2011-04-06April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 6,
2011, 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, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recognitions.
Item No. 4a. Fair Housing Month Proclamation.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation:
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2011, marks the forty-third anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968,
which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further
housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of
the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2011
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 6th day of April, 2011.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to discuss the Rivanna Pumping Station which is currently an issue
before the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board. He provided Board members with a copy of a letter
from the Pantops Advisory Council (copy on file in Clerk’s office) regarding the Rivanna Pumping Station,
and a copy of an analysis based on the flow analysis done by RWSA on the Rivanna Pump Station
project. Mr. Boyd said he thinks it is important for the Board to give him direction on voting on this issue.
There is a consent decree requiring the RWSA to do something about the inflow and infiltration in the
pump station capacity there – with a project report indicating the weather capacity needs to be upgraded
from a peak of 25 mgd to 53 mgd in order to handle the peak wet water flow. Mr. Boyd said that this is
due to infrastructure that has been allowed to get old and decrepit, with rainwater being pushed into sewer
pipes. There is concern in the City that they are being asked to accommodate growth in the County. He
mentioned that the peak water flow in 2020 is expected to be 40% from the County and 60% by the City.
The City has passed a resolution requesting that all options for the pumping station except Option D be
taken off the table, and that they only look at the option that is across the River in the County.
Mr. Boyd said that the Pantops letter indicates that those residents do not feel only one option
should be considered. RWSA must do something about this before December 31, 2011. He asked that a
decision be delayed until the upcoming RWSA meeting so that he could get input from this Board on what
the County wants to do. Mr. Boyd said he also took the time to talk with State Farm which is the proposed
site for this facility. State Farm is concerned because that option would be taking property that is
earmarked for expansion in their long-range plan.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Rooker asked how close this is from the existing State Farm building.
Mr. Boyd responded that the proposed location is above the wetland area because of the
electrical equipment. It is on a parcel already designated for other use. Mr. Tom Frederick has met with
State Farm officials to show them the proposed location. He added that he sympathizes with the Woolen
Mills residents and that they want this moved off their property, but there are other issues with Option D.
Mr. Rooker noted that the cost difference is $9 million to move the station there.
Mr. Boyd said that he cannot support taking Option A off of the table, stating that the cost to study
that and Option D totals $200,000. The cost to study Option D only is approximately $100,000. He stated
that he asked Mr. David Brown if the City was in a position to pay the additional $9 million, but he indicated
that they were seeking a cost-sharing agreement. Mr. Boyd commented that he is concerned with the
cost, and with the potential impact on State Farm.
Ms. Mallek said that the updating of design would move a large amount of the station
underground, and putting a new station elsewhere does not solve any of the existing facility’s problems.
Mr. Boyd said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd added that the piping system would be enclosed instead of open as it is now.
Mr. Rooker noted that the reason for some of the buildings is to solve the problems that residents
at Woolen Mills have raised. Mr. Boyd said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker asked if a new pump station was built across the River, would there still need to be a
pump station at the location of the existing pump station.
Mr. Boyd said that the two options are to move the entire facility across the River and take
everything out of Woolen Mills or add the expansion across the River in which case there would remain
the Woolen Mills operation but you would pick up the additional capacity across the River. In either case
you would have to pump it across the River and back over. He added that operational costs were not
available at the last meeting but will be available at the next Rivanna Board meeting.
Mr. Rooker stated that he supports Mr. Boyd’s recommendations, emphasizing that at least two
options need to be retained. He added that $5 million was spent to resolve odor problems at the existing
Moore’s Creek treatment plant over the last few years.
Mr. Boyd clarified that it was $1.8 million, adding that the compost area was removed as it also
contributed to the odor. The waste treatment plant is also a short distance from Woolen Mills and that is
not going away. He also said that the Board could discuss the item more in depth during Mr. Frederick’s
presentation later in the meeting, but he wanted to bring it up because there are people in the audience
who were at the Rivanna meeting.
Mr. Snow asked how much land is involved at State Farm. Mr. Boyd suggested that Mr. Frederick
respond to that question. He added that State Farm is very community conscious, but this affects their
long range business plans.
__________
Mr. Snow said that he received a telephone call from a constituent who needed a handicapped
parking space at COB-5th Street, but all the spaces were taken up by County vehicles. He asked staff to
look into the issue.
__________
Mr. Snow confirmed that the Board will be visiting the Old Jail on Wednesday, April 20th, at 4:30
p.m.
__________
Mr. Snow stated that he and Mr. Thomas met with Secretary of Transportation Connaughton this
past week. The topic of discussion was whether the County would be interested in a bypass around the
City. He and Mr. Thomas’ response was that their main concerns were getting the widening of Route 29
and a bridge for Berkmar Extension. Mr. Snow said that he indicated that studies have shown that that
would be more beneficial to the County than anything else. They left the conversation with, until those
issues were solved, that is not something they would be interested in.
__________
Ms. Mallek reported that she substituted for Mr. Thomas at the last ACFRAB meeting. It was a
great atmosphere with all volunteer chiefs and paid staff discussing how to move forward with the new
system and how to develop it smoothly. Chief Eggleston has met with one company alone; she met with
Earlysville and together they met with CAARS and North Garden to respond to questions from members
and leadership. Although they still have a lot of work to do, she is optimistic and believes they have turned
the corner.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that she received a notice from Mr. Kevin Schmidt, Office of Farmland
Preservation, and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, stating that the County’s
purchase of development rights program (ACE) is able to participate in a grant program to receive
$150,000 from the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Agency. Because of the short timeline, the Board
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
needs to decide whether to allow the Appraisal Review Committee to provide a contingent approval. Ms.
Mallek said that there would be a staff report forthcoming on this, but emphasized that the County would
need to act on the measure by May 27 to meet the state deadlines.
Mr. Foley said that some action could be taken on this item at the April 20th meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Nancy Dresner, representing residents of Brocks Mill Road in Stony Point, said that Brocks
Mills Road is a very old public road that is currently privately maintained. In 2006 the County requested
that VDOT take Brocks Mill Road back into the State system as a rural addition. Ms. Dresner said that the
road is public and was originally Doctors Crossing, and when the State took over the County’s public roads
it didn’t include the stretch because it didn’t have enough houses. She stated that this stretch of road is
now used by seven houses, 21 tax parcels, and 18 daily drivers.
In January 2006, Ms. Dresner said, the residents presented a request to the Board that Brocks
Mill be taken back into the road system – but the Board could not move on the request because the
County was not eligible for the State’s rural addition program, which allows counties to fold old public
roads back into the system using specially designated road funds. When the rural addition requirements
changed, the County requested that VDOT take Brocks Mill into the state system. Ms. Dresner quoted
from an August 2006 letter sent by Mr. Juandiego Wade: “The County requests VDOT’s assistance in
adding to the State road maintenance system Brocks Mill Road as a rural addition project. The residents
and the County wish to add this road to the system so the County and VDOT start to fund the project
through the rural addition fund in the Six Year Plan.” In July 2008 Mr. Joel DeNunzio of VDOT informed
the County that the rural addition funds had been accumulated so the road could be completed. VDOT
engineers designed the road and went to her neighbors to collect letters of intent for right of way donation.
She stated that in 2009, VDOT forwarded the project to Mr. Greg Kamptner. Mr. David Benish noted
recently that he could not find evidence that the Board had officially voted to use the rural addition funds
for this project.
Ms. Dresner said that this is the only rural addition project for VDOT and the County. They just
need the Board to say it wants to use rural addition funds for Brocks Mill Road. T here is $250,000 in the
fund, and the cost is estimated at $75,000-$100,000.
__________
Ms. Emerald Young, a resident/owner at Eagles Landing Apartments, said she has a video to
show Sunset Avenue. Ms. Young said that it is one mile from Eagles Landing to 5th Street. Board
members have been provided with a petition signed by 97 residents at Eagles Landing stating that there is
a need for a public sidewalk and bike path on Sunset Avenue. Ms. Young mentioned that there are four
multi-unit developments in that area – Eagles Landing, Jefferson Ridge, the Woodlands and The Villas at
Southern Ridge. On the other side of the road is Redfields Subdivision. The traffic is brisk and hazardous
to walk on the road. If Wintergreen Horse Farm, a 70 acre tract, would add more traffic if it is approved
for housing. She then presented a video depicting the road conditions.
__________
Mr. Carroll Houle addressed the Board, stating that the one-mile stretch along Sunset Avenue is
very dangerous as it goes from 5th Street to Eagle’s Landing. He also supports adding sidewalk along this
stretch of highway.
__________
Mr. Chris Hayes, a resident of 1900 Chesapeake Street, said that he was also present to discuss
the pump station. Mr. Hayes explained that the first pump station was built in the 1950s and in the 1980s
a large facility was built – with a promise to Woolen Mills that there would be “no smells, no sounds” and
limited visibility. He presented a diagram of weather flows and projections from RWSA, stating that the
impact of County growth would be more significant than the City’s. Mr. Hayes said that with Option A, 316
residents within a one-half-mile radius would be affected, and with Option D the amount is significantly
reduced but does affect more residents in Woolen Mills.
__________
Mr. Diane Weber, a resident of Stony Point Pass in north Keswick, said that this is the gravel
mountain road that crosses the Southwest Mountains from Route 231 in Cismont to Route 20 at Stony
Point. Ms. Weber asked the Board to make the road a priority for rural paving in 2011, as it meets the
Stat’s criteria of a rural rustic road and would be supported by the residents. She said that in 1997 Stony
Point residents signed a petition asking the county to pave the first 1.2 miles of road from the Cismont Inn,
and a second petition in 2007 with 67 signatures, representing all but two of the road’s 52 households.
Ms. Weber said that the physical state of Stony Point Pass is a financial drain in terms of vehicular
damage and personal risk, often dotted with potholes and washboarded. This is one of the roads that
closes schools in bad winter. This road does not stop speed demons. She mentioned several names of
people who have had accidents on the road, including her own head-on collision. She asked the Board to
put Stony Point Pass at the top of its list for secondary road improvements.
__________
Ms. Rosella Bull addressed the Board, stating her support for the Stony Point Pass paving and
indicating that she has lived on the road 20 years – having 20 flat tires and an accident while living there.
She also expressed concern about the school children on the road who catch the bus. The dust is almost
intolerable and there are areas where two cars cannot pass one another on the road because of erosion
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
into the stream next to it. Ms. Bull added that she is selling her house and the road is not a good selling
point. She asked the Board to do something about the road.
__________
Mr. Vernon Liechti addressed the Board, stating that he is here to support the sidewalk at Eagle’s
Landing and on 5th Street from Sunset Avenue. He said that it is dangerous to walk along the road. Most
people driving on that road exceed the 30-mph speed limit by at least 10 mph. The hills prevent visibility
from being able to see people.
__________
Mr. Fran Lawrence, a resident of 1729 Chesapeake Street, said that he called about the special
use permit sign that was posted for the first pump station – and was told by a City employee that it was
nothing to worry about and that “it was only going to be 18 inches above the ground.” Mr. Lawrence said
that because of problems, the pump station has continued to grow and has become more offensive.
He stated that the Rivanna River has been underutilized and underappreciated by Charlottesville
and Albemarle, and the most important interface between the community and the River lies at the end of
Chesapeake Street and the end of East Market Street. Mr. Lawrence presented images of the house at
Parias from 1839 where Jefferson is reported to have had his last beer, and noted the location of the
County line. He challenged the Board to think about the River. He emphasized that the community has
the opportunity to “pick up this river connection,” and it should be pursued, especially now that the Woolen
Mills dam is gone.
__________
Mr. Jim Heilman addressed the Board, stating that he was the Voter Registrar locally for 14 years
and did the redistricting in 1991 with the assistance of the Planning staff. He also served as a consultant
to the State Board of Elections and said he wrote the manual on dealing with redistricting for all the state’s
registrars and electoral boards. In addition to the specific criteria stipulated it is important to “do no harm”
with redistricting. Mr. Heilman stated that one important consideration is distance for voters to have to
drive, as they will not turn out if there is a big increase in mileage – especially in the case of local
elections. He said that another consideration is “splitting up communities of interest” and when he looked
at the redistricting plans for the County, he was amazed at how “neat” the first plan was and how little
harm it did throughout the County. Plan 2, he said, is problematic because the entire Glenmore
development would have to go all the way out to Cismont instead of voting at the nearby Stone Robinson
School as they do currently. Mr. Heilman also stated that the part of the Keswick precinct that is east of
Route 20 and south of Louisa Road would be “split right in half” with two different supervisors, and they
would have to drive all the way to Stone Robinson School. He asked that the Board consider those issues
when they consider the plan.
__________
Mr. Charles Battig said that last month the County – as an ICLEI dues paying member –
participated in sponsoring step three of the ICLEI mandated five milestones to establish a local energy
plan. He said that the 18-month product, the local climate action plan process, was presented under the
title “Carbon: Our Energy Future and You.” By voting to adopt the U.S. Cool Counties Climate
Stabilization Declaration, the County adopted the recommended goal to stop increasing emissions by
2010. Mr. Battig stated that as water vapor represents over 90% of the greenhouse gas effect, he
wondered if the County has begun to meet its own goals and how it is measuring its success in stabilizing
the climate here or anywhere. He asked if any of the Board members can tell him how they measure the
climate. He said that there has been no statistically significant global warming for 10 years and it is about
time they declare victory and move onto real problems. The public understands that they can save money
by using less money. Mr. Battig commented that everyone is in favor of lower energy costs and not
harming the environment.
He said that a speaker from Darden School of Business last month presented a slide supporting
claims of “unprecedented changes, dramatic changes, global warming, species extinctions, et cetera,” but
no proof was given of any of this and yet it was used to create a problem, demanding new ways of
thinking. Mr. Battig said that the speaker’s focus on projected world population growth as a “redo of the
doomsday population growth predictions of unprecedented disasters awaiting mankind” as in the Paul
Ehrlich book The Population Bomb. He stated that since the book was published in the mid-1960s, the
world population has increased from 3.5 billion to nearly 7 billion – but during that time lifespan has
increased, infant mortality is down, standards of living have improved, and food production has met
demand. Mr. Batting said that current perverse government policies mak e energy more expensive and
use less efficient fuel sources. He added that the book by Julian Simon, “Hoodwinking the Nation,”
includes information from Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus from U.Va.’s Department of Climatology and
Environmental Sciences, and he challenged the Board to read the book and invite Professor Singer to
address their climate concerns. He concluded by stating ICLE is part of the County’s government.
__________
Mr. Bruce Edmunds, a resident of Woolen Mills, asked the Board to take Option A off the table as
Option D is the best management plan. Mr. Edmunds said that the land directly across the River from the
existing site is County-owned and is nowhere near State Farm. He also stated that the $9 million cost
differential is questionable at best. There are no residential neighbors at Option D. They need an outside
engineering to get a true cost. The Army Corps of Engineers permit 404 is subject to appeal from EPA
Region Three. The current regulations would not allow the new 2.5-acre wide three story tall automatic
sewer-pumping plant. The 53 mgd is based on a questionable inflow and infiltration study commissioned
by RWSA in 2006. Option D is actually cheaper in the long term. Mr. Edmunds added that he is
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
requesting a County meeting with EPA and Corps engineering officials to discuss this proposed plant.
This is not an upgrade; it is a new plant.
__________
Ms. Karen Reifenberger, a resident of Crozet and employed by Piedmont Housing Alliance,
thanked the Board for their support of Fair Housing Month and their support of fair housing services
throughout the year. Ms. Reifenberger said that every April, PHA commemorates the passage of the
Federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, disability, and having children in the household – with Virginia’s law also including
elderliness. Even though there has been great progress in combating housing discrimination, Ms.
Reifenberger said it is important that they recognize that they need to vigilantly protect the ideals they
believe in because housing discrimination affects members of the community.
Ms. Reifenberger noted that PHA works throughout the year to raise awareness and promotes
compliance with fair housing laws through education sessions, public awareness ads, articles, partner
meetings, events and displays, and also fields calls inquiring about fair housing. She said that through a
partnership with the Regional Housing Directors Council, they will be providing fair housing children’s
books to each of the elementary schools – which will be presented to the School Board. It is a great study
with illustrations and discussion questions around the concept of fairness and welcoming community.
__________
Mr. Kirk Bowers addressed the Board, stating that the Pantops shopping center and the trails
organizations of the County are looking to develop the proposed new pump station location for the
enjoyment of everyone in the area. If you put a pump station there, the citizens won’t be able to use it;
they do not want it.
He also said that Plan 1 is the best redistricting option, with Plan 2 being divergent from the ideal
population as shown in the staff report. Mr. Bowers added that the redistricting makes Rivanna in
particular more Republican than they would like, and residents would like a more equal distribution. He
asked the Board to vote for Plan 1.
__________
Ms. Katie Chester, a resident of 1915 East Market Street, in the Woolen Mills area of the County,
expressed her support for Option D of the new pump station proposals. Ms. Chester said that residents
have been told before that technology would limit odors, but just two days ago when she was trying to read
outside in her hammock she had to go back inside because it smelled so disgusting. She added that they
are always playing catch-up, and it stinks. She said that she is upset to hear that the plans of one
company may be put ahead of hundreds of people’s quality of life. Ms. Chester said that the citizens’
quality of life is being compromised right now, and what is there now would not currently be approved – so
it seems that that situation is being taken advantage of. She emphasized that for this one issue everyone
in the neighborhood is on the same side; no one wants Option A.
__________
Mr. Karl Ackerman, a resident of 1611 East Market Street and Board member of the Woolen Mills
Neighborhood Association, said that the new facility would be brand new and built from the ground up, and
the idea of grandfathering the station into this spot is “to punt this down the line.” This facility is in the
wrong place. He stated that the upgrades are long overdue and the pump station should have been built
much closer to RWSA, but it is really unfair to City and County residents to operate from the point of view
that because there was a small station built there mistakenly there can now be a big one. Mr. Ackerman
emphasized that the neighbors and City Council are united on this issue, and they are not going to go
away. They will do everything to see that it is built in the right place although it will still be in their
backyards.
__________
Mr. Bill Emory addressed the Board, stating that Option A would locate the 53-mgd facility in a
regional park, in a neighborhood in the floodplain, next to a national historic district. He said that he
suggested to the RWSA Board last month that staff find a comparable plan – one that locates a plant
similarly – and if they are able to find a plan, let residents visit it. Mr. Emory encouraged the Board to
question the possibility of Option A in light of the vision of the 1998 Rivanna Roundtable Report. He stated
that if the practice of locating a sewage pumping plant of this magnitude in a park, in a neighborhood, and
in a floodplain, is not done, let’s not be the first locality to do it. He asked that the plant be located as far
as possible from this invaluable Rivanna gateway and from places of human habitation.
__________
Ms. Robin Haynes, a resident of 1709 East Market Street, said that she walks by the pumping
station twice a day and is not imagining odor, and in walking it with a staff member they could both smell it.
She said that she has identified the odor as coming from the vent from the scrubbers. She said that she
obtained 53 signatures in three days from people emphatically agreeing with me. Ms. Haynes stated that
no matter how airtight the giant building is, there will still be smells. It should not be a valid option to put
this machinery in any neighborhood. The location of Option D has a cliff above it – with State Farm above
that. She said that the area is still above the floodplain, which helps with the problem of the generator.
Ms. Haynes emphasized that Option A compromises jeopardizes the quality of life of a neighborhood and
a popular park. The neighborhood has already put up with this misplaced pumping station.
__________
Ms. Clara Belle Wheeler, a resident of Stony Point Road, said that it would be helpful to have
redistricting plans available when discussing it with the public. Ms. Wheeler said that it is important to
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
have districts and precincts where people with like needs and interests vote in contingencies to help each
other, and separating them into strange distributions of voting areas does not serve that purpose. There
are plans throughout the Commonwealth and in Albemarle County that give emphasis to gerrymandering.
She stated that cost is also a consideration, and redoing precincts for voting is an expensive proposition in
terms of paying election officials, buying new voting machines, drawing lines, and signage. Ms. Wheeler
asked the Board to consider those items when considering redistricting. There needs to be cohesiveness
in the voting districts so that the representatives represent the people of their district.
Ms. Mallek clarified that there would be a full public hearing on redistricting held in May, and this
work session is to determine which plan to take forward.
__________
Ms. Elizabeth Haire, a resident of 1750 Sourwood Place, encouraged the Board to vote for Plan 1
of the redistricting plans. She said that she has worked the Hollymead precinct polls for the last 15 years.
Ms. Haire said that the County has an extraordinary record of voter turnout, and Plan 2 will negatively
affect the number of voters who get to the polls as it trades voter turnout for political purposes. She stated
that splitting Keswick into two supervisors is expensive, unfair, geographically unjustifiable and basically
wrong.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that later today the Board will be
considering the Community Development’s work plan. In 2003 there were very good discussions
regarding critical slopes and adjusting the ordinance. Last night the Commission had a very contentious
public hearing about a critical slope’s ordinance. There were issues not really related to critical slopes that
were part of that discussion. He encouraged the Board to consider putting the critical slopes ordinance
revisions into the Community Development work plan.
__________
Mr. Robert Kusyk said that he was present to discuss Consent Agenda Item #7.2. He is
concerned that his family’s pet pigs are in violation of the County Code and that an agricultural animal
cannot be a valid member of a household. He said that there is nearly unanimous neighborhood support
for his animals, with endorsement from the Ednam Forest Homeowners’ President and letters of support
from many others – including the curator and senior historian of Monticello. Mr. Kusyk commented that he
hopes there will be further discussion of the issue toward the urban agricultural initiative.
__________
Ms. Victoria Dunham, President of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, said she has lived
in Woolen Mills for about 18 years, most of the time in the County. She commended Ms. Mallek on her
willingness to listen before she makes a decision. Ms. Dunham stated that if any Board members had
experienced what those residents had, they would not be laughing. She added that Mr. Frederick has
been responsive and done a good job in listening to the residents, but it took her 14 years to get the
composting facility move, noting that it was discovered to be the only facility of its kind within hum an
habitation on the East Coast. Ms. Dunham stated that ultimately, residents presented a Duke University
study on the effect of particulates on people living that close. She said that if Board members had spent
one year in their shoes they would understand their mistrust. There is a good reason they will not find a
facility of this size in a floodplain, in a park, in a residential neighborhood and in a historic district anywhere
in the United States. In addition, there has been a lot of misinformation presented. She added that the
County owns that land across the River – not State Farm. She does not think that land would be
developed by the shopping center. There are many more options for moving the pumping station along
that area if it is put across the River. She asked that they go to where there are more options; it is not
going to be anywhere near where people live. It is going to be much closer to the residents and their
homes than anyone on Pantops.
__________
Ms. Cynthia Neff, a resident of Pritchett Lane, in the Rivanna District, said that she has been
concerned with the redistricting discussion happening around the state. She said that Plan 1 makes
sense. Ms. Neff said that there is obviously gerrymandering happening with the plan that splits Keswick,
and she wonders what the purpose of that plan is and who put it on the table. She said that there is no
reason to take out Keswick just to merge Glenmore into the Rivanna District. She asked that the Board
support Plan 1.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Rooker asked if people who had spoken on transportation issues (Stony Point Pass and
Sunset Avenue) were planning to stay for the VDOT discussion. (Note: There was nodding from the
audience.)
Mr. Thomas asked if the Sunset Avenue project would be a City or County project.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board take action on the consent agenda and then discuss these issues
later.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve Consent Agenda Items
7.1 through 7.8, with the exception of Item 7.2 (discussion included under that agenda item), and to accept
the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: November 5(A), December 15(A) and December 21(A), 2010.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of November 5, 2010 and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of December 15, 2010 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of December 21, 2010 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were approved as read.
__________
Item No. 7.2. Citizen Proposed Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Allow
Domesticated Pigs in Residential Districts.
The executive summary states that this issue arose after Zoning staff received a complaint about
two “pet pigs” on the applicant’s private residential property (zoned R1) in the County. The applicant
obtained the American Guinea Hogs from out of state, after significant research about an appropriate
companion animal for the family. The Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish domesticated pigs from
agricultural swine. Because swine are only allowed in the Rural Areas and Village Residential districts
where agriculture is permitted by-right, Zoning issued an official determination of zoning violation. The
applicant, Mr. Robert Kusyk, appealed that determination and submitted a request for an ordinance
amendment to allow domesticated pigs as pets in the residential districts (Attachment A).
Zoning and Animal Control staff met with the applicant to discuss concerns about his proposed
ordinance amendment. The applicant wishes to pursue a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow pet pigs
in residential districts, notwithstanding staff’s recommendation for denial.
Community Development staff recognize that the issue of urban agriculture is timely and worthy of
further exploration during the County Comprehensive Plan review and update. Staff suggests that the
proposed zoning text amendment is premature until further study can occur regarding urban farming and
other types of agricultural animals, such as goats, chickens and ducks.
In its research of this proposal, the Animal Control Unit found several potential negative effects on
the community (See Attachment B):
1. Diseases – Pigs harbor parasites and diseases that can be transferred to humans.
Vaccines are not available for all of these dangers and domestic pigs are not regulated.
2. Destruction – Pigs have razor-like teeth and the males have tusks. Unrestrained pigs can
damage vegetation, habitat and personal property. Pigs can be territorial and aggressive
when they feel threatened by people or pets. They are difficult to contain and often
escape their enclosures. Pigs are herd animals and will roam, especially when a female
is in heat. Free-roaming pigs can quickly become feral because they easily adapt to their
surroundings.
3. Environmental – Pigs create an unpleasant smell and excrete high levels of nitrogen into
the soil and water.
4. Difficulty for Animal Control – Pigs are difficult to capture, often requiring the aid of a
trapper or experienced pig handler. Their size and weight make them difficult to contain
and transport in animal control trucks. Storage and housing are not available. Pigs’
owners rarely reclaim them and often abandon them when they become too large.
5. Proliferation – Most pigs are not neutered or spayed and start breeding at 3 months of
age. Females can have large (9-14 piglets) and frequent (3 times a year) litters.
In summary, there are numerous unresolved concerns about allowing domestic pigs in residential
districts. Staff believes that regulations to address the above concerns would have to be researched and
considered as part of an ordinance amendment. The Animal Control Unit is already at its capacity dealing
with the current animal-related issues in the County. Staff cannot identify an overwhelming public purpose
for this ordinance amendment that would outweigh both these concerns and the impact on the workload of
the Animal Control Unit.
If an ordinance is adopted to allow keeping of pigs in residential districts, staff anticipates the
necessity of some type of zoning permitting process. Administration and enforcement of the permit
would have an impact on Zoning staff; although the extent of that impact is difficult to estimate.
Zoning enforcement staffing is currently at a 57% reduction, and zoning complaints so far this year,
with three Code Enforcement Officers (CEOs) on staff, is at the same level as Zoning experienced
when there were five CEOs.
The Animal Control Unit is currently at its capacity to cover the entire County with four (4)
officers. (A fourth officer was recently added to cover the existing workload). While staff cannot
estimate the specific workload impact, it is staff’s opinion that adoption of this ordinance would
increase the workload of the Animal Control Unit. Dealing with a call about a domestic pig, especially
if it must be captured, requires more than one officer to respond, as well as the need for trapping
equipment and holding facilities, which the Animal Control Unit does not currently have.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Staff recommends that the Board deny the request for a resolution of intent and defer any further
consideration of this issue and any related issues to the Comprehensive Plan review. However, if the
Board wishes to pursue the request sooner, staff recommends that the Board prioritize this request in the
Community Development Work Plan and provide staff adequate time to further research the relevant
issues prior to scheduling a Board work session.
_____
Mr. Boyd said that he needs some clarification on this item. His understanding is that the Board
will not move forward with this if the consent agenda is approved.
Ms. Mallek asked if this issue could be incorporated as part of the urban agriculture discussion of
the Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. Davis responded that it would not be moved forward at this time, but would be incorporated as
part of that discussion.
Mr. Thomas asked why it just applies to pigs. Mr. Davis explained that the resolution of intent
proposed only addressed that issue, but staff is stating that it is a larger issue – as the applicant
recognizes – pertaining to urban agriculture and best addressed in the Comp Plan review.
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, confirmed that it would involve other livestock in
terms of urban agriculture, as well as community gardening.
Mr. Snow asked if the Board’s action would shut the door on the applicant being able to have their
pet pigs or would it come back as an amendment.
Ms. McCulley responded that it would be delayed until it is addressed as part of the Comp Plan
review. The pig owners have already received a notice of violation. She said that the only option they
have is to appeal to the BZA or relocate the pets temporarily until the matter is addressed in the Comp
Plan.
Mr. Davis said if the pigs are in the County they would have to be relocated to a rural area zoning
district.
Mr. Snow said that he would like to remove this item from the Consent Agenda and vote on it
separately.
__________
Item No. 7.3. FY2011 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.
With the exception of appropriation #2011073, which moves funding within the FY 2011 budget,
the total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below is $419,875.66. 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 five (5) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
Two (2) appropriations (#2011070 and #2011072) totaling $42,148.46 for various School
Division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011071) totaling $187,727.20 to reappropriate funding for the
purchase of replacement vehicles for the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2011073) totaling $3,000.00 from the Board’s contingency
reserve to fund expenses associated with the 2011 Prisoner Reentry Summit to be held in
April 2011. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011074) totaling $190,000.00 in Safe Routes to Schools Grant
funding from the Virginia Department of Transportation for an extension of the Crozet
North Sidewalk improvements.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $419,875.66 and the
approval of Appropriations #2011070, #2011071, #2011072, #2011073, and #2011074.
*****
Appropriation #2011070 $40,294.95
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 7,000.00
State Revenue $ 20,830.00
Federal Revenue $ 12,464.95
This request is for the following three School Division grants appropriations:
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded an additional $12,464.95 for Migrant Education Programs
(MEP) under a United States Department of Education (USED) Literacy Education and Reading Network -
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
2-Succeed (LEARN-2-Succeed) Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG). The mission of the Migrant CIG is to
provide teachers with tools for quickly assessing and providing supplemental research-based lessons to
Migrant students in order to improve their foundational literacy skills. Educators use the website to quickly
identify individual student literary needs and access instructional lessons designed to improve specific
literacy skills in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Migrant CIG supports the assessment of
literacy skills needs and the provision of supplemental tutoring.
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Housing Community Development in the amount of $20,830.00. The GED and Beyond Grant will provide
individuals who are close to completing their GED, and those who have recently received a GED, the
opportunity to participate in Employability Skills and Access to Career Pathways Workshops. These
workshops will be held at the Virginia Workforce Center in the afternoon and Albemarle High School in the
evening. The workshops will focus on supporting clients’ successful transition into employment and/or into
higher education or licensure programs. The workshops will include speakers from local employers, the
Virginia Workforce Center, CATEC, PVCC, and UVA. Students will develop resumes, cover letters, and
thank you letters as a part of the workshop series and will participate in mock interviews with Human
Resources representatives from local companies. All participants will have the opportunity to utilize
technology to search for job openings, apply for positions, and participate in on-line registration for
courses in higher education.
Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a grant in the amount of $7,000 from Charlottesville
Area Community Foundation for the Families in Crisis Program. The mission of the Families in Crisis
Program is to provide an effective structure to meet the needs of homeless students, whose families are
in crisis, ensuring they receive equitable access to Division services in support of the Division’s strategic
plan. The Families in Crisis Program supports the following major programs and/or services: tutoring,
transportation to the school of origin, counseling, collaboration with schools, assistance with school
registration and collaboration with service agencies.
Appropriation #2011071 $187,727.20
Revenue Source: Fund Balance (Vehicle Replacement Fund) $ 187,727.20
This request reappropriates $187,727.20 in fund balance from the Vehicle Replacement Fund to provide
funding for Police replacement vehicles which were approved in FY 09/10. Although this process was
initiated towards the end of FY 09/10, due to the timing of the purchase and receipt of these vehicles, this
expense was charged in FY 10/11.
Appropriation #2011072 $1,853.51
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 1,853.51
This request is for two School Division appropriations:
First, this request is to appropriate a donation received by Stone Robinson Elementary School in the
amount of $100.00. This donation was made in memory of Jeanette and T. R. Fuller, parents of Mike and
Kathy Fuller. Kathy Fuller is a teacher at Stone Robinson Elementary. The donor requested that the
memory of Jeanette and T.R. be honored by this donation to Kathy’s school. Their contribution will be
used to purchase any instructional supplies needed at Stone Robinson Elementary.
Second, this request is to appropriate a donation that Henley Middle School received in the amount of
$1,753.51 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support Organization. The donor has requested that their
contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the months of December
2010 and January 2011 at Henley Middle School.
Appropriation #2011073 $0.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency Reserve $3,000.00
This appropriation provides $3,000 from the Board of Supervisors’ Contingency Reserve to fund costs
associated with the 2011 Prisoner Reentry Summit to be held in April 2011. The purpose of the Summit is
to promote awareness, provide education and training, and facilitate improved coordination of reentry
services to prisoners and ex-offenders in the community. This request was brought before the Board at its
March 9, 2011 meeting, at which time the Board directed staff to prepare an appropriation for this amount
and purpose. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
Appropriation #2011074 $190,000.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $190,000.00
This request appropriates a total of $190,000.00 in grant revenue received by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. VDOT awarded the County a Safe Routes to Schools Grant for an extension of the Crozet
North Sidewalk improvements. This improves walking and bicycling routes to Crozet Elementary School
for students from residential neighborhoods by funding the design and construction of curb and sidewalk
on the west side of Crozet Avenue from Ballard Drive to the school. The improvements also include
installation of a manually activated crosswalk warning system at the pedestrian crossing to the school.
The grant will be administered by the Office of Facilities Development. There is no match required.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$419,875.66 and the approval of Appropriations #2011070, #2011071, #2011072, #2011073, and
#2011074.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011070
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/6/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting - February 3, 2011
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 3173 33000 330073 REVENUE MIGRANT
CONSORTIUM
INCENTIVE GRANT
J 2 12,464.95
1 3173 61101 132100 P/T WAGES TEACHER J 1 11,579.15
1 3173 61101 210000 FICA J 1 885.80
3173 0501 EST. REVENUE 12,464.95
0702 APPROPRIATION 12,464.95
2 3222 24000 240322 REVENUE GED &
BEYOND
J 2 20,830.00
1 3222 61101 111400 SALARIES-OTHER
MANAGEMENT
J 1 3,358.00
1 3222 61101 132100 P/T WAGES TEACHER J 1 9,819.00
1 3222 61101 210000 FICA J 1 1,008.00
1 3222 61101 221000 VRS J 1 320.00
1 3222 61101 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE J 1 304.00
1 3222 61101 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE J 1 11.00
1 3222 61101 241000 GROUP LIFE INSURANCE J 1 10.00
1 3222 61101 540200 LEASE/RENT BUILDINGS J 1 6,000.00
3222 0501 EST. REVENUE 20,830.00
0702 APPROPRIATION 20,830.00
2 3304 18000 189900 REVENUE FAMILIES IN
CRISIS GRANT
J 2 7,000.00
1 3304 61101 21000 FICA J 1 153.00
1 3304 61101 132100 P/T WAGES TEACHER J 1 2,000.00
1 3304 61101 579001 HOUSING ASSIST.
PAYMENTS
J 1 1,500.00
1 3304 61101 580004 MISC EXP-HOMELESS J 1 2,347.00
1 3304 61101 601300 EDUC. & RECREATIONS
SUP
J 1 1,000.00
3304 0501 EST. REVENUE 7,000.00
0702 APPROPRIATION 7,000.00
TOTAL 80,589.90 40,294.95 40,294.95
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011071
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/6/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation - Vehicle Replacement Fund
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 9200 31013 800500 Motor Vehicles J 1 187,727.20
2 9200 51000 510100 Appropriation - Fund
Balance
J 2 187,727.20
9200 0501 Est. Revenue 187,727.20
0701 Appropriation 187,727.20
TOTAL 375,454.40 187,727.20 187,727.20
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011072
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/6/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: School Board Meeting - February 24, 2011
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 2000 18100 181109 Donations J 2 1,853.51
1 2210 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies J 1 100.00
1 2252 61101 160300 Stipends-Instructional J 1 1,628.90
1 2252 61101 210000 FICA J 1 124.61
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
2000 0501 EST. REVENUE 1,853.51
0702 APPROPRIATION 1,853.51
TOTAL 3,707.02 1,853.51 1,853.51
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011073
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/6/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: 2011 Prisoner Rentry Summit
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
1 1000 J 1 3,000.00
1 1000 95000 999990 BOS Contingency J 1 (3,000.00)
TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00
*****
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APP # 2011074
APPROPRIATION DATE 4/6/2011
BATCH#
EXPLANATION: VDOT Safe Routes to Schools Grant: Crozet Ave North Sidewalk Improvements
SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
2 9010 J 2 190,000.00
3-9010- (New Code)
1 9010 41350 950514 Sidewalk-Crozet Ave North J 1 190,000.00
4-9010-41350-441200-950514-9999 (New Code)
TOTAL 190,000.00 0.00 0.00
__________
Item No. 7.4. FY11 Second Quarter Financial Report.
The executive summary states that the attached Financial Report provides information on the
County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of December 31, 2010. The financial report
includes a bar chart that compares current fiscal year revenue and expenditure data with data from the
previous fiscal year.
($ in Millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Financial Report:
a. Revenues:
Revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, are estimated to total
$211.951 million, $1.414 million (0.7%) more than appropriations of $210.537 million.
Combined with the use of $2.392 million in transfers from other funds and $0.806 million
in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund Balance will total $215.149
million, $1.080 million (0.5%) more than Budget.
Recent economic data continues to point toward moderate growth. Both consumer and
business confidence has improved. GDP grew 2.8% in the fourth quarter of 2010. This
marked the sixth consecutive quarter of growth since the recession officially ended in
June 2009. Employment has improved. Initial claims for unemployment have decreased.
The Conference Board’s index of leading indicators rose for the sixth consecutive
monthly increase. The Virginia Leading Index rose for its second consecutive monthly
increase. Virginia sales tax continues to grow as consumers cautiously increase
discretionary spending.
Following is a brief revenue analysis for the FY11 fiscal year:
Real Estate Tax revenues are projected to be $0.801 million (0.7%) less than
Budget, a decrease of $0.367 million from the previous Financial Report. The
FY11 Budget was based on negative 0.50% 2011 tax year reassessment rate.
The final 2011 tax year reassessment rate was a negative 1.24%. A Tax Year is
equivalent to a calendar year. Its effects are realized over 2 consecutive fiscal
years with the 1st half in one fiscal year and the 2nd half in the next fiscal year. A
1.0% change in the reassessment rate is equivalent to $1.316 million in real
estate tax revenues for the 2011 tax year.
Personal Property Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.049
million (0.3%), a decrease of $0.120 million from the previous Financial Report.
The immediate impact of the Cash for Clunkers program has faded out over time.
Delinquent Property Taxes & Fees are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.422
million (18.1%), an increase of $0.126 million over the previous Financial Report.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Additional compliance enforcement through the DMV Stop and Department of
TAX Set-off Debt programs has generated additional revenues. Delinquent fees
previously implemented have also encouraged payment of delinquent taxes to
avoid additional fees.
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.930 million (8.4%), an
increase of $0.100 million over the previous Financial Report. The overall impact
is due to both increased consumer purchases as well as our auditor findings.
Taxpayers continue to be cautious but have begun to slightly increase
discretionary spending as the economy improves. The auditor has identified
$0.724 million in misallocated sales tax revenues which have been approved by
the state to be transferred to Albemarle from other localities over a six month
period with an additional estimated $0.293 million in process. On-going annual
receipts should increase approximately $0.287 million based on the approved
adjustments. Significant revenues continue to be lost to internet purchases and
consumer purchases in adjacent localities.
Business License, BPOL, revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.114
million (1.2%), a $0.153 million decrease from the previous Financial Report.
BPOL revenues are based on gross receipts for the previous year which usually
lag current sales tax revenues by a year.
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.247 million (2.7%), an
increase of $0.178 million over the previous Financial Report. The increase is
due to anticipated additional revenues resulting from recent cold winter
conditions.
Food and Beverage Tax revenues are estimated to be $0.350 million (6.2%) less
than Budget, a $0.143 million decrease from the previous Financial Report.
Consumers are continuing to eat more at home and visiting restaurants less
frequently.
Other Local Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.131 million (2.5%),
an increase of $0.115 million over the previous Financial Report. We are
beginning to see additional development revenues as recent fee increases have
been implemented.
State Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.446 million (2.0%), a
$0.052 million decrease from the previous Financial Report. The excess over
Budget is due to additional funding for constitutional offices approved by the
General Assembly subsequent to approval of this Budget as well as increased
reimbursements for DSS services.
Federal Revenues are estimated to exceed Budget by $0.242 million (5.5%), an
increase of $0.166 million over the previous Financial Report. The increase is
primarily due to increased reimbursements for DSS services.
Uses of Other Funds transfers are estimated to be $0.334 million (12.2%) less
than Budget, an increase of $0.025 million over the previous Financial Report.
The number of School Resource Officers has been reduced to 3.
Revenue categories with variances of less than $0.100 million from Budget have
not been analyzed for this report.
b. Expenditures:
General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are expected to total $211.722 million, a
1.1% savings of $2.347 million from Budget. The savings include frozen positions,
reduced health care expense, VRS savings, additional Police salary lapse, and release of
the revenue shortfall contingency.
i. Departmental expenditures are expected to total $78.869 million, a 1.6% savings
of $1.262 million from Budget: The savings are allocated by functional area as
follows:
Administration expenditures are expected to total $10.394 million, a
savings of $0.098 million.
Judicial expenditures are expected to total $3.790 million, a savings of
$0.124 million.
Public Safety expenditures are expected to total $28.869 million, a
savings of $0.522 million.
Public Works expenditures are expected to total $4.390 million, a savings
of $0.140 million.
Human Services expenditures are expected to total $18.992 million, a
savings of $0.246 million.
Parks and Culture expenditures are expected to total $6.214 million, a
savings of $0.036 million.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Community Development expenditures are expected to total $6.221
million, a savings of $0.096 million.
ii. Non-Department expenditures consisting of the revenue sharing payment,
reserves, and refunds are expected to total $19.816 million, a savings of $1.085
million including release of the revenue contingency reserve.
iii. Transfers are expected to equal Budget at $113.037 million:
Transfer to the School Division is expected to be $96.058 million.
Transfers to the Capital and Debt funds are $16.979 million.
c. Revenues less Expenditures:
This report projects that the fiscal year will end with $3.427 million of revenues in excess
of expenditures. Revenues and related transfers are projected to exceed Budget by
$1.080 million. Expenditures and related transfers are expected to produce $2.347
million in savings.
.
B. Attachment B: General Fund Budget Comparison Report:
The chart report tracks changes in revenues and expenditures over time.
Revenues:
Personal Property Tax, Sales Tax, Utility Tax, Other Local Revenue, and Federal
Revenue show positive growth over FY10.
Real Estate Tax, Business License, Food and Beverage Tax, Other Local Taxes, State
Revenue, Transfers from Other Funds, and Use of Fund Balance show decreases from
FY10.
Expenditures:
Administration, Judicial, Public Safety, Public Works, Human Services, Parks & Culture,
Community Development, and Non-Departmental expenditures show anticipated
increases over FY10.
Non-School and School Transfers show anticipated decreases from FY10.
C. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report:
The report indicates that the County:
Had an Audited FY10 Undesignated Fund Balance of $24.56 million,
Appropriated $0.807 million for Budgeted FY11 Initiatives and Reappropriations,
Has a remaining June 30, 2010 Fund Balance of $23.759 million,
Has no proposed FY11 commitments,
Has Policy required reserves of $20.905 million, and
Has available funds of $2.854 million as of June 30, 2010.
The $20.905 million Policy reserve consists of the 8% net General Government and School
Operating Budget requirement. It does not include the estimated $2.613 Revenue Stabilization reserve
which has not been formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors. It is anticipated that the policy with
specifics will be presented to the Board for discussion and approval in late summer or early fall. Had the
Policy been adopted, the June 30, 2010 available Fund Balance would be $0.241 million.
D. Budget Impact:
This Financial Report is based on audited FY10 financial data and six months of financial data for
FY11. Staff has utilized these figures as the basis for the FY12 Budget.
This report has been prepared for your information. No action is required.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board received the FY11 Second Quarter Financial
Report.
__________
Item No. 7.5. Update on Regional Cooperation Committees: Departments of Social Services and
Fire/Rescue, and to Review the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement and Local Composite Index.
The executive summary states that at the conclusion of the April 24, 2010 City/County meeting
convened by Delegate David Toscano to discuss regional cooperation, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council agreed to further evaluate the possible consolidation of their
Departments of Social Services and Fire/Rescue as well as consider the Revenue Sharing/Annexation
Agreement & Local Composite Index. Subsequent to this meeting, the City Manager and County Executive
formed committees to evaluate the Departments of Social Services and Fire Rescue and worked with both
School Superintendents to establish the Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index
Committee.
Both the Fire/Rescue and Department of Social Services committees were charged with exploring
the consolidation of City/County Departments, thereby yielding “increased level of services in both
jurisdictions at the same cost or providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of
both jurisdictions”, a key working principle established by Delegate Toscano for the April 24th City/County
meeting. The purpose of the Revenue Sharing/ Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index
committee was to examine the history of the Revenue Sharing/ Annexation Agreement, review the Local
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Composite Index and its impact on the school systems and determine if common ground can be reached
on the lingering concerns over both agreements.
This report provides the Board of Supervisors with summary reports from both the Fire/Rescue
and Social Service subcommittees and a review of the work completed by the Revenue
Sharing/Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index committee.
Departments of Social Services
Prior to convening a committee to evaluate the consolidation of the Departments of Social
Services, staff presented to the Board background material and a list of challenges such a measure could
create for the County at the Board’s July 7, 2010 meeting, after which the Board of Supervisors:
Concurred with the concept of the County Executive convening a meeting with City and
County staff to review the information presented in the July 7, 2010 Executive Summary
and discuss the challenges consolidation will pose to both jurisdictions.
Concluded that while it would be good to meet and review this matter with the City, the
obstacles to achieving consolidation are numerous and therefore may not merit moving
forward with further evaluation.
The City/County committee, consisting of Councilors Huja and Edwards and Board members
Dorrier and Snow, as well as Mike Murphy, Diane Kuknyo, Bryan Elliott and Kathy Ralston, met on August
16, 2010 and January 10, 2011. Based upon the research and material reviewed by the committee, the
consolidation of the two Departments was determined to be not viable; however, the committee makes the
following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and City Council:
Continue to seek further avenues of collaboration and partnership, and present
opportunities for the elected bodies to support such endeavors.
Provide opportunities to bring the advisory boards for the respective jurisdictions together
to explore areas of collaboration.
Explore the creation of dedicated personnel to the increasingly demanding area of
emergency operations planning and preparedness.
Share resources that allow for an effective response to the English as a Second
Language (ESL) population.
Provide opportunities for the elected bodies to join in their legislative efforts on matters
that impact Social Services and related human services.
This committee’s full report is found in “Attachment A.”
Departments of Fire Rescue
This subcommittee, consisting of Councilors Brown and Edwards and Board members Mallek and
Thomas as well as Aubrey Watts, Chief Charles Werner, Bryan Elliott, Chief Dan Eggleston and Chief Tim
Cersley met four (4) times between June and December 2010. The purpose of the committee was to
expand collaboration and cooperation between the Albemarle County Department of Fire/Rescue and
Charlottesville City Fire Department to enhance the delivery of fire/rescue services to the citizens and
visitors of both jurisdictions by building upon efforts launched by Chiefs Eggleston & Werner in the
summer of 2009. Those efforts include:
Create a joint technology Request for Proposals
Continue to standardize policies, practices and equipment
Coordinate business inspection programs
Share resources for juvenile fire setter, public education, and investigation programs
Establish an Incident Command Team to help manage significant events
Further develop joint policies/programs for the Regional HazMat Team
Conduct a regional hiring process
Schedule additional joint continuing education programs for Fire and EMS
Develop a Fire RMS knowledge sharing team
Merge Fire/EMS incident dispatch and combined ECC operations
The committee concluded that consolidation of City/County Departments would not yield
“increased level of services in both jurisdictions at the same cost or providing the same level of service at
a lower cost to the taxpayers of both jurisdictions.” The committee agreed to continue to meet and
discuss matters of mutual concern on an ongoing basis.
This committee’s full report is found in “Attachment B.”
Revenue Sharing/Annexation Agreement & Local Composite Index
This committee was comprised of the following representatives from each locality:
Charlottesville Albemarle
Dave Norris, Mayor Ken Boyd, County Supervisor
Kristen Szakos, City Councilor Dennis Rooker, County Supervisor
Leah Puryear, School Board Chair Eric Strucko, School Board Vice Chair
Ned Michie, School Board Member Bob Tucker, County Executive
Maurice Jones, Acting City Manager Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive
Craig Brown, City Attorney Larry Davis, County Attorney
This committee met on August 25, 2010 and at the conclusion of the meeting issued a joint
statement indicating that future discussions related to this matter should focus primarily on the local
composite index and its affect on the Albemarle and Charlottesville school systems. The committee
further indicated that the next set of deliberations should occur largely between representatives of the two
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
school divisions, who were asked to provide regular progress reports to this committee. The full
statement of the committee is found in “Attachment C.”
While the committees formed to study the consolidation of City/County Departments of Social
Services and Fire/Rescue found that consolidation would not yield “increased level of services in both
jurisdictions at the same cost or providing the same level of service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of
both jurisdictions” both acknowledge the extensive levels of cooperation and regional support between the
jurisdictions. The cooperation displayed by both
Fire/Rescue and Social Services, coupled with partnerships in such other areas as emergency
communications, parks and recreation services, libraries, the airport, and joint jail/juvenile detention
services provide citizens in both jurisdictions with cost efficient and effective core governmental services.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the findings of the attached reports
regarding the Departments of Fire/Rescue and Social Services and in conjunction with City Council
communicate these findings to Delegate Toscano. Regarding the Revenue Sharing/Annexation
Agreement and Local Composite Index, the County Executive and City Manager have requested updates
from their respective School Superintendents.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board accepted the findings of the reports regarding the
Departments of Fire/Rescue and Social Services and in conjunction with City Council
communicate these findings to Delegate Toscano.
__________
Item No. 7.6. Resolution Urging Revenue Stream and Dedicated Revenue Source for the Intercity
Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund.
By the above-recorded vote, and at the request of the Chair, the Board adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION URGING REVENUE STREAM AND DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE FOR THE
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL OPERATING AND CAPITAL FUND
WHEREAS, Virginia’s first state-supported intercity passenger rail service between Lynchburg and
Washington, DC and continuing to New York and Boston as an extension of Amtrak’s Northeast Regional
System began serving communities on Virginia’s Piedmont Rail Corridor on October 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, The Lynchburg-DC passenger train serves stations in Lynchburg, Charlottesville,
Culpeper, Manassas, Alexandria and Fairfax County; and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC intercity passenger service has proven to be extraordinarily
successful, achieving 253% of its first-year ridership goal and 246% of its first-year revenue goal in its first
twelve months of operation; and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC train has provided mobility and access to convenient, reliable and
affordable alternative transportation for over 126,000 Virginia passengers since it began service; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak has called the Lynchburg-DC train its “Best performing state-supported train in
Amtrak’s system in terms of cost recovery;” and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC train has contributed positively to the transportation system, economic
well-being, economic development, business climate, tourism and quality of life of communities throughout the
US29 Corridor from Danville to Northern Virginia; and
WHEREAS, it is vitally important to Virginia’s citizens, businesses, universities, defense and tourism
industries on the US29 Corridor that the Lynchburg-DC train continue to be operated and continue to grow,
including extensions to Roanoke and Southwest Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Lynchburg-DC train is operated under a three-year contract between the
Commonwealth of Virginia and Amtrak in which the Commonwealth pays the direct operating costs of the
service not covered by fare revenues attributable to Virginia passengers; and
WHEREAS, a second state-supported train between Richmond, VA and Washington, DC, also an
extension of the Amtrak’s Northeast Regional System, began service on July 20, 2010 and is also included in
the three-year contract between Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Virginia where operating costs and
revenues of all state funded trains are combined as one state-funded regional intercity passenger rail network;
and
WHEREAS, according to DRPT Director, Thelma Drake, “A key challenge facing the new service is
the availability of operating funds. Virginia has no dedicated source of state rail operating funds today.
Governor McDonnell and the General Assembly authorized up to $6.0 million in Rail Enhancement Funds to
support operating costs through the Demonstration Period, but there is not sufficient funding identified beyond
FY 2011;” and
WHEREAS, although the Rail Enhancement Fund has a dedicated source of funds in State Vehicle
Rental Tax revenues, these funds can only be appropriated for the capital costs of rail projects and cannot
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
legally be used for passenger rail operations, and therefore there is no legal mechanism in the State Code to
provide for the operating costs of intercity and high speed passenger rail; and
WHEREAS, Section 209 of the Federal “Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act” of 2008
(PRIIA) will require that in addition to the two state funded regional trains the state assume the operating and
capital costs of four existing intercity corridor trains that are now funded by Amtrak but are not part of Amtrak’s
national routes, thus escalating the state’s obligations to pay for intercity passenger rail services if these
services are to continue; and
WHEREAS, the 2010 General Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution 63 (SJ63) directing DRPT to
evaluate potential state operating fund sources and to report back to the General Assembly before the
beginning of the 2011 session; and
WHEREAS, the resulting report, “Funding Strategies for State-Sponsored Intercity and High Speed
Passenger Rail” (Senate Document 14), submitted on November 23, 2010, outlined possible steps the
Commonwealth could take to ensure the sustainability and stability of funding for existing and future
expansions of state-supported passenger rail; and
WHEREAS, every transportation modality, including highways, transit, air transportation, ports and
waterways requires public subsidies in order to pay the costs of construction, maintenance and operation; and
WHEREAS, continuing to support and expand intercity and high speed passenger rail in the
Commonwealth is a key to Virginia’s global competitiveness and continued prosperity; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 General Assembly passed legislation establishing an Intercity Passenger Rail
Operating and Capital Fund in the State Code of Virginia for the purpose of providing the legal mechanism and
conduit for any funds appropriated by the General Assembly for the purposes of providing for intercity
passenger rail capital projects and costs of continued and expanded intercity passenger rail operations;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors urges the
Virginia Secretary of Transportation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a funding
stream that provides for increased needs for funding existing and future state-supported intercity and high
speed passenger rail operations and capital, (including and most urgently the existing state-supported
Northeast Regional Services between Lynchburg and Washington, DC and its future extensions, and between
Richmond and Washington, DC and its future extensions), as outlined in the SJ63 Report; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors urges Governor
McDonnell, Secretary of Transportation Connaughton, Department of Rail and Public Transportation Director
Drake and the Virginia General Assembly to work together to create a dedicated revenue source that is
sustainable and will provide for the continuation and expansion of intercity and high speed passenger rail in
the Commonwealth after review and consideration of potential funding mechanisms as described in DRPT’s
SJ63 Report, “Funding Strategies for State-Sponsored Intercity and High Speed Passenger Rail.”
__________
Item No. 7.7. Resolution to Accept Road(s) in West End at Western Ridge Subdivision into the
State Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the
following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 6th day of
April 2011, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in West End at Western Ridge Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 6, 2011, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded
in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in West End at Western Ridge Subdivision,
as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated April 6, 2011, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Park Ridge Court (State Route 1326) from the intersection of Route 1250 (Park Ridge
Drive) west to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3526, pages 280-300, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
2) Park Ridge Drive (State Route 1250) from the intersection of Route 1326 (Park Ridge
Court) southwest end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3526, pages 280-300, with a 60-foot right-
of-way width, for a length of 0.02 miles.
3) Park Ridge Court (State Route 1327) from the intersection of Route 1250 (Park Ridge
Drive) east to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3526, pages 280-300, with a 50-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
4) Park Ridge Drive (State Route 1250) from the intersections of Route 1258 and Route 1251
southwest to the intersection of Route 1326 (park Ridge Court), as shown on plat recorded in
the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3526, pages 280-300,
with a 60-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.27
__________
Item No. 7.8. Set public hearing for May 4, 2011 to consider an Amendment to County Code,
Appendix A.1, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program (ACE).
The executive summary states that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee
is charged with reviewing the program’s ordinance and recommending to the Board of Supervisors any
changes needed to maintain the program’s consistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and
policies, and/or to improve the administration, implementation and effectiveness of the program.
The ACE Committee has been reviewing the ACE Ordinance over the past two years, focusing on
the effectiveness of the ranking evaluation criteria for identifying those properties most worthy of
protection by a conservation easement.
As a result of its review, the Committee recommends the following changes to the ACE
Ordinance:
Require that any identified resource be protected – Under the current practice, if a
resource is identified on a property, owners are required to protect that resource only if
they elect to receive ACE ranking points during the evaluation process for having that
resource. This owner election leaves open the possibility that an ACE easement could
leave an identified resource unprotected. To fill this gap, the ACE Committee
recommends that both the award of points and the protection of all identified resources be
made mandatory. (§§ A.1-108(C)(1), (C)(3), and (C)(8); § A.1-109(B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(4),
and (B)(5)) While this approach may deter some applicants, it sets a higher standard that
will enhance the overall quality and value of ACE easements.
Amend the ACE ranking criteria as follows:
o Proration of ACE ranking points -- Clarify that ACE ranking points be prorated, as
they are already required to be “rounded to the first decimal.” (§ A.1-108)
o Parcel size -- Increase the points awarded for parcels over 200 acres from 1
point per 50 acres over 200 acres to 2 points per 50 acres over 200 acres. (§ A.1-
108(A)(2)) This recommendation is to reward larger properties that tend to cost
less per acre so that the County can protect more acres per dollar.
o Parcels threatened with forced sale -- Reduce the award of ACE ranking points
from five to three for parcels threatened with forced sale. (§ A.1-108(B)(2))
o Working family farms (§ A.1-108(C)(2))
Redefine “family member” in § A.1-103(A)(5) to clarify for which family
members applicants may receive “working family farm” points, to
encompass second cousins and closer relatives as family members.
Award one additional ACE ranking point for certified Virginia Century
Farms, which have been in operation for at least 100 consecutive years.
o Artifacts -- Remove the award of ACE ranking points for artifacts. ACE ranking
points would still be awarded for sites of archaeological or architectural
significance. (§ A.1-108(C)(4)) Unless the term “artifact” is defined more
specifically, it may be too general and inclusive of a term, rewarding items that
may not be significant.
o Natural heritage/biodiversity -- Remove the award of ACE ranking points for mere
proximity to an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory. (§ A.1-
108(C)(5)) Since proximity to an occurrence could have little or no bearing on
protecting it (depending on the type of occurrence), the Committee believed that
this criterion was too vague and potentially ineffective, especially if the resource
were on someone else’s property.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
o Ragged Mountain Reservoir Watershed -- Award ACE ranking points for parcels
within the Ragged Mountain Reservoir Watershed. (§ A.1-108(C)(7)) This was
inadvertently omitted from the original list of protected watersheds.
o Voluntary stream buffers – Outside of the identified watersheds and streams,
owners would still elect whether to have voluntary stream buffers, and to receive
ACE ranking points accordingly. For voluntary stream buffers, the ACE
Committee is recommending that the buffer measurement requirements of the
three designations for which ACE ranking points are awarded be rounded-up to
the cut-off widths of 35, 50, and 100 feet wide, respectively. (§ A.1-108(C)(9))
The ACE Committee recommends the following changes to the Deeds of easement:
Mountain resources – Clarify the correct name of the Mountain Design Standards in the
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan (§ A.1-
109(B)(1))
Dwellings along scenic highways or byways -- Clarify that on parcels fronting scenic
highways or byways, dwellings may be located within 250 feet of the highway or byway
only if the dwelling is not visible from the scenic highway or byway at any time of the year.
(§ A.1-109(B)(2))
Protected stream buffers -- Require stream buffers for any parcel awarded points for
being located in a watershed or along a stream named in § A.1-108(C)(7). (§ A.1-
109(B)(3))
Dwellings along scenic rivers -- Clarify that on parcels fronting scenic rivers, dwellings
may be located within 250 feet of the river only if the dwelling is not visible from the scenic
river at any time of the year. (§ A.1-109(B)(4))
Sites of archaeological or architectural significance -- Require that no site of
archaeological or architectural significance under an ACE easement be razed,
demolished or moved unless approved by the County and the PRFA. (§ A.1-109(B)(5))
Voluntary stream buffers -- Require stream buffers where owners requested that the
parcel be awarded ACE ranking points for having a voluntary stream buffer. (§ A.1-
109(B)(6))
Funding for the purchase of ACE conservation easements comes from the Capital Improvements
Program (CIP): Planning-Conservation fund (budget line-item 9010-81010-580409). The proposed
amendments will not have a direct budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing for May 4, 2011 to consider the
proposed changes to the ACE Ordinance. (Attachment A).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board scheduled the public hearing for May 4, 2011 to
consider proposed changes to the ACE Ordinance.
__________
Item No. 7.9. EMS Cost Recovery Program Update, was received for information.
The executive summary states that on September 9, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance
authorizing the County to charge fees for emergency medical service (EMS) vehicle transports provided
by the Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer rescue squad that applied for and was issued a
permit to charge fees. The Board directed staff to establish a billing system to be operable by February 1,
2010.
Soon after the Board’s September 9, 2009 meeting, the County procured the services of
Diversified Ambulance Billing (now known as Fidelis Billing) to act as the billing agent for the County and
Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad (“SVRS”), the only volunteer rescue squad that applied for and was
issued a permit to charge fees. The Board adopted a Resolution to establish fees for EMS transports on
December 2, 2009. Staff and members of SVRS worked together to develop and implement an extensive
public information plan to inform the public about the EMS Cost Recovery program. On February 1, 2010,
ambulances stationed at Monticello, Hollymead, and Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad began billing for
EMS transports.
On August 4th, 2010, staff provided an update to the Board on the EMS Cost Recovery program
for the five months of billing in FY10. Staff’s report addressed citizen feedback, administrative workload for
SVRS and County staff, FY10 actual revenue, and FY11 revenue projections.
At the Board’s request, staff is providing an update of the first year of billing (February 1, 2010 –
January 31, 2011) as well as an updated revenue projection for FY11.
Citizen Feedback:
Staff continues to monitor customer feedback to ensure that the program is operating properly.
Since the August 4, 2010 report to the Board, there have been only two inquiries reported to the Fire
Rescue office; the first inquiry was related to an incorrect Medicare number and the other was a request
for a copy of the signed transport form.
In addition, Fidelis began conducting customer satisfaction surveys, and as of this date, their
customer service rating remains high. Fidelis has not received any complaints about Albemarle County’s
EMS billing program.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Administrative Workload:
On November 23, 2010, the County signed a new one-year contract with Fidelis. Last year,
County and Scottsville ambulances moved from a paper based patient care report system to a computer
based system. The paper-to-computer migration enabled the County to renegotiate better terms with
Fidelis (collection fee was lowered from 6.5% to 6.0%) and County staff eliminated approximately 1-2
hours of processing time per week.
Report Data on First Full Year of Billing:
In February of this year, Fidelis provided staff with standard reports outlining performance of the
County’s billing system for the first full year of operation (2/1/10 – 1/31/11). Some of the highlights
included:
1. Billing Rates: The initial billing rates set by the Board on December 2, 2009 ($350 – Basic Life
Support (BLS), $450 – Advanced Life Support (ALS) 1, $550 - ALS 2, and $8.50/mile) were based
primarily on rates no lower than the usual and customary costs allowed by private insurers and on
rates set by surrounding
localities.
Fidelis advised staff that the County rates are within the normal range, but should be monitored
over the next year.
2. Patient Payer Mix (the type of monies recieved): Fidelis advised staff that the County patient payer
mix is within the normal range: approximately 35% Medicare/2%Medicaid, 30% Private Insurance,
31% Private pay (no insurance) and 2% Military or Auto Insurance. Fidelis expects the Private
Pay percent to decrease and the Private Insurance to increase as the final 5 months of collections
come in from the first year (accounts are coded Private Pay until an insurance carrier is identified).
The patient payer percentage should also increase as electronic billing moves to the point where
Fidelis can collect all the data directly from the state systems, rather than relying on the hospital to
provide information.
3. Bad Debt Write Off Rate: Fidelis advised staff that the County wrote off approximately 22% of the
total billed the first year which was low compared to the first years of billing for Louisa, Orange
and Culpepper Counties (which were between 34-48%). The low “Bad Debt Write Off Rate” is one
indicator that our billing rates are within a normal range.
4. Cash Collections as a Percent of Net Billable: (amount of money collected after deducting the
mandatory contractual adjustments from the insurance companies). As of January 31, the County
collected approximately 57% of net billable. Fidelis advised staff that a 57% collection rate is
satisfactory considering that additional revenue from the previous year will be collected over the
next 5 months. Fidelis expects the County to ultimately fall within the 65% range. By comparison,
Louisa, Orange and Culpepper were between 47-66% for their first year of billing.
In addition, Fidelis provided reports on several other aspects of the County’s ambulance transports:
Number of transports: 2035 (1202 ACFR; 833 SVRS)
BLS/ALS: 51% of our transports were BLS; 49% were ALS
Hospital: 59% went to UVA; 41% went to MJH
Pick up location: 70% were transported from a residence; 30% were transported from a
non-residence
ACFR/SVRS: 67% were in Hollymead or Monticello ambulances; 33% were in
Scottsville ambulances (with both career and volunteer providers)
Top three reasons for transport:
13% Abnormal Respiratory
11% Chest Pain
9% Syncope & Collapse
Hardship Waivers: 27 hardship waivers were requested and approved for $9,186
(22 in FY10 and 5 in FY11)
Electronic Patient Care Reporting System
The Electronic Patient Care Reporting System continues to evolve. Staff and volunteers at
Hollymead, Monticello and Scottsville are using laptops to capture patient care information. The
information is transmitted electronically to the State Office of EMS and is assessable by Fidelis for patient
billing. The next phase of the project includes incorporating hospital data along with patient care data.
Once completed, collection rates should improve.
As of January 31, 2011 (one calendar year of billing) the County collected $394,678 in revenue.
Due to the lag time of two to six months for collection, that amount does not represent the total expected
for the first 12 months. Most of the balance should be collected by June 30th and the final revenue figure
should be closer to $500,000 for the first full year of billing.
The revenue budgeted for FY11 is $444,500. This estimate is based on the anticipated
collection rate for the first full calendar year of billing.
This update is presented for the Board’s information only, no action is required.
__________
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Item No. 7.10. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Report, was received for
information.
The following memorandum dated March 28, 2011, was received from Mr. Gary B. O’Connell,
Executive Director, ACSA:
“We are sending this update on Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) issues of interest to
the Board of Supervisors. I unfortunately will be out of town for your Board meeting and not able to
personally attend.
Below are some highlights of current items for the ACSA:
FY 2012 Budget and Water and Sewer Rates: We are completing our budget and rate
calculations. They will be publicly presented to the ACSA Board at our April 21St meeting,
with adoption of the budget and rates at the June 16” meeting. As you are aware over 2/3
of our budget is based on the wholesale water and wastewater rates of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), which gets reflected in the retail rates we charge our
customers.
North Fork Regional Pump Station and Sewer Line Project: Work is well underway for
this project that will serve the future sewer needs of development in the northern 29
section of Albemarle County. This is a $10.5 million project that will replace the outdated
Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant with two new pump stations and sewer force main
lines. The sewer line clearance work has begun north of 84 Lumber towards the current
Camelot site which is where the major pump station for the area will be located.
Ragged Mountain Earthen Dam: We are very involved in helping advance this project to
construction. RWSA will be reporting out on the latest status of the work. It is a complex
project with a host of permits and regulatory reviews, including a number by Albemarle
County. We are reviewing a proposed property use agreement, and also continuing
diligent work on a cost allocation plan for the City Council and the ACSA Board’s
consideration and adoption.
FY 2012 Capital Projects: Our Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for next year
proposes 23 projects at a total budget of $10.5 million. Most of these are an extension of
existing projects that cannot be completed in one fiscal year. New projects on the horizon
are upgrades to the water main lines in Scottsville, relocation of the water line in
Shopper’s World, upgrade to a water line on Jarman’s Gap Road, and a new loop line
connecting the Western Ridge water main with Foxchase. Some of the existing projects
that will see work the next year will include: A major water line replacement project along
St. George Avenue, Buck Road and Crozet Avenue in Crozet; improvements at the
Ashcroft Water Tank and Pump Station; major water line replacements (Phase 2) in West
Leigh (Williston-Emerson Drive area) and additional fire hydrants for improved fire
protection; Berwick Road Water Main Replacement (loop connection with Ednam Drive);
Hardware Street in Scottsville water line extension to connect the Stony Point Tank to the
existing Hardware Street main water line; Buckingham Circle Water Main Replacement;
complete design for Key West Water Main Replacement; continue our multi-year water
line replacement program in Hollymead, Oak Hill sewer (CDBG funding assistance) for
both a new 8” sewer main, and service lines to serve 58 households that now use septic
fields; the second phase of the Crozet Sewer Rehabilitation; completion of the
rehabilitation of sewer lines in the Meadow Creek Drainage Basin; Scottsville second
phase sewer extension project on Clements Street; sanitary sewer study to remove
infiltration and inflow (I/I due to wet weather rain events) in the Biscuit Run Drainage
Basin; installation of the first of three phases for SCADA computerized remote reading
controls for our pump stations, tanks and pressure reducing valve (PRV) vaults, all to
prevent outages and get immediate alerts in our system.
These projects are scheduled for a public hearing at our April 21st Board meeting.
Water System Redundancy Policy: At the last quarterly briefing, we had a discussion of
what the ACSA is doing to provide system redundancy and reliability. Over a number of
years, the ACSA has worked to prevent water service disruptions through the provision of
back-up secondary water feeds through the creation of a series of loop water lines
connecting our system.
I was asked about some of the projects that have been completed to build water system
“redundancy,” some of these projects include:
West Leigh/Lewis Hill Water Extension: A large diameter main connecting an older
subdivision (West Leigh) with a new one (Lewis Hill) to reinforce a much smaller existing
connection between West Leigh and Meriwether Hills.
Barracks Road Water Extension/Georgetown Loop: Two large water main extensions to
create a loop to facilitate the filling of Stillhouse Mountain Tank and improve its “floating”
on the water system.
Jarman Gap Road/Route 250 West Connection: The creation of a large diameter loop to
enhance fire protection at the Henley and Brownsville Schools and provide a parallel feed
to the existing smaller diameter main that was a single feed from the center of Crozet to
Route 250.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Hollymead/Forest Lakes South/Forest Lakes North PRV Vaults: Master PRV vaults to
allow these subdivisions to be served by either the South Rivanna Pressure Zone or the
Piney Mountain Pressure Zone during emergencies.
Forest Lakes North/Jefferson Village Connection: A water main connection from a new
section of Forest Lakes North to the much older Jefferson Village Subdivision served at
the end of a long single water main from Route 29.
Avemore Water Extension: A water main extension from the eastern end of Avemore
Apartments to the Fontana Subdivision to create a loop and lay the framework for creating
an additional loop with Route 250 East with the extension of Olympia Drive in the Pantops
area.
West Leigh Water Main Replacement: In addition to replacing old and under-sized water
mains, it created another connection with Lewis Hill Subdivision and with the Candlewyck
Subdivision.
Over-sizing Water Extension to Forest Springs: Increased the size of the privately
installed water main to allow for the eventual establishment of a large diameter loop to
reinforce the Hollymead Town Center and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport area.
Current projects we have underway to help create additional redundancy and reliability in our
water system include the following seven projects:
Buckingham Circle Water Replacement: Primarily replaces old and under-sized water
mains, but it will provide a connection point for a future tie-in to another pressure band to
allow for alternative service to this isolated subdivision.
Berwick Road Water Main Replacement: Besides replacing a deteriorating water main it
creates a loop with Ednam Drive, reinforcing the northern end of the subdivision.
West Leigh Water Main Replacement Phase 2: In addition to replacing old and
undersized water mains it creates a loop around the lake between Williston and Emerson
Drives, thereby reinforcing an interconnection with the neighboring subdivision of
Meriwether Hills.
Hardware Street Water Main Extension: Provides a secondary feed to downtown
Scottsville.
Arden Place Water Extension: In conjunction with requiring an oversized main in this
proposed private development it will create an interconnect between two major
transmission mains in the Community Water System.
West Leihh Tank Study: Identifies areas west of the Stillhouse Mountain Tank that can
be connected with water main extensions and utilize different pressure bands to provide
continuous domestic service and fire protection in emergency situations.
Glenmore Tank Study: Verified the feasibility of providing a tank in the Glenmore
Subdivision to provide emergency water storage in case of a catastrophic failure of the
single water main serving this area. We have moved this project back a year due to cost,
but will continue design work and community meetings during the coming year.
Future projects that we have in our CIP for water system redundancy include several of the more
significant projects to provide dual water sources for reliability:
Key West/Dunlora Connection: An interconnection between Dunlora Subdivision across
the Rivanna River to the large subdivision of Key West, which is currently served by a
long single main from Route 250 East.
Kearsarge/Ednam Forest Connection: An interconnection between different pressure
bands to provide another water source to the West Leigh area. This is an existing CIP
project that has been incorporated into the West Leigh Tank Study recommendations.
Western Ridge/Foxchase Connection: An interconnection that will provide a secondary
feed across Licking Hole Creek to the large subdivisions of Foxchase and Cory Farms
that are currently served by a single long water main from the Crozet Avenue intersection
with Route 250 East.
Baker-Butler/Forest Lakes Connection: This will create a secondary water source from
Forest Lakes North to the elementary school, which currently is fed by a single water main
along Proffit Road from Jefferson Village.”
_______________
(Note: The Board went back to the discussion on Item 7.2 from the Consent Agenda.)
Ms. Mallek pointed out that Mr. Kusyk is comfortable moving forward with the urban agriculture
discussion and he has an appeal.
Ms. McCulley said that the timing is an issue, as he has the pet pigs now.
Mr. Snow noted that he has had them for two years.
Mr. Rooker stated that there was a complaint, which triggers an investigation and in this case
resulted in a zoning violation. He noted that there are zoning violations all over the County and the County
does not have pro-active zoning enforcement, but instead re-active zoning enforcement.
Mr. Boyd agreed that it is a larger issue, adding that he has had constituents complain about
chickens in neighbors’ yards that get loose.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Davis commented that the Zoning position on this is correct from a legal perspective and that
it will be upheld by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He added that the only way to deal with it is through a
zoning text amendment – with staff feeling that it should not be a knee-jerk reaction to one situation. It
needs to be dealt with in a much broader perspective after some significant analysis.
Mr. Boyd asked if a motion is needed.
Mr. Davis said staff’s recommendation is that the Board not adopt a resolution of intent. The
suggestion was to allow some additional time to present information before a resolution of intent is
drafted, but staff would prefer that it be considered as part of the larger Comp Plan discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this item was identified early on as needing to be addressed as part of the
Comp Plan discussion, and this would be brought to the Planning Commission before the end of the year
as part of the land use policy discussion.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve staff’s recommendation to deny the request for a
resolution of intent and to defer any further consideration of this issue and any related issues until the
Comprehensive Plan review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 8. Quarterly Updates:
Item No. 8a. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Tom Frederick, Executive Director.
The following memorandum dated April 6, 2011 was received from Mr. Frederick:
“I am planning to brief the Board of Supervisors at the April 6, 2011 Board of Supervisors meeting
on the following topics but would be happy to address any other issues brought forward by the Board of
Supervisors:
1. Ragged Mountain Dam: Within the past month all appropriate City and County agencies
have sufficiently agreed on the approach to this project resulting in the RWSA Board
directing staff on March 8 to amend the final design work on the earthen dam Schnabel is
performing such that the structure supports an increase in the reservoir pool of 30 feet,
but with a foundation capable of a future expansion of an additional 12 feet. This design is
now expected to be completed by April 29, and by that date a submittal will be made to
the Virginia DCR for approval by darn safety to proceed with construction. In
addition, a request for a permit amendment was issued to Virginia DEQ and the Army
Corps of Engineers on March 22. In terms of agreements that need to be completed
between the ACSA and City, focus now turns to the Cost Share Agreement. We are
hoping that the City and ACSA staffs can soon agree on a framework for cost share such
that the attorneys can complete a draft to begin public discussion in May. In the
meantime, Kurt Krueger is working with the attorneys of the County, ACSA, and City on a
property use agreement that will be needed between the City and RWSA.
2. Rivanna Interceptor Pumping: Through the recently completed comprehensive sanitary
sewer plan, RWSA received a commitment from ACSA and City staff to remove 25% of
the stormwater inflow and infiltration from their respective collection systems by 2020,
which will be an ambitious undertaking, especially for the City. Further, ACSA and the City
have requested that RWSA provide the transmission capacity to carry the volume the
collection systems cannot reasonably remove. For the Rivanna Interceptor, that
represents a peak flow equal to 53 million gallons per day (mgd). While the interceptor
pipeline can carry that volume of flow, the Rivanna Pumping Station that conveys
wastewater from the interceptor to the treatment plant is limited to a peak capacity of 25
mgd. RWSA initiated public meetings in December to discuss four concepts for providing
additional pumping capacity, as well as providing sufficient stand-by back-up generator
power above the floodplain elevation for the additional peak pumping capability. As you
are aware, the City Council expressed a preference on March 7 for moving the pump
station from its existing location adjacent to Riverview Park and the Woolen Mills
neighborhood to a location on the east side of the Rivanna River (Pantops). The next
decision the RWSA Board needs to make is which concepts to take to the next phase of
evaluation that would include specific siting and a preliminary design cost estimate. On
March 22, Mr. Boyd asked the RWSA Board to table this matter to permit him to discuss
this issue with the Supervisors on April 6.
3. Wastewater Consent Order: Related to the Rivanna Interceptor Pumping, the RWSA
Board voted on March 22 to enter into a Consent Order with Virginia DEQ regarding
improvements to the wastewater treatment and transmission system to significantly
reduce the risk of wet weather related sanitary sewer overflows. The plan and list of
projects are what RWSA has already recommended from our comprehensive sanitary
sewer plan and DEQ staff were very complimentary of the work RWSA had done, and the
cooperative work with ACSA and the City, who have each authorized its own Consent
Order. The agreement confirms RWSA’s plan is appropriate, and also provides the
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
backing of the force of state law to insure that RWSA’s plan is implemented and not
unduly delayed. DEQ sees this as a very important environmental issue.
4. Dredging of the South Fork Reservoir: On March 22 the RWSA Board approved
guidelines for the RWSA to begin receiving solicited and unsolicited proposals under the
Virginia Public-Partnership in Education and Infrastructure Act (PPEA), which is an
alternative public procurement method that allows for public improvements to be made by
public-private partnerships. Staff offered this approach because of the flexibility of its
application when the RWSA Board expressed a strong commitment to consider a
dredging project but did not want to specify the precise scope of work. Staff is now
negotiating a fee for HDR Engineering to develop a Request for Proposals under PPEA to
allow RWSA to receive proposals. I also anticipate further conversation between the
ACSA and City regarding the type of contractual commitment that will be made to pursue
dredging, as a part of the Cost Share negotiations referenced above.
_____
Mr. Frederick stated that in 2005, through conversations with the RWSA Board, he was able to
establish a goal of rehabilitating the sewer infrastructure in a way that met the goals of the community as
well as environmental aspects and policies. He said that they solicited input from the ACSA and the City
of Charlottesville and established that the most cost effective way to rehab a sewer system is a
combination of transmission improvements and in some areas increase the capacity to convey wet
weather flows combined with an aggressive effort to reduce sources of rainwater getting into the
wastewater collection system. Mr. Frederick said that the partnership has been established and goals for
rainwater reduction have been set, with projects identified for transmission improvements. He stated that
the consent order is an effort that goes beyond the developed plan and takes it to the next level, putting
state and federal law behind it, and by December 31 they must inform DEQ of the alternative and begin
final design for the Rivanna interceptor pumping.
Mr. Frederick said that no decision has been made as to where to go with the Rivanna interceptor,
and community input has been sought at this concept level. He stated that the RWSA Board has been
presented with four concepts – Option A, to remain in the same location as the existing location; Option B,
to go further upstream in Riverview Park – which is also adjacent to some other residential areas; Option
C, to continue a gravity line that would continue the Rivanna interceptor to cross the railroad and Moore’s
Creek where it enters property the Authority currently owns, just below the old compost yard; and Option
D, to move across the River from the exiting pump station which requires a gravity pipe across the River
bringing a pressure pipe across the River to tie into the current pipes at the existing pump station site. Mr.
Frederick explained that the goal is to be able to pump up to a maximum and a rate equivalent to 53
million gallons per day, which is the peak of the hydrograph on the sewer flow during a wet weather storm
and is not a steady consistent pumping.
Mr. Snow asked if having water coming into the system during heavy rains would cause the mgd
to decrease significantly.
Mr. Frederick responded that the 53 mgd takes into account and allows for a goal set by the
ACSA and the City to reduce the amount of rainwater coming into the system during wet weather events
by 25% by the year 2020. He said that the EPA has done numerous studies that address rainwater, and
making a facility watertight would cost an enormous amount of money. Mr. Frederick stated that
communities across the country have come to the conclusion that there must be a balance between inflow
and infiltration removed from the system and a transmission system that can carry the rest into a
treatment plant. He noted that 25% was the goal ultimately adopted, and is not included in the 53 mgd,
and the consultant looked at that limit for a 2020 goal – but after that time, providing capacity for growth
would mean taking more inflow and infiltration out of the system. Mr. Frederick said that they are not
proposing to increase the pump station at some future date to a higher capacity. They propose that by
further efforts to remove inflow and infiltration in the system they will be able to allow for what they need in
the future.
Ms. Mallek commented that it’s a “phased approach.”
Mr. Boyd added that the problems transfer from an inflow and infiltration problem to a growth
situation.
Mr. Rooker asked if the infiltration would be reduced from 25% over what it is now. Mr. Frederick
clarified that it would be reduced 25% over what it was measured to be in 2006 when meters were put in
the sewer system to measure the flow. It is not the endpoint, nor should it be.
Mr. Rooker asked how much of the treatment capacity in wet weather events has to be devoted to
handling infiltration.
Mr. Frederick replied that it is a fairly low number, but when significant storms do occur they can
take a significant portion of the capacity of a transmission system. He added that currently, averaged over
a 24-hour period, the flow to the Rivanna pump station is about 6 million gallons per day. He said that the
consultant – working with City and County staff – projected future flows in the year 2060 to increase to 13
mgd, and the current station has a capacity of 25 mgd, but in a rain event equal to the two year storm,
they can expect a peak flow coming through the system of 53 mgd.
Mr. Frederick added that with a significant rain event, 80-85% of transmission capacity could be
used to carry flow during a wet weather period, and while heavy rain events don’t occur frequently they
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
must be accommodated. He added that it is not a significant number compared to the total volume of flow
they treat.
Mr. Rooker noted that the entire system needs to be designed with that peak in mind. Mr.
Frederick said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker added that there are two ways to handle it – one of which is building a bigger system
at the end of the line. Ms. Mallek commented that that is very expensive.
Mr. Frederick said that the ongoing upgrade of the Moore’s Creek Wastewater Plant provides
additional capacity for wet weather treatment. It uses some technologies that allows for tailoring of the
process of handling wastewater during a wet weather event because that flow generally has less organic
matter in it since a lot of it is rainwater.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification as to why Option B was removed from active consideration.
Mr. Frederick confirmed that it was moved because it would just be moving from one
neighborhood to another, and also because there were some historic resources and a major power line
that limited the area to be worked in. He said that Option C is the most expensive of the four concepts –
with Option A costing approximately $25 million, Option B costing about $27-$28 million, Option C costing
about $37 million, and Option D costing approximately $34 million.
Mr. Boyd mentioned the quality of life issue raised by residents and said that Mr. Frederick has
noted $150 million or more in projects over the next years that the City, County, and Rivanna would have
to undertake to fix the sewer problems.
Mr. Frederick indicated that the total five-year CIP is approximately $170 million, including the
RWSA, ACSA, and the City, and 70% of that amount is for wastewater.
Mr. Boyd said that all of these costs will be passed onto ratepayers, and he had one constituent
tell him that his water bills have doubled over the last ten years. He stated that there is no one laughing at
the Woolen Mills situation, and perhaps Option C needs to be reconsidered even if it is the most costly.
Mr. Frederick said that RWSA staff has not taken that option off the table, but suggested
removing Option B because, even with the other reasons, it moves the problem from one neighborhood to
another.
Mr. Snow commented that when he drives along Route 250 near the pump station at the hill past
Flordon, he will hold his breath the whole time he goes by it. He understands the concerns and asked
what provisions would be made under the new system to clean up the air, and asked if the smell would
simply move over to the shopping center and State Farm under Option D.
Ms. Mallek added that the smell could possibly just flow right back across the river to the residents
who are affected now.
Mr. Rooker said that one question is how confident the technical people are that the proposed
structures would contain the odor, adding that a substantial expenditure is being made to contain it. He
also stated that he would like to clarify whether the station would be on State Farm property.
Mr. Frederick responded that there are technologies to remove malodors found in sewage, but
they are not cheap. In 2003 the Rivanna pump station was retrofitted to include piping and an activated
carbon scrubber system – a very effective technology in removing malodors from sanitary sewer systems.
He added that it would take a lot of money to get absolute perfection, if that is achievable. It really comes
down to what level of goal you want and how much money you are willing to spend. This technology is not
cheap.
Mr. Rooker asked if the same technology would be used in each option, and what level of odor
treatment is included in the expenditures.
Mr. Frederick replied that regardless of which option is chosen, advanced odor-removal
equipment would be installed, adding that it would be built and designed into the pump station rather than
retrofitted such as what is being done now.
Mr. Rooker asked what is used at the pumping station on Route 250 that Mr. Snow mentioned.
Mr. Frederick said they do not have scrubbers on the Crozet interceptor. They have a chemical system
that uses nitrates to react with the bacteria in the pipeline to prevent malodors from forming. When
oxygen is prevalent in wastewater the bacteria that eats the oxygen tends to thrive and the others lay
dormant. When the oxygen runs out if nitrates are present, then the nitrate bacteria will take over; when
both of those are gone the sulfate bacteria takes over, and most of the malodors in sewer are involved in
sulfates. To make the nitrate technology work, you have to get to the head of the system, not on the
backend. Once the sulfate odors are formed you need a scrubber to take the odors out which is why the
systems are different. For the Crozet system, they are catching it before the odor is formed in that system
and that is the reason they can use a different technology. The budget is around $80,000 - $100,000 per
year in chemicals. He said that he has spent a lot of time through his career in various locations dealing
with this issue and there are no cheap options – they are all expensive.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Regarding State Farm, Mr. Frederick said that he had heard some comments at a neighborhood
meeting that there was County property – and that land along the riverfront had actually been conveyed for
a trail system from State Farm to the County. He said that they compared the County property boundary
with a 100-foot buffer from the river, and the two lines are very close so the 100-foot river buffer would be
infringed upon to build a pump station. RWSA does not think that is a good idea. The County has
ordinances that regulate that kind of activity for most development. Mr. Frederick stated that the County
property doesn’t really fit this application, so the station would be on State Farm property. He said that in
looking along the river front, there are a few sites available but they will not be cheaper, adding that the
further away from the existing pump station the more expensive the project becomes.
Mr. Thomas commented that in that area the topography is critical. Mr. Frederick agreed and said
they need to be above the floodway; they desire to be above the floodplain, but the further above the
floodplain you go up the hill, the deeper their structure has to be because it has to capture the gravity flow.
It is underground at a set elevation.
Mr. Rooker asked what would remain where the existing pump station is now if the new site was
built across the river.
Mr. Frederick explained that one approach would be to move all the pumping to a new location,
which would mean all of the piping underground at the existing site would remain and the piping to the
new station would need to be connected to that. It is possible with the concept of moving all the pumping
to another location that you could take out all of the above-ground structures at that site, but easements
would have to be retained underground in order to continue to maintain the underground pipes. He said
that the other approach is to continue to maintain 25 mgd of pumping capacity at the location using the
existing pump station but go elsewhere to find the additional 28 mgd – which would mean two different
pump stations connected by piping. There would need to be some underground work with that approach
to connect piping but what is above-ground would continue to look like it does today. Mr. Frederick stated
that there is no cost estimate for the hybrid yet, but it is expected to be lower than a single replacement
and that question should be answered in the next phase. He said that in speaking with the RWSA Board,
Rivanna staff recommended keeping Option A on the table for the next phase of study but not selecting it
as the alternative, and also studying another option to develop more detail and tighter estimates so two
options could be compared.
Mr. Frederick stated that a majority of Woolen Mills residents seem to favor Option D, although
some would accept Option C. He gave a report to City Council on March 7 at the request of Mr. Jones,
City Manager, and Council expressed their preference for Option D.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $219,000 engineering cost includes Option C. Mr. Frederick responded that
the cost allowed for two options.
Mr. Boyd said the Rivanna Board will have to make a decision at its next meeting which is the
reason he is seeking some direction from this Board. He does not think they should take everything off
the table except Option D. As much as he hates to spend money, he thinks it would be well-spent money
to look at additional options. He added that he is glad that Option C is on the table because it is a possible
compromise solution.
Mr. said that for the next phase of study two concepts would be reviewed – with identification of
properties, the potential footprint, and preliminary layouts – with the hybrid and complete relocation
considered for both options within that fee. He added that if they chose Options A and D, it would also
include a hybrid for each. The hybrid means keep the existing 25 mgd and build 28 mgd at new capacity
at whichever site is chosen. He said that when the staff presented options to the RWSA Board, they
asked the Board to choose one of the options and compare it to Option A.
Mr. Boyd asked if Option A requires purchasing additional property from the City. Mr. Frederick
replied “yes”; he added that the current site is barely big enough for what is there now.
Ms. Mallek asked for some clarification on the dam design issue, recalling that it was determined
to be more reasonable in terms of cost and efficiency to complete the design of both the 30-foot and 42-
foot options at the same time.
Mr. Frederick explained that when the final design was finalized last fall it was based on the
premise that the ACSA would pay for it, and at that time was based on a dam that would support a 42-foot
pool height increase with gates that would allow it to operate at 30 feet. That was the direction that was
given to Schnabel Engineering. He added that on March 8 the RWSA Board called a special meeting
after actions from both City Council and the Board of Supervisors to redirect the consultant to complete a
design to be submitted to DCR at the end of April based on a dam that would support a 30-foot pool
height. Mr. Frederick stated that he believes in pursuing whatever is submitted to dam safety for approval
for construction. The design the engineers have done for the greater height would still be there and could
be picked up in the future.
Ms. Mallek commented that her support was based on the contingencies of progress in other
things happening and it has been very silent on that front. She added that she is concerned that all
options are still available, such as the triggering mechanisms.
Mr. Thomas agreed that he shares the concern that the triggering mechanism be addressed.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Frederick said that RWSA engineering staff is working hard on the technical work being done
now. He added that it is important for the Board to watch the cost-share agreement. If that becomes a
protracted debate, it would hold up the progress of the project. The RWSA staff is taking a secondary role
on cost-sharing agreements by offering mostly just to answer technical questions for the City staff or
ACSA staff. He stated that the approaches on the technical level seem to be reasonable at this juncture,
and he hopes to have something for the ACSA Board of Directors and the City Council in May.
Ms. Mallek asked if the 30-foot fill proposal would be submitted to regulators before all that
happens. Mr. Frederick confirmed that the DCR deadline for the complete design is April 29 – which
would include a base or foundation for the additional 12 feet.
Mr. Rooker noted that this does not foreclose the option of building to 42 feet.
Mr. Frederick agreed, adding that it is important to submit to the agencies what they propose to
build now.
Mr. Rooker said the Board will need an update from Mr. O’Connell on the status of the cost-
sharing agreement as it is a key ingredient in moving the entire plan to fruition.
Mr. Boyd stated that he believes the Board should support Option A and Option D for the sewage
treatment upgrades should be moved forward for study, as recommended by RWSA staff.
All Board members concurred.
__________
Item No. 8b. Resource Management Review Quarterly Report.
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
In February 2009 the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) at Virginia Commonwealth
University presented to the Board of Supervisors its assessment of the effectiveness of the manner in which
the County utilizes its financial, human, and capital resources. This top-to-bottom analysis of the County’s
administrative and operational support systems was conducted to determine if current programs and services
are being delivered in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Overall, the report provided an
affirmative assessment of the County’s performance and systems.
Since presentation of this report, staff has been providing the Board ongoing and consistent updates
on the disposition and implementation of CEPI’s recommendations. While the report listed 148
recommendations, staff consolidated similar or related recommendations in order to improve the clarity of
the report’s findings and allow for better management of and reporting on the status of recommendations.
This effort resulted in the number of recommendations being reduced from 148 to 85 as well as established
a method for categorizing the findings based on their status. In January 2011, staff indicated that 83 percent
of the report’s recommendations were either resolved or in the process of being implemented.
The purpose of this report is to apprise the Board of the status of the remaining 32
recommendations (Attachment A) and the plan for addressing any of those considered outstanding at this
point in time. Since the last update on this matter to the Board in January, a host of initiatives have been
resolved and/or addressed either through the FY12 budget process and/or assignment of tasks to
departmental work plans. In addition, the four (4) recommendations related to fire/rescue services are
poised to be addressed through the deployment of a collaborative systems approach being proposed
through the recommended Fire/Rescue Ordinance scheduled to be considered by the Board later in April.
Among the initiatives/projects completed since January are the installation of an emergency
generator to power the County’s information technology functions during inclement weather/power
outages, publication of the County’s performance management data on its website and completion of the
assessment of City/County cooperative and collaborative ventures (i.e. Social Services and Fire/Rescue).
Items addressed through the FY12 budget process include the acquisition of an on-line
reservation system for the Parks & Recreation Department, enhancing staff support for the Finance
Department through the reallocation of positions from other departments, unfreezing two (2) Police Officer
positions to establish a foundation for achieving the County’s Comprehensive Plan Police Department
staffing goal and upgrading the County’s Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System.
Several recommendations have been or will be assigned to individual departments for
implementation through their work plans for the coming year, including development of an Employee
Handbook (Human Resources), ongoing training and development of Finance Department staff,
assessment of the County’s risk management functions (Finance Department) and an offsite information
technology recovery system (Information Technology/Technical Resources Committee).
Staff believes that the overwhelming majority of the recommendations contained in CEPI’s report
are now complete or will be accomplished in the not too distant future. Accordingly, staff is seeking Board
concurrence and approval to proceed with implementing the balance of any outstanding issues through
departmental work plans or as future funding becomes available.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Recommendations that will require additional resources to analyze or implement beyond the
reallocation of existing resources, such as hiring an additional attorney for the Commonwealth’s
Attorney’s Office, will be brought to the Board for discussion and action.
Mr. Foley said that staff recommends that the Board affirm the completion of the
recommendations contained in the County’s 2009 Resource Management Review prepared by the
Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute (CEPI) at Virginia Commonwealth University, primarily
because all items have either been completed, addressed in the budget, or moved into departmental work
plans. Staff is recommending discontinuing the quarterly reports. However, if there is a need for an
update on the items, Mr. Foley said that information can be provided on the Board’s consent agenda.
Ms. Mallek said the study was valuable, and just because all of these things were suggested, it
does not mean that the County needs to do them. She is supportive of the recommendation.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is an offsite backup arrangement for Information Technology. Mr. Foley
responded that 5th Street is a backup for this building, but the recommendation from the consultants is that
there be a backup 100 miles away. They do have redundant systems in place.
Mr. Rooker commented that many of the recommendations of the review have resulted in
substantial savings, and hiring an Auditor has proven that it will pay for the cost of the study many times
over in future years.
Board members confirmed the completion of the recommendations contained in the Study and
agreed to remove this item as a regular quarterly update on the agenda.
Mr. Foley reiterated that staff would proceed with finalizing any remaining items and any future
updates to be provided on the Consent Agenda as to completion of items.
__________
Item No. 8c. VDoT, Karen Kilby, Programming & Investment Management Director.
Ms. Kilby said that Board members received her monthly reports as part of their packets of
information. She stated that the Jefferson Park Avenue bridge closed yesterday. She asked if there were
any questions on her report (there were none.) She stated that staff would provide the report on the six-
year plan.
______
Mr. Rooker asked about the timeframe for Georgetown Road improvements and asked if any lane
closings would take place during the summer. Ms. Kilby confirmed that the timeframes are still the same,
and any lane closures are still planned to take place during the summer.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for Primary and
Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Construction Program .
Mr. Benish summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
Primary Road Improvement Priorities:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will conduct a public hearing at the VDOT Central
Office in Richmond on May 18, 2011 to give citizens and public officials an opportunity to provide comments
on projects in the Working Draft Fiscal Year 2012-2017 Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP). This
hearing will provide an opportunity for the County to inform the CTB of the County’s interstate, primary road,
rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvement priorities. Primary roads are those roads with route numbers
below 600, including interstate highways (Route 6, 20, 22, 29, 231, 240, 250 and I-64).
The Six Year Interstate and Primary Road Plan process differs from the Secondary Road Plan
process in that specific amounts of funds are set aside for secondar y road projects in the County, whereas
funds for primary road projects are allocated for each construction district. All primary road projects
proposed within all localities in the district compete for those district funds. The Culpeper District includes
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
Secondary Road Improvement Priorities:
The County’s Priority List establishes the priorities for road improvements in the State’s Secondary
Road system (roads with a route number of 600 or higher). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Six Year Secondary Construction Program is based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available state
road funding allocated to the County. The County’s Priority List and the VDOT Six Year Construction Program
and budget are typically reviewed annually.
Primary Road Improvement Priorities
Attachment A is staff’s proposed priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2012-2017
SYIP based on the UnJAM 2035 Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Transportation Project List and prior
Board priority lists. With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to the CTB for inclusion in
the record of the May 18th public hearing.
Secondary Road Improvement Priorities:
Attachment B is the priority list of secondary road improvements adopted by the Board in 2010.
Staff will revise the list for public hearing based on input received from the Board.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Available Funding – VDOT has provided the following projected funding allocations for Albemarle County:
FISCAL
YEAR
REG. STATE
FUNDS
AVAILABLE
MIN. UNPAVED
ROAD FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS TOTAL FUNDS
2011-12 $366,810 $0 $0 $366,810
2012-13 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2013-14 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2014-15 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2015-16 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
2016-17 $345,568 $0 $0 $345,568
The projected funds for FY 2012 through FY 2016 are allocated to the Jarmans Gap Road and
Broomley Road bridge projects in the current VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program . FY 2017 is
the “new” sixth year of the Program and those funds are not allocated to a project at this time.
The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program will again be available this year and would be a source of
additional funding for transportation projects. The Revenue Sharing Program will potentially match, dollar-
for-dollar up to $10.0 million, a locality’s contribution toward funding of transportation projects. The Board
has indicated its intent to participate in the State Revenue Sharing Program and has identified $484,000
for program participation. A full match of the County funds would provide a total of $968,000 in additional
funds, which can be used in the Six Year Program to fund project development. This is a competitive
program, so an award of matching funds is not guaranteed, and a partial match is possible. The Board
has indicated that the Revenue Sharing funds should be used to advance the Broomley Road bridge
project. Staff will provide a resolution of intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program for Board
approval at the April 6 meeting.
Public Requests – Staff has received five requests for new road improvements, as follows:
Route 708, Red Hill Road, road paving request – Request to pave Route 760 near Red Hill School
in North Garden. This road serves the Red Hill Elementary School and carries between 70 and
170 vehicle trips per day. This project was previously in the County’s priority list and was
determined to be eligible for construction as a rural rustic road project. The proposed project was
presented to the residents in the area several years ago following the public input process
prescribed for a rural rustic roads project by the Board of Supervisors. There was some opposition
to the project from area residents, so the project was not pursued further and subsequently
deleted from the priority list. If the Board believes this project merits reconsideration for possible
paving, the road should be added to the Rural Rustic Road List.
Gillums Ridge Road (Rt. 787), road paving request – Request to pave a 0.9 mile section of this
road from Broad Axe Road to Dry Bridge. The other half of this road from Route 250 west to
Broad Axe Road is already paved. This road carries 290 vehicle trips per day. Staff recommends
this request be prioritized and added to the road paving priority list.
Patterson Mill Lane (Rt. 824), road paving request – Request to pave a 1.04 mile section of this
road. Patterson Road runs from Route 250 west of Midway Road (Rt. 688). A short portion of the
road is already paved (0.6 mile). This road carries 200 trips per day. Staff recommends this
request be prioritized and added to the road paving priority list.
Sunset Road (Rt. 781) sidewalk improvements/Sunset-Fontaine Connector Road – Requests
have been received to install sidewalks on Sunset Avenue and to construct the Sunset-Fontaine
connector road. These improvements are already prioritized in the County’s Priority List (priority
#5 on the Strategic Priorities).
Brocks Mill Road, rural addition request – Request to upgrade Brocks Mill Road and include it in
the state secondary road system for maintenance. The road has become difficult for residents to
maintain. This dead-end road is 0.5 mile long and provides access to 20 parcels, most of which
are undeveloped. There are currently seven homes served by the road. The road has been
determined to be an old public right of way that was not included in the state secondary road
system when the system was created in 1932. The road is eligible for inclusion in the secondary
system under the VDOT Rural Addition Program. One property owner has been working for
several years to determine if sufficient right of way for the project could be obtained from the
adjacent property owners. Property owners along the road have now provided written statements
indicating a willingness to dedicate the necessary right of way to upgrade the road to state
standards. VDOT has determined that the right of way is adequate for the project. VDOT
estimates the cost of the improvements to be between $200,000 and $250,000.
Under the Rural Addition Program, the Board must take formal action to approve the addition of
the road to the Secondary System and request that VDOT maintain the road. The Board must also identify
the source of funding to be used for the improvements. $250,000 has been set aside for Rural Addition
projects in the adopted VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program to fund potential Rural Addition
projects, including this project. These funds are not required to be used for rural addition projects and can
be reallocated for other regular construction, bridge, or unpaved road projects. Historically, the County’s
policy has been that the property owners are responsible for the cost of the improvements and the use of
Rural Addition funding has been limited to unique hardship situations (e.g., Corville Farm subdivision).
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Staff’s opinion is that this project would provide a relatively limited community benefit for the
amount of public funding used. The $250,000 in Rural Addition funds could be more effectively used on
higher priority projects or other projects providing a greater benefit. Staff requests direction from the Board
on this project.
Road Paving Projects – Board members have recently expressed a renewed interest in funding
road paving projects. There are no dedicated funds available from the state for road paving, and no
indication that road paving funds will be available in the future; therefore, road paving projects would have
to be funded using regular state road fund allocations (estimated at $345,000 per year for the six years),
revenue sharing program awards (and County match), or potentially one time funding from existing line
item funds in the adopted Program (for example, for Rural Addition funds, traffic calming funds). The
regular state road funds have been allocated to the highest priority projects over the next five years of the
Program (Jarmans Gap Road and Broomley Road bridge projects).
The Board’s previous direction regarding unpaved road projects was to prioritize unpaved road
allocations to projects located in the Development Areas. Dickerson Road and Rio Mills Road, located in
Hollymead, were determined to be the two highest priority projects. Subsequent to that decision, dedicated
state funds for unpaved roads were eliminated. The Dickerson Road project was not sufficiently funded to
complete the project; therefore, the Board and VDOT proceeded with an amendment to the Six Year
Secondary System Construction Program in 2010 to transfer the unused road paving funds from the
Dickerson Road Paving Project to the Broomley Road Bridge Improvement Project.
Staff requests that the Board provide County and VDOT staff further direction regarding its
expectations for the funding of unpaved road projects.
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of
State/VDOT secondary road construction funds and does not impact County funding. Should the County
also decide to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program, the County’s match would be funded from
anticipated appropriations in the CIP.
Staff requests that the Board provide comments on the County’s Priority List of Primary Road
Improvements (Attachment A) and Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment B), and
recommends that a public hearing on the County Priority List and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction
Program be scheduled for May 11, 2011. Staff also recommends adoption of the resolution of intent to
participate in the Revenue Sharing Program (to be provided to the Board at the April 6 work session).
_____
Mr. Benish said that staff has reviewed the primary priority plan and has provided some minor
modifications based on recent planning efforts including master planning recommendations and the most
recent MPO regional transportation plan. This work session is an opportunity for the Board to provide
comments or directions for changes to the proposed list. Staff believes the list is consistent with the
Board’s emphasis placed on Places 29 and the priorities set for the widening of Route 29 North, Berkmar
Drive, and improvements to Route 250 East as well as City projects such as Hillsdale Drive and the third
lane on Route 29 and the BestBuy ramp.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Benish if he was interacting with the City on the Hydraulic Road/Route 250
Bypass project, including the ramp. There was $2.3 million in primary road funds allocated to the City for
that project that has just been sitting there. Mr. Rooker said that his concern is that the path that has now
been cleared moves forward with the money that is reserved for it.
Mr. Benish responded that it is his understanding that the City is actively moving forward with the
project. One of the primary issues is securing the proffer monies as one of the last infusions needed to
encourage momentum.
Mr. Rooker encouraged Mr. Benish to continue to work with City officials to keep things moving
and to make certain that they do not lose the money.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that at the last MPO meeting, City officials indicated that they were
waiting for the proffer which they cannot get initiated until the site plan is approved.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there is an order in which they have to spend the money, and the
money to be spent first is that tied to the proffer – which is exercised when the final site plan is approved.
Mr. Rooker stated that originally the City was going to spend the money to do the design
engineering part, and now it comes to light that the project has not moved along expeditiously because of
the Albemarle Place proffer. That is something he never heard mentioned until recently when it was
disclosed that the design had not gone forward. He added that the County needs to push on this to keep it
moving forward. He has never been aware of a legal hurdle that prevented the City from spending other
money allocated on the project for design.
Mr. Benish said that he would follow up on that and would request that a City official come to a
Board meeting and explain what is going on.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would also like to have VDOT look into the current status of the various
components of the project to ensure that the design engineering component gets going.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Benish reiterated that today is an opportunity for Board members to offer any suggestions
prior to staff finalizing Attachment A. If the Board is comfortable with the information they can proceed or
staff can bring back additional information at next month’s meeting.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is getting mixed information from different places as to what VDOT
is going to be funding. He stated that if it is confusing to him then it is confusing to people wanting to get
their roads paved.
Mr. Rooker agreed. He emphasized that there is about $335,000 per year in secondary road
funds coming to the County each year – down from about $5.5 million five or six years ago. He stated that
he believes they should be doing more, but the State is responsible for funding roads and yet has not
raised the gasoline tax in over 20 years – coupled with people driving less and/or using more fuel-efficient
vehicles. Mr. Rooker said that the requests citizens have made today are reasonable but there is sim ply
no money, adding that there are projects that have been on the list for 20+ years that are not getting
funded.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County is back at the point where it needs to look at what money is coming
in and then look at what realistically can be done. One of the highest priorities is expanding the lanes on
Route 29, but if there is no way to do that for the next 30 years, should everything sit idle until that
happens.
Referring to #2 in Attachment A, Ms. Mallek asked if there is a priority order. She asked if all the
items are of equal standing and if funds would go to whichever one fits the funding first.
Mr. Benish said that Item (a) is underway; (c) Hillsdale Drive is a City project in process. Staff
looked at all four projects as being essential. Mr. Benish added that funds for primary projects are
allocated at the Culpeper District level. He added that all the projects are competing against one another
for funds.
Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle Place is including an improvement of an added lane on Route 29
from the Waffle House down to Hydraulic Road, and are improving the Route 29/Hydraulic intersection.
The County should try to see if it can get those projects to be coordinated. Mr. Rooker said that there
would be two lanes lost until the widening from Hydraulic down to the Route 250 bypass is done, which is
essential in improving traffic flow.
Mr. Boyd commented that he wants to move from a wish list to an action plan.
Mr. Rooker responded that this project is funded and they need to focus on making sure it gets
done. Board members including Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff could provide for the Board a list of projects that are in a plan and
what plan they are in. This list presented today includes projects that have received secondary money,
urban money, and primary money. There are also other funds that can be put into these projects.
Mr. Boyd said staff provides a long sheet which breaks down the list of projects in primary,
secondary, rustic rural roads, etc. He suggested starting the list off with how much money is in the pot
and what the funds are already designated for. For example, he had heard that the funds were available
for the BestBuy ramp yet it appears they are not.
Mr. Rooker said the funds are there, but the issue has to do with the proffer which is waiting on
site plan approval.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the Albemarle Place site plan is preliminary at this point, but a final
would be coming once that is approved.
Mr. Boyd noted that the third lane from Proffitt Road to Hollymead Town Center is a high priority,
and asked if there would be any money for that. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT would have to respond to that
question.
Mr. Rooker commented that it might be helpful for some other Board members to meet with Mr.
Jim Rich, as he is a pivotal player on the CTB in fighting for the County to get its funds.
Mr. Snow said it would be helpful to add to this list a category informing them on what is holding
up projects especially when the money is available.
Mr. Benish suggested providing a status of each of the projects. He then offered to take the list
and narrow it down with the top priority items for when it is presented next month. He added that this is
not a list that is entirely funded.
Mr. Snow said that a status report on each would be helpful for him when he attends the MPO
meetings.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve Attachment A as presented. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2012-2017 SYIP
(APRIL 2011) (Attachment A)
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Rd., including the
interchange at the Route 250 Bypass.
2. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the Hydraulic
Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp lane from Route
29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West;
b. Construct a third lane on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29 North
from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center;
c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive; and
d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension.
3. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel
roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I-64
interchange to Village of Rivanna).
4. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan);
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown;
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad crossing;
and
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top St.
5. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks.
6. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue
connector road.
7. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks.
8. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, shelters, etc.).
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit
operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
4. Inter-City Rail – Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle
County in 2009.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or
bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet;
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North;
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through extension
and connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; and
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended.
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at 1) Tilman Road and 2) Owensville Road.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151.
_____
Ms. Kilby stated that Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas heard a presentation at the MPO Policy
Committee meeting that discussed funding. She suggested going over some of those points for this
Board in hope that it could answer some of their questions. She explained that transportation funds are
divided into two categories – the highway maintenance operation fund and the transportation trust fund.
The highway maintenance maintains the road systems, signals, etc. The trust fund funds construction.
She said that this year $511 million would be transferred from the trust fund to the highway maintenance
fund just to keep the system maintained because of reduced revenues. Ms. Kilby said that construction
funds are distributed per the Virginia Appropriations Act – first paying for maintenance, then administrative
and general expenses, then debt services, then special financing and earmarks, then state match for
federal dollars, and then the construction money runs out. She also explained that the Code stipulates
that 5.6% of any construction money left goes to unpaved roads, 40% goes to primary roads, and 30% to
secondary roads and urban systems. Everything is now provided on a state-wide basis. Ms. Kilby said
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
that the main programs getting funded now are bridge programs, with federal bridge monies distributed
statewide. They do not have money to distribute down to the locality for primaries. She did encourage the
Board to submit a list of priority projects, even if it is a wish list, because that will keep them in the public
eye and send a message to the CTB and legislature that they are serious about the projects. Some of
these projects that are currently underway will get completed and they may be able to get some more
funding.
Mr. Boyd said he understands the need to have the list, but it is confusing to constituents when
they see that their road is second or third on the list, but it does not mean anything will get done anytime
soon. Ms. Kilby said that is correct.
_____
In terms of the secondary system, Mr. Benish reported that there are allocations that come to the
State for secondary roads through a funding formula. He noted that for the next six years the allocations
are approximately $345,000 per year – which would be used in the first five years primarily for Jarmans
Gap Road, Black Cat Road, Broomley Road Bridge, and Dry Bridge. Currently Georgetown Road is fully
funded. He said that the funding for year six is also $345,000.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that the amount would not even cover one rural rustic road.
Mr. Benish noted that VDoT’s rule of thumb for unpaved roads is about $800,000 per mile. He
said that there would be revenue-sharing money available and the deadline for making applications would
be the end of this month – noting that the Board has set aside a match of $484,000. Staff will make that
application and has a resolution for the Board’s adoption; it has been suggested that these funds be used
for the Broomley Road Bridge project.
Mr. Rooker asked Ms. Kilby to clarify that the County could get $1 million in matching funds if they
put up $1 million. It is also his understanding that if some communities do not take advantage of the $1
million matching fund opportunities, other communities may get more matching funds.
Ms. Kilby said the revenue sharing program has changed this year. It has moved to a maximum
fund limit of $200 million total with localities allowed to request up to $10 million. Ms. Kilby said that the
state asked for letters of intent from localities and came up with approximately $47 million statewide, so
the CTB is looking at $50 million this year but may go higher if the requests come in. She stated that in
previous years there has been a tier allocation with projects being completed by localities being the only
ones getting money, but this year all requests up to $1 million would be evaluated and funded first. If that
takes all the money, the state will not allocate any additional money this year. She expects that this
allocation will increase next year because it is a great way to leverage the County’s money and get a lot of
improvements.” She stated that if there is money left over after the initial $1 million, the State will go back
and consider other requests.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the County is being very short-sighted in not pursuing the $1 million.
Mr. Snow said that that was the purpose of adding the one-cent to the tax rate, but since the
Board did not approve that additional one-cent, he asked if there are any other funds available where they
could capture another $300,000 to $400,000.
Mr. Foley stated that staff could look at it, but staff has already done that several times. There is
also a significant bill before the veto session on shifting some costs for CSA. He thinks the timing is a
challenge here, and it is difficult to say there will be additional revenues. Staff may have a better sense in
a couple of weeks.
Mr. Rooker said that the money is not spent until it is actually spent from VDOT – it is spent as the
project it is allocated to gets funded. He would really suggest the County apply for the $1 million.
Mr. Snow agreed, adding that if the matching funds are not available then the County won’t have
to assign its share.
Mr. Benish asked if the $1 million is to match or $500,000 to match $500,000. Board members
said $1 million meaning that if the County got VDoT’s $1 million, it would mean $2 million.
Mr. Dorrier asked about using the rainy-day funds for the match.
Ms. Mallek said that she would not support that because it would leave no buffer.
Mr. Foley stated that there is no down side in requesting the $1 million.
Ms. Kilby said that the revenue match does have to come out of the County’s Capital Fund, but
proffers can also be used for this purpose. The County can use the revenue sharing funds for unpaved
roads, bridges, top priorities, etc.
Mr. Dorrier commented that Albemarle Place has some proffers. Mr. Rooker commented that
they are actually building a road and the money they are putting in is going into the project to widen Route
29 from Hydraulic Road to the Route 250 Bypass. That money is already designated for a specific use.
Mr. Foley pointed out that any proffer monies already be in the County’s CIP as a revenue source,
so the County is already set up to take advantage of that.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Mr. Boyd commented that it is wise to request the $1 million, but it is important to have a definitive
plan as to how it would be spent. He added that he thinks the Board needs to identify what it would do
with the money.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is what the County’s list is all about.
Mr. Rooker noted that the first part would be allocated to Broomley Bridge, which is a safety issue.
Mr. Benish stated that the $484,000 was anticipated to go to the bridge, and any additional
monies would be applied to the priority projects that are part of this secondary plan.
Mr. Boyd suggested that this additional money needs to go to projects that can be accomplished,
not just set aside for projects that could take up to ten years.
Mr. Rooker said that safety must be the first concern, and the State is simply not doing it anymore.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the application process actually requires that the County specify which
projects it will be doing.
Mr. Benish agreed, but noted that more than one could be specified. Based on the Board’s
direction, staff can revise the resolution to reflect several projects.
Ms. Kilby said that VDoT must have the application by April 29, but do not have to have the
resolution until May 27.
Mr. Benish stated that he would need to know by next week so that he can get the application in
by April 29.
Mr. Rooker said that the Broomley Road project would require pretty much all of that funding.
Mr. Snow asked if perhaps more money should be requested - $1.5 million or more.
Ms. Kilby clarified that the application this year requires that the first $1 million be asked for
initially, and then the additional money. if it is available. They also ask that the additional money be spent
within 24 months. For example, they do not want a project that would take years and years to complete.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Snow and suggested the County request $1.5 million.
Ms. Kilby added that when the funds are awarded and VDoT gets ready to give the money out, an
agreement will be sent to the County where it has an opportunity to decline or accept the funds.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is unfortunate that this is what it has come to, and if the locality
does not chip in something, it will not get anything.
Ms. Kilby noted that the County is receiving federal bridge funds throughout the six-year plan –
approximately $1.7 million through 2015 – so the Board should consider whether it wants to put all of the
revenue sharing money in that project and possibly lose those federal bridge funds or spread it out.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would require the federal bridge funds for several years to do the
Broomley project - $2 million will not complete the project by itself.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the other bridge projects are being fully funded through federal bridge
monies, but Broomley is using a combination of funding to accelerate it.
Ms. Kilby emphasized that VDoT cannot guarantee that the federal bridge funds will stay in
Albemarle, as they are allocated statewide.
Mr. Rooker said that it would take the $1.6 million plus the $2 million to do the Broomley project.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would take another $2.8 million to complete the project, based on last
year’s figures.
Ms. Kilby pointed out that Broomley is fully funded, based on last year’s plan with the
telecommunication fees assigned in years 2013, 2014, and 2015, Broomley is fully funded.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that it would be finished in 2016.
Mr. Benish said that the intent is to advance the project so it is completed before then, adding that
if the priority is still to do that then he and Ms. Kilby need to sit down and do the math on what can be
addressed. They really need to know what the next projects are on the list to begin planning.
Mr. Cilimberg said if Board members tell them the list of priorities, they will put all the money they
can towards getting the next project done rather than spreading it amongst several projects that end up
extending it for many years.
Mr. Benish then reviewed the list of requests for secondary funding: Route 708/Red Hill Road,
which had moved forward to design at one point. Ms. Mallek asked if all the signatures are in place for
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
that project. Mr. Benish said staff will need to review it; he does not believe they have all been received.
Since right-of-way is not required, they set up a process where they meet with the public to go over the
scope of the project. In 2007 when they last met, there was not unanimity among the residents to move
forward with the project and in turn the Board chose not to go forward with it.
Mr. Snow stated that he and Ms. Kilby discussed changing that from a rural rustic road paving to a
maintenance paving, and he has a document with all neighbors agreeing to a maintenance paving from
the school down to the bridge. He said that he had visited the VDOT office and discussed paving the road
only in the area where the water is constantly washing over it and filling up the culvert, and he was
instructed to get a petition from all neighbors.
Mr. Benish said that Brocks Mill Road has been on the priority list, but the issue has been that
there has not been a Board action to approve that as a rural rustic project – only to investigate the
feasibility of the roadway. He explained that the rural rustic road funds can be used without specific
application to VDOT, so staff just needs guidance from the Board on intended priorities.
Mr. Boyd asked if rural rustic and rural addition were two different things.
Ms. Kilby explained that rural addition is a County road that VDOT does not maintain, and it must
have been built before 1992; the locality could surface treat it and ask the State to bring it into the system.
She said that rural rustic requires a resolution from the Board that says growth will be limited on that road
for 10 years, and there must be good horizontal and vertical alignments. It cannot be a sharp and curvy
road, or hilly and mountainous.
Mr. Boyd noted that there is $250,000 in unused funds, and he wasn’t sure if it took a separate pot
of money or if it could be used to meet the needs of Brock s Mill. It is a doable project and he would like to
see it move forward.
Ms. Mallek said that there is no way an alignment change and base rebuilding could be done for
$250,000.
Mr. Benish reported that VDOT has looked at a preliminary design concept and have evaluated it
as a doable project. There are certain alignment shifts needed based on property owners’ willingness to
dedicate right of way. He explained that the original estimates are based on in-house design work and
construction which are no longer done by VDOT but are instead done through contract. The current
estimate is all the money set aside for rural additions.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is still a rural rustic pot of money separate from rural addition.
Ms. Kilby responded that rural addition funds can only be 5% of the secondary allocations per
year, noting that the money in the rural addition program has been accumulated for many years.
Ms. Mallek asked if it chips away from funds for other rural rustic projects. Ms. Kilby responded,
“no”. It does not take away other than the 5%, if the Board chooses to put that on for the next six years.
Ms. Mallek noted that it has taken a long time to get to $250,000.
Mr. Boyd said this is only project the County has like this to do, and if $250,000 will cover it, then
he thinks it should be done.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Snow commented that he thought the money was already allocated and set aside.
Mr. Benish explained that it is allocated and set aside for this type of project, but no final decision
to allocate it to this specific project has been made up to now.
Ms. Mallek said she needs to get updated costs. For example, last year all of the $100,000
projects in the White Hall District became $400,000 projects.
Mr. Davis said that the Board would need to adopt a resolution that has not yet been prepared, so
staff would just need direction to bring it forward.
Mr. Boyd moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution to move forward with the Brocks Mill Road
Rural Addition project within the $250,000 available funds. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
______
Ms. Mallek asked if there are enough funds in the County’s allocation to do Patterson Mill Lane
and Gillums Ridge Road.
Mr. Benish said that in the sixth year the Board has $345,000 to put toward a project or any
additional revenue sharing the County might apply for. If the Board feels these are projects worthy of
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
doing, staff recommends that they be included on the County’s priority list, but the priority list is pretty
extensive and already has several unpaved road projects that have not yet been funded.
Ms. Mallek asked if Patterson Mill was a maintenance paving project.
Mr. David Crimm of VDoT, explained that the funding for maintenance paving is something that
comes out of the regular maintenance budget for work done out of the entire residency, and Patterson Mill
could certainly be considered for that.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board should update the priority list of unpaved roads to reflect conditions
that may have changed a road’s status, such as the road Mr. Snow dealt with regarding partial paving. He
added that he is not in support of rearranging the priorities, but there may be conditions to change their
status.
Mr. Benish said that staff has not identified anything significant in terms of changes this year, but
would take another look. He also said that when the Board makes a commitment to fund unpaved roads
then staff works through the list and makes contacts with the residents to assess interest in the project; if
there is no interest, the County moves onto the next. Mr. Benish noted that there are no state-allocated
unpaved road monies, and what is available to the Board based on what their priorities are is the $345,000
in the sixth year of this plan and perhaps revenue-sharing funds in the future or other sources such as
some line items in the six-year secondary plan. The issue is, there are just very little monies to move
forward and staff is looking for direction of where the Board wants them to go. He said that if unpaved
roads are a new emphasis for the Board then he and VDOT staff could come back with a plan for those
projects.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is not really a new emphasis on unpaved roads, and it needs to be
understood that the money is so limited that the approach should be looking year by year at both lists and
seeing what can be done for the money. He also asked if there is any money from the State being
allocated for sidewalks. Ms. Kilby indicated that there is not. Mr. Rooker said that it would have to come
out of secondary road funds, and when something like the Sunset Avenue petition comes forward, it would
also take funds from the six year road funding.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the Board’s discussion, stating that they want to do Brocks Mill Road
using the money reserved for it, the Broom ley Road Bridge is a priority to get done as soon as possible,
which leaves $345,000 in the sixth year of the plan for the Board to tell staff where they want to put it.
Mr. Benish commented that Meadow Creek, Jarmans Gap, and Georgetown Road are in the
process of being funded, with Proffitt Road and Sunset Avenue coming up next. He said that staff could
work with VDOT to see how the $1.5 million in revenue sharing matching funds might fund over the next
five years of the plan.
Mr. Snow said that is good information to have so that next year if the Board talks about adding
one-half cent to the tax rate, it could tell the voters specifically what would happen with the money.
Mr. Benish reiterated that the Board still needs to tell staff what their expectations would be out of
the priorities established.
Mr. Rooker said that it really needs to be clarified by Mr. Benish and Ms. Kilby what else there
might be available in addition to the $345,000 in order to select projects that can be done within a finite
amount of money.
Mr. Benish stated that staff would bring back a plan that assumes participation in revenue-sharing
with the state and see how that might apply to Proffitt Road and Sunset Avenue, as well as looking at
strategically addressing some of the unpaved road projects.
Mr. Rooker then moved to authorize staff to file an application for Revenue Sharing funds with a
County match of up to $1.5 million with the Broomley Road Bridge project as the top project. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_____
Ms. Kilby then introduced Mr. Greg Banks, stating that he came to her office from the Luray
residency, grew up in Madison, and lives in Rappahannock County now.
Mr. Banks presented a booklet that he has developed to provide a tool that the Board can use in
understanding road procedures and funding. He noted that the $345,000 the Board has been discussing
comes from telecommunication fees for their equipment being located inside VDOT right of ways; the
funds are then totaled and divided amongst counties based on 80% population and 20% of geographical
size.
Mr. Banks reported that there is about 866 miles of secondary roads as of 2009 in Albemarle, and
of that about 676 miles are currently paved leaving 190 miles of gravel roads. He said that approximately
144 miles are eligible for hard surfacing, which means they carry at least 50 vehicles per day. Mr. Banks
presented some “generic estimates” of road costs, noting that based on recent bids the c ost is about
$400,000 for a rural rustic project.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
He also reviewed last year’s six-year secondary plan and said that top priorities in order are 1)
Meadow Creek Parkway, which is funded and under construction; 2) Jarmans Gap, which has some
funding coming on in years two and three and has already been advertised; 3) Georgetown Road, which
received bids on March 23, 2011; 4) Advance Mills Road, which has been completed and will soon drop
off the plan; 5) Dry Bridge Road, which would be funded through federal bridge funds; 6) Hillsdale Drive,
which has also been completed and would drop off the plan; 7) a corridor study on Route 29, which has
been completed; and 8) Broomley Road Bridge, which would be funded with secondary monies and
federal bridge funds. He mentioned that Black Cat Road (Route 616), Dick Woods Road (Route 637),
and Dickerson Road (Route 606) all have federal bridge funds and could be programmed in the six-year
plan with an addendum even though they do not have full funding.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Dickerson Road monies could be moved over to Broomley Road, since
Dickerson’s price tag is about $15 million. Mr. Banks responded that the funds are being held at the
Central Office and the district level cannot transfer those funds.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the County’s goal is to get projects done as quickly as possible
rather than scattering money around projects and maybe getting a project done in eight years instead of
two.
Ms. Kilby mentioned that there is also design time and right-of-way acquisition needed for these
projects, and it does not do any good to fund projects if the plans cannot be completed and/or the right-of-
way purchased.
Ms. Mallek said that she understood that the Broomley Bridge design is already done.
Ms. Kilby stated that the project still needs some environmental permits and some right-of-way
needs to be purchased – which could take between eight months and a year. It is not something that can
be done today.
Ms. Mallek said that if people knew what was needed, there would likely be landowners who
would be willing to give up land. The project seems to have gone in a black hole.
Ms. Kilby said she will try to get the Location and Design Engineer to provide an update on the
project and the plans.
Mr. Rooker said the Board’s goal is to allocate money to a project, get it done as quickly as
possible and move on to the next project. He reiterated that the design issue for Broomley Road has been
going on for a long time.
Ms. Kilby said that VDOT is trying to program schedules based on manpower and how quickly
projects can get done, and then assign the funding to get them completed. Hopefully the County will see a
little change in the scheduling.
Mr. Banks reported that next line items are County-wide cost center items that are not project-
specific, such as traffic calming, right of way engineering, traffic services, fertilization/seed, and rural
additions. He added that pipes and entrances would be absorbed into maintenance. He presented a list
of all secondary roads in the County with a start and end for each segment, the length of the segment, the
traffic count on that segment, and the date the County was collected. Mr. Banks said that the chart also
designates paved and unpaved, noting that a few segments highlighted have projects on them that have
been identified in the six-year plan. He mentioned that Rio Mills Road is the most heavily traveled gravel
road in the County. He also noted a spreadsheet showing all segments of County roads that have a
functional classification of major collector or greater, meaning they are eligible for federal funds if those
monies are available. Mr. Banks stated that the booklet also includes County road projects even if there is
not funding allocated yet. He mentioned that one section includes information on the Code section relative
to the six-year plan, why VDOT does a six-year plan and how often the plan has to be done. He noted
one paragraph in this section which states that if a County Board were to decide to remove a six-year plan
project after VDOT has invested money into preliminary engineering and right-of-way the locality could be
liable to pay back those expenditures.
Mr. Banks said that there is one section within the booklet that explains how to proceed to
document support among residents for a road project and right-of-way allocation, prior to beginning work
on that project. The last section of the booklet is a highway map of the County depicting the location of all
the County’s priorities.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Mr. Allan Sumpter was going to advocate for “over-paving” the
shoulders on Georgetown Road as there are no bike lanes on it, so that it creates a bit of a safety cushion.
Ms. Kilby responded that she would bring it to the builders’ attention, although she is fairly certain
there is some paved shoulder already.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Work Session: 2011 Proposed Redistricting Plan Options.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On March 2, 2011, the Board approved the Redistricting Guidelines, hereinafter, the “Guidelines”,
to be used in preparing the 2011 redistricting plan and directed staff to develop an implementing
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
ordinance for its consideration and adoption. Census data has been received and analyzed by County
staff and staff has developed two redistricting plan options. The Plan 1 option attempts to maximize
consistency with the approved Guidelines. The Plan 2 option is similar to the Plan 1 option but makes
boundary adjustments between the Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial Districts requested to be
considered by a Board member and attempts to maximize the consistency of those boundary changes to
the approved Guidelines.
This section summarizes the Census data, analyzes the two redistricting plan options, reviews the
two plans’ compliance with the Guidelines and concludes with a discussion of the remaining schedule to
assure that an approved plan is timely precleared by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights
Act prior to the 2011 elections.
Census data
The 2010 Census data establishes the County’s population to be 98,970, broken down by
magisterial districts as follows:
Magisterial District
Total
Population
Ideal
Population
Difference
from Ideal
Percentage Difference
from Ideal
Jack Jouett 14,563 16,495 -1932 -11.71%
Rio 15,682 16,495 -813 -4.93%
Rivanna 17,425 16,495 +930 +5.64%
Samuel Miller 15,136 16,495 -1359 -8.24%
Scottsville 19,018 16,495 +2530 +15.30%
White Hall 17,146 16,495 +651 +3.95%
Total Population 98,970 98,970
One of the requirements of the redistricting process is to rebalance the populations within each
magisterial district to establish population equality among them as nearly as practicable, with a goal of
having a deviation in population not to exceed +/-5% (absolute population equality is the “ideal
population”), while maintaining consistency with the other Guidelines.
Proposed Redistricting Plans
Following are summaries of Plans 1 and 2. Because the two plan options vary from one another
only within the Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial Districts, a single analysis of each district is provided
below, highlighting the changes to district and precinct boundaries and changes to polling places.
Additional analysis of Plan 2 is provided for the Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial Districts. Maps of Plan
1, which include breakout maps highlighting each of the changes to the magisterial district and precinct
boundaries and the changes to polling place locations, are included as Attachment A. A m ap of Plan 2,
showing the differences in the Rivanna and Scottsville magisterial districts under that plan, and a breakout
map, are included as Attachment B. An analysis of both Plan 1 and Plan 2 compliance with the Guidelines
is included as Attachment C.
The following table shows how the population would be distributed under Plans 1 and 2.
Magisterial
District
Current
Population
(2010 Census)
Ideal
Population
Current
Difference
from Ideal
Revised
Population
Revised Difference
from Ideal
Jack Jouett 14,563 16,495 -11.71% 17,007 +3.10%
Rio 15,682 16,495 -4.93% 16,807 +1.89%
Rivanna 17,425 16,495 +5.64%
16,300 (Plan 1)
16,915 (Plan 2)
-1.18% (Plan 1)
+2.55% (Plan 2)
Samuel
Miller 15,136 16,495 -8.24% 16,039 -2.76%
Scottsville 19,018 16,495 +15.30%
16,622 (Plan 1)
16,007 (Plan 2)
+0.77% (Plan 1)
-2.96% (Plan 2)
White Hall 17,146 16,495 +3.95% 16,195 -1.82%
Jack Jouett
District boundary: The eastern-most portion of the East Ivy precinct (bounded by U.S. 250 on the
north, U.S. 29-Route 250 by-pass on the west, and Fontaine Avenue and the City boundary line on the
south) of the Samuel Miller Magisterial District would be added to the Jack Jouett Magisterial District
(University Hall precinct) (see Attachment A-1). This change would increase the population of the
magisterial district by 2,444 persons.
Precincts: The reconfigured University Hall precinct would include the lands from the East Ivy precinct
being moved from the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The number of active registered voters
(hereinafter, “voters”) in the reconfigured University Hall precinct would increase by 1,003 to a new
total of 3,006. The precinct would retain its name. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain
the same.
Polling places: The polling place for the University Hall precinct would continue to be University Hall.
The polling places of the other precincts would remain the same.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Rio
District boundary: The Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions within the Hollymead precinct of the
Rivanna Magisterial District would be added to the Rio Magisterial District (Northside precinct) (see
Attachment A-2). This change would increase the population of the magisterial district by 1,125
persons.
Precincts: The reconfigured Northside precinct would include the Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions
moved from the Rivanna Magisterial District and the number of voters in that precinct would increase
by 677 to a new total of 2,769. The increase in the number of voters in the Northside precinct would
require the addition of one voting machine. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain the
same.
Polling places: All of the precincts, including Northside, would retain their current polling places. The
polling place for the Northside precinct is the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station.
Rivanna
District boundary: The Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions in the Burnley precinct would be moved to
the Rio Magisterial District (see Attachment A-2). This change would decrease the population of the
magisterial district by 1,125 persons.
Additional district boundary changes under Plan 2: The north-central portion of the Stone-
Robinson precinct (bounded by Interstate 64 on the north, Milton Road on the west, the Rivanna
River on the south and Limestone Creek, Route 250 and Black Cat Road on the east; this area is
composed primarily of the Glenmore and Running Deer subdivisions and the area north of those
subdivisions between Route 250 and Interstate 64 and is hereinafter referred to as the “Glenmore
and Running Deer area”) of the Scottsville Magisterial District would be added to the Rivanna
Magisterial District (2,183 persons). The southeastern portion of the Keswick precinct (bounded
by Louisa Road on the north and west and by Black Cat Road on the southwest) would be moved
to the Scottsville Magisterial District (760 persons). The southwestern portion of the Free Bridge
precinct (bounded by Route 250 on the north and east, the Rivanna River on the west and south,
and Interstate 64 on the south and east) would be moved to the Scottsville Magisterial district (808
persons). For all of these changes, see
Attachments B and B-1. These changes, including those under Plan 1, would decrease the
population of the magisterial district by 551 persons.
Precincts: The Burnley precinct would be expanded to the south from the North Fork Rivanna River to
Powell Creek/Lake Hollymead. This would correspondingly reduce the size of the Hollymead precinct.
Even with the Briarwood and Camelot subdivisions being moved to the Rio Magisterial District, the
current number of voters in the reconfigured Burnley precinct would be increased to 2,104 and the
number of voters in the reconfigured Hollymead precinct would be decreased to 2,240. This proposed
change allows a net reduction of one or two voting machines required for the two precincts. The
Burnley precinct would be renamed the Baker-Butler precinct. The Hollymead precinct would retain its
name. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain the same.
Additional precinct changes under Plan 2: The Keswick precinct would be reconfigured to include
the Glenmore and Running Deer area being added from the Scottsville Magisterial District. The
number of voters in the reconfigured Keswick precinct would increase by 1,164 to a new total of
2,482, The precinct would retain its name. The reconfigured Free Bridge precinct would lose 544
voters, decreasing the number of voters to 2,659.
Polling places: The polling place for the renamed Burnley (to become Baker-Butler) precinct would be
moved from Northridge Community Church to Baker-Butler Elementary School, which is closer to the
population center of that precinct. The polling place for the reconfigured Hollymead precinct would
remain at Hollymead Elementary School. The polling places of the other precincts would remain the
same.
Additional polling place changes under Plan 2: The polling place for the Keswick precinct would
remain at Mount Zion Baptist Church. The polling place for the Free Bridge precinct would remain
at the Elk’s Lodge Hall.
Samuel Miller
District boundary: The eastern-most portion of the East Ivy precinct (bounded by U.S. 250 on the
north; U.S. 29-250 by-pass on the west, and Fontaine Ave. and the City boundary line on the south)
would be moved to the Jack Jouett Magisterial District (2,444 persons) (see Attachment A-1). The
entire Yellow Mountain precinct of the White Hall Magisterial District would be added to the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District (951 persons) (see Attachment A-3). The entire Porter’s precinct of the
Scottsville Magisterial District would be added to the Samuel Miller Magisterial District (2,396 persons)
(see Attachment A-4). These changes would increase the population of the magisterial district by 903
persons.
Precincts: The number of voters in the reconfigured East Ivy precinct would decrease by 1,003 to a
new total of 958. The precinct would retain its name. The boundaries of the Yellow Mountain precinct,
added from the White Hall Magisterial District, would remain the same. The boundaries of the Porter’s
precinct, added from the Scottsville Magisterial District, would remain the same. The boundaries of
the other precincts would remain the same.
Polling places: The polling place for the East Ivy precinct would continue to be The Miller Center. The
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
polling place for the Yellow Mountain precinct would continue to be Mount Ed Baptist Church. The
polling place for the Porter’s precinct would continue to be Yancey Elementary School. The polling
places of the other precincts would remain the same.
Scottsville
District boundary: The entire Porter’s precinct would be moved to the Samuel Miller Magisterial District
(see Attachment A-4). This change would decrease the population of the magisterial district by 2,396
persons.
Additional district boundary changes under Plan 2: The Glenmore and Running Deer area (whose
boundaries are described in the Rivanna Magisterial District Plan 2 analysis) of the Stone-
Robinson precinct would be moved to the Rivanna Magisterial District (2,183 persons). The
southeastern portion of the Keswick precinct (bounded by Louisa Road on the north and west and
on Black Cat Road on the southwest) of the Rivanna Magisterial District would be added to the
Scottsville Magisterial District (760 persons). The southwestern portion of the Free Bridge precinct
(bounded by Route 250 on the north and east, the Rivanna River on the west and south, and
Interstate 64 on the south and east) of Rivanna Magisterial district would be added would be
added to the Scottsville Magisterial District (808 persons). For all of these changes, see
Attachments B and B-1. These changes, including those under Plan 1, would reduce the
population of the magisterial district by 2,970 persons.
Precincts: The eastern boundary of the Cale precinct would be moved from Route 20 South to Avon
Street Extended. This would correspondingly increase the size of the Monticello precinct (see
Attachment A-5). The number of voters in the reconfigured Cale precinct would decrease by 730 to a
new total of 3,325 and the number of voters in the reconfigured Monticello precinct would increase by
730 to a new total of 2,188. This proposed change also allows a possible net reduction of one voting
machine required for the two precincts. The boundaries of the other precincts would remain the same.
Additional precinct changes under Plan 2: The Stone-Robinson precinct would be reconfigured to
include the southwestern portion of the Free Bridge precinct, and the southeastern portion of the
Keswick precinct, both being added from the Rivanna Magisterial District. The number of voters in
the reconfigured Stone-Robinson precinct would decrease by 636 to a new total of 2,069. The
precinct would retain its name.
Polling places: The polling places of the remaining precincts would remain the same.
Additional polling place changes under Plan 2: The polling place for the Stone-Robinson precinct
would remain at Stone-Robinson Elementary School.
White Hall
District boundary: The entire Yellow Mountain precinct would be moved to the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District (see Attachment A-3). This change would decrease the population of the
magisterial district by 951 persons.
Precincts: The boundaries of the remaining precincts would remain the same.
Polling places: The polling places of the remaining precincts would remain the same.
Compliance with the Redistricting Guidelines
Staff has reviewed the proposed changes under Plans 1 and 2 and has concluded that both plans
comply with the Guidelines.
Magisterial District Guideline 1 requires the changes in the magisterial district boundaries to
achieve population equality among the magisterial districts as nearly as practicable, and all of the
reconfigured districts would be +/- 5% of the ideal population. Magisterial District Guidelines 2 and 3,
which pertain to the Voting Rights Act, were considered in developing the two plan options. The classes
protected under the Voting Rights Act continue to be fairly evenly distributed through-out the County’s six
magisterial districts. The changes to the populations of the protected classes within the current magisterial
districts under either plan options are extremely minor and it is staff’s opinion that none of the proposed
boundary changes would have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color
or status as a member of a language minority group (Magisterial District Guideline 2). Likewise, it is staff’s
opinion that none of the foregoing protected classes would lose voting strength under either plan option
(Magisterial District Guideline 3).
Attachment C provides a detailed analysis of the plans’ compliance with all of the Guidelines.
Attachment D shows the demographics of the current magisterial districts and under the two plan options
Remaining Schedule
May 4 or 11: The Board will hold a public hearing on a redistricting plan and adopt the implementing
ordinance.
Mid-May: After the Board has adopted the implementing ordinance, staff will submit the ordinance to
the United States Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act.
This schedule is intended to assure that all statutory requirements are met and the implementing
ordinance is adopted in time for the County to obtain a preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Act with sufficient time to allow the General Registrar to meet-election related deadlines. The
preclearance process requires at least 60-90 days from the date the Board adopts the redistricting
ordinance. Once preclearance from the Department of Justice is obtained, the General Registrar will send
notices to voters about their magisterial district, precinct and polling place as required by State law prior to
the November 2, 2011 general election. The General Registrar also must meet other election-related
deadlines such as mailing out absentee ballots. In addition to the November 2011 general election, it is
possible that primary elections could be sooner.
The cost of the redistricting process is already incorporated into various offices’ and departments’
workplans. When the redistricting process is completed, the General Registrar will incur the cost of
mailing new voter registration cards. This cost will be approximately $38,000 and it is already included in
the budget.
Redistricting will result in the need to add one voting machine under either plan option. However,
as explained below, State district boundaries could require additional voting machines in the reconfigured
University Hall and Stone-Robinson precincts.
The proposed change under both plan options is to move the eastern portion of the East Ivy
precinct in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District to the Jack Jouett Magisterial District (University Hall
precinct), and under Plan 2 the proposed change is to move the southern portion of the Free Bridge
precinct in the Rivanna Magisterial District to the Scottsville Magisterial District (Stone-Robinson precinct).
These changes could result in the reconfigured University Hall and Stone-Robinson precincts being split
by the current configurations of the 57th and 58th House of Delegates districts if those two precincts remain
split by the 57th and 58th districts after State redistricting. If the districts remain split, it is likely that
additional costs will be incurred from adding one or two elections officers and one or two additional voting
machines.
Staff requests that the Board consider the two plans and direct staff to proceed to public hearing
on May 4th on one plan and the implementing ordinance to establish the magisterial district and precinct
boundaries and to designate the polling places for each precinct.
*Same map for Plan 1 and Plan 2
_____
Mr. Davis reported that the purpose of the work session is to introduce the redistricting plans that
have been prepared by a working committee consisting of Jake Washburne and Clarice Schermerhorn
from the Registrar’s Office; Tex Weaver, Rod Burton and Damon Pettitt from Community Development;
and Mr. Davis and Mr. Kamptner from the County Attorney’s office.
Mr. Davis explained that every ten years a decennial census is taken that results in producing new
numbers for each locality. A federal and state requirement is for localities to undertake a redistricting
process whereby the population among each magisterial district must be equally divided as nearly as
practical with a goal to not have a deviation of plus or minus 5% from the ideal population. He said that it
is also required that this redistricting plan not change any boundaries that would have the effect of denying
or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or status as a member of language minority group,
and that no protected class has its voting strength diluted. Mr. Davis noted that the Board adopted in
March a set of redistricting guidelines that included those federal and state mandates as well as other
legal requirements and other policy considerations that were important to the Board in establishing the
process.
He said that staff has received the Census data. The population in the County increased by
approximately 15,000 people – bringing the total population to 98,970 according to the Census, with the
ideal population for each magisterial district at 16,495. Mr. Davis noted that each district deviates from the
ideal population, with Jack Jouett being 11.7% below the ideal and Scottsville being 15.3% over the ideal
and other districts somewhere in between.
Mr. Davis reported that the committee put together two plans and provided an analysis of how
they meet the redistricting guidelines adopted by the Board. He explained that Plan 1 met all of the
guidelines to the extent practicable; Plan 2 deviates only in some changes to the border between the
Scottsville and Rivanna districts. Mr. Davis suggested reviewing Plan 1 and then talking about the
differences between that plan and Plan 2, emphasizing that the House and Senate plan for redistricting
may impact the plan. He said that they would also present information from the Registrar’s office on the
cost of some split House and Senate districts that appear to be unavoidable under Plan 1 and may be
required under Plan 2.
Mr. Davis explained that the Rio District needed to gain population. There was an anomaly from
the last redistricting that left the Briarwood and Camelot Subdivisions on the west side of Route 29
whereas the rest of the district was on the east side of Route 29. He said that one of the criteria in the
guidelines is to have identifiable geographic boundaries, and Route 29 makes a very clearly identifiable
boundary. Mr. Davis indicated that moving the 1,125 people in those neighborhoods from Rivanna into
Rio achieved the population equalization required by Rio with no additional changes and preserved all
other precincts and boundaries, preserved all voting and polling places, and made no other changes to
populations in that district. He also said that it would result in Briarwood and Camelot Subdivisions
becoming part of the Northside precinct and they would vote at the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station.
Mr. Davis reported that the White Hall District needed to lose a small percentage of population
and was the closest to ideal starting out, so the Plan 1 recommendation is to take the Yellow Mountain
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
precinct of 951 people and move them to the Samuel Miller District – achieving a less than 2% deviation
from ideal population.
Mr. Davis said that the Jack Jouett District required the greatest shift in population – over 11%
under and needed to gain the most people – and the most logical place to find the population was in the
East Ivy precinct in the Samuel Miller District, which had close proximity to the University. He stated that
the boundary line the committee found most identifiable and logical was the Route 29 and Route 29/250
lines, but it would create a split precinct for the House election precincts between the 58th and 57th
districts. Mr. Davis stated that they thought it might be fixed during the House redistricting plan, but they
only achieved part of the objective. The committee’s proposed Plan 1 would have included the boundary
as shown on the map before the Board. It would have established a hard line at Route 29, and would
have balanced the population within 3.1% of the ideal, and no other changes would be required in the
Jack Jouett District. He will discuss that further later.
Regarding the Samuel Miller District, Mr. Davis explained that a couple of changes were needed
under the plan – with the East Ivy plan taking 2,444 persons away from Samuel Miller to balance Jack
Jouett District, additional people were needed to balance the Samuel Miller District numbers. As he
mentioned previously, Mr. Davis said that the Yellow Mountain District was the most logical area to be
taken away from White Hall and switched to the Samuel Miller (951 persons), and the next logical place
that met all the criteria best in the redistricting plan was the Porters precinct in the Scottsville District –
which had 2,396 people in it and if shifted in its entirety brought the Samuel Miller District population to
within 2.76% of the ideal. He stated that the numbers transferred from Porters is almost the exact number
of people needed to reduce the Scottsville population from the excess over the ideal, bringing it within just
.77% of the ideal.
Mr. Davis said there were some questions as to why the committee could not look elsewhere to
shift the population from Scottsville to Samuel Miller. Mill Creek is another area with a high population, but
shifting that way would have required splitting a precinct and disenfranchising a sitting School Board
member from his district – as well as splitting some areas that were considered a community of interest.
After looking at those factors, the Porter’s precinct was the best fit of all criteria that would achieve almost
the ideal population shift required to meet the criteria for equalized population.
Mr. Davis said the committee also suggests that in the Rivanna District there be a new polling
place relocated to the Baker Butler School. Currently the Burnley precinct has a polling place at the
Northridge Community Church; based on criteria for polling places, Baker Butler has better access, more
room, and is in a public building – all guidelines the County strives to meet. That change is recommended
under both plans. Mr. Davis reported that the Cale voting precinct in the Scottsville District is very large –
with over 4,000 voters; the ideal is to try to have 2,500 voters. There was a proposal to shift the precinct
line in the Cale District so it would be balanced between the Monticello High School voting place and the
Cale voting place in order to meet the overpopulated conditions. Mr. Davis said that the proposed House
redistricting plan adds the entire Cale precinct to the 57th House District instead of the 58th, which would
create a split precinct under Plan 1, so the committee will probably recommend that the precinct remain
intact for the time being. He added that it may require adding another voting machine in that precinct.
Mr. Davis completed the highlights of Plan 1. The committee believes that Plan 1 meets all of the
criteria to the best they could determine without making changes to existing communities of interest and
making the least boundary adjustments that meets all of the criteria. He added that the Board also has a
Plan 2 in front of it. Plan 2 is very similar to Plan 1, with the basic difference being the boundary between
the Scottsville and Rivanna districts. He explained that it balances the population of adding the Glenmore
and Deerwood areas currently in the Scottsville District by moving them into the Rivanna District. The
population is then balanced by taking an area currently in the Rivanna District that is south of Route 250 at
Pantops and moves it ito the Scottsville District and also moves the East Keswick area from Rivanna into
Scottsville. Mr. Davis said that the result of those moves creates a population balance that is
approximately 2.55% from the ideal; under Plan 1 it is 1.18% from the ideal.
Mr. Davis stated that Plan 2 meets all of the guidelines that the Board has in the proposed
redistricting guidelines, but there are some variations from those criteria that are more significant than
under Plan 1. He said that it does not preserve the boundaries in the same way as Plan 1, and potentially
the Pantops area would be divided by the Route 250 boundary line and be divided between two
magisterial districts. Likewise in the Keswick area, the East Keswick area is split from the remaining area
that is the Keswick precinct. Mr. Davis stated that in both cases there would arguably be a splitting of a
community of interest, and also creates two additional issues not created by Plan 1 for splitting precincts.
He said that taking the area south of Route 250 would split the precinct, as the Free Bridge area is in the
57th House District and the Stone Robinson area is in the 58th House District – which did not change in the
House redistricting plans. Mr. Davis said that the proposed Senate redistricting plan leaves the Stone
Robinson and Keswick precincts in different Senate districts, so there would always be split precincts in
the proposed 17th Senate District and the 25th and would actually create three different splits because of
the way the boundaries are drawn under Plan 2.
Mr. Davis said that Mr. Greg Kamptner will next go over some other impacts from the Senate and
House redistricting plans. Basically under both plans there would be three split precincts caused by the
Senate redistricting – in Woodbrook, Jack Jouett and Stony Point – and under the House Plan in East Ivy
and Cale, as well as a split of Stone Robinson precinct at Pantops under the House plan and in three
places under the Senate proposed redistricting plan.
Mr. Kamptner said that the House and Senate plans were released Monday and the final vote
would be held tomorrow. He added that local representatives are aware of the County’s concerns. In
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
terms of the split Woodbrook precinct, he reported that the line proposed runs from Northfield Circle onto
Northfield down to Huntington and then jogs to the northwest on Carrsbrook, turns left at Westmoreland
and up at Berwick, then follows an unidentified boundary that connects with a stream that connects a few
of the ponds within the neighborhood and exits onto Route 29 between the Gardens and Woodbrook
shopping centers.
Within Jack Jouett, he reported, the line follows Woodlands Road and then veers off before
connecting with Jumping Branch – meandering down to the South Fork Rivanna River and continuing
along Ivy Creek, jumping to Ipswich Place and connects and follows Lambs Road; which splits the
precinct between the 17th and 25th precincts.
Mr. Davis added that the Senate plan creates a new district for Ed Houck that includes the City of
Fredericksburg, about 70,000 people in the County of Spotsylvania and stretches into Albemarle County
picking up about 25,000 people including part of the Jack Jouett District, part of Woodbrook, and part of
Stony Point.
Mr. Kamptner stated that along Barracks Road, the line leaves Barracks Road and goes up
through Montvue, then turns right on Magnolia Drive, pick s up part of Old Forge Road, then connects with
a power line as it returns to the Georgetown/Jack Jouett precinct split.
For the University Hall issue, Mr. Kamptner reported that the boundary that appears in the
proposed House plan is based upon a segment of Edgemont Road, wraps around McCormick
Observatory then picks up near Scott Stadium on Vonn Drive. He stated that the split there is a
discrepancy of a population of 540 between the County’s proposed plan and the House plan. Staff’s
recommendation would be to accept the proposed House line, although the committee feels that staff’s
proposed line along Route 29 makes more sense – as the shift in population balances the University Hall
and East Ivy precinct sizes.
Mr. Davis said that the committee has suggested to the House delegation that that adjustment
should have been made, but it does not look like that would happen. If the County’s mapping is correct,
the House plan may actually split two or three dormitories in half. He stated that in order to avoid a split
precinct and cost implications under either plan, the County would have to align with the House
delegation’s plan, but the County will suffer the identifiable geographic boundary.
Mr. Rooker commented that splitting dorms and jutting across property where there is no road is
ridiculous.
Ms. Mallek added that it also increases voter frustration, as they will give up after trying to find
their voting place.
Mr. Davis said that the State is going with Census blocks that may make more sense on a map
than they do on the ground, and the timing is such that it is difficult for them to make changes at a detailed
level. He stated that statewide there may be as many as 680 split precincts that are created by the House
and Senate plans, which is a significant problem for localities that may not be avoidable.
Mr. Boyd asked if the local plans could be tweaked if this stays the way it is.
Mr. Davis responded that it looks totally unavoidable for the Jack Jouett, Stony Point and
Woodbrook split precincts that are caused by the Senate plan and East Ivy can likely be fixed by adjusting
the line.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the current precinct boundary line for Monticello and Cale is
Scottsville Road, and because of the size of the Cale precinct staff’s Plan 1 recommended moving the
boundary over to Avon Street Extended. He stated that with the House redistricting plan, using Scottsville
Road as a boundary, the result would be a split Monticello precinct. Mr. Kamptner said that staff’s
recommendation is to deal with the size of the Cale precinct at a later time and that the precinct boundary
between the two be moved back to its current alignment along Scottsville Road to avoid a split precinct
there. He then presented a map showing the Rivanna District and the Stony Point precinct, noting that the
conflict begins along Polo Grounds Road – as the boundary line goes up and down Proffitt Road, picks up
part of the Rivanna River and extends eastward until it connects with Stony Point Road and Route 20 –
then drops down Route 600 and dips down to a ridge line, and then meeting up with the other precinct
boundary.
Mr. Kamptner stated that those are the split precincts resulting under both Plan 1 and Plan 2. The
next map he showed highlighted the issues arising only from Plan 2 – specifically the conflicts that arise
along Route I-64. He explained that a portion of the Stone Robinson precinct would be moved from Free
Bridge, and the House 57th and 58th as well as the Senate districts 17th and 25th would be within that
location. In Keswick, he said, the split would be within those Senate districts also. In addition, in the far
east portion of the County, in the Stone Robinson precinct, the extension north of I-64 creates a split
precinct between the 17th and 25th Senate districts.
In summary, Mr. Davis stated the committee does not think that Woodbrook, Jack Jouett and
Stony Point precincts can be fixed under either plan. The committee proposes to fix the East Ivy and Cale
precinct splits by making the adjustments as described. That would leave three split precincts under Plan
1. Under Plan 2, he said, there would be an additional House split with Stone Robinson and Free Bridge
and a Senate split between Keswick and Stone Robinson. Mr. Davis said Mr. W ashburne would now
speak about the implications of the split precincts and associated costs.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Washburne addressed the Board, stating that they put a quick cost estimate together late
yesterday afternoon after receiving the House and Senate plans. He said that the split precinct in
University Hall would probably cost an extra $400 in additional election officers and an additional $425 in
programming the voting machines to put up two ballots as well as an additional $150 for printing absentee
ballots for a total of about $1,000. To operate a larger split precinct such as Monticello, the cost would be
approximately $1,200. Running Stone Robinson as a split precinct would be more expensive because
three ballot styles would need to be presented to voters depending on where they live in the precinct. The
voting machines can be programmed to present two different ballot styles but they cannot be programmed
to present three different styles. Plan 2 would require six voting machines in that precinct.
Mr. Washburne stated that under Plan 1, in conjunction with House and Senate plans, the
additional costs with the five split precincts would be $5,600; under Plan 2 with the addition of Keswick
and Stone Robinson split precincts, the estimate is about $9,800. He said this raises the question of how
to reduce the number of split precincts and Mr. Davis and Mr. Kamptner have presented information on
how to achieve this. Under Plan 2 there would be three Senate precincts plus Keswick and Stone
Robinson for a total of five precincts. Under Plan 1, with the split precincts, he said, there would need to
be 98 voting machines; for Plan 2 there would be 100 voting machines needed.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone was in support of Plan 2, noting that it does not seem worth pursuing.
Mr. Boyd said that he had a conversation with Mr. Davis yesterday and agrees with dropping Plan
2 as an option.
Mr. Dorrier said that he also agrees with dropping Plan 2.
Mr. Davis stated that the staff recommendation is for the Board to choose a plan. If Plan 1 is that
option then he is confident in saying that it does not affect, deny, or abridge the right to vote based on
race, color or status and does not dilute minority voting strength. He said that staff recommends bringing
Plan 1-A to public hearing, which would conform the East Ivy precinct to the House district boundary as
well as the Cale precinct to the House district boundary – and any changes at the State level would be
known before the plan has to be advertised. Mr. Davis stated that the redistricting public hearing is
recommended for May 4, as there is a very compressed time schedule that must be met in order to have
the Voting Rights Act preclearance approved prior to deadlines for the November and August election
cycles.
Mr. Rooker then moved to direct staff to proceed to public hearing on May 4, 2011 on
Redistricting Plan 1A and the implementing ordinance to establish the magisterial district and precinct
boundaries and to designate the polling places for each precinct.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Davis expressed his appreciation to staff for pulling together a great amount of information in
a very tight timeframe. They did a great job in making a very complex process a little less complex.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Community Development Work Program.
Due to the time, this item was moved to the afternoon portion of t he meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Closed Meeting.
At 1:28 p.m., Mr. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Rooker, 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.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to certify by a
recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully
exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in
the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Agenda Item No. 14a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appointments/reappointments:
Appoint Tom Weaver to the Pantops Community Advisory Council with said term to expire June
30, 2013.
Appoint Drew Lawrence to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council with said term to expire
January 31, 2013.
Appoint Steve Runkle to the Village of Rivanna Community Council with said term to expire
March 31, 2013.
Appoint Amanda Moxham to the Workforce Investment Board with said term to expire June 30,
2011.
Reappoint Brad Sheffield to the CHART Committee with said term to expire April 3, 2014.
Reappoint Constance Palmer, Dr. Richard Lindsay, and Jean Wyant to JABA with said terms to
expire March 31, 2013.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Set Calendar Year 2011 Tax Levy.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On March 30, 2011, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ proposed budget for
FY 11/12. A public hearing also was held on the calendar year 2011 tax rates.
The resolution to set the calendar year 2011 (tax year) tax rates must be approved by April 15,
2011; however, adoption of the tax rate at the April 6th meeting would assist in the timely printing and
mailing of the tax bills that are due on or before June 5th.
The resolution sets the tax rates for calendar year 2011. The proposed rates are set at
$0.742/$100 assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and manufactured homes and at
$4.28/$100 assessed valuation for personal property, including machinery and tools.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to set the proposed calendar year 2011
tax rates.
_____
Mr. Foley reported that the attached resolution sets the tax rates for 2011 at $0.742/$100 of
assessed value for real estate, public service and manufactured homes; and a $4.28/$100 assessed
value for personal property including machinery and tools. He said that staff recommends approval of the
resolution, which will set the rates for 2011.
Mr. Snow moved to adopt the resolution to set the proposed calendar year 2011 tax rates as
presented. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Thomas thanked staff for all of their hard work.
RESOLUTION TO SET
CALENDAR YEAR 2011 TAX RATES
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the
County Levy for Calendar Year 2011 for general County purposes at Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths Cents
($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths
Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Seventy-Four
and Two-Tenths Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public service
assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed
value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars
of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes on all
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Adoption of FY 2011/2012 Operating and Capital Budgets.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On February 25th, the County Executive presented his Recommended FY 11/12 Operating and
Capital Budgets to the Board of Supervisors. On March 2nd, the Board held a Public Hearing on the
Recommended Budget and then held three public Work Sessions. On March 15th, the Board authorized
the advertising of a $0.742/$100 real estate tax rate for the 2011 Tax Year. On March 30th, a Public
Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets and on
the Calendar Year 2011 Tax Rates.
The FY 11/12 Operating and Capital budgets total $304,473,215. This total is a reduction of
$394,850 from the proposed FY 11/12 Operating and Capital budgets of $304,866,065 that was included
in the Notice of Public Hearing in the Charlottesville Daily Progress on March 20. The reduction of
$394,850 is due to a change made by the School Division to its operating budget due to recent General
Assembly action which lowered the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) rate by ½ percent. The FY 11/12
Operating and Capital budgets in the amount of $304,473,215 reflects the County Executive’s
Recommended Budget, the VRS-related change described above, other changes made during the
Board’s work sessions, and a final adjustment to the School Division’s state revenues based on
information provided by the State over the past two weeks.
The other changes are summarized below:
Items funded from the General Fund Reserve for Contingencies:
o Part-Time position at Crozet Library totaling $15,414;
o One-time funding for the Hatton Ferry totaling $5,000;
One-time transfer of $484,222 from the reserve in the FY 12 General Fund for the
operation of the Ivy Fire Station to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the
Revenue Sharing Road Program. It is important to note that since this is a one-time use
of this reserve in FY 12, the funding for the Ivy Fire Station’s operating costs will be
continue to be available in FY 13.
Increased State Revenue to the School Fund totaling $2,293,498; and
Increased use of the School Division’s Fund Balance for the School’s operating budget in
the amount of $1,101,248.
The resolution formally approves the FY 11/12 Budget. Attachment A to the Resolution details the
adjustments made to the County Executive’s Recommended Budget.
Staff recommends adoption of the FY 11/12 Budget Resolution approving the FY 11/12 Operating
and Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of
Supervisors.
_____
Mr. Foley reported that the FY12 budgets total $304,473,215, which has been adjusted based on
reductions in VRS rates, additional State revenues and changes the Board has made throughout the
process. He said that the resolution will formally adopt the FY12 budget based on the actions taken up to
this point.
Mr. Dorrier moved to adopt the FY 11/12 Budget Resolution approving the FY 11/12 Operating
and Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
FY 2011/2012
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011 is made up of the County
Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of
Supervisors as detailed in Attachment A.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011 is summarized as follows:
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
FY 11/12 Adopted
Administration $10,129,050
Judicial 3,786,125
Public Safety 29,985,325
General Services 4,376,011
Human Development (including PVCC)15,712,892
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,042,861
Community Development 6,008,232
Other General Government 1,111,342
General Government Special Revenue Funds 12,552,125
General Government Capital Projects 7,920,474
General Government Debt Service 4,192,225
Stormwater Improvements 104,500
Education - School Operations 140,647,850
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 20,150,906
Education - Capital Projects 9,779,403
Education - Debt Service 13,160,451
City/County Revenue Sharing 18,089,812
Reserves 723,631
TOTAL $304,473,215
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011 as described in 1) and 2)
above is approved.
Board of Supervisors' FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets
Changes from Recommended Budget
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
General Government Operations 80,572,680
Subtotal, General Government Operations 80,572,680
General Government Additions
JMRL - Crozet Library Position 15,414
Hatton Ferry 5,000
Subtotal, General Government Additions 20,414
Refunds 173,500
Subtotal, Refunds 173,500
City Revenue Sharing 18,089,812
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing 18,089,812
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers 17,192,635
Revenue Sharing Roads Program one-time transfer 484,222
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers 17,192,635
Transfer for School Operations 97,245,582
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations 97,245,582
Contingency/Other 2,307,609
Reserve for Contingencies Adjustment -20,414
Reserve for Ivy Fire Station -484,222
Subtotal, Contingency/Other 2,287,195
FY 11/12 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 215,581,818 215,581,818
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET 215,581,818
NO REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
TOTAL, Revenue & Fund Balance Adjustments 0
FY 11/12 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 215,581,818 215,581,818
SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
School Fund Operations 141,170,652
State Revenue 2,293,498
Use of Fund Balance 1,101,248
Subtotal, School Fund Operations 144,565,398
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations 20,550,906
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining 20,550,906
FY 11/12 SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET 161,721,558 165,116,304
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
General Government Projects 8,137,410
Revenue Sharing Roads Project 484,222
Subtotal, General Government Projects 8,621,632
Storm Water Projects 104,500
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects 104,500
School Division Projects 9,923,403
Subtotal, School Division Projects 9,923,403
Debt Service 17,352,676
Subtotal, Debt Service 17,352,676
FY 11/12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET 35,517,989 36,002,211
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
Special Revenue Funds 14,263,381
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds 14,263,381
FY 11/12 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS 14,263,381 14,263,381
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 11/12 Recommended
Budget
FY 11/12 Adopted
Budget
General Fund 215,581,818 215,581,818
School Fund/School Self-Sustaining 161,721,558 165,116,304
Capital and Debt Service Funds 35,517,989 36,002,211
Special Revenue Funds 14,263,381 14,263,381
SUBTOTAL - ALL FUNDS 427,084,746 430,963,714
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (126,006,277)(126,490,499)
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET - ALL FUNDS 301,078,469 304,473,215 _______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: Request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for water service to Tax Map 62, Parcel 28A, for John Vermillion,
located on the corner Stony Point Road (Route 20) and Cason Farm Road, approximately 1 mile north of
the intersection of Stony Point Road (Route 20) and US 250. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 2011).
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a 25 acre
parcel with an existing single-family home. The parcel is located on the east side of Stony Point Road,
just north of the Broadus Memorial Baptist Church site. The parcel is located within the designated Rural
Areas (Rural Area 4) and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
The existing well serving the property began pumping muddy/red water over four years ago,
requiring a significant filtering system to maintain a viable water supply. Due to the difficulties with
operating and maintaining potable water from the existing well, the applicant drilled a new well to replace
the existing well; however, the withdrawal from the new well produced the same quality of water, requiring
significant treatment to provide potable water. The well driller does not believe that the muddy conditions
with the new well are temporary or due to the construction of the wells and also is of the opinion that that
there is no other viable well location on-site where potable water can be assured. While this is a large
parcel (25 acres), due to the topography of the property, the location of the house and septic system, and
the necessary spacing of a well from surrounding development, the available area for a well on-site is a
much smaller area (a 5-6 acre envelope).
This Jurisdictional Area request was received in early March and is being treated as an
emergency request; therefore, this item has been scheduled for public hearing in April.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of public water and
sewer service:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and
sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas
(p.130).”
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in
cases where the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in
danger (p. 130).”
Water and sewer services by policy are intended to serve the designated Development Areas
where growth is encouraged and are to be discouraged in the Rural Areas because utility services are a
potential catalyst for growth.
Water supply and system capacities need to be efficiently and effectively used and reserved to
serve the Development Areas. Continued connections of properties in the Rural Areas result in further
extension of lines from the fringe of the existing Jurisdictional Area and into the Rural Areas, potentially
straining limited water resources and capacity.
Based on information provided by the well driller (in writing and discussions with staff), it is staff’s
opinion is that this request meets the intent of the County policies for providing service to properties in the
Rural Area. The well filtration system is not a long term viable option for providing sustained well service to
this site and there is an existing water line located along the frontage of Stony Point Road.
The property owner will bear the costs for the water connection.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to
include Tax Map 62, Parcel 28A for water to the existing structures only (single-family residence and
cottage).
_____
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that the applicant is requesting an amendment to
the jurisdictional area designation for water service for a 25-acre parcel with an existing single-family
home; the parcel is located on the east side of Stony Point Road just north of the Broaddus Memorial
Baptist Church and just north of the Pantops development area boundary, in the rural area.
Mr. Benish stated that the Comp Plan policy for the provision of public water does allow for service
to rural areas provided there is a health or safety issue and that the property is adjacent to existing lines.
Based on the information provided by the well-driller, staff’s opinion is that the request meets the intent of
the County’s policy for provision of service as the applicant has had fairly significant water quality issues.
Mr. Benish stated that staff recommends that the Board adjust the jurisdictional boundary for Tax Map 62,
Parcel 28-A for water to exist in structures only.
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. Boyd moved to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to include Tax Map 62, Parcel 28A for
water to the existing structures only (single-family residence and cottage). Mr. Snow seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2010-000023. Westminster Canterbury
Apartments - Parking Structure (Signs #56:).
PROPOSED: Parking Structure.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PRD - Planned Residential Development - PRD
Planned Residential District, which allows residential (3-34 units/acre) with limited commercial
uses. SECTION: 19.3.2(7) Parking Structure.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses, Greenspace and Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development density) in
Neighborhood 3.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: This facility is proposed in the Westminster Canterbury Development which is located
on the north side of Richmond Road (US Route 250) approximately 1,000 feet east of State Farm
Blvd. (Rt 1117).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78-55A6.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 2011).
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, reported that this special use permit is for a parking
structure located at Westminster Canterbury, located on Route 250 East in the Pantops area. He stated
that the proposal is to build a new structure that would go over the roadway with two levels of parking and
residential units above, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at their
February 22, 2011 meeting with no conditions and very little discussion.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
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. Boyd moved to approve SP-2010-0023. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2010-00028. Charlottesville KOA (Sign
#72).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to bring an existing campground into compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and to add six cabins.
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 (20) Day camp, boarding camp.
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 lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 3825 Red Hill Road (Rt. 708) approx. one mile northwest of Scottsville Road (Rt 20S)
junction.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 101000000052A1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 2011).
Ms. Eryn Brennan, Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this is a special use permit
application to bring an existing campground into compliance with the zoning ordinance and to construct six
15’x30’ cabins, each with a sink and full bath, on existing tent sites. Because the campground predates
the current zoning ordinance, the KOA is a legally nonconforming use.
Ms. Brennan stated that the campground has existed since 1966 and has 40 RV sites, 20 tent
sites, and six cabins located onsite.
Ms. Brennan reported that Zoning and Community Development staff have determined that there
is ample parking on the site to accommodate the campsites and cabins with no improvements required to
the entrance; VDOT has also approved the site and the Department of Health has approved the sanitary
facilities. County Engineering staff has determined that a central system is located on the site, which will
be addressed in a separate action. Ms. Brennan said that staff and the Planning Commission have
recommended approval with conditions as outlined.
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. Snow moved to approve SP 2010-0028 with the five conditions as presented. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Concept Plan”,
prepared by the applicant and submitted November 15, 2010 (hereafter, the “Conceptual Plan”),
as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord
with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• Location of the pool and pavilion, the store, the gameroom/laundry, the cabins,
travelways, and bathhouse as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the
Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Written approval from Fire and Rescue Division shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning
clearance and the commencement of the use.
3. Written approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a zoning
clearance and the commencement of the use.
4. The use shall conform to the requirements outlined by the Virginia Department of Health Bureau
of Tourist Establishment Sanitation.
5. All site lighting exclusively for camp use must either emit 3,000 lumens or less or be full cutoff
fixtures. Lighting issues must be resolved prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance for
commencement of the use.
_______________
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Agenda Item No. 20. Request from Charlottesville KOA Campground for central water and sewer
systems.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The Charlottesville KOA campground has existed at its current location on Tax Map Parcel
10100-00-00-052A1 since 1966. Currently, 47 RV sites, 20 tent sites and six cabins are located on the
property as well as a store, shower and bathroom facility, a pool pavilion with a bath, a game room, and a
laundry facility.
The applicant is concurrently seeking a special use permit (SP201000028) to allow construction of
six small cabins on existing tent sites and to bring the existing campsite into compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. As part of the Zoning review, it was discovered that there were existing central water and
sewer systems on the campground site which had not been previously approved by the Board. In
addition, the application for the proposed cabins includes six new sewer connections and a new septic
tank for the septic system currently serving the bath house.
County Code § 16-101 defines central sewerage systems and central water supply as follows:
(1) “Central sewerage system. The term "central sewerage system" means a sewerage system
consisting of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewerage treatment
plants, including but not limited to septic tanks and/or drain fields, or any of them, designed to
serve three (3) or more connections, used for conducting or treating sewage.
(2) Central water supply. The term "central water supply" means a water supply consisting of a
well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains pumping stations, and
other facilities in connection therewith, designed to serve three (3) or more connections.”
County Code § 16-102 requires landowners to notify the Board of Supervisors as follows:
“Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage system or a central water
supply shall notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty (60) days prior to
commencing construction thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the board of
supervisors. In addition to the foregoing information, the notice shall include the following:
1. The location of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply;
2. The number of connections proposed to be served by the central sewerage system or
central water supply;
3. A statement describing the type of the proposed central sewerage system or central
water supply and explaining the reasons the system or supply is needed; and
4. Three (3) copies of the preliminary plans for the central sewerage system or central
water supply.”
In this case, to address County Code sections 16-102 (1, 2 and 4), staff worked with the applicant
to develop descriptive plans based upon the applicant’s information. These plans (Attachment A) detail
the water and sewer connections, tanks, pumps, lines, drain fields, and wells. To summarize, there is
currently one central water supply on the site, serving all of the buildings and camp sites, with a total of 77
connections. The second well, specifically dedicated to the pool, is not included. There are six separate
sewer systems, only one of which has multiple connections that meet the definition of a central sewer
system and serves the 47 RV sites. The proposed addition of the cabins would include the addition of
multiple connections to the sewer system serving the bath house, making it a central sewer system also
with 7 connections, 2 septic tanks, and 2 drain fields.
To address County Code § 16-102.3, the systems are needed for the campground business as
described in the accompanying special use permit. The addition of the cabins with sewer connections,
replacing six tent sites, reflects a growth in the business.
County Code § 16-104 requires a recommendation by the County Engineer and a public hearing
and action by the Board. County Code § 16-105 authorizes the Board to act on an application. If the
Board approves the proposal, it must specify the number of connections that may be made to the central
sewerage system or central water supply (County Code § 16-105(A)). The Board may condition its
approval of a central sewerage system upon the approval of the applicant's final plans by the County
Engineer, the Health Department, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and either
approval by or proof of notification to, any other applicable state or federal department or agency (County
Code § 16-105(B)). The Board may condition its approval of a central water supply upon the approval of
the applicant's final plans by the County Engineer, the Health Department, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, and either approval by or proof of notification to, any other applicable state or
federal department or agency (County Code § 16-105(C)).
The County Engineer recommends approval of the existing systems to bring them into conformity
with the County Code. The Health Department has approved all of the systems and is in the process of
approving the proposed sewer additions. From the County perspective, there is no reason the Health
Department approval should not be sufficient, unless the County were to consider a comparison of how
many septic systems or wells might reasonably be on the site were it to develop in a traditional rural
residential manner. The County limitations on this use are established through the Special Use Permit that
the Board is considering. Once that policy issue is addressed, the site should be adequate for the
proposed systems.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
There is no budget impact associated with the approval of the applicant’s request. The
applicant would bear the cost of the improvements.
At the conclusion of the public hearing on this matter, staff recommends that the Board approve
the applicant’s request for approval of the existing central water and sewer systems and the establishment
of one additional sewer system on the KOA Campground site on Tax Map Parcel 10100-00-00-052A1 as
set forth in the attached plans for a total of 47 connections to the RV central sewerage system and a total
of 7 connections to the bath house / cabins central sewerage system, and a total of 77 connections to the
central water supply subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain the approval of its final plans for the central sewerage systems
from the County Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality and other applicable state and federal agencies.
2. The applicant shall obtain the approval of its final plans for the central water supply from
the County Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality and other applicable state and federal agencies.
_____
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, addressed the Board, noting the proposed location for the
new lines that would go to the cabins and comprise the bath house system; only the RV and bath house
systems would be central.
Ms. Mallek asked if the systems were conventional.
Mr. Brooks responded that they are conventional in most respects, with multiple connections and
septic tanks.
Mr. Rooker asked how close the existing septic field for the pool/bath area is to the river.
Mr. Brooks confirmed that it is a roadway noted on the map, not a body of water.
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. Snow moved approval of the existing central water and sewer systems and the establishment
of one additional sewer system on the KOA Campground site on Tax Map Parcel 10100-00-00-052A1 as
set forth in the attached plans (copy on file) for a total of 47 connections to the RV central sewerage
system and a total of 7 connections to the bath house / cabins central sewerage system, and a total of 77
connections to the central water supply subject to two conditions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The applicant shall obtain the approval of its final plans for the central sewerage systems from the
County Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality and other applicable state and federal agencies; and
2. The applicant shall obtain the approval of its final plans for the central water supply from the
County Engineer, the Virginia Department of Health, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality and other applicable state and federal agencies.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: PROJECT: SP-2010-0058. Charlottesville Power
Equipment (Signs #109n).
PROPOSED: To establish outdoor storage, display and/or sales of power equipment in the
Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay District.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Highway Commercial (HC) - commercial and service
uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre) in Urban Area Neighborhood 2;
Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access .
SECTION: 30.6.3 (a)(2) which allows outdoor storage, display and/or sales in the Entrance
Corridor (EC) Overlay District by special use permit. No residential units are proposed.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail,
wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment
services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: At the northwest corner of the intersection of Rio Road East (Rt. 631) with Putt Putt
Place.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-124F0.
MAGISERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 2011).
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this is a proposal
to establish outdoor storage, sale and display of power equipment in the Entrance Corridor for the
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Charlottesville Power Equipment Company on a site located at the corner of Rio Road East and Putt Putt
Place. She stated that several types of power equipment are recommended, with five display areas and
items similar to what was displayed at the business’s previously location on Route 29; the new location
includes about 6,600 square feet of display space.
Ms. Maliszewski said that a special use permit is required for this use specifically because it is
proposed in the Entrance Corridor, and the intent of the requirement for the SP is to review the visual
impacts for the outdoor storage sale and display on the Entrance Corridor street. She noted that the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed the proposal and had no objection to the use with
recommended conditions, and with those conditions there is no anticipated detrimental impact on the
corridor.
Ms. Maliszewski stated that the recommended conditions are related to the location and method
of display, the addition of landscaping, and the height of items on display which are standard for this type
of use. Because the ARB had no objection to the use with conditions, she said, the recommendation is for
approval with those conditions. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended
deleting one phrase addressing security at the site.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. L. F. Wood, the property owner of the site, addressed the Board, stating that Charlottesville
Power Equipment is a new tenant on that property and saying that they have all agreed with staff and the
ARB on the parameters of the SP.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Thomas moved to approve SP 2010-0058 subject to six conditions. Mr. Snow seconded the
motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Equipment shall be displayed only in Areas A, B, C, D and E shown on sheets 1, 2 and 3 of the
plan entitled “Tax Map 61 Parcel 124F Amended Site Plan” prepared by Roudabush, Gale &
Associates, Inc., revised January 18, 2011.
2. The site shall be landscaped as follows:
a. Add one tree in the planting strip between Putt Putt Place and the parking row labeled
“Area C” and one tree in the planting area between the rows labeled “Area B” and “Area
C”. These trees shall be a species whose mature height is coordinated with the overhead
electric lines and shall be planted at a minimum of 3½” caliper (if reasonable for the
species). Provide the height of the overhead lines.
b. Add three small trees or large shrubs between the existing trees in the planting strip along
Display Area D.
c. Add shrubs in the planting strips between the parking lot and Putt Putt Place, including the
corner at the intersection with Rio Road. The shrubs shall be a mix of species and shall
include evergreen shrubs, but may also include deciduous species. The shrubs shall be a
minimum of 30” high at planting.
d. Add this note to the plan: All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach,
and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees
shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.
3. Display items in areas A, B and C shall not be taller than 7’, which corresponds to the bottom of
the soffit on the existing building.
4. Display items shall not be elevated anywhere on site.
5. Balloons, banners, signs, and/or other similar items shall not be attached to equipment on display
or installed anywhere within the approved display areas.
6. Items stored in the fenced storage area shall not rise above the height of the fence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: PROJECT: ZTA -2009-00016. Monticello Historic
District (MHD). Amend Secs. 11.1, Intent and purpose, where permitted, and 11.3.1, By right uses, of
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 11.1 to include a
statement pertaining to usual and customary uses within the MHD considering the unique nature of the
district; and amend Sec. 11.3.1 by amending subsection (24) to delete the restrictions on the number of
persons and required purposes for occupying the Monticello scholar residences, and by adding subsection
(25) to allow special events by which attendance is permitted by invitation or reservation for up to 3
consecutive days. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 2011).
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, reported that this is a proposal to amend the
Monticello Historic District, originally created in 2005, and would expand uses allowed including
fundraising, special events, parties, etc. He stated that the intent would be changed to allow for
fundraising activities and others related to Monticello, and would promote preservation enhancement of
the site as well as interpretation. Mr. Cilimberg said that there would be events typically conducted on a
single day that could be up to three consecutive days, and they are intended to be invitation or reservation
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
events. He stated that through SP there would also be allowance of farm winery for events that exceed
200 people.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is a specific section regarding the impact the activities would have
on the transportation plan and references a traffic management plan to be reviewed annually, and all
public access must meet minimum VDOT safety standards; private road and travel way access must meet
standards approved by the Planning Commission with recommendation of the County Engineer.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the issues have been the potential impact of additional uses,
compatibility, the public safety related to traffic, improvements on the loop road leading to Mont Alto,
ingress and egress on Route 53, and whether temporary access should be taken through the Monticello
parking lot. He said that there are several areas with curves that will require some widening to
accommodate safe travel up and down the mountain, as well as some site distance issues with the
existing exit along Route 53.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would ultimately need to be grading for site distance at that
entrance, with an interim solution of blocking the access; VDOT is working toward a possible spot
improvement which would also help the situation. He noted that there were a range of options for road
improvements and there is a traffic management plan for events.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Commission and staff have recommended approval of the ZTA.
Ms. Mallek asked if there had been any discussion of a one way in, one way out approach during
larger events which would diminish the issue of the narrow roadway.
Joan McDowell, Planner, stated that the idea is no longer on the table, as it was attempted a few
years ago for the Harvest Festival and went through the orchards, which VDOT determined was not a safe
access. She explained that the exit would go through the Monticello parking lot onto Route 53.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that the traffic management plan, which is under the review of the zoning
administrator and county engineer in consultation with VDOT, could reestablish the one-way system if that
entrance into the orchard were improved.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board, stating that she is representing the applicant and saying
that all conditions are acceptable.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve ZTA-2009-00016. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose, where permitted
Sec. 11.3.1 By right
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose, where permitted
The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as “MHD”) is to
create a planned historic district:
- To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, research,
business and support activities, including fundraising activities for the public and/or
contributors, all of which are related to the operation of a historic house museum and
historic site at Monticello;
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
- To promote the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
- To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
- To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas Jefferson
and contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition of:
- the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
- the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of Albemarle
County;
- Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of Albemarle
County, the nation, and the world, as recognized by its inclusion on the World Heritage
List administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Restoration or re-creation of Jefferson-era structures or landscape features, and their subsequent
interpretive use, shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
1. Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site
as follows:
a. Interpretative, educational and research uses such as tours; interpretive signs,
walking paths, displays and exhibits; classes, workshops, lectures, programs and
demonstrations; field schools and history-related day camps; and archaeological
laboratories.
b. Administrative and support activities including visitor ticketing and shuttle bus
operations, maintenance operations, equipment storage, vehicle maintenance
and refueling, security and general administration, and related support spaces
and offices.
c. Visitor amenities including: parking lots; travelways; public restrooms; food and
drink preparation and vending; picnic areas; walking paths and pedestrian
bridges.
d. Display and sale of products related to Thomas Jefferson and the history of
Monticello.
e. Fundraising activities and cultivation and stewardship events for the public and/or
contributors, subject to section 11.5.
f. Other uses not expressly delineated in subsection 1(a) through (d) authorized by
the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and other
appropriate officials; provided that the use shall be consistent with the express
purpose and intent of the MHD, similar to the uses delineated in this subsection in
character, locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact, and
traffic generation.
2. Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic significance
of Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of
July, Thomas Jefferson’s Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential
inaugural events, the Heritage Harvest Festival, wine festivals, community hiking and
racing events, musical performances and concerts, and commemorative events similar to
the Lewis and Clark bicentennial, subject to section 11.5.
3. Display and sale of gifts, souvenirs, crafts, food, and horticultural and agricultural
products, including outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products.
(Amended 5-5-10)
4. Establishment and changes to structures shown on the approved application plan:
a. Modification, improvement, expansion, or demolition of “modern structures”
existing on the effective date of this section 11.
b. Modification, improvement, re-creation, or restoration (including expansion) of
“historic or interpretive structures.”
c. Establishment of “new primary structures or features” identified as such on the
approved application plan.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
5. Cemeteries.
6. Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same.
7. Side-by-side duplexes; provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings are
located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for
detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the com mon wall. Other two-
family dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained.
8. Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided.
9. Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses.
10. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including
poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the
Code of Albemarle and all other applicable laws.
11. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and
storage buildings.
12. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
13. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines,
treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
14. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
15. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14).
16. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3.
17. (Repealed 4-7-11)
18. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6):
a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place
a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural
employee.
b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can
be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning
administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of
this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which
he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases “a” and “b” of
the aforementioned uses.
19. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(a) and (b).
20. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000)
cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on any one parcel of record on the
adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28).
21. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.03).
22. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision
plat.
23. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
24. Monticello scholar residences, which shall be private lodging accommodations in
dwellings for educators, academic fellows or scholars working on Jefferson related
research and/or programs, Thomas Jefferson Foundation program and event
participants, persons directly engaged in the programming, research, or operation of
Monticello as a historic museum and historic site, and for a sole caretaker.
25. Farm sales (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10)
26. Farm stands (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5-5-10)
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
27. Events that are typically conducted on a single day, but which may be conducted for up to
three (3) consecutive days, for which attendance is permitted only by invitation or
reservation including, but not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners,
weddings, wedding receptions, and private parties, subject to section 11.5.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05; Ord. 08-18(2), 5-7-08; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
11.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
1. (Repealed 4-7-11)
2. Private helistop (reference Section 5.1.01).
3. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants.
4. Flood control dams or impoundments.
5. (Repealed 4-7-11)
6. Home occupations Class B.
7. Boat landings and canoe livery.
8. Farm winery uses, events and activities authorized by section 5.1.25(c), provided,
however, that no special use permit shall be required for any use that is otherwise
permitted pursuant to section 11.3.1.
Sec. 11.5 Standards of operation
All uses authorized by section 11.3.1(1)(e), 11.3.1(2), or 11.3.1(27) shall be conducted in accordance with
the requirements of an approved traffic management plan on file with the department of community
development, which may be reviewed on an annual basis at the discretion of the zoning administrator or
county engineer, or the request of the owner. Private road and travelway access must meet standards
approved by the planning commission upon the recommendation of the county engineer.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Public Hearing: PROJECTS: SP-2010-00035. Blue Ridge Swim Club -
Day Camp, Boarding Camp and SP-2010-00041. Blue Ridge Swim Club (Sign #78).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a summer camp that would allow overnight stays; continue
existing swimming pool use for members; and allow special events and concession sales on
13.206 acres.
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 (20) Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05); Section 10.2.2(4) Swim, golf,
tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16); Section 10.2.2(5) Special Events (reference
5.1.43).
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 lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 1275 Owensville Rd. (Rt. 678), north of Holkham Dr.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000075A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 21 and March 28, 2011).
Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner, addressed the Board, stating that one application is to continue the
Swim Club and the other is for a swim club camp. She said that the proposal for the camp would allow a
children’s camp five days per week from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with one overnight per week and a
construction of a 2,000 square foot pavilion, with transportation provided by shuttle bus and provisions for
some parents to drop children off, as well as a concession stand already located on the property.
Ms. McDowell presented a photo of the swim club, noting the location of the pool, access road,
bath house, concession stand, and a pedestrian crossing to the other portion of the property and
playground.
Ms. McDowell reported that the Swim Club has operated since 1905, with pool water drawn from
the adjacent stream, and this SP would bring the club into compliance with the zoning ordinance; the Club
could continue without the SP, open Memorial Day to Labor Day from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. Staff
recommends approval of both applications, subject to the 11 conditions for the camp and 10 conditions for
the swim club.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that technically there is no limitation on the number of Swim Club
members.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Ms. McDowell confirmed this, adding that the Commission did not limit membership but did
impose a limit of 200 people per day on the property, which does not exist today.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the 11th condition has a validity of 10 years, pointing out that most SPs do
not have an expiration unless they have an impact that needs to be reviewed.
Ms. McDowell mentioned that in this case, the condition applies only to the camp and not the
Swim Club.
Mr. Snow asked if there is handicap accessibility to the pavilion and pool.
Ms. McDowell responded that once you get down to the site, there is a way to access the pool
without steps, but she is not certain if it meets ADA approval.
Mr. Davis clarified that if there were new construction or alterations, the ADA requirements would
be applicable, but not in the case of an existing structure unless it is altered.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that you can drive up to the second gate right by the pool, which is a fairly
flat area. He said that a wheelchair could reasonably access a pavilion, as it is a flat surface.
Mr. Davis said that the only question is whether this is open to the public, at which point ADA
requirements would be applicable.
Ms. McDowell mentioned that the applicant stated that parties are standard with this type of
operation and confirmed that this is just a summer operation, not year-round.
Mr. Snow asked what guidelines would protect the site from fire, as there will likely be campfires
and such.
Ms. McDowell explained that there is a condition of approval so that any campfires or outdoor fires
must be cleared with the fire department. She said that she contacted the Fire Department, which
indicated they were comfortable with how this was run and asked to be contacted ahead of time in the
event the camp has an outdoor fire.
Mr. Snow asked how many vehicles would likely come into the area on a given day, noting the
traffic on Owensville Road.
Ms. McDowell responded that the Planning Commission discussed the issue at length, which is
why they established the 200 limit; VDOT also visited the site and expressed concern about the site
distance at the entrance so they will also require some clearing.
Mr. Rooker noted that today if the facility were being built, the applicant would be required to have
a commercial entrance. He mentioned that there have been many, many e-mails about this application,
and people are most concerned with traffic, so the special use permit will actually allow for restrictions that
would not otherwise be imposed. He commented that almost everything that has being asked for here
could be done without limitation, without a special use permit, except for the camp portion of it.
Mr. Snow said that the number of campers had been capped at 60, but the number 200 is floating
around and that is causing concern with noise level and other potential issues.
Ms. McDowell explained that there can be 200 people at any one time, but there is a condition of
approval that limits sound to 55 decibels between certain hours; the owner of the camp would have staff
there to monitor the children during the camp.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the 200 limit is for combined activities, both the Swim Club and the
camp.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there are limitations on campers as a separate thing.
Ms. McDowell responded that there are, increasing that number when Health Department
approves the new septic system. She said that the drain field will be further away from the stream and will
be much more sanitary.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kelly Strickland addressed the Board, stating that he is representing the applicant, Mr. Todd
Barnett, and said that Mr. Barnett is chaperoning his 8th grade class from the Field School. Mr. Strickland
reported that the Swim Club was built by Mr. R. Warner Wood in 1913 so he could teach swimming and
water sports at his 268-acre Camp Blue Ridge, which he ran from 1909-1940.
Mr. Strickland stated that a neighbor, Ms. Monica Baker, brought the property around 1940 and
ran the pool as a Swim Club, occasionally selling off parts of the acreage and finally selling the Club to the
members in the 1960s. He reported that the last boundary line adjustment was a 2.9-acre land swap in
1969 that allowed the residential development of West Pines Drive, and at present the members own the
98-year-old concrete, 101-yard Blue Ridge Pool, which is the third oldest operating swimming pool in the
U.S.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Strickland said that the pool is a historic treasure that Mr. Barnett hopes to have recognized in
state and national historic registers. He reported that Field Camp was started with Mr. Jay Fennell in
2000, and it has never owned a camp property but instead rented facilities in the area, using only Camp
Albemarle for the last few years, but the Board there gives priority to its own groups.
Mr. Strickland described the activities of the Field Camp, noting that on Thursday it provides
overnight camping for attendees He said that Blue Ridge Swim Club came to Todd Barnett last summer
and asked him to consider buying the property, which could be sold for substantially more as a rural
residential development, but the Club Board voted to sell it for about 1/5 of the assessed value to Field
Camp because they felt Mr. Barnett had an appreciation for its history and because he agreed to maintain
the Swim Club. He emphasized that the members of the Club could certainly make more money by
selling it in a different way, although their motivations have been questioned. He said the intention is to
keep the pool open for kids and adults in the community.
Mr. Strickland reported that Mr. Barnett is aware of neighbors’ concerns about his plans to
revitalize the Club and has tried to be forthcoming in addressing their concerns, including plans to build a
fence around the building and the area generally used by the campers, limiting use to no pool events after
dark, capping the number of camper at 100, no amplified music, cap on total visitors at 200, which are all
restrictions that have not been in place in the past.
Mr. Strickland stated that Mr. Barnett has agreed to replace the existing septic system with a new
one that is a substantial distance away from the stream buffer. He also pointed out that the majority of
adjacent neighbors and neighbors within one half mile from the facility are either active members of the
Club or support the Club, and he is confident that all neighbors will eventually appreciate having the
program in the community. Mr. Strickland emphasized that Mr. Barnett needs to know where the camp
will be located, as the uncertainty is hurting enrollment. He also added that Mr. Barnett hopes to create a
natural pool instead of a chlorine pool.
Mr. Strickland noted that the lower parking lot is proposed only to be used for handicap access,
emergency access, and deliveries to the pool, and this would also provide fire access. He stated that the
applicant has applied for a site plan waiver, and part of that would include approval from the Fire
Department and for a fire pit location. Mr. Strickland reported that the applicant has met with VDOT onsite
and a commercial entrance will be required; there are some improvements that are proposed and the
waiver will have to pass a VDOT approval process. He stated that the Planning Commission had
originally addressed limiting the membership, which ultimately would limit the number of people on-site at
any given time.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many members there are now.
Mr. Strickland responded that the president will answer that, but he believes there are about 150
memberships (meaning 300 or so people) and limiting the membership cost will actually drive up the costs
for each member.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Club is nonprofit, and Mr. Strickland confirmed that it is.
Mr. Strickland indicated that a lighting plan is included as part of the site plan process, but the
Club has submitted a site plan waiver request and hopes to waive the requirement for a full lighting plan.
He said that there is no lighting on the pavilion and no swimming after dark, and would install full cutoff
lighting in necessary locations.
Mr. Rooker commented that if this SP were approved there would be activities on-site for one
night that are not there today, and if there is no intention to have more than 60-100 campers it may be in
the applicant’s best interest to specify that number.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the 55-decibel sound limit.
Ms. McDowell responded that the limit has been imposed for almost every rural area project since
Sally Thomas initiated that condition.
Mr. Davis clarified that it does not trump the general noise ordinance, which would still have an
audible standard, but for most noises not covered the 55 decibels would apply.
Mr. Boyd said that the noise expert who came in recently stated that 55 decibels is about what a
conversation level is.
Mr. Murray Whitehill addressed the Board, stating that he lives on a nearby property and
encouraging the Board to preserve the pool, which he said he has been swimming in since 1946. He
stated that one of the complaints has been traffic, but with school out in the summer there would not be
any more traffic than there is during the school year from busses, etc.
Mr. Whitehill said that the business has been profitable from the beginning, long before many of
the neighbors moved in. He also stated that there have been more issues with fire related to people
disposing fireplace ashes, and the Fire Department can use the ½-million gallons of water in the pool if
they need it.
Mr. John Early addressed the Board, stating that he and his wife have lived in the vicinity of the
pool for 25 years. Mr. Early said that he has some concerns about the health and safety impacts of the
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
new use, stating that this commercial enterprise would have a negative impact on property values, and
quality of life will be affected with an increase in noise throughout the day and with 100 campers at night.
He stated that a third negative impact will be on the stream running through the site and through the
common area of Lewis Hills on its way to Ivy Creek, noting that the water management plan to have water
discharge into the stream.
Mr. Early pointed out that the Board is charged with evaluating whether the SP will or will not
cause the property to be of substantial detriment to adjacent property so the character of the district is not
changed. He said that a commercial operation is an inappropriate use of the property, and that approval
will convey to any subsequent owner.
Mr. Jeff Baker addressed the Board, stating that his mother was the founder of the Blue Ridge
Swim Club and bought the pool to protect the property, as it was a public pool at one point and there were
wall to wall people. Mr. Baker said that his home is right across the road from the pool and all of his
children have been lifeguards at the pool. He said that the pool is a treasure. He stated that the noise
level was quite bearable even when it was a public facility, and eventually people need to decide what it
means to have a historic treasure in their neighborhood, although he does recognize neighbors’ concerns.
Mr. Baker said that when his mother owned the pool it was spring fed, and someone from the County
came out and said she would have to have it tested.
Mr. Chris Georges addressed the Board, stating that he is a neighboring property owner. Mr.
Georges said that this site is surrounded by single-family homes and by right can accommodate two home
sites. He stated that other neighbors live on home sites from one to four acres, and asked Board
members to envision having a neighbor deciding to have a day camp that would bring a hundred k ids in
within earshot of your porch, family room, etc. He asked “When do the sounds of our children become
noxious and overwhelming…the answer to that is when you gather a hundred of them to interact together
within feet of what we call our home setting.”
Mr. Georges noted that the applicant is also requesting a special events permit, and if the
proposal is denied the swim club members can continue to have access to the facility, can apply for
historical designation, the applicant can operate his field camp at other locations, and county residents
can continue to enjoy the quiet and serenity that attracted them there to begin with.
Mr. Patrick Kearns addressed the Board, stating that he and his family live at West Pines Drive,
which abuts the Swim Club. He said that they are not in support of the special use permit that would allow
the camp to have up to 100 campers and special events of up to 200 people.
Mr. Kearns presented pictures that show the visibility of the pool from neighboring properties. He
mentioned the possibility of up to 900 people on the site over a given week, from 8:30 a.m. on Monday to
Sunday night, and encouraged the Board to deny the SP.
Ms. Katherine O’Donaghue addressed the Board, stating that she and her family have lived for 26
years with the Swim Club in their backyard and were members for several years. She stated that they
voluntarily mowed the Club’s lawn and even on the most popular days there were no more than 50 people
at the pool at a time.
Ms. O’Donaghue said that the 2,000 square foot pavilion is larger than the footprint of her house
and is directly behind their deck and screened-in porch, adding that there will be bullhorns and whistles
used for camp activities. With overnight camping, she said, there will be 36 hours of straight camp
commotion that will cause unreasonable levels of disruption and will negatively impact quality of life in the
area.
Ms. O’Donaghue said that Camp Albemarle, the site Field Camp currently uses, has cabins for
overnights, outdoor shelters, and fields, woods and streams for exploring. She also expressed concern
about the impact of construction of a large parking lot, a septic field, drainage upgrades, and tree clearing,
as well as environmental impacts and increased risk of trespassing. Ms. O’Donaghue also thanked Mr.
Dorrier for his many years of service and wished him well in his retirement.
Mr. Duane Marks addressed the Board, stating that he has resided for 24 years on Holcomb Drive
near the site and noting that he has heard noise from the camp when trying to go to sleep. He said he
was a scout leader for a number of years and thinking that kids will go to bed at 9:00 p.m. is unrealistic.
Mr. Marks said that he is also concerned about property values if this is approved, noting that Mr. Snow’s
house would be considered a comparable property.
Ms. Shelia Tate addressed the Board, stating that she lives on Owensville Road and mentioning
that she is newer to the area than many residents who are speaking today. Ms. Tate said that she and her
husband bought four acres and their house six years ago, and if the Camp had been operating they would
not have purchased it. She said they are devastated by this possible radical change in use.
Ms. Tate also expressed concern about the enforcement of the 200-people limit, adding that she
and her husband felt that Mr. Barnett was misrepresenting some of the facts when he said he would have
no more campers than could come in on a bus. Ms. Tate said that she and her neighbors are very upset
about the possible implications of this change.
Mr. Rip Verkerke addressed the Board, stating that he speaks on behalf of Blue Ridge Swim Club
members, who voted 58 to 1 in favor of selling the property to Todd Barnett and the Field Camp. He said
that the club is one of the oldest pools in the Country, and many of the proposed uses continue operations
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
that have been uninterrupted to more than 50 years and the rest of the activities return the property to its
historic roots as a nature camp.
Mr. Verkerke stated that the pool owners could have reaped a substantial windfall by selling two
lots for residential development and said that the proposed uses give the Field Camp every incentive to
maintain the natural beauty and protect it from environmental degradation. He said that preserving the
pool and permitting a camp to operate during nine weeks of the summer will protect and enhance the rural
character of the community, adding that the only serious question seems to be whether the camp will
create significant noise problems. Mr. Verkerke said that he and his family spent most of their summer on
a screened porch that faces the pool property and even on the busiest days they have never heard noise
from the Swim Club property, with greater threats to peace and tranquility being roaring lawn tractors,
unattended barking dogs, and loud music played by local teens. He emphasized that this proposal fully
respects the rural character of the Ivy community and revitalizes an essential recreational resources t hat
will benefit residents for years to come.
Ms. Sherry Early addressed the Board, stating that she and her husband built their house on
Holcomb Drive in 1986 and that the SP will be detrimental to the health of Ivy Creek branch, as it will
pollute the stream and damage the land around it, while affecting property values. She feels it is just
simply too big of a commercial use for the scale of this stream and this residential area.
Ms. Early said that she would like to see additional restrictions put on the operation if the SP is
approved, such as limiting attendance to 50 people at the absolute most, adding that there should not be a
pavilion built on this property. She also said that if the bath house is improved, it should only be expanded
by 500 square feet, and no food should be prepared on the property. She also suggested that no fires
should be permitted onsite. Ms. Early added that they also need a generator to ensure there is no sewage
backup in the event of a storm.
Mr. Larry Breeden addressed the Board, stating that he is next door to the homes that are
adjacent to the Swim Club and noting that he can here the noises coming from the pool. He said that the
character of the area has changed over the years and has become more residential, and the pool itself is
a dinosaur. Mr. Breeden said that they are not against change, but are against such a major change. He
stated that the campers will still have a camp even if the SP does not go through and the pool will
continue, and the neighborhood will still be peaceful.
Mr. Alex Inman addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Westwood Subdivision. Mr.
Inman said that the noise issue is very real, and on a normal day in the summertime he can hear
individuals quite clearly from his backyard. He stated that topography matters. He said that the Swim
Club is down in a valley and there is a network of trails across the creek and sound carries through the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Inman noted that one trail ends in his backyard at a pond that starts the branch of Ivy Creek
and is on private land, adding that he is fine with an individual or families walking along the trail and using
the pond in his backyard, but there is a big jump to having dozens of campers using it. He said the
numbers here scare him, and that to him, the number 200 is off the charts. Mr. Inman encouraged the
Board to deny the SP.
Ms. Jodi Roper addressed the Board, stating that she is about a five-minute walk from the
entrance of the pool and has lived there for about 17 years. Ms. Roper said that she and her sons
enjoyed the pool property and the trails on the property, noting that her sons were lifeguards and pool
managers at the club. She stated that the pool personnel enjoy interacting with youth, and the
combination of the camp and the clientele is a “win-win situation,” a treasure and a fantastic place for kids.
Ms. Susan Bates addressed the Board, stating that she is an Earlysville resident but has been a
member of the pool since 1971. Ms. Bates said that as she is listening to the neighbors who are opposed
to the SP say how nice it would have been if the pool could have had a hearing on the new neighborhoods
going up, with muddy waters coming down from the building runoff, lawnmowers, and all kinds of noise.
She stated that this is a perfect union between the Field Camp and the Blue Ridge Swim Club and the
impact will be very slight on the neighbors despite their fears, noting that she believes this will actually
enhance property values.
Ms. Tracy Verkerke addressed the Board, stating that she has lived in Ivy for 20 years and noting
that her children have lifeguarded at the pool, with her husband serving as president of the Swim Club for
many years. She said that she is a master gardener and has done artwork in the community, having
worked to develop 20 acres of green space in the Holcomb neighborhood.
Ms. Verkerke said that she is very interested in connecting green space and feels that the swim
club is a space that could actually create a bigger community awareness and connection by encouraging
neighbors to get out more. She stated that she would like to have the Club offer a camp and further utilize
the trails.
Mr. John Ewell addressed the Board, stating that his property adjoins the swim club along their
driveway. He stated that ACAC had the option to buy the property but determined that restoring the pool
to acceptable, safe conditions would be very expensive and fraught with difficulties.
Mr. Ewell said that the property is in a deplorable state of disrepair and he is concerned about the
dangers to young campers as untreated water is a source of infectious disease and gastroenteritis, adding
that in an unregulated pool there is an increased risk of drowning. He stated that the pool fails to m eet
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
safety standards in multiple ways and the risks are far too great to allow children, adding that this pool is
subject to ADA regulations for accessible design, which went into effect this year with mandatory
improvements in place by March 15, 2012. Mr. Ewell added that the driveway does not provide adequate
access for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Peter Weeks addressed the Board, stating that he is here to speak on the character of Mr.
Barnett, whom he has known for four years. Mr. Weeks said that he has worked with Mr. Barnett on
developing the school, which began in Crozet. He stated that the concerns neighbors have are unfounded
and Mr. Barnett does amazing work with any property he has been associated with, such as the Crozet
Community Arts building, which was renovated at Mr. Barnett’s own expense. Mr. Weeks said that his
son has attended Camp Albemarle and the noise was less there than it was at the Blue Ridge Swim Club.
He said it is a bunch of children playing at a day camp, and it is a fine thing.
Mr. Scott McCardy addressed the Board, stating that he lives on a property adjacent to the swim
club and is here in support of the application. Mr. McCardy stated that he choose his home because it is
in a rural, residential area, and has swim club next door. He said that he has three children and the day
that the noise of kids drowns out the noise of lawnmowers and leaf blowers and chainsaws and gunshots
is a day that he wants to live in.
Mr. McCardy said that Mr. Rooker’s point is accurate that the conditions will actually make the
camp a better neighbor than it is currently, with traffic less than any given year on a school day, and there
would only be nine nights per year that the kids would be there overnight. He also stated that he has full
faith in Mr. Barnett’s abilities, adding that communities change, and they should.
Ms. Julia Jones addressed the Board, stating that she is here on behalf of Field Camp and noting
that she lives right in the heart of UVA. She said that she is sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns here, but
there is a lot of misinformation from the residents’ point of view. Ms. Jones stated that all three of her
sons have attended Field Camp and she has been to Camp Albemarle many times for their Thursday
night sing-along’s, adding that most campers arrive by bus, not by car. She said that there is also a
single-lane road leading into Camp Albemarle and there has never been a concern with it, adding that
when the kids sleep over at camp they are exhausted and are not up late because they have to get up
very early the next day to go hiking.
Ms. Lady Keller addressed the Board, stating that she works with Mr. Todd Barnett, who has
remarkable integrity and had children ready to enter his school before he even had a building. She stated
that more than 80% of campers arrive by bus, adding that about 60 campers attend each day with the
average age of about 10 years old. Ms. Keller indicated that they have about 15 camp counselors and
many of the children who attended become CITs when they are 15, making them eligible in the future to
be a counselor.
Mr. Snow asked where the campers go hiking.
Ms. Keller responded that they go to Rip Rap Run, Humpback Rock, and even Mint Springs to go
swimming.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there had been any accidents or any drownings.
Ms. Keller replied that there have been three broken bones, all caused by accident, with her
daughter’s broken wrist probably being the worst. She said that there are lifeguards and all counselors
are lifeguards, confirming that children must pass swimming tests as they enroll.
Ms. Deane Biegiebing addressed the Board, stating that she is an adjacent property owner, a
certificate member of Blue Ridge Swim Club and parent of a lifeguard there. Ms. Biegiebing said that she
drove her son to CCC camp on Route 20 South, which seems much more treacherous, and has no
concerns about safety. She also emphasized that the scale of this camp would be much smaller than the
numbers might make it appear, adding that a whole generation will be exposed to this hidden treasure.
Ms. Biegiebing stated that the pool is different from many, as it is not chlorinated, and her
father and mother were original members. They would have her soul if she did not come here and beg
the Board to please approve this.
Ms. Kim Taylor addressed the Board, stating that she is pool president and her children have
been lifeguards for the past four years. Ms. Taylor said that there has been renewed interest in the Club
over the last two years, noting that the pool is 100 meters long and 10 meters wide so it can
accommodate everyone. Everyone comes to swim and relax.
Ms. Taylor mentioned that the graphic design class at PVCC came up with a new identity for the
pool several years ago and developed the slogan: “The Blue Ridge Swim Club: The Greenest Pool in
Town.” She said that the Swim Club and field camp are examples of how man and nature can coexist,
and joining the two together will allow the club to upgrade amenities and continue to provide an alternative
to the pricey country clubs for the citizens of Albemarle County.
Ms. Jenny Lorbear addressed the Board, stating that she lives in Westwood and does not abut the
property. She said that in the end, this is a vote about what is right and what is wrong, and no one wants
to see the Blue Ridge Swim Club fail, but it is up to them to figure that out. Ms. Bayer stated that it is just
not the right thing to do, and asked Board members if they would do this if it were in their own backyard.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the number of 200 was reached.
Ms. Mallek responded that her understanding is that the Planning Commission thought that using
the same number considered for other rural area events would be a reasonable cap.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the limit of motorbikes at Panorama Farms.
Ms. Mallek replied that that would be a different circumstance, having more people than at a one-
time event.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the farm wineries do not have a limit for regular activities, only for special
events.
Mr. Dorrier asked how the pool water comes in.
Ms. McDowell explained that it is fed by an intake from the stream that is adjacent to it, with water
flowing into it.
Mr. Thomas commented that you cannot see the bottom of the pool and mentioned that he swam
there many times when he was a kid.
Mr. Snow asked if campers go hiking every week over the summer.
Ms. Keller said that they are at camp all week, with hiking days being Tuesdays and Thursdays,
coming back Thursday afternoon for the sleepover; for campers who are older there is a leadership
school, which operates out of the same camp.
Mr. Rooker stated that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and said that most people would not
want a building in their neighborhood every day with hundreds of kids, busses, some night activities,
children playing outside, parents coming and going, etc. He said that is what’s called a school.
He said that there are several other pools in the area that are located in neighborhoods, such as
ACAC, Glenmore, etc., that have activities going on all the time. He does not think people’s property
values diminish because of the pools. Mr. Rooker stated that people, himself included, start worrying
about what might happen, but this is a rural area. He asked where else are you going to have a nature
camp but in a rural area? He noted that he can hear the bands at Albemarle High School from his house,
can hear the cheers, and can see the lights from night games, but he does not consider that a detriment to
his property value.
Mr. Rooker commented that this is perfectly timed from a traffic standpoint, as school is closed
when this activity would be going on, and the traffic would likely be less than it would be during the school
year. He said that the current situation is not ideal as it is a grandfathered use and there are really no
limitations on the uses. Mr. Rooker stated that they have a non-compliant septic field that is probably not
good for the stream that adjoins the property, and they technically have no limit on the number of people
who can come and go during the day.
He said that what is proposed is a very compatible activity with the area that would not negatively
impact property values, assuming it is operated within the parameters of the SP. Mr. Rooker stated that
the VDOT entrance will be there if it is approved, but not if it is denied. He said that there was a limitation
on campers that got bumped out of the conditions, but it should be put back in, and he likes the idea of a
sunset provision in the event it does not operate in a reasonable way. Mr. Rooker also stated that the
pavilion should be smaller than 2,000 square feet, since the applicant has only requested 1,200 feet,
perhaps 1,300 square feet, to permit some construction overages.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the first condition mentions the location and size of the pavilion building.
Mr. Rooker suggested that because the applicant had said the building would be 30’x40’, he
would recommend a condition of limiting its size to 1,300 square feet.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he agrees with Mr. Rooker, adding that the pool has been there 100 years,
and when people bought their property nearby, they knew it was there. He emphasized that there have
been no real problems with the pool up to now, and Todd Barnett is an impressive person who has done a
good job with the Field School and will produce results with the camp. Mr. Dorrier noted that he was a
lifeguard at a pool in Scottsville when he was growing up, and said that it is difficult just to put a pool in
anywhere, so one that has been there for that long would likely have more success than a new one
somewhere else. He agreed that the limitation on campers is important, as is the decibel sound limitation
and the sunset clause.
Mr. Snow said that he has been very concerned about doing the right thing here, noting that he
has friends on both sides of the issue. He stated that he had concerns about the fire hazard, but the fire
department has said they can work with it; the health department has approved the changes; VDOT has
approved the traffic plan; the size of the pavilion is 800 square feet smaller than originally thought; the time
of operation is limited to the summer months; the septic system would be approved under this plan; the
handicapped parking is addressed with the lower parking lot; special events would be limited to Memorial
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Day, Labor Day and July 4th; construction access has been answered; there would be no swim meets; and
it is a historic treasure. Mr. Snow said that the last question is whether he would be willing to have this in
his backyard, and mentioned that he recently hosted 12 youth for a campout on his property, where they
had a fire and told stories, and basically it was a good experience. He stated that he would support
approval of this application.
Mr. Thomas agreed, adding that he agrees with what has been said and also has friends on both
sides of the issue here. He stated that he has been in that pool many times, and he thinks that it will be
good for the neighborhood.
Mr. Boyd stated that this is a difficult issue for all Supervisors as it is a neighbor versus neighbor
situation, but the Field School has been a tremendous success and he is confident that Todd Barnett will
do the right thing and be a good neighbor to the people out there. He also said that he tends to go with
Mr. Snow’s thoughts, since this is his district.
Ms. Mallek agreed, adding that having staff, neighbors, and others weigh in has provided
assurance that a good choice will be made. She feels this is a great opportunity for a balance of a
successful pool, a successful camp, and tranquility for the neighbors.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Cilimberg to clarify that condition #1 should state that “the pavilion footprint
shall be no larger than 1,300 square feet,” and asked if planning staff had a recommendation on condition
#3 for the lighting plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that that is a standard condition brought forth by Ms. Thomas to ensure there
is not an overflow of lighting onto adjacent properties.
Ms. Mallek said that since there are no evening hours, it may not be necessary, and perhaps it
can be stated as such.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would just be a waiver of that provision.
Mr. Rooker said that if they are going to have outdoor lighting, the condition should be the same
as for other rural area activities.
Mr. Davis indicated that the condition could be changed to keep the first sentence and then
continue to say “light levels at all property lines shall be no greater than .3 foot candles,” which would
impose the requirement but would not impose the lighting plan.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a lighting plan is the only thing really available to decide whether that is
going to happen or not, so that is what the Board would review to be able to consider lighting.
Mr. Davis said that if the plan is not intended to be waived, the condition should remain as it is.
Mr. Davis also said that the Commission recommends a 10-year time period, which would make
the permit valid until April 6, 2021. In response to Mr. Rooker’s concerns, Mr. Davis also stated that a
condition #12 should be added, based on the Board’s discussion, to state “No more than 100 overnight
campers shall be permitted on the property at any time.”
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2010-00035, subject to 12 conditions. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development of the SP201000035 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
titled “Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and
revised February 2, 2011 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning
and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, developm ent shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
• Limits of disturbance
• Location of pavilion building; Pavilion footprint shall be no larger than 1300 sf ft.
• Location of parking areas
• Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields,
parking and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do
not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP201000035 Blue Ridge Swim Club Camp: five days per week,
Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend and shall not begin earlier than 8:30 AM and
shall not end later than 5:00 PM Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Thursdays, 8:30
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
AM through overnight stays shall be permitted. The nighttime maximum sound level of 55
decebils shall be imposed from 9:30 PM to 8:30 AM.
3. 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 all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. Food prepared off-site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual
Plan.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior
to approval of a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to
approval of site plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or
campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the exception of a megaphone used on Fridays
during each season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) during field games, radios and electronic
sound producing or reproducing devices, provided that any such amplified sound shall comply
with the applicable noise regulations.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall
not be permitted.
10. No more than 200 people shall be on the property for any purpose at any time.
11. SP 2010-00035 shall be valid until April 6, 2021.
12. No more than 100 overnight campers shall be permitted at any one time.
_____
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2010-00041, subject to 10 conditions. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development of the SP201000041 uses use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan
titled “Blue Ridge Swim Club “ prepared by Kelly Strickland and dated December 20, 2010 and
revised February 2, 2011 (Attachment A) (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan,
development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the
design of the development:
• Limits of disturbance
• Location and size of pavilion building
• Location of parking areas
• Minimum clearing possible may be allowed to locate well, septic line and drainfields,
parking and pavilion
as shown on the Blue Ridge Swim Club concept plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do
not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The hours of operation for SP201000041 Blue Ridge Swim Club shall not begin earlier than 12:00
PM (noon) and shall end not later than 8:00 P.M., each day, seven days per week, Memorial Day
weekend through Labor Day weekend.
3. 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 all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. Food prepared off-site may be sold from a concession stand that is depicted on the Conceptual
Plan.
5. Approval of the Health Department for the well, septic and food concession shall be required prior
to approval of a site plan.
6. Approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the entrance shall be required prior to
approval of site plan.
7. Prior approval by the Fire Department shall be required prior to all outdoor cooking and/or
campfires.
8. No amplification of sound shall be permitted, with the exception of a megaphone used on Fridays
during each season (Memorial Day through Labor Day) during field games, radios and electronic
sound producing or reproducing devices, provided that any such amplified sound shall comply
with the applicable noise regulations.
9. Parking on Owensville Road by attendees or staff of the Blue Ridge Swim Club or the Camp shall
not be permitted.
10. No more than 200 people shall be on the property for any purpose at any time.
_______________
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Agenda Item No. 11. Community Development Work Program.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On February 2, 2011, the Board considered the 2011 Community Development Work Program.
(Attachment A) The Board expressed interest in expediting a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) for Rural
Area churches and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for the Interstate Interchange Policy,
requesting that staff provide an analysis of how this could be accomplished. The purpose of this item is to
provide that analysis and seek Board direction.
Process Considerations
The consideration of any land use policy includes: 1) staff analysis, 2) public participation, 3)
Planning Commission consideration, and 4) Board consideration. This ZTA and CPA will each require a
legal advertisement period and public hearing as part of the Planning Commission and Board
considerations. Beyond those legal requirements, the process can be modified to fit each of the issues.
For simple, noncontroversial issues, staff routinely provides a quick analysis and limits the public
participation to the required public hearings. The recently adopted ZTA for auto body shops on Highways
Commercial zoned property is an example of success with this process. On the other hand, staff
customarily provides an extensive public participation process for complex or potentially controversial
issues. The recently adopted ZTA for farm sales is an example of success with this process. While the
former example was completed in three months, the latter required over seven months, even with public
consensus and staff making this their highest priority. From experience, staff has learned that attempts to
shortcut the process for controversial issues is usually counterproductive, resulting in multiple public
hearings, increased resource demands, increased public distrust, and little, if any, time savings. Staff
finds it much more productive to attempt to resolve controversies, even if it delays the schedule, prior to
bringing complex or controversial issues before the Board. Even if conflict cannot be resolved, staff uses
this process to clarify any point of contention and to provide the Board with alternatives that can be
considered.
Resources
The February 2011 executive summary included a chart for the proposed work program.
(Attachment D of February 2011 executive summary) This chart shows that resources are very
constrained for most of 2011 and there are few opportunities to shift priorities. In addition to considering
available staff time, staff must be assigned work in their areas of expertise. For example, certain staff are
experienced with Comprehensive Plan issues while others are experienced in managing Special Use
Permits (SPs). While staff can manage issues outside of their areas of expertise, this requires more staff
time and results in a loss of efficiency. In the case of the church ZTA, maintaining this efficiency would
limit choices to delaying work on the sign ordinance and industrial zoning standards. For the Interstate
Interchange Policy, this would require delaying work on the rest of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Rural Area Churches
This ordinance amendment would allow churches to avoid the need for a Special Use Permit (SP)
by instead being regulated through the use of Supplemental Regulations. Staff believes the ZTA process
presented to the Board in February should be used regardless of whether the schedule is accelerated.
This process provides six months for staff analysis and seeking public input prior to bringing an ordinance
amendment to the Planning Commission. Given the past controversy with a number of church SPs, staff
believes this time is necessary to work through the issues and minimize any controversy prior to bringing
the ZTA to the Board for consideration. The February 2011 schedule shows this work beginning in July,
2011. To accelerate work on this ZTA, staff would propose delaying work on the sign ordinance changes
and Light Industrial (LI) uses until the church ZTA is completed. Staff does not recommend this change
for two reasons. First, staff plans to begin work on the church ZTA in July, per the February schedule. A
reprioritization will only accelerate this by a couple of months and only 1-2 church SP applications are
anticipated in this time period. Thus, the benefit of this change is relatively limited. Second, most of the
work on the sign ordinance and LI uses is nearing completion. Stopping work on those issues will result in
lost momentum, effectively doubling the remaining work when it is resumed. Staff considers this a
significant impact, as the sign ordinance changes and LI uses are priorities listed in the Board’s January
2010 Action Plan or Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Interstate Interchange Policy
The current Comprehensive Plan schedule, as discussed with the Planning Commission on
March 22nd, calls for staff analysis of the Land Use Plan, including the Interstate Interchange Policy, in
Summer 2011, followed by public participation workshops in early Fall 2011, and then Planning
Commission work sessions starting in late Fall 2011. The schedule then provides for focused citizen input
meetings, if needed, in Spring 2012, followed by additional Planning Commission work sessions in
Summer 2012, and final citizen check-ins before proceeding to public hearings for adoption of the entire
plan. Adoption is anticipated by early 2013. As noted above for complex or controversial issues, this
process is heavy in public participation and the milestones can shift depending on the rate of progress in
the resolution of issues.
If there is interest in accelerating an update to this policy, staff would recommend maintaining the
current schedule through the initial Planning Commission work session in late 2011, then breaking out this
policy for a separate public hearing in early 2012. While this approach would require additional public
hearings and may result in consideration of the policy without input from the targeted industry study, staff
believes it could be accommodated with only small delays to the rest of the work on the Comprehensive
Plan. The benefit of this approach is anticipated as a nine month acceleration of the policy consideration.
The cost is estimated at 100 additional hours of staff time, delaying the rest of the Comprehensive Plan
update by a m onth or two, and the cost of 2 additional public hearings. Finally, given the relationship
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
between this policy and the Yancey Mills CPA, the Board should anticipate considerable public scrutiny of
the policy by groups that have proven vocal in their opposition to the Yancey plan.
While it would be possible to further accelerate this consideration by foregoing any staff analysis
or public participation, staff does not recommend this approach except in a situation where there is a
critical and immediate need. As noted above, staff’s experience finds that shortcutting this process often
fails and the failure creates public distrust. Staff also notes this approach would require abandoning the
cooperative effort with the City and TJPDC that is scheduled for a public kickoff on April 27th. The benefit
of this approach is an additional six month acceleration of this policy consideration. The cost of this
approach is delaying other work on the Comprehensive Plan for six months, eroding City and TJPDC trust
of the County, and eroding public confidence in our processes.
Staff’s analysis has been limited to it considerations of currently available resources. Thus,
the budget impacts are limited to the cost of additional public hearings. This budget impact does not
consider any “soft” costs (e.g. public confidence in County processes).
1. For the RA Church ZTA, staff recommends keeping the schedule and process as
presented in February. At best, staff would be able to accelerate the schedule by two
months, and believes that it would not result in a significant benefit while delaying work on
other issues.
2. For the Interstate Interchange Policy CPA, staff recommends keeping the schedule and
process as currently being implemented with the Comprehensive Plan update to allow
time for the target industry study to be completed before the Board’s consideration. If the
Board believes a nine month acceleration of the policy consideration is important, staff
recommends consideration of the Interstate Interchange Policy be separated from the
rest of the Comprehensive Plan following the initial review of the Land Use section of the
Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission in late Fall 2011. A separate public
hearing process would then be expedited for the Interstate interchange Policy, allowing
completion in early 2012.
_____
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, stating that they
had asked him previously about accelerating ZTAs for the RA churches and to evaluate the interstate
interchange policy.
He reported that with the current work program, the other programs are mandated and are
required by ordinance except for GDS and Planning, and going from 2006 with peak of development to
now there has been a significant reduction in staff. Mr. Graham said that the staff is very resource limited
right now, and there seems to be an upward trend in development activity, which is stretching staff
capacity severely and may create a future threat in terms of staff burnout.
He stated that from the February work session there were mandates, including consideration of
the interstate interchange policy and other ordinance amendments such as the rural area churches. Mr.
Graham said that the critical slopes issue is important to address, as Mr. Williamson pointed out earlier
today, but there are not sufficient resources to address the issue.
Mr. Rooker stated that if there is any one issue to address out of those three, it would be critical
slopes, because a lot of staff time is taken up on something that by ordinance is ministerial. He said that
there is a reason why critical slopes cannot be built on without a waiver, and it needs to be made certain
that those things are protected when a waiver is granted. He feels the County is taking up an awful lot of
staff time and Planning Commission time and public hearing time on something that should be perhaps
more objective.
Ms. Mallek said that if the criteria were laid out, an application would either meet it or not.
Mr. Boyd commented that he is concerned that there would be a lot of time spent on critical slopes
and nothing would improve. He added that he is interested in seeing a cost-benefit analysis of these
things, and said he does not understand why it takes so long to get through anything that we do when it
has to do with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Boyd asked if the reason is that there is limited time per
month for staff to accomplish those objectives.
Mr. Graham explained that it is not so much because of time involved in staff analysis, but more
the time involved in taking public comments and incorporating them, and the direction received from the
Planning Commission and the Board. He noted that when Places 29 came to the Board, he estimated a
four-month timeframe and it ended up taking 13 months and four meetings with the Board because of
numerous changes. He said that is really the heart of the time on these things. It is not the initial staff
analysis.
Mr. Boyd suggested that laying out a timeframe for the Board or Commission might help them
stay within a more reasonable calendar.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that every separate group who wanted to meet with staff, such as the
Chamber of Commerce or the North 29 Business Council, that time was allocated.
Mr. Boyd said the Board should look at whether or not that can be changed.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board cannot have it both ways. He added that the Board is often its
worst enemy in trying to speed things up, because of allowing those other factions to weigh in.
Mr. Boyd explained that it was brought to his attention at the RWSA Board, whereby they
separated the cost of the technical work from the input from public meetings. He said it looks like that is
the part of the equation the Board needs to start looking at.
Mr. Rooker said that with respect to the items within the Board’s purview, they need to keep in
mind that they cannot tell staff they want a clear, defined timetable, but then allow other interests to have
meetings with staff and take calls from people.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to limit the length for public input and not make it infinite.
Ms. Mallek said that there is a perception that it is infinite for some and not for others, and the
process is important because it needs to reflect that one group is not being treated differently from
another. She said if there is anything that Albemarle citizens are aware of and will fight to protect, it is the
Comprehensive Plan, and people will be watching and will want to participate.
Mr. Boyd asked to see a timeline of the process regarding the interstate interchange item, and
how much of it is staff time versus public input.
Mr. Graham said that the timeline now has the item before the Planning Commission by early fall.
He also stated that the discussion with the public is not a bad thing, and the County does a very good job
on policy, and part of the reason is because there is careful thought given to decisions. It makes it difficult
to predict what it is going to take to do it, but he thinks that at the end of the day we end up happy that we
went through that process. He acknowledged that it can be a little frustrating but it’s just the nature of the
beast.
Ms. Mallek stated that it gives the public a lot of confidence, and there cannot be a perception that
the County is veering here and there. That will be a high-speed chase to court. She noted that there were
decades when that was the case and we do not need to go back there.
Mr. Rooker said that a sign ordinance came up several years ago which pushed the schedule
back, and of course everyone wants the biggest sign, but if that happens it diminishes the community for
everyone. He stated that there was a huge amount of time invested in that, with a heavy burden on staff,
to ultimately end up going in the wrong direction. Mr. Rooker commented that in that situation the Board
kind of jumped around on the work plan.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to see the County move forward with the interstate interchange
policy and the critical slopes policy if that will save time in the future.
Mr. Rooker said that anyone can meet with Mr. Graham individually, adding that he is not willing to
support pulling individual items out of the Comprehensive Plan update, which will ultimately slow down the
whole process. Mr. Rooker said that he would be willing to look at items like the critical slopes ordinance,
which is an ordinance issue, not a Comp Plan issue, and could really save the public time.
Mr. Boyd asked when the critical slopes issue could be brought forth.
Mr. Graham explained that it is on the backburner because there are not enough staff members to
pick it up. He said that it could be picked up with two months and if the Board does not want to bother with
process, it could go to the Planning Commission in late June or July and back to the Board after that.
Ms. Mallek asked what he means by not bothering with process.
Mr. Graham responded that it would mean not going back out to a roundtable for discussion, but
just taking it out as it is now and going to public hearing.
Mr. Rooker said that that is an ordinance change, and he does not understand why there should
be a bunch of roundtables for an ordinance change, as there may be a work session where people can
weigh in, in addition to public hearings. He does not think we need to spend a year looking at this.
Mr. Boyd commented that there would never be 100% agreement and you cannot keep going
back trying to get consensus.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Graham and Mr. Cilimberg can decide if it needs to come to the Board or not.
Mr. Foley said that there is a balance between the ends of the spectrum, noting that they are
dealing with the interchange policy, the rural area churches, and critical slopes. He stated that staff could
come back with a scenario as to maximum public participation, and some places between. He said there
are three issues here that the Board has got to prioritize in order to get this work done.
Mr. Rooker suggested prioritizing in the order of critical slopes ordinance, church special use
permits, and then leave the interstate interchange discussion for the Comprehensive Plan review. He said
that the first two items will save the County money, and essentially a structure would be put in place
similar to cell tower reviews instead of going through a special use process.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Mr. Boyd agreed but said that the interchange policy could help with the economic vitality efforts
already underway.
Ms. Mallek responded that she is not interested in supporting a radical change on that without the
target study and some other background.
Mr. Rooker suggested looking at the first two issues first and then coming back to the interstate
interchange policy, noting that there are two shopping centers that were approved at interchanges, but
neither has been built. He does not foresee all of a sudden that the Board is holding up something that
might otherwise happen because we have not dealt with that issue. Mr. Rooker added that the critical
slopes and rural area churches are substantive items, not procedural.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there are a few hot button issues that involve staff work to get them
before the Planning Commission this fall, such as interstate interchanges and potential growth area
expansion, so there will be the opportunity at that point to give some direction. He stated that staff has
outlined a two-year program to get the Comprehensive Plan review done, and staff’s goal is to simplify the
document and hit the priority issues.
Mr. Foley stated that if the Board agrees on Mr. Rooker’s proposed order, with good participation
from the public built in, staff will still come back and provide feedback so that the work plan can continue
as outlined. He said that the target industry study will be going on, and staff will come back within six
months with some information on that as well as progress on the other two items.
Mr. Rooker moved to direct staff to prioritize the following issues: Critical Slopes, RA Church
ZTA; and directed staff to keep the schedule for the Interstate Interchange Policy CPA and process as
currently being implemented with the Comprehensive Plan update to allow time for the target industry
study to be completed before the Board’s consideration. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd commented that besides the two projects Mr. Rooker mentioned, there are other
projects that are being postponed because of Comprehensive Plan amendments, and asked if those
applicants can move forward with CPAs.
Mr. Rooker responded that they can file for a Comprehensive Plan change at any point, but
ultimately they will need to get the votes to move it forward.
Mr. Boyd said that there has been a tendency to put them off in deference to Comprehensive Plan
changes.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there was a Comprehensive Plan request at an interstate interchange that
went to the Planning Commission and they voted it down.
Mr. Graham said that it also came to the Board, who decided it should be considered as part of
the Crozet Master Plan.
Mr. Rooker noted that part of it is not liking the result.
Mr. Boyd said that it is not that at all, and the issue is still lingering out there.
Mr. Rooker said that it is not lingering; the Crozet Master Plan was approved, with the Planning
Commission voting on it as well as the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board told the applicant to bring the item back separately.
Ms. Mallek stated that the applicant has not done anything, and it is not the Board’s job to do the
homework for him.
Mr. Dorrier agreed with the prioritization outlined by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Thomas said that he hopes the interstate item does not take two years.
Mr. Boyd said that he did not understand the motion.
Mr. Rooker stated that the motion is to set the three priorities as described and visit the other
items as described by Mr. Cilimberg.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Graham noted that the urban agriculture issue came up this morning, and he wants to make
sure that the Board is not going down a slippery slope here. He said if we start down that slope we are
never going to get this Comprehensive Plan change done.
Mr. Foley suggested coming back to the Board on the Comprehensive Plan as a whole and let
them know how that is going to lay out.
April 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Catlin pointed out that the Crozet Master Plan update and several other recent issues have
come with a public participation plan so that the Board can see and approve what that is all about.
Mr. Foley commented that the master planning process is a significant effort, and some of the
issues discussed today are not as extensive.
Mr. Rooker said that the issues that are part of the Comprehensive Plan need to be handled
carefully and not just broken out because some people asked them to be. He said we need to have some
discipline ourselves, or the whole process gets destroyed.
Mr. Dorrier stated that when something like Biscuit Run happens, the Board needs to be prepared
to act.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board did not really need to do anything, it happened on its own.
Mr. Boyd said that while Ms. Catlin does a tremendous job with public input, consensus will never
be reached.
Ms. Catlin stated that having an agreed-upon approach from the beginning helps staff to
understand expectations so they do not have to make decisions on the fly.
Mr. Rooker commented that at some point the Board’s job is to make that decision, and there will
always be someone who is not happy with it.
Mr. Foley said that staff has received some good direction today and would run the process back
through a Consent Agenda for Board review.
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek said that they would like to see that come through.
Mr. Boyd said that he would agree to a more scripted process.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that the applicants must do their homework too, and not come in with
incomplete applications. She emphasized that the Comp Plan is a different thing from specific
applications, and she is nervous about taking things out and not having the broad picture.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Graham mentioned that a ZTA on the Batesville wireless policy would be going to the
Planning Commission on April 19 and if there is an interest from the Board in accelerating that to have a
May public hearing, staff would need direction prior to a Planning Commission action. He said that it
would require a slight change in the ordinance, and it would otherwise be heard by the Board in June,
assuming it gets out of the Commission on the 19th.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to April 19, 2011, 6:30 p.m., Martha Jefferson Hospital, Kessler
Conference Room, located at Peter Jefferson Place.
Mr. Rooker moved to adjourn their meeting to April 19 at 6:30 p.m. at the Kessler Room at
Martha Jefferson Hospital. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned their meeting at 5:28 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 01/04/2012
Initials: EWJ