in between, and the current developer has been under
some stress.
Mr. Thomas confirmed that it was a medical situation, so things couldn‟t get done.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that all of the legislators she has contacted regarding the changes in legislation
for Ag/Forestal district renewals, and they have indicated they would carry it forward upon receiving a draft
of language from the County.
July 7, 2010 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Davis indicated that his staff met with David Blount a few weeks ago to plot out a strategy.
They are trying to survey other jurisdictions to see what their process is; staff would like to have some
consensus among people as they move forward. He said that Mr. Kamptner is working with the Planning
Department to develop some conceptual language, but there are several steps that need to be followed.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to have something to take to the VaCo Agricultural Committee
on August 6th. Mr. Davis said that at least a concept should be prepared.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn.
At 3:24 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/13/2010
Initials: EWJ