2011-05-11May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 11,
2011, at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, and Mr. Duane E. Snow.
ABSENT: Rodney S. Thomas
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W . Davis,
Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Proclamation recognizing May 16-22, 2011 as National Bicycle Week.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing the week of May 16-22, 2011 as Bicycle
Week in the County, in conjunction with National Bicycle Week, and called upon all citizens to recognize
the value of bicycling in the community and observe the week appropriately.
National Bike Week
May 16 through 22, 2011
WHEREAS, for more than a century, the bicycle has been an important part of the lives of most
Americans; and
WHEREAS, today, millions of Americans engage in bicycling as an environmentally sound form of
transportation, an excellent form of fitness, and a exceptional form of quality family
recreation; and
WHEREAS, the education of cyclists and motorists as to the proper and safe operation of their vehicles in
relation to each other is important to ensure the safety and comfort of all users; and
WHEREAS, the League of American Bicyclists and independent cyclists throughout our region are
promoting greater public awareness of bicycle operation and safety education in an effort to
reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville community has been named a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community by the
League of American Bicyclists;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Ann Mallek, Chair on behalf of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim, the week of
May 16-22, 2011
as
Bike Week
in the County of Albemarle in coordination with National Bike Week and call upon all
citizens to recognize the value of bicycling in our community and to observe this week with
appropriately.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Due to the number of people present and the length of the agenda, Ms. Mallek asked that if Board
members have items they wish to discuss, that they wait until Other Matters under Agenda Item No. 18.
Mr. Rooker presented information on the State‟s current proposed six-year road plan and the
funding that is included, noting that the funding per capita amount in Albemarle is $41.00 – with the
average in all MPOs being $548.00 per capita. He added that Albemarle County is, by far, the lowest per-
capita funded MPO in the State. He added that the next MPO closest to Albemarle County would get
three times as much per capita. There is a similar comparison for Planning District Commissions.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the MPO includes Albemarle and Charlottesville. Mr. Rooker responded that
it is the urbanized part of Albemarle. The reason that the population is 110,000 is that it includes the
entire City of Charlottesville and the urbanized area of Albemarle County.
Mr. Snow commented that the MPO is drafting a letter to go to the State on this issue.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Rooker stated that this is pretty deplorable and the Board should provide comment to the
state.
Ms. Mallek noted that, by early June, the County should send a letter to the State expressing
concern over transportation funding for Albemarle County.
____________
Ms. Mallek reported that the Northeast Regional train line, running from Lynchburg to D.C. and
continuing to Boston, increased ridership in April 2011 over April 2010 by 17,000 passengers. This region
still needs to sever its train from the Richmond train that is not succeeding in order to keep focus on the
success of this region‟s train.
___________
Ms. Mallek expressed concerns about urban automobiles‟ use of Farm Use plates, the sort that
can be purchased at Southern States, that is meant for wagons and trailers. People are abusing this
licensing. She added that the official farm use plates are only issued by DMV for the motorized part of a
conveyance. She said that she wanted people to know that they could get a fine because of the misuse of
these plates.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Steve Peters, of the Jefferson Area Tea Party (JATP), addressed the Board and accused Mr.
Rooker of making derogatory remarks about the JATP, including comments at the May 4 meeting that
referred to them as the outside group stomping their feet. He said that this was not the first time Mr.
Rooker made a derogatory comment or an incorrect statement about JATP.
Mr. Peters said that the members of the Tea Party live, work, and pay taxes in this County, all the
things that ICLEI does not do. He also stated that there is no need for ICLEI to be here because they
already are, in the back rooms, in the computer systems, and talking to County employees. Mr. Peters
noted that ICLEI tries to portray itself as a mainstream organization, but, in fact, they have 600 members
in this country. Russia and China also have one membership each. Basically, there are 30,000
incorporated cities in this country. There are 16,500 townships and a multitude of other organized
governments. ICLEI represents less than 1% of those; so we have allowed ICLE to come into our County
and we are the fringe group. ICLEI is not mainstream. He quoted from one Supervisor from another
County that kicked ICLEI out after they had been dealing with them. The supervisor said, “I support
measures to protect our environment but I believe ICLEI‟s vision is incompatible with the rights and
freedoms of our citizens.”
_______________
Ms. Mallek announced that comments need to be made to the Board as a whole, not to individual
members, and the attendees should refrain from any outbursts of approval or disapproval so as to create
a safe zone for everyone no matter what their opinion may be.
_______________
Ms. Audrey Welborn stated that she has lived in the County for 41 years and in the Jack Jouett
District for 32 years. She said that she considers herself a good steward as a resident and as someone
who has been very involved in community activities for the entire time. She said she first learned about
ICLEI last summer when she read several articles about it. She became concerned when she learned
that Albemarle County was a member of ICLEI.
Ms. Wellborn said that, in Virginia, there are 18 cities and towns that are a part of ICLEI out of 324
localities, about 6%. In her review of their International website and their USA website, she is very
concerned because it seems to be a lot of the same groups that are together with it. She stated that the
software is very involved and saw the County‟s report that comes from ICLEI‟s information. ICLEI also
has on its website information on how to get your community to join ICLEI. She also went to the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District forum and got a lot of information from there. Ms. Wellborn said she is
concerned about the implementation plan, concerned about behavior changes and strategies for changing
the County Code.
_______________
Ms. Carole Thorpe asked the people attending the meeting who are against the Cool Counties
program and sustainable development in the County to rise and stand silently (approximately 25 people
stood). Ms. Thorpe said she was present to ask the Board about the 1998 Sustainability Accords. In the
Charlottesville Region Sustainability Implementation Plan it cites the Accords as being a key foundational
document of that plan and was the basis of the $1 million HUD grant. She said that she has read the
Accords and finds much of its content chilling, and asked each Board member to state whether or not they
have read the Accords in their entirety. She asked if the Board members are in agreement with what is
within the Accords.
Ms. Thorpe contended that the Accords reads like a collectivist nirvana, and it is about much more
than land use, air quality, water conservation and recycling. She read from the document in which it states
that “ensure that every member of the community is able to obtain employment that provides just
compensation, mobility and fulfillment.” She said those are wonderful goals, but asked how the Board
expects employers provide them. She said even more concerting is the population measures which
addresses population composition which is the distribution of population according to age, race, ethnicity,
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
income, personal welcome, education and employment status. She stated that this is not in the purview of
County government.
In terms of a comment made by Mr. Rooker at the last meeting relative to the Tea Party‟s agenda,
Ms. Thorpe said that the agenda of the Jefferson Area Tea Party is the Constitution of the United States.
_______________
Ms. Betty Sevachko, a 25 year resident of the County, reiterated a request she made several
months ago to the Board to spend the County taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently. She asked the
Board to discontinue participation in Cool Counties and ICLEI. She said that she is fed up with big
government at all levels. She said that the Board should not abdicate its control on the issues facing the
County to an outside group. This is about control and not about the environment. She said that the
citizens elected Board members to take care of County resources and to ensure that every dollar collected
in taxes is spent effectively and efficiently. She asked that this Board be a voice for the taxpayer through
small government by discontinuing membership in the Cool Counties program.
_______________
Ms. Amy Skolnick addressed the Board, stating that she and her Monticello High School group
have been working on a community action project for their Government class. They have been studying
the topic of red light cameras. Ms. Skolnick said that some citizens have felt that the cameras are an
invasion of privacy and/or just a way for the County to make money. She stated that her group recently
met with Rob Bell and John Whitehead, both of whom oppose the use of red light cameras, and with the
Albemarle County Police Department – which supports their use. Ms. Skolnick said that they also met
with Coy Barefoot on the issue, who expressed concern that the cameras are from a foreign country. She
stated that the group has gathered information on both sides of the debate and has come to the
conclusion that the red light cameras are beneficial to the County‟s safety as they are reducing the amount
of red light runners and fatal accidents. Ms. Skolnick said that they also agree with some of Mr. Barefoot‟s
points in that the cameras should be made here in our country. The group also believes that the fines
should be higher than the existing $50 if the County really wants to stop red light runners.
_______________
Mr. Charles Battig said he would like to continue his sustainability monologue and wished it was
the Board‟s choice to make it a dialogue. He said he e-mailed the Board last Friday a point-by-point
response to issues raised at the May 4, 2011 Board of Supervisors‟ meeting. Lack of any direct
communication by the U.N. by the Board of Supervisors has been offered as evidence of no influence by
the U.N. or the Board of Supervisors or on the County. Perhaps those making that claim are
unacquainted with Greek history and the tale of the Trojan Horse.
He said the Board has been dancing to the U.N. tune. He said ICLEI, Agenda 21, and the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development are interchangeable as they are all cut from the same
cloth. ICLEI helped shape the U.N.‟s Agenda 21. It was a U.N. Conference which proclaimed – Land
cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals. Private land ownership contributes to
social injustice. Social justice appears as a goal in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
grant.
He went on to say that ICLEI has purchased a position of influence in County government for
$1,200 per year. Whether it is the ICLEI Clean Air and Climate Protection Software or the Climate and Air
Pollution Planning Assistant used by the County in following the ICLEI five milestones, the inherent
message is the same. A well meaning, public concern for environmental stewardship has been used as a
guise for a program advocating a radical curtailment of private property rights, individual freedoms, and an
unwelcome intrusion into every aspect of personal lives. The term sustainability has been given cult
status in our federal and local governments. The term has achieved a silly putty character which allows its
meaning to justify whatever its users want it to be. Long frustrated that its 1998 Sustainability Accords
were not implemented, the unelected TJPDC has now set out to change the County‟s Comprehensive
Plan with a nearly $1 million HUD funded Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program.
Although the term sustainability appears almost 70 times in the grant, the TJPDC has an apparent case of
buyer‟s remorse and has changed the name to the Livable Communities Planning District. Such a name
change has precedent.
Mr. Battig said that former President Clinton‟s advisor for sustainability notes, “we call our process
something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.” He said he
could not bring the Board a Trojan Horse, but he brought them a ducky to remind them that if it looks like a
duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. ICLEI and TJPDC are ducks of a
feather.
_______________
Mr. Charles Winkler stated that, in the Albemarle County Emissions Baseline Report, ICLEI is
mentioned 22 times in 68 pages. The County then sincerely thanks two representatives from ICLEI for
providing data, information and guidance throughout the process of establishing the County‟s baseline
inventory. In looking at ICLEI‟s membership application forms, someone from the County has to be
appointed as the political contact and a staff person to act as liaison. He noted that Question 8 on the
application form asks “how ICLEI can help the community with its sustainability problems,” which is then
mailed to Toronto. Mr. Winkler said that he has concerns about this information going out of the country,
including an ICLEI Secretary located in Germany. He is also concerned about the type of information
provided to ICLEI and what is done with that information.
_______________
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Linda McRaven said that she is very frightened by what is happening. She urged the Board to
abandon the ICLEI money, software and platform now. She said that there is enough difficulty making
decisions locally now without having somebody else set the basis and the platform for it. Ms. McRaven
asked why the Board wants people in various other locations to set limits for what Albemarle citizens do
with their hard bought and hard fought properties. It is difficult enough to accept the Board making and
originating decisions. Ms. McRaven said that the Board is absolutely abdicating its power and base by
doing this, and she does not get it.
She said that within three weeks of Ms. Mallek joining the Board and a 15 minute vote on three
issues, she personally lost 40% of the value of her property. Ms. McRaven stated that she then worked
very hard at that point to get Mr. Slutzky off the Board. If this Board continues to support ICLEI the
citizens will do the same to work and get them unelected. The citizens have to protect themselves and
they cannot let Board members just walk all over them.
_______________
Ms. Pat Napoleon addressed the Board, stating that she is here because she perceives there are
obstacles to their freedoms, noting that several on the Board promote their own personal philosophies by
aligning with pet organizations or politically divisive agendas. There is a pattern of abuse and it‟s time to
discontinue such a model of governance. Ms. Napoleon said that the Piedmont Environmental Council
has paid consultants to create designs for costly Northern Virginia type traffic roundabouts proposed for
the villages of Keswick and Cismont. County staff has worked with PEC in forming a huge and negative
impact on private lands owned by taxpayers and residents. She said that it is inappropriate for Albemarle
County to allow any private organization to petition the state or county in reconfiguring the public highway
against the will of the property owners as and when actions interfere with private lands. She thanked Mr.
Boyd, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas for their leadership in this matter.
She added that the County has also thrown its hat in the legal arena regarding the YMCA dispute
whereby parkland will be maimed. Ms. Napolean asked if the County could not find use for the $3 million
in its own initiatives. She that ICLEI is but one symptom of a larger disease lurking within the County‟s
mist.
_______________
Mr. Ray Caddell, a resident of 334 Dover Road, Carrsbrook, said that for the second time in four
years he was notified by a small, tiny sign at the end of his street that biosolids were going to be applied
on the property adjacent to his. Biosolids is about human feces. Mr. Caddell expressed concern that this
organic fertilizer is being spread on property that is on the banks of the South Fork of the Rivanna River –
which is also in the floodplain. He mentioned that the last time biosolids were used on the property four
years ago, his wife got a cough that persisted and his daughter had more asthmatic episodes than she‟d
ever had before.
Mr. Caddell stated that what is being done is absolutely legal but it is not right. He said that he
forwarded via email to Board a report from the State Office of Epidemiology that notes the origin of
biosolids – which is primarily the D.C. area. The Washington DC Water and Sewer Authority Blue Plains
Treatment Facility contribute most of the total amount of biosolids distributed in Virginia. This is not even
Albemarle County‟s staff. He said that every 100 days, these companies send the DEQ a list of properties
which they want to dump this waste on. He asked the Board to examine this program. There is state
money available that allows County employees to get involved.
_______________
Mr. Kirk Bowers, a County resident, a 30-year engineer, and Co-Chair of the Conservation
Committee for the Piedmont Chapter of the Sierra Club, addressed the Board. He said that he was
speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club‟s 1,053 members. Mr. Bowers said that from the University of
Virginia‟s Weldon Cooper Center Citizens Satisfaction Survey, residents continue to have a favorable
impression of the quality of life in Albemarle County. In 2006, 81.5% believe that it is important to maintain
this quality of life. He reported that residents who lived here two years or less said that the reason they
moved here is because of the quality of life. In 2008, protection of natural resources and the environment
received a moderate importance and a high satisfaction rating level – meaning citizens are happy with
what has been done and would like it to continue. Mr. Bowers stated that 80% of residents also
expressed satisfaction with the job the County is doing in giving them value for their tax dollars. He
thanked the Board for their work in environmental protection and asked them to vote for the ICLEI
membership funding.
_______________
Mr. John Chavan, a County resident, said that, from a common sense point of view, he thinks
ICLEI could spread as cancer would in a person. He asked the Board to take the first step in stopping
ICLEI in its inception. He stated that he is proud of his citizenship here, his property rights and he
supports small government. He asked the Board to discontinue ICLEI.
_______________
Mr. Terry Newell, a resident of Earlysville, asked Board members to imagine that they were told
that a permit has been issued for the application of these biosolids for a farm adjacent to their home.
Biosolids may be applied within 200 feet of your property and per acre of farmland they may contain –
within state regulations – 36 pounds of arsenic, 270 pounds of lead, 16 pounds of mercury, 1340 pounds
of copper and 225 pounds of zinc. Mr. Newell stated that state and federal officials are not sure of the
long term effects of this material on human health. He said that several studies express uncertainty about
the potential for adversity to human health due to exposure to biosolids.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Newell said that neither the state nor County tests the contents of biosolids when they are
applied. The wastewater treatment plant is required to certify that the contaminants do not exceed state
and federal limits, but there is no independent verification. The hauler of the material is not required to
test it nor is the farmer who gets the material free for his property. He emphasized that it is hard to get
biosolids out of the groundwater.
Mr. Newell asked the Board to approve a resolution to the state opposing the application of this
material until it can be proven safe, to implement a testing program that measures the contaminant
content in biosolids applied to land to provide an independent measure, and implement a groundwater and
reservoir testing program to establish baseline levels for regulated contaminants and ongoing assessment
to determine if these levels are exceeded.
_______________
Mr. Edward Brooks addressed the Board, stating that he is a long time resident of the Porter‟s
Precinct, Scottsville Magisterial District. He said that he is present to address the Board‟s prior decision to
switch the Porter‟s Precinct to the Samuel Miller District. The residents do not feel that there was effective
community engagement related to their switch to a different magisterial district. The public hearing was
scheduled during day time hours. He expressed concern about reducing the voting strength of the
African-American comm unity from 12% of the Scottsville District to 8% in Samuel Miller. Mr. Brooks
stated that he has sent a letter to the Justice Department and went to the Registrar‟s Office on Friday only
to find out the plan was being submitted on an expedited basis. He said that his letter requests that the
Justice Department deny the plan under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He will provide the Board
members with a copy of the letter. Mr. Brooks said this switching of magisterial districts is going to be
problematic and not acceptable.
_______________
Ms. Sherry Wheeler addressed the Board, stating that she and her neighbor Kristen Dexter live in
the Briarwood Subdivision – which was built in the 1980s. Ms. Wheeler explained that they are connected
by their sewers and are sharing a lateral that, according to Code, they should not be sharing. She said
that they have been working with the County, ACSA and Mr. Wood, the builder, for over three years. She
said that they want to know who is responsible for fixing the breaks under the public road.
Ms. Dexter explained that Faulconer put the main line in to North Pines behind their neighborhood
and dropped one lateral to the property. She said that that was supposed to be a single-family home but it
was turned into a duplex and they had to join the line because there was only one lateral. Ms. Dexter
stated that there is a break in the curb and one in the road about 15 feet down, and VDOT has said that
they are not supposed to fix the road. She also said that the ACSA has said the builder is supposed to fix
the problem, however, the builder is saying the ACSA should fix it. They have been directed to come to
the Board to determine who is supposed to fix this problem and then get it rectified.
_______________
Mr. Jim Byrom said he owns a farm in Blackwells Hollow. He said that he has addressed the
Board at its last two meetings about a concern with a neighboring landowner. This issue has been
brought to the County‟s attention for over a year; he has also spoken with Mr. Foley and Mr. Davis.
Mr. Byrom said he has asked for a written response from the County as he does not feel what he
has been told is not factual or legal.
Mr. Byrom asked the Board what message it sends to legal licensed contractors when the County
will not effectively enforce building permits or licensures against those unlicensed contractors that
obviously underbid legitimate contractors. He also asked them what message it sends to landowners who
hire legitimate contractors when County government does not enforce laws on those unlicensed
contractors.
_______________
Mr. Greg Quinn addressed the Board, stating that the United Nations does not have any business
doing anything locally. Mr. Quinn said that the Smart Growth Legislative Guide Book produced by the
American Planning Association with a grant from the US HUD is a cookbook guide for achieving effective
government control of growth and environmental issues such as sustainability by nibbling away at private
choice and property rights. He asked the Board to discontinue the County‟s membership in ICLEI. He
added that the residents do not want a Northern Virginia or a Fairfax here and they definitely do not need a
bunch of foreigners in County business.
_______________
Ms. Clara Belle Wheeler addressed the Board, quoting Edmund Burke as saying “Evil will prevail
when good men do nothing.” Ms. Wheeler stated that the community does not need any outside influence
or organization dictating how they live. She reiterated the requests of Ms. Carole Thorpe, Dr. Battig and
Dr. Winkler and asked the Board to not do what the U.S. Congress does by implementing a plan and
accepting funding before reading all the documents. She asked the Board to not sell out this community
for a few pieces of silver. Ms. Wheeler asked the Board to not accept the controls of ICLEI or Agenda 21,
for they will hang us all at the hands of a foreign concern whose agenda is control of their land, their
homes and their livelihoods.
_______________
Ms. Mary Robinson, a County resident, addressed the Board, stating that freedom is just slowly
being picked away from American people. She said that their sovereignty is being jeopardized. ICLEI is
being used as a strategy to invade the United States. The $1,200 paid to ICLEI gives them a right to
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
intrude on the residents‟ privacy and property. Ms. Robinson said that ICLEI is trying to infringe on
people‟s right to use things like water and ICLEI claims that the U.S. standard of living is too high. She
asked the Board to remove ICLEI forever.
_______________
Ms. Helen Swift Dovel, an Earlysville resident, asked Board members what the rationale is for
signing onto ICLEI as she has not heard any justification as to why the County would remain a member.
_______________
Mr. Michael Johnson, a 38 year resident of the County, addressed the Board, pointing to the flags
in the room and stated that the United States fought a war to stop foreigners from telling us how to run our
lives. He reiterated a comment from George Santayana that those people who do not remember the past
are doomed to repeat it.
_______________
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board would be holding a work session on June 1st to continue the
discussion on ICLEI.
_______________
Mr. Boyd asked if staff had looked at the sewer issue in Briarwood from a Zoning or Community
Development standpoint.
Mr. Davis responded that Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community, has looked at the issue and
could provide the Board with a status.
_______________
Mr. Rooker said that the County is under legal restraints regarding biosolids in terms of areas
preempted by state law. He thinks the County needs to understand the limits of what it can do. He asked
if there could be some enhanced look by the County on biosolids especially located in floodplains.
Mr. Davis responded that the County does not have the authority to impose any greater standards
than what the State requires already in those instances. It is regulated by the State and DEQ. The only
authority the County has is to implement a local inspection program . Mr. Graham has already provided
information on the cost of that program and his opinion as to whether that would enhance the
effectiveness of it.
Ms. Mallek said that there is a comment period that is closing shortly, but the County can also
submit its thoughts to the reading group that is going to take in the comments. Mr. Larry Land, from
VACo, is part of that committee. She will circulate to Board members, for their information, resolutions
she received as references from Shenandoah County who has also been doing a lot of work on the issue.
In his last memo, Mr. Graham stated that there is so much draw on the number of acres that is being
spread upon every year that it would require a half-time person to monitor. The big dilemma is really the
ineffectiveness of the reporting procedures as they seem to be operating. She also said that there has not
been a decision by the Department of Health or DEQ about the use of land in the growth area. That is a
very different circumstance when there are so many people living nearby, but not traveling by the place
where the sign is posted.
Mr. Snow commented that there isn‟t really enough information to go on yet. He thinks that at the
least the Board can adopt a resolution and send it to the State.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to especially emphasize the issue of spreading biosolids along
rivers. He stated that it would be helpful to have a DEQ representative come to a Board meeting and
further explain this to the Board. He said that he is not interested in hiring someone without more
information and to do something the State is supposed to be doing.
Ms. Mallek said that the point of the notification program is that the inspector is to meet the
biosolids truck and test it but, because of the current 100-day automatic renewal process, that is
impossible. The new rules the State is working on should address that process.
Mr. Snow agreed with bringing in a DEQ official and asked how many farms in the area are using
biosolids.
Ms. Mallek responded that about 3,000 acres were mentioned in Mr. Graham‟s email.
_______________
Mr. Boyd said that he appreciates the comments by Mr. Brooks about having important public
discussions during the day time. He suggested that the Board consider moving the ICLEI discussion to
the June 8th night meeting as it is obviously of tremendous interest to the community.
Mr. Foley said staff would work on coordinating that. He asked if the Board wanted to have it for
discussion at 6:00 p.m., on June 1st.
Mr. Rooker stated that his preference would be to move it to an evening meeting of its own and
not onto an already packed agenda. He suggested scheduling it for June 8th and consider rearranging
items if they are already scheduled for June 1st.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Board members concurred.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the
Consent Agenda. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. (Discussions on items are included with that agenda
item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
______________
Item No. 6.1. FY 11/12 Resolution of Appropriations.
The executive summary states that the County‟s FY 11/12 Operating and Capital Budgets were
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 6, 2011, for a total projected amount of $304,473,215. On
April 28, 2011, the School Board officially adopted the School Fund and the School Self-Sustaining Fund
budgets. The attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2011
provides the authority from the Board of Supervisors for the County to spend those funds, effective July 1,
2010.
This comprehensive resolution appropriates the total County budget, including both general
government and school operating and capital funds, School Self-Sustaining and initial Special Revenue
Fund appropriations in a single resolution.
Staff recommends approval of the Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 11/12 (Attachment A)
that allocates a total of $304,394,001 to various General Government and School Division operating,
capital improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 11/12.
The FY 11/12 total budget recommended for appropriation is $79,214 less than the budget formally
adopted by the Board on April 6, 2011 due to changes in the School Fund and School Self-Sustaining
Funds. The appropriated budget reflects the School Fund and School Self-Sustaining Funds that were
approved by the School Board at its April 28, 2011 meeting.
This appropriation is made up of the following major funds:
General Fund $215,581,818
School Fund 144,491,184
School Self-Sustaining 20,545,906
Special Revenue 14,263,381
Capital Projects 18,649,535
Debt Service 17,352,676
TOTAL $430,884,500
Less Inter-fund Transfers ($126,490,499)
GRAND TOTAL $304,394,001
In accordance with the Capital Budget, staff also recommends approval of the attached
Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing (Attachment B).
This would allow the County to use up to $23,772,286 in bond proceeds to reimburse the capital budget
for expenditures as indicated in Attachment B Exhibit A.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the Annual Resolution of Appropriations
for FY 11/12 that allocates a total of $304,394,001 to various General Government and School
Division operating, capital improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 11/12,
and adopted the Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a
Borrowing, as set out below:
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2012
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the
items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions
that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
SECTION I – GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to be
apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS:
Refunds and Abatements $173,500
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
Board of Supervisors $577,562
County Attorney $911,527
County Executive $960,995
Department of Finance $4,117,239
Department of Human Resources $662,770
Department of Information Technology $2,487,297
Management and Budget $290,222
Voter Registration/ Elections $547,543
$10,555,155
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL
Circuit Court $110,945
Clerk of the Circuit Court $669,016
Commonwealth‟s Attorney $910,408
General District Court $23,894
Juvenile Court $119,229
Magistrate $4,425
Sheriff‟s Office $2,013,438
$3,851,355
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY
Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department $6,807,669
Building Codes and Inspections $1,060,583
Community Attention Home $60,149
Department of Police $13,051,415
Emergency Communications Center $2,066,831
Fire Department Contract (City of Charlottesville) $845,638
Fire/Rescue Tax Credit $59,500
Forest Fire Extinguishment $23,786
Juvenile Detention Center $710,900
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) $156,936
Regional Jail Authority $3,378,990
SPCA Contract $477,440
Thomas Jefferson EMS Council $19,257
VJCCCA $52,231
Volunteer Fire Departments $1,343,877
Volunteer Rescue Squads $432,910
$30,548,112
Paragraph Five: GENERAL SERVICES / PUBLIC WORKS
Facilities Development Department $866,608
General Services $3,174,503
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority $350,000
$4,391,111
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES
AIDS Support Group $4,762
Arc of the Piedmont Infant Development Program $8,969
Boys and Girls Club $13,044
Bright Stars Transfer $757,287
BRMC – Latino Lay Health Promoter $5,225
Charlottesville Free Clinic $112,310
Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) $95,550
Commission on Children & Families (CCF) $96,591
Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $2,510,747
Computers4Kids $14,876
Department of Social Services $11,397,968
Health Department $551,444
JAUNT $922,025
Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) $283,283
Jefferson Area CHIP $316,539
Legal Aid Justice Center $36,935
Madison House $10,369
Music Resource Center $5,759
Piedmont CASA $8,924
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) $22,524
Piedmont Workforce Network $13,943
Region Ten Community Services $575,226
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) $22,220
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) $88,875
Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $1,000,000
United Way $117,081
$18,992,476
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
African American Festival $2,727
Ash-Lawn Highland $9,239
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Darden Towe Park Transfer $152,262
Department of Parks & Recreation $2,194,476
Hatton Ferry $5,000
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library – Regional $1,006,082
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library – Charlottesville-Albemarle $1,616,949
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library – Crozet Library $245,815
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library – Scottsville Library $160,976
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library – Extension Services $190,461
Literacy Volunteers $25,287
Municipal Band $16,535
Piedmont Council of the Arts $11,676
Virginia Discovery Museum $11,115
Virginia Festival of the Book $10,872
Virginia Film Festival $14,889
Visitors Bureau $557,604
WHTJ Public Television $2,484
WVPT Public Television $2,484
$6,236,933
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $399,467
Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation $6,237
Central Virginia Small Business Development Center $7,878
Charlottesville Transit Service $648,004
Department of Community Development $3,865,534
Housing Office $516,952
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) $115,645
Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) $38,268
Planning District Commission (TJPDC) $109,375
Soil and Water Conservation $96,355
Stream Watch $10,378
VPI Extension Service $203,859
$6,017,952
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund – Recurring $134,081
Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund – One-Time $484,222
Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund $88,779
Transfer to Storm Water Fund $104,500
$811,582
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
Revenue Sharing Agreement $18,089,812
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
Economic Development Fund $25,000
Reserve for Contingencies $723,631
Salary Contingency – Reclassifications $225,000
Transfer to General Government Debt Service $3,909,047
Transfer to School Division Debt Service $12,956,228
Transfer to School Fund – Recurring $97,245,582
Transfer to Vehicle Replacement Fund $141,500
VERIP Program $687,842
$115,913,830
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $215,581,818
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $185,255,457
Revenue from Local Sources – Transfers $2,700,794
Revenue from the Commonwealth $22,952,060
Revenue from the Federal Government $4,673,507
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $215,581,818
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND (Fund 2000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes herein
specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
Administration, Attendance & Health $6,564,048
Facilities Construction/ Modification $162,100
Facilities Operation/ Maintenance $13,927,921
Instruction $109,063,641
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Pupil Transportation Services $8,608,670
Technology $2,247,256
Other Uses of Funds $3,917,548
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $144,491,184
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $97,245,582
Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,060,705
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over, Transfers $3,227,034
Revenue from the Commonwealth $39,756,487
Revenue from the Federal Government $3,201,376
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $144,491,184
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified
to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES (Fund 3000)
Maintenance/ Operation of School Cafeterias $5,136,803
Summer Feeding $300,500
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $5,437,303
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $3,486,619
Revenue from the Commonwealth $76,000
Revenue from the Federal Government $1,874,684
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $5,437,303
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3205)
Special Ed Pre-School Program $64,233
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June
30, 2012:
$64,233
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $64,233
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2012:
$64,233
Paragraph Three: McINTIRE TRUST FUND (Fund 3501)
Payment to County Schools $10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust $10,000
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $10,000
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM
C. B. I. P. Severe (Fund 3201) $1,102,769
E. D. Program (Fund 3202) $787,986
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $1,890,755
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees $1,890,755
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $1,890,755
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Adult Education (Fund 3115) $126,500
Carl Perkins (Fund 3207) $150,000
Chapter I (Fund 3101) $1,600,000
Migrant Education (Fund 3103) $147,000
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Title II (Fund 3203) $490,000
English Literacy/Civics (Fund 3221) $166,500
Economically Dislocated Workers (Fund 3116) $60,000
Title III (Fund 3215) $126,000
21st Century Grant (Fund 3219) $163,177
Technology Challenge Grant (Fund 3131) $15,776
Race to GED (Fund 3309) $60,000
Families in Crisis (Fund 3304) $75,000
Safe Schools (Fund 3316) $778,766
Healthy Students (3317) $704,360
ARRA (Fund 3162) $1,314,905
TITLE I 1003A-GREER ELEM (3172) $175,608
MIGRNT CONSORT INCNTV GRT $24,733
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $6,178,325
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $80,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $50,000
Revenue from the Federal Government $6,048,325
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year June 30, 2012: $6,178,325
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3300)
Community Education $1,619,213
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $1,619,213
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $1,619,213
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$1,619,213
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL (Fund 3310)
Summer School $460,561
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $460,561
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $149,621
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $171,440
Miscellaneous Revenues $2,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $137,500
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $460,561
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT (Fund 3905)
School Bus Replacement $985,270
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $985,270
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $985,270
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$985,270
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND (Fund 3145)
AIMR Summer Rental $446,010
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $446,010
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (rental) $446,010
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$446,010
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Paragraph Ten: INTERNAL SERVICE – VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 3910)
Vehicle Maintenance
918,437
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$918,437
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Charges) $918,437
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2012:
$918,437
Paragraph Eleven: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND (Fund 3133)
General Adult Education $15,000
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$15,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $5,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $10,000
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June
30, 2012:
$15,000
Paragraph Twelve: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND (Fund 3305)
Drivers Safety Fund $435,600
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $435,600
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $375,100
Revenue from the Commonwealth $60,500
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $435,600
Paragraph Thirteen: OPEN DOORS FUND (Fund 3306)
Open Doors Fund $123,000
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $123,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tuition) $119,000
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements) $4,000
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $123,000
Paragraph Fourteen: STATE PROGRAMS
Special Education Jail Program (Fund 3212) $152,024
Algebra Readiness (Fund 3152) $33,063
Individualized Student Alternative Education (Fund 3142) $23,576
Teacher Mentor Program (Fund 3151) $11,865
Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $220,528
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth $220,528
Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $220,528
Paragraph Fifteen: COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL
Community Charter School (Fund 3380) $95,671
Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $95,671
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $95,671
Total COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$95,671
Paragraph Sixteen: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 3907)
Computer Equipment Replacement Fund $1,000,000
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2012:
$1,000,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $1,000,000
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$1,000,000
Paragraph Seventeen KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY (Fund 3157)
Kluge-Club Yancey $30,000
Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $30,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $30,000
Total KLUGE-CLUB YANCEY resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $30,000
Paragraph Eighteen: FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE (Fund 3502)
Foundation for Excellence $12,000
Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE appropriations for fiscal year ending $12,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Miscellaneous) $12,000
Total FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$12,000
Paragraph Nineteen: Textbook Replacement Fund
Textbook Replacement $500,000
Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer) $500,000
Total TEXTBOOK REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$500,000
Paragraph Twenty: American History Grant
American History $104,000
Total AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $104,000
Total AMERICAN HISTORY GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$104,000
GRAND TOTAL – OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS $20,545,906
SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM purposes
herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND (Fund 1551)
Comprehensive Services Act Program Expenditures $6,752,793
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$6,752,793
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $2,510,747
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $763,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $3,180,981
Revenue from Fund Balance $298,065
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$6,752,793
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND (Fund 1553)
Bright Stars Program $1,085,545
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2012:
$1,085,545
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $757,287
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School Fund) $95,535
Revenue from the Commonwealth $232,723
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$1,085,545
Paragraph Three: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND (Fund 4200)
Darden Towe Memorial Park $243,030
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $243,030
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from the General Fund) $152,262
Revenue from Other Local Sources $90,768
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$243,030
Paragraph Four: MJ HEALTH GRANT (Fund 1563)
MJ Health Grant $5,000
TOTAL MJ HEALTH GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $5,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources $5,000
Total MJ HEALTH GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $5,000
Paragraph Five: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND (Fund 9150)
Transfer to General Government Capital Improvements Fund $41,621
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$41,621
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $41,621
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June
30, 2012:
$41,621
Paragraph Six: TOURISM FUND (Fund 1810)
Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund) $1,312,500
Total TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $1,312,500
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $1,312,500
Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $1,312,500
Paragraph Seven: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND (Fund 1520)
Criminal Justice Grant Programs $751,590
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$751,590
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $35,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $716,590
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2012:
$751,590
Paragraph Eight: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND (Fund 1225)
Victim-Witness Program $110,606
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $110,606
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $27,757
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $82,849
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$110,606
Paragraph Nine: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND (Fund 1208)
Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding $12,000
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$12,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant) $9,600
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant) $1,200
Local Funds (Transfer from the General Fund) $1,200
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$12,000
Paragraph Ten: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND (Fund 1227)
Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to General Fund) $296,000
Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments $2,706,000
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $3,002,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $3,002,000
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$3,002,000
Paragraph Eleven: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND (Fund 9200)
Vehicle Replacement $824,760
Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $824,760
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $823,610
Revenue from Other Local Sources $1,150
Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$824,760
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Paragraph Twelve: OAK HILL REHABILITATION (Fund 1219)
Transfer to General Fund $33,510
Total OAK HILL REHABILITATION appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $33,510
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Fund Balance $33,510
Total OAK HILL REHABILITATION resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $33,510
Paragraph Thirteen: ENERGY BLOCK GRANT (Fund 1583)
Transfer to General Fund $27,625
Total ENERGY BLOCK GRANT appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $27,625
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Federal Sources (Grant) $27,625
Total ENERGY BLOCK GRANT resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $27,625
Paragraph Fourteen: OLD CROZET SCHOOL (Fund 8610)
Old Crozet School Operations $60,801
Total OLD CROZET SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $60,801
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $60,801
Total OLD CROZET SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2012: $60,801
GRAND TOTAL – SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $14,263,381
SECTION V – GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: ADMINISTRATION
Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal $470,250
Voting Machine Replacement $223,630
$693,880
Paragraph Two: COURTS
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects $231,990
J&DR Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects $17,765
Old Jail Facility Maintenance $16,720
$266,475
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC SAFETY
ECC CAD $571,760
Ivy Fire Station $1,907,439
Police Mobile Data Computers $329,175
Police Patrol Video Cameras $78,312
VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement $1,385,148
$4,271,834
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC WORKS
County Facilities – Maintenance/Replacement $337,535
COB McIntire Brick Mortar/Repointing $982,300
Ivy Landfill Remediation $546,535
Moores Creek Septage Receiving $114,366
Storage Facility Lease $54,000
$2,034,736
Paragraph Five: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Revenue Sharing Roads Program $484,222
$484,222
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Paragraph Six: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
Parks – Maintenance/Replacement $442,035
$442,035
Paragraph Seven: LIBRARIES
Northside Library Repair/Maintenance $15,675
Scottsville Library Repair/Maintenance $5,225
$20,900
Paragraph Eight: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS
County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $407,550
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2012:
$8,621,632
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $618,303
Other Local Sources (including Proffers) $437,109
Loan Proceeds $3,711,640
Use of Fund Balance $3,854,580
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
$8,621,632
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
Administrative Technology $191,235
Greer Addition Renovation $4,084,675
Instructional Technology $600,875
Local Area Network Upgrade $522,500
Schools Maintenance/Replacement $3,594,278
Storage Facility Lease $144,000
Technology Grant $785,840
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$9,923,403
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $88,779
Other Local Sources (including Proffers) $20,000
State Technology Grant $752,000
VPSA Bonds $6,838,280
Fund Balance $2,224,344
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2012:
$9,923,403
SECTION VII: STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: STORM WATER PROJECTS
Storm Water Control Program $104,500
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$104,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $104,500
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$104,500
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT
SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9900)
Debt Service Payments – School Division $13,160,451
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$13,160,451
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $12,956,228
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees) $204,223
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2012:
$13,160,451
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9910)
Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt Service Payment $826,556
Debt Service Payments – General Government $3,351,877
Bond Issuance Cost $13,792
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June
30, 2012:
$4,192,225
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $283,178
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $3,909,047
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2012:
$4,192,225
GRAND TOTAL – DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $17,352,676
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I – VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2012
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I General Fund $215,581,818
Section II School Fund $144,491,184
Section III Other School Funds $20,545,906
Section IV Other Special Revenue Funds $14,263,381
Section V General Government Capital Improvements Fund $8,621,632
Section VI School Division Capital Improvements Fund $9,923,403
Section VII Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund $104,500
Section VIII Debt Service $17,352,676
$430,884,500
Less Inter-Fund Transfers ($126,490,499)
GRAND TOTAL – ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $304,394,001
SECTION IX: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2012:
Paragraph One: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND
Emergency Communications Center $5,124,558
Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2012:
$5,124,558
To be provided as follows:
Albemarle County $2,066,028
City of Charlottesville $1,744,996
University of Virginia $536,337
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Revenue from Other Local Sources $284,051
Revenue from the Commonwealth $480,000
Revenue from the Federal Government $13,146
Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2012:
$5,124,558
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one fund to
another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in exce ss of, the appropriations made
to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are appropriated upon the
provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those set forth in
this section. The Acting Director of Finance (R. Edward Koonce, III) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W.
Jordan) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum, conditional,
and proportionate appropriations – the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named
herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for
which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appr opriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized
revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the
Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be
expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a
specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by
any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition
to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing
Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services i nvolving the issuance of a
contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the
contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and the Purchasing Agent or Director of
Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications
furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded
through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual
shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment
of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departme nts, bureaus, or
agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account
of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be
paid at the rate established by the County Executive for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to
time.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or ap proved by the
Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same are
hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and eleven.
_________
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to
acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the “Project”);
and
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own
funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to
receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax -exempt bonds or taxable debt, or
both;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to incur
other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $23,772,286.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for
Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the
date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the
Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a
type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each
case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring
item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an
agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly)
to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the
Borrower that evidences the Borrower‟s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later
than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The
Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance,
certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year
of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within the
meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2011/12
Schools Amount
1. Greer Elementary School Addition/Renovation $ 3,908,780
2. School Maintenance Projects 2,929,500
Schools Subtotal $ 6,838,280
General Fund Amount
1. Voting Machine Replacement $ 214,000
2. Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal 450,000
3. Police Mobile Data Computers 315,000
4. ECC CAD 547,140
5. VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement 1,325,500
6. COB McIntire Brick Mortar/Repointing 470,000
7. County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade 390,000
General Fund Subtotal $ 3,711,640
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – FY 2011/12 PROJECTS $10,549,920
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED PROJECTS TO BE BONDED
General Fund Amount
1. Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Renovations $ 3,740,552
3. Ivy Fire Station $250,000
4. Fire Rescue Apparatus $3,606,794
5. Crozet Ladder Truck $ 1,167,800
6. Hollymead Fire Apparatus $ 457,777
7. Crozet Streetscapes Phase II* $1,890,839
8. Crozet Library* $1,600,000
9. County IT Infrastructure/Server Upgrade $ 508,603
General Fund Subtotal $13,222,366
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – ALL PROJECTS $23,772,286
*Project previously anticipated to be funded or partially funded with cash.
______________
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Item No. 6.2. Approval of Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) Grant Award and Authorization for
County Executive to Request Release of the Governor‟s Opportunity Fund (GOF) Grant Award and
Execute Performance Agreements for MicroAire Expansion Project.
The executive summary states that, in 1995, MicroAire moved its headquarters from Valencia,
California to Albemarle County, Virginia. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Colsen Group
and has over 1,500 catalogue items that are sold worldwide. The company's cost-containment pricing and
quality craftsmanship have kept MicroAire positioned as a top manufacturer in the medical device industry.
Their headquarters are located in the UVA Research Park, on the only parcel not owned by the Real
Estate Foundation. The company currently has approximately 132 employees.
MicroAire recently acquired several new products lines that require additional space beyond what
is available in their facility in the Research Park, and following a site selection search the company
purchased a second facility in Albemarle County – the vacant U. S. Postal Services facility at 3590 Grand
Forks Boulevard. The expansion project qualified for and was awarded a Governor‟s Opportunity Fund
(GOF) grant and also qualifies for an Albemarle County Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) grant due to
the level of capital investment and the number and average wage level of the new jobs to be created.
Both of these grant awards are conditioned upon performance agreements between the County, the
Albemarle Economic Development Authority (EDA), and MicroAire. Staff is requesting that the Board of
Supervisors approve a $150,000 Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF) award and authorize County
Executive Tom Foley to request release of the GOF grant award and to execute the performance
agreements on behalf of Albemarle County.
State Incentives Package: The GOF has a minimum threshold of $5 million in capital
investment and 50 jobs created at higher than prevailing average annual wages that must be met or
exceeded before a project can qualify. The MicroAire expansion project received a $100,000 GOF grant
award based on the company‟s commitment to $8 million in capital investment ($6 million to purchase the
building and an additional $2 million in building renovation and upfit) and to the creation of 51 new jobs at
an average annual salary of $56,937, which is well above the County average of $44,564. The job
descriptions range from janitorial to engineer, CNC machinist, regional manager regulatory manager, cost
accountant. This expansion will create a variety of career ladder job opportunities with full benefits. In
addition to the GOF grant, the state‟s incentives package will include $51,000 in Jobs Investment Grant
funding from the Department of Business Assistance.
The GOF grant is conditioned upon a performance agreement between Albemarle County, the
Albemarle County EDA, and MicroAire. The agreement stipulates, among other conditions, that:
MicroAire will develop and operate the new facility with a capital investment of at least
$8,000,000 and maintain at least 51 new jobs at the facility, all as of the performance date
of May 1, 2014.
If the County, in consultation with the EDA and VEDP, deems that good faith and
reasonable efforts have been made and are being made to achieve the targets, the
County may agree to extend the performance date by up to 15 months.
VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its “break-even point” by the
performance date of May 1, 2014. The break-even point compares new revenues
realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New Jobs at the Facility with the
Commonwealth‟s expenditures on incentives, including but not limited to the GOF Grant.
MicroAire is responsible for repayment obligations if certain requirements are not met,
with details of those obligations depending on the percentage of the target that is
achieved.
Albemarle County Economic Opportunity Fund - Albemarle County established an Economic
Opportunity Fund in 2007 to “address unemployment and underemployment of County residents by
assisting County businesses in providing higher wage permanent jobs by providing matching funding to
federal or state economic development projects”. The MicroAire expansion project meets the EOF
minimum requirements for consideration, which stipulate that the project meet or exceed the minimum
GOF thresholds of $5 million in investment and 50 new jobs created. The MicroAire expansion project
also fulfills all EOF evaluation criteria which include high wage jobs, local workforce recruitment and
development, matching funds, tangible benefits to the community, and consistency with county goals and
objectives. Based on the appropriateness of the MicroAire project for EOF funding, the Board is
requested to approve a $150,000 EOF grant award for the project.
The EOF grant is also conditioned upon a performance agreement between Albemarle County,
the Albemarle County EDA, and MicroAire. The agreement stipulates, among other conditions, that:
MicroAire will develop and operate the new facility with a capital investment of at least
$8,000,000 and maintain at least 51 new jobs at the facility, all as of the performance date
of May 1, 2014.
If the County, in consultation with the EDA and MicroAire, deems that good faith and
reasonable efforts have been made and are being made to achieve the targets, the
County may agree to extend the performance date by up to 15 months.
The County is estimated to reach its “break-even point”, which compares new revenues
generated by the facility with the amount of the EOF grant, by May 1, 2015.
MicroAire is responsible for repayment obligations if certain requirements are not met,
with details of those obligations depending on the percentage of the target that is
achieved.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Next Steps - Following the Board‟s authorization, County Executive Tom Foley will sign both
performance agreements on behalf of the County. The performance agreements must also be approved
by the EDA and signed by representatives of the EDA and MicroAire. Once the performance agreements
are fully executed, Mr. Foley will submit the signed GOF performance agreement and a request for the
disbursement of the GOF grant to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. When the County
receives the GOF grant funds, staff will request that the Board of Supervisors reappropriate the GOF
funds and the EOF funds to the EDA. The EDA, pursuant to the performance agreement, will then
disburse the funds to MicroAire.
This action will authorize a reallocation of $150,000 from the Economic Opportunity Fund.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the $150,000 EOF grant award and authorize County
Executive Tom Foley to request release of the $100,000 Governor‟s Opportunity Fund grant for MicroAire
from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and to sign the required performance agreements
on behalf of Albemarle County.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked about the 20% match of local funds for the Lewis & Clark
Exploratory Center. Mr. Davis responded that the match is funding from private donations, not from
County funds.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the $150,000 EOF grant award and
authorized the County Executive to request release of the $100,000 Governor’s Opportunity Fund
grant for MicroAire from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and to sign the required
performance agreements on behalf of Albemarle County, as set out below:
GOVERNOR’S DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT made and entered this ____ day of May, 2011, by and among
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the “Locality”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia (the “Commonwealth”), MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware
limited liability company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth, and the ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the “Authority”), a political subdivision
of the Commonwealth.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Locality has received a grant of and expects to receive $100,000 from the Governor‟s
Development Opportunity Fund (a “GOF Grant”) through the Virginia Economic Development Partnership
Authority (“VEDP”) for the purpose of inducing the Company to purchase and improve an existing facility in the
Locality for manufacturing space (the “Facility”), thereby making a signifi cant Capital Investment, as
hereinafter defined, and creating a significant number of New Jobs, as hereinafter defined;
WHEREAS, the Locality is willing to provide the funds to the Authority with the expectation that the
Authority will provide the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company meets certain
criteria relating to Capital Investment and New Jobs;
WHEREAS, the Locality, the Authority and the Company desire to set forth their understanding and
agreement as to the payout of the GOF Grant, the use of the GOF Grant proceeds, the obligations of the
Company regarding Capital Investment and New Job creation, and the repayment by the Company of all or
part of the GOF Grant under certain circumstances;
WHEREAS, the purchase, improvement and operation of the Facility will entail a capital expenditure of
approximately $8,000,000, of which approximately $1,000,000 will be invested in fixtures and equipment,
approximately $6,000,000 will be invested in the purchase of an existing building and approximately
$1,000,000 will be invested in the up-fit of the building, and will further entail the creation of 51 New Jobs in the
Locality; and
WHEREAS, the stimulation of the additional tax revenue and economic activity to be generated by the
Capital Investment and New Jobs constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is
the animating purpose for the GOF Grant:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and
undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree as follows.
Section 1. Disbursement of GOF Grant.
The GOF Grant in the amount of $100,000 will be paid to the Locality, upon its request. Within 30
days of its receipt of the GOF Grant proceeds, the Locality will disburse the GOF Grant proceeds to the
Authority. Within 30 days of its receipt of the GOF Grant proceeds, the Authority will disburse the GOF Grant
proceeds to the Company as an inducement to the Company to achieve the Targets, as hereinafter defined, at
the Facility. The Company will use the GOF Grant proceeds for the build out of a privately-owned building, as
permitted by Section 2.2-115I of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”).
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
By no later than June 1, 2011, the Locality will request the disbursement to it of the GOF Grant. If not
so requested by the Locality by June 1, 2011, this Agreement will terminate. The Locality and the Company
will be entitled to reapply for a GOF Grant thereafter, based upon the terms, conditions and availability of
funds at that time.
Section 2. Targets; Definitions.
The Company will develop and operate the Facility in the Locality, make a Capital Investment of at
least $8,000,000, and create and Maintain, as hereinafter defined, at least 51 New Jobs at the Facility, all as of
the Performance Date, as hereinafter defined. The average annual wage of the New Jobs of at least $56,937
is more than the prevailing average annual wage in the Locality of $45,999.
For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions:
“Capital Investment” means a capital expenditure in taxable real property, taxable tangible personal
property, or both, at the Facility. The total capital expenditure of $8,000,000 is referred to in this Agreement as
the “Capital Investment.”
“Maintain” means that the New Jobs created pursuant to the GOF Grant will continue without
interruption from the date of creation through the Performance Date. Positions for the New Jobs will be
treated as Maintained during periods in which such positions are not filled due to temporary reductions in the
Company‟s employment levels in connection with recruitment for open positions or strikes and other work
stoppages.
“New Job” means new permanent full-time employment of an indefinite duration at the Facility or at
the Company‟s existing facilities in the Locality for which the standard fringe benefits are paid by the Company
for the employee, and for which the Company pays an average annual wage of at least $56,937. Each New
Job must require a minimum of either (i) 35 hours of an employee‟s time per week for the entire normal year of
the Company‟s operations, which “normal year” must consist of at least 48 weeks, or (ii) 1,680 hours per year.
Seasonal or temporary positions, positions created when a job function is shifted from an existing location in
the Commonwealth outside the Locality, and positions with construction contractors, vendors, suppliers and
similar multiplier or spin-off jobs shall not qualify as New Jobs. The New Jobs must be in addition to the
Company‟s 120 full-time jobs in the Locality as of December 1, 2010.
“Performance Date” means May 1, 2014. If the Locality, in consultation with the Authority and VEDP,
deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made by the Company to
achieve the Targets, the Locality may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to 15 months. If the
Performance Date is extended, the Locality shall send written notice of the extension to the Authority, the
Company and VEDP and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the
“Performance Date” for the purposes of this Agreement.
“Targets” means the Company‟s obligations to make Capital Investments at the Facility of at least
$8,000,000 and to create at least 51 New Jobs in the Locality, all as of the Performance Date.
Section 3. Break-Even Point; State and Local Incentives.
VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its “break -even point” by the Performance
Date. The break-even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New
Jobs at the Facility with the Commonwealth‟s expenditures on incentives, including but not limited to the GOF
Grant. With regard to the Facility, the Commonwealth expects to provide incentives in the following amounts:
Category of Incentive: Total Amount
GOF Grant $100,000
Virginia Jobs Investment Program (“VJIP”) (Estimated) 51,000
The Locality has committed to provide the following incentives, as matching grants or otherwise, for
the Facility:
Category of Incentive: Total Amount
Local Economic Opportunity Fund Grant $150,000
The proceeds of the GOF Grant shall be used for the purposes described in Section 1. The VJIP
grant proceeds shall be used by the Company to pay or reimburse itself for recruitment and training costs.
The proceeds of the Locality‟s Economic Opportunity Fund Grant may be used by the Company for the
purchase of and improvements to the Facility.
Section 4. Repayment Obligation.
1) If Statutory Minimum Requirements are Not Met: Section 2.2-115 of the Virginia Code
requires that the Company make a Capital Investment of at least $5,000,000 in the Facility
and create at least 50 New Jobs at the Facility in order to be eligible for the GOF Grant.
Failure by the Company to meet either of these eligibility requirements by the Performance
Date shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and the entire GOF Grant must be repaid by
the Company to the Authority.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
(b) If Statutory Minimum Requirements are Met: For purposes of repayment, the GOF Grant is to
be allocated as $50,000 (50%) for the Company‟s Capital Investment Target and $50,000 (50%) for its New
Jobs Target. If the Company has met at least ninety percent (90%) of its Capital Investment Target created
and Maintained at least 50 New Jobs at the Performance Date, then and thereafter the Company is no longer
obligated to repay any portion the GOF Grant. If the Company has not met at least ninety percent (90%) of its
Capital Investment Target, the Company shall repay to the Authority that part of the GOF Grant that is
proportional to that shortfall. For example, if at the Performance Date, the Capital Investment is only
$6,000,000 and at least 50 New Jobs have been created, the Company shall refund to the Authority twenty
five percent (25%) of the moneys allocated to the Capital Investment Target ($12,500). There is no
repayment necessary as to that portion of the GOF Grant allocable to the New Jobs Target if the Company
has created at least 50 of the 51 promised New Jobs. As noted in subsection (a), the entire $100,000 GOF
Grant must be repaid if the Company fails to create and Maintain at least 50 New Jobs.
(c) Determination of Inability to Comply: If the Locality and VEDP shall determine at any time
prior to the Performance Date (a “Determination Date”) that the Company is unable or unwilling to meet and
maintain its Targets by and through the Performance Date, and if the Locality or VEDP shall have promptly
notified the Company of such determination, the Company must repay the entire GOF Grant to the Authority.
(d) Repayment Dates: Such repayment shall be due from the Company to the Locality
within thirty days of the Performance Date or the Determination Date, as applicable. Any moneys repaid
by the Company to the Authority hereunder shall be repaid by the Authority to the Locality and shall be repaid
by the Locality promptly to VEDP for redeposit into the Governor‟s Development Opportunity Fund. The
Locality shall use its best efforts to recover such funds, including legal action for breach of this Agreement.
The Locality shall have no responsibility for the repayment of any sums hereunder unless said sums have
been received by the Authority from the Company.
Section 5. Company Reporting.
The Company shall provide, at the Company‟s expense, detailed verification reasonably satisfactory to
the Locality, the Authority and VEDP of the Company‟s progress on the Targets. Such progress reports will be
provided annually, starting at May 1, 2012, covering progress made during the previous calendar year and at
such other times as the Locality, the Authority or VEDP may require.
Section 6. Notices.
Any notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed
to be received upon receipt or refusal after mailing of the same in the United States Mail by certified mail,
postage fully pre-paid or by overnight courier (refusal shall mean return of certified mail or overnight courier
package not accepted by the addressee):
if to the Company, to: with a copy to:
MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC
1641 Edlich Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Attention: Melissa Y. Payton
MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC
1641 Edlich Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Attention: George Saiz
if to the Locality, to: with a copy to:
Albemarle County Executive‟s Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: Thomas C. Foley
Albemarle County Finance Dept.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: R. Edward Koonce
if to the Authority, to: with a copy to:
Economic Development Authority
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: John Lowry
Economic Development Authority
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: Ella Jordan
if to VEDP, to: with a copy to:
Virginia Economic Development Partnership
901 East Byrd Street, 19th Floor
Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218-0798)
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Attention: President & CEO
Virginia Economic Development Partnership
901 East Byrd Street, 19th Floor
Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218-0798)
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Attention: General Counsel
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Section 7. Miscellaneous.
1) Entire Agreement; Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among
the parties hereto as to the GOF Grant and may not be amended or modified, except in
writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The
Company may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior
written consent of the Locality, the Authority and VEDP.
(b) Governing Law; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the
Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and
venue for any litigation arising out of or involving this Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the County of
Albemarle, and such litigation shall be brought only in such court.
I Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument.
(d) Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or
illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or
impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as
nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the
date first written above.
_____
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT made and entered this ____ day of May, 2011, by and among
the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the “County”) a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia (the “Commonwealth”), MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware
limited liability company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth, and the ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the “Authority”), a political subdivision
of the Commonwealth.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County has received a grant of and expects to receive $100,000.00 from the
Governor‟s Development Opportunity Fund (a “GOF Grant”) through the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership Authority (“VEDP”) for the purpose of inducing the Company to expand and impro ve a
manufacturing facility in Albemarle County (the “Facility”), thereby making a significant Capital Investment, as
hereinafter defined, and creating a significant number of New Jobs, as hereinafter defined;
WHEREAS, the County is willing to provide the GOF Grant funds to the Authority with the expectation
that the Authority will provide the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company meets
certain criteria relating to Capital Investment and New Jobs;
WHEREAS, the County also is willing to provide funds to the Authority from its Economic Opportunity
Fund (the “EOF Grant”) as its local match to the GOF Grant with the expectation that the Authority will provide
the funds to or for the use of the Company, provided that the Company meets certain criteria relating to
Capital Investment and New Jobs;
WHEREAS, the County, the Authority and the Company have entered into a similar Performance
Agreement pertaining to the parties rights and obligations related to the GOF Grant, and that agreement is
entitled the “Governor‟s Development Opportunity Fund Performance Agreement”;
WHEREAS, the County, the Authority and the Company desire to set forth their understanding and
agreement as to the payout of the EOF Grant, the use of the EOF Gra nt proceeds, the obligations of the
Company regarding Capital Investment and New Job creation, and the repayment by the Company of all or
part of the EOF Grant under certain circumstances;
WHEREAS, the expansion and operation of the Facility will entail a capital expenditure of
approximately $8,000,000.00, of which approximately $1,000,000.00 will be invested in machinery and
equipment, approximately $6,000,000 .00will be invested in the purchase of an existing building and
approximately $1,000,000.00 will be invested in the up-fit of the building, and will further entail the creation of
51 New Jobs in the County;
WHEREAS, the stimulation of the additional tax revenue and economic activity to be generated by the
Capital Investment and New Jobs constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds and is
the animating purpose for the EOF Grant:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and
undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree as follows.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Section 1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions:
“Capital Investment” means a capital expenditure in taxable real property, taxable tangible personal
property, or both, at the Facility. The total capital expenditure of $8,000,000.00 is referred to in this Agreement
as the “Capital Investment.”
“Maintain” means that the New Jobs created pursuant to the GOF Grant and the EOF Grant will
continue without interruption from the date of creation through the Performance Date. Positions for the New
Jobs will be treated as Maintained during periods in whic h such positions are not filled due to temporary
reductions in the Company‟s employment levels in connection with recruitment for open positions or strikes
and other work stoppages.
“New Job” means new permanent full-time employment of an indefinite duration at the Facility or at
the Company‟s existing facilities in the County for which the standard fringe benefits are paid by the Company
for the employee, and for which the Company pays an average annual wage of at least $56,937.00. Each
New Job must require a minimum of either (i) 35 hours of an employee‟s time per week for the entire normal
year of the Company‟s operations, which “normal year” must consist of at least 48 weeks, or (ii) 1,680 hours
per year. Seasonal or temporary positions, positions created when a job function is shifted from an existing
location in the Commonwealth, and positions with construction contractors, vendors, suppliers, and similar
multiplier or spin-off jobs, shall not qualify as New Jobs. The New Jobs must be in addition to the 120 full-time
jobs at the Facility as of December 1, 2010.
“Performance Date” means May 1, 2014. If the County, in consultation with the Authority and VEDP,
deems that good faith and reasonable efforts have been made and are being made b y the Company to
achieve the Targets, the County may agree to extend the Performance Date by up to 15 months. If the
Performance Date is extended, the County shall send written notice of the extension to the Authority, the
Company and VEDP and the date to which the Performance Date has been extended shall be the
“Performance Date” for the purposes of this Agreement.
“Targets” means the Company‟s obligations to make Capital Investments at the Facility of at least
$8,000,000.00 and to create at least 51 New Jobs in the County, all as of the Performance Date.
Section 2. Targets.
The Company will develop and operate the Facility in Albemarle County, make a Capital Investment of
at least $8,000,000.00, and create and Maintain at least 51 New Jobs at the Facility, all as of the Performance
Date.
The average annual wage of the New Jobs of at least $56.937.00 is more than the prevailing average
annual wage in the County of $45,999.00.
Section 3. Disbursement of EOF Grant.
The EOF Grant in the amount of $150,000.00 will be disbursed to the Authority at or about the same
time the GOF Grant funds are disbursed to the Authority. Within 30 days of its receipt of the EOF Grant
proceeds, the Authority shall disburse the EOF Grant proceeds to the Company as an inducement to the
Company to achieve the Targets at the Facility.
Section 4. Break-Even Point; State and Local Incentives.
VEDP has estimated that the Commonwealth will reach its “break -even point” by the Performance
Date. The County has estimated that it will reach its “break-even point” by May 1, 2015. The County‟s break-
even point compares new revenues realized as a result of the Capital Investment and New Jobs at the Facility
with the County‟s EOF Grant. With regard to the Facility, the Commonwealth will provide incentives in the
following amounts:
Category of Incentive: Total Amount
GOF Grant $100,000.00
Virginia Jobs Investment Program (“VJIP”) $51,000.00
The County has committed to provide the following incentives, as matching grants or otherwise, for
the Facility:
Category of Incentive: Total Amount
Economic Opportunity Fund Grant $150,000.00
Section 5. Repayment Obligation.
1) If Minimum Requirements are Not Met: Failure by the Company to make a Capital
Investment of at least $5,000,000.00 in the Facility and create at least 50 New Jobs at the
Facility by the Performance Date shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and the entire
EOF Grant must be repaid by the Company to the Authority.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
(b) If Minimum Requirements are Met: For purposes of repayment, the EOF Grant is to be
allocated as $75,000.00 (50%) for the Company‟s Capital Investment Target and $75,000.00 (50%) for its New
Jobs Target. If the Company has met at least ninety percent (90%) of both of the Targets at the Performance
Date, then and thereafter the Company is no longer obligated to repay any portion the EOF Grant. If the
Company has not met at least ninety percent (90%) of either or both of its Targets, the Company shall repay to
the Authority that part of the EOF Grant that is proportional to the Target or Targets for which there is a
shortfall. For example, if at the Performance Date, the Capital Investment is only $4,000,000.00 and 50 New
Jobs have been created, the Company shall refund to the Authority fifty percent (50%) of the moneys allocated
to the Capital Investment Target ($37,500.00). No repayment would be necessary as to that portion of the
EOF Grant allocable to the New Jobs Target if the Company created at least 50 of the 51 New Jobs.
(c) Determination of Inability to Comply: If the County or VEDP shall determine at any time prior
to the Performance Date (a “Determination Date”) that the Company is unable or unwilling to meet and
maintain its Targets by and through the Performance Date, and if the County or VEDP shall have promptly
notified the Company of such determination, the Company must repay the entire EOF Grant to the Authority.
(d) Repayment Dates: Such repayment shall be due from the Company to the Authority
within thirty (30) days of the Performance Date or the Determination Date, as applicable. Any moneys
repaid by the Company to the Authority hereunder shall be repaid by the Authority to the County. The County
and the Authority shall use their best efforts to recover such funds, including legal action for breach of this
Agreement. The Authority shall have no responsibility for the repayment of any sums hereunder unless said
sums have been received by the Authority from the Company.
Section 6. Company Reporting.
The Company shall provide, at the Company‟s expense, detailed verification reasonably satisfactory to
the County and the Authority of the Company‟s progress on the Targets, which may be the same verification
provided under the Governor‟s Development Opportunity Fund Performance Agreement. Such progress
reports will be provided annually, starting at May 1, 2012, and at such other times as the County or the
Authority may require.
Section 7. Notices.
Any notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed
to be received upon receipt or refusal after mailing of the same in the United States Mail by certified mail,
postage fully pre-paid or by overnight courier (refusal shall mean return of certified mail or overnight courier
package not accepted by the addressee):
If to the Company, to: With a copy to:
MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC
1641 Edlich Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Attention: Melissa Y. Payton
MicroAire Surgical Instruments LLC
1641 Edlich Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Attention: George Saiz
If to the County, to: With a copy to:
Albemarle County Executive‟s Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: Thomas C. Foley
Albemarle County Finance Dept.
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: R. Edward Koonce
If to the Authority, to: With a copy to:
Economic Development Authority
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: John Lowry
Economic Development Authority
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road, 4th Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attention: Ella Jordan
Section 8. Miscellaneous.
1) Entire Agreement; Amendments: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among
the parties hereto as to the EOF Grant and may not be amended or modified, except in
writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The
Company may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior
written consent of the County and the Authority.
(b) Governing Law; Venue: This Agreement is made, and is intended to be performed, in the
Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforc ed by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and
venue for any litigation arising out of or involving this Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the County of
Albemarle, and such litigation shall be brought only in such court.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
I Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument.
(d) Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or
illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or
impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as
nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the
date first written above.
______________
Item No. 6.3. Resolution to authorize the County Executive to sign an amended Appendix A to the
VDOT Project Administration Agreement and an amended Pass-Through Agreement with the Lewis and
Clark Exploratory Center.
The executive summary states that the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia (“LCEC”)
applied for a $300,000 Transportation Enhancement Funds grant from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (“VDOT Enhancement Program”) in 2007, and was awarded $150,000. This grant award
was proposed to be combined with other funds to construct a 2,500 square foot visitor‟s center, develop a
system of interpretive hiking trails, and create a ferry boat crossing to allow pedestrian passage across the
Rivanna River to the greenbelt trails in Pen Park (the “Project”). The LCEC‟s application for the VDOT
Enhancement Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the grant from VDOT.
Additionally, the County had to assure VDOT that a 20 percent local match would be paid, that the Project
would meet all VDOT requirements, and that the County would reimburse VDOT for any costs expended
by VDOT if the Project were not completed.
On January 10, 2007 the Board adopted a resolution supporting the LCEC‟s application for the
VDOT Enhancement Program and providing the necessary assurances required by VDOT for approval of
the VDOT Enhancement Program. On June 4, 2008, the Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the
County Executive to sign the Project Agreement and the Pass-Through Agreement. The Project
Agreement between VDOT and the County contains VDOT‟s requirements for funding eligibility. The
Pass-Through Agreement, in turn, passed along all of the County‟s responsibilities under the VDOT
Enhancement Program to the LCEC. The LCEC also agreed to hold the County harmless from any
liabilities created by the County‟s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program.
It has taken several years for the LCEC to go through the planning process for the Project. The
total Project cost, which was estimated at $1,140,100 in 2007, is now estimated at $1,213,510. Project
costs and financing information is set forth on Appendix A of the Project Agreement.
The LCEC applied for additional VDOT Enhancement Program grants for this Project in 2008,
2009 and 2010, and was awarded an additional $300,000 in 2008, $150,000 in 2009, and $200,000 in
2010, bringing the total grant funds from VDOT for this Project to $800,000. In addition, the LCEC has
secured over $700,000 in additional grant funds from various private foundations and donors and from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
In order to receive the additional VDOT grant funding, the VDOT Enhancement Program requires
the County to execute an amended Appendix A (Attachment A) to the Project Agreement. This assures
VDOT that a 20 percent local match would be paid, that the Project would meet all VDOT requirements,
and that the County would reimburse VDOT for any VDOT grant funds expended by the LCEC if the
Project were not completed. In addition, it is necessary that an amended Pass-Through Agreement
(Attachment B) be executed to assure the LCEC is responsible for all VDOT requirements and any County
liabilities.
Pursuant to the Project Agreement, the Project must be completed by March 11, 2012 or the
Project may be subject to de-allocation. The County has requested that VDOT extend this completion
deadline given the delay in the construction schedule that the LCEC has incurred due to a delay in the
selection of a contractor. Pursuant to the Pass-Through Agreement, the LCEC is responsible for
completing the Project by the VDOT Project completion date.
In other VDOT Project and Pass-Through Agreements, the County has required the cooperating
entity to post a bond for the amount of the grant. Such a bond assures that funds are available from the
cooperating entity for the County to repay VDOT the amount of the grant if required to do so by VDOT.
Because of the relatively small amount initially involved, and County/City ownership of the underlying
property, the County did not initially require the grant to be bonded. The LCEC will be required to have a
construction bond in place to assure the completion of the improvements by the contractor. The
improvements include a paved access road, a 2,500 square foot building and a trail to the Rivanna River.
While staff still is not recommending that bonding be required, the County is assuming potential liability for
a refund of the $800,000 to VDOT if the Project does not meet all VDOT requirements.
The County Attorney‟s Office has reviewed and otherwise approved the amended Appendix A and
Pass-Through Agreement. Appendix A will need to be further amended to provide an extended Project
completion date. The Pass-Through Agreement will need to be further amended to provide that the LCEC
will reimburse the County for its Project management costs. The County‟s Office of Facilities Development
will provide a Project manager to monitor this Project to assure the County‟s obligations to VDOT are met.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
There will be some costs associated with administering the Pass-Through Agreement between the
County and the LCEC and for a Project manager to monitor the Project. The LCEC will reimburse the
County for these costs.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C), which authorizes
the County Executive to sign both the amended Appendix A (Attachment A) and the amended Pass-
Through Agreement (Attachment B) in furtherance of the County‟s support for the Project and the VDOT
Enhancement Program upon approval by the County Attorney as to content and form with any necessary
amendments, including the extended Project completion date in Appendix A and the Project oversight
reimbursement provision in the Pass-Through Agreement.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to authorize the
County Executive to sign both the amended Appendix A and the amended Pass-Through
Agreement in furtherance of the County’s support for the Project and the VDOT Enhancement
Program upon approval by the County Attorney as to content and form with any necessary
amendments, including the extended Project completion date in Appendix A and the Project
oversight reimbursement provision in the Pass-Through Agreement:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia (LCEC) is an educational center for
visitors of all ages commemorating the Lewis and Clark Expedition; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have demonstrated their support
of LCEC‟s mission by granting a long-term lease of land in Darden Towe Park, participation by the City Parks
and Recreation Department in the boatbuilding program for youths, donation of office space by Albemarle
County, and participation by area schools in LCEC programs; and
WHEREAS, the LCEC applied for $300,000.00 in Transportation Enhancement Funds from the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in 2007, which was proposed to be used with other funds to
construct a 2,500 square foot visitor‟s center, develop a system of interpretive hiking trails, and create a ferry
boat crossing to allow pedestrian passage across the Rivanna River to the greenbelt trails in Pen Park (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, VDOT awarded $150,000.00 to the LCEC for the Project; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the allocation, VDOT required the County to execute a Project
Administration Agreement setting-forth the County‟s responsibilities for receipt of the allocation; and
WHEREAS, the County required a Pass-Through Agreement between the LCEC and the County,
setting-forth the LCEC‟s assumption of the County‟s obligations and responsibilities detailed in the Project
Administration Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the LCEC has applied for and been awarded additional grant funds in the amount of
$300,000 in 2008, $150,000 in 2009, and $200,000 in 2010 for this Project, bringing the total grant funds
awarded from VDOT to $800,000; and
WHEREAS, VDOT requires the County to execute an amendment to Appendix A of the Project
Administration Agreement reflecting the additional grant funds awarded and the revised Project c osts and
financial information as a condition for LCEC‟s receipt of the grant awards; and
WHEREAS, the County requires an amended Pass-Through Agreement between the LCEC and the
County reflecting the increased Project costs and grant funds awarded ensuring the County‟s obligations and
responsibilities outlines in the Project Administration Agreement are assumed by the LCEC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute Appendix A – Agreement Amendment No. 3 in order to
receive additional allocations for the Project, the total allocation being $800,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby
authorizes the County Executive to execute the amended Pass-Through Agreement, ensuring the County‟s
obligations and responsibilities outlined in the Project Administration Agreement are assumed by the LCEC.
_____
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in triplicate this _______ day of ____ _________, 2011,
between the LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER OF VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the “Center”,
and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter
called the “County”.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the “Department” has
approved a Transportation Enhancement Project for the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center and Trails
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
identified in the Enhancement Program portion of the Six Year Improvement Program and designated as
Project EN07-002-114, P101, R201, C501, UPC87015 and referred to hereinafter as the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the Project is $1,213,510, which includes $800,000 of
Enhancement Program Funds and $413,510 in contributions to the Project by the Center; and
WHEREAS, the Department and the County desire to assist in the construction of the Project and
have entered into an Agreement in which the County agrees to have the Project completed by March 11, 2012
as a condition for receiving the $800,000 Enhancement allocation;
WHEREAS, the Center desires to undertake certain responsibilities and duties of the County as an
incentive for the County to undertake the Project and to complete it as expeditiously as possible; and
WHEREAS, the parties previously entered a certain “Agreement for Development and Administration
of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia,” dated June 6, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to modify their prior agreement to reflect additional funds now
available.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1) The Center shall:
1) Pay all project costs.
b. Be responsible for all activities necessary to complete the noted phase of each
Project shown in Appendix A, except the performance of the State Environmental Review Process (SERP),
and coordinate with the Department for all reviews, approvals, and environmental actions and decisions, as
required. Each phase of the Project will be designed and constructed to meet or exceed current American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards or supplementary standards approved by
the Department.
c. Receive prior written authorization from the Department to proceed with preliminary
engineering, right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, and construction phases of the Project.
d. Maintain accurate and complete records of the Project‟s development and
documentation of all expenditures and make such information available for inspection or auditing by the
County or the Department. Records and documentation for items for which reimbursement will be requested
shall be maintained for no less than three (3) years following acceptance of the final voucher on the Project, or
all such records and documentation may be turned over to the Department in a manner acceptable to the
Department.
e. No more frequently than monthly, submit invoices with supporting documentation to
the Department in the form prescribed by the Department. The supporting documentation shall include copies
of related vendor invoices paid by the Center and a to-date Project summary schedule tracking payment
requests and adjustments. A request for reimbursement shall be made within 90 days after any eligible
Project expenses are incurred by the Center. For federally funded projects and pursuant to the Federal Code
of Regulation Title 49, Section 18.43, violations of the provision may result in the imposition of sanctions
including possible denial or delay of payment of all or a part of the costs associated with the activity or action
not in compliance.
f. Reimburse the County or the Department for all Project expenses incurred by the
County or the Department if, due to action or inaction by the Center, federally funded Project expenditures
incurred are not reimbursed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), or reimbursements are required
to be returned to the FHWA, or in the event the reimbursement provisions of Section 33.1-44 or Section 33.1-
70.01 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or other applicable provisions of federal, state or local law or
regulations require such reimbursement.
g. If matching funds are required, pay the Department the County‟s match for eligible
Project expenses incurred by the Department in the performance of the SERP and guidance relative to the
coordination of environmental commitments that result from the SERP, necessary coordination with the
FHWA, and approval of plans, specifications, advertisement documents, and contract awards as determined
to be necessary by the Department.
h. Administer the Project in accordance with all applicable federal, state, or local laws
and regulations.
1) Provide certification by an official acceptable to the Department that all administered
Project activities have been performed in accordance with all federal, state, or local
laws and regulations. If expenditures exceed $500,000 annually in federal funding,
such certification shall include a copy of the single program audit in accordance with
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133.
j. If legal services other than that provided by the County are required, consult the
Department to obtain an attorney from the list of outside counsel approved by the Office of the Attorney
General.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
k. Maintain any property improved as part of the Project which is not accepted for
maintenance by the Department. The minimum level of maintenance shall be a reasonable standard of care
as determined by the Department.
l. If deemed appropriate by the County or the Department, submit each phase of the
work to the County or the Department for review and approval as the Project develops and allow County or
Department personnel to inspect all phases of the Project at all times.
m. Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in conformance with applicable
provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
n. Submit any change orders to construction contracts for which reimbursement is
requested to the County Engineer and the Department‟s Resident Engineer for approval prior to the
authorization of the change order.
o. Receive County and Department approval of any claims arising from construction
contracts for which reimbursement is requested prior to settlement.
p. Meet all County site plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements and obtain
all necessary permits for the Project.
q. Not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race,
color, religion, sex, age, handicap, national origin or other non-merit factors provided they are qualified and
meet physical requirements established for the positions.
r. After construction of the Project, or any part thereof, not permit any changes or
alterations to the Project, as approved and completed, without the prior written approval of the Department.
s. Indemnify the County and hold it, and its officers, agents, representatives and
employees harmless from any and all claims, damages, costs, including attorney‟s fees, and liabilities of any
kind arising out of or resulting from the Center‟s or its agents‟ negligent performance of its obligations under
this Agreement or any failure by the Center to meet any obligation required to complete the Project.
t. Maintain during the entire term of this Agreement, property damage insurance and
general public liability insurance with adequate limits to protect both the Center and the County from liability,
such limit being not less than $1,000,000. The Center will provide the County with a Certificate of Insurance
naming the County as an additional insured and evidencing the insurance coverage required herein.
2. The County will coordinate and cooperate with and assist the Center in implementing the
Project, and specifically agrees to:
1) Respond in an expeditious manner to requests from the Center.
b. Provide the necessary coordination with the Department, FHWA and other
appropriate federal and state agencies.
c. Process payments to the Center of reimbursements received from the Department for
Project expenditures.
d. Cooperate with the Center and the Department in the audit of all project costs and
records as required by the FHWA.
e. Take all reasonable actions required to obtain funding for the Project pursuant to the
Enhancement Program in the Department‟s Six Year Improvement Program. The maximum amount of
federal funds available pursuant to this Agreement for this Project is $800,000.
3. All applicable federal, state and local regulations shall apply to all work performed on the
Project including consultant services contracts and construction contracts.
4. Appendix A outlines the phases of work and general items to be administered by the Center.
There may be additional elements that, once identified, shall be addressed by the parties hereto in writing,
which may require an amendment to this Agreement.
5. If designated by the Department, the Center is authorized to act as the Department‟s agent for
the purpose of conducting survey work pursuant to Section 33.1-94 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
6. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the parties hereto to expend or provide any funds in
excess of funds agreed upon in this Agreement or as shall have been appropriated. In the event the cost of
the Project is anticipated to exceed the allocation shown for the Project on Appendix A, both parties agree to
cooperate in providing additional funding for the Project or to terminate the Project before its costs exceed the
allocated amount, however, the Department and the County shall not be obligated to provide additional funds
beyond those appropriated and allocated.
7. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal liability on the part of any officer,
employee, or agent of the parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other
than the parties hereto.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
8. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the County‟s or the
Commonwealth of Virginia‟s sovereign immunity.
9. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties and upon notification by the County that
the Department approvals have been received, the Center will be authorized to commence with the Project.
10. This Agreement may be modified by written agreement with the mutual consent of the Center
and the County.
11. This Agreement may be terminated by the County upon 30 days advance written notice.
Eligible Project expenses incurred by the County through the date of termination shall be reimbursed by the
Center. Upon termination, the Department shall retain ownership of plans, specifications, and right of way,
unless all state and federal funds provided for the Project have been reimbursed to the Department by the
Center, in which case the Center will have ownership of the plans, specifications, and right of way, unless
otherwise mutually agreed upon in writing.
12. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and
assigns.
13. This Agreement replaces and supersedes the parties‟ “Agreement for Development and
Administration of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of Virginia,” dated June 6, 2008.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized officers.
______________
Item No. 6.4. Resolution accepting Thurman offer to sell conservation easement.
The executive summary states that, on April 20, 2011, the Board of Supervisors approved the ACE
Committee‟s recommendations to: 1) accept the completed appraisal of the Thelma Thurman property
from the FY 2009-10 applicant pool; and 2) approve inviting Mrs. Thurman to make a written offer to sell a
conservation easement to the County based on this appraisal. On May 2, 2011, Mrs. Thurman agreed, in
writing, to sell a conservation easement to the County for the appraised value.
County Code section A.1-111(E) governs the Board‟s consideration and acceptance of offers to sell
ACE easements: "An offer to sell a conservation easement shall be accepted by the board of supervisors
only in writing, and only following an action by the board authorizing acceptance. An offer shall not be
accepted by the Board if the proposed easement would be inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
comprehensive plan at the time the offer is received. Nothing in this appendix requires the Board to accept
an offer to sell a conservation easement.”
A total of $522,249.88 is available for acquiring easements for the FY 2009-10 applicant pool.
This amount is sufficient to provide funding for the acquisition of the Thurman easement which totals
$230,000. The VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation is offering additional funds of $17,000 – 50,000
on the Thurman property if this purchase is closed by May 27, 2011.
The ACE Committee has recommended acceptance of Mrs. Thurman‟s offer to sell a conservation
easement to the County for the amount indicated in the approved appraisal. Acquisition of this easement
would provide the following benefits and resource protection:
Protection of 108 acres of farm and forestland
Elimination of 6 development rights
2,650 feet of state road frontage
3,000 feet of riparian buffer
55 acres of “prime” farm and forestland
Property which is currently a family run farm
Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement is available from the CIP-Planning-
Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) accepting Mrs.
Thurman‟s offer to sell a conservation easement to the County for the price specified subject to the terms
and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement. The Resolution further authorizes the
County Executive to sign the final deed of easement for this property.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution accepting Mrs.
Thurman’s offer to sell conservation easement to the County for the price specified subject to the
terms and conditions contained in the proposed deed of easement and AUTHORIZED County
Executive to sign the final deed of easement for property.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFER TO SELL
A CONSERVATION EASEMENT UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the County has received an offer to sell a conservation easement under the ACE
Program from the owner of the following property:
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres
(Milton) and;
WHEREAS, the owner offered to sell a conservation easement on the specified property to the
County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of
easement enclosed with the County‟s invitation to offer to sell, subject to any further revisions deemed
necessary by the County Attorney and agreed to by the owner.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts the offer to
sell a conservation easement for the property described above and authorizes the County Executive to
execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisition.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to
send a copy of this resolution to the owner of the property identified herein, or her contact person.
______________
Item No. 6.5. Resolution to accept road(s) in Hollymead Town Center Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
By the above recorded vote, and at the request of the County Engineer, the Board adopted
the Resolution to accept road(s) in Hollymead Town Center Subdivision into the State Secondary
System of Highways.
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Hollymead Town Center Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 11, 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 Hollymead Town Center Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated May 11, 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.
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Town Center Drive (State Route 1719) from 0.07 miles west of Route 29 to 0.49 miles west
to Route 606, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 3801, page 616, and Deed Book 3323, page 740, with a 80-foot
variable right-of-way width, for a length of 0.49 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.49
______________
Item 6.6. Resolution of Support Opposing Increases in Truck Weights and Lengths.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Support
Opposing Increases in Truck Weights and Lengths.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
OPPOSING INCREASES IN TRUCK WEIGHTS AND LENGTHS
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is concerned for the health, welfare and
safety of the residents of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottes ville and the conditions of its
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is concerned that attempts are being made at the federal level
to increase the size, weight and allowable number of trailers beyond the capacity of existing road
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, bigger and heavier trucks cause greater acceleration of the deterioration of our roads and
bridges putting further pressure on local taxpayers to fund regional infrastructure; and
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
WHEREAS, the investments in our County, City, State and Federal road systems have not kept up
with increased traffic levels; current funding for roads and bridges across all government levels in the state is
inadequate; and investments by local governments have been curbed by cuts in local government aide,
municipal state aide, county state aide and a shrinking state truck highway fund; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors strongly opposes all legislation that attempts to shift costs and
liability of private businesses on to local governments and threatens the general safety of those who live in
Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports
HR 1574 the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act and opposes any legislation increasing truck
and weight size beyond the capacity of our road systems and putting our roads and bridges at risk of
increased damage or deterioration.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the Field School of Charlottesville‟s
Lease for part of the Old Crozet School. To consider increasing the square footage in the lease
agreement between the County and the Field School of Charlottesville for part of the Old Crozet School.
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“The County currently leases the Old Crozet School to two tenants. The Field School of
Charlottesville (“Field School”) currently leases 10,943 square feet. The Field School‟s lease will
automatically renew on July 1, 2011 unless notice is given by the County or the Field School. The second
tenant, the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”), currently leases 4,826 square feet. The OCSA‟s lease will
renew on August 1, 2011 unless notice is given by the County or the OCSA.
The Field School has identified a need for additional space to be used as a school library.
Specifically, it would like to add 417 square feet of basement space that is in the older section of the
facility and currently un-leased. The Field School would like to begin leasing this additional square footage
concurrent with its lease renewal on July 1, 2011. The lease would be amended to add this additional
space and to clarify the rental rate to be charged for the added space. Use of this space by the Field
School has no foreseeable impact on the OCSA‟s operations.
The approval of this lease amendment would result in an increase in annual revenue of at
least $1,588.77. The exact amount will be determined once the May 2011 CPI is published, as
specified in the lease.”
Ms. Mallek said that the community feels that the Field School has been a wonderful tenant and
very helpful – allowing community meetings there at no charge.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting. None was offered, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve the proposed lease amendment effective July 1, 2011 and
authorized the County Executive to sign the lease agreement. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: The lease is set out below:)
LEASE AMENDMENT
THIS LEASE AMENDMENT is made this 25th day of March 2011 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and the FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Tenant.
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) dated
February 8, 2010 for the lease of a portion of the Old Crozet Elementary School; and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant, for the sum of Ten and NO/100 Dollars ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, agree as
follows:
1. A third paragraph of Section 4.1 Annual Rent of the parties‟ Lease is hereby included to read
as follows:
“Should additional square footage be added to the Premises during any term of this lease,
the total rent will be increased by the product of multiplying the additional square footage by
the base rental rate for the term during which the additional square footage is to be added
and prorated for the number of months remaining in that term. The base rental rate is defined
as the then-current total rent for the term during which the additional square footage is to be
added divided by the then-current gross square feet for the term during which the additional
square footage is to be added.”
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
2. Effective July 1, 2011, the attached Exhibit A, page A-la shall be included in the previously
attached Exhibit A to the parties‟ Lease, and shall amend the Premises to be leased.
In all other respects, the parties‟ Lease shall remain in full force and effect as previously executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first
above written.
TENANT
FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By: Todd H. Barnett
Title: Head of School
LANDLORD
This Lease Amendment is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C. Foley,
County Executive, following approval thereof by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: Thomas C. Foley
Title: County Executive
_____________
Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Grant sewer easement to the Albemarle County Service
Authority (ACSA) across property owned by Albemarle County adjacent to the Scottsville Recreation
Center situated on the south side of and adjoining Bird Street (TMPs 131-81A and 130A2-76). This
easement is necessary to allow the ACSA to rehabilitate, maintain and operate an existing sanitary sewer
line across this property. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 2, 2011.)
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Board of Directors has approved funding for the
Scottsville Sanitary Sewer Phase II Project as part of an effort to upgrade the sanitary sewer system
throughout Scottsville. The design of the Project has been finalized and the ACSA is ready to bid the
project for construction.
The Project includes the rehabilitation of a sewer line under the ball field behind the Scottsville
Community Center, located on Parcel 130A2-00-00-07600, as well as into the adjacent property on
13100-00-00-081A0, as set forth in the Plat (Attachment D). The County owns both parcels. The ACSA
has requested an easement to properly locate the existing sewer line within the proposed easement and
to rehabilitate the existing sewer line on TMPs 131-81A and 130A2-76, replace clay portions of the
existing sewer line with PVC pipe on those parcels, and remove an existing manhole on TMP 131-81A
(See Attachments A and B). The existing easement not necessary for this pipeline will be vacated and
abandoned.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of
any interest in County-owned real property. The proposed Deed of Easement (Attachment C) is in a form
that has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney‟s Office. Staff has reviewed and approved
the proposed Plat.
The proposed construction will be timed to minimize conflicts with the use of the ball field and the
field will be restored to an equal or better condition.
Approval of the proposed perpetual easement would allow the ACSA to make the sewer line
improvements as proposed.”
There were no questions or comments from Board members.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting. None was offered, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved for approval of the proposed easement and to authorize the County Executive
to sign the Deed of Easement on behalf of the County, after the Deed has been approved by the County
Attorney with any necessary changes. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: The Deed of Easement is set out below:)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
TM 131-81A and 130A2-76
PREPARED BY: St. John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana, LLP
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 25th day of March, 2011 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, (“Grantor”), and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY (the
“ACSA”), (“Grantee”), whose address is 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), receipt of all of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto
the Albemarle County Service Authority a perpetual right of way and easement to construct, install, maintain,
repair, replace and extend one or more sewer lines consisting of pipes and appurtenances thereto, over,
under and across the real property of the Grantors located in Albemarle County, Virginia, the location of the
easement granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described on the following plat:
A (9,972 sq. ft.) 20‟ permanent sanitary sewer line easement, shown and described on plat of Lincoln
Surveying, dated January 6, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plat), as it crosses
property of the Grantor shown and described on the Plat and acquired by the Grantor by the instrument
recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 763, Page
1; Deed Book 739, Page 150; and Deed Book 1078, Page 477.
Reference is made to the Plat, a copy of which is attached hereto to be recorded herewith, for the
exact location and dimension of the permanent easement hereby granted and the property over which the
same crosses.
As part of the easement the ACSA shall have the right to enter upon the above described property
within the easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, maintaining, repairing, replacing and extending
a sewer line and appurtenances thereto, within such easement and the right of ingress and egress thereto as
reasonably necessary to construct, install, maintain, repair, replace and extend such sewer line. If the ACSA is
unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way, the ACSA shall have the
right of ingress and egress over the property of Grantor adjacent to the right-of-way.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within such easement, the ACSA agrees to backfill such
excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions to the same condition as
prior to excavation, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of
such excavation.
Grantor, its respective successors or assigns, agree that no new trees, shrubs, fences, buil dings,
overhangs or other improvements or obstructions shall be placed within the easement conveyed herein.
The easement provided for herein shall include the right of the ACSA, to cut any trees, brush and
shrubbery, remove obstructions and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and
safe sewer line installation, operation and maintenance. The ACSA shall have no responsibility to the Grantor,
its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of said trees, brush, shrubbery and obstructions
that are removed or otherwise damaged.
The facilities constructed by ACSA within the permanent easement shall be the property of the ACSA
which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such changes, alterations and
connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the permanent easement as are
consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
The ACSA further VACATES and ABANDONS an existing sanitary sewer easement, recorded in the
Clerk‟s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1056, Page 124, shown and
described on the Plat as it crosses property of the Grantor.
The County, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by action of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors on May 11, 2011, does hereby convey the interest in real estate made by this
deed.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BY: ______________________________ (SEAL)
Thomas. C. Foley, County Executive
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
BY: ______________________________ (SEAL)
Gary O‟Connell, Executive Director
__________________
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Grant gas line easement to City of Charlottesville
across property owned by Albemarle County adjacent to Hollymead Town Center, situated on the west
side of and adjoining U.S. Route 29 (Parcel ID 04600-00-00-005A0). This line and easement are
requested to extend natural gas service to nearby properties, including portions of Hollymead Town
Center. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 2, 2011.)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“The City of Charlottesville Gas Division has requested that the County grant a permanent
easement for the installation of natural gas lines upon and across County-owned property designated as
Parcel ID 04600-00-00-005A0, located on U.S. Route 29 adjacent to the southern end of the Hollymead
Towne Center. The City proposes to make a tap on its existing line located in the grass median of U.S.
Route 29 and crossing the southbound lanes to provide service in this area.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of
any interest in County-owned real property. This property was conveyed to the County by the developers
of the Hollymead Towne Center for use as open space and a greenway trail. The gas line will be buried
within the easement and there will be no above ground facilities. This easement will not interfere with the
use of the greenway property or any activity at the Hollymead Towne Center shopping center. The
proposed deed of easement is under review by the County Attorney‟s Office. Staff has reviewed and
approved the proposed Plat.
After the public hearing, staff recommended the Board approve the proposed gas line easement
and authorize the County Executive to sign a deed of easement on behalf of the County once the deed
has been approved for content and form by the County Attorney.”
Mr. Foley noted that the content is not what the Board normally sees because County staff is still
talking to the City about the terms of this easement.
Mr. Davis stated that the County has not reached consensus yet with the City on the responsibility
for moving the gas line, if it is required to be moved by the County or VDoT for future use of that parcel.
The Board can still move this forward if it so desires or it could defer action until concurrence is reached
on the agreement.
Mr. Boyd asked why not just defer action. Mr. Davis suggested holding the public hearing and
then deferring action so that the public hearing does not have to be readvertised.
Mr. Rooker asked if the location of the easement is fixed. Mr. Davis responded that it is.
Mr. Rooker suggested going ahead and approving the easement, as that location is already set,
and the County Executive has the authority to sign or not sign based upon the final wording.
Mr. Davis said that the County‟s consistent position has been that if easements must be relocated
it is at the easement holder‟s expense, and the City doesn‟t like that term and is trying to find an
alternative location that does not cross County property.
Ms. Mallek said she supports that position.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting. None was offered, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the proposed gas line easement and authorized the County
Executive to sign a deed of easement on behalf of the County once the deed has been approved for
content and form by the County Attorney. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: The plat is set out below:)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Lease of Jessup House property to Silvercrest
Asset Management Group, LLC. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800(B), consider the lease of the
Jessup House property, jointly owned by the County and the City of Charlottesville, located at 614 East
High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (Parcel 111 on City of Charlottesville Real Property Tax Map
53) to Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC for up to an additional five-year term, ending June 30,
2015. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 2, 2011.)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“The County and the City of Charlottesville jointly purchased the property located at 614 East High
Street (the Jessup House, identified on City Tax Map 53 as Parcel 111) in 2004, together with the adjacent
Levy Opera House and a nearby parking lot. The Levy Opera House was used temporarily by the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations (J&DR) District Court during the renovation of the J&DR courthouse. At
the time of purchase, there was an existing commercial property lease between the previous owner and
Silvercrest Asset Management Group, LLC (Silvercrest) for the Jessup House. The Jessup House
property consists of a building containing approximately 6,218 square feet and a designated parking area.
The property lies between East High Street and Jefferson Street, and on the west side of 7th Street, N.E.
in the City of Charlottesville. The County and the City renewed the lease with Silvercrest in 2005 for five
years.
The 2005 lease expired on June 30, 2010. Since that time, Silvercrest has continued to occupy
the space and wishes to continue to lease the property for use as commercial office space. The County
and City are in the process of determining the future use of this property. However, the County does not
foresee a need to use or dispose of the property prior to June 2014, at the earliest, and believes that
continued lease of the Jessup House property in the meantime is its most efficient use.
The term of the new proposed Lease is from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2015. The County and
the City may, in their sole discretion, terminate the lease as early as June 30, 2014, provided at least one
year‟s advance notice is provided. There shall be no automatic renewal or extension of the Lease. Any
renewal or extension shall be accomplished by separate written instrument. Absent such written renewal or
extension, this Lease shall automatically terminate on June 30, 2015.
The County Attorney‟s Office has reviewed and approved the terms of the new Lease. Silvercrest
has executed the Lease, and City Council approved the Lease on April 18, 2011.
The City is the fiscal agent for the property, and provides all property management services
stipulated within the Lease. The approval of this new Lease would generate at least $94,763 in combined
rental revenue to the County and City in the first year. Subsequent rental income would be adjusted for
inflation.
After the public hearing, staff recommended that the Board approve the Lease (Attachment A)
and authorize the County Executive to sign the Lease.”
There were no comments from Board members.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting. None was offered, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved for approval of the Lease and to authorize the County Executive to sign the
lease on behalf of the County. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: The lease is set out below:)
COMMERCIAL LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made as of this 1st day of April, 2011, by and between the CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, both political subdivisions of
the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter “Lessors”), and SILVERCREST ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LLC (hereinafter “Lessee”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Lessors are the owners of the Premises described herein, and represent that they
have clear and unencumbered title to said Premises and are able to lease the same and deliver possession of
the Premises to the Lessee upon the Commencement Date as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Lessee is currently in possession of the Premises pursuant to an Assignment of
Lease dated August 1, 2005 and desires to continue to lease the Premises for use as commercial office
space; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the parties hereby
agree as follows:
1. LEASED PREMISES. The leased premises, herein referred to as the “Premises”, shall be all the
property identified as Parcel 111 on City Real Property Tax Map 53, including the building containing
approximately 6,218 square feet and commonly known as the Jessup Building, 614 East High Street,
and labeled as “Town Hall Two” on the attached Site Plan (Attachment A), together with the parking
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
area hereinafter designated. The property lies between East High Street and Jefferson Street, and on
the west side of 7th Street, N.E. in the City of Charlottesville.
The designated parking area shall include ten (10) individual parking spaces.
2. TERM. The Term of this Lease shall be for a period of five (5) years, beginning July 1, 2010
(“Commencement Date”) and terminating at midnight on June 30, 2015. This Lease may be
terminated effective on or after June 30, 2014 upon joint agreement of the Lessors, provided the
Lessors provide written notice of such termination to the Lessee at least one (1) year prior to the
effective date of termination
3. RENT. (A) The “Base Monthly Rent” for the Premises shall be Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifteen
and 00/100 Dollars ($7,415). Said rent is payable in advance in monthly installments on the first day
of each successive month of the lease term commencing on July 1, 2010. If such monthly rental
payment is not received by Lessors on or before the fifth (5th) day of the month in which it is due,
Lessee shall pay Lessors a late charge in addition to the monthly rental of five percent (5%) of such
late monthly rental payment(s). All payments shall be made to Lessors at the address specified
herein.
(B) Lessee and Lessors agree that the Base Monthly Rent for each twelve-month period following the
initial twelve months of the Lease shall equal the amount of Base Monthly Rent payable during the
previous period, increased by the “Rent Increase Percentage”. The Rent Increase Percentage shall
mean the greater of (i) the percentage increase of the Consumer Price Index for All U rban
Consumers for All Items [CPI-U (1982-1984=100)] that occurred during the preceding twelve months;
or (ii) three percent (3%) of the Base Monthly Rent payable during the previous period. The Lessors
shall notify the Lessee of the Rent Increase Percentage and the net adjusted amount of the annual
Rent no less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of the Rent increase. Failure to notify will
not result in abatement of the increase, and the increased rate shall be due and payable
notwithstanding failure to notify per the above terms.
(C) The Lessees agree to pay “Additional Monthly Rent” during the term of this lease, as recompense
to the Lessors for rent in arrears from the previous lease. The Lessee agrees to reimburse the
Lessors a total of Twenty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen Dollars and 00/100 ($28,915) in
equal monthly installments, beginning with the first full month following the execution of this Lease by
all parties through and including June 30, 2015, as Additional Monthly Rent. This Additional Monthly
Rent will be due each month, and will be subject to the terms and conditions regarding late payment
as defined for the Base Monthly Rent. Should either party terminate this lease in advance of the
expected termination date, the Lessee agrees to pay the remaining balance of the debt owed as a
condition of the fulfillment of its obligation.
4. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Lessors have received a security deposit from lessee in the amount of Four
Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Six and 00/100 Dollars ($4,166.00) as security for the full and
faithful performance by Lessee of every provision, covenant and condition of this Lease, including
without limitation the surrender of possession of the Premises to Lessors as herein provided. If
Lessors apply any part of the deposit to cure any default of Lessee, Lessee shall on demand deposit
with Lessors the amount so applied so that Lessors shall have the full deposit on hand at all times
during the term of the Lease. At the termination of this Lease, in the event that Lessee shall fully and
faithfully comply with every provision, covenant and condition of this Lease, such security deposit or
any balance of it shall be returned to Lessee within thirty (30) days after expiration or earlier
termination (without default of Lessee) of the Lease and delivery of possession of the Premises to the
Lessors. Acceptance of the security deposit by Lessors does not constitute any waiver of damages
that may exceed the amount of the security deposit or any waiver of any other rights the Lessors may
have against the Lessee, at law or in equity, by reason of Lessee‟s default, and in the event of
damages suffered by Lessors by reason of Lessee‟s default, that exceed the amount of the security
deposit, Lessors shall be entitled to such additional damages directly attributable to Lessee‟s use of
the Premises.
5. REAL PROPERTY TAXES. Throughout the term of this Lease Lessee shall pay all real property
taxes lawfully assessed against its leasehold interest by the City of Charlottesville pursuant to Virginia
Code § 58.1-3203. In the event that the taxing authority of the City of Charlottesville determines that
the Premises is not eligible for an exemption from real property taxation pursuant to Virginia Code §
58.1-3603, Lessee shall within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice and proof of payment by
Lessors, reimburse Lessors for the amount of real property taxes each has paid as an owner of the
Premises.
6. USE. Lessee shall use and occupy the Premises for general office purposes in the conduct of its
business and shall not use the Premises for activities that would in any way violate any law or
requirement of any public authority, cause structural damage to the improvements, interfere with the
normal operation of the utility systems, cause undue noise or disturbance to neighboring properties or
alter the exterior of the building. Lessee shall not use the Premises for the purposes of storing,
manufacturing or selling any explosives, flammables, or other inherently dangerous substance,
chemical, thing or device.
7. QUIET ENJOYMENT. Lessors covenant that, upon payment of rent and conditioned upon
performance of all of the covenants and conditions of this Lease, the Lessee shall peacefully and
quietly have, hold and enjoy the said leased Premises for the term aforesaid.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
8. CONDITION OF PREMISES/CARE AND MAINTENANCE. (A) Except as may be expressly provided
otherwise herein, Lessee accepts said premises and fixtures therein, if any, in their present condition
and agrees to keep said premises and fixtures in a good clean condition; to commit no waste thereon;
to obey all laws and ordinances affecting said Premises; and at termination hereof to surrender the
premises and fixtures in like condition as when taken, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
(B) Lessee shall be responsible for all routine and ordinary interior and exterior maintenance and
repairs to the building and Premises during the term of the Lease, except that Lessors will be
responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning system;
Any extraordinary repairs or replacements, including but not limited to repair or replacement to the
roof, shall be performed by the Lessors, “extraordinary” being defined as those non-routine repairs or
replacements with a life expectancy longer than the term of this lease.
9. ALTERATIONS. Lessee shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the Lessors, make
any alterations, additions, or improvements in, to or about the Premises, without the express written
consent of the Lessors. The Lessors‟ written consent will not be unreasonably withheld for any
alterations, additions or improvements Lessee deems necessary or convenient to its use of the
Premises for its intended purpose. Any permanent fixtures shall become the property of the Lessors
upon termination of the Lease. Lessee shall be entitled to make improvements and additions to the
existing gardens on the Premises. All alterations shall be in accordance with applicable law,
regulations and codes, including but not limited to the applicable building codes and the City of
Charlottesville‟s zoning ordinance. Any changes to the exterior appearance of the building shall not
be made until the Lessee has obtained a certificate of appropriateness from the City‟s Board of
Architectural Review or, on appeal, City Council.
10. ORDINANCES AND STATUTES. Lessee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances and
requirements of all municipal, state and federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in
force, pertaining to the Premises, occasioned by or affecting the use thereof by Lessee.
11. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or sublet any portion of the
Premises without the prior written consent of the Lessors, which consent may be withheld for any
reason or for no reason, or which may be conditioned in any way Lessors choose. Any such
assignment or subletting without consent shall be void and the Lessors, at their option, may terminate
this Lease.
12. UTILITIES. Lessee shall provide and pay all charges incurred by Lessee for utilities, including gas,
electricity, water, sanitary sewer and trash disposal services incurred by Lessee during the term of
this Lease. Lessee shall be responsible for the costs of any telephone, cable television and internet
services to the Premises. Lessors may interrupt or suspend the supply of any utility service to the
Premises in order to make any necessary repairs or perform any maintenance for which Lessors are
responsible so long as Lessors shall pursue with reasonable diligence the completion of the work. No
such interruption shall exceed a period of five (5) days without prior consent of Lessee. If such
interruption is necessary, Lessors shall give Lessee prior written notice of the dates and times of the
contemplated interruption and shall cooperate with Lessee in order to minimize any inconvenience to
Lessee.
13. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Lessees shall permit Lessors or Lessors‟ agents to enter upon the
Premises at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice, for the purpose of inspecting the same,
and will permit Lessors at any time within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this Lease to place
upon the Premises any usual “To Let” or “For Lease” signs, and permit persons desiring to lease the
same to inspect the Premises thereafter.
14. INSURANCE. Lessee shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term hereof renter‟s
insurance, including fire and extended coverage insurance, to cover its property and operations within
the Premises, and general liability insurance with policy limits of no less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in the aggregate and not less
than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) with respect to property damage resulting from
any one occurrence. The Lessee‟s general liability insurance policy shall name the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle as additional insureds as it pertains to the Premises. A
certificate evidencing that the Lessors have been named as additional insureds shall be provided to
the City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent for Lessors. The Lessors, at their sole expense, shall
adequately insure the building for fire, casualty, hazard and liability.
15. INDEMNIFICATION. (A) Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Lessors and their officials,
officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages and
expenses which arise from Lessee‟s possession, use, occupation, management, repair, maintenance
or control of the Premises, or any portion thereof, which arise from any negligent or wrongful act or
omission of Lessee or Lessee‟s agents, employees, licensees, or invitees, or result from any default,
breach, violation or nonperformance of this Lease or any provision of this Lease by Lessee. Lessee
shall, at its own cost and expense, defend any and all actions, suits or proceedings which are brought
against Lessors with respect to the foregoing. Lessee shall pay, satisfy and discharge any and all
judgments, orders and decrees which may be recovered against Lessors as a result of the foregoing.
Lessors shall fully cooperate in the defense of any such actions, suits or proceedings.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
(B) Lessors shall not be liable for any damage or injury to person or property caused by or resulting
from steam, electricity, gas, oil, rain, ice, snow, or any leak or flow from or into any part of the
Premises or the building of which the same is a part, or for any damage or injury resulting or arising
from any other cause or happening whatsoever unless said damage or injury is caused by the
negligent act or omission of the Lessors or either of them; and, notwithstanding the foregoing or any
other provision of this Lease, Lessors shall not be liable to Lessee or any insurance company insuring
Lessee for any loss or damage to Lessee‟s personal property within the Premises or on Lessors‟
property which was covered by fire and extended coverage insurance.
16. EMINENT DOMAIN. If the Premises or any part thereof or any estate therein, or any other part of the
building materially affecting Lessee‟s use of the Premises shall be taken by eminent domain, this
Lease shall terminate on the date when title vests pursuant to such taking. The rent shall be
apportioned as of the termination date, and any rent paid for any period beyond that date shall be
repaid to Lessee. Lessee shall not be entitled to any part of the award for such taking or any payment
in lieu thereof, but Lessee may file a claim for any taking of fixtures and improvements owned by
Lessee, and for relocation expenses.
17. DAMAGE BY FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY. If all or any portion of the Premises shall be damaged
or destroyed by fire or other casualty, this Lease shall not be terminated or otherwise affected unless
Lessors decide not to replace, repair or rebuild in accord with the following provisions. Lessee hereby
waives any and all rights to terminate this Lease by reason of damage to the Premises by fire or other
casualty pursuant to any presently existing or hereafter enacted statute or pursuant to any other law.
In the event of any damage to the Premises by fire or other casualty which renders the premises unfit
for Lessee‟s purposes, in whole or in part, there shall be an abatement of the rent payable hereunder
during the period of such condition for so long as Lessee is not engaged in the conduct of its business
operations in the Premises to substantially the same extent as that prior to said casualty and only to
that extent which the Premises are rendered unusable, pro rata. If all or any portion of the Premises is
damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, then all insurance proceeds under the policies
referred to in the preceding paragraphs hereof that are payable to Lessee on account of any such
damage by fire or other casualty shall be paid to the Lessors or made available for the payment for
repair, replacement, or rebuilding, and the Lessors may elect as soon as practical after the damage
has occurred, but no later than twenty (20) days thereafter, whether or not to repair or rebuild the
Premises or any such portion thereof to its condition immediately prior to such occurrence; provided,
however, that the foregoing provisions shall not require the Lessor to repair or rebuild any part of the
Premises, or of Lessee‟s fixtures, equipment or appurtenances not constituting a part of the Premises
owned by Lessors. In any event, Lessors shall provide Lessee written notice of its decision either to
elect to or refuse to replace or rebuild said Premises within the aforesaid twenty (20) day period. If
Lessors elect not to replace or rebuild then said Lease shall be deemed terminated thirty (30) days
following the occurrence causing said damage. If at the time of Lessors‟ election to replace or
rebuild, Lessors do not agree in writing to complete the repair or rebuilding within ninety (90) days
after the election is made, or within a reasonable period if ninety (90) days is unreasonable under the
circumstances in light of the nature and extent of the damages, Lessee shall have the option to
terminate this Lease by written notice to Lessors within fifteen (15) days after Lessors‟ election.
18. DEFAULT PROVISIONS. (A) The following shall constitute events of default:
(1) Abandonment of the Premises;
(2) The default of seven (7) days in payment of rent or other sums due to Lessors hereunder;
(3) Breach of any of the covenants or conditions of this Lease continuing for more than fifteen (15)
days following receipt of written notice thereof from Lessors to Lessee;
(4) Dissolution or commencement of any proceedings to dissolve Lessee;
(5) Termination of existence, insolvency, business failure, appointment of a receiver, assignment for
the benefit of creditors of all or any part of the property of the Lessee, or commencement of any
proceedings under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against Lessee.
No failure on the part of the Lessors to enforce any covenant or provision herein, nor the waiver of
any right hereunder by Lessors, shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or provision or any other
covenant, condition or provision hereof, or affect the right of the Lessors to enforce the same in the
event of subsequent breach or default.
(B) REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. Upon the occurrence of any event of default, Lessors shall have the
right, then or at any time thereafter while such event of default shall continue, to terminate this Lease
on not less than ten (10) days notice to Lessee. On the date specified in such notice the term of this
Lease shall terminate, and Lessee shall then quit and surrender the Premises to Lessors, without
extinguishing Lessee‟s liability. If this Lease shall have been so terminated by Lessors, Lessors may
at any time thereafter resume possession of the premises by any lawful means and remove Lessee or
other occupants and their effects. In the event of default by Lessee, rentals received by Lessors
following reentry shall be applied to liability of the Lessee resulting from said default.
(C) LIABILITY OF TENANT ON DEFAULT. If the Lessors rightfully terminate this Lease or reenters
pursuant to the foregoing section, Lessee shall remain liable for the rent and all of the sums provided
for in this Lease until the date this Lease would have expired had such term ination not occurred and
any and all expenses incurred by Lessors in reentering the Premises, repossessing the same, making
good any default of the Lessee, and repairing any damage which may have resulted from Lessee‟s
use of the Premises excepting normal wear and tear and the expense which Lessors may incur in
obtaining a new tenant. Lessee agrees to pay to Lessors the amount of the foregoing liability with
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
respect to each month during the term of this Lease, all of which shall be accelerated upon any
default. In the event of default, and in addition to the foregoing, Lessee shall pay Lessors all costs
incurred, including reasonable attorney‟s fees with respect to any collection efforts, suit, or action
taken or instituted by Lessors against Lessee to enf orce the provisions of this Lease provided the
Lessors substantially prevail.
(D) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. If Lessors rightfully terminate this Lease pursuant to the foregoing,
Lessors shall have the right at any time, at their option, to require Lessee to pay to Lessors, on
demand, as liquidated and agreed final damages in lieu of Lessee‟s liability hereinbefore provided, the
rent and all of the charges which would have been payable from the date of such demand to the date
when this Lease would have expired if it had not been terminated. If the Premises have been relet for
all or part of the remaining balance of the term by Lessors after default by Lessee, the amount of said
rent shall be credited against any liquidated damages. Upon payment of any such liquidated and
agreed final damages, Lessee shall be released from all further liability under this Lease.
19. RIGHT OF LESSORS TO CURE LESSEE’S DEFAULT. If Lessee shall fail to keep or perform any of
its obligations as provided in this Lease, then Lessors may, upon the continuance of such failure on
Lessee‟s part for fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice from Lessors to Lessee and without
waiving or releasing Lessee from any obligations, and as an additional but not exclusive remedy,
make such payment or perform any such obligation and all sums so paid by Lessors and all
necessary and incidental costs and expenses incurred by Lessors in making such payment or
performing such obligation together with interest thereon at the judgment rate of interest, from time to
time as provided by the Code of Virginia, shall be paid by Lessee to Lessors on demand, or at
Lessors‟ option may be added to any installment of rent thereafter falling due.
20. ATTORNEY’S FEES. In the event that suit is brought by either party in furtherance of its rights under
this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs incurred in connection with such action,
including a reasonable attorney‟s fee.
21. WAIVER. No failure of Lessors to insist upon the strict performance of any term or provision of this
Lease or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof, and no acceptance by
Lessors of full or partial rent during the continuance of any such breach, shall constitute a waiver of
any such breach or of any such term or provision of this Lease. Any waiver by Lessors must be by a
written instrument executed by Lessors clearly describing the waiver and its extent.
22. SURRENDER OF LEASED PREMISES. Upon the expiration or other termination of the term of this
Lease, Lessee shall quit and surrender the Premises in good order, repair, and in clean condition, and
shall remove all of its property therefrom, except as otherwise provided in this Lease.
23. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. Lessee shall, without charge therefore, at any time and from time to
time, within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request by Lessors, execute, acknowledge and
deliver to Lessors a written estoppel certificate certifying to Lessors or any purchaser of the Premises,
or any other person designated by Lessors, as of the date of such certificate, to be prepared at
Lessors‟ expense, stating whether or not Lessee is in possession of the Premises; whether or not this
Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect; whether or not there are then existing any setoffs or
defenses against the enforcement of any right or remedy of Lessors known to Lessee at that time; the
dates, if any, to which any rent or other charges have been paid in advance; that Lessee has no
knowledge of any then uncured defaults on the part of the Lessors under this Lease or if Lessee has
knowledge of any such uncured defaults, specifying the same; that Lessee has no knowledge of any
event having occurred that authorizes the termination of this Lease by Lessee; and the address to
which notices to Lessee should be sent. Further, Lessors agree to provide an estoppel certificate
covering the same items to Lessee or other person designated by Lessee without charge, within ten
(10) days of Lessee‟s request for the same.
24. NOTICES. Any notice which either party may or is required to give shall be given by mailing the
same, postage prepaid, to the following and, unless otherwise provided for herein, shall be deemed
given as of the date postmarked in the United States mail to the following addresses or at such other
addresses as are specified by written notice delivered in accordance herewith.
To Lessee: Russell J. Bell
Managing Director
Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC
614 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
To Lessors: City of Charlottesville, Virginia
City Hall, 601 East Market Street
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: City Manager
and
County of Albemarle, Virginia
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: County Executive
with a copy to: Charlottesville City Attorney
City Hall, 601 East Market Street
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville, VA 22902
and
Albemarle County Attorney
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
25. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS. This Lease is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the
heirs, assigns and successors in interest to the parties.
26. SUBORDINATION. This Lease is and shall be subordinated to all existing and future liens and
encumbrances against the property.
27. NONAPPROPRIATION. This Lease is subject to the approval, ratification and annual appropriations
by the City of Charlottesville City Council and the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors of the
necessary money to fund the obligations of the Lessors under the Lease for succeeding fiscal years.
Should either or both of the governing bodies fail to appropriate necessary funding, the Lessors shall
promptly give notice of such nonappropriation to Lessee and either party may terminate this Lease
without incurring any penalty, liability or additional costs whatsoever, other than the rent due for the
month in which the Lessees vacate the Premises and the balance of monies owed in Additional
Monthly Rent.
28. COMMISSIONS. Lessors and Lessee agree that no real estate agent or company has provided
services in connection with this Lease.
29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS. This Lease represents the entire agreement between
the parties, and may only be amended by written addendum executed by authorized representatives
of both the Lessors and the Lessee.
30. APPLICABLE LAW. This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
31. FISCAL AGENT. The City of Charlottesville shall serve as the Fiscal Agent for the Lessors under this
Lease, and shall be the initial payee of all rents or other monies due.
WITNESS the following authorized signatures and seals, all as of the day and year first herein
above written.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Real Estate Tax Exemption For Certain Elderly and
Disabled Persons. An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code, by
amending Sec. 15-702, Definitions and Sec. 15-705, Amount of exemption, regarding real estate tax
exemptions for certain elderly and disabled persons. The amendment would revise the definitions of “net
combined financial worth” and “total combined income” and would limit real property tax exemptions for
the elderly and/or disabled to the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it
is situated, to conform to recent amendments to Virginia Code § 58.1-3212. (Advertised in The Daily
Progress on April 25, 2011 and May 2, 2011.)
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“The executive summary states Albemarle County‟s Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled
program provides real property tax relief for qualifying elderly and/or disabled owners. These partial or full
exemptions are based on applicants‟ income and net worth levels, and are governed by state law.
In November 2010, Virginia voters approved an amendment to the Virginia Constitution
eliminating state-mandated caps on eligible applicants‟ income and net worth. Virginia Constitution Article
X, Section 6(b) now provides in part: „A local governing body may be authorized to establish either income
or financial worth limitations, or both, in order to qualify for such relief.‟ The 2011 Virginia General
Assembly subsequently passed House Bill 2278 on March 24, 2011 to give effect to this Constitutional
amendment by amending Virginia Code § 58.1-3212. Like the Constitutional amendment itself, Virginia
Code § 58.1-3212 now authorizes local governing bodies „to establish by ordinance net financial worth or
annual income limitations as a condition of eligibility for any exemption or deferral of tax allowed pursuant
to this article.‟ At this time, County staff is not recommending any changes to the dollar amounts of the
net financial worth or annual income limitations set under the existing County ordinance.
However, Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 also goes beyond the Constitutional amendment by
mandating what exactly can (and cannot) be considered as part of an applicant‟s net financial worth or
annual income. In certain respects, described in more detail below, these new state standards differ from
the existing County ordinance. Therefore, an ordinance amendment is needed not to change the dollar
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
amounts (as allowed), but to conform the existing County ordinance to new state definitions of net
financial worth and annual income.
Finally, Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now enables localities to “exempt or defer the real property
taxes of the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated.” Though
County Code § 15-705 currently provides a percentage reduction, applied to an applicant‟s entire bill; the
new state statute provides for exemption over a defined part of a property, rather than a percentage of a
tax bill. Staff is proposing that the exemption apply to the maximum ten acres permitted by state law.
Staff has prepared an ordinance to amend County Code § 15-702 and § 15-705 as follows:
Definition of Income – The County‟s existing definition of “total combined income” in
County Code § 15-702(10) largely parallels the new criteria of Virginia Code § 58.1-3212,
with two exceptions:
o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now provides, Income shall include only those sources
of gross income that are subject to tax under federal income tax laws,
regulations, rules, or policies.‟ Because the County Code currently has no
comparable provision, that provision has been added in the proposed ordinance
amendment.
Definition of Net Worth – The County‟s existing definition of „net combined financial worth‟
in County Code § 15-702(4) likewise differs from the new criteria of Virginia Code § 58.1-
3212 in two notable respects:
o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 fixes „December 31 of the immediately preceding
calendar year‟ as the valuation date for purposes of net worth.
o While County Code § 15-702(4) includes the net worth of „the owner‟s relatives
living in the dwelling,‟ Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 does not; the existing County
provision including the resident relatives‟ net worth as part of the applicant‟s net
worth has been removed in the proposed ordinance amendment.
Exemption – County Code § 15-705 currently sets a matrix of percentages by which an
owner‟s tax liability is reduced.
o Virginia Code § 58.1-3212 now provides that localities „may exempt or defer the
real property taxes of the qualifying dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten
acres, upon which it is situated.‟ As described above, the County Code provision
has been changed to parallel the state provision in the proposed ordinance
amendment so that taxes are not exempted on the property in excess of ten
acres.
Staff is not recommending any changes to the dollar amounts of the new financial worth or annual
income limitations set under the existing County ordinance.
Because House Bill 2278 passed as emergency legislation, it became effective at the time of its
passage on March 24, 2011, and following state law, this County Code amendment would be effective for
tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
Any budget impact of these state-mandated changes would arise mainly from (a) the qualification
of currently-ineligible applicants and (b) the disqualification of currently-eligible applicants. It‟s not
immediately clear whether the total amount of exemptions will increase or decrease.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance
(Attachment A).
Mr. Dorrier asked if this change was making it easier for someone to get a tax exemption. Mr.
Davis responded that it is a mixed change. The income level is more stringent in that they are counting
non-relative‟s income that is not a care taker or bona fide tenant. The amount of qualifying net worth is
being made more liberal for people to qualify because the net worth of relatives living in the household that
are non-owners is no longer counted. By State mandate, the property in excess of ten acres is no longer
subject to an exemption. He does not think that requirement impacts too many people since there are not
many that have more than ten acres.
Ms. Mallek commented that the property owners that it will impact will be severe. She pointed out
that, up until now, the County has taken the assigned percentage deduction off the entire bill, and now it
will only come off the house and 10 acres.
Mr. Davis confirmed that it is a mandate for compliance with State law, as are the other changes
as well, and is not an option for the locality. He added that the exemption could be applied to less than ten
acres.
Ms. Mallek asked if two bills would be sent to people. If someone has 15 acres, they would get
one bill for the house and ten acres and a separate bill with a rate for the other five acres. Mr. Davis said
there will still be just one bill, but it will break out the exemption on the ten acres, with the full value on the
property that exceeds ten acres.
Ms. Mallek said she has had people to contact her as to when this takes effect. Does this change
take effect this current billing cycle? Mr. Davis responded, “yes”, but this bill was not adopted until March
24th and there are many people who have been processed under the existing ordinance, so anyone who
wants to reapply under this ordinance can do so; with the bill being adjusted after the first half of the year
billing.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people apply under this ordinance. Mr. Davis responded that there
are approximately 700 applications each year.
Ms. Mallek noted that the budget amount for deferral went from $600,000 to $900,000 because
more people who qualified were reached.
Mr. Ed Koonce, Chief of Financial Management, said that there were 737 approvals this year.
There are only nine denials this year. He stated that between 17 and 19 approvals would be affected by
the ten-acre margin.
Ms. Mallek asked if property owners would pay the current bill they have in hand which is based
upon the previous ordinance, and then they would be reassessed in December for what they should have
paid this time.
Mr. Davis said if they reapply and it is processed under the new rules, the bill would be adjusted in
December.
Mr. Dorrier commented that this is one of the County‟s better programs.
Ms. Mallek said that she is disappointed that the State had to change it.
Mr. Davis stated that the timing is unfortunate because of its impact on staff, but the County does
not have the option to put it off until next year.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting. None was offered, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for adoption of the proposed ordinance to comply with State law. Mr. Dorrier
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier,, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE EXEMPTION FOR
CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS, 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 15, Taxation,
Article VII, Real Estate Exemption for Certain Elderly and Disabled Persons, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-702 Definitions
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR
CERTAIN ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
Sec. 15-702 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this article:
(1) Dwelling. The term “dwelling” means a building occupied as a residence.
(2) Income. The term “income” means the total gross income from all sources comprising the
amount of money received on a regular basis which is available to meet expenses, regardless of whether a tax
return is actually filed, the money is taxable or deductible from the taxpayer‟s income tax return.
(a) Income shall include: (i) retirement payments, including the portion that represents
the contribution of the retiree; (ii) nontaxable social security retirement benefits; (iii) disability payments; and
(iv) rental income.
(b) Income shall not include: (i) life insurance benefits; (ii) receipts from borrowing or
other debt; and (iii) social security taxes taken out of the pay of a retiree.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
(c) The income of a self-employed person received from the business shall be the gross
income of the business, less the expenses of the business.
(3) Manufactured home. The term “manufactured home” means a structure subject to federal
regulation which is transportable in one or more sections; is eight (8) body feet or more in width and forty body
feet or more in length in the traveling mode, or is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet when
erected on site; is built on a permanent chassis; is designed to be used as a single -family dwelling, with or
without a permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities; and includes the plumbing, heating,
air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure.
(4) Net combined financial worth. The term “net combined financial worth” means the net present
value of all assets, including equitable interests, and liabilities, both as of December 31 of the immediately
preceding calendar year, of the owners, and of the spouse of any owner of the dwelling. The term “net
combined financial worth” shall not include: (i) the value of the dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres,
upon which it is situated; (ii) the value of furniture, household appliances and other items typically used in a
home; and (iii) the outstanding balance of any mortgage on the subject property, except to the extent that the
subject property is counted as an asset.
(5) Owning title or partial title. The term “owning title or partial title” means owning the usufruct,
control or occupation of the real estate, whether the interest therein is in absolute fee or is in an estate less
than a fee, such as the holding of a life estate.
(6) Permanently and totally disabled person. The term “permanently and totally disabled person”
means a person who is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment or deformity which can be expected to result in death, or can be
expected to last for the duration of such person's life.
(7) Real estate. The term “real estate” includes manufactured homes.
(8) Relative. The term “relative” means any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring,
spouse, sibling, grandchild, grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of the owner.
(9) Taxable year. The term “taxable year” means the calendar year for which the exemption is
claimed.
(10) Total combined income. The term “total combined income” means the income received from all
sources during the preceding calendar year, without regard to whether a tax return is actually filed, by (i) the
owners of the dwelling who use it as their principal residence, (ii) the owners‟ relatives who live in the dwelling,
and (iii) nonrelatives of the owner who live in the dwelling except for bona fide tenants or bona fide paid
caregivers of the owner. Income shall include only those sources of gross income that are subject to tax
under federal income tax laws, regulations, rules, or policies. The following amounts shall be excluded from
the calculation of total combined income:
(a) The first sixty-five hundred dollars ($6500.00) of income of each relative who is not
the spouse of an owner living in the dwelling and who does not qualify for the exemption provided by
subdivision 9 c hereof.
(b) The first seventy-five hundred dollars ($7500.00) of income for an owner who is
permanently disabled.
(c) If a person otherwise qualifies for the exemption and if the person can prove by clear
and convincing evidence that the person's physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only
alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility for physical
or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for the person, and if a relative does move in for
that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relative‟s spouse shall be counted towards the
income limit, provided that the owner of the dwelling has not transferred assets in excess of five thousand
dollars ($5,000.00) without adequate considerations within a three (3) year period prior to or after the relative
moves into the dwelling.
(2-15-73; 3-20-75; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98; Ord. 03-15(2), 11-5-03; Ord. 05-15(4), 12-7-05, effective 1-1-06; Ord .07-15(1), 10-3-07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-85.3, 58.1-3210, 58.1-3212, 58.1-3217.
Sec. 15-705 Amount of exemption.
The exemption established by this article shall apply only to the real property taxes for the qualifying
dwelling and the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which it is situated. The amount of the exemption for
any taxable year shall be as follows:
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
Percentage of Real Estate Tax Exempted
Net Combined Financial Worth
$0 to $100,000 Over $100,000 to
$150,000
Over $150,000 to
$200,000
Total
Combined
Income
$0 to $30,000 100.0% 90.0% 80.0%
Over $30,000 to
$50,000 70.0% 60.0% 50.0%
Over $50,000 to
$69,452 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
(2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93; Code 1988, § 8-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord.
00-15(2), 9-20-00; Ord. 04-15(2), 12-1-04; Ord. 06-15(3), adopted 11-1-06, effective 1-1-07; Ord. 07-15(1), 10-
3-07, effective 1-1-08)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3212.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Real Estate Tax Exemption For Disabled Veterans.
An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code, by adding Sec. 15-1603.
Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans; Application for exemption. The amendment
would establish a property tax exemption for certain disabled veterans and their surviving spouses now
mandated by Article X, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia and subsequently enacted state law for
tax years on or after January 1, 2011. The amendment also would establish the process for eligible
veterans and their surviving spouses to apply for the exemption. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on
April 25, 2011 and May 2, 2011.)
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“In November 2010, Virginia voters approved an amendment to the Virginia Constitution that
granted a real property tax exemption to certain disabled veterans and their surviving spouses. The
General Assembly subsequently adopted House Bill 1645 enacting Virginia Code § 58.1-3219.5 and §
58.1-3219.6 to outline the circumstances and procedures under which localities are to grant this
exemption.
Specifically, the amendment provides a real property tax exemption for veterans who have been
rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to have a one-hundred percent (100%) service-
connected, permanent, and total disability. The amendment also extends the exemption to the surviving
spouses of such veterans so long as the death of the veteran occurs on or after January 1, 2011, the
spouse does not remarry, and the spouse continues to occupy the real property as his or her principal
place of residence. If a locality exempts more than one acre under its tax relief program for the elderly,
then the real estate tax exemption for the disabled veteran or surviving spouse would apply to the principal
residence and the same number of acres as are exempt under the tax relief program for the elderly. Staff
has proposed in an ordinance to be also considered on May 11, 2011, that ten acres be exempt under the
County‟s tax relief program for the elderly.
Staff has prepared an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XVI,
Property exempted from taxation, to add § 15-1603, Exemption from taxes on property for disabled
veterans, Application for exemption.
The proposed ordinance amendment would establish a property tax exemption for specified
disabled veterans and their surviving spouses on or after January 1, 2011 and establish the process for
eligible veterans and their surviving spouses to apply for the exemption. Wherever possible, the proposed
ordinance directly tracks the language of the new state statute. The County is only enabled to provide this
relief to veterans who have been rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to have a disability that
is one hundred percent (100%) service connected. The enabling authority also directs that the tax
exemption for a surviving spouse cannot be extended to any new principal residence obtained after the
death of the disabled veteran.
Because House Bill 1645 passed as emergency legislation, it became effective at the time of its
passage on April 6, 2011, and following state law, the County Code amendment would be effective for tax
years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
The amount of exempt taxes depends entirely on the number of qualified disabled veterans (and
qualified surviving spouses) applying for this exemption. This Constitutional amendment and state
enabling legislation creates an unfunded state mandate. Because statistics regarding disabled veterans
with a 100% service-connected disability as rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are not
available for tracking, staff cannot accurately estimate the fiscal impact of this state-mandated exemption.
After the public hearing, staff recommended that the Board adopt the attached proposed
ordinance (Attachment A).”
Mr. Boyd asked how this would be tracked that the spouse has not remarried and continues to live
in the main residence.
Mr. Davis responded that the County has the ability to put in place application procedures and
processes as authorized in the proposed ordinance, but he thinks that it is probably going be difficult to
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
track. He thinks that the County will have to implement some tracking procedures. He added that this is
an unfunded State mandate as localities have no choice but to implement this and it will reduce the
amount of property tax revenue collected by the County, and the State will not subsidize the
implementation administrative costs.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he thinks it is a good idea, but he does not think there will be that
many people who would qualify.
Ms. Mallek said that the people who have contacted her about this issue have asked why staff
changed the term “determined” to “rated” as they apparently mean very different things to the Veterans
Administration.
Mr. Davis responded that the language in the ordinance directly follows the State law language,
which uses the term “rated.” He then read language from State law: “Any veteran who has been rated by
the U. S. Department of Veteran Affairs…”
Mr. Koonce indicated that a person may be 70% disabled, but the income allocation will be 100%,
and that is where some of the confusion seems to lie. He added that the State Code says that the
disability declaration has to be 100%.
Mr. Davis added that he thinks that the frustration will lie with people who have 100% disability but
only partial service-connected disability and the constitutional exemption only applies to 100% service-
connected disability.
Ms. Mallek asked if they could qualify under the previous ordinance. Mr. Davis responded that
they could qualify under the other ordinance assuming they met the net income and net worth criteria.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people had applied thus far.
Mr. Koonce said that the County has received five so far, but the V.A. has more information so
that number is not confirmed.
Mr. Davis also indicated that this program, which was not approved until April 6, is also retroactive
to January 1, 2011.
Ms. Mallek asked what is the deadline. Mr. Davis responded that, at this point, the County is
receiving applications with no deadline.
Mr. Rooker asked if a surviving spouse, whose husband never applied for the exemption, could
apply after the spouse died and say he qualified for the program. Mr. Davis responded, “yes”, as long as
she otherwise qualified, the exemption would not have had to be claimed by the spouse prior to his death.
Mr. Rooker said what bothered him about this program is that it is an unfunded State mandate.
The State basically used localities to give the benefit out. He previously sent a letter to local
representatives suggesting an exemption from State income tax for veterans.
Mr. Boyd noted that the entire Board had supported that request too.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the administrative costs are going to be more than the cost of the
exemptions.
Mr. Davis stated that he hopes the Department of Veterans Affairs will pay attention to the wording
issue. He reiterated that staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance to implement the
Constitutional mandate.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Timothy Kendrick stated that the Constitutional amendment used the term “determined,” and
somewhere in the writing of the State Code, the word “rated” came in. He added that the catch is that a
veteran may have a 70% service-connected disability but is unemployable, therefore, they are rated at
100% verbiage-wise, but do not meet the rated 100% because the equivalency is at a lower level. They
fall into the criteria in a way, but the changing of that one word makes it very loose. He added that the
voters approved legislation that included the word “determined.”
Mr. Davis reiterated that the County is required to follow the enabling legislation.
Mr. Donald Herring addressed the Board, stating that he does not see a limitation for 10 acres.
Mr. Davis explained that the enabling legislation adopted by the General Assembly places the
limitation on the principle residence on up to 10 acres, and that 10 acres is tied to the amount of property
exempted under the elderly/disabled provision. He said that, since the Board has adopted the maximum
10-acre standard for the elderly and disabled ordinance, they are required to have the 10-acre standard
for this ordinance and cannot do any more than that.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Dorrier moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion, noting
that the County is required to conform to State Code.
Mr. Snow said that some additional clarification is needed on this in terms of the language use of
the term “determined” vs. “rated.”
Mr. Boyd commented that the County has no choice until the State legislature makes some
changes to this.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to have some details as to what the true consequence is to
State requirements that change the application of the percentage waiver and what the impact is on
individuals.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out in full below):
ORDINANCE NO. 11-15(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XVI, PROPERTY EXEMPTED FROM
TAXATION, 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 15, Taxation,
Article XVI, Property Exempted From Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 15-1603 Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans; Application for exemption.
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XVI. PROPERTY EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION
Sec. 15-1603 Exemption from taxes on property for disabled veterans; Application for exemption.
A. Pursuant to Article X, Section 6-A of the Constitution of Virginia, and for tax years beginning
on or after January 1, 2011, the following real property, including such joint real property of husband and wife,
of any veteran who has been rated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its successor agency
pursuant to federal law to have a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability, and who
occupies the real property as the veteran‟s principal place of residence, shall be exempt from taxation:
(i) the qualifying dwelling, and
(ii) the land, not exceeding ten acres, upon which said dwelling is situated.
B. The surviving spouse of a veteran eligible for the exemption set forth in this section shall also
qualify for the exemption, so long as the death of the veteran occurs on or after January 1, 2011, the surviving
spouse does not remarry, and the surviving spouse continues to occupy the real property as the spouse‟s
principal place of residence.
C. The veteran or surviving spouse claiming the exemption under this section shall file with the
director of finance or his designee, on forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit or written statement (i)
setting forth the name of the disabled veteran and the name of the spouse, if any, also occupying the real
property, (ii) indicating whether the real property is jointly owned by a husband and wife, and (iii) certifying that
the real property is occupied as the veteran's principal place of residence. The veteran shall also provide
documentation from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its successor agency indicating that the
veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability. The veteran shall be required to
refile the information required by this section only if the veteran's principal place of residence changes. In the
event of a surviving spouse of a veteran claiming the exemption, the surviving spouse shall also provide
documentation that the veteran's death occurred on or after January 1, 2011.
State law reference -- §§ 58.1-3219.5, 58.1-3219.6
__________________
Agenda Item No. 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of Road Improvement Priorities for
Secondary Roads and VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program. To receive comments on
the County‟s Priority List of secondary road improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary
Construction Program Budget. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on April 25, 2011 and May 2, 2011.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
“The purpose of the public hearing is to receive input on the County‟s Priority List of Secondary
Road Improvements (Attachment A) and the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction
Program Budget (Attachment B). The County‟s Priority List establishes the priorities for improvements to
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
roads 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 is reflective of available State road funding allocated to the County. The
County‟s Priority List and the VDOT Construction Program Budget are typically reviewed annually. 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
At an April 6th work session, the Board agreed to seek up to $3.0 million in Revenue Sharing
Program funds ($1.5 million in County funding and $1.5 million VDOT Revenue Sharing Program match)
in FY 2011-12. Board adoption of the attached resolution (Attachment C) is required in order for it to be
able to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program in FY 2011-12.
The Board also directed staff during this work session to provide a draft Six Year Secondary Road
Construction Program assuming: a) an FY2011-12 Revenue Sharing Program which totals $3.0 million in
VDOT/local funds and b) a plan which assumes only $1.0 million is available via the Revenue Sharing
Program in FY 2011-12. The $1.0 million is based on the approximately $500,000 in County match
currently available in its adopted FY2011-12 budget for Revenue Sharing participation. This information is
provided in the Discussion section below.
Two documents are before the Board for review and action: the County‟s Priority List of Secondary
Road Improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget. Each is
discussed below:
County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) – Four new projects
have been added to this year‟s Priority List. Three of the projects are public requests for road paving and
those have been added to the Rural Rustic Road paving list. The fourth project is the Brock Mill Rural
Addition project. The four projects are:
Red Hill School Road (Rt. 760), road paving request – Request to pave Rt. 760 near Red Hill
School in North Garden. This road serves the Red Hill Elementary School and carries between 70
and 170 vehicle trips/ day.
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 Road. 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.
Patterson Mill Lane (Rt. 824), road paving request – Request to pave a 1.04 mile section of this
road. Patterson Mill Lane runs from Route 250 west to Midway Road (Rt. 688). This road carries
200 trips per day.
Brocks Mill Road, rural addition request – Include Brocks Mill Road as a rural addition project
(priority #23) on the Strategic Priorities list (first page of the document).
Two other modifications have been made on the Strategic Priorities list (first page). The Hillsdale
Drive extension and the Berkmar Drive extension projects have been moved up in the priority list to be
consistent with the recommendations found in the recently adopted Places29 Master Plan.
Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program Budget (Attachment B) –The proposed
VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program provided by VDOT assumes that a total of $3.0 million in
Revenue Sharing (RS) Program funds (State funds and County match) will be allocated to the Broomley
Road bridge replacement project. The following are the implications of this Revenue Sharing fund
allocation to the Broomley Road bridge project and the Six Year Secondary Road Construction Program:
VDOT staff has indicated that the $3.0 million in RS funds will fully fund the project and allow the
project to be constructed in 2014. The Broomley Road bridge project cannot be advanced/
constructed any sooner than 2014 due to the time needed for design, right or way acquisition and
contractor procurement.
It will allow federal bridge funds currently allocated to the Broomley Road bridge project to be
moved/reallocated to the Black Cat Road Bridge project.
It will allow unpaved road funds (approximately $1.3 million) that were transferred last year from the
Dickerson Road paving project to the Broomley Bridge project to be re-allocated to unpaved road
projects. The total available funds will allow up to five unpaved road projects to be funded for
construction. It would also eliminate the potential of a reduction (“penalty”) in future unpaved funds
allocations for using unpaved road funds for non-road paving projects, should unpaved road funds
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
be provided by the State again in the future.
The five unpaved road projects identified for improvement are the highest priority projects from the
Rural Rustic Road Priority List (Attachment A):
- Rose Hill Church Lane (120 vehicle trips/day (VPD)
- Fortune Lane (140 VPD)
- Blufton Road (170 VPD)
- Happy Creek Road (100 VPD)
- Bear Creek Road (80 VPD)
If only $1.0 million becomes available in Revenue Sharing funds (based on the $500,000 currently
budgeted for the County‟s match) to supplement its estimated annual secondary road fund allocations,
three of the unpaved road projects could be fully funded for construction (Rose Hill Church Lane, Fortune
Lane, Blufton Road) by re-allocating “old” unpaved road funds.
As requested by the Board, VDOT has also included in the proposed Six Year Program all
secondary road bridge projects receiving secondary road and/or federal bridge funding. Previously only
those project receiving secondary road funds were included in the document.
Staff believes the proposed VDOT Six Year Secondary Construction Program provides for the
flexibility to use up to $3.0 million of Revenue Sharing Program funding, and allows unpaved road funds
previously allocated to the Broomley Bridge project to be moved back for use for their intended purpose.
The projected annual allocations to the secondary program are insufficient to fund any of the major road
improvement projects identified in the County‟s Priority List of Road Improvements (Berkmar Drive
extended, Proffit Road, or Sunset Avenue improvements and connector road) unless there is a significant
increase in the use of Revenue Sharing Program Funds. Future commitment to participate in the Revenue
Sharing Program will be discussed by the Board in upcoming work sessions on the Capital Improvements
Program.
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County‟s priorities for the expenditure of
State/VDOT secondary road construction funds which do 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. Currently, $484,222 is available in the FY 2011-12 CIP for
participation in the Revenue Sharing Program.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the County‟s Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements (Attachment A) and authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT
Secondary System Construction Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County‟s
Priority List (Attachment B). Staff also recommends that the Board approve the attached Revenue Sharing
Program Resolution (Attachment C).”
Mr. Rooker noted that it is important for people to see that VDoT‟s allocation is a 94% reduction in
funding over the last six years.
Mr. Boyd asked when the County could expect to hear about funding for Revenue Sharing.
Ms. Karen Kilby, VDoT, Programming & Investment Management Director, stated that the
resolution is needed by the end of the month and would be presented to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board by June with a decision expected in July.
Mr. Boyd noted that there are some CIP decisions to be made locally if the proposal is accepted.
Mr. Snow asked if the Red Hill School Road project is the area from the school to down around
the curve. Mr. Benish responded, “yes”.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is anything that needs to be done to keep Broomley Road on schedule,
noting that there has been money allocated for that.
Mr. Benish responded that VDoT is aware of the Board‟s desire to maintain the construction
timeline, but it is not possible to advance it any further than 2014.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that he just wants to be certain that the first steps are done so that the
last steps can be done on time.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was his understanding that there are no funds for the rural rustic road
projects.
Mr. Benish explained that, last year, there were some allocations of unpaved road funds on
Dickerson Road and, once VDOT suspended its annual allocation of unpaved road funds, there was no
additional money accruing to that project; so it was decided to move those funds to Broomley Bridge to
advance that project.
Mr. Boyd asked if there will be penalties for doing that. Mr. Benish responded that this shift will,
hopefully, avoid that penalty if the funding mechanism returns, although it has not come back.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Boyd asked where the funds would be reallocated. Ms. Mallek stated that gravel road monies
have to stay in gravel roads which are why money allocated to Dickerson Road can go to rural rustic road
paving projects; they are the same category and would not be subject to penalties.
Mr. Benish said the unpaved road funds would be allocated to the rural rustic road projects. The
projects he mentioned are the highest priority projects on the County‟s rural rustic road list. The VDoT
secondary plan will show the allocations of those funds to this list of projects.
Mr. Boyd asked the timeframe. Mr. Benish responded that most of the roads are in the first year,
although the last two might be in out funding.
Mr. Boyd said he has constituents concerned about Stony Point Pass moving up on the list.
Mr. Benish noted that the information provided to the Board for this meeting showed Bleak House
Road as the fifth project. About two years ago the public came before the Board and asked that the road
be deleted from the list. Staff is now showing Bear Creek Road as the next project on the rural rustic road
list. He said that Ms. Kilby also suggested that a second road be added just to provide some flexibility and
that would be Pocket Lane.
Ms. Mallek commented that the first five road projects seem to be in the same category, and, if all
things are equal, she thinks the roads should be prioritized by vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Boyd responded that he does not agree with that approach because people have been waiting
for eight to ten years only to be told they have been bumped for other roads. He thinks the roads should
be taken in sequence; it is more than just vehicle trips. Stony Point Pass residents have been waiting for
20 years to get their road in the list.
Ms. Mallek said she made the suggestion because, for example, Blufton Road has more vehicle
trips than the first two roads on the list.
Mr. Boyd said this was a bone of contention several years ago. When the Board started talking
about this process, it decided that it would not bump roads that had been in the queue for a long time. He
does not think a few more trips per day are a compelling reason.
Mr. Benish indicated that, if a road has a unique need, its‟ priority would be elevated and traffic
volume is usually the largest criteria. He added that the County tries to keep the list moving so things do
not get continuously bumped. He said the three projects discussed would all be constructed within the
same timeframe.
Mr. Dorrier asked what magisterial districts the projects are located. Mr. Benish said they are
spread out – Rose Hill is in Scottsville; Fortune Lane is in Rivanna; Blufton is in White Hall; Happy Creek
is in Rivanna; and Bear Creek and Pocket Lane are in Samuel Miller.
Mr. Rooker said the Board establishes these priorities every year. When staff m akes the
recommendations, traffic is one of the main issues. He said that he thinks that they also has to consider
cost.
Mr. Boyd commented that safety is also one of the issues.
Ms. Mallek asked if when VDoT is working on the roads, does staff take into consideration the
monthly expense of the maintenance crews. For example, the crews have had the road grater out every
two weeks on Blufton since January.
Mr. Benish pointed out on the rural rustic road list, the second to last column has the year the
project was placed on the list. When the column is blank, staff was not tracking the date and that
generally means it has been on the list since before 2000.
In terms of the next steps in the process, Mr. Benish said that the Board agreed that, once the
projects moved forward to the secondary plan to begin construction, a notification process takes place in
the area to ensure residents are still in favor of the project, due to the fact that ownership can change over
the years.
Mr. Boyd asked why the Eastern Connector is still on the list.
Mr. Benish explained that it is just a placeholder because technically it still shows up on some
County plans, but is far down the list because of its status.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the last time they went through the process with the Eastern Connector
Study Committee, they had determined that it was not practical to build.
Mr. Benish said that it can be removed from the list.
Mr. Rooker said the Eastern Connector should be taken off the list because the cost compared to
allocations makes it unrealistic to build. Since the least expensive option was $80 million, and the funds
would have had to come out of secondary road funds, it is not a project that would qualify for primary road
funds.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Boyd commented that the best and least expensive option was one that the City was not
agreeable with.
Mr. Benish reiterated that staff recommends the Board approve the County‟s Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements; authorize the County Executive to sign the VDoT Secondary System
Construction Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County‟s Priority List, with the
deletion of Bleak House Road and the addition of Bear Creek Road and Pocket Lane for paving; and
approve the Revenue Sharing Program Resolution.
Mr. Snow asked how the plan for a roundabout in Ivy is proceeding, as he understood it was not in
the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Benish explained that it would be a primary road because it is located on Route 250 West.
The Board‟s priority list for primary road does identify the Owensville Road intersection at Route 250 and
Tillman Road on Route 250 West for improvements. Staff may be coming to the Board in the future on
whether it is an important enough project to move forward with and for VDoT to take up further study.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Savage addressed the Board stating that he would like to discourage the County from
building Eastern Avenue. His property immediately joins the right-of-way. Mr. Savage said that the road
will connect Route 250 into downtown Crozet, in the neighborhood of the old ConAgra plant, with
developments to be built alongside it. He added that the County has been diligent about clarifying the
location of the right-of-way. He realizes the need for some sort of inter-neighborhood connector, but given
the budget, he does not think the road will be considered in the next ten years. If the road is built, it needs
to be a neighborhood road with two lanes, a 25-mph speed limit and no truck traffic. He said that the
residents do not want to see semi-trucks going back and forth to Route 250 through his neighborhood.
Mr. Savage said that it would also be nice to have a bicycle path. If this road is built, it will require
bridging of Lickinghole Creek and a railroad underpass, both major expenditures. He asked the Board to
move the road down on the list. He also asked the County to remove the sign that has been there for 10
years; it is old and an eyesore.
Ms. Mallek commented that the sign needs to remain, but there has been a request for the County
to update it.
Ms. Doris DeSha said that she loves the community and does not think there needs to be a
shortcut to the Harris Teeter from Crozet, which is basically what Eastern Avenue would be.
Mr. Philip Nelson said that he endorses the concept of east-west travel in the northern part of the
County. In the northern part of the County, there are three major corridors: Route 29 to the west, Route
20 in the center, and Routes 22/231 to the east. For several years, the County has been improving the
flow from Route 29 to Route 20 by way of Polo Grounds Road, Proffit Road, and Watts Passage. Mr.
Nelson said that he is encouraging the County to extend this concept by considering connections east-
west to the third corridor of Routes 22/231. With the increased shopping and jobs at the Hollymead Town
Center, increasing jobs at NGIC, the UVA Industrial Park, and the Airport, this concept of travel becomes
more important ever day. Traffic that moves east and west from the Cismont/Keswick area means less
traffic through Charlottesville and less traffic on Route 29.
Mr. Nelson noted that he is a Cismont resident and worked at GE Fanuc for 20 years, facing the
choice every day of which way to get to his job. Last year he worked for the U.S. Census and faced the
same choice. He stated that taking incremental steps would obtain significant results over the years. He
urged the Board to continue improving east-west traffic flow as a priority for northern Albemarle County.
Mr. Gary Grant, a resident of 3765 Bleak House Road, said he is happy to live on a gravel road
and is happy it is not on the list. Mr. Grant thanked Ms. Mallek and Mr. Thomas who kept residents
informed of the paved road list. The residents will keep watching this list to make sure that the road does
not reappear.
Next on the list was Ms. Diane Weber, who was no longer present at the meeting.
Ms. Lori Schweller, a resident of 5303 Little Fox Lane in Cory Farm, said that she feels the
concept of Eastern Avenue is not appropriate at its current location. Ms. Schweller said that Eastern
Avenue is an extension of Cory Farm Road, which is the only access into Cory Farm and literally splits the
development into two parts. She stated that children cross this road constantly and, if it becomes a major
thoroughfare, it would be extremely dangerous and would further isolate the eastern portion of Cory Farm.
Ms. Schweller said that if this road does stay in the plan, it should be a 25 mph road with pedestrian
crossings, bike lanes and sidewalks and should include traffic impediments.
Mr. Corky Shackleford, a lifelong resident of the Rivanna District, addressed the Board, thanking
Mr. Boyd for keeping Stony Point Pass in mind. He noted that the road goes along and through his
property for quite a ways. Mr. Shackelford said that there are plenty of commuters who use that road
although he is not aware of any official traffic count. He stated that the loose gravel has cost him three
tires already and the road should be paved.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Boyd commented that traffic planners need to give some thought to the overall impact of the
east-west traffic, as people could take Turkey Sag Road or Stony Point Pass without having to go through
the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Rooker noted that if you have good connections in all directions you cut down substantially on
miles traveled.
Mr. Snow then moved to approve the County‟s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements, as
set out in Attachment A to the staff report, with the deletion of Project #20, Eastern Connector. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified for the audience that the deletion is for the Eastern Connector, not Eastern
Avenue.
(Note: The County‟s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements is set out on the following
pages:)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 63)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Snow moved to authorize the County Executive to sign the VDOT Secondary System
Construction Program Budget for Albemarle County consistent with the County‟s Priority List, as set out in
Attachment B to the staff report, with the deletion of Bleak House Road and the additions of Bear Creek
Road and Pocket Lane for paving. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(Note: VDOT Secondary System Construction Program Budget is set out on the following
pages:)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 65)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 66)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 67)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 68)
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Snow then moved to adopt the Revenue Sharing Program Resolution as set out in
Attachment C to the staff report. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to $1.5 million of revenue
sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2011/12 Revenue Sharing
Program; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit a $1.5 million in match in order to compete for a Revenue
Sharing Program award; and
WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the replacement of the Broomley Road (Rt. 678)
Bridge over the Buckingham Railroad.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
commits to provide $1.5 million of matching funds in its application for up to $1.5 million of revenue sharing
funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that the Virginia
Department of Transportation approve the County‟s application.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 14. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: ZMA-2010-00016. Woolen Mills (Sign
#90).
PROPOSAL: Rezone .588 acres from LI - Light Industrial zoning district which allows industrial,
office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) to R-4, Residential zoning district which
allows residential uses and 4 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 2 for a density of 2
units/acre.
PROFFERS: No.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential -
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and
other small-scale non-residential uses and Parks and Greenways - parks, greenways,
playgrounds, pedestrian and bicycle paths in Neighborhood 4.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 1911 & 1913 East Market Street.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 78/21F MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on March 21, 2011 and March 28, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would allow for property located in Woolen Mills to be
rezoned from Light Industrial to R-4 Residential. The property is located on East Market Street and much
of it is in the 100-year floodplain. This request would allow for rezoning to allow for use of the home and to
make that home conforming with the zoning. He noted that the area is designated for Neighborhood
Density – Residential in the Comp Plan. The rear part of the property is designated for Parks and
Greenways although there is no actual greenway facility proposal.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would be more consistency with the Land Use Plan as R-4 zoning
and it would be consistent with surrounding adjacent residential properties, making the use conforming.
Since there are no unfavorable factors, he said staff and the Planning Commission have recommended
approval of the ZMA with no proffers.
There were no questions from Board members.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting. None was offered, the public hearing was
closed and the matter was placed before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved to approve of ZMA-2010-00016 Woolen Mills as recommended. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
__________________
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 70)
Agenda Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2010-00010. Ivy Creek United
Methodist Church (Sign# 23).
PROPOSAL: Special use permit to bring church, Sunday school, parsonage and cemetery into
compliance with zoning ordinance and demolish a portion of the existing church facility to
construct a fellowship hall, offices, meeting room, nursery classrooms, and re -construct parking
area on a total of 2.973 acres.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal and fishery
uses.
SECTION: 10.2.2 (35) Church building and adjunct cemetery.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas (RA 1) - Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/residential density .5
units/acre in development lots.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 674 Woodlands Road (Rt. 676) west of Green Meadows Lane.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04400000001400 (church/cemetery); 044000000012H0 (parsonage).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on March 21, 2011 and March 28, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a historic church located on Woodlands Road, among several
church buildings. He presented some pictures from the location. The proposal would bring the existing
church and cemetery into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and would allow for the demolition of an
existing multi-purpose building and the construction of a new fellowship hall. He explained that the church
parking would be redesigned and there would be an improved alley in the rear of the church building for
access. Mr. Cilimberg said the existing entrance between the church and cemetery would be closed.
There are no changes to the parsonage or historic church and there is no additional sanctuary seating.
He stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval. Mr. Cilimberg said there
is one issue that came up at the Commission‟s meeting which staff believes can be addressed with a
slight modification to conditions, in an effort to keep the large trees in the parking area. Staff is
recommending the following change to condition #1:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit “Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Overall Layout and Grading” prepared by Terra
Engineering and Land Solutions, PC and dated (last revised) February 3, 2011 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan
– limits of disturbance
– location of buildings and structures
– location of parking areas, except that the parking area may be modified to allow for
the preservation of large trees.
– permanently closing driveway closest to cemetery
Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made
to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the applicant has requested that construction of the new building
commence on or before May 11, 2016, which is fairly standard with church requests.
Ms. Mallek asked if this will be a gravel parking lot. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes so, but the
applicant may be able to speak to that issue.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting.
Mr. Steve Driver, representing the applicant, said that this request, which was also presented to
the Planning Commission, is an effort to improve the church building facilities to enhance the ministry. Mr.
Driver said the existing sanctuary was built long before the Zoning Ordinance was developed and, in later
years, a fellowship hall and parsonage was added. The goal is to improve the site for safety and for its
use. He stated that closing one of the entrances – the one near the cemetery - will add additional safety
measures, as the new entrance has been shifted to the west further away from the curb. Mr. Driver
indicated the drive behind the church will provide access to a few spaces to the east and will also provide
for hearse access for burial and emergency access to three sides of the building. He said the church
decided to join the two parcels; the church and the parsonage to the west, to allow for oneness.
Mr. Driver stated that, in order to keep the church in its rural character, they respectfully request
approval of the special use permit along with the three waivers suggested: to keep the parking lot gravel,
to provide raised timbers to frame the parking along with concrete bumper stops, and to allow a 20 foot
gravel drive in the rear of the building. He asked the Board to look favorably on the request.
Ms. Mallek asked if he really meant a 20 foot wide gravel road. Mr. Driver responded, “yes”. The
standard for the County is actually wider than that and the church asked for a reduction in the standard
width. If the Board would allow a narrower gravel drive, they would accept that also.
Mr. Driver then commented that there will be four trees that will have to be removed based on the
current special use permit, and two of them must be removed because of the new building addition. One
tree lies to the east of the church near the new addition and the other tree is directly north to the rear of
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 71)
the church. The other two trees are within the gravel parking area, and the only way to avoid that is to add
parking in front of the church building or in front of the parsonage, which is not aesthetically pleasing.
Ms. Mallek asked if the church needs all the parking capacity they‟ve indicated. Mr. Driver
responded that they did because currently parking is unmarked and people park anywhere in the areas.
When parking spaces are delineated it puts the trees in the drive aisles. He added that there are a
number of trees on the site that will remain.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is a beautiful spot and a lovely church. He said that he is glad that
the existing structure of the church is not being impacted with this plan.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Driver if he was agreeable to the other eight conditions. Mr. Driver replied
that he was.
Mr. Dorrier asked how big the congregation is.
Mr. Jim Thornton, Pastor of Ivy Creek Church, responded that they average between 118 and 123
in attendance between the two services every Sunday. He added the church is not interested in
expanding the sanctuary at this time although they do plan to expand the fellowship hall to make it more
usable.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval of SP-2010-00010 subject to the eight conditions as
recommended by staff and modified by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Board did not need to take action on the waivers.
(The conditions are set out in full below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit “Ivy Creek United Methodist Church Overall Layout and Grading” prepared by Terra
Engineering and Land Solutions, PC and dated (last revised) February 3, 2011 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To
be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on
the Conceptual Plan
limits of disturbance
location of buildings and structures
location of parking areas, except that the parking area may be modified to allow for the
preservation of large trees
permanently closing driveway closest to cemetery
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 area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum one thousand, six hundred (1,600) square
feet;
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. Removal of trees shall be limited to the trees designated for removal, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan, and the minimum number of trees may be required to be removed by the Health Department
for the septic system. Tree protection measures for remaining trees within the construction area
including the alley, parking; Fellowship Hall building shall be required on the erosion and sediment
control plan in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. The tree
protection measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity prior to any land
disturbing activity;
5. Approval of a site plan or site plan waiver shall be required;
6. Approval from the Health Department for the septic system and well shall be required prior to
approval of an issuance of a building permit;
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 72)
7. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan (Attachment A) shall
commence on or before five years from May 11, 2016, or this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall be thereupon terminate; and
8. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit.
_________________
Agenda Item No. 16. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: SP-2011-00006. Elks Farmers Market
(Sign #103).
PROPOSAL: Farmers Market on 6.34 acres; no residential units proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R1 Residential (1 unit/acre).
SECTION: 13.2.2.14 Farmers Market.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential which allows 6.01-34
units/acre and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Pantops Neighborhood.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 389 Elk Drive approximately 265 feet from intersection of Elk Drive and Rt 20N.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 078000000058A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on April 25, 2011 and May 2, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Elks Lodge is located on Elks Drive just to the west of Stony Point
Road and across from Darden Towe Park. He said the proposal is to hold a farmers market in the lodge
parking lot on Tuesdays and Saturdays, April through December. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would be
no additional parking required. He added that the parking lot is typically under-utilized during the proposed
periods of operation and it is easily accessed. He said that staff found no unfavorable factors. The
recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff was for approval with four conditions as
presented.
Ms. Mallek said that her concern is with the asphalt trail. She said the County is already doing a
sidewalk along Route 20 up to the light at Darden Towe Park which would provide sufficient pedestrian
access to get people to the property without requiring them make an interior trail or sidewalk.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that condition #4 calls for the trail which is to provide inter-connection to
future development when it occurred next door. Currently, the County has a rezoning request for next
door, which could accommodate a pedestrian connection for those folks and to the lodge for people who
would want to go back and forth and use a path. He added that hopefully they will have the sidewalk
system at some point.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County was expecting the Elks Lodge to make a connection through their
property for people walking from Route 20 to Darden Towe Park. Mr. Cilimberg responded, “no”; the idea
was that the sidewalk path would provide a connection for the development to the south of the Elks Lodge.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff has a picture of where the path would be located. Mr. Cilimberg
responded, “no”; staff does not have a plan to show the location. Staff had planned to leave it to them to
accommodate the path. Staff was looking at a low maintenance asphalt path and had an opportunity in
the adjoining rezoning to provide a point where it could be connected. He added that it is the Board‟s
choice as to whether they want to have that condition #4.
Mr. Rooker said that he did not understand the nature of Ms. Mallek‟s concern.
Ms. Mallek responded that she does not think the trail is necessary for the use of the farmers
market because people can already easily use the sidewalk that is already built or come up to the light and
come down the driveway. She said that she is not sure why one property is expected to provide a through
path of great length to bring offsite people from one side to the public park on the other side. The Board
has not asked this of any other farmers markets and she does not think this requirement is appropriate.
Mr. Boyd noted that he has had the same concern as Ms. Mallek and the Elks Lodge has
expressed the same concern to him.
Mr. Rooker agreed that it seems to be an unnecessary request of the applicant and could not
imagine that would accommodate a lot of people for just six hours a week.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting.
Mr. Ellis Frazier, an Elks Lodge member, said he was appointed by that membership to represent
them on this matter. Mr. Frazier said that the farm ers market is going to be a great asset to the
community, especially on the east end of town, and the Wilton Farms residents were also excited. He
hopes the Board will approve the request.
Mr. Frazier commented that the members agreed to condition #4 but did have some questions
since it could become a shortcut through the Elks property going to the Park. He asked the Board to
eliminate that requirement.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 73)
Mr. Richard Martin said that he has been a member of the Elks Lodge for almost 30 years. This
is a private organization and has been a big supporter of the County. He asked the Board to eliminate
condition #4 as it would provide an open path directly to Darden Towe Park. He remarked that it puts the
Lodge in a liability situation with foot traffic going through their parking lot. He requested approval of the
special use permit without condition #4.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd then moved approval of SP-2011-00006 subject to three conditions, eliminating the
proposed condition #4. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan on Page 3 of the Plan
entitled “Special Use Permit Elks Lodge” prepared by the applicant and dated 2-18-11 (hereafter
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator;
2. The use shall operate only during the months of April through December of each year and only on
Tuesdays and Saturdays; and
3. The hours of operation for sales at the Farmers Market shall not begin earlier than 3:00 p.m. and
shall end not later than 7:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, and not begin earlier than 8:00 a.m. and shall not
end later than 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
__________________
(Non Agenda: At 8:42 p.m., the Board took a recess and then reconvened at 8:51 p.m.)
__________________
Agenda Item No. 17. PROJECT: ZMA-2010-03. Morey Creek Professional Center (Concurrent
with SP 2010-09 for a parking structure).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.606 acres from the PRD Planned Residential District, which allows
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to PD-MC Planned Development
Mixed Commercial, which allows large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use
permit (15 units/acre) to permit 100,000 square feet of general office space, a 15,000 SF daycare
center, and parking structure. No residential units are proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes. Concurrent with ZMA2010-03, the following proposed special use permit
("SP") within the proposed Morey Creek Professional Center authorized by Zoning Ordinance §
25A.2.2(1):
PROJECT: SP 2010-09 Morey Creek Professional Center-Parking Structure (concurrent with ZMA
2010-03).
PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance § 23.3.3(4), Parking
structures. (Reference 4.12, 5.1.41). The following information applies to both ZMA 2010-03 and
SP 2010-09:
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Service --
neighborhood-scale retail, wholesale, business, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 6.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: 76-12A is within the EC; 76-12G is not within the EC.
LOCATION: Fontaine Avenue Extended, adjacent to the west of Buckingham Circle.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 076000000012A0 & 076000000012G0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in The Daily Progress on April 25, 2011 and May 2, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a rezoning that would provide for a 100,000 square foot office
building, parking structure, and 15,000 square foot daycare center in association with the University of
Virginia‟s Health Services and would be located close to a major commuter access route. He said the
center is located on Fontaine Avenue Extended, with Fontaine Research Park to the east across the US
Route 29 Bypass from this location and adjacent to the Buckingham Circle residential neighborhood.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Comprehensive Plan has designated this as Neighborhood Service
and there are also designations nearby for Neighborhood Density Residential, Office Service, Parks and
Greenway, and Institutional Uses in association with the University and public uses. He said this property
is currently zoned for Planned Residential Development and Buckingham Circle is zoned R-2, with R-4
property also nearby along with Highway Commercial, Commercial Office, and PDMC zoning. Mr.
Cilimberg noted that this property was approved previously through a rezoning for Fontaine Townhomes,
which was intended to be 61 units.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the plan that was approved for the units. He then presented the plan as
it would develop under the proposed rezoning. He noted that there would be a service entrance into the
building and he pointed out the area to be used by Health Services, the location of parking lots and access
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 74)
points, and the daycare center. He said that there are concerns among neighbors regarding the size,
scale and massing, the daycare itself particularly as it relates to traffic, screening between the buildings
and neighborhood, general traffic impacts, the lighting of the site, impacts of construction on the pond,
wetlands, creek and environmental features, transit issues in addition to pedestrian and bicycle, and
parking not associated with the proposed use.
Mr. Cilimberg presented images of an elevation looking from Buckingham Circle into the site of
the location of the office building and structured parking. He also provided a rendering of the existing
pond.
Mr. Rooker asked if the images are what will be built of the rezoning is approved. Mr. Cilimberg
said that what is presented is the rendering provided by the applicant. He added that to a certain extent
this has been covered through the proffers and application plan. Some of the details also are in response
to ARB comments regarding visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is more traffic associated with this particular combination of uses
than with the originally proposed 61 townhomes, with 1,300 average daily trips and 1,200 for the daycare
center versus 418 that would have been associated with townhouses. He said the peak morning hours
would have the most significant impact because of the traffic pattern of people arriving at the office and
those leaving Buckingham Circle. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the traffic impact analysis results included
impacts of improvements proffered by the Fontaine Research Park, which included improvements to the
ramps at the interchange of Fontaine Avenue and the Route 29 bypass. Traffic signals would be required
at both the northbound and southbound US Route 29 Bypass ramps to Fontaine Avenue with this
proposal. Several other lane improvements are also necessary. He said that the signals and lane
improvements address the impacts on local streets.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there are proffers for a pedestrian walkway that originated as a proffer in
the Fontaine Townhomes. The applicants continue in this proposal to proffer an off-site asphalt paved
path that would go along the north side of Fontaine Avenue to the Fontaine Business Park intersection.
The walkway and other improvements would be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the office building. Mr. Cilimberg said that there would also be a clear-view pedestrian
bridge designed and constructed above the 100-year flood plain, which would also need to be completed
before issuance of the CO. He stated that there is a dedicated easement for the potential of a future
greenway, should that be a public initiative.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is providing a loading space for JAUNT bus. The location may be
provided on the main entrance road or on the parking deck as determined by the owner at the time of site
plan approval and completion is necessary prior to issuance of the CO. He stated that the improvements
to traffic include: traffic signalization, an eastbound right turn lane within the right of way on Fontaine
Avenue at the US Route 29 southbound intersection, and a traffic signal and additional lanes at Fontaine
Avenue and US Route 29 Bypass southbound ramps intersection. Mr. Cilimberg noted that these
improvements originated with the Fontaine Research Park and now has been tagged on this project. The
combination of the development of both will provide for these improvements to accommodate turning
movements at both ramps. He added that there is an additional right turn lane that will enter the site down
Fontaine Avenue.
Ms. Mallek said she had mistakenly thought that traffic light for this development would help
residents from Buckingham Circle get out of their development. Mr. Cilimberg said the traffic signal will
create breaks in the movement of traffic which will give some opportunity for turning traffic for almost 50 of
the homes. Most of the turning movements in the morning are left turns and most coming out to go the
offices will be turning against that traffic. That is where there will need to be the break for the traffic going
into the offices which will be created by that signalization.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the special use permit for the parking structure is a more efficient and
less impacting use of land than surface parking would be, as the latter would require a much larger area of
grading and clearing. It also puts more spaces closer to the building than surface parking. He stated that
the critical slopes waiver, which is required by the Board, includes small, isolated man-made areas that
are essentially stockpiles from prior activities and not a part of a larger critical slopes system that would be
disturbed for buildings and parking. Mr. Cilimberg stated that areas on the east side of the site that border
the stream and the pond are part of a larger system and would need to be disturbed for the pedestrian
bridge and the edge of the travelway into the parking garage.
In terms of favorable factors, Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is a rather unusual neighborhood service
area, since there is not much residential in the area; it is mostly employment-generating uses. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that medical support office uses, which would be located in the building, can generally be
in compliance with the Comp Plan considering the plan‟s designation of this particular area near the I-64
and the US Route 29 Bypass and in close proximity to other related major em ployment uses.
Mr. Boyd asked if the facility will be seeing patients. Mr. Cilimberg said it is his understanding that
this facility would be used largely for medical records, but the applicant could explain that in more detail.
Mr. Boyd asked if the daycare would be just for this facility or if it would accept children from other
locations. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the applicant respond to that request, but his understanding is that the
daycare would be associated with health service uses. It could also be associated with Fontaine Park as
well as this facility. He said that UVA. is trying to include daycare in a lot of its new facilities. Mr.
Cilimberg said he understands that the facility would probably not be open to the general public.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 75)
Continuing with favorable factors, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the size, scale and massing of the
structures has been addressed with the siting and design of the building, particularly utilizing some site
arrangements that work into the topography, which is lowering the scale to some extent. He added that
the proffered traffic improvements address traffic issues on the local street network. The significant
environmental features, which are over half the site, are preserved, with a number of preservation areas
shown on the plan. He said that the parking garage would permit more efficient use of the site, and the
critical slopes waiver associated with that and with the buildings would provide for more efficient use of the
site.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that an unfavorable factor is that there will be more traffic, and the ramp
junctions and weaving sections along the Route 29 Bypass at Fontaine and I-64 interchanges in particular
will have more traffic because of this development. He added that some off what is coming to this location
is now going to Fontaine because they have a smaller facility at Fontaine. He said that the extra traffic
associated with the bypass area and the interchange might not be as significant as it would be if this were
a new use bringing in new traffic to the area.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a more regional traffic impact now from the general growth of traffic in
the area so what the applicant is adding here is a piece of what is a much larger traffic growth matter.
Mr. Snow stated that VDOT‟s report indicates that the weaving pattern would fail once the
development takes place. Mr. Cilimberg suggested hearing from VDOT‟s traffic person to address that
circumstance.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the
rezoning with the revised proffers dated February 17, 2011. They have also recommended approval of
the special use permit for the parking structure. He added that there are no conditions recommended by
the Commission. He added that staff and the Commission also recommend approval of the critical slopes
waiver.
Mr. Boyd asked for an explanation of the improvements to the road from I-64 going west, as it is a
fairly narrow stretch of road.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is a path that will follow Fontaine Extended and come over in
front of the Fontaine Research Park. He said the applicant will be constructing an additional through lane
at the interchange, with a right turn lane re-striped to allow through movement at the interchange. He said
that there is construction of a second left-turn lane on the west side of the interchange going onto the
southbound ramp, and the applicant would also be constructing an additional lane on the ramp to receive
duel left turns. The applicant will construct a right turn lane at the ramp and a traffic signal. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that on this section of Fontaine Avenue Extended, there would be no improvements until you reach
the facility itself. He added that the pedestrian feature is an off-road feature on the north side of Fontaine,
planned much the same as that with Fontaine Townhomes.
Mr. Cilimberg added that there is an extension of the outside through lane as you exit the City
onto Fontaine Avenue in association with the Fontaine Research Park expansion and Morey Creek.
Mr. Rooker said assuming that Fontaine does not expand for ten years and this project goes in,
does the improvement still come in. Mr. Cilimberg said staff worked to make sure the improvements
would be done with either project.
Mr. Snow asked how much additional square footage was approved for the Fontaine Research
Park. Mr. Cilimberg responded that 310,000 square feet was added, which puts the total at approximately
850,000 square feet.
Mr. Snow asked what the total square footage would be by adding the 410,000 square feet. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that it is about 475,000 square feet right now, so the two projects together would
about double it. He said that this is owned by the Health Services Foundation which is a different entity
than the Fontaine Research Park. He added that County staff has spent time with the applicant to ensure
coordination and the reason that Fontaine Research Park needed to be part of the traffic analysis.
Ms. Mallek asked if this project would be taxable.
Mr. Davis explained that the Health Services Foundation is an affiliated foundation of the
University and, therefore, has tax-exempt status. However, the University entered into an agreement with
the County a year or so ago that continued a payment in lieu of taxation for any property that they own
which is not used by the University of Virginia or University of Virginia Foundation for educational, scientific
or literary purposes for the University of Virginia. He said that if this property is used for Health Services
Foundation office use, the County would receive a payment in lieu of taxation at the full tax rate. This
property would provide tax revenue to the County depending on its use.
Mr. Snow said it was his understanding, from information he gathered from a recent Planning
Commission meeting, that there could potentially be $150,000 to $160,000 added to the County‟s tax rolls
each year.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks this is line with the Board‟s Economic Development Policy.
Mr. Davis commented that whether they would have a net tax increase would depend on whether
the existing space they have for their office facilities is converted to a University of Virginia use.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 76)
Mr. Rooker asked how many square feet are they occupying in Fontaine Research Park. Mr.
Davis responded that he does not have that figure in front him but he thinks that Health Services
Foundation occupies all but one floor in Fontaine.
At this time, the Chair opened the public meeting, and asked the applicant for comments.
The applicant‟s representative, Mr. Bill Daggett, addressed the Board on behalf of the Health
Services Foundation (HSF). Also present with him is Mr. Scott Dunn, from the Timmons Group, who will
address traffic issues; Sam Saunders from the Timmons Group, and Gary Lowe, Project Manager for
HSF. Mr. Daggett stated that this plan has grown out of two meetings held between HSF and the
Buckingham Circle neighborhood. HSF gave the residents an opportunity to understand their plans
responded to many questions, and HSF altered some of their plan based on those conversations. HSF
also worked hand-in-hand with staff to make sure all the issues were clear.
Mr. Daggett said that his presentation will address the following elements of the project: 1)
building sizing and scale of development – basis for building size, why 100,000 square feet; consolidation
via terraced parking approach; and comparison to approved townhouse development; 2) night lighting –
winter working hours and overnight impacts; 3) Fontaine Avenue elevation – response to façade setback
requirements; and 4) traffic mitigation – recommended improvements at Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Daggett reported that the HSF occupies two floors of the building it owns in the Fontaine
Research Park (about 40,000 square feet), with the ground floor occupied by medical clinics. Ultimately,
the University would like that building to become additional medical services with Fontaine being an
outside medical resource so that patients do not have to go to the downtown hospital. Mr. Daggett stated
that, in March 2010, Pye Interiors was hired by HSF to do a study of their current needs and into the
foreseeable future. The designer identified an immediate need of approximately 63,000 square feet. He
said that HSF works hand in hand with other agencies within the University, particularly physician billings,
and is required by HIPAA to make sure that all records for all patients are kept confidential, which is why
the building is secure. Mr. Daggett stated that other tenants in the building match up with that same
criterion and are both University affiliated, so they make a good companion use. He said that Linda Pye‟s
2008 analysis for that group brought the total to 100,000 square feet which allows an additional 5,000
square feet for building lobby and circulation.
Mr. Daggett stated that when they first began the project, the Timmons Group was asked to
attempt to accommodate the office building along with the daycare center and had worked with the UVA
Foundation, who owns adjacent land. He said the Timmons plan was pretty environmentally insensitive
because it required crossing a wetlands and placed an enormous distance between the outer parking
spaces and the building itself, and it required a rezoning further into the residential property. Mr. Daggett
said that this led HSF to seek a different approach, with the building still in the same location but with a
condensing of terrace parking and placement of the daycare in the back corner of the property. He stated
the new approach would be accessed directly off of Fontaine and into the various terrace parking levels
and provide direct access to the daycare, thereby eliminating the need for grading, stripping and building
on the rest of the property.
Mr. Rooker asked what would happen to the remainder of the property. Mr. Daggett responded
that that property is owned by others and there are no plans for it currently.
Mr. Daggett said the approved plan is for 61 townhouses and the buildings were fronting on the
water feature with additional townhouses built in the back of the property. Mr. Daggett then noted the
location of the proposed building, parking structure and daycare structure, along with the new taper lane
from Fontaine. Mr. Daggett presented a slide showing the relationship of the property‟s features, adding
that HSF would be rebuilding the dam and restoring the water feature to its previous natural condition. He
then provided a three-dimensional comparison of the two different projects, noting the current grade, the
lower townhouses with the water feature, and the upper townhouses, and the tapered retaining wall, which
would have a maximum height of 17 feet. Mr. Daggett noted that the townhouses, with its higher roof and
building in the back, are almost two stories higher than what HSF is proposing.
Mr. Daggett stated that the new plan has benched the parking and the building into the site so that
it is essentially stepping up and trying to work with the land to provide the least impact to the neighbor-
hood. He explained that there would be lighting at all of the perimeter offices and full lighting in the parking
garage, and by about 6:30 p.m. there is only emergency lighting in the parking structure. Mr. Daggett
emphasized that the building is set up with an internal corridor and external offices, and would be lit with
occupancy sensors. The building will basically be dark after working hours and on weekends. He said
that lighting in the parking structure will only be at levels necessary for safety.
Mr. Daggett added that staff had brought to his attention a requirement in the language asking for
step-backs in the building every 100 feet, so the plan design responded by stepping back the upper floor
and moving it toward one end so there is a full two-story elevation. He said that, every 60 feet, they have
created a depression of six feet which is in precise response to the wording in the text. They suggested
putting sunshade fascia across the openings which deepens the shadows and creates an even more
power sense of in and out of the building. When that suggestion was brought to the Planning
Commission, they felt this was an appropriate response.
Mr. Scott Dunn said that Mr. Cilimberg covered the basics and he offered to answer specific
questions from Board members.
Mr. Rooker asked about the weaving patterns that Mr. Snow had brought up earlier.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 77)
Mr. Dunn explained that the existing Route 29 weave between I-64 and Fontaine Avenue has
been identified as already failing to date, and it was reanalyzed with new traffic data collected a year ago
with similar results. He said the applicant has shared the information with VDOT and they are aware of
the situation, but VDOT has indicated that there are no improvements identified for that weave section on
Route 29 itself.
Mr. Rooker asked if the traffic study went back to the I-64/Route 250 Bypass.
Mr. Dunn responded that it did not, adding that they collected counts there and looked at
individual movements, and, coming from the south heading northbound, there are very small amounts of
traffic entering onto I-64, with the biggest problems noted as people exiting I-64 heading into town and
exiting onto Fontaine Avenue. Mr. Dunn said the majority of traffic that exits northbound uses the dual
right turn lanes and heads to Fontaine Research Park. He stated that, with the expansion of the Park, the
signal at the intersection of the northbound ramp was not needed because all the traffic is accommodated
by the dual northbound right turn lanes that are already in place. Mr. Dunn added that, with this project
coming online, they had the majority of traffic heading northbound and making a left turn, heading to the
other side of the interchange, which then warranted the traffic signal shown in red. He said that the traffic
signal shown in blue was identified with the Research Park, as workers attempt to make a left to get back
onto southbound Route 29 to I-64 east and westbound, which causes the backup on Fontaine and the
southbound exit ramp. Mr. Dunn stated that his diagram illustrates a combination of improvements from
both the Fontaine Research Park and the Health Services Foundation put together, so that whatever
project comes online will provide all the improvements for the Fontaine Corridor at the time one project
comes on.
Mr. Snow asked if the intersection with Buckingham Circle had been studied specifically.
Mr. Dunn said that was not required as part of the original study, but they did do it. After that was
completed, they did look at the numbers from the through volumes they had from the study in addition to
the traffic volume estimates coming out of Buckingham Circle using 58 homes. He said that the level of
service at the intersection was a Level of Service “C,” and Joel DeNunzio of VDOT had come up with the
same numbers, with an approximately 20 second delay per vehicle entering that intersection from
Buckingham to go left onto Fontaine.
Ms. Mallek asked if that study was done during average times of the day. Mr. Dunn said that this
was measured at the AM peak, which is the greatest volume of traffic with the PM peak being
considerably lower.
Mr. Boyd asked if the 20 second delay time changes the service level. Mr. Dunn said that
currently it is a LOS “B”, with about 10 to 12 seconds, but with the additional traffic, it increases by five to
seven seconds and becomes a LOS “C”. He added that typically anything lower than a LOS “D” is
acceptable, and LOS “D” does not kick in until there is over 35 seconds in delay.
Mr. Snow said he has a hard time believing that those numbers of cars have only a maximum wait
time of 20 seconds.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow suggested the traffic needs to be compared to what is there now.
Mr. Daggett compared the townhomes‟ combined total 175,000 square feet of living space versus
about 115,000 of occupiable space in the proposed project.
Mr. Snow asked about possible noise impacts from the dumpster pad and HVAC at the new
development. Mr. Daggett responded that the dumpster has an enclosure that screens it, and it does not
generate a great deal of refuse.
Mr. Snow said that dumpster trucks like to get in early to empty them and they tend to generate a
lot of noise. Mr. Daggett stated that the HSF would be happy to work with the collectors to mitigate the
problem.
Mr. Snow suggested that the dumpsters be moved to the back side of the building. Mr. Daggett
responded that it would be difficult to move them there because there is no space there and it is really the
arrival area of the building. He said that trash refuse will go down the service elevators, so direct access
is needed, and there is really no other site that provides that access.
Mr. Snow asked about heating and cooling. Mr. Daggett stated that the building would be heated
geothermally and would probably have a green roof. He said that the drive for the system is electric
pumps within the building. The air handling is all water source heat pumps, many of which are distributed
in the ceiling space within the building.
Mr. Rooker asked if it will be a LEED certified building. Mr. Daggett said he does not know if they
will LEED certify the building, but it will be built as if it were. He added that the building will not generate
the kind of noise that one would associate with large buildings.
Mr. Snow asked if the parking garage will be used for UVA football games. Mr. Daggett said HSF
has no interest whatsoever in using its garage for football games. HSF employees very often use the
building for Saturday mornings to catch up on work, etc., and that would be an incompatible situation for
them.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 78)
Mr. Snow asked if HSF has given any thought to additional screening along Buckingham Circle
Road. Mr. Daggett responded that they have spoken with neighbors about additional screening and they
have indicated that they want to see the water feature. He added that the idea is to completely screen the
building over time and that is part of the plan.
Mr. Snow asked about the tax structure for the development. Mr. Daggett stated that the estimate
is $150,000 to $160,000 in payment in lieu of real estate taxes.
Mr. Snow asked about the size of the building. A comment was made at the Planning
Commission meeting that when this project is designed and completed, the parking garage and possibly
the building, would be reduced in size. Mr. Daggett said he does not recall saying that. The residents of
Buckingham Circle have made it clear that they would like for this project to be one-half its size or less.
HSF had to agree to disagree because the combination of departments that need to be working together
for the efficiency and security of patient records, etc., equals 100,000 square feet. There is some growth
they foresee in this square footage, but it is not a lot. These will be only University related facilities serving
the medical center.
Mr. Cilimberg said the reference to potentially smaller area of coverage was in relation to parking
in that they could, through a parking study, potentially reduce their number of required spaces, which in
turn theoretically reduce the size of the parking structure.
Mr. Daggett said that comment is true. HSF is glad to work with staff to reduce that, but they need
to make sure they have enough parking for all the employees who will be using the facility. He added that
HSF can do an analysis to show how much they could lose, but he would not consider it be a significant
amount.
The Chair then opened the hearing up to other comments from the public.
Mr. Elena Day, a resident of 151 Buckingham Circle, said that she has lived on Buckingham Circle
since 1979. The requests from the residents have been sent to the Board. She asked the Board not to
approve the rezoning until the requests from the residents have been taken completely into account. Ms.
Day said that every request for this site has been “oversized” and it does not make any sense that the
Planning Department, which recommends a five-acre site and up to 40,000 square feet of building, now
endorses a building of 100,000 square feet plus a three-story parking garage on 12 acres. The parking
garage makes this immense office building even more immense. She added that her primary concerns
are the lighting and the noise, but she also has concerns about the impact to the creek through
construction and runoff. She said Morey Creek is already impaired and flows into the Moore‟s Creek and
the Rivanna River. She asked why not decrease the number of parking spaces. Ms. Day also asked why
the daycare is being located here when the majority of users are at the main hospital and at Fontaine
Research Park. She knows that there is a proposal to increase parking at Fontaine Research Park by
building a parking garage so she would like to know why people cannot park there and walk or be bused
to this center. She wants to see a professional center no larger than 60,000 square feet.
Mr. Vincent Day, a resident of 118 Buckingham Circle, said he has been a resident on
Buckingham Circle since 1998. W hile this is an improvement on the previous proposal for the property,
his fears have not been assuaged yet, especially regarding traffic. He does not see a solution here for the
residents. He said the developers have been very creative in figuring out a use for this site and they
should be equally creative in figuring out how to manage the traffic. He said that he is not impressed with
HSF providing $150,000 in tax revenue; the residents are already giving $100,000 in tax revenue, and
they do not make the kind of money that HSF is making. Mr. Day asked if there is a way to share an exit
and flow the traffic one-way through the Buckingham Circle Road, then across the creek and loop it
around. He said that he doesn‟t buy that residents will only wait there 20 seconds considering that they are
not having to wait at all right now. This will impact the residents and they are not getting anything out of
the proposal. If HSF wants to be a good neighbor, then the traffic problem needs to be solved. Mr. Day
also described the water feature as “a loser,” as it will just fill with sediment and be difficult to control. He
added that perhaps stream reclamation would be a better solution.
Mr. Donald Day, a resident of 151 Buckingham Circle, said that zoning needs to have some
motivation to do. He said that there needs to be some public interest in a rezoning and there is not one in
this case, nor is there a benefit to the County. Mr. Day stated that this does not really add to the tax base
or provide quality jobs for local residents as it is an existing activity with existing suppliers and existing
employers. All they are doing is moving from one location to another. He said this organization
masquerades as a nonprofit, but it is just a billing agency for the doctors at UVA; they have $274,947 in
revenue. They do not pay business taxes. Mr. Day emphasized that the project is out of scale with the
neighborhood. Buckingham Circle is going to absorb the burden of increased traffic, loss of dark skies,
and the diminished quiet of the neighborhood. He said that he wants HSF to reduce the size of the
building by 40% and to give Buckingham Circle residents access to the childcare.
Mr. Dick Smith said he has resided at 156 Buckingham Circle for 18 years and welcomes a
daytime use only for the HSF property. He said that he is the building manager for the School of
Architecture at UVA; it is 100,000 square foot building, approximately 75 feet wide and 1,300 feet long,
and 50 feet tall. He does not see how the building where he works can be fit into this space. Mr. Smith
stated that currently residents do not have to wait for traffic, except for church traffic on Sunday. The only
benefit of a traffic signal would be to turn right. If they want to turn left, they will be relying on people who
have the right-of-way giving up their right-of-way to let them out. It cannot be predicted that it will be a 20
second wait. He added that the daycare center is more appropriately located near the hospital where
employees would be using it. This would be creating a more heavily impacted traffic area.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 79)
Ms. Anita Holmes, a resident of Buckingham Circle, stated that she has been to several meetings,
including HSF meetings, about this project. She said that her overriding concern is that the project is too
large in scale for the strip of land on which it is proposed to be built. Ms. Holmes said the comparison to
the townhouse project is irrelevant, as that project was also too large. She said the parcel is on a small
ridge that rises up from a wetland area, and 40,000 square feet is the recommended use for five acres in
the Land Use Plan, but somehow there is a loophole that factors in the additional seven acres to achieve
100,000 square feet. Ms. Holmes stated that, other than reducing the size of the structure, residents
would like to see the lights minimized by measuring the foot candle at the edge of the pond nearest the
structure instead of by Buckingham Circle Road, and designing the garage with light-blocking walls. Noise
pollution, especially the garbage dumpsters, is a real problem for her. She does not think there is going to
be a break in traffic for them and she would prefer a three-way stop sign at Buckingham Circle. Ms.
Holmes added that it would be nice if the building was something less harsh, something other than steel
cold gray.
Ms. Brie Gertler, a resident of 141 Buckingham Circle, said that the project is just too large, and
all negative impacts could be decreased by decreasing the size of the building. Quoting from the
Neighborhood Model on the size of the buildings, she said that “The important feature is that heights of
buildings should relate to the rest of the neighborhood. The combined height and width that is the mass of
buildings should not be overwhelming.” Ms. Gertler pointed out that of the 49 houses at Buckingham
Circle, most are under 1,500 square feet. On 30 acres, Buckingham Circle has less than 75,000 square
feet. The numbers proposed by this project cannot be disguised by any amount of siting and design. She
also stated that the townhouse development approved for this parcel was for luxury townhouses, 55
townhouses and 174,000 square feet, which are more than 3,000 square feet per townhouse priced at
$500,000 per home. Ms. Gertler said the reason for moving HSF out of the Fontaine Research Park is
because that space is needed for clinical work, which means that space will be taken over by non-tax
paying entities. Ms. Gertler said her question to the Board is whether that mere shift in taxes is worth
seriously decreasing the quality of life for 49 households in the County who do pay taxes.
Mr. Marty Porush, a resident of 141 Buckingham Circle, said that he is not here in opposition of
growth or progress. HSF, itself, has said they only need 63,000 square feet and the proposed project is
way too large. He asked Board members to come visit the neighborhood and see firsthand what this
oversized structure would do to the neighborhood. This oversized structure will impact the residents 24
hours per day, 365 days per year.
Mr. Bill Goldeen said that much of what he has heard tonight is fantasy, as traffic will be delayed
far more than 20 seconds for residents trying to get out of Buckingham Circle. He said that the
townhomes were supposed to be 60,000 to 80,000 total square feet, developed as student housing. At
that time he came to the Board and proved the developer was lying to the community, and Board
members voted against the plan. Mr. Goldeen stated that HSF met with neighbors and had really altered
nothing. The size of the building is out of scale, with the next biggest building, Trinity, at 49,000 square
feet. He said there is nothing mixed-use about this proposed project. The goals of the Neighborhood
Model have not been met at all. Mr. Goldeen stated that HSF said they would rent out the leftover space
in the building, but that would essentially just mean more income for their tax-exempt nonprofit. He added
that traffic is already an issue in that area, and VDOT has said that this proposal would exacerbate the
problems on Route 29. He also has a problem with the Planning Department just ignoring the issues.
Mr. Henry Kaliber, a resident of 124 Buckingham Circle, said he has lived in the community for the
last 10 years. Mr. Kaliber emphasized that his concern is with the traffic, which would increase 6.25 times
over what was approved for the townhome project. He said that the egress on Fontaine Avenue is not a
through street, so making a right-hand turn takes you to a dead end. Mr. Kaliber said the proffers would
do more to solve the Research Park‟s traffic than Morey Creek‟s. He thinks HSF could be a good
neighbor, but he would like to see the applicant invest more money in solving the traffic problem.
Mr. Paul Rood, a resident of 103 Buckingham Circle, said that he has lived at Buckingham Circle
for 30 years. He is probably one of the closest residents to the proposed building. He expressed concern
with the size and scale of the facility and perhaps the daycare center needs to go, since it is probably the
biggest traffic problem. Mr. Rood said he knows HSF will take care of the property, but there will be a lot
of people using the road who are not familiar with it. He added that the neighborhood is a heavenly place
to be and he hopes that anything built will not disrupt the quiet and produce light pollution. In reality, he
said he wishes they would put the daycare center someplace closer to the University in town, because that
is where the majority of people are going to work and use it.
Mr. Robert Miller said that he has lived at Buckingham Circle for 27 years and is present to
express complete solidarity with what has been said, along with a letter his wife sent to the Board last
evening.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Snow asked if the daycare center would serve children of the employees of just that building,
from Fontaine Research Park, or throughout the University community.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is for the University community, with families utilizing it most likely
being from Fontaine Research Park and this facility.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Planning Commission had reduced the size of the building at all. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that it has always been 100,000 square feet.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 80)
Mr. Lowe addressed the Board and said that they are currently doing a study of daycare centers
for the University and medical center community in and around Charlottesville. Mr. Lowe said that this is
one of several sites being considered throughout the area, including sites on Route 29 North and at
Piedmont Virginia Community Center.
Mr. Rooker asked if they are looking in the existing Fontaine area, as they have the additional
300,000 square feet of space approved there and the HSF office moving out. He said that would be more
central to University activity than this particular site.
Mr. Lowe responded that UREF is developing that and he is not sure if they have had discussions
about childcare within the Fontaine Research Park.
Mr. Snow asked if the lights on the property would be shielded.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the lights would be required to meet the County‟s Dark Skies
provisions of the lighting ordinance, and lights from vehicles would need to be screened with walls in the
parking garage so they would not shine out.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the building shields most of the parking garage from Buckingham
Circle. He also said that no one likes growth taking place close to them. This property is in the growth
area and was zoned commercial, which means there could have been development that was much more
objectionable than this project. Mr. Rooker pointed out the previously approved townhouses would have
created a lot more light, noise and traffic at evening hours, especially with students living there. He
personally would have preferred this facility near him than the townhomes. He mentioned that residents of
Ednam Forest see the Amvest Building and the Boar‟s Head Inn, and they would probably not say those
facilities were objectionable. Visually, it depends on how they do what they do. Mr. Rooker emphasized
that there is an application plan for the HSF site that will help make the site more attractive than it is now.
He added that the only component of the proposal that stands out as not being required to meet this need
is the daycare center.
Mr. Snow said that he could support the plan if the daycare center was removed, as it will
significantly impact traffic.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the traffic here is his primary concern, and the only way to decrease the
potential impact would be a reduction in the building size and elimination of the daycare center. He thinks
a 10 percent or 20 percent reduction in size would help. The only way to control the number of cars is to
reduce the size of the facility.
Mr. Snow pointed out that by removing the daycare center, it would cut out 1,189 vehicle trips
which would reduce the traffic by almost half.
Mr. Rooker said that a daycare center is more appropriately located on the other side of the Route
250 Bypass and he is not sure why that is not being considered for Fontaine as it would be more easily
accessible for employees. He stated that the main issue he sees is traffic and eliminating the daycare
would reduce this substantially.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that what has been proffered is the application plan and the only architectural
features that are certain are those the ARB would review within the Entrance Corridor. He said the
architectural features have not been proffered. The applicant has certainly expressed their intention of
doing this as well as some of the other profiles they showed the Board, but the County does not have this
as a proffer.
Mr. Rooker said that, given the proximity to the neighborhood, there should be a proffer that says
the project will be built substantially in accordance with the renderings that have been provided.
Mr. Snow agreed and asked if the Board would see the plan when it is complete.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the plan is not subject to Planning Commission review unless there is a
waiver necessary or if an adjacent owner requests review.
Mr. Rooker said he is more interested in ensuring that what has been presented here is what will
be built, and he would trust staff to accomplish that if there is such a proffer regarding the renderings and
as may be modified at the request of the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Davis pointed out that this is a rezoning application for PDMC and, in order to eliminate the
daycare, there would need to be an amendment to the PDMC application plan that would no longer show
that use. He stated that is not something the Board can require. That would be something the applicant
would have to decide to do in order to get the Board‟s approval. He added that any additional proffers
would have to be voluntarily made by the applicant and would be subject to another public hearing
requirement.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be any sub-letting of this space. Mr. Daggett responded that HSF
is the major building user, and there would be another patient financial related group that performs a
similar function but covers a different area of work.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 81)
Ms. Mallek asked if it is a separate company. Mr. Daggett responded that it is a separate
organization within the University medical center. This is not for lease for anyone who wants to come
here.
Mr. Daggett also explained that the dam is going to be replaced and rebuilt, with the water feature
returned to its original status. He said this project is under soil and erosion control requirements, so they
cannot damage or increase runoff into the water feature without protection, which will be part of the
construction and site plan processes.
Mr. Daggett stated that HSF would voluntarily forego the daycare center, if that is the will of the
Board.
Mr. Davis clarified that the Board‟s desire would be to have an amended application plan that
would no longer show the daycare facility and a proffer that would address the architectural features of the
building.
Mr. Daggett agreed to the changes and said HSF has no problem with that.
Mr. Snow asked if the Board can take action on this tonight to save the applicants a trip of having
to come back.
Mr. Davis stated that there would be an additional public hearing necessary because of the
substantive change to the proffer. He pointed out that the changes would have to be accomplished before
the Board could vote on the rezoning; however, it would not have to go back to the Planning Commission.
In terms of Board action tonight, Mr. Davis said that the Board would need to defer the application in order
to allow changes to the application plan and the proffers.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board could add conditions instead of changes to the proffers. Mr. Davis
said that the Board cannot condition a rezoning. The only conditions the Board could impose would relate
to the parking structure.
Mr. Snow then offered a motion to defer ZMA-2010-0003, SP 2010-0009 and critical slopes
waiver request, to the earliest possible date, to allow the applicant to amend the application plan that no
longer shows daycare facility and amend the proffer to address architectural features of the building. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if it was the consensus of the Board to postpone all items related to TJPDC
Sustainable Grant, ICLE and Cool Counties to the evening of June 8th. Board members concurred.
__________
At 10:49 p.m., Mr. Boyd offered motion that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider an administrative
appointment. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
______________
At 10:57 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting.
Mr. Boyd offered motion 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. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
_____________
Motion was offered then offered by Mr. Boyd to adopt a resolution to appoint Ms. Betty J. Burrell
as Director of Finance of Albemarle County effective June 13, 2011. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
May 11, 2011 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 82)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
(The adopted Resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, upon the
recommendation of the County Executive, that Betty J. Burrell is hereby appointed the Director of Finance of
Albemarle County effective June 13, 2011. Betty J. Burrell, as Director of Finance, shall serve at the pleasure
of the Board and have all those powers and duties set forth in Section 15.2- 519 of the Code of Virginia and as
otherwise provided by general law.
__________________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn.
At 10:58 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 09/07/2011
Initials: EWJ