2011-07-06July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 6,
2011, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
There were no additions or changes to the agenda. Ms. Mallek stated that the agenda was
adopted as published.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5a. Recognition: Betty Burrell, Director of Finance.
Mr. Foley introduced Ms. Betty Burrell as the recently hired County Director of Finance. Ms.
Burrell comes to the County from the City of Portsmouth, where she served as their Director of Finance.
Ms. Burrell also held the position of Director of Finance in Ft. Lauderdale Florida, and she worked for the
City of Richmond. Ms. Burrell has over 30 years experience in finance and the related field. She has a
Bachelors Degree in Business Administration and a Masters Degree in Public Administration. Mr. Foley
said the County is very excited to have Ms. Burrell on board.
_______________
Agenda Item 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Elizabeth Murray, a 50 year resident of the County, said she is dismayed and distressed at
the manner by which the Bypass issue was reintroduced on June 8 – around midnight after a lengthy and
difficult public hearing when the majority of the public had already left the meeting. She understands that
nothing illegal occurred, but at the very best, the actions were devious and underhand, and to go further
even dishonorable and misleading. Ms. Murray stated that she has always supported County government
and believed firmly that the Board has acted openly and honestly even when she did not agree with the
opinions and decisions, but she has now has lost trust in their integrity and intentions. She thinks the
Board has brought the values of the County‘s democratic procedures to a new low. In addition, she is
ashamed of the County. She added that she also believes there are quite a number of other people who
are as disturbed as she is.
__________
Mr. Charles Battig said that he supports the decision to move forward with the Route 29 Bypass.
Mr. Batting added that in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision ―The
harms associated with climate change is serious and well recognized. The government‘s own objective
assessment of relative harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The
Government's own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified
experts indicate that global warning threatens…‖ Mr. Battig said that four years later none of these
catastrophes have taken place. The past July 4th weekend, mountain recreation areas have closed
because persistent snow packed conditions, hurricane activity remains at a multi-decade low, global
temperatures have been at ten year decline, and recent satellite data a marked down trend in sun spot
activity reminiscent of a little ice age. Mr. Battig said one goal of the Cool Counties declaration, crafted in
part by the Sierra Club, was to reduce global warning emissions 80% below the current 2007 levels by
2050 – he wonders how the County is doing on that goal. He stated that on June 8th, one Board member
could do no better than to enumerate a hodge-podge of science organizations in justification of
maintaining County membership in Cool Counties. On June 20, 2011, the U. S. Supreme Court Ruling
(American Electric Power v. Connecticut), Justice Ginsberg stated that ―The court, we caution, endorses
no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.‖ Mr.
Battig asked if Board members can follow suit as they are no more experts than other ―lawyers‖ on the
Supreme Court. He believes this has been a manufactured crisis. The Virginia Secretary of Natural
Resources noted the futility of local action on global climate issues in a recent press release.
__________
Ms. Emerald Young, a County resident, asked the Board to reconsider opposition to the Route 29
Bypass since it won‘t benefit the local area and will benefit Lynchburg – which may want improvements in
part for transportation of nuclear fuel. Ms. Young noted that Babcock & Wilcox has a nuclear
reprocessing plant in Lynchburg that employs over 2,000 people, and in 2009 they were fined $52 million
for their former nuclear plant – 35 miles from Pittsburgh. Ms. Young said that last year the company was
fined $32,000 for inadequate education of employees on how to clean up nuclear waste and spills. She
added that the 2,000 jobs in Lynchburg pales in comparison to the damage that would be done if a
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
disaster were to occur given that the proposed Route 29 Bypass crosses the Rivanna Reservoir which
supplies water to 80,000 people.
__________
Mr. Tom Olivier, a resident of the Schuyler area in the County, said that his comments relate to
the Board‘s June 8th vote to withdraw from ICLEI. Mr. Olivier said that ICLEI helped the County save
energy, save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions but on June 8 four Board members
succumbed to wild, ignorant claims that ICLEI was a mechanism for outside control of the Albemarle
County government. He said that the claims went as far as to say that ICLEI was part of a United Nations‘
mind control program; he asked if four Board members actually believe that stuff. Mr. Olivier said that for
over 30 years, Albemarle Supervisors – in the face of many difficult realities – established a proud tradition
of identifying and facing growing environmental challenges. However, four of the current Board members
now appear unprepared to deal with climate change and other 21st Century challenges. Mr. Olivier said
that if those Board members think they will find political shelter by participating in the denials of realities so
popular now among right-wing fringe elements they should think again – as around 200 environmentalists
attended the June 8 meeting and the Supervisors‘ retreat from environmentally realities was widely
observed.
Mr. Olivier said that today many are working to get Albemarle County back to the real world,
starting in November.
__________
Mr. Scott VandePol, a resident of Lamb‘s Road in the County, said he was present to speak in
opposition to the proposed Route 29 Bypass. He said that on June 8 the Board pulled a little feculent
lump out of a hat in the middle of the night while the community was sleeping,‖ and the last time this came
up it attracted the largest opposition in State history at the MPO meeting. He does not think Board
members should think for a minute that the opposition has disappeared; it is just sleeping. Mr. VandePol
said that the bypass is a bad idea on its merits, as it is not really a bypass but instead goes straight
through established neighborhoods and brings a freeway next to schools. If the Board supports building
this road, it will never get the bypass that the region needs. It will never happen because the Board will
have put bad on the ground, and will then build on bad into the future, and bad will be the County‘s fate.
Mr. VandePol emphasized that VDOT‘s own studies show that this is an ineffective route to reducing
congestion on Route 29, it is wasteful because for each car removed from Route 29, it is 20 times more
expensive to put it on this road than on alternative procedures such as the Hillsdale Extension, and it is
wickedly unfair to property owners along the route. If VDOT does not take your property, but you live next
to the bypass, as he does, you find yourself having a loss of your property. These people are simply being
screwed by their fellow citizens through the hand of VDOT. He mentioned HJ-693, a resolution which
passed the Senate 35-5, will be on the ballot in 2012 and will make takings of the value of property
through diminished value illegal. If the Board delays taking action until 2012, there will be a chance for this
and other roads to be built with some semblance of justice.
__________
Mr. Milton Moore, a 23 year resident of the County, said that the excuse the Board members gave
on June 8 for suspending its rules of order, and removing the bypass wording at 11:35 p.m., without public
input, was that Mr. Dorrier was late to the meeting because he was stuck in traffic. This of course avoided
receiving public input. Mr. Moore said it was possible that Mr. Dorrier was late because he returned
Secretary of Transportation Connaughton‘s call when the Secretary had promised funding for the bypass.
Of course the change of vote could have been put on the agenda at the next meeting, but there was a
rush to get it done without public input. Mr. Moore said that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd have worked
behind the scenes for months to ensure the Board, the MPO, and the CTB are stacked with bypass
supporters so that it is a done deal. He added that if there is such a thing as karma, he hopes the four
Board members spend many lives working together, especially on projects in which you disagree.
__________
Mr. George Larie, speaking on behalf of the Charlottesville Albemarle Transportation Coalition,
stated that he is here to protest in the strongest possible terms the ―midnight coup‖ of the Board on June
8. Mr. Larie said that this underhanded deal conducted in secrecy until the closing hours of a very long
Board meeting is an insult to the community. Given the long-standing and widespread opposition to the
Western Bypass, taking a vote in the manner that they did is simply unacceptable and a disservice to the
public. He added that it smells like a political deal for Lynchburg and Danville. If Albemarle‘s elected
officials are going to operate in this manner they should be replaced or recalled. Mr. Larie said that
Supervisor Thomas was reported by the media in saying that ―they had to do it this way‖ – meaning they
had to avoid publicity and also avoid letting Supervisors Mallek and Rooker know that this item would be
brought up. Mr. Larie pointed out that this was clearly a planned event, thought out and carefully
executed. He is sure the 7,000 people who opposed the bypass at the last MPO hearing on this will
remember this on election day. The basic question is whether a bypass should be built at a cost between
$250 million and $300 million which would take 12,000 to 15,000 cars a day off Route 29 and feed into
Route 29 just north of the River or build three parallel north-south roads in the TIP approved Places29
Plan which would take more traffic off Route 29 at much less cost. He added that the answer is clearly to
follow the Places29 plan.
__________
Mr. Robert Humphris, a County resident, said that the night of June 8 was a very bad night for
Albemarle County. In his 50 years of observing city and county governments he has never seen anything
like the late-night shenanigans of June 8th. Mr. Humphris said that many people have stated this is ―the
most sneaky, underhanded, vile and despicable conduct of County business‖ ever seen. He stated that
the backroom dealings smacked of the worst political tactics that he thought was a bygone era. It
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
concerned such an important topic for the entire community, both for the citizens in support of the bypass
and those opposed to the Western Bypass. Mr. Humphris said that his wife, Ms. Humphris, now
deceased, served on the Board of Supervisors for 12 years, and she was a strong opponent of the
Western Bypass, and was re-elected twice by an overwhelming majority of her constituents, who agreed
with her views. During her three terms, and the preceding 15 years, there were many contentious topics,
but never did a Board meeting go o far astray and sink to such levels as occurred on June 8. He stated
that four Board members sank to a new low in integrity, respectability and morality and that is not the way
County business should be conducted. Any rational and clear thinking person should readily recognize
the tremendous importance and significance of the bypass issue to this community. To switch directions
180 degrees near midnight with no previous notice, with no public hearing, with no chance of public
comments, to change the rules to suit a particular opinion, to make a private deal with a State agency and
have no document in writing, is to him grounds for recall. Mr. Humphris added that Mr. Thomas Jefferson
must be really rolling in his grave. He promises to do whatever he can for the next elections to ensure that
none of these Board of Supervisors‘ members who did this foul deed are re-elected.
__________
Ms. Elly Tucker said she is present on behalf of her husband, Bill, and herself, to oppose the
Western Bypass. The stated purpose of the project is to provide a bypass for Route 29 through traffic
around the Charlottesville Metropolitan area. However, it has been shown that because the proposed
roadway would begin and end in developed areas, the majority of the traffic would be local, and therefore
not the solution to the problem of truck traffic on Route 29 as it was originally proposed. The history of the
roadway goes by to the late 1990s when in 1996 the MPO voted to bar VDOT from allocating money to the
construction of the bypass, and even at that time its path came before the development of US 29 – with
the reasons for it being voted down including its high per-mile cost, its inability to get around the already
developed areas, the State‘s own research suggesting that 90% of existing Route 29 traffic is local, and its
proximity to the Rivanna River and area drinking water. She said at that time ―Taxpayers for Common
Sense‖ named the Western Bypass one of the most wasteful road projects in the nation. Ms. Tucker said
that has not changed.
__________
Mr. Ray Caddell, a resident of Dover Road in Carrsbrook Subdivision, thanked the Board for
getting involved in the issue of ―sludge-dumping‖ in the County. He asked the Board to think about several
things when DEQ comes before the Board today as it is a little bit like the fox guarding the hen house. Mr.
Caddell added that he has not seen County staff present onsite when the dumping is done and he has not
seen the County do anything about this issue, adding that there is not the knowledge or equipment to do
the proper testing. He encouraged the Board to consider what has happened in more agricultural
communities, as Shenandoah and Augusta Counties have both stood up and said they want more
analysis. He does not think it is a good thing to bring this stuff from Greater Washington DC and dump on
the County‘s farmlands next to our water supply and children. He understands that the Board‘s hands
may be tied somewhat by the Federal government, but Shenandoah and Augusta stood up and said
something. If this product is so wonderful and safe, they need to keep it up north.
__________
Mr. Charles Winkler, a City resident, presented information on ICLEI and their link to the United
Nations. He then read some questions and answers with information about ICLEI taken from its website.
ICLE‘s main website states that ICLEI is a worldwide movement of local governments. He stated that
ICLEI‘s world headquarters is located in Bonn, Germany. Mr. Winkler added that ICLEI and ICLEI USA
are deeply involved with the United Nations and U.N. Agenda 21. ICLEI works to insure that Agenda 21
also addresses the roles and perspectives of local governments. Mr. Winkler concluded by stating that the
task of mobilizing and technically supporting Agenda 21 planning in communities have been led by ICLEI
and national associations of local governments.
__________
Mr. Saunders Midyette, a resident of the County, said that he is present to oppose the proposed
Route 29 Western Bypass. At almost midnight on June 8, with no notice or opportunity for public input,
Supervisors Rodney Thomas, Duane Snow, Ken Boyd and Lindsay Dorrier deplorably engineered a
stunning reversal vote, setting aside an almost 20-year position of the Board in opposition to construction
of the Western Bypass. Mr. Midyette pointed out that this action threatens to overturn the Places 29
Master Plan in which the Board unanimously approved significant road improvements to resolve the
current congestion on Route 29 North. He said that as a result of conversations he had with Secretary
Connaughton beginning in April, Supervisor Thomas betrayed the Board without their knowledge and
asked the MPO to vote to rescind its opposition to the Western Bypass. Inasmuch as Secretary
Connaughton has yet to be put this back-office-deal in writing, there are lots of questions regarding his
source of bypass funding and the bypass‘s impact on funding two of the very important Places 29 road
priorities: extending Berkmar Drive, with a new Rivanna Bridge to Airport Road; and completing Hillsdale
Drive from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive. These two projects would resolve much of the current
Route 29 traffic congestion at a fraction of the cost of the bypass which is estimated to cost between $250
to $300 million. He added that previous VDOT studies determined that the proposed bypass was
siphoning off only 10% of through traffic and thus would not significantly improve the ―F‖ failing grade on
Route 29 North.
Mr. Midyette said he looks forward to speaking in opposition and giving reasons why this road is
so destructive at the Board‘s next public hearing.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said the dam safety folks will meet on September 8 and
the community better have its act together by then. Noting that the DEQ cannot meet the schedule as
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
proposed in the water supply plan, Mr. Martin suggested in April that the DEQ bifurcate the two sets of
permit modifications – with the earthen dam permits needing only minor modifications and the phasing
being decided later. He said that another suggestion is to withdraw the permit modification request
dealing with phasing, stemming from the Board‘s resolution of March 2 that references ―…all parties
moving expeditiously to address all remaining issues necessary to begin construction of the new earthen
dam to meet the Commonwealth of Virginia‘s dam safety requirements and to insure that the project takes
full advantage of the current bidding climate and low financing rates.‖ Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board
should exercise that contingency.
__________
Mr. Daniel Bowman, a County resident for five years, stated that he is troubled by recent events
that have taken place during recent Board meetings. He said that when thinking about explaining to his
grandson the principles of good government, democracy and public participation in decision making he is
embarrassed by the Board‘s actions. This Board has ignored excellent staff work, the recommendations
of staff and appointed commissions. This Board has overturned decisions of previous Supervisors, and
action he is sure they hope will not happen with their decisions. Mr. Bowman said that while the Board
encourages active public participation but makes decisions that fly in the face of the majority of those
participants. He asked what the Board members would have him say to his grandson to encourage his
action in local government affairs – given the likelihood he will be ignored. The Board establishes clear
and articulate rules for managing its meetings, then contravene those very rules in a way that violated
agreements with colleagues and purposely avoided public involvement. Near the end of a six hour
meeting, near midnight, certain Board members revealed information from State officials that obviously
only some Board members were aware of beforehand. He stated that the actions of the four Board
members on June 8 reeked of collusion, to the benefit of a tiny minority, and with complete disregard for
the public. Mr. Bowman encouraged the Board to go back and undo their recent, unprincipled actions.
__________
Mr. Jeff Dickson, a resident of Hollymead for approximately four years, said that as a business
owner he travels Route 29 on a regular basis, but he is not sure that $250 million is worth the
approximately seven minutes to drive the six miles of the proposed by the bypass. He also stated that the
lake in Hollymead is very muddy because of the Target center and he is concerned that a bypass over the
river would ruin recreational possibilities there.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson said that the Free Enterprise Forum conducted a poll in 2004 through the
Mason-Dixon research group and noting that the results are available on his website. One question: ―Do
you consider traffic congestion on U.S. Route 29 going through Charlottesville to be a major problem, a
minor problem, not too much of a problem or not a problem at all?‖ Response: major problem for the
region – 55%; not much – 13%. Question: ―How many times a week do you drive on U.S. Route 29?‖
Response: three to five times per week – 29%; more than five times a week – 38%. Question: ―Do you
sometimes avoid social activities or visiting businesses on U.S. Route 29 in Charlottesville due to traffic or
not?‖ Response: yes – 43%; no – 57%. Question: ―Do you believe a Route 29 Bypass around
Charlottesville is needed or not?‖ Response: among the region – yes – 67%; no – 19%; not sure – 14%;
in Albemarle County – yes – 63%; no – 21%; unsure – 16%; outlying counties, the yes percentage in
Greene County was 82%, Fluvanna County was 70% and Charlottesville City was 67%.
Mr. Williamson encouraged Board members to review the results and use the information as it
discussed the Route 29 Bypass. Although it was conducted in 2004, he added that it was a very objective
poll.
Mr. Rooker asked if the survey included a question about this particular route. Mr. Williamson
responded that there was not a question of this alignment, but there was a question as to where the road
terminus should be – with 32% preferring that it connect north of Airport Road and south of the Greene
County line. They did not inform the responders of this particular route.
__________
Mr. Patrick Jordan, a resident of 1915 Lambs Road, stated that he has lived in the area for a total
of six years. He stated that his children would be very affected by this bypass. He added that an
incredible amount of children would be impacted by this particular alignment. He thinks that the bypass is
a really bad thing and the Board needs to think about the children.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms.
Mallek, to approve Items 7.1 (as read) through 7.5, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
__________________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: January 5, January 18 and February 2, 2011.
Mr. Dorrier had read his portion of the minutes of January 5, 2011, pages 1-29, and found
them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek asked that her portion of the minutes of January 5, 2011, pages 30-end, be
pulled and moved to the next meeting.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of January 18, 2011 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of February 2, 2011, pages 1-33, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd asked that his potion of the minutes of February 2, 2011, pages 176-end, be
pulled and moved to the next meeting.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker commented that the minutes are not as up-to-date as they were
previously. Mr. Foley said that staff would provide the Board with a status update in the near future.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________________
Item No. 7.2. FY11 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations item ized below is $5,475.05. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of three (3) FY 2011 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011085) totaling $1,275.05 for school division donations;
One (1) appropriation (#2011086) totaling $4,200.00 for Fire Rescue donations; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011087) totaling a net amount of $0.00. This appropriation
recognizes $800,000.00 in loan proceeds from the Virginia Resources Authority, as the
Department of Environmental Quality‘s (DEQ‘s) financial agent and an offsetting
$800,000.00 reduction in the use of Stormwater fund balance to support the County‘s CIP
Stormwater projects. This appropriation does not increase the budget.
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $5,475.05 and the
approval of Appropriations #2011085, #2011086 and #2011087.
*****
Appropriation #2011085 $ 1,275.05
Revenue Source: Donations: $ 1,275.05
This request is to appropriate a donation in the amount of $1,275.05 received by Henley Middle School
from Henley‘s Parent and Teacher Support Organization. At the donor‘s request, these funds will be used
to help fund the ―Enrichment Time before 9‖ program for the month of April at Henley Middle School.
Appropriation #2011086 $ 4,200.00
Revenue Source: Donations: $ 4,200.00
This request is to appropriate $4,200 in donations received by the Department of Fire Rescue (FR) for
firefighter fitness evaluations. In 1998 an account was established for donations received by FR. This
request is for FR to utilize $4,200 from this account to fund the cost of individual fitness evaluations to be
administered through ACAC for uniformed staff. These evaluations are an opportunity for the firefighters to
learn more about their current health and fitness and to have a baseline to compare with future
evaluations after engaging in exercise and health regimes.
Appropriation #2011087 $ 0.00
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds: $800,000.00
Use of Stormwater Fund Balance: $ (800,000.00)
This request is to appropriate $800,000.00 in loan proceeds from Virginia Resources Authority, as the
Department of Environmental Quality‘s (DEQ‘s) financial agent, through the Virginia Clean Water
Revolving Loan Fund (VCWRLF) Green Project Reserve, which is a competitive program administered by
the DEQ Construction Assistance Program to support the County‘s Stormwater efforts. In addition to
designating the use of the loan proceeds, this appropriation includes an offsetting $800,000.00 reduction
in the use of Stormwater fund balance for the County‘s CIP Stormwater projects. This appropriation does
not increase the budget.
The acceptance of this two-part loan totaling $800,000, which includes a $400,000 Principal Repayment
Loan and a $400,000 Principle Forgiveness Loan, was approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 1,
2011 as part of the Board‘s resolution to approve the structure and execution of various funding
agreements with the Virginia Resources Authority to finance the costs of acquiring, designing and
constructing stormwater management projects in the County.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$5,475.05 and the approval of Appropriations #2011085, #2011086 and #2011087.
APP #2011-085
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meeting on May 26, 2011
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 1275.05 Donation
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 1184.44 Stipends - Instructional
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6112 90.61 FICA
TOTAL 2550.10
*****
APP #2011-086
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Transfer funds from the Fire/Rescue contribution fund to the General Fund for individual fitness
evaluations
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 32011 432010 311000 1003 4,200.00 Health Services
3 1000 51000 351000 512008 9999 4,200.00 Trs. From Contribution Fund
4 8405 93010 493010 930009 9999 4,200.00 Trs to General Fund
3 8405 51000 318000 181114 9999 4,200.00 Contributions
TOTAL 16,800.00
*****
APP #2011-087
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: DEQ Stormwater Loan
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9100 49900 341000 410500 9999 800,000.00 Loan Proceeds
3 9100 51000 351000 510100 9999 (400,000.00) Appropriation SW Fund Balance
4 9100 41063 482040 800605 9999 400,000.00 Downtown Crozet Stormwater
Wetlands - Construction
TOTAL 800,000.00
__________________
Item No. 7.3. Set public hearing for August 3, 2011 on False Alarm Ordinance.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code §15.2-911 provides that any locality may, by
ordinance, regulate the installation and maintenance of alarm systems operated by alarm company
operators. In 1991, the County enacted a false alarm ordinance prohibiting intentionally activated false
alarms that seek Albemarle County Police Department (ACPD) or Albemarle County Fire Rescue (ACFR)
responses and establishing service fees for false alarm responses. In 2008, faced with budgetary
restrictions and staffing shortages, public safety services began investigating ways to increase their
efficiency in delivering emergency services to the community. False alarm responses were found to be a
considerable drain on critical resources. Nationally, false alarm reduction programs have significantly
reduced the staffing and financial burdens on public safety services. Staff believes that an updated and
strengthened false alarm ordinance, in conjunction with an effective public educational campaign, would
greatly reduce the number of false alarms and the resulting burdens on public safety resources.
Throughout the nation, localities regulate police and fire alarm systems by establishing service
fees and other consequences for false alarms and requiring the registration of alarm systems. Within
Virginia, Charlottesville, Louisa, Chesterfield, Henrico, Virginia Beach, Fairfax, Alexandria and
Arlington, among other localities, have adopted false alarm ordinances. Under the County‘s existing
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
false alarm ordinance, which has not been amended since 1991, the ACPD and ACFR may charge
service fees for false alarms in limited circumstances. Currently, both departments lack the authority,
however, to establish other measures that would help to reduce the number of false alarms and the
burden on public safety resources, such as a progressive schedule of service fees, alarm system
registration, and a requirement that alarm systems be maintained in good condition. In addition, the
current ordinance also does not prohibit automatic dialing devices from sending prerecorded
messages to the 911 lines at the Charlottesville-U.Va.-Albemarle Emergency Communications Center
(―ECC‖). The City of Charlottesville, like many other localities, prohibits such prerecorded messages
from being automatically dialed to the ECC‘s 911 lines.
ACPD False Alarm History
An examination of ACPD response data to alarm calls for service over a three-year period from
4/1/2008 to 4/1/2011 indicates:
6188 alarm calls were responded to during this period.
6048 were attributed to alarm malfunction or user error.
109 were considered to be weather-related, rather than false alarms.
31 were classified as justified alarm calls (actual emergency perceived).
The average time spent on alarm responses was 29-30 minutes, from the dispatch of
the alarm to the ACPD officer clearing the incident.
The average number of false alarms per year was 2016.
The average percentage of alarms per year where an actual emergency was
perceived was 0.5%.
During a one-year period (4/1/2010 to 4/1/2011), 734 of the total false alarms were found to be
a third or subsequent false alarm from the same alarm system, with 19 calls being the most calls from
one location. The proposed ordinance establishes progressive fees for any false alarms after two false
alarms in a one-year period.
Under standard police and ECC protocol, two officers must be dispatched to the location of any
alarm call. Because an average of 30 minutes is dedicated to each alarm response this translates to
an estimated total of 6048 officer hours spent on alarm responses during the 2008-2011 period. Given
that an average of ten police officers staff each patrol shift, one false alarm call consumes 1/5 of the
total staff resources for an average of 30 minutes per call. In addition, the safety of ACPD officers and
citizens is jeopardized by repeated false alarms at the same location. Police officers repeatedly
responding to false alarms at the same location are less likely to anticipate actual criminal activity and,
therefore, may be less prepared to respond to such activity.
Weather-related alarms accounted for a small percentage of the alarms during the three-year
time period. However, according to a representative from the non-profit Security Industry Alarm
Coalition (SIAC), ―weather-related‖ alarms commonly arise from improper alarm maintenance or faulty
alarm systems and should, therefore, be considered false alarms. Prevailing alarm industry standards
dictate that an alarm should not be activated due to short-term power failure, wind or moisture
associated with thunderstorms. An extended power outage or unusually violent storm that destroys
property may activate a properly installed and functioning alarm system.
ACFR False Alarm History
The Department of Fire and Rescue had 642 false alarms during the one-year period from
1/1/2010 to 1/1/2011. The false alarm count includes malfunctions of single smoke alarms found in
residential dwellings and fire alarm systems found in larger commercial buildings. The equipment and
personnel dispatched to a fire alarm depends on the type of alarm: residential fire alarm responses
require one fire engine and one command vehicle (total of at least two firefighters, one company
officer, and one chief officer); commercial fire alarm responses require one fire engine, one ladder
truck, and one command vehicle (total of a least four firefighters, two company officers, and one chief
officer).
Based on its recent history, ACFR has experienced a lower volume of false alarms and burden
on resources than ACPD. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance differentiates between police and fire
alarm systems by requiring that police alarm systems, but not fire alarm systems, be registered.
Strengthening the false alarm ordinance will benefit Fire and Rescue by helping to ensure that false
smoke and fire alarms do not become a significant problem and by creating an efficient structure for
service fees and appeals.
Overview of Proposed Ordinance
§12-101: Definitions are expanded, including a comprehensive definition of ―false
alarm‖ which exempts any calls triggered by activities outside the control of the alarm
system user, but recognizes that alarms caused by malfunction or owner activity are
false alarms.
§12-102: Alarm system users must register police alarm systems so that Police will
have current contact information for alarm system users and keyholders, which
enables faster incident clearing and better communication with alarm system users.
Registration would be free and available through online access.
§12-103: Alarm systems must be maintained in good working order to prevent
repeated emergency responses for malfunctioning or poorly maintained systems.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Malfunctioning alarm systems that generate repeated false alarms within short periods
of time (2 within 24 hours or 8 within 4 days) may result in the suspension of agency
responses to alarm calls or a notice to disconnect or disable the alarm system for a
period of time.
§12-104: A schedule of progressively increasing service fees for responses to false
alarms is established. The first two false alarms within any 12-month period would
result in no charges; the third and subsequent false alarms are charged, starting at
$100 for the third false alarm.
§12-105: Activating a false alarm knowingly and without just cause would continue to
be a criminal class 1 misdemeanor violation under the ordinance.
§12-106: Automatic dialing devices which send prerecorded messages to the 911 lines
at the ECC are prohibited.
§12-108: Citizens who have been assessed a service fee or received a notice to
disconnect or disable an alarm system may appeal those decisions to the Police
Chief/Designee or Fire and Rescue Chief/Designee and then to the County
Executive/Designee.
One critical aspect of an effective false alarm reduction program is public education. In order to
implement a successful public education program, staff recommends that the proposed ordinance take
effect 90 days after adoption. This will allow the public safety agencies to educate the community
about how to reduce the number of false alarms and register their police alarm systems. Public safety
will also meet with representatives from the alarm industry in an effort to promote the registration of
alarms and to ensure that industry standards for installation and maintenance of alarms are met. This
coordinated effort will educate alarm users through media campaigns and educational materials that
will be made available through links on the County website. Tips on reducing false alarms could also
be sent to violators along with the bills for service fees.
There are several variables to consider when estimating the budget impact on public safety
resources. Currently, ACPD employs one non-sworn staff member to administer the false alarm
program on a part-time basis. Adoption of the proposed ordinance will increase the need for
administrative resources in order to manage billing, alarm registration, and communications with alarm
system users. The ACPD plans to utilize the services of a third-party administrator to provide alarm
registration and billing software, as well as administrative support. Based on an initial review of the
leading alarm system administration firms, it appears that the County would not need to pay any
contractual fees up-front.
An effective ordinance will lower the costs currently incurred for emergency services personnel
responding to false alarms. Additionally, an effective false alarm reduction program will increase
efficiency in delivering public safety services. Fewer false alarms will allow emergency personnel to be
more available for both true emergency calls and other agency initiatives.
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for a public hearing on August 3,
2011.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set this item for public hearing on August 3, 2011.
__________________
Item No. 7.4. Request for Dance Hall Permit for Guadalajara Restaurant #5.
The executive summary states that County Code § 12-201 (Attachment A) requires an applicant
to obtain a permit from the County before commencing operation of a dance hall. A dance hall is defined
in Code as ―any place open to the general public where dancing is permitted.‖ Dance halls are also subject
to all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and are a permitted use as either an accessory use to
restaurants or by special use permit. The Zoning Ordinance‘s definition of ―restaurant‖ states that ―dancing
by patrons shall be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating establishment, provided the space
made available for such dancing shall not be more than one-eighth of that part of the floor area available
for dining.‖ Any dance floor occupying greater space than provided by Code is permitted only by special
use permit. Applications for dance hall permits must contain certifications from the Fire Marshal and
Building Official that the dance hall is in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention
Code and the Virginia Statewide Building Code. Any application must be considered and approved by the
Board if the applicant meets the ordinance requirements. The primary restriction on dance halls is that it is
unlawful for any dance hall to allow any person under the age of 18 to enter or remain in a dance hall while
while dancing is occurring unless that person is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, or by a
spouse, brother or sister over the age of 18. Upon proper application and confirmation that the
requirements of County Code § 12-201 are satisfied, the Board has no discretion to deny the permit.
Josue Salinas, the applicant, is requesting a dance hall permit for the Guadalajara Restaurant #5
located at 3450 Seminole Trail to allow dancing as an accessory use to the existing restaurant.
(Attachment B-Location Map) The application is for a permit to allow a dance floor area of 285 square
feet. (Attachment C), which satisfies the requirement to qualify as an accessory use. Staff has visited the
restaurant and confirmed that the area of the dance floor, which is already delineated in the restaurant, is
285 square feet. The size of the proposed dance floor is comparable to other dance floors permitted by
the Board over the past several years, such as the Mexican and Italian Restaurant at Woodbrook
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Shopping Center (225 square feet), the El Ray del Taco Restaurant at Greenbrier Drive (256 square feet),
Kokopelli‘s Café in Crozet (140 square feet), and Wolfie‘s/Boudrea‘s/Rivals on Rio Road (360 square
feet). The Fire Marshal has certified that there are no outstanding fire code violations at this establishment
and that it is in conformity with applicable provisions of the Fire Prevention Code (Attachment D). The
Building Official has certified that the establishment is in conformity with the Virginia Statewide Building
Code (Attachment E). As a courtesy, staff has also informed the Police Department of the requested
dance hall permit.
As noted above, the County Code provides for a ministerial review of dance hall permit
applications by the Board and the applicant has satisfied all of the requirements for granting the permit.
The dance hall permit regulations in County Code § 12-201 do not authorize the Board to impose
conditions on the granting of the permit.
Staff is not aware of any direct budget impacts from approving this dance hall permit.
Because this application meets the requirements of County Code § 12-201, staff recommends
approval of this dance hall permit.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the dance hall permit for Guadalajara
Restaurant #5.
__________________
Item No. 7.5. Cancel Board of Supervisors‘ Meeting of August 10, 2011.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board cancelled its August 10, 2011 Board meeting.
__________________
Item No. 7.6. Copy of letter dated June 3, 2011 from Mr. Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of
Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Andy McGinty, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 90, Parcels 19&20 (property of Charlottesville Realty
Corporation) Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
__________________
Item No. 7.7. Copy of letter dated June 3, 2011 from Mr. Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of
Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Ben Thompson, c/o Luck Stone Corporation, re: OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 79, Parcels 36D&36E (property of Luck
Stone Corporation) Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Administration of the Housing Choice Voucher
Program. To receive comments on Albemarle County‘s Plan for the administration of the Housing Choice
Voucher Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing summarized the following executive summary which was
provided to Board members:
―The Albemarle County Office of Housing (―Office‖) is the designated local agency for the
administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (―Program‖), formerly known as the Section 8
Rental Assistance Program. The Office is considered a part of the executive branch of local government
and not a public housing authority. Although not a housing authority, the Office must comply with U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (―HUD‖) requirements for Public Housing Agency (―PHA‖)
activities, including the development and implementation of annual and 5-Year PHA Plans. The Housing
and Economic Recovery Act (HERA), Title VII, Small Public Housing Authorities Paperwork Reduction Act
exempts qualified PHAs from the requirement to prepare and submit an annual plan. Albemarle County is
considered a qualified PHA because it has a combined unit total of 550 or less public housing units and
section 8 vouchers, it is not designated as a troubled public housing agency and it did not have a failing
score under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program during the prior 12 months.
Although the Housing and Economic Recovery Act exempts qualified PHAs from the requirement
to prepare and submit an annual plan, qualified PHAs must conduct an annual public hearing regarding
any changes to the goals, objectives, and policies of the agency and invite public comment regarding such
changes. The qualified PHA must also consult with and consider the recommendations of the resident
advisory board for the agency at the public hearing. HUD considers the annual public hearing essential to
PHAs in determining whether changes to goals, objectives, and policies are needed.
The Office of Housing does not propose any revisions to the 5-Year and Annual Plan approved in
2010 (Attachment A). On May 16, 2011, the Office posted a notice of the availability of the Plan for the
required 45-day review and comment period. The Office also notified members of the Resident Advisory
Board that participated in the preparation of the 5-Year Plan that staff was not considering any changes to
the Plan but would consider any recommendations presented during the comment period.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing to receive public comment
on the Housing Choice Voucher Plan. Staff will provide the Board with any comments it receives from the
public as well as the Resident Advisory Board prior to the July 6th public hearing.‖
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Davis clarified that the action needed from the Board is a motion to direct Mr. White to present
any comments received to the appropriate department.
Mr. Rooker moved to direct Mr. White to present any comments received on the Housing Choice
Voucher Plan to the appropriate department. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: CPA-2011-00003. Urban Development Areas. Amend
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to modify the Growth Management Chapter to include a
description of urban development areas, designate Places 29 South within the Places 29 Master Plan, and
the Route 250-Route 20 area within the Pantops Master Plan, as urban development areas that comply
with the requirements of Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1(B), and to correspondingly amend the Places 29
Master Plan and the Pantops Master Plan to identify the above-referenced areas as urban development
areas and as priority areas within each master plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and
June 27, 2011.)
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, explained that this is a proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in response to a State mandate for localities to designate urban development areas. She
reported that in 2007 the General Assembly adopted legislation mandating that there be urban
development areas for certain communities across the state, and the Board adopted a resolution in 2009
certifying that the County‘s development areas met the criteria. Ms. Echols said that in 2010 the County
received a grant for consultant assistance to establish where specific boundaries for urban development
areas are and to get some consultant assistance with zoning and subdivision text amendments to help
implement the Comp Plan. On March 22, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission then held a public hearing on May 10, 2011 and
recommended approval of the CPA.
Ms. Echols reviewed the State mandates and how the County meets them, noting that one
requirement is that density be not less than four dwelling units per acre for single-family residences – and
townhouses and multi-family range from 3 to 34 units per acre, with a goal of achieving density overall.
She said that the State mandates a floor area ratio of .4 acres for commercial development; the County
does not have floor area ratio standards in its Comp Plan although it does promote compact development
in a vertical form which essentially addresses the same thing.
Ms. Echols stated that areas for growth, specifically smaller areas, have not been designated in
the Plan; the State mandates that residential and commercial growth areas be designated no less than 10
years and no greater than 20 years. She said that the County‘s development area boundaries are
geographic and do not really speak to how long it will take to reach capacity in a given area; the State
requires that those areas be mandated in the Comp Plan. In the development areas, she said, there have
been master planned priority areas established that accomplish the same thing. Ms. Echols reported that
the State also wants localities to establish principles of traditional neighborhood development; the
County‘s Neighborhood Model already contains those principles. She also noted that the State says a
Comp Plan should reflect the programs and public infrastructure and be directed to the urban
development areas, which the County has done in its master plans by addressing priority areas being
places for public investment.
Ms. Echols explained that there are very few changes to the Comp Plan being proposed, with the
first being to add the language referencing the State Code requirements and acknowledge what the UDA
expectations are. She said that there would also be minimal language added to Places 29 and the
Pantops Master Plan, showing those areas on the map. Ms. Echols stated that existing priority areas for
Places 29 Plan in the south – Priority Area 2 – is the same as what is being recommended that the UDA
encompass. She said that the land use plan does not change either; the borders mimic those borders.
The Pantops Master Plan shows the area as the same as the priority land use area.
Ms. Echols said that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CPA, with
this being the formalization of State mandates included in the County‘s Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd asked what the practical application is of the priority areas and asked how it would be
utilized when staff receives requests for development.
Ms. Echols explained that in the Pantops Master Plan, the Places 29 Plan, and the Crozet Master
Plan there were areas identified where public investments are needed to support growth – as well as
language addressing the need for improvements to be in place before other types of development
proposals would be approved. She added that it is language the Board has already adopted.
Mr. Boyd commented that he wants to be certain that this is not a situation where somebody
wanted to develop a piece of property not in the priority area and could not do so until the priority area was
in place.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Echols responded that there is language in all the plans the Board has adopted that says
something to that effect.
Ms. Mallek said that in Hanover, public infrastructure is provided within the ring but if a developer
wants to go outside of the ring they would have to provide it. She asked if something would not be
approved if it is not in the priority area.
Mr. Foley and Mr. Rooker indicated that it is one factor.
Mr. Rooker explained that the decision to rezone property is a discretionary decision by this
Board, adding that things in the Comp Plan should be considered but it is a judgment. He added that if a
person were to bring in a proposal outside of the priority areas, that would be a factor from his perspective
– but so would an offer to provide all the infrastructure needed around it. Mr. Rooker emphasized that
there are limited public dollars to invest in infrastructure and this is a guide about where to focus that
investment in order to make the urban development areas develop in accordance with State statutes.
Mr. Boyd said that he has heard stories that people have brought forth requests for development
and have been told by staff those things would never get passed because it is not in the Comprehensive
Plan. He does not want that to happen.
Mr. Rooker said that has happened in the rural areas.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, confirmed that those have been cases of proposals
outside of the development areas, which is a different scenario than what is being addressed here.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff would tell someone who is inside a development area, but not a priority
location, that it would not make sense to bring a proposal forward. Mr. Cilimberg responded that staff
would tell the Board that it would a factor for consideration because it may be leading to development in
areas beyond where there is planned infrastructure. The Board would then have to decide how that
development needs to compensate for that lack of infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker commented that Albemarle Place could not go forward until the sewer infrastructure
was in place to handle it.
Mr. Dorrier asked if transit was being considered.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that transit could help support and benefit from development in the
urban development areas, which was intended under State law with more mixed use and density – thus
supporting public transit. He said that the origin of this law is in the transportation demands being put on
the State for road construction, with this law intended to have more rapidly growing places in the State
plan for more concentrated development that would not create the same demands as a more dispersed
development. Mr. Cilimberg added that the other aspect of the grant and establishing UDAs within
development areas is getting some assistance in zoning and subdivision ordinance changes that can
better support development in the development areas, which would help private entities as well as the
County.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, commended staff on its presentation as much
of what Albemarle has been doing for a long time dove-tails with the State catching up. He is concerned
with the technical memorandum as it fails to address the environm ental considerations that this County
has placed on the development area. He said that he cannot find any mention of stream buffers, critical
slopes and other information available through GIS, and it fails to recognize what the number is without
that data. It is also important to recognize market condition. Mr. Williamson also stated that it is not
realistic to assume that developments would build out to the highest possible density.
Mr. Charles Battig asked who decides where the growth area boundaries are established. Ms.
Mallek responded that it is decided by the Board based on staff input, public hearings, etc.
Mr. Rooker said that this Board makes those decisions based on the information presented to it,
any time it amends the Comprehensive Plan to consider a change to the growth area.
Mr. Battig asked if the line was fluid. Mr. Rooker responded that there is an existing line of the
growth area and for that to be changed, this Board would have to make the decision after amending the
Comprehensive Plan.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Mallek stated that regarding Mr. Williamson‘s concerns, there are often competing goals in
different sections and the pending Comprehensive Plan discussions are trying to address this. She also
said the State requests the UDAs on one side, but then says localities must meet the Chesapeake Bay
goals on the other side.
Ms. Echols explained that much of the area is excluded in the calculation. She referred to a map
of the Pantops area, as a lot of this is about re-development – not new development. For example, staff
would expect redevelopment of the shopping center to take care of any new commercial development that
would be needed.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Cilimberg added that during the master planning work, staff has been more focused on not
including areas that are considered not developable. The older comprehensive planning did not really
account for that; it was more generally applied to the entire area. He said that historically a lot of the
boundaries existed for many years but have existed based on natural or physical features – with the urban
boundary corresponding with priority areas approved in master planning work.
Mr. Boyd noted that Peter Jefferson Place developers had said they had no plans to expand any
more office space in the areas the County had indicated it would have more density, and asked if that was
still included in here.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that staff scaled back what was proposed for that area in the Pantops
Master Plan, although there are still some areas available for development in that general area that could
develop under the Plan. He added that Peter Jefferson Place is outside of the urban development area
covered by this Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Ms. Mallek commented that allowing for some open space and green space helps achieve a
successful growth area that attracts people.
Mr. Rooker cited Central Park in Manhattan as an example of this.
Mr. Rooker then moved to approve CPA-2011-0003. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(Set out below are amendments made to the Growth Management Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan, page 4:)
Development Areas
The Land Use Plan described in the following sections set forth the expectations for densities in the
County with emphasis on the designated Development Areas. For the purposes of complying with Section
15.2.2223.1 of the Code of Virginia, a sub-category of the Development Areas is established in this
Comprehensive Plan as the Urban Development Areas (UDAs).
According to the Code of Virginia, Urban Development Areas are areas for compact, mixed use urban
development. Densities and intensities within UDAs are expected to be a minimum of four or more
dwellings per developable acre for single family detached housing, a minimum of six or more dwellings
per developable acre for townhouses, or a minimum of 12 or more multifamily units per developable acre.
Housing may be a combination of these unit types and commercial development is to be provided at a
floor area ratio of 0.4 per acre or higher. Developments may have a combination of residential and
commercial use.
UDAs can accommodate 10 – 20 years of projected growth. They are established to improve coordination
between transportation and land use. More detailed density and intensity recommendations for Albemarle
County’s UDA areas are shown in the Places 29 and Pantops Master Plans. Densities and intensities for
individual parcels or groups of parcels may be higher or lower than the State mandated standards
because the UDA areas are to be viewed , as a whole. It is expected that state and local funding for
transportation and other improvements will be directed to UDAs where feasible. As with all of Albemarle
County’s development areas, UDAS will reflect the Neighborhood Model principles, and be designed to
accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic with a full complement of services and amenities.
Urban Development Areas (UDAs)
Geographically, UDAs in Albemarle County are located within the Priority Areas which were established
with the Places29 Master Plan and the Pantops Master Plan. These areas are designated because they
are expected to attract new development and redevelopment over the course of the next 20 years.
The UDA boundaries are shown on the following pages. The northern UDA is located within the southern
area of the Places 29 Master Plan area. The eastern UDA is located within the Pantops Master Plan area.
The Priority Area maps for both master plans, contained within the master plans themselves, also identify
the UDAs.
__________
(Set out below is amended language to Places 29 Master Plan, Priority 2: For Public
Investment and Land Use Decisionmaking, page 6:)
Priority 2: For Public Investment and Land Use Decisionmaking
Priority 2 reflects the intent to focus public investment where new development has been approved and
where redevelopment is encouraged. There are two distinct geographic areas. First, Priority 2 South
includes the portions of Neighborhood 1 and Neighborhood 2 shown in the Priority 2 South figure. This
area also contains the northern Urban Development Area (UDA) established in conjunction with
requirements of the Code of Virginia. (See pages 3 and 4 of the Growth Management Section of the
Comprehensive Plan.) Two fairly large undeveloped parcels of land are within this priority area, for which
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
development proposals for mixed-use and urban density residential development have been approved.
This area was also selected because a Small Area Plan will be developed for the area around the
intersection of Rio Road and US 29. Much of the existing commercial development in this area may be
ready for redevelopment, so the focus of public investment here will be on revitalizing, expanding, and
improving the existing infrastructure to support redevelopment during the first ten years of Plan
implementation.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
(Set out below is amended language to Pantops Master Plan, Priority Areas for Land Use
and Facility/Resource Investment, page 57:)
Priority Areas for Land Use and Facility/Resource Investment
The Pantops Development Area has received steady and consistent growth over the past 10 years, to the
point that most of this urban area has received an initial level of development and construction, or is
planned for new development, that will essentially build out most of the area in the next 10 years. Public
investment and infrastructure improvements have not kept pace with this growth. This is particularly true
with road improvements, but also includes other types of community facilities and services (fire /rescue
service, incomplete sidewalk system, lack of crosswalks, limited playground facilities). The private
sector/‖market‖ also has not yet provided some of the services expected/desired by the community, and in
the form desired (availability of community to neighborhood level services, such as small non-franchise
restaurant, hardware stores) in convenient and more accessible locations to residential neighborhoods.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
The Pantops Development Area will receive its most significant new residential development in the area
north of Route 250 and east of Route 20. Build out of Fontana, Avemore (440), and approved
developments of Luxor (260+), Cascadia (330), and Lake Ridge (95) will accommodate anticipated future
population growth of 2,000 residents over the next 10 years. The most significant new non-residential
development will be focused in and around the new Martha Jefferson Hospital. The relocation of the main
hospital is anticipated within the next 10 years. The anticipated hospital relocation along with the existing
MJH facilities located in the area are already generating demand for office and commercial space for
related uses/activities (doctors office, medical services, etc.).
Because of these conditions, priority areas to focus public efforts/resources over the next 5 to 10 years
are (see Map Implementation Map, end of this chapter):
o The area north of Route 250 and west of Route 20 for neighborhood level improvements.
o The immediate area in and around State Farm Blvd. corridor.
o Improvements to the Route 250 and Route 20 transportation corridors and the Rivanna River
corridor. These corridors provide major linkages from residential area to community centers that
support these areas. These corridors also serve regional transportation and service needs and
link Pantops to the City of Charlottesville.
o Facility and service improvements through the Neighborhood which are necessary to provide the
minimum adequate level of service the existing populations and developed areas.
The Priority Area for the next 20 years is identified on the Pantops Master Plan Implementation
Map and is the Pantops Urban Development Area established in conjunction with requirements of
the Code of Virginia. Few greenfields exist within this priority area. Redevelopment is expected to
result in redesign with the addition of residential units in existing shopping centers.
Other areas of Pantops will not be the primary focus of public capital investment or resource allocation
during in next 20 years. Priority areas and improvement projects priorities will be reevaluated with the five
year review of the Plan.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: ZMA-2009-00005. Kroger Fuel Center w/Canopy (Signs
#29&1).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 30.985 acres from Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC)
zoning district which allows shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by
special use permit (15 units/acre) to Planned Development-Shopping Center (PD-SC) to allow
construction of a fuel center with a canopy.
PROFFERS: NO.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Places29 Master Plan: Urban Mixed
Use in a Community Center which allows a balanced mix of retail, housing, commercial,
employment, and office uses, along with some institutional and open space uses in Neighborhood
1.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 1980 Rio Hill Center in the southeast corner of the intersection of Woodbrook Drive
and Berkmar Drive in Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 045000000094A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that this is a proposed change to the application plan for Rio Hill Shopping
Center to add a fuel center with a canopy – noting that this is an example of a project within the urban
development area. He said that site is located in the Rio Hill Shopping Center as part of the parking lot.
The site is already designated in the Places 29 Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan as an urban
mixed-use center, zoned as PDSC. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is a plan currently in place for the
overall shopping center. The application plan change was for the center to be in one location with the
orientation of the pumps bringing vehicles in off of the main aisle coming from the light across from Lowe‘s
into the center from the aisle in front of Kroger – with flow-through being north/south exiting in one
location.
Mr. Cilimberg said that since the action by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2011, the
applicant has asked for a modification of the circulation pattern – which has been reviewed by staff and
the County Engineer – that would still have an entrance in the same place but would also allow more
east/west circulation through the fuel center. Mr. Cilimberg explained that having less points of access
improves the flow, but there will also be the opposite to purchase fuel while shopping so that consumers
can combine trips. He reported that staff found no unfavorable factors in this application and have
recommended approval along with the Planning Commission. He reiterated that this is simply a change to
the application plan; no proffers are involved.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Chris Shust, of Balzer and Associates, said that his firm is working with the applicant – Kroger
– on this request. Also present are Mr. Fenton Childers, of Kroger, and Mr. Chuck Lebo, on-site property
manager of Rio Hill Shopping Center. He offered to answer any questions from the Board and asked for
their approval.
Mr. Chuck Lebo said that he is onsite property manager for Rio Hill and has been since its
development 1987. He reported that the owners in the shopping center fully support this application and
hope this might give the retail there a boost.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be diesel and E-85 fuel. Mr. Lebo responded ―yes‖ to both.
Mr. Thomas asked if there would be space to accommodate larger vehicles in the aisles. Mr.
Shust responded that the facility must be designed to accommodate tractor-trailers, so it would also be
able to handle vehicles pulling trailers, pick-up trucks, etc.
Mr. Thomas then moved to approve ZMA-2009-00005, Kroger Fuel Shopping Center with
Canopy, as shown on the Revised Application Plan. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The revised application plan is set out below:)
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
Ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to certain districts and to
make corrections to certain district ordinances to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts, as
specified below:
a) AFD-2011-1. Hatton AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-215, Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, to continue the district for all
parcels identified in the ordinance, and set the next district review deadline date of July 6,
2021. It would also identify TMPs 135-22C, 135-22C1, 135-22C2 and 136-9 as being in
the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the district), and would
remove any parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before the Board acts
on the proposed ordinance.
b) AFD-2011-2. Totier Creek AFD – District Review. The proposed ordinance would
amend Section 3-227, Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, to continue the
district for all parcels identified in the ordinance, and set the next district review deadline
date of July 6, 2021. It would also identify TMPs 121-70A, 121-70B, 121-70D, 121-70E,
134-3A, 134-3B, 134-3C, 134-3D, 134-3E, 134-3F, 134-3G, 134-3H, 134-3I, 134-3J, 134-
3K and 134-3L as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in
the district), would identify 129-9 as being in the district (this parcel is in the district but
was inadvertently deleted from Section 3-227 in a prior ordinance), would show TMPs
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
121-70 and 134-19 as no longer existing (land from these parcels was distributed to other
parcels in the district), and would remove TMPs 121-70B and 135-11 from the district,
and any other parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before the Board acts
on the proposed ordinance.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following executive summary:
―On May 4, 2011, property owners in the Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District (AFD)
were notified by certified mail of the May 24, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing and June 8, 2011
Board of Supervisors public hearing regarding the ten-year review of the district. On May 11, 2011, the
Board of Supervisors directed that the public hearing items scheduled for June 8, 2011 be rescheduled for
June 1, 2011. Letters notifying property owners of the change of the Board‘s public hearing date were not
sent. On June 3, 2011, two days after the Board approved renewal of the Hatton and Totier Creek AFDs,
the property owners of Tax Map 121, Parcel 70B in the Totier Creek AFD requested to withdraw their
parcel from the District based on the notification they had received for the June 8, 2011 Board public
hearing.
Property owners are allowed to request withdrawal of their property from an AFD up until the
Board of Supervisors acts to continue the District. Given the failure to notify the property owner of the date
change of the public hearing, staff feels the property owners‘ request to withdraw their 23 acre parcel was
made in a timely fashion and should be approved. The County‘s Attorney‘s Office has advised that this
can be done in the following manner: 1) The Board rescinds its June 1, 2011 ordinance continuing the
Hatton and Totier Creek AFDs, 2) The Board holds a public hearing to review and continue the Hatton and
Totier Creek AFDs, including the withdrawal request of Tax Map 121, Parcel 70B from the Totier Creek
AFD, and 3) The Board adopts a new ordinance continuing the Hatton and Totier Creek AFDs for a ten-
year period, amending the delineation of parcels in the AFDs, and removing Tax Map 121, Parcel 70B
from the Totier Creek AFD.
Staff recommends that the Board take the steps outlined above to rescind the ordinance adopted
on June 1, 2011 and, after conducting a public hearing, adopt a new ordinance continuing the Hatton and
Totier Creek AFDs for a ten-year period, amending the delineation of parcels in the AFDs, and removing
Tax Map 121, Parcel 70B from the Totier Creek AFD.‖
Ms. Mallek moved to rescind the ordinance adopted by the Board on June 1, 2011 that continued
the Hatton and Totier Creek AFDs for ten years. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
__________
Ms. Mallek then opened the public hearing. Since no comments were provided, the public hearing
was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt an ordinance to continue the Hatton and Totier Creek Ag/Forestal
Districts for a ten-year period to July 6, 2021, including the withdrawal of Tax Map 121, Parcel 70-B from
the Totier Creek AFD. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-03(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the ―Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District‖ consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 22C, 22C1, 22C2; tax
map 136, parcels 2A, 6B, 8H, 9, 9A2, 9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on July 6, 2011, shall next be reviewed prior to July 6, 2021.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-
10)
Sec. 3-227 Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the ―Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District‖ consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 121, parcels 70A, 70D, 70E, 72C, 85, 85A; tax map 122, parcels 5, 5A; tax
map 128, parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels 3, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9; tax map
130, parcels 1, 5A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K, 3L; tax map 135,
parcels 7, 10. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on July 6,
2011, shall next be reviewed prior to July 6, 2021.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(b); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: 11-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
Ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to certain districts and to
make corrections to certain district ordinances to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts, as
specified below:
a) AFD-2011-5. Blue Run AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section
3-208, Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District, to identify TMP 51-14 as being in the
district (this parcel was created from a parcel already in the district), and would add TMP
50-42A1 to the district.
b) AFD-2011-4. Buck’s Elbow Mountain AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would
amend Section 3-209.5, Buck‘s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, to add
TMP 39-21R to the district.
c) AFD-2011-3. Jacob’s Run AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-218, Jacob‘s Run Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 19A-31 to the
district.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to the Board:
―Virginia Code § 15.2-4307 permits additional qualifying lands to be added to an existing
agricultural and forestal district (AFD) upon separate application pursuant to the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act at any time following the district‘s creation.
The Blue Run AFD was created in 1986 and currently includes 36 parcels with 4,160.202 acres.
This AFD is located north of Cash Corner and east of Stony Point Road. One owner has requested to add
a 30 acre parcel (TMP 50-42A1) to the District. The Blue Run AFD is currently on a 10-year review cycle
and is scheduled to be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
The Buck‘s Elbow Mountain AFD was created in 2009 and currently includes 15 parcels with
3,177.929 acres. This AFD is located west of White Hall and adjoins the Shenandoah National Park in
western Albemarle County. One owner has requested to add a 21 acre parcel (TMP 39-21R) to the
District. The Buck‘s Elbow Mountain AFD is currently on a 10-year review cycle and is scheduled to be
reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
The Jacob‘s Run AFD was created in 1988 and currently includes 13 parcels with 801.53 acres.
The parcels in the District are located in three general areas: 1) a cluster of parcels north and east of
Quail Ridge Circle; 2) a large parcel south of Link Evans Lane and east of Happy Hollow Road; and 3) a
small cluster of parcels northwest of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. One owner has requested to
add a 22.789 acre parcel (TMP 19A-31) to the District. The Jacob‘s Run AFD is currently on a 10-year
review cycle and is scheduled to be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
Virginia Code § 15.2-4307 requires that the Board conduct a public hearing on applications to add
parcels to the AFD, and that they also be reviewed by both the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations. The Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission have reviewed these applications and recommend approval of the additions to the
Blue Run, the Buck‘s Elbow Mountain and the Jacob‘s Run AFDs.
The Blue Run AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. Several
parcels in the District are under conservation easement. Of the 4,160.202 acres in the District, 432.963
acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of Land-Use Value Taxation, 1,060.423 acres in the Forestry
category, 1,802 acres in the Horticulture category and 70.398 acres in the Open Space category. In
addition to agriculture and forestry, there are approximately 32 dwellings in the District.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
The parcel under consideration for addition, TMP 50-42A1, is located immediately east of
Gordonsville Road and south of Lindsay Road. The proposed addition of the parcel, totaling 30 acres,
would increase the total number of acres in the Blue Run District to 4,190.202. The proposed ordinance
also identifies TMP 51-14 as being in the District. This parcel was created from another parcel in the
District.
The Buck‘s Elbow Mountain AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm
parcels. Of the 3,177.929 acres in the District, 88.581 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category of
Land-Use Value Taxation, 1,596.33 acres in the Forestry category, and 1,454.016 acres in the Open
Space category. Enrollment in these tax categories indicates active rural uses in the District. In addition to
agriculture and forestry, there are approximately 12 dwellings in the District.
The parcel under consideration for addition, TMP 39-21R, is located south of Buck‘s Elbow
Mountain Road and north of Mint Springs Valley Park. The proposed addition of the parcel, totaling 21
acres, would increase the total number of acres in the Buck‘s Elbow Mountain District to 3,198.929.
The Jacob‘s Run AFD primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. Two
parcels in the District, and many nearby, are under conservation easement. Of the 801.53 acres in the
District, 453.63 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of Land-Use Value Taxation and 211.89 acres
in the Agricultural category. In addition to agricultural and forestry, there are approximately 14 dwellings in
the District.
The parcel under consideration for addition, TMP 19A-31, is located north of Fray‘s Mountain
Road and east of Buffalo River Road (Route 604). The proposed addition of the parcel, totaling 22.789
acres, would increase the total number of acres in the Jacob‘s Run District to 824.319.
Conservation of these areas will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aid in
the protection of ground and surface water, agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat.
After conducting public hearings on the AFD additions, which may be held together as one public
hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.‖
Mr. Cilimberg said the Advisory Committee, staff and Planning Commission recommends
adoption of the proposed ordinance incorporating each of the agricultural/forestall additions within their
respective districts.
The Chair opened the public. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing was closed
and the matter placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-03(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District
3-209.5 Buck‘s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
3-218 Jacob‘s Run Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the ―Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District‖ consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26B1, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A, 41A,
41E, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A1, 4A5, 24, 24A, 24B; tax map 50, parcels 5,
5B, 32A, 41A, 41Q, 42A, 42A1, 43, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13, 14. This district, created on
June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years, since amended at its last review on July 10, 2002 to continue for not
more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01; Ord. 02-3(3), 7-
10-02; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10)
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Sec. 3-209.5 Buck’s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the ―Buck‘s Elbow Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District‖ consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 25, parcel 1; tax map 38, parcels 4, 7, 8, 10, 20; tax map 39, parcels
1, 1F, 1F1, 1G, 2B, 8, 10A, 21Q, 21R, 21Z. This district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more than 10
years, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10)
Sec. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the ―Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District‖ consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 19A, parcel 31; tax map 20, parcel 6J; tax map
30, parcel 32B; tax map 31, parcels 1, 1B, 4K, 8, 8E, 16, 16B, 44C, 45, 45B, 45C. This district, created on
January 6, 1988 for not more than 6 years, since amended to continue for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on December 2, 2009, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(3-2-94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09; Ord. 10-
3(2), 7-7-10)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl,
of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Article III, Impoundment, Section 4-300, Duties of animal
control officers; seizure and impoundment of animals; notice and hearing; disposition of animals. The
ordinance would modify impoundment and disposition procedures for companion and agricultural animals
to comply with newly adopted provisions of Virginia Code § 3.2-6569. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary which was forward to Board members:
―On July 8, 2009 the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code to bring the County‘s animal laws into conformance with State law.
The 2011 Virginia General Assembly amended Virginia Code § 3.2-6569 which sets forth the
impoundment and disposition procedures for domestic and agricultural animals. Section 4-300 of the
Albemarle County Code mirrors the language of Virginia Code § 3.2-6569; therefore, the County Code
must be amended to incorporate the recent changes in state law.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) amends Section 4-300, Duties of animal control officers;
seizure and impoundment of animals; notice and hearing; disposition of animals, of Chapter 4, Animals
and Fowl of the Albemarle County Code.
Specifically, the ordinance amends the procedure for seizing and impounding an agricultural
animal by requiring the animal control officer to contact the State Veterinarian or his designee to receive a
recommendation for the most appropriate action to effectuate the seizure and impoundment of the animal.
Additionally, the ordinance amends the reporting requirements of the animal control officer to the State
Veterinarian when an agricultural animal has been seized by requiring the location of the impoundment of
such animal to be included in the animal control officer‘s report. Lastly, the ordinance amends the
dispositional options which a court may order if it determines that such animal has been abandoned,
cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care. The disposition options are: 1) the animal control officer
may sell the animal if it is not a companion animal; 2) the local governing body may dispose of the animal
pursuant to provisions set forth in Virginia Code § 3.2-6546 (D); or 3) the animal may be delivered to the
person with a right of property in the animal as set forth in the proceeding subsection of the ordinance.
Staff anticipates there will be little to no budget impact.
Staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance
(Attachment A).‖
The public hearing was opened. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Rooker offered motion adopt the proposed amendment. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-4(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE III,
IMPOUNDMENT, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals
and Fowl, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4-300 Impoundment
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE III. IMPOUNDMENT
Sec. 4-300 Duties of animal control officers; seizure and impoundment of animals; notice and
hearing; disposition of animals.
A. Any animal control officer or law enforcement officer may lawfully seize and impound any
animal that has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or is suffering from an apparent violation of this
chapter that has rendered the animal in such a condition as to constitute a direct and immediate threat to its
life, safety or health.
B. Before seizing or impounding any agricultural animal, the law-enforcement officer or animal
control officer shall contact the state veterinarian or state veterinarian‘s representative, who shall recommend
to the person the most appropriate action for effecting the seizure and impoundment. The animal control
officer shall notify the owner of the agricultural animal and the local attorney for the Commonwealth of the
recommendation. The animal control officer may impound the agricultural animal on the land where the
agricultural animal is located if:
1. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located gives written
permission;
2. A general district court so orders; or
3. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located cannot be
immediately located, and it is in the best interest of the agricultural animal to be impounded on the land where
it is located until the written permission of the owner or tenant of the land can be obtained.
If there is a direct and immediate threat to an agricultural animal, the animal control officer or law
enforcement officer may seize the animal, in which case the law-enforcement officer or animal control officer
shall file within five (5) business days on a form approved by the state veterinarian a report on the condition of
the animal at the time of the seizure, the location of impoundment, and any other information required by the
state veterinarian.
C. Upon seizing or impounding an animal, the animal control officer or law enforcement officer
shall petition the general district court in the county for a hearing. The hearing shall be not more than ten (10)
business days from the date of the seizure of the animal. T he hearing shall be to determine whether the
animal has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or has not been provided adequate care.
D. The animal control officer shall cause to be served upon the person with a right of property in
the animal or the custodian of the animal notice of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known and
residing within the jurisdiction wherein the animal is seized, written notice shall be given at least five (5) days
prior to the hearing of the time and place of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known but residing
out of the jurisdiction where such animal is seized, written notice by any method or service of process as is
provided by the Code of Virginia shall be given. If such person or the custodian is not known, the law-
enforcement officer or animal control officer shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the county notice of the hearing at least one time prior to the hearing and shall further cause notice of the
hearing to be posted at least five (5) days prior to the hearing at the place provided for public notices at the
county courthouse wherein such hearing shall be held.
E. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. If
requested by either party on appeal to the circuit court, trial by jury shall be as provided in Virginia Code §§
19.2-260 et seq.
F. The law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall provide for such animal until the
court has concluded the hearing. The county may require the owner of any animal held pursuant to this
section for more than thirty (30) days to post a bond in surety with the county for the amount of the cost of
boarding the animal for a period not to exceed nine (9) months.
If the court determines that the animal has been neither abandoned, cruelly treated, nor deprived of
adequate care, the animal shall be returned to the owner. If the court determines that the animal has been
abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care, then the court shall order that the animal may be: (i)
sold by the animal control officer if not a companion animal; (ii) disposed of by a local governing body pursuant
to subsection D of Virginia Code § 3.2-6546, whether such animal is a companion animal or an agricultural
animal; or (iii) delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal as provided in subsection G.
G. In no case shall the owner be allowed to purchase, adopt, or otherwise obtain the animal if the
court determines that the animal has been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care. The
court shall direct that the animal be delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal, upon his
request, if the court finds that the abandonment, cruel treatment, or deprivation of adequate care is not
attributable to the actions or inactions of such person.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
H. The court shall order the owner of any animal determined to have been abandoned, cruelly
treated, or deprived of adequate care to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such
animal from the time the animal is seized until such time that the animal is disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
I. The court may prohibit the possession or ownership of other companion animals by the owner
of any companion animal found to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care. In
making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of the companion animals, the court may take
into consideration the owner‘s past record of convictions under this chapter or other laws prohibiting cruelty to
animals or pertaining to the care or treatment of animals and the owner‘s mental and physical condition.
J. If the court finds that an agricultural animal has been abandoned or cruelly treated, the court
may prohibit the possession or ownership of any other agricultural animal by the owner of the agricultural
animal if the owner has exhibited a pattern of abandoning or cruelly treating agricultural animals as evidenced
by previous convictions of violating section 4-107 or section 4-108. In making a determination to prohibit the
possession or ownership of agricultural animals, the court may take into consideration the owner‘s mental and
physical condition.
K. Any person who is prohibited from owning or possessing animals pursuant to subsection I or J
may petition the court to repeal the prohibition after two (2) years have elapsed from the date of entry of the
court‘s order. The court may, in its discretion, repeal the prohibition if the person can prove to the satisfaction
of the court that the cause for the prohibition has ceased to exist.
L. In case of sale of an animal under this section, the proceeds shall first be applied to the costs
of the sale, then next to the unreimbursed expenses for the care and provision of the animal, and the
remaining proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the owner of the animal. If the owner of the animal cannot be
found, the proceeds remaining shall be paid into the Literary Fund of the state treasury.
M. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the humane destruction of a critically
injured or ill animal for humane purposes by the impounding animal control officer or licensed veterinarian.
State law reference—Va. Code § 3.2-6569.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 11, Parks and
Recreations Facilities, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Sections 11-301 through 11-306 of
Article III, Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The ordinance
would repeal the prohibition of carrying a firearm within the boundaries of the reservoirs utilized by the
RWSA to comply with Virginia Code § 15.2-915. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June
27, 2011.)
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
―Virginia Code § 15.2-915 was amended in 2004 to prohibit the enforcement of any ordinance
governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms or
ammunition unless expressly authorized by statute (Attachment A). A review of the Albemarle County
Code revealed that County Code regulations for the water supply reservoirs restrict the carrying of
firearms. Such regulations were invalidated by the amendment to Virginia Code § 15.2-915. An
amendment to the County Code is required to comply with this change to Virginia Code § 15.2-915.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) repeals the prohibition of carrying a firearm within the
boundaries of the reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to comply with Virginia
Code § 15.2-915.
Staff anticipates no budget impact.
Staff recommends after the required public hearing is held on this matter that the Board adopt the
attached ordinance (Attachment B).‖
Ms. Mallek commented that if you are not allowed to discharge a firearm in a park area, she does
not understand why they are permitted to be carried.
At this time the public hearing was opened. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Snow moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker mentioned to Mr. Bob Crickenberger, Director of Parks and Recreation, that there are
a huge number of trees down in Humphris Park due to the recent storm.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Crickenberger indicated that he is aware of the storm damage and Parks and Recreation staff
would address it.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-11(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 10, PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES, 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 10, Parks
and Recreation Facilities, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained
as follows:
By Amending:
11-301 Beaver Creek Reservoir
11-302 Chris Greene Lake
11-303 Ragged Mountain Reservoir
11-304 South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
11-305 Sugar Hollow Reservoir
11-306 Totier Creek Reservoir
CHAPTER 11. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ARTICLE III. WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS UTILIZED
BY THE RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Sec. 11-301 Beaver Creek Reservoirs
Uses and activities within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir s hall be regulated as
provided herein:
A. Boundaries of reservoir. The boundaries of the reservoir are shown on maps on file in the
office of the clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled "Beaver Creek Reservoir, Tax Maps 41, 56, 57."
B. Authorized activities. Fishing, which is conducted in compliance with all applicable state
statutes and regulations, canoeing, boating with boats not operated by internal combustion engines, hiking,
birdwatching and picnicking shall be authorized within the boundaries of the reservoir.
C. Activities authorized only by permit. Boating with boats operated by internal combustion
engines are authorized within the boundaries of the reservoir only pursuant to a permit issued by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority.
D. Prohibited activities. Any activity not expressly permitted, including but not limited to,
swimming, hunting, trapping or discharging of firearms and camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries
of the reservoir.
E. Boats. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the Albemarle County Department of Parks
and Recreation and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries are authorized to use boats
operated by internal combustion engines within the boundaries of the reservoir for official purposes. Boats
equipped with internal combustion engines whose use is prohibited shall have the engine tilted in a
nonoperating position when within the boundaries of the reservoir. If such boats are equipped with or utilize
removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering reservoir waters.
F. Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shall be prohibited from all but designated paved or improved
roads and designated parking areas.
G. Fires. Fires shall be prohibited, except for those within a picnic grill or those required and
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management program.
(12-9-81; 6-8-83; 2-11-87; Code 1988, §§ 14-13, 14-17, 14-19, 14-21, 14-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference-- Va. Code § 15.2-2109.
Sec. 11-302 Chris Greene Lake.
Uses and activities within the boundaries of Chris Green Lake shall be regulated as provided herein:
A. Boundaries of lake. The boundaries of the lake are shown on maps on file in the office of the
clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled ―Chris Greene Lake, Tax Map 32, parcels 1A, 3A and 4I.‖
B. Authorized activities. Lake bank fishing which is conducted in compliance with all applicable
state statutes and regulations, canoeing, boating with boats not operated by internal combustion engines,
hiking, picnicking and swimming within a designated swimming area while a lifeguard is on duty shall be
authorized within the boundaries of the lake.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
C. Prohibited activities. Any activity not expressly authorized, including but not limited to,
hunting, trapping or discharging of firearms, and camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the lake.
D. Boats. All boats operated with internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the
boundaries of the lake, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the
Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries for official purposes. Boats equipped with internal combustion engines whose use is prohibited shall
have the engine tilted in a nonoperating position when within the boundaries of the upper and lower reservoir.
If such boats are equipped with or utilize removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to
entering reservoir waters.
E. Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shall be prohibited from all but designated paved or improved
roads and designated parking areas.
F. Fires. Fires shall be prohibited, except for those within a picnic grill or those required and
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management program.
(Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2109.
Sec. 11-303 Ragged Mountain Reservoir.
Uses and activities within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir shall be regulated as
provided herein:
A. Boundaries of reservoir. The boundaries of the upper and lower reservoir are shown on maps
on file in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled ―Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Tax Maps 59,
74, 75."
B. Authorized activities. Fishing which is conducted in compliance with all applicable state
statutes and regulations, hiking, birdwatching and picnicking shall be authorized within the boundaries of both
the upper and lower reservoir.
C. Activities authorized only by permit. Canoeing and boating with boats not operated by internal
combustion engines are authorized within the boundaries of both the upper and lower reservoir only pursuant
to a permit issued by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
D. Prohibited activities. Any activity not expressly permitted, including but not limited to,
swimming, hunting, trapping or discharging of firearms and camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries
of both the upper and lower reservoir.
E. Boats. All boats operated with internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the
boundaries of both the upper and lower reservoir, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for official purposes. Boats
equipped with internal combustion engines whose use is prohibited shall have the engine tilted in a
nonoperating position when within the boundaries of the upper and lower reservoir. If such boats are
equipped with or utilize removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering reservoir
waters.
F. Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shall be prohibited from all but designated paved or improved
roads and designated parking areas.
G. Fires. Fires shall be prohibited, except for those within a picnic grill or those required and
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management program.
(12-9-81; 2-11-87; Code 1988, §§ 14-13, 14-15, 14-19, 14-21, 14-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2109.
Sec. 11-304 South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Uses and activities within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir shall be regulated as
provided herein:
A. Boundaries of reservoir. The boundaries of the reservoir are shown on maps on file in the
office of the clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled "South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, Tax Maps 30, 44, 45."
B. Authorized activities. Fishing, which is conducted in compliance with all applicable state
statutes and regulations, canoeing, boating with boats not operated by internal combustion engines, hiking,
birdwatching and picnicking shall be authorized within the boundaries of the reservoir.
C. Activities authorized only by permit. Boating with boats operated by internal combustion
engines and the establishment of private boat docks are authorized within the boundaries of the reservoir only
pursuant to a permit issued by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
D. Prohibited activities. Any activity not expressly permitted, including but not limited to,
swimming, hunting, trapping or discharging of firearms and camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries
of the reservoir.
E. Boats. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries is authorized to use boats operated by internal combustion engines within the boundaries of
the reservoir for official purposes. Boats equipped with internal combustion engines whose use is prohibited
shall have the engine tilted in a nonoperating position when within the boundaries of the reservoir. If such
boats are equipped with or utilize removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior t o entering
reservoir waters. Boats launched from trailers shall access the reservoir only from improved access ramps
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Department of Parks and
Recreation.
F. Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shall be prohibited from all but designated paved or improved
roads and designated parking areas.
G. Fires. Fires shall be prohibited, except for those within a picnic grill or those required and
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management program.
(12-9-81; 6-8-83; 2-11-87; Code 1988, §§ 14-13, 14-16, 14-19, 14-21, 14-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2109.
Sec. 11-305 Sugar Hollow Reservoir.
Uses and activities within the boundaries of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir shall be regulated as provided
herein:
A. Boundaries of reservoir. The boundaries of the reservoir are shown on maps on file in the
office of the clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled ―Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Tax Maps 24, 25, 38.‖
B. Authorized activities. Reservoir bank fishing which is conducted in compliance with all
applicable state statutes and regulations, hiking, birdwatching and picnicking shall be authorized within the
boundaries of the reservoir.
C. Prohibited activities. Any activity not expressly authorized, including but not limited to,
canoeing, boating, swimming, hunting, trapping or discharging of firearms and camping shall be prohibited
within the boundaries of the reservoir.
D. Boats. All boats shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the reservoir, except for those
boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries for official purposes.
E. Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shall be prohibited from all but designated paved or improved
roads and designated parking areas.
F. Fires. Fires shall be prohibited, except for those within a picnic grill or those required and
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management program.
(12-9-81; 2-11-87; Code 1988, §§ 14-13, 14-14, 14-19, 14-21, 14-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2109.
Sec. 11-306 Totier Creek Reservoir.
Uses and activities within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir shall be regulated as provided
herein:
A. Boundaries of reservoir. The boundaries of the reservoir are shown on maps on file in the
office of the clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled "Totier Creek Reservoir, Tax Maps 130, 136."
B. Authorized activities. Fishing, which is conducted in compliance with all applicable state
statutes and regulations, canoeing, boating with boats not operated by internal combustion engines, hiking,
birdwatching and picnicking shall be authorized within the boundaries of the reservoir.
C. Prohibited activities. Any activity not expressly permitted, including but not limited to,
swimming, hunting, trapping or discharging of firearms and camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries
of the reservoir.
D. Boats. All boats operated with internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the
boundaries of the reservoir, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the
Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries for official purposes. Boats equipped with internal combustion engines whose use is prohibited shall
have the engine tilted in a nonoperating position when within the boundaries of the reservoir. If such boats are
equipped with or utilize removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering reservoir
waters.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
E. Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shall be prohibited from all but designated paved or improved
roads and designated parking areas. Parking in a designated parking area under the control of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority shall be allowed only by a permit issued by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority.
F. Fires. Fires shall be prohibited, except for those within a picnic grill or those required and
approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management program.
(12-9-81; 6-8-83; 2-11-87; Code 1988, §§ 14-13, 14-18, 14-19, 14-21, 14-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2109.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 15, Taxation, of the
Albemarle County Code, by amending Sections 15-600, Definitions, 15-601, Imposed; amount, and 15-
604, Duties of seller generally and by repealing Sec. 15-603, Telephone service, regarding utility taxes; by
repealing Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax – E-911; and by adding Sec. 15-
1101.1, Exemption of certain personal property from taxation. The ordinance would repeal local
telecommunications taxes that are required to be repealed because of the adoption of the Virginia
Communications Sales and Use Tax Act, and would codify the exemption of certain farm property from
taxation, as authorized by Virginia Code § 58.1-3505. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and
June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
―In 2006 the General Assembly adopted the state-administered Virginia Communications Sales
and Use Tax Act. This Act unilaterally repealed any local consumer utility tax imposed on franchised
cable services, local telecommunications services, and local mobile telecommunications services and
replaced those taxes with a state collected 5% tax on the sales price of each communications service.
The tax proceeds are distributed to localities based on a state adopted formula. Although the local
taxes were superseded by state law effective July 1, 2007, the local ordinances were not repealed at
that time to assure that the local taxes could be collected if the validity of the state tax was successfully
challenged. The state tax has not been challenged and it is now timely to update the Albemarle
County Code to remove the superseded local telecommunications taxes. In addition, the ordinance
proposes to codify the County‘s existing practice of exempting farm personal property from taxation.
Albemarle County has never taxed farm personal property and the attached ordinance brings the
Albemarle County Code into compliance with the Virginia Code and the long-standing administrative
practice.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) revises the County Code to bring it in to compliance
with the Virginia Communications Sales and Use Tax Act and codifies the exemption of farm personal
property from taxes. These amendment are housekeeping measures to keep the County Code
current with state law. The following County Code Sections are amended:
Sec. 15-600 Definitions:
This revision eliminates references to ―local telephone service‖, ―local
telecommunications service‖, and ―mobile service‖ from the defined terms of
the ordinance
Sec. 15-601 Imposed; amount:
This revision eliminates the subsections D, E and H, which had imposed a
consumer utility tax on local telephone service and mobile service.
Sec. 15-603 Telephone service:
The proposed ordinance altogether repeals this section, which had specified
exceptions to the tax on telephone service.
Sec. 15-604 Duties of seller generally:
This revision eliminates the duty of telecommunication service providers to
collect the local telecommunications tax.
Sec. 15-1101.1 Tax Exemption of Farm Property:
Following the enabling authority of Virginia Code § 58.1-3505 and long-
standing administrative practice, this ordinance would codify the County‘s
exemption of the listed farm property.
Secs. 15-1400 – 15-1404 Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax-E-911:
This revision eliminates the local telephones emergency communications tax
necessitated by the General Assembly‘s repeal of Virginia Code § 58.1-3813.1
as part of the Virginia Communications Sales and Use Tax Act.
Because the proposed ordinance reflects existing County tax practices, there is no budget
impact.
Staff recommends that the Board, after the public hearing, adopt the attached ordinance
(Attachment A).‖
At this time the public hearing was opened. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 11-15(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, 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,
is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-600 Definitions
Sec. 15-601 Imposed; amount
Sec. 15-604 Duties of seller generally
By Adding:
Sec. 15-1101.1 Exemption of certain personal property from taxation
By Repealing:
Sec. 15-603 Telephone service
Article XIV Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax – E-911
Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date;
exemptions
Sec. 15-1401 Definitions
Sec. 15-1402 Collection and payment
Sec. 15-1403 Receipt and disbursement by finance director
Sec. 15-1404 Violations, penalties
ARTICLE VI. UTILITY TAX
Sec. 15-600 Definitions.
(1) CCF. The term ―CCF‖ means the volume of gas at standard pressure and temperature in units of
100 cubic feet.
(2) Commercial. The term ―commercial‖ means for use not defined as residential or industrial.
(3) Industrial. The term ―industrial‖ means for use in mining, manufacturing, or processing of raw
materials. For purposes of classifying electrical services, the demand load must be greater than 50kw based
on the connected load for a new purchaser and a history of purchasers exceeding 50kw for 3 months out of a
twelve-month period for an existing purchaser.
(4) Kilowatt hours (kWh) delivered. The term ―kilowatt hours (kWh) delivered‖ means 1000 watts of
electricity delivered in a one-hour period by an electric provider to an actual purchaser, except that in the case
of eligible customer-generators (sometimes called cogenerators) as defined in Virginia Code § 56-594, it
means kWh supplied from the electric grid to such customer-generators, minus the kWh generated and fed
back to the electric grid by such customer-generators.
(5) Purchaser. The term ―purchaser‖ means every person who purchases a utility service.
(6) Residential. The term ―residential‖ means for use by persons primarily for domestic purposes in
buildings having single or multiple meters for electricity or natural gas and used as a single dwelling unit or in
normal farming operations.
(7) Seller. The term ―seller‖ means every person, whether a public service corporation or a
municipality or private corporation who sells or furnishes a utility service in the county.
(8) Utility service. The term ―utility service‖ means electric service and natural gas service furnished
within the county.
(6-22-67, § 1; 6-20-68, § 1; Ord. No. 94-8(2), 11-2-94; Code 1988, § 8-12; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(3),
10-4-00)
Sec. 15-601 Imposed; amount.
There is hereby imposed and levied by the county upon each and every purchaser of utility services as
set forth herein a tax for general purposes in the following amounts:
A. Electrical Services - Residential. On purchasers of electric service for residential purposes,
the tax shall be in the amount of $0.031283 per kWh for the first 128 kWh and $0.000000 per kWh exceeding
128 kWh delivered monthly by a seller not to exceed four dollars ($4.00) per month.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
B. Electrical Services - Commercial. On purchasers of electric service for commercial purposes,
the tax shall be in the amount of $0.006161 per kWh for the first 48,693 kWh and $0.001636 per kWh
exceeding 48,693 kWh delivered monthly by a seller.
C. Electrical Services - Industrial. On purchasers of electric service for industrial purposes, the
tax shall be in the amount of $0.005265 per kWh for the first 56,980 kWh and $0.000934 per kW exceeding
56,980 kWh delivered monthly by a seller.
D. Gas Service - Residential. On purchasers of natural gas service for residential purposes, the
tax shall be $1.25 per CCF for the first 1.6 CCF and $0.00 per CCF exceeding 1.6 CCF delivered monthly by a
seller.
E. Gas Service - Commercial or Industrial. On purchasers of natural gas service for commercial
or industrial purposes, the tax shall be $0.0638 per CCF for the first 4,500 CCF and $0.0110 per CCF
exceeding 4,500 CCF for non-interruptible service, and $0.0588 per CCF for the first 4,770 CCF and $0.0110
per CCF exceeding 4,770 CCF for interruptible service.
(6-22-67, § 2; 6-20-68, § 2; 11-2-68, § 1; 4-21-76; Ord. No. 94-8(2) of 11-2-94; Code 1988, § 8-13; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-15(3), 10-4-00)
State law reference--Va. Code § 58.1-3814.
Sec. 15-602 Utility bills.
Bills shall be considered monthly bills if rendered twelve (12) times annually with each bill covering a
period of approximately one (1) month or a portion thereof. If bills for utility services are submitted less
frequently than monthly, covering periods longer than one (1) month, the maximum amounts of such bills
which shall be subject to the tax levied by this article shall be increased by multiplying the appropriate
maximum fixed by § 15-601 for the utility service involved by the number of months of service covered by such
bills.
(6-22-67, § 3; 6-20-68, § 3; 11-2-68, § 2; Code 1988, § 8-14; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
Sec. 15-604 Duties of seller generally.
A. It shall be the duty of every seller in acting as the tax collection medium or agency for the
county to collect from the purchaser for use of the county, the tax imposed and levied by this article at the time
of collecting the purchase price charged therefor. The seller shall remit monthly to the county the amount of
tax billed during the preceding month to the purchaser.
B. In all cases where the seller collects the price for utility service in stated periods, the tax
imposed and levied by this article shall be computed on the amount of purchase during the month or period
according to each bill rendered; provided, the amount of tax to be collected shall be the nearest whole cent to
the amount computed.
C. The tax shall, when billed, be stated as a distinct item separate and apart from the monthly
gross charge. Until the purchaser pays the tax to the seller, the tax shall constitute a debt of the purchaser to
the county. If any purchaser refuses to pay the tax, the seller shall notify the county. After the purchaser pays
the tax to the seller, the taxes collected shall be deemed to be held in trust by the seller until remitted to the
county.
(6-22-67, § 7; 6-20-68, § 7; Ord. No. 94-8(2), 11-2-94; Code 1988, § 8-16; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
* * * * * *
ARTICLE XI. PERSONAL PROPERTY – IN GENERAL
* * * * *
Sec. 15-1101.1 Exemption of farm animals, certain grains, agricultural products, farm machinery,
farm implements and equipment from taxation.
The following farm animals, grains and other feeds used for the nurture of farm animals, agricultural
products, farm machinery and farm implements are hereby exempted from taxation:
A. Horses, mules and other kindred animals.
B. Cattle.
C. Sheep and goats.
D. Hogs.
E. Poultry.
F. Grains and other feeds used for the nurture of farm animals.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
G. Grain; tobacco; wine produced by farm wineries as defined in Virginia Code § 4.1-100 and
other agricultural products in the hands of a producer.
H. Farm machinery other than the farm machinery described in subsection J of this section, and
farm implements, which shall include equipment and machinery used by farm wineries as defined in Virginia
Code § 4.1-100 in the production of wine.
I. Equipment used by farmers or farm cooperatives qualifying under § 521 of the Internal
Revenue Code to manufacture industrial ethanol, provided that the materials from which the ethanol is derived
consist primarily of farm products.
J. Farm machinery designed solely for the planting, production or harvesting of a single product
or commodity.
K. Privately owned trailers as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-100 that are primarily used by
farmers in their farming operations for the transportation of farm animals or other farm products as
enumerated in subsections A through G of this section.
State law reference--Provisions authorizing county to exempt farm animals, certain grains,
agricultural products, farm machinery, farm implements and equipment from taxation, Va. Code § 58.1-3505.
* * * * * *
ARTICLE XIV. RESERVED
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: FY12 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of Budget and Performance Management, summarized the following
executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
―Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the
aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget;
provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in
the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General
Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2012 appropriations, itemized below, is $17,377,971.22.
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted
budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2012 Budget Amendment totals $17,377,971.22. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 28,144.22
Special Revenue Funds $ 4,065,465.25
Capital Improvements Funds $ 12,344,361.75
Stormwater $ 940,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 17,377,971.22
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Federal Revenue $ 901,405.60
Loan Proceeds $ 10,805,327.38
General Fund Balance $ 155,592.22
Other Fund Balances $ 5,515,646.02
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 17,377,971.22
The budget amendment is comprised of nine (9) separate appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012001) totaling $11,541,715.39 to re-appropriate funding for various
General Government CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012002) totaling $802,646.36 to re-appropriate funding for
various School CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012003) totaling $940,000.00 to re-appropriate funding for
various Stormwater CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012004) totaling $3,675,790.00 to reappropriate funding for the
Belvedere Bond Project;
One (1) appropriation (#2012005) totaling $1,083.65 to reappropriate funding for the
Natural Heritage Committee;
One (1) appropriation (#2012006) totaling $5,592.22 to reappropriate donations to the
Sheriff‘s Volunteer Reserve Programs;
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
One (1) appropriation (#2012007) totaling $22,552.00 to continue to provide a part-time
officer working under the supervision of the Sheriff‘s Office for the Offender Aid and
Restoration‘s Drug Court program, and;
One (1) appropriation (#2012008) totaling $138,591.60 to reappropriate the Department
of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program.
One (1) appropriation (#2012009) totaling $250,000.00 to the Economic Development
Authority (EDA) for disbursing funding to MicroAire per action taken during the Board of
Supervisors May 11, 2011 meeting.
Details for the appropriation requests are provided in Attachment A.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2012 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $17,377,971.22 and approval of Appropriations #2012001, #2012002, #2012003, #2012004,
#2012005, #2012006, #2012007, #2012008 and #2011009 to provide funds for various local government
and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
General Government Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Each year, staff presents to the Board of Supervisors a list of General Government Capital Improvement
projects that were previously appropriated to the General Government Capital fund in a prior year, and are
either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or on-going maintenance CIP
projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, or 3) CIP projects which are
planned to be completed in FY 12 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain available in the
following fiscal year. A Board ―re-appropriation‖ of these balances is required to allow staff to continue
with the execution and or continuation of these efforts in the next fiscal year.
Below is a partial list of the most time-sensitive re-appropriation requests as of June 30, 2011. Additional
CIP project re-appropriations will be presented for the Board‘s consideration in October 2011.
Appropriation #2012001 $11,541,715.39
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $10,805,327.38
Federal Revenue $ 580,062.00
Other Fund Balance (Proffers) $ 156,326.01
FOLLOWING ARE REQUESTS FOR RE-APPROPRIATIONS FOR ACTIVE OR
ENCUMBERED GENERAL GOVERNMENT CIP PROJECTS AMOUNT
ACCESS ALBEMARLE: This request is to re-appropriate $447,540.00 to support
Access Albemarle project management costs, an agreement with Microsoft for software
licensing, support from Avastone Technologies, and for invoice processing equipment:
1. Access Albemarle Project Management: The County is currently utilizing
contracted project management assistance on a full time basis. The July 2011
through October 2011 time period will be a critical time for Access Albemarle
as a production project (Financial Management System and Purchasing)
continues to expand out to multiple departments and the School Division, while
an implementation project (HR and Payroll) moves into production.
2. Agreement with Microsoft and Avastone Technology support: This will support
software licensing and support through Avastone Technologies for the Access
Albemarle project.
3. Access Albemarle includes the acquisition of scanners to implement the
purchasing and procurement component of Access Albemarle.
$447,540.00
Pantops Fire Station: This request is to re-appropriate $10,000.00 to support the
property dedication to the County for the Pantops fire station; specifically, these funds
will be used for any potential costs associated with preparing and obtaining the approval
of the subdivision plat.
$10,000.00
Ivy Fire Station: This request is to re-appropriate $200,000.00 to complete the final
design for the Ivy Fire Station fire/rescue facility within an existing warehouse. A lease
is in place with UVA, an Architect and Engineering contract is in place for programming
and schematic design, and construction funding was appropriated in FY12.
$200,000.00
Transportation Improvements -Sunridge Rd: This request is to re-appropriate
$5,000.00 which supports (a) the extension of Sunridge Road within the existing right -of-
way serving three parcels, (b) drainage improvements to resolve downstream flooding
and erosion problems, and (c) repair any damage and/or r equired maintenance until
accepted by VDOT. Request for road acceptance by VDOT is in progress.
$5,000.00
Crozet Streetscape Phase II: This request is to re-appropriate a total of $1,500,000.00
which includes $1,200,000.00 for construction -related costs and $300,000.00 for utility-
related costs to support the relocation of overhead electric and utility lines to
underground electric and utility lines along and adjacent to Crozet Avenue, new
stormwater drainage system, pedestrian/vehicular/streetscape enhan cements along
Crozet Avenue from the Square to Tabor street, and the first block of 'Main Street'
(a.k.a. Library Avenue). Of the twenty-six utility easements only four are outstanding.
Staff is also working with four owners to obtain the remaining twelve right-of-
way/easement dedications.
$1,500,000.00
Sidewalk-South Pantops: This request is to re-appropriate $440,500.00 for the
construction of 3,500 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side of South
Pantops Drive and the west side of State Farm Boulevard. Final design plans are in
progress and are anticipated to be bid early FY 2012.
$440,500.00
Sidewalk-Crozet Ave North: This request is to re-appropriate $249,063.83 for the
replacement (construction of) of approximately 1,100 feet of sid ewalk and drainage $249,063.83
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
improvements along the West side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to
Crozet Elementary School. Design plans are under review. Staff has received verbal
VDoT approval to use one of the Civil Engineers for design services under the County‘s
Term Contract. Negotiations started in June.
For your information, the County also received a state -funded Safe Routes to School
Grant ($190,000.00) which will support a portion of this project budget and will provide
an improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends the sidewalk to Ballard
drive. (Staff will request re-appropriation of the state grant in October 2011).
Sidewalk-Rt 250/Westminster: This request is to re-appropriate $30,000.00 to support
the construction of 2,786 linear feet of new sidewalk on the north side of the 250 Bypass
on Pantops Mountain (from CarMax to Westminster Canterbury). This project is
currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed at the end of July 2011.
$30,000.00
COB McIntire Renovations: This request is to re-appropriate $3,000.00 to support the
remaining items on the punch list related to the recent renovation completed for the
Office of Facilities Development (OFD) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) offices and a wireless antenna. At the recommendation of the County‘s
Information Technology Department (IT), a wireless antenna will be installed in the OFD
conference room 228A to correct inconsistent coverage. IT will supply the antenna and
the funds will be used to install the necessary electrical components.
$3,000.00
Crozet Library: This request is to re-appropriate $500,000.00 to support the parking lot
design and construction and the library design. The parking lot construction was
recently advertised and the notice of intent has been issued. The parking lot
construction is anticipated to be completed September 2011.
$500,000.00
Ivy Landfill: This request is to re-appropriate $615,518.81 to support the Memorandum
of Understanding for the County's share of ongoing environmental remediation at the
IVY Material Utilization Center which is managed by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA.)
$615,518.81
Records Management: This request is to re-appropriate $236,970.45 to support the
purchase of scanners and software totaling $128,400.00 and for temporary labor
totaling $118,520.45 for assistance in document conversion in the County's Community
Development Department.
$236,970.45
Police Technology Project: This request is to re-appropriate $450,000.00 to support
the on-going Police Technology software (Mobile Data Computer Software) system
implementation which will begin the 30-day test acceptance during July 2011. Upon
successful delivery, the payment for the software and for the license fees will be due to
the vendor. These funds also support the Police Department's emergency
modem/docking station purchases and installations.
$450,000.00
Park Enhancements: This request is to re-appropriate $138,932.00 of which
$38,932.00 will support the construction a vault toilet at Walnut Creek Park. This project
is currently in the bidding process and the construction is anticipated to be completed in
FY 12. The remaining funds ($100,000.00) currently supports anticipated improvements
to the tennis courts and skate park at Crozet Park.
$138,932.00
Park, Simpson: This request is to re-appropriate $58,913.00 to support the Pavilion
project (construction of a picnic Shelter near lower level of parking lot and tennis courts)
at Simpson Park which is in the design phase and anticipated to be bid in July 2011.
$58,913.00
Park, Byrom: This request is to re-appropriate $8,675.00 for completion of Byrom Park
amenities including trail improvements/development and trail signage. $8,675.00
Park, Preddy Creek: This request is to re-appropriate a total of $23,012.00 ($18,951.00
from tourism funding) to support the completion of Preddy Creek Park project amenities
including trail improvements/development and signage and project services including
well and electrical services.
$23,012.00
Fire Dept Emergency Radio Notification System: This request is to re-appropriate
$20,000.00 to support the replacement of pagers and associated radio equipment used
to alert fire/EMS personnel; final work is being completed with ECC and the con tractor
by end of July 2011.
$20,000.00
Fire Department Mobile Data Computer: This request is to re-appropriate $20,000.00
to support the installation of mobile data computers that are mandated by the Virginia
Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for electronic reporting of EMS incidents
which is scheduled to be complete by August 2011.
$20,000.00
E. Rivanna Tanker 26: This request is to re-appropriate $1,322.00 to support the
purchase/installment of equipment of the E. Rivanna Tanker; the truck is still being
manufactured and, the County anticipates delivery of the tanker in late summer.
$1,322.00
Seminole Trail Engine 82: This request is to re-appropriate $69,167.87 to support the
purchase/installment of equipment for the Seminole Trail Engine 82; the truck still being
manufactured, and the County anticipates delivery of the tanker in late summer.
$69,167.87
CARS Squad 133: This request is to re-appropriate $300,000.00 to support the
purchase of the CARS Squad 133, a heavy rescue squad vehicle; an RFP is in
development and the encumbrance is anticipated before October
$300,000.00
WARS Command 506: This request is to re-appropriate $8,186.33 to support the
replacement of an existing command/special transport unit for Western Albemarle
Rescue. The project includes the chassis, customization required to transport patients,
removing and replacing radio systems, and replacement of associated equipment. This
is anticipated to be complete by the end of July 2011.
$8,186.33
FOLLOWING ARE REQUESTS FOR RE-APPROPRIATIONS FOR GENERAL
GOVERNMENT’S ROUTINE OR ONGOING MAINTENANCE CIP PROJECTS AMOUNT
Juvenile Court Repair & Maintenance: This request is to reappropriate $12,365.30 to
support emergency repairs and on-going office improvements such as painting of fices at
the Juvenile Court.
$12,365.30
Public Works Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $383,330.30 to support
on-going General Government maintenance-related projects which include a boiler
replacement at the Old Crozet School, carpet replace ment in the County Executive's
Office Suite, chiller repairs at the McIntire County Office Building (COB -McIntire), ADA
upgrades at COB-McIntire, and energy conservation efforts of HVAC duct work
$383,330.30
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
maintenance at COB-McIntire.
Health Department Repair & Maintenance: This request is to reappropriate
$32,940.00 so that it remains available for unscheduled repairs and preventative
maintenance of the jointly-owned Health Department building maintained by the City
and County.
$32,940.00
Court Facilities Repair & Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $161,528.67
to support the completion of an ADA access on the Jefferson Street side of the facility,
replacement of an air handling unit, and completion of courtroom upgrades in Court
Square which will consist of combining two currently unused rooms into a mini -court, as
per the request of Judge Barkley. The cost estimate for the development of the mini -
court will be $28,000.00.
$161,528.67
Old Jail Facility Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $16,000.00 for
engineering costs to monitor the stabilization of the Old Jail exterior wall, for hazardous
material abatement, and on-going stabilization of the building. Maintenance of the Old
Jail Facility is required until a re-use is decided upon and implemented.
$16,000.00
Library Facilities Repair & Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate
$100,000.00 to support maintenance projects to be undertaken and/or completed in
FY12 for the County's jointly-owned library facilities, the Gordon Avenue Library and
James Madison Regional Library Central Library, such as HVAC updates, brick repairs,
elevator upgrades, etc.
$100,000.00
Parks & Recreation Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $213,586.00 to
support the park road resurfacing project (at Totier, Simpson, Dorrier, Chris Greene
Lake, Ivy Creek, Beaver Creek, Greenwood and Mint Springs Parks) and maintenance
facility improvements (totaling $81,568.00); to provide for the County's share of the
relocation of the McIntire Skate Park to Darden Towe Park (totaling $100,000.00), and
to currently support improvements to the existing basketball courts at Crozet Park
($32,000.00).
$213,586.00
Parks & Recreation Athletic Study/Development: This request is to re-appropriate
$39,899.00 to support athletic field maintenance which is scheduled for July/August of
2011.
$39,899.00
Tourism-Park, Rivanna - Free Bridge Connector: This request is to re-appropriate
$1,003.00 to support trail maintenance and repairs along the Rivanna -Free Bridge
Connector.
$1,003.00
FOLLOWING ARE REQUESTS FOR RE-APPROPRIATIONS FOR GENERAL
GOVERNMENT’S PLANNED CIP ALLOCATIONS OR CONTINGENCIES AMOUNT
Keene Landfill: This request is to re-appropriate $50,000.00 in order for funding to
remain available to respond to emergency environmental issues, such as potential well
contamination, emergency environmental engineering services, and/or repairs to the
cap of the fill.
$50,000.00
Meadowcreek Parkway Landscaping: This request is to re-appropriate $235,873.71
to support design and material expenses for landscaping associated with the
Meadowcreek Parkway. Landscaping design is anticipated to start prior to the
completion of parkway which is expected to be in October 2011.
$235,873.71
Transportation Improvements - Local: This request is to re-appropriate $1,670,948.16
to support Virginia Department of Transportation and/or County shortfalls for high
priority transportation projects as listed by the Comprehensive Plan (and associated
Master Plans), CHART, Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements, Priority List of
Primary Road Improvements, and the Transportation Funding Options Working Group.
These projects could include location and design work for Rt. 29 north six-lane widening
and Berkmar Drive extended/bridge location and design (both are Board priorities),
and/or support funding for sidewalk and/or crosswalk projects, or other high priority
transportation projects as recommended in Master Plans.
$1,670,948.16
Sidewalk-Fontaine Ave: This request is to re-appropriate $87,524.66 to support the
installation of a short sidewalk (~160') from the Research Park to the City line (right -of-
way required). This project closes gaps between sidewalks which may create safety
issues if left uncorrected. The project is anticipated to be completed within 6 months of
starting the design which is anticipated to occur at the end of summer (assuming no
easements are required).
$87,524.66
Sidewalk-Hollymead/Powell: This request is to re-appropriate $194,499.24 to support
the completion of the sidewalk connection from Hollymead to Sutherland Schools. The
required right-of-way has been donated. The project is anticipated to be completed
within 6 months of starting design work which is scheduled to commence early fall.
$194,499.24
Sidewalk-Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate $13,823.11 to support
unforeseen sidewalk project costs of current projects or to support sidewalk
improvements with no funding arising from safety issues (e.g. Barracks Road sidewalk
to address safety of residents walking to the bus stop at Georgetown Road and
Georgetown Road westward to apartment complexes.)
$13,823.11
ACE: This request is to re-appropriate $619,459.94, which is the available balance that
is not projected to be expended in FY11, to support the Acquisition of Conservation
Easement Program established by the Board of Supervisors to purchase desired
easements. There are several opportunities County staff will be pursuing this summer.
$619,459.94
Parks - Recreation Facility: This request is to re-appropriate $2,030,000.00 to support
the County's contribution towards the YMCA Aquatics & Recreation Facility that is
currently in the bidding process. Bids are anticipated to be received by the end of July or
early August.
$2,030,000.00
Greenway, Crozet: This request is to re-appropriate $95,340.00 in funding which is
currently funded to support a perimeter trail at Crozet Park. $95,340.00
Tourism-Greenway Program: This request is to re-appropriate $96,542.00 which will
be used for three (3) pedestrian bridges along the Rivanna Greenway. $96,542.00
Fire Department Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate $93,779.24 to support
major and unexpected repairs to county owned fire and rescue apparatus. $93,779.24
VFD Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate $7,471.77 to support major and
unexpected repairs to volunteer and joint volunteer/county owned fire and rescue
apparatus.
$7,471.77
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
This request also re-appropriates balances of the General Government Capital Improvement Fund
remaining as of June 30, 2011 as follows:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Courts Study: This request is to re-appropriate $35,000.00 from the Courts
Maintenance Fund and $15,000 from a surplus remaining in the Sidewalk -Route
250/Westminster project fund for a study to evaluate location/expansion options for the
General District and Circuit Courts. The RFP selection/interview process is complete
and negotiations are underway with the top -ranked firm. The study is anticipated to be
completed within 4-6 months from the award of the contract. Final contract approval is
anticipated by July 2011.
$50,000.00
School Division Capital Improvement Projects Re-Appropriation Requests
Each year, staff presents to the board a list of projects that were appropriated to the School Capital fund in
a prior year, but remains unfinished at year end. A Board ―re-appropriation‖ of these remaining balances is
required to allow staff to continue with execution and completion of these efforts. This is a partial list of re -
appropriation requests to address the more time-sensitive projects. The remaining project
reappropriations will be presented to the Board in October for consideration.
Appropriation #2012002 $802,646.36
Revenue Source: School CIP Fund Bal. $ 802,646.36
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Brownsville Elementary School Construction: This request is to re-appropriate
$64,956.61 to support corrections of deficiencies/omissions of the original design at
Brownsville Elementary School including lighting improvements and interio r up fits to the
common area which are scheduled to occur over the summer.
$64,956.61
Crozet Elementary School Construction: This request is to re-appropriate $11,832.41
to support additional planting and modifications to a Crozet Elementary School's bio filter
which is scheduled to occur this summer.
$11,832.41
Greer Elementary School Construction: This request is to re-appropriate $105,859.63
to support the Greer Elementary School's construction project anticipated to be under
contract in September/October.
$105,859.63
Albemarle High School Construction: This request is to re-appropriate $3,280.07 to
support Albemarle High School's HVAC system repairs scheduled to occur this summer. $3,280.07
CATEC Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $222,694.95 to support
modifications to the bus loop (install bus loop and reconfigured parking lot with parent
drop-off) at CATEC. This work is scheduled to occur this summer.
$222,694.95
Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) Construction: This request is to re-appropriate
$47,068.54 to support a bus wash addition (New 20‘ x 52‘ x 25‘ (high) addition to the
existing Vehicle Maintenance Facility Building (VMF); including site work, additional
parking, new lighting, and automated wash system at bus wash facility) This work is
scheduled to occur this summer thru early fall.
$47,068.54
School Maintenance - ADA: This request is to re-appropriate $41,996.63 to support
modifications to the front entrance at the Crozet Elementary School to make it ADA
accessible; the project is currently being bid with work scheduled to occur this summer
$41,996.63
School Maintenance - Yancey/Stony Point Kitchen Gates: This request is to re-
appropriate $16,000.00 to support the installation of a security gate in the kitchen at
Stony Point Elementary School which is scheduled to be completed this summer; the
project is currently being bid.
$16,000.00
School Maintenance - Child Nutrition Services: This request is to re-appropriate
$97,782.62 to support serving line improvements, pantr y shelving replacement, combi
ovens installation, and cold well installation for the Child Nutrition Services located in
various schools and is scheduled to be completed over the summer.
$97,782.62
School Maintenance-Hollymead Parking: This request is to re-appropriate
$100,000.00 to support parking lot work (provide 8 permanent bus parking spaces, add
additional parking lot lighting, striping and a sidewalk for safe access and crossing) at
Hollymead Elementary School and is scheduled to begin and be comp leted this
summer; the contract is currently being routed for approval.
$100,000.00
School Maintenance - Stony Point Parking: This request is to re-appropriate
$91,174.90 to support parking lot work (modifying and expanding parent drop -off area
and adding 15 parking spaces) at Stony Point Elementary School. The project is
scheduled to begin and be completed this summer; the contract is currently being
routed for approval.
$91,174.90
Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects Re-Appropriation Requests
Each year, staff presents to the Board a list of projects that were appropriated to the Stormwater Capital
fund in a prior year, but remain unfinished at year end. A board ―re-appropriation‖ of these remaining
balances is required to allow staff to continue with execution and completion of these efforts. This is a
partial list of re-appropriation requests to address the more time sensitive projects. The remaining project
reappropriations will be presented to the Board in October for consideration.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Appropriation #2012003 $940,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 160,200.00
Stormwater CIP Fund Bal. $ 779,800.00
Note: The Stormwater CIP Fund Balance funding includes $74,880.00 in proffer
monies.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Woodbrook Lagoon Construction: This request is to re-appropriate $40,000.00 to
support storm-water management for a 250 acre urban watershed through channel
improvements, wetlands, and biofiltration. This project is under construction and is
anticipated to be completed November 2011.
$40,000.00
Downtown Crozet Stormwater: This request is to re-appropriate $340,000.00 to
support stormwater management through pipe and channel improvements and the
construction of a stormwater wetland system to treat runoff from existing an d future
development in Downtown Crozet. This project was recently advertised for construction
(bids were due June 9) and is anticipated to be completed on November - December of
2011.
$340,000.00
COB Parking Lot Biofilters: This request is to re-appropriate $10,000.00 in funding to
support stormwater management for two aisles of the McIntire County Office Building
parking lot. Plans include landscaping improvements and a pedestrian walking trail.
This project is under construction and is anticipated to be completed in June 2011 with
the exception of the plantings which will be completed in the Fall of 2011.
$10,000.00
Stormwater Control Improvement Fund: This is a request to re-appropriate $550,000
from the stormwater fund balance to the Stormwater Control Improvement Fund so that
additional funds are immediately available to support projects that are currently or will
be under contract prior to October, including the Downtown Crozet Stormwater project.
$550,000.00
Appropriation #2012004 $3,675,790.00
Revenue Source: Other Fund Bal. $ 3,675,790.00
This request is to re-appropriate $3,675,790.00 of bond proceeds for the Belvedere Drive Bond Project.
The bidding process for this Project will begin this summer.
The developer of Belvedere Subdivision, Belvedere Station Land Trust (BSLT), provided performance
bonds to the County for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase 1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A covering
water protection (erosion control & stormwater management), roads, drainage and related site work, and
water and sewer improvements.
The bonds totaled $3,675,790.00 and were secured by letters of credit from Wachovia Bank. In
November 2008, the County received notice from Wachovia Bank that the letters of credit securing the
bonds would not be renewed beyond their current expiration. Because BSLT was unable to renew the
letters of credit from Wachovia Bank and did not provide replacement performance bonds, the County
demanded payment on the six (6) letters of credit securing the bonds in January 2009. The County is
assuming responsibility for the completion of the work and the appropriated bond funds will support this
effort.
Further project review is being conducted by County staff to determine if the County should complete
some of the work rather than requesting BSLT to re-bond all of the incomplete improvements.
Appropriation #2012005 $1,083.65
Revenue Source: Other Fund Bal. $ 1,083.65
This request is to re-appropriate $1,083.65 to support the work of the Natural Heritage Com mittee (NHC).
This is a private donation that was originally appropriated on July 1, 2009, that was made to specifically to
support the work of the NHC. The Chair of the NHC has requested the donated funds be re-appropriated
so the committee can make use of the funds to support their mission, which is to maintain and restore the
County's native biological diversity and provide a healthy environment for the citizens of Albemarle County.
Appropriation #2012006 $ 5,592.22
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance: $5,592.22
This request is to re-appropriate $5,592.22 of contributions that were made in support of the Sheriff‘s
volunteer reserve programs.
Appropriation #2012007 $ 22,552.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $22,552.00
This request is to appropriate $22,552.00 in federal grant revenues for a part-time auxiliary deputy officer
to work under the direction of the Albemarle County Sheriff‘s Office to assist with the administration and
monitoring of Offender Aid and Restoration‗s (OAR‘s) Drug Court cases. Data from other Virginia
communities with such an arrangement indicates that the ongoing presence of an officer for program
participants yields positive outcomes. These expenses include part-time wages and vehicle fuel,
maintenance and repair costs and will be funded through federal grant revenues received from OAR. The
Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation for this program in FY 10/11 at its January 12, 2011
meeting. This request is to continue this program in FY 11/12.
Appropriation #2012008 $ 138,591.60
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $138,591.60
This request is to re-appropriate $138,591.60 in funding from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program. The County, due to its population size, is a
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
formula recipient of $406,000 from the DOE‘s EECBG program. The purpose of the EECBG program is to
support the investment of resources into energy efficiency, renewable energy and climate protection. The
DOE has approved the County's Strategy that the Albemarle County grants committee finalized in Fall
2009. The Strategy includes: 1) $218,450.00 towards energy efficiency measures for the County's facilities
(e.g. lighting retrofits, equipment replacement, renewable energy generation; 2) $60,000.00 towards
funding County residential energy audits through local energy alliance program (LEAP); 3) $15,000.00
towards the conversion of a fleet vehicle to electric; 4) $100,000.00 towards a temporary, part-time, not-to-
exceed 36 months staff position to help manage and administer the grant and associated projects and
programs; and 5) $12,550.00 towards administrative costs.
Appropriation #2012009 $ 250,000.00
Revenue Source: Other Fund Fund Balance: $100,000.00
Transfer from General Fund Fund Balance: $150,000.00
This request is to appropriate $250,000.00 to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for disbursing
funding to MicroAire per action taken during the Board of Supervisors May 11, 2011 meeting. This
$250,000.00 in fund balances originated from a) $100,000.00 received in FY 10/11 from the Governor‘s
Opportunity Fund (state revenue) and b) $150,000.00 from the FY 10/11 year-end fund balance of the
County‘s Economic Opportunity Fund.
_____
Ms. Alshouse noted that on the Court Study project description the two funding sources numbers
were rounded at the time the appropriation was completed, but the exact numbers are $35,870.72 from
the Court Square Enhancement Fund and $14,129.28 from the sidewalk/Route 250/Westminster project
account. She said that the total appropriation is the same and does not impact the Board‘s action. Ms.
Allshouse reiterated that staff requests Board approval of the budget amendment and appropriations
following the public hearings.
Mr. Boyd asked about the $10,000 allocation for the Pantops Fire Station.
Mr. Davis explained that the funds are for costs related to getting the site surveyed, preparation of
a site plan and a subdivision plat to allow the transfer of property to happen.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff is working on breaking down allocations of money being spent on the
various Master Plans. Mr. Foley replied, ―yes‖.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, and the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Rooker complimented staff on the way this material was arranged and presented. The
information was very easy to follow and self-explanatory.
Mr. Rooker then moved approval of the FY 2012 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$17,377,971.22 and approved Appropriations #2012001, #2012002, #2012003, #2012004, #2012005,
#2012006, #2012007, #2012008 and #2011009 to provide funds for various local government and school
projects and programs. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The appropriations are set out below:)
APP #2012-001
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted general government capital projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9010 12210 412200 120000 1160 10,000.00 AA O/T Wages
4 9010 12210 412200 130000 1160 15,000.00 AA P/T Wages
4 9010 12210 412200 210000 1160 1,915.00 AA FICA
4 9010 12210 412200 312105 1160 48,000.00 AA Consulting Services
4 9010 12210 412200 800700 1160 137,625.00 AA ADP Equipment
4 9010 12210 412200 800710 1160 100,000.00 AA Data Processing Software
4 9010 12210 412200 999999 1160 135,000.00 AA Contingency
4 9010 21050 421005 331000 2140 12,365.30 Juvenile Court Repair & Maint
4 9010 43100 443200 800666 9999 383,330.30 Public Works Maint
4 9010 43100 443200 950222 4400 32,940.00 Health Department Repair & Maint
4 9010 21005 451002 331000 2180 161,528.67 Court Facilities Repair & Maint
4 9010 21008 421005 950301 2111 16,000.00 Old Jail Facility Maint
4 9010 42043 442040 950059 1210 50,000.00 Keene Landfill
4 9010 41021 441200 950117 9999 208,626.68 Meadow Creek Parkway
Landscaping
4 9010 21006 421005 950135 2110 50,000.00 Court Square Enhancement
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
4 9010 94010 494040 950039 9999 27,247.03 Meadowcreek Parkway
4 9010 32018 432010 312350 3140 10,000.00 Pantops F. S. Engineering
4 9010 32021 432010 312350 3140 200,000.00 Ivy F. S. Engineering
4 9010 41020 441200 950136 9999 1,670,948.16 St Improvement – Local
4 9010 41020 441200 950171 9999 5,000.00 St Improv-Sunridge Rd
4 9010 41023 441200 800605 9999 1,200,000.00 Crozet St Ph2 Construction
4 9010 41023 441200 800670 9999 300,000.00 Crozet St Ph2 Utilities Relocation
4 9010 41350 441200 950510 9999 440,500.00 Sidewalk-South Pantops
4 9010 41350 441200 950514 9999 249,063.83 Sidewalk-Crozet Ave North
4 9010 41350 441200 950516 9999 30,000.00 Sidewalk-Rt 250/Westminster
4 9010 41350 441200 950519 9999 87,524.66 Sidewalk-Fontain Ave
4 9010 41350 441200 950522 9999 194,499.24 Sidewalk-Hollymead/Powell
4 9010 41350 441200 999999 9999 13,823.11 Sidewalk-Contingency
4 9010 73025 473010 800949 7140 100,000.00 Library Facilities Repair & Maint.
4 9010 94090 494010 800605 1100 3,000.00 COB McIntire Renov. Construction
4 9010 94160 494070 950114 7140 500,000.00 Crozet Library
4 9010 42042 442040 700006 1210 615,518.81 Ivy Landfill
4 9010 41000 481020 950110 1240 236,970.45 Records Management
4 9010 81010 481020 580409 1240 619,459.94 ACE
4 9010 31010 431010 800714 3110 450,000.00 Police Technology Upgrade
4 9010 71020 471020 800940 7100 138,932.00 Park Enhancements
4 9010 71020 471020 800949 7100 213,586.00 Parks & Rec Maintenance
4 9010 71020 471020 950044 7100 39,899.00 Parks & Rec Athletic Study/Devel.
4 9010 71020 471020 95074 7100 2,030,000.00 Parks – Recreation Facility
4 9010 94130 49010 950121 7220 58,913.00 Park, Simpson
4 9010 71020 471020 950202 7100 95,340.00 Greenway, Crozet
4 9010 94140 49010 950232 7270 8,675.00 Park, Byrom
4 9010 71020 471010 950261 7100 4,061.00 Park, Preddy Creek
4 9010 72030 471010 950026 7100 96,542.00 Tourism-Greenway Program
4 9010 72030 471010 950233 7280 18,951.00 Tourism-Park, Preddy Creek Trail
4 9010 72030 471010 95020 7100 1,003.00 Tourism-Park, Rivanna-Free Brid
C
4 9010 32010 432010 800313 3140 20,000.00 Fire Dept Emg Radio Notif. Sys.
4 9010 32010 432010 800317 3140 20,000.00 Fire Dept Mobile Data Comp
4 9010 32010 432010 999999 3140 93,779.24 Fire Dept Conting
4 9010 32020 432020 810099 3140 7,471.77 VFD Contigency
4 9010 32020 43020 810204 3140 1,322.00 E. Rivanna Tanker 26
4 9010 32020 43020 810806 3140 69,167.87 Seminole Trail Engine 82
4 9010 32030 432030 815102 3140 300,000.00 CARS Squad 133
4 9010 32030 432030 950357 3140 8,186.33 WARS Command 506
3 9010 41000 341000 410500 9999 10,805,327.38 Loan Proceeds
3 9010 33000 333000 330062 9999 580,062.00 TEA Grant
3 9010 51000 351000 512056 9999 73,764.89 Proffer, Wickham Pond
3 9010 51000 351000 512059 9999 10,896.30 Proffer, Westhall 1.2
3 9010 51000 351000 512064 9999 53,728.70 Proffer, Westhall 1.1
3 9010 51000 351000 512065 9999 16,098.27 Proffer, Liberty Hall
3 9010 51000 351000 512054 9999 1,837.85 Proffer, Old Trail
4 8540 93010 493010 930010 9999 73,764.89 Wickham Pond-Trsf to CIP
3 8540 51000 351000 510100 9999 73,764.89 Wickham Pond App F/B
4 8542 93010 493010 930010 9999 10,896.30 Westhall 1.2-Trsf to CIP
3 8542 51000 351000 510100 9999 10,896.30 Westhall 1.2 App F/B
4 8541 93010 493010 930010 9999 53,728.70 Westhall 1.1-Trsf to CIP
3 8541 51000 351000 510100 9999 53,728.70 Westhall 1.1 App F/B
4 8544 93010 493010 930010 9999 16,098.27 Liberty Hall-Trsf to CIP
3 8544 51000 351000 510100 9999 16,098.27 Liberty Hall App F/B
4 8537 93010 493010 930010 9999 1,837.85 Old Trail-Trsf to CIP
3 8537 51000 351000 510100 9999 1,837.85 Old Trail App F/B
TOTAL 23,396,082.80
_____
APP #2012-002
DATE: 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted school capital projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6102 64,956.61 Brownsville E. S. Construction
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6103 11,832.41 Crozet E. S. Construction
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6104 105,859.63 Greer E. S. Construction
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6301 3,280.07 Albemarle H. S. Construction
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6305 222,694.95 CATEC Maintenance
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6522 47,068.54 VMF Construction
4 9000 69980 466730 800665 6599 41,996.63 Sch Maint - ADA
4 9000 69980 466730 950257 6111 16,000.00 Sch Maint - Yancey/St Pt Kitch
Gates
4 9000 69980 466730 950257 6599 97,782.62 Sch Maint - Child Nutri Serv
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
4 9000 69980 466200 800675 6105 100,000.00 Sch Maint - Hollymd Parking
4 9000 69980 466200 800675 6111 91,174.90 Sch Maint - Stny Pt Parking
3 9000 69000 351000 510100 6599 802,646.36 App F/B
TOTAL 1,605,292.72
_____
APP #2012-003
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted stormwater capital projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9100 80260 482040 800605 9999 40,000.00 Woodbrook Lagoon Construction
4 9100 82062 482040 800605 9999 340,000.00 Downtown Crozet Reg S/w Const
4 9100 82063 482040 800975 9999 10,000.00 COB Parking Lot Biofilters
4 9100 82045 482040 800975 9999 550,000.00 Stormwater Control Improv
3 9100 33000 333000 330034 1008 160,200.00 Fish/Wildlife Federal Grant
3 9100 51000 351000 512063 9999 74,880.00 Proffer, Grayrock
3 9100 51000 351000 510100 9999 704,920.00 Stormwater Fund Balance
4 8523 93010 493010 930010 9999 74,880.00 Grayrock-Trsf to CIP
3 8523 51000 351000 510100 9999 74,880.00 Grayrock App F/B
TOTAL 2,029,760.00
_____
APP #2012-004
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriate uncompleted Belvedere Bond Default
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9011 91000 491000 940080 9999 3,675,790.00 Belvedere Bond Default
3 9011 51000 351000 510100 9999 3,675,790.00 Reappropriation Fund Balance
TOTAL 7,351,580.00
This reappropriates $3,675,790.00 to support the Belvedere Drive Bond Project which will begin the
bidding process this summer. Further project review is being conducted by County staff to determine if
the County should complete some of the work rather than allowing BSLT to re-bond all of the incomplete
improvements.
The developer of Belvedere Subdivision, Belvedere Station Land Trust (BSLT), provided performance
bonds to the County for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase 1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A covering
water protection (erosion control & stormwater management), roads, drainage and related site work, and
water and sewer improvements. The bonds totaled $3,675,790 and were secured by letters of credit from
Wachovia Bank. In November 2008 the County received notice from Wachovia Bank that the letters of
credit securing the bonds would not be renewed beyond their current expiration. Since BSLT was unable
to get Wachovia Bank to renew the letters of credit and did not provide replacement performance bonds,
the County demanded payment on the six (6) letters of credit securing the bonds in January 2009.
_____
APP #2012-005
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriate uncompleted work of the Natural Heritage Committee (NHC)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 8407 79000 479000 568755 9999 1,083.65 Natural Heritage Committee
3 8407 51000 351000 510100 9999 1,083.65 Reappropriation Fund Balance
TOTAL 2,167.30
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
This reappropriates $1,083.65 to support the work of the Natural Heritage Committee (NHC). This is a
private donation originally appropriated on 7/1/2009, made specifically to support the work of the Natural
Heritage Committee (NHC). The Chair of the NHC has requested the donated funds be reappropriated
so the committee can make use of the funds to support their mission - to maintain and restore the
County's native biological diversity and provide a healthy environment for the citizens of Albemarle County.
_____
APP #2012006
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Sheriff Contributions reappropriated to fiscal year 2011/2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 21070 421070 301230 1002 5592.22 Reserve Programs
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 5592.22 appropriation from fund balance
TOTAL 11184.44
_____
APP #2012-007
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: DRUG COURT OFFICER
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 33000 333000 330240 1002 22,552.00 OAR-DOJ-DRUG COURT PROG
4 1000 21078 421070 130000 1002 18,720.00 PART-TIME WAGES
4 1000 21078 421070 210000 1002 1,432.00 FICA
4 1000 21078 421070 580000 1002 600.00 MISC. EXPENSES
4 1000 21078 421070 600800 1002 1,200.00 VEHICLE & EQUIP. FUEL
4 1000 21078 421070 600900 1002 600.00 VEHICLE & EQUIP. REPAIRS
TOTAL 45,104.00
_____
APP #2012-008
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriate Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
(EECBG) program SC03241
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1583 33000 333000 330103 1004 138,591.60 FEDERAL BLOCK GRANT
4 1583 43007 443200 190000 1004 $20,000.00 PART TIME STAFF
4 1583 43007 443200 300205 1004 $4,000.00 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
4 1583 43007 443200 510140 1004 $96,803.83 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
4 1583 43007 443200 560421 1004 $15,000.00 CONTRIBUTION-LEAP
4 1583 43007 443200 800503 1004 $2,787.77 CAR CONVERSION
TOTAL 277,183.20
_____
APP #2012009
DATE 07/06/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Economic Opportunity and Governors Opportunity Funds
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 150,000.00 Appropriation from fund balance
4 1000 93010 493010 930222 9999 150,000.00 Transfer to new Fund
3 6850 51000 351000 510100 9999 100,000.00 Appropriation from fund balance
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
3 6850 51000 351000 512004 9999 150,000.00 Transfer from General Fund
4 6850 91095 391095 999812 9999 250,000.00 Expense
TOTAL 800,000.00
_______________
(NonAgenda. The Board took a recess at 10:33 a.m., and reconvened at 10:48 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 17a. Transportation Matters: VDoT Quarterly Report, Karen Kilby.
Ms. Karen Kilby, Programming & Investment Management Director VDOT, said that as an update
to the June VDOT Quarterly Report, the County has $3 million in Revenue Sharing funds to be allocated
over the next two years – split between fiscal years (FY12 and FY13). She said the money would all go
toward Route 677/Broomley Road Bridge and it would not change the schedule for that project. She
added that all unpaved roads funds that were allocated to Broomley Road can now go to rural rustic road
projects.
Ms. Kilby stated that resolutions have been submitted to County staff for rural rustic projects –
Rose Hil, Church Road, Fortune Lane, Bluffton Road and Happy Creek Road – which should come
forward to the Board on August 3, with design to follow shortly afterward.
Ms. Kilby said that work has started on Jarman‘s Gap Road and Georgetown Road. She then
reported the following updates: signs have been installed on Red Hill Road; installation of a red arrow is
pending on Hydraulic Road; ―Watch for Turning Vehicles‖ signs have been installed on Route 20; the
center line marking on Watts Passage from Route 641 to Route 20 has been delayed briefly because of
coordination with the centerline marking on Burnley Station Road; a stop sign upgrade has been installed
on Route 691, Plank Road at Route 693, Stillhouse Road; Route 626, Langhorn Road/James River Road,
sign installations are still pending; Route 743, Advance Mills area, no tractor-trailer signs will be installed;
no speed change on Route 810/Crozet Avenue; no speed change on Route 250, from existing 45 mph
zone west of Route 240 to four lane segment approaching I-64; Route 665, Buck Mountain Road from
Free Union to Route 664, Markwood Road will be posted at 45 mph; no speed change on Buck Mountain
Road to Markwood; and Route 240, Crozet Avenue at Meadows Drive, is still under review.
Mr. Snow thanked VDoT for taking care of Red Hill Road. Ms. Kilby thanked David Crimm and his
staff at VDoT.
__________
Mr. Thomas asked about a possible opening date for the walking path along Meadow Creek
Parkway. Ms. Kilby said VDoT cannot open anything until all the construction is completed and accepted.
She said she would include something in her August report on an opening date.
__________
Mr. Boyd said that a constituent asked about installing signage for the Shadwell/I-64 exit to
designate traffic going east or west, similar to the directional pavement markings at the Best Buy ramp.
Ms. Kilby said she would take the issue back to the traffic staff at VDoT.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if the sidewalk maintenance on Whitewood Road, near Humphris Park, is a
VDoT function, as there are issues with tree roots buckling up through the sidewalk and areas where trees
have grown over the sidewalk. People have to actually leave the sidewalk because the trees are so low.
Mr. David Crimm responded that VDoT has a maintenance sidewalk contractor who could take
care of that issue, as well as VDOT taking care of the trees.
__________
Item No. 17b. Update on Transit Development Plan and Transit Service to Pantops.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
―At the June 1, 2011 Board meeting Bill Watterson, Manager of Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT),
presented to the Board recommendations for future service improvements identified in the updated Transit
Development Plan (TDP), with a particular focus on the recommendations for routes that serve Albemarle
County. The TDP is updated every five years; the last update being adopted in 2006.
The TDP is developed by the City in conjunction with the State Department of Rail and Public
Transit (DRPT) and is required to cover a six year planning period, July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2017. The
Plan also contains long term -recommendations for the period beginning in FY 2018. The TDP establishes
a blueprint for CAT service over the six-year planning period; implementation of these plans is subject to
City Council‘s annual approval of the transit service modifications. Establishment of new service in the
County is subject to approval and funding by the Board of Supervisors.
At the June meeting, Mr. Watterson provided the Board of the following recommended changes to
service which will be implemented over the next three years:
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Provide service to the Avon Street Extended and Mill Creek Drive area with the rerouting of
Route 1, which serves PVCC (no additional funding is anticipated to be needed from the
County for this new route);
Make relatively minor modifications to Route 2 and Route 5 to provide bi-directional travel on
those routes; however, direct service to Region 10 offices on Old Lynchburg Road may be
eliminated (service would be within walking distance);
Provide service to the new Martha Jefferson Hospital, address service delays occurring on
Route 10 in Pantops and modify the night service (Route 24) to generally match the Route 10
day service. The decision by City Council to not implement recommended changes to Routes
1A and 2B in the City has resulted in limited options to address the delays now occurring on
Route 10. In order to maintain one-hour headways on Route 10, particularly during peak
traffic periods, service that is now provided to some locations may need to be eliminated.
County and CAT staff recommend that should service levels need to be modified the
Veterans Administration Office (2 boardings/day) service be eliminated in order to maintain on
time one-hour headways.
Regarding service to Pantops, CAT staff is still in the process of evaluating the ultimate changes
necessary to Route 10 to achieve one-hour service to the Pantops area, including service to the new
Martha Jefferson Hospital. Staff will provide an update on the changes necessary to this Route at the July
meeting.
The TDP serves as the plan for implementing transit service to the City and the County‘s
surrounding Urban Area and helps inform decisions on the funding of transit services. The County
contracts for services with the City/CAT and decisions on the funding for service, including new or
expanded service, are made during the annual budget review process.
This presentation is provided for information. There is no action required of the Board.‖
__________
Mr. Benish stated that last week Mr. Watterson reported that the Route 10 service is essentially
the same, with modifications of the bus‘s path and a net effect of providing service to all the stops with the
exception of the VA offices. Mr. Benish said CAT considered the boarding information and determined
that the VA offices received two riders per day, compared to 27 for Wilton Farms and 20 to Social
Security. He added that those are one day estimates, not averages. He stated that CAT is recommending
the same level of service to all other stops on Route 10, with the rerouting of the bus stop to provide better
access to Avemore. The bus now travels directly up South Pantops Boulevard and goes by other
residential areas so the rerouting may provide better opportunities for other sites. He reiterated that the
one change to Route 10 is that the VA offices will no longer be served.
Mr. Boyd asked if anyone notified staff in the VA offices that they were considering eliminating
service to their site. Mr. Benish said he does not think they did. He added that Mr. Watterson indicated
that, if there are changes in service demand over the year, the bus can provide service in an informal way
although it won‘t be posted as a stop in their bus stop routing.
Ms. Mallek asked how the VA stop might be accommodated and how people will know to request
to get off there.
Mr. Benish responded that the formal stops will be at the Outpatient Treatment Center at MJH and
the VA Office could make arrangements to get people from the hospital to their building. He said that the
bus could conceivably stop at the VA but they would have to walk up the hill to get to the building, which is
something the bus drivers will do informally, but a priority for CAT is being able to maintain a one-hour
headway.
Mr. Boyd asked if CAT keeps statistics and numbers on ridership on individual routes, and if the
Board could get that report. Mr. Benish said that his understanding is that they do some strategic counts,
but he will ask Mr. Watterson about that information.
Mr. Snow asked when the changes take place. Mr. Benish said they would like to do it within two
weeks. His understanding is that the changes will take effect the beginning of September. He added that
Mr. Watterson has said he welcomes the Board‘s feedback or concerns especially if Board members have
any major issues.
Ms. Mallek said she hopes that CAT will make sure that the VA riders are informed ahead of time
about their options.
There was no further discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Prisoner Reentry Summit Overview, Michael C. Murphy, Director of Human
Services, City of Charlottesville.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
―On March 9, 2011 the Board appropriated $3,000 to support a regional Prisoner Re-Entry
Summit to promote awareness, provide education and training, and facilitate improved coordination of
reentry services to prisoners in this region. The event was planned by members of the Reentry Steering
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Committee, the Dialogue on Race Reentry Workgroup, and a number of community volunteers and was
co-sponsored by the City of Charlottesville, which appropriated $7,500 to support the Summit.
The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide background information on the Summit and
to inform the Board that Mike Murphy, Director of Human Services for the City of Charlottesville, will
provide a briefing on specific outcomes of this event on July 6th.
On December 6, 2010 Charlottesville City Council proclaimed Charlottesville to be a City of
Second Chances. In support of that proclamation, and at the request of the local Reentry Steering
Committee, it was determined that hosting a local summit on the issue of prisoner re-entry would assist
with educating and promoting the range of services available to these individuals as well as the specific
and unique issues they face in transitioning back into the community. Considerable effort was dedicated
to attracting a diverse group of citizens to attend. Marketing for the event was done almost entirely
through meetings with individual community members and groups. Registration for the event resulted in
approximately 260 members of our community responding with 218 attending the event on April 19th. The
participants included ex-offenders, their family members, human service agency and public safety staff,
employers, and interested citizens.
The Summit included a keynote address by a nationally recognized speaker on the subject of
Prisoner re-entry, as well as four panel discussions that were interactive with the attendees. Each panel
was comprised of two agency representatives, two ex-offenders, and a moderator. Discussion focused
on identifying important issues in the topic area and potential solutions and/or strategies to address these
issues. At the close of the Summit, many attendees expressed an interest in participating in ongoing
workgroups, developing ideas that were discussed, and participating in further dialogue and action.
There is no direct budget impact to the County related to this matter; however, it is recognized
that County support of initiatives aimed at successfully integrating individuals back into the community
yield positive outcomes and reduce the chance for recidivism and future incarceration which is a more
costly outcome for the County and our entire region.
This matter is presented for information purposes only.‖
__________
Mr. Michael Murphy, Director of Human Services, City of Charlottesville, stated that on December
6, 2010, City Council proclaimed Charlottesville to be a ―City of Second Chances.‖ A summit was held on
April 19 at the Holiday Inn on prisoner re-entry issues; this is a major interest and emphasis in Governor
McDonnell‘s administration. City Council appropriated $7,500 and the Board appropriated $3,000. He
reported that over 260 citizens registered for the summit, including family members, support service
providers and those from the ex-offender community.
Mr. Murphy reported that Charlottesville and Albemarle has followed the four major areas of
emphasis that the State has adopted for prisoner reentry: education and employment; social
reintegration; service delivery for mental health and substance abuse; and housing/financial obligations.
He said that the new Director of the Department of Corrections, Mr. Harold Clark, was one speaker at the
summit – along with Mr. Darryl Hunt, who was twice convicted of crimes but later exonerated based on
DNA evidence, and now runs an innocence project in North Carolina as well as a support network for ex-
offenders. Since the summit, he said, there is a lot happening in reentry locally – such as a local reentry
council and steering committee. Mr. Murphy stated that they are working on two or three different groups
of peer networks. There are also recommendations coming out of the summit based on the State‘s four
areas of focus.
Mr. Murphy said that the City recently endorsed a Section 3 plan that may allow creation of more
employment opportunities for people in poverty and ex-offenders by identifying employers or allowing
people to create businesses that identify themselves as Section 3. Mr. Murphy noted that Virginia recently
passed four new pieces of legislation regarding reentry and the Governor has recently written an op-ed
piece in a national magazine about the importance of reentry services. He added that it is known that
many people serving time in local jails/prisons will be coming back to the community and that the level of
recidivism within the first three years is significant and is expensive to localities. He said that two weeks
ago there was a letter from the Director of HUD encouraging all public housing authorities to reevaluate
their practice of excluding ex-offenders and emphasizing that the only two restrictions are history of drug
manufacturing or a history of sexual offenses.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a miniscule availability of employment opportunities for felony
offenders, regardless of the nature of their crime(s).
Mr. Murphy responded that there are several employment-related initiatives that are part of local
reentry initiatives, such as what he mentioned regarding Section 3, and there are local governments and
nonprofits in other localities that serve as host agencies so that small businesses can bid on contracts.
He said that the Richmond model includes small start-up businesses employing ex-offenders, and that
has grown to include a furniture store, a thrift store, a catering business, a café and a moving company.
There is ways to encourage economic development with this population. Mr. Murphy stated that it is a
difficult issue but they are working with the Chamber of Commerce and TJPED to help educate the
business community.
Mr. Rooker suggested that even having employers investigate the ―box‖ checked for felony
conviction would help them understand that some ex-offenders are employable.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Thomas said that his company has worked through probation officers in employing three ex -
offenders, which helps provide a better fit for them.
Mr. Murphy stated that Chief of Probation, Ms. Wendy Goodman, and Ms. Pat Smith and her staff
at OAR, are key partners in this effort and would be joining in getting the word out, in addition to Colonel
Matthews and his staff at the jail.
Mr. Rooker said that small, locally-owned businesses do a much better job than national chains
like Kohl‘s. Until that ice gets broken there is a huge percentage of jobs in the community that are not
available. He added that another huge problem for people reentry is the loss of driver‘s licenses, which
cannot get reinstated until fines get paid or back child support is paid, so it becomes a catch-22 situation
for the ex-offender.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Department of Corrections identifies all forms of state-valid
identification as an issue and is already piloting issuing state identification to people getting released from
prison. He said that in Winston-Salem, N.C., the city is offering free bus service to released ex-offenders
until they have been employed for 30 days.
Mr. Murphy thanked the Board for their interest in this issue.
Board members thanked him for his report.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Funding Priorities Report.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, summarized the following executive summary which
was forwarded to Board members:
―The Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF), and its predecessor,
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Youth, have managed the Agency Budget Review Team
(ABRT) process for funding human service non-profit agencies for the County and the City since the early
1980s. Over the years, the process has evolved, most significantly with the move to an outcome
measurement-based application in 2001 and the introduction of an objective point-based evaluation rubric
in 2004.
In July, 2010, the ABRT, in consultation with the Offices of the County Executive and the City
Manager, recommended that the localities undertake a comprehensive review of how funding to
community agencies is determined. The purpose of this review was to assist the localities in establishing
a process for determining priorities for local government funding, enabling the localities to maximize
results, especially during difficult financial times. CCF was tasked with creating a Steering Committee and
to develop priorities, as well as a process for funding priority community agencies in the FY13 budget.
The Steering Committee was asked to consider organizations previously reviewed by the ABRT, as well
as those reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The recommendations from the
Steering Committee are attached in the Final Report (Attachment A), along with a list of currently-funded
agencies (Appendix 10 of the Report).
CCF created a Steering Committee, which conducted a number of activities and completed broad-
based research over a nine-month period. In the absence of a current needs assessment, the Steering
Committee established seven goals for a vibrant healthy community, then utilized available data to identify
three of these as highest priorities. The full recommendations of the Steering Committee are summarized
below and provided in detail in the attached Report and include:
1. City Council and Board of Supervisors conduct a comprehensive needs assessment every
four years.
2. Board of Supervisors to endorse the following goals as highest priority for funding and
that applications successfully addressing these goals be given additional weight:
Community residents are physically and mentally healthy.
Community residents are safe and have basic needs met.
Children in the community develop appropriately and succeed academically.
Additional goals were identified as important and should be considered for funding:
The community provides a vibrant economic climate.
The community manages natural resources to sustain current and future
generations.
The community uses arts, culture and recreation.
The community is inclusive and engaged.
3. The Steering Committee has identified indicators that reflect accomplishment of the goals
and recommends that programs be evaluated, in part, on their ability to promote
attainment of the goals.
4. Funding to be prioritized on successfully addressing the goals outlined in
Recommendation 2 above, using the following criteria:
a. Demonstration of need and programming that effectively addresses need.
b. Evaluation of program outcomes showing program effectiveness.
c. Demonstration of financial benefit to the localities and/or program participants.
d. Outreach to and engagement of underserved populations.
5. The funding process be modified as follows: NOTE: The Steering Committee
recommended the use of “non-contractual” rather than “discretionary” to define agency
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
funding that is not mandatory or required by contract. Beginning with FY12 funding, all
funded agencies will enter into a contract/agreement for both City and County funding. A
list of agencies proposed for the ABRT process can be found in Appendix 10 of the
Report.
a. Non-contractual funding for non-profit programs should be consolidated into one
process with review by the ABRT or a subcommittee.
b. Arts and Cultural Programs and Festivals should be included in the ABRT
process, and reviewed by a subcommittee with relevant expertise.
c. All programs being considered for non-contractual funding should complete the
same application and be considered under the same criteria.
d. Contractual or statutory funding should continue to be managed by the Offices of
Management and Budget.
6. The Steering Committee recommends that:
a. Applications are considered on their merits on an annual basis, using an objective
scoring system that rates them as Poor, Fair, Solid, or Exemplary. Programs
rated Poor should be defunded. Programs rated Fair should receive at least a
25% cut in funding and be required to submit quarterly progress reports, with a
second rating of Fair resulting in defunding.
b. ABRT make funding recommendations for programs rated Solid and Exemplary
based on community need, effectiveness and program characteristics with
existing programs rated Solid or Exemplary receiving not more than a 10% cut in
funding or a 20% increase in funding per year.
c. Funding for previously unfunded programs that demonstrate that they meet
community needs effectively be considered for funding if they receive a rating of
―Solid‖ or better on their application.
For FY12, the Board of Supervisors approved approximately $2 million of discretionary funding for
the agencies listed in the Attachment. The recommendations for revising the application process are not
intended to impact the total amount of discretionary funding available.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the Steering Committee report and
endorse in principle Recommendations 2-6 listed above. Staff does not recommend endorsing
Recommendation 1 due to the lack of financial resources available to conduct a comprehensive needs
assessment. Staff recommends that the Board encourage CCF to use existing studies/reports such as
Stepping Stones and collaborate with the United Way to identify needs and service delivery gaps for the
priority goals.
Staff further recommends that in order to implement Recommendations 5 & 6, the following
process be utilized and completed by December of each year:
CCF convenes the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) as three or four subgroups to
review and score applications with each team responsible for approximately fifteen to
twenty programs. Scoring will be completed using a matrix created by CCF (September –
October).
The respective staff from the City and County Budget Offices will review and rate all
applications while the ABRT teams are in review of the applications (September –
October).
Following ABRT review, the City and County Budget Office staff will meet with the ABRT
to determine a final rating (November).
Scoring and ranking from all teams will be returned to CCF at which point the City and
County respective Budget Office and CCF staff will apply recommended award amounts
(December).‖
__________
Mr. Elliott stated that the County currently funds approximately 29 human services agencies at just
under $2 million per year and has contractual relationships with 14 agencies such as the ECC, the Jail,
and the Library system – totaling over $13 million per year. He said there are also seven festivals and
annual events that receive funding through the Tourism Fund totaling about $77,000 per year.
Mr. Elliott said the nexus for this report generated several years ago because of the economic
downturn where some tough decisions were being made about the allocation of County funds. The Board
also received recommendations of the Resource Management Review regarding monitoring County
funding, performance measures, and establishing a regular review of agency performance – and given
staff limitations, this evaluation process is being recommended. He stated that in doing so, funding
priorities would be established to enable the City and the County to maximize results especially during
difficult financial times.
Mr. Elliott reported that CCF began this process about a year ago and formed a team comprised
of City, County staff and a steering committee whereby they brought in agency representatives (those
agencies that receive funding from the City and County and the United Way). He said that the CCF also
collaborated with a U.Va. research professor to assist in the evaluation. The work outcome included a
comprehensive review of the current processes and practices; conducting surveys with Board members
and City Council members, as well as agency representatives and County staff on funding priorities and
practices; and consideration of best practices for local funding of nonprofits across the country.
Mr. Elliott said that there are six recommendations presented today for the Board and Council.
These recommendations include endorsing broad goals for the allocation of funds for non-contracted
services with periodic review of agreements as necessary. He stated that the report has identified
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
indicators reflecting the accomplishm ent of these goals, which will be requested and reviewed by County
staff throughout the year. Mr. Elliott said there is a report forms category and process for evaluating these
non-contractual agencies, as well as arts and cultural programs and festivals, to provide a quantitative
measurement system in keeping with priority areas that utilizes a ranking system. He stated that
programs will have the opportunity to improve their performance and have more clarification as to when
funds would be withdrawn for underperformance or not meeting a priority area – such as health and safety
of individuals, mental health and physical health.
Mr. Elliott said that staff recommends that the Board consider these recommendations, accept the
report and endorse in principle both the process and the recommendations for future consideration of
agency funding. He added that the steering committee felt very strongly about undergoing a needs
assessment in the future, although funds are not available for that at this time.
Mr. Rooker asked for the cost estimate of the needs assessment. Mr. Elliott responded that the
cost is $40,000.
Ms. Mallek said her concern is that without this assessment, they do not know if they are spending
money in the best possible place. Mr. Elliott said the evaluation reviewed such current documents as
Stepping Stones and considered United Way prioritizations. In addition several years ago the Health
Department did a comprehensive evaluation of key indicators of health and safety for the community
which is still relatively new. He added that the focus of funding for human services have been children,
youth and aging populations in the community.
Mr. Boyd asked about evaluating the allocation of funds to these types of activities compared to
other localities, as it seems to vary widely. Mr. Elliott responded that communities are all over the place in
Virginia, with Albemarle at about median or perhaps slightly above median, in terms of funding.
Mr. Rooker commented that a more realistic picture would be to look at per-capita expenditures.
Ms. Gretchen Ellis, of CCF, said that four years ago the CCF did a human services budget and
looked at the percentage of City and County allocations – which included local government departments
such as social services and housing – and determined that about 6% of the County‘s budget went to those
services, compared to 12% to the City.
Mr. Foley noted that the County budget does include per-capita expenditures for functional areas,
adding that the City‘s is traditionally very high.
Mr. Rooker said if that information is easy to put together, it would be helpful to have.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn‘t see anything in the evaluation criteria pertaining to duplication of
effort, as that has been a concern for him. Mr. Elliott responded that in the evaluation criteria they would
score agencies higher that collaborate on program and service delivery. He added that new agency
requests are difficult to track because funding levels have remained fixed.
Ms. Ellis said that the last new program was the Boys & Girls Club, funded five years ago, and
they were defunded but came back in with a request for FY09.
Mr. Boyd commented that Big Brothers/Big Sisters provides a similar service and asked how it
would be determined whether there is duplication of effort.
Ms. Ellis responded that those services might duplicate because they do not see children every
day so the review process would look at the services provided when they come and what kinds of
outcomes are achieved, but because names cannot be released it is not possible to tell which kids are
attending the programs. She said that there is an emphasis on collaboration and information-sharing
among agencies and her observation is they do a good job with that.
Mr. Snow said that groups like IMPACT raise an issue and practically ―demand‖ funding, and
asked how the Board might deal with that.
Mr. Elliott explained that the review process addresses focus areas of IMPACT – such as early
childhood education, home collaborative initiative, etc., – and this analysis tries to demonstrate the
County‘s investment in the broader issues, not just in terms of agency requests. He said that things like
scholarship demand for daycare, etc, are evaluated to provide some indication of unmet need.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board has asked IMPACT for years to recognize and get involved in the
County‘s process, and he is not sure if that is being done.
Ms. Mallek said that this is supposed to be the year that work is being done and hopefully there is
some interaction with IMPACT on the missing funding gap for housing and Medicare, which was their
issue of focus last spring.
Mr. Elliott said that if the Board approves this process today, CCF along with County staff would
move forward with implementation in August – and hopefully IMPACT will touch base with the review team
in the fall.
Mr. Foley noted that IMPACT had put something on the table for consideration for next year, and
perhaps it could be worked in at that time.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Rooker commented that in the past they have made requests in March, so their track has
been entirely opposite of the County‘s evaluation and budget timeframe.
Ms. Mallek said that regarding duplication of services there may be many different places working
with the ―same‖ population, but some of that is driven by distance and transportation. ―The ―one place‖ is
not going to happen in reality. The County needs to be open minded to having scattered programs in the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Rooker mentioned the Center for Nonprofit Excellence and asked Ms. Ellis if the review team
had found them to be of help.
Ms. Ellis responded that the CNE is definitely a help. They were invited to serve on the steering
committee but they felt it would be a conflict of interest. She has been consulting with them on a regular
basis, and their focus right now is on collaboration. Ms. Ellis said that the CNE would be providing
technical assistance to agencies and programs focused on enhancing collaborative efforts.
Mr. Boyd asked about the guidelines for full funding, partial funding, etc, tied to organizational
performance, as it might encumber future Boards.
Ms. Ellis said that in the past it has been a rubber-stamp process tied to the County budget‘s ups
and downs, but that has led to inequities in funding – so this recommendation builds in some flexibility to
allow the team and staff to make recommendations for funding individual agencies. She stated that if an
existing agency came in with a new program , it would be considered as a separate and would not be
subject to that cap.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Board members have the final say regardless.
Mr. Elliott added that staff is asking for the Board to accept the report and endorse the principles,
with the understanding the Board has the final say.
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt recommendations 2-6 as set out in the executive summary
above. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Elliott mentioned that the City Council, in consideration of this matter at its meeting last night,
wants to consider putting funding in for the needs assessment.
Mr. Rooker said that if they do that, the Board would have an additional piece of information to
consider. He said that he would like to have a better understanding as to what the expected outcome
would be and how it might enhance the evaluation process.
Mr. Elliott responded that staff would gather more information and bring it back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker asked if the United Way does a needs assessment on a periodic basis. Mr. Elliott
responded that they identify community priorities, although it may not be a formal needs assessment
process.
Mr. Rooker suggested that if the County is considering doing this, the United Way and others
should be included – with costs shared more than two ways.
(The approved funding priorities are out below:)
FUNDING PRIORITIES
2. Board of Supervisors to endorse the following goals as highest priority for funding and that
applications successfully addressing these goals be given additional weight:
Community residents are physically and mentally healthy;
Community residents are safe and have basic needs met; and
Children in the community develop appropriately and succeed academically.
Additional goals were identified as important and should be considered for funding:
The community provides a vibrant economic climate;
The community manages natural resources to sustain current and future generations;
The community uses arts, culture and recreation; and
The community is inclusive and engaged.
3. The Steering Committee has identified indicators that reflect accomplishment of the goals and
recommends that programs be evaluated, in part, on their ability to promote attainment of the
goals.
4. Funding to be prioritized on successfully addressing the goals outlined in Recommendation 2
above, using the following criteria:
e. Demonstration of need and programming that effectively addresses need;
f. Evaluation of program outcomes showing program effectiveness;
g. Demonstration of financial benefit to the localities and/or program participants; and
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
h. Outreach to and engagement of underserved populations.
5. The funding process be modified as follows: NOTE: The Steering Committee recommended the
use of “non-contractual” rather than “discretionary” to define agency funding that is not mandatory
or required by contract. Beginning with FY12 funding, all funded agencies will enter into a
contract/agreement for both City and County funding. A list of agencies proposed for the ABRT
process can be found in Appendix 10 of the Report:
a. Non-contractual funding for non-profit programs should be consolidated into one process
with review by the ABRT or a subcommittee;
b. Arts and Cultural Programs and Festivals should be included in the ABRT process, and
reviewed by a subcommittee with relevant expertise;
c. All programs being considered for non-contractual funding should complete the same
application and be considered under the same criteria; and
d. Contractual or statutory funding should continue to be managed by the Offices of
Management and Budget.
6. The Steering Committee recommends that:
a. Applications are considered on their merits on an annual basis, using an objective scoring
system that rates them as Poor, Fair, Solid, or Exemplary. Programs rated Poor should
be defunded. Programs rated Fair should receive at least a 25% cut in funding and be
required to submit quarterly progress reports, with a second rating of Fair resulting in
defunding;
b. ABRT make funding recommendations for programs rated Solid and Exemplary based on
community need, effectiveness and program characteristics with existing programs rated
Solid or Exemplary receiving not more than a 10% cut in funding or a 20% increase in
funding per year; and
c. Funding for previously unfunded programs that demonstrate that they meet community
needs effectively be considered for funding if they receive a rating of ―Solid‖ or better on
their application.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Closed Meeting.
At 11:46 a.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees and
commissions and under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for a public facility
because a discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the Board. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 12:55 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member‘s knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the
closed meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 30. Closed Meeting.
At 12:58 p.m., Mr. Thomas moved that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss the performance of a specific individual
appointed by the Board. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 31. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:31 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member‘s knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
closed meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snow. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Snow offered motion to make the following appointments:
appoint Barbara Hutchinson to the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau with
said term to expire June 30, 2013;
appoint Aimee Fausser to the Jail Authority with said term to expire August 6, 2014;
appoint Peter DeMartino to the Region Ten Community Services Board with said term to expire
June 30, 2014; and
appoint Vincent Day to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee with said
term to expire December 31, 2011.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Public Hearing: SP-2009-00025. Dover Foxcroft (Signs #20&22).
PROPOSED: Church-related uses including fellowship hall, sports facilities, guest house, cottage,
craft barn, 14 new guest cottages, camping area.
ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.35, Church building and adjunct cemetery.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: Spring Hill Road (Route 606), approximately 0.25 miles northeast of the intersection
with Frays Mill Road (Route 641).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 21 Parcels 21-5A and 21-51A2.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is related to Spring Hill Baptist Church, which is next door
to this property in northern Albemarle. He then presented several pictures of the property. He said that
one part of the site would be used for church-related activities and outdoor worship service three times per
year and other activities associated with the Spring Hill Baptist Church. There are no new entrances,
structures or parking areas proposed.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff finds favorable factors as provision of a meeting place for groups,
no new built facilities being required and the existence of a conservation easement on the property that
limits the scale of use. He said that staff and the Planning Commission have both recommended
approval, with conditions as presented. When the Planning Commission took action on May 24, 2011, it
recommended that condition #2 be modified to make all of the new lighting subject to that condition. The
new condition would read: ―All outdoor lighting installed after July 6, 2011 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 before any new outdoor lighting is installed.‖
Mr. Rooker asked if the special use permit is for the larger parcel or the smaller two-acre parcel.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the special permit would be for the entire parcel, with the smaller parcel
resting within the larger activity area.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Katorah Roell, of Piedmont Development Group and representing Spring Hill Baptist Church,
said that this 80+ acres was donated to the church about eight years ago. He added that 51 acres of the
property is located in Albemarle and the other 30 acres are located in Greene County. They are here to
make it official that the church has the right to use the land they own for church functions.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Ms. Mallek offered motion to approve SP-2009-00025 subject to the two recommended
conditions, with the second condition as modified by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The approved conditions are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled ―SP Application‖
prepared by Natural Design Concepts,LLC and dated 3/7/11 (hereafter ―Conceptual Plan‖), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major element within the
development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• location of buildings and structures (all existing, no new).
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; and
2. All outdoor lighting installed after July 6, 2011 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 before any new outdoor lighting is installed.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Public Hearing: SP-2008-00038. Ragged Mountain Dam (Signs #6&11).
PROPOSED: New dam for Ragged Mountain reservoir.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide
safety and protection from flooding.
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.1(1), Dams, levees and other structures for water supply and flood control.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: At end of Reservoir Road (Route 702), 1.8 miles from the intersection of Reservoir
Road and Fontaine Avenue Extended (Route 29).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 75 Parcels 1, 47C, and 47C1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 20 and June 27, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this would be the special use permit to cover the actual construction of
the Raged Mountain dam. He said that the construction intends to increase public water supply, is
consistent with the W ater Supply Plan and is recommended in the Public Utilities Section of the County‘s
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the scope of this review is for the construction of the dam
and to addresses impacts of the dam construction – not to address the issue of increasing water supply,
as that has already been established as a policy within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has included the
plan for how the fill activity would occur.
Mr. Cilimberg said that this review had to address the traffic impacts on Reservoir Road, and
there are conditions intended to address those impacts. He also said that forest clearing above the dam
is addressed through conditions to minimize that impact. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the proposal is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does involve using onsite soil and rock, significantly reducing
work traffic needed for an alternate concrete dam. He said that unfavorable factors include road impact
and the clearing, which have been addressed through conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Planning Commission recommends approval with five conditions
addressing impacts as mentioned. He added that at its meeting, the Commission modified Condition
3.a.ii, to read: ―A maintenance-of-traffic plan that includes flaggers and a communication plan with existing
residents of the road ―and that assures unimpeded emergency vehicle access at all times”. Mr.
Cilimberg said that was to make sure that any obstructions created during construction can be addressed
from emergency vehicle access along the road. At the Commission meeting, they were particularly
addressing the needs of Camp Holiday Trails.
Mr. Rooker asked what the traffic count is for the road currently. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he
is unsure of that.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is higher in the summer when the camp is operating.
Mr. Cilimberg added that it is higher when the trails are being used, which would not be going on
during construction.
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Chris Webster, principle with the local office of Schnabel Engineering, addressed the Board.
Mr. Webster presented a rendering of the final earthen dam design, which considers a 30-foot raise with
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
the ability to be raised 12 feet in the future. He pointed out the inlet/outlet tower where water would be
conveyed through the embankment through solid rock down to the access vault of a principle spillway –
which also carries the 36 inch-diameter pipe that allows water to be pumped up into the reservoir. Mr.
Webster indicated the location of the auxiliary spillway which would only operate during an extreme storm
event – in excess of a 500-year flood event. He said that the dam has been designed in accordance with
the Virginia Dam Safety requirements and has now been submitted to them and is under review. Mr.
Webster noted that the dam has been designed for a PMF (probable main flood) event, more than a
1,000-year flood – or one with 32 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. He said that this dam replaces the
undersized spillway built in 1908, which has some safety issues as identified by dam safety, and will be a
major component of the Community W ater Supply Plan.
Mr. Webster reiterated that the dam has the ability to be raised an additional 12 feet in the future.
He then presented images depicting the reservoir filling the culvert beneath I-64 and extending to the
south side of the embankment. He said that in conversations with VDOT and FHWA, they have become
aware of the design and are working on the final design elements now for the I-64 embankment
component. Mr. Webster pointed out the 12-foot raise and presented slides illustrating 100-year flood
mapping, noting the existing floodplain and the proposed floodplain with the 30-foot raise and elevation for
an additional 12 feet (elevation of 683). He stated that with the new dam the flow is less for both 50 and
100-year flood events. In terms of replanting, the brunt of clearing would take place within the expanded
reservoir footprint – and additional areas of borrow to allow use of onsite soils, with a few extending above
the 30-foot raise that would be replanted in accordance with County design guidelines. The surface of the
dam will be placed with mobile grass per Virginia DCR criteria.
Mr. Webster said that Rivanna has also worked with City and County Parks and the Ivy Creek
Foundation regarding the trail relocation, with the majority of trails being above the 30-foot raise. He
stated that the project also includes a new pedestrian bridge to maintain connectivity of a trail system,
which will also include a boom for spill protection. Mr. Webster said that the engineers have coordinated
with VDOT, and Reservoir Road is the main access to the site. Mr. Webster reported that the traffic plan
would include a marshal site for vehicles to be located until they are cleared to pass by a flagger. They
have also been coordinating closely with Camp Holiday Trails. He then presented information on the
existing conditions of Reservoir Road including the paved area and what would be paved when the job is
complete, with the road maintaining a rural condition as requested by Camp Holiday Trails. There will be
no increase in traffic with the new dam. Mr. Webster said there is a maintenance plan with ongoing
inspection and watering as needed to keep dust under control.
Mr. Webster stated that the new dam does not rely on the integrity of the existing 103-year-old
structure, has extensive foundation treatments to control water seepage beneath the dam, is designed
based on an extensive underground investigation, and had input from a panel of dam experts who
provided design scrutiny and quality review. He said it does have a spillway structure that is separate from
the dam, which is a nice safety feature not common to all dams, as well as several control measures to
monitor seepage, groundwater pressures and several security features.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the cost of the dam is. Mr. Webster responded that it is currently
estimated at between $16 million and $20 million, but the design work is not completed for the I-64
embankment – although that range should still be reasonable providing the project is bid in the not too
distant future.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the money would be coming from. Mr. Webster responded that he would
let Mr. Frederick answer that question.
Mr. Snow asked how long it would be before the project goes to bid. Mr. Webster explained that
they recently had a contractors breakfast and over 100 contractors – both local and regional – have visited
the dam. The design work is now nearing completion and the permitting component is the next hurdle.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, said that the
RWSA has done a financing plan for their entire five-year capital improvement plan, which includes all
expenses associated with this project in terms of urban water rates. The RWSA has sufficient rates,
without raising any rates, at the present time to finance the dam project. He said that no specific date has
been set to bid, as they are monitoring reviews by the Federal Highway Administration and VDOT for the I-
64 embankment – and the DEQ and Corp of Engineers reviews on the permit modification. Mr. Frederick
indicated that the DEQ process is proceeding more slowly than what was reasonably anticipated back in
March, so the RWSA is watching this closely.
Mr. Rooker said that the DEQ has experienced staff cuts over the last five or six years and asked
if that was a precipitating factor. Mr. Frederick responded that the DEQ has indicated that staff cuts and
the Governor‘s hiring freeze have definitely slowed the process. RWSA did receive a letter from DEQ in
June. The part of the letter where DEQ stated that this was a major modification simply means whether
there is public comment or not. It does not have anything to do with how extensive the modification itself
is. RWSA was not surprised by that decision.
Mr. Rooker asked how this affects going out to bid on the project. Mr. Frederick replied that
RWSA could go out to bid with a request that contractors hold their prices for a defined time period, but
his feeling is not to do that to contractors. If the project can be estimated for finalization within 60 days it
could go out to bid.
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said that the professionalism and amount of work the
RWSA has accomplished to date are astonishing. Mr. Martin said that he hopes the Board will consider
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
bifurcating of the two permitting issues - to deal with the earthen dam permitting issues separately from
the phasing issues. He said the question to ask here is ―wherein lies the public interest‖. He stated that
he has suggested a sixth condition for this application to address stockpiling of materials to raise the dam
to the 42-foot level when necessary, as this is a reasonable condition to protect the public interest. It will
make help ensure that the reservoir is only disturbed one time.
Ms. Liz Palmer, a County resident, thanked the Board for their ongoing support of this project.
She said that if you consider this piece of property, that the City owns, with its immediate adjacent
conservation easements, it is about 5% lake and 95% forest – and when it is completed with this project, it
will be 90% forest, 10% lake. Ms. Palmer stated that this is going to be a tremendous improvement to the
area and a great public asset.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve SP-2008-00038 subject to the five conditions as presented. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was any interest in the sixth condition as suggested by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Webster said that the stockpiling would be for additional clay to be used during the second
phase and would take an area of one to two acres depending on how high the stockpile is used. The
current criteria is that any areas that are disturbed would be replanted – so one approach would be to
stockpile and then place topsoil and vegetation over it during its dormancy.
Ms. Mallek asked if an area has been identified as a possible location. Mr. Webster s aid that no
specific location for it has been identified yet and it will be left up to the contractor, but the area would be
within the expanded reservoir footprint – above the 30-foot raise and below the 42-foot raise.
Mr. Boyd asked about the pros and cons of doing that. Mr. W ebster stated that the advantages
would be for the contractor to excavate and save this material while the new dam is being built. Given the
limited area of the clay the options would be to stockpile the extra soils and reuse for the second phase or
the contractor would need to haul in clay from offsite premises for the second raise causing an additional
impact on Reservoir Road.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was contemplated that stockpiling would take place. Mr. Webster
responded that it is not in the current design to stockpile for the future phase.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was considered and then discarded. Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director
of RWSA, said that the original plan was to build the entire height, so no extensive researching was done
on the stockpiling. There is one con which has to do with handling the material a second time. Either way
they will have to come back and remove material from where ever it is laid which will have some additional
associated costs. He suggested that this not be a provision that the County controls by special use permit
but it be left instead to the purview of the Rivanna Board.
Mr. Rooker noted that there is nothing now that prohibits RWSA from stockpiling material. Mr.
Frederick agreed.
Mr. Boyd said he would leave the motion as stated.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks she understands the stockpiling being separate from the special
permit.
At this time the Chair asked that roll be called. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan consisting of the two
plan sheets titled ―Proposed Site Plan – Dam Site‖ prepared by Schnabel Engineering, and dated
3-18-201, and ―Reservoir Area Map Overall‖ prepared by Schnabel Engineering and dated 1-13-
2011 (hereafter referred to as ―Conceptual Plan‖), as determined by the Director of Planning and
the Zoning Administrator. To be in 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:
a. Approximate limits of disturbance;
b. General design and location of the new dam; and
c. Maximum normal-pool increase of 42 feet above the existing normal pool. While the plan
titled ―Proposed Site Plan – Dam Site‖ shows the dam design for a 30 foot increase, any
increase up to 42 feet accomplished by adding height to the top of the new dam would be
considered to be in general accord with the conceptual plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
2. If the use, structure or activity authorized by this special use permit is not commenced by [date 15
years from Board action], the special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority
granted hereunder shall terminate. For the purposes of this condition, the term ―commenced‖
means starting the lawful physical construction of any structure shown on the Conceptual Plan
referenced in Condition 1 above;
3. The applicant shall not begin work on the dam until:
a. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the County Engineer (or his
designee) have approved the following:
i. A plan of improvements to Reservoir Road to safely transport construction
vehicles to the site while maintaining access to private property, and minimizing
erosion and impacts to the stream. This plan may include:
• paved or gravel pull off areas at certain intervals;
• widening of Reservoir Road at key locations;
• grading and clearing for sight distance;
• other improvements that are deemed safety issues by the County
Engineer or VDOT;
• erosion control measures;
• pipe replacements or upgrades; and
• other drainage improvements to reduce erosion or impacts to the
streams and support heavy vehicles.
ii. A maintenance-of-traffic plan that includes flaggers and a communication plan
with existing residents of the road and that assures unimpeded emergency
vehicle access at all times. This plan shall also address any time of day
restrictions including the daily peak hour restriction and weekend or holiday
restrictions. The plan shall give VDOT or the County Engineer the authority to
monitor the contractor and make adjustments when needed due to conflicts and
unforeseen circumstances. A person who has a VDOT Work Zone Traffic
Control Certification shall be required on site at any time there are activities on
Reservoir Road that will restrict normal traffic operations.
iii. A maintenance plan to include regular inspection and documentation, and prompt
repair work
b. VDOT has approved any embankment changes to I-64; and
c. The applicant has completed any pre-construction work shown in the plans listed above;
4. After the completion of construction and prior to the release of water protection ordinance bonds
for the project, Reservoir Road shall be restored according to a plan approved by VDOT and the
county engineer. At the discretion of VDOT and the county engineer, the plan may require final
grading and the addition of stone for the gravel sections of the road and paving from Fontaine Ave
to the last access to a single family residence; and
5. Upon completion of earth-disturbing work in any above-water area upstream of the dam, the
applicant shall replant each area in such a way as to restore and maintain a complete, contiguous
wooded buffer around the reservoir. This planting shall be done according to a replanting plan
subject to the approval of the Program Authority of the Water Protection Ordinance. This planting
shall use native tree and shrub species listed in Appendix A of the Riparian Buffers Modification &
Mitigation Guidance Manual, published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation; the brochure Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping,
published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and/or Appendix 7 of the
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook, published by the United States Department of Agriculture
and shall be designed to re-establish vegetation consistent with the existing forest vegetation of
the Ragged Mountain Natural Area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted at the densities specified in
Appendix D, Table A of the Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Guidance Manual, published
by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, or to another established standard
intended for non-commercial forest restoration, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Quarterly Updates:
Item No. 25a. Albemarle County Service Authority, Gary O‘Connell.
Mr. O‘Connell, Executive Director, summarized the following report which was forwarded to the
Board:
1. FY 2012 Budget and Water and Sewer Rates: The Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) Board has approved the budget and rates that are effective on July 1, 2011. For
the second year in a row, we have been able to hold the monthly water and sewer rates at
the same level with no increase. I doubt we will be able to keep the rates the same for
the future given the large number of capital projects that the ACSA and Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (RWSA) have scheduled for the future. Two thirds of our budget is
based on the wholesale water and sewer rates of the RWSA.
(He commented that the ACSA‘s budget is just over $30.4 million in revenues, with $10.6 million
of that allocated for CIP projects.)
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
2. New Connection Fees: The ACSA Board approved the FY 2012 connection fees for new
development at a 6% increase. The connection fees are a financial way for new
development to pay for growth related capital costs, which relate to having the water and
sewer capacity to serve new development in the future. The calculations are very specific
to growth related capital projects for the ACSA and RWSA. We did a calculation for the
Board to make you aware that without the increased connection fees in our budget, the
average residential customer bill would have to increase 17%. We also did a comparison
for the Board between our new connection fee for a single family residential home, versus
the cost of installing a private well and septic system. On average, the ACSA‘s
connection fees for water and sewer are cheaper than the average costs for installing a
private well and private septic field.
(Ms. Mallek asked about the comparison between sewer and septic, when someone invests in
their own versus hooking up to the system. Mr. O‘Connell replied that for water the cost is about $6,000
for either; for sewer, the new ACSA connection fee is $5,400 with average individual septic at about
$6,500.
Mr. Thomas asked if the tapping fees are slowing the housing market down. Mr. O‘Connell
responded that it is a point of contention in the development community, but if it were a significant problem
there would not be the level of building there is in the area. He said that around the state in high-growth
communities, the new connection fees are higher.
Mr. Rooker said that he has had developers doing projects mention to him that the hook-up fees
are unreasonable compared to other locations, but there must be some balance between rate increases
and hook-up fee charges that cover capital needs.
Mr. Boyd commented that with hook-up fees, the users are actually the ones paying as opposed
to all the rate-payers.
Mr. O‘Connell stated that there will always be complaints about the rate increases, but currently
the ACSA and RWSA is engaged in several new sewer projects to try to handle the capacity for new
development from now into the future. Their ten year capital program also looks at projects that are
growth related to serve new development and that also gets factored into the new connection fees. He
added that every major development has had concerns about hook -up fees and the ACSA has done
surveys around the state to address those.)
3. Water Supply: The ACSA-funded design for the new earthen dam at Ragged Mountain
has been completed on schedule, and forwarded to the appropriate reviewing agencies.
The ACSA Board has been updated monthly and in detail on the status of the project.
The earthen dam project is scheduled to begin construction this fall. The City and the
ACSA are actively negotiating a cost allocation agreement, which we are hopeful will
conclude soon.
(Mr. Rooker asked if there would be a delay in bid on the sewage project until a cost-sharing
agreement is in place. Mr. O‘Connell responded that that has been the position so far. Mr. Rooker said
he also does not think they should be going out to bid on dredging until a cost-sharing agreement is in
place. He has seen that component accelerated for some reason ahead of moving forward on the real
water supply plan. He has supported maintenance dredging for quite some time, especially in the upper
reaches of the reservoir where it is inexpensive and reasonably cost effective. He emphasized that it is
not reasonable to go out for bid until the agreement is in place, and both should be in a comparable
position.
Mr. O‘Connell pointed out that Mr. Boyd added a condition at the approval, with the dredging study
being the first phase – the upper reaches – part one, segments one, two and three – with the approval for
the beginning of a study, not the full study, to get to the point of issuing an RFP. He said the second
condition added by the Board was that it would be subject to a cost-allocation agreement being approved.
He added that he thinks what is in front of the Rivanna Board right now follows what Mr. Rooker was
talking about, and ideally they will all come together at the same point. Dredging is one of the items that is
in the overall cost-allocation agreement – who pays what and how much.)
4. FY 2012 Capital Projects: Since much of the ACSA involves construction, major
maintenance and capital projects, I will outline briefly some of the more major projects we
have underway throughout our service area (see the attached map for the capital project
geographical location by district):
(Mr. O‘Connell reported that there are 27 active capital projects. In the first year there is usually
design work, working with property owners, getting easements, etc. – to put the ACSA in the position to
bid – with the second year involving the actual project construction. The projects are located throughout
the ACSA‘s service area)
Key West Water Line Replacement: This project is in the design phase. The
project will replace the old and obsolete lines which were once a part of a private
water system, which was taken over by the ACSA.
St. George Avenue/Buck Road (Crozet) Water Main Replacement: This project
will replace outdated water lines, and complete a loop system for reliability and
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
emergency backup. The project has been designed, and we are now working
with affected property owners to acquire necessary easements.
Ashcroft Water Improvements: This project involves water tank repairs, and the
addition of a tank mixing system for water quality improvement. This project will
also include the replacement of the Ashcroft Pump Station.
West Leigh Water Replacement: This is a second phase project on Williston and
Emerson Drives to replace outdated water lines.
Berwick Road: This water line replacement project is set to begin in early 2012.
Canterbury Hills Water Main Replacements: All work has recently been
completed.
Glenmore Tank Study: This project is currently in the study phase and at the
concept level of design. It involves a new tank for water system reliability and
emergency back-up. Staff has been working with East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department (prime siting location) and the residents.
Hardware Street (Scottsville) Water Extension: This project involves a new water
main for system reliability and pressure improvements. We are working with
residents to take the project to bid in the near future.
Buckingham Circle Water Line Replacement: The design for this project is
complete and ready to go to bid.
Oak Hill Sewer: This project involves a partnership with Albemarle County
utilizing CDBG funding. The design portion of the project is complete. We are
currently working with residents to obtain the easements necessary to proceed to
construction.
Crozet Sewer: This is a major project to study necessary sewer system
improvements to prevent I/I (infiltration and inflow of groundwater and rainwater).
This comprehensive program is in the second phase of line and manhole
rehabilitation.
(Mr. O‘Connell added that the ACSA has a regular program where they run a mobile camera
down the lines throughout the system to identify any places where there are problems, and they fix them
almost immediately. They are looking at larger basins and particular lines to keep groundwater and
rainwater out of the system.
Mr. Rooker asked if they find something can they do repairs the same way. Mr. O‘Connell said
that for some of them, they can, but they are finding a lot of cracked manholes and lines – as well as caps
in people‘s yards that are allowing water in. The caps get busted by lawnmowers going over them and
then others break over time. If they are in any kind of drainage area, water goes straight down into them.
The ACSA is finding them to be one of the major problems.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were doing any information campaigns so that people know to do this. Mr.
O‘Connell responded that they send information out and target particular property owners, with crews
making them aware if they notice problems when they are out on jobs.
Mr. Snow asked what percentage the cleanouts are causing of the overall problem because that
would drastically reduce the estimate for fixing infrastructure. Mr. O‘Connell responded that they don‘t
know overall and that is what they are trying to measure. He added that it was a surprise as to how many
there are.
Mr. Boyd suggested having landscapers and yard maintenance personnel looking for issues with
the caps when they are on the job. Mr. O‘Connell commented that that‘s a good idea.)
North Fork Regional Pump Station and Sewer Line: This new sewer force main
and pumping station project is underway to serve the future development in the
northern Route 29 urban corridor of the County. This is the largest project for the
ACSA, ever. Construction work is proceeding on schedule.
(Mr. O‘Connell said that the North Fork regional pump station and sewer line will cost $10.5 million
– serving North Pointe and the Route 29 North area, north of the Martha Jefferson Hospital and up into the
University Research Park.)
Meadowcreek Sewer Rehabilitation: Another major sewer system rehabilitation
project, currently working in the Fashion Square Mall area, with approximately
40% of this phase of the project complete.
Arden Place Water Line Extension: This project involves a water line extension
to connect to the new Arden Place development off Rio Road.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Hollymead Water Line Replacement: These large water line replacements are
being done in phases by ACSA crews. The next area of work is to be done on
Easy Lane.
SCADA: A computerized control system is being designed to connect all of our
utility system controls into one central computer system. This enables on time
readings/controls for any changes in our system, such as breaks, power outages,
equipment failures, weather damage, etc. This is a proactive approach using
established technology to monitor and see trends in our utility system to better
serve our customers.
Meter Testing: Beginning early July we have an outside third party testing all our
large meters (approximately 300), and 10% of our residential meters to be sure
they are reading accurately. This is part of a quality control and long term
maintenance project in our system.
10-Year Capital Program: I list here some of the capital projects being planned
over the next few years (2013 and later): Ivy-Flordon Water Connection, Jackson
Street Water Line Replacement, Woodbrook Sewer Rehabilitation, Orchard
Acres Water Line Replacement, Berkley Water Line Replacement, Ednam Sewer
Rehabilitation, Northfields Sewer Extension, Fontaine Water Line Replacement,
Jefferson Village Water Line Replacement, PVCC Area Sewer Rehabilitation,
Carrsbrook Sewer Extension, Hessian Hills Sewer Extension, Glenorchy Water
Extension, Deerwood Sewer Extension, Key West-Dunlora Water Line
Connection (System Emergency Redundancy), and others; 41 total projects.
5. Active Private Development Projects: Attached you will see a listing of the water and
sewer projects that are being installed to serve new development. ACSA approved plans
and construction inspection and approval, private development construction and funding.
Most of these projects you have seen before, two new ones for us are the offsite sanitary
sewer to serve the Stonefield (Albemarle Place) project, which will connect into the
enlarged and under construction Meadowcreek regional sewer line; and line extensions to
serve the new nearly 300-unit multi-family project, The Reserve at Belvedere.
_____
Mr. Boyd asked if the ACSA would replace the water lines in Key West actually going to the
houses, or just the main line to them. Mr. O‘Connell responded that the Authority would replace the lines
that serve the meter and the line from the meter to individual homes, with eventual replacement of every
main line. He said that a second project being considered is a crossing over the river from Dunlora to Key
West so there are two services.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many hookups are planned for Scottsville. Mr. O‘Connell said he would
have to get that information; most of what they are doing is replacing existing lines or to have a second
service.
Mr. Rooker asked how the ACSA arrives at the estimates for hook-up costs in new developments.
Mr. O‘Connell responded that ―it is an art,‖ looking at past trends and developments coming through the
Planning Department. They tend to be conservative.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Board receives Quarterly Building Reports from the Planning
Department and for a couple of years the numbers have been down. This list includes a significant
number of projects, but from a budget standpoint, it is not as easy to predict revenues from those. Mr.
O‘Connell responded that most overall budgets have been pretty close to being on target. He added that
a developer must have a line put in first just as a road would be, and when the meter is set on a particular
property the developer pays the hook-up fees. The list of projects is developer-funded projects.
Ms. Mallek noted that with commercial property they must pay the hook-up before they get the
building permit.
Mr. O‘Connell clarified that there are up-front fees to install the line, then the connection fees
when the meters are actually set.
__________
Item No. 25b. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Tom Frederick.
Mr. Frederick, Executive Director, addressed the Board and apologized for not getting a report to
them ahead of time. He then handed out and summarized the following report:
1. Excellence in Water Works Performance Awards: In June the Virginia Department of
Health presented RWSA with excellence performance awards for drinking water quality
from the Observatory, South Fork Rivanna, North Fork Rivanna, and Crozet Water
Treatment Plants. This award is for very high achievement, and I ask you join with me in
recognition and appreciation of our water plant operating staff.
2. Ragged Mountain Dam: Within the past day the local news media have reported on
DEQ‘s letter announcing they consider our permit modification request to be a ―major
modification‖. We are not surprised by that specific decision, although we were hoping it
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
would not have taken 3-1/2 months from the date we submitted our request to receive this
notice. DEQ classifies all modification requests as ―major‖ or ―minor‖ solely from the
perspective as to whether or not the content requires a public comment process and is
not a comment on the extent of the modifications. We are giving priority response to all
requests from the agencies while encouraging the process forward, but it is fair to
recognize that the agencies control the timeline. DEQ staff has commented to us that
―staff budget cuts‖ and a ―hiring freeze‖ have impacted the timing of their review.
We had a very constructive meeting with FHWA and VDOT in June and the final design
for the I-64 embankment improvements is underway. The key issue will be how to
rehabilitate or renew a culvert at the bottom of the embankment. Additional public
participation will be planned later this summer.
3. Rivanna Interceptor Pumping: At the May meeting the RWSA Board of Directors adopted
two separate motions to move forward with preliminary level design work to further
investigate Concepts A, D, and E. The new Concept E is a long tunnel between the
existing station in Woolen Mills to the WWTP site. Mr. Gaffney voted for both motions to
allow the process to move forward as the County and City representatives were divided
on which concepts each favored. This next phase of work is expected to be completed
and presented to the Board in September. A critical Board decision on the single
preferred concept is due December 31 to avoid likely penalties and enforcement actions
by DEQ under a Wastewater Consent Order between RWSA and DEQ that I discussed
with the Board of Supervisors in April.
4. Comprehensive Regional Water Plan: RWSA is completing a regional water supply plan
for the County (as well as City and Town of Scottsville) under Virginia regulations that
apply to all localities. Additional public meetings are scheduled July 11 and 12 in Crozet,
Scottsville, and Charlottesville. Following a ―four boards‖ meeting that includes a public
hearing in September, the Board of Supervisors will be asked to adopt a resolution
approving the plan for submission to DEQ by November 2. County staff from Community
Development and the County Executive‘s staff have assisted us with information for this
process.
Today a draft report on water demand forecasts is being publicly released from AECOM,
our engineering consultant. In summary it suggests we plan for a water demand in 2060
of 17.01 mgd for the Urban system, 0.98 mgd for the Crozet system, 0.09 mgd for
Scottsville, 0.22 mgd for privately operated community well systems, and 3.95 mgd for the
aggregate of individual well systems. With respect to the public systems, forecasted
demand in Crozet and Scottsville is less than present safe yield, and the target for the
Urban system further validates the proposed Ragged Mountain Reservoir expansion that
is already permitted and for which a modification request is presently pending.
5. Dredging of the South Fork Reservoir: In June the RWSA Board received a report from
HDR Engineering on further steps they recommend to properly use the PPEA process for
dredging a portion of the South Fork Reservoir, to include in addition to an RFP a market
sounding analysis, development of specific proposal evaluation criteria and support, a
draft comprehensive agreement and performance specifications, and potential services in
further financial planning. HDR also recommended the RWSA Board adopt a budget
committing specific public financing to avoid a perception that the RFP process was
speculative in nature. The Board authorized a $3.5 million budget and authorized the
market sounding analysis, and asked that the evaluation process be on the July agenda.
(Mr. Boyd asked how the $3.5 million was calculated. Mr. Frederick explained that they took the
low end of HDR‘s cost estimate for segments 1, 2 and 3 of the sand recovery piece and the low end of
their estimates on potential revenues from sand – as the construction market is still depressed.
Mr. Boyd said Rivanna is putting this out for bids under the basis that the contractor will take the
risk of being able to resell the materials.
Ms. Mallek asked if that means that the maximum risk Rivanna has is the $3.5 million. Mr.
Frederick said if they stay with PPEA, it does not prohibit a contractor with coming up with an innovative
financing scheme. He said that contractors could ultimately ask for more public financing, but the budget
states upfront this is how much public financing they are committing with no obligation for more.)
6. Disinfection By-Product Regulation: EPA has adopted more stringent regulations for the
by-products of required disinfection processes for drinking water and RWSA completed
an engineering evaluation this spring that confirmed the need for improvements to all five
RWSA water treatment plants. Design is now beginning on the addition of facilities to
convert free chlorine to chloramines at the Urban system plants and to add Granular
Activated Carbon at the Crozet and Scottsville plants. The project budget is $9 million, all
the result of a federal unfunded mandate.
(Mr. Frederick pointed out that the EPA has no comprehensive, long-term strategy for the use of
these substances; they are incremental in nature.)
7. RSWA Board Retreat: The RSWA Board will be holding a 2-hour ―retreat‖ in the ACSA
Board Room at 8:15 am on Monday, August 1 for the purpose of discussing future solid
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
waste issues and RSWA‘s role. My interpretation of public decisions over the past several
years is that this community has moved well beyond the initial purpose of the 1990
Organizational Agreement and RSWA is not responsible for regional solid waste
programs beyond directives from the County and/or City. I would like to see the County
define its long-term goals over the next year for publicly-sponsored solid waste programs
as the best way to facilitate what I understand are the goals of the retreat.
_____
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Graham‘s report would be prepared before Rivanna‘s retreat. Mr. Graham
indicated that it would not be.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the Board has a strategic goal of making a decision on the long-term
solid waste issue, and it is going to be difficult to move forward without a decision on whether there will be
a regional approach.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that quite a few citizens and several haulers have mentioned that they
could easily accomplish separation of all trash and all mixed recyclables, which would improve productivity
of recycling. She thinks that there needs to be some further investigation on that.
Mr. Frederick stated that he has asked Mr. Brownley, the Ivy Manager, to coordinate a field trip
later this summer to visit other area county sites and see how they are handling solid waste – and perhaps
Albemarle County staff can be included in the field trip.
Mr. Rooker noted that there was a study started about four years ago which indicated that there
are more cost-efficient ways of disposal, with better recycling. At some point – assuming the City is going
its own way – the County needs to decide on a system that makes sense. He said that some of the
information needed was gathered as part of that process and should be considered.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Frederick provided that report to the Rivanna Board but it was not completed
and there were no recommendations included. It‘s really just raw data.
Mr. Frederick then went back to Item 4 from his report. He reported that the draft report on the
regional water supply plan would be available for the public on the RWSA website and is the basis for
three public meetings next week – Monday night in Crozet, Tuesday morning in Scottsville Town Hall, and
Tuesday evening at Burley Middle School in Charlottesville. He said that AECom has recommended,
based on updated forecasting, that the urban system plan for a 2060 demand of 17.01 mgd, the Crozet
system plan for 0.98 mgd, and Scottsville plan for 0.09 mgd. Mr. Frederick reported that privately
operated community well systems would need to operate at 0.22 mgd, with the aggregate of individual well
systems throughout the rural area plan for 3.95 mgd. He said that Community Development staff and the
County Executive‘s office helped provide input for these numbers.
Mr. Frederick mentioned that there is a four-boards meeting planned for September that will
include a public hearing required by DEQ regulations. After that the County will need to adopt a resolution
by November 2nd; this Board will need to adopt the resolution.
Mr. Frederick stated that the 17.01 mgd is about 10% lower than what was forecasted in 2004 but
still very much validates the outcome of the community water supply plan – including the expanded
Ragged Mountain Reservoir, and validates the decisions to raise the reservoir 30 feet initially, focus on
more water conservation and possible dredging, with the additional 12 feet if necessary. He said that
AECom classified per capita water use as very low compared to other localities across the country,
meaning the ACSA and City are already doing a good job in promoting water conservation. Mr. Fredrick
stated that they indicated there are a few other things that could be done to promote conservation, such
as the City adopting an inclining rate block structure that the ACSA already has – with $75,000 for the City
to do a rate study with savings in City water consumption of 0.18 mgd as potential over 50 years as a
result of that single action.
Mr. Frederick said that the consultant also recommends an ordinance requirement for all new
homes built after the adoption of the ordinance to EPA Water Sense New Homes Program Standards,
with an estimated cost over 50 years at $78 million – with a potential of 0.66 mgd savings in year 2060.
He said that most of that cost is placed on the builders, not the government, so it will be passed onto
homebuyers.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone has done a cost recovery on that type of installation on a per unit
basis. Mr. Frederick said that is not addressed in this report and he can ask AECom to take a look at it.
Mr. Frederick stated that rather than having a polarizing debate about this report he would
encourage a conversation about the recommendations, their benefits, and their cost impacts.
Mr. Boyd asked if he feels the latest demand analysis validates the 50-year water supply plan and
if there may be some people who think it validates dredge only as a plan.
Mr. Frederick responded that some may feel that way, but it does not. Gannett Fleming has
indicated in their safe-yield analysis that dredging the entire reservoir out, followed by continuous dredging
over 50 years, would mean a maximum safe yield – using the then current Rivanna voluntary policy for
stream flow releases was 14.3 mgd. He has not seen any data that would suggest the impact on streams
have been looked at. Even if everything is adopted in this plan in the best in class water conservation
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
guidelines, the maximum potential savings in water use over 50 years is 1.2 mgd, which could drop 17
down to 15.8 – but still more than any reasonable alternative dredging could provide alone.
Mr. Rooker commented that it seems there would be some enhanced stream release
requirements imposed. Mr. Frederick said that if the community were to submit a new permit for dredging
only, DEQ would very likely say that sticking only with existing water releases is not enough, which
reduces the affect of dredging even further.
Mr. Rooker asked what the difference between current stream flow requirements and the permit
requirements in gallons per day capacity. Mr. Frederick responded that the answer is complex because it
is based on where you are and in what point in time, but what DEQ used as a basis is a flow-distribution
curve that takes the entire meteorological record and establishes what stream flows would be with
voluntary policy, with new standards – and then graph them. The graph clearly shows that there are more
benefits in the new plan than there are in the old. He added that Dr. Richter of the Nature Conservancy
had significant input in the recommendations and has also supported this premise.
Mr. Frederick explained that Gannett Fleming recommended supporting 18.7 mgd with the
voluntary policy stream flows requiring a storage capacity in Ragged Mountain of 2.189 billion gallons.
During the discussions with The Nature Conservancy, he said there was some argument on their side to
make the reservoir even bigger to enhance stream flows to a vigorous degree – but in conversations with
RWSA attorneys and advising agencies, it was decided to hold the storage at 2.189 billion gallons but look
for a better method, so they came up with a better method that enhances stream flows.
Mr. Snow asked how to get the word out to the general public, who seem to be constantly
confused on what the facts are. Mr. Frederick responded that more needs to be said in public discussions
about the environmental objectives of ecological stream flows because much of the arguments for pro-
dredging as a sole solution would do much more damage to ecological flows. In fact, according to
Gannett Fleming‘s numbers, it would mean less flow in the streams than currently.
Mr. Rooker said that the letter DEQ sent almost two years ago indicated that a plan of a 13-foot
replacement dam rise combined with dredging would not likely be permitted. He asked why anyone would
think that just dredging would be permitted as a water plan. He said that he does not understand how
people can simply ignore the fact that they are pursuing a potential plan and spent two years going
through the process, would unlikely to be approved.
Referencing today‘s news headline, Ms. Mallek asked about the possibility of dividing the permit
between the part that can be more rapidly approved and the part that will take longer. She asked if it would
help if the Board adopted a resolution.
Mr. Frederick said when that was first discussed in April he had a conversation with Mr. Bill Ellis,
the attorney who provides legal advice to the RWSA on the water supply and permitting issues, and Mr.
Ellis advised not to pursue that as he felt it would cause more difficulty with regulatory agencies. He
added that Mr. Ellis is meeting with Ms. Melanie Davenport in the near future to discuss several issues
and he could mention it at that time. Mr. Frederick said that in the mean time, he does not recommend
the Board take any action if the attorney does not feel it is helping the process.
Mr. Snow asked if a press conference was necessary to help people understand the issues. Mr.
Frederick responded that if there are vehicles to getting information out, such as the tax bills used a few
months ago, the RWSA would be happy to provide assistance.
Mr. Rooker said a lot of people commented to him on that mailing and how much they appreciated
it, and if inaccurate information is being circulated that vehicle could be used again. He added that
Charlottesville Tomorrow has done a pretty good job on getting the facts out on the water supply plan.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. LEAP Overview, Cynthia Adams.
Ms. Adams, Executive Director of the Local Energy Alliance Program, said LEAP seeks to lead
the effort to retrofit buildings with energy efficient technologies, with the overarching goals including cost
savings, job creation, energy self-reliance and local economic development. Ms. Adams said LEAP
implements residential and commercial programs locally, provides education and outreach to residents
and businesses, participates in workforce development with its contractor network, and seeks to
document the benefits of energy efficiency through evaluation, measurement and verification.
She stated that LEAP had 15 contractors in its network at this time last year and now has 36
contractors. LEAP has participated in onsite presentations with contracting companies to educate them
on building science and their programs. LEAP provides on the job mentoring for building analysts who
engage in energy assessments with homeowners; and LEAP provides work scope review and approval for
them. Ms. Adams said that LEAP has on the job technical training for service providers and quality
assurance for homeowners. She added that LEAP also provide subject matter trainings and seminars,
with a series coming up in August.
Ms. Adams reported that LEAP has participated in a number of education and outreach activities
in the community over the last year, and also hosts free Home Energy 101 and subject matter workshops
at their ecoREMOD office in town. She stated that there will be 12 AmeriCorps volunteers coming in for
eight weeks in August and September, who will be doing some neighborhood canvassing and free energy
reviews. Ms. Adams reported that LEAP holds open office hours with homeowners and renters who come
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
in and talk about what plans they may have with their buildings, questions and issues, and other matters.
She stated that LEAP works closely with the Engineering and Architecture schools and U.Va., with the
Rod man Squad engineering students becoming certified to perform home energy analyses and other
student groups working on communications pieces. Ms. Adams noted that the ecoREMODd home is
located on the corner of Ridge and Elliott Avenue that the City of Charlottesville and U.Va. renovated and
retrofitted, which is used for open houses and as a site for field trips. She reported that a few architecture
students have been doing a research project over the summer to create a local guide to energy efficiency
in historic homes, compiling information on retailers, service providers and products that would work well
for local building stock.
Ms. Adams said that LEAP provides cash rebates for homeowners and commercial property
owners through the grants it receives from the Department of Energy. She stated LEAP has low-interest
financing options available through partnership with the U.Va. Community Credit Union, has pre-qualified
contractors for all programs, third-party quality assurance and home performance with Energy Star
certificate for homeowners who participate. Ms. Adams said LEAP currently has five full-time staff, five
U.Va. interns, and three programs – residential, commercial and low-income multi-family. She stated that
to date LEAP has enrolled 300 households into its programs, 245 of which are in mid-retrofit or have
already completed their work. In May 2011, she said, they launched their commercial program with seven
businesses participating thus far and one business whose retrofit is completed. Ms. Adams stated that
the low-income multi-family launch was in April, with 400 potential units identified locally for participation.
She stated that LEAP started with a $500,000 grant from the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance
that the County and City applied for together. Since that time, they have been able to leverage other
funding totaling $3.37 million. Ms. Adams said that LEAP rolls out a few contests, including the Home
Energy Makeover Contest – which had over 1,100 entries last year. This year, she said, LEAP is
partnering with the Credit Union as part of their power-saver home energy loan program – with the
geographic area broadened for this particular contest – to include all of the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission. Ms. Adams stated that they also have the Charlottesville Area Better Business
Challenge, with approximately 20 businesses signed up currently and partnership with the City, the
County, the Darden School, the Chamber of Commerce and the James River Green Building Council. It is
meant to be a way to work with local business owners to help them make their businesses more energy
and water efficient.
Ms. Adams reported that LEAP was started as the first energy alliance organization but is not the
last, with a larger conversation happening at the state level – and a voluntary energy efficiency goal of
10% by 2022, as well as a Virginia Energy Plan that the Governor requires the state energy office to revisit
yearly. Ms. Adams said that the Governor‘s goals for making Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast
include growing in-state energy production by 20%, expanding public education on energy efficiency and
energy generation, and maximizing investment in clean energy resources. She stated that Virginia is the
second largest importer of energy behind the state of California, and by 2020 the state will be short over
7,000 megawatts of new power.
Ms. Adams reported that the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has done a study
on the state of Virginia, looking at the levelized cost for new power generation within the state, and
determined that the average levelized cost runs from 6-8 cents a kilowatt hour up to 12 cents a kilowatt
hour – with energy efficiency costing 3 cents a kilowatt hour. She said that the concept of the ―negawatt‖
has been embraced in other states, with the savings being viewed as the equivalent of generating new
power. Ms. Adams emphasized that homeowners and business owners benefit greatly from energy
efficiency, as it makes buildings more affordable and helps address indoor air quality issues. Energy
efficiency addresses ventilation issues, moisture issues and other durability issues that can improve the
health of the occupants, not just the building. She said that the idea of energy efficiency has taken off and
there are now energy efficiency alliances in Ham pton Roads/Richmond, in Southwest Virginia, in Danville,
and the counties of Fairfax and Loudoun. Ms. Adams stated that with 1% market penetration and 2.4
million houses at $5,000 per retrofit, you are creating $125 million in private investment and 2,000-3,000
jobs – with $9.6 million in homeowner energy savings accruing year after year.
She stated that LEAP has been working with others in the industry to establish an energy
efficiency roundtable to help engage business leaders and promote job growth and creation, and has also
been working with the State Corporation Commission on the creation of energy efficiency programs – with
a meeting coming up on July 20th. Ms. Adams noted that if one in ten of the area‘s 33,000 homeowners
got an energy efficiency retrofit, that would mean $1.7 million saved by them each year – with $19.8 million
going to small and medium sized contractor businesses, creating approximately 418 jobs. Ms. Adams
said she is looking forward to talking more about the results of energy efficiency in the future.
Ms. Mallek thanked Ms. Adams for her work.
Mr. Boyd asked why the private sector would not just take care of this situation, if there is so much
money to be saved and so many jobs to be created. He asked why she thinks an organization like LEAP
is necessary, or is it because people are just not self-sufficient enough to do this on their own.
Ms. Adams responded that a number of well-known researches such as McKenzie have looked
into this issue and found that people do not have a lot of faith in the effort because it is not a product that
can be ―returned‖ if it does not work out as promised. She also said a lot of people do not know who to
trust in the contractor industry, and LEAP helps people find contractors who can perform custom retrofits
for their homes.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Rooker said that he made a significant investment in one aspect of energy efficiency for his
home and, of course, contractors have a vested interest in selling their products, so it is helpful to have a
third party provide certification for those contractors who will guarantee their results.
Mr. Rooker said that the same question should be asked for the Economic Vitality Plan, adding to
Mr. Boyd that he is doing that on a much bigger scale and there is an assumption there that somehow
business needs government‘s help in order to make our economy viable.
Mr. Boyd also said that in looking at LEAP‘s Form 990 the project seems to be government-
subsidized, and he was under the impression it was going to be self-sustaining.
Ms. Adams responded that it is her intention to do everything possible to limit reliance on
government funding, but the grant funding has been ―the starter, not the fuel for the car.‖ She added that
LEAP is meeting with its governance board, with a focus on business development and expansion.
Mr. Rooker noted that part of that funding is pass-through to individual homes, adding that if LEAP
is responsible for creating jobs in the community, saving citizens substantial sums of money, and requiring
less investment in capital to produce energy. He added that there is a community benefit in that.
Ms. Adams added that there are demand-side management programs in many states, with
additional ones coming before the SCC from DominionPower this year.
Mr. Snow commented that the LEAP program is great and he appreciates the education aspect of
this over the mandated type programs.
Ms. Mallek said that the contests have been very popular and have drawn a lot of attention.
_______________
NonAgenda. At 3:36 p.m., the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 3:46 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Presentation: Shared Destiny; Shared Responsibility, Gordon Walker.
Mr. Walker, Executive Director of JABA, introduced Mr. Chris Murray, Business Development
Director, who would be sharing in making this presentation. Mr. Walker said that the Board helped create
JABA in 1975 through a joint exercise of power agreement along with the other five localities in Planning
District 10. He said that JABA‘s original mission statement had a focus on planning, service and advocacy
– including production of services that would enable people to live independently and be secure at home
for as long as possible, with the ultimate goal for people to avoid institutionalization. Mr. Walker stated
that JABA revised its mission statement three years ago to emphasize three cornerstones: 1)
sustainability – preserving the programs that work well and meet set outcomes as well as satisfaction for
those served; 2) intergenerational - an effort to bring populations together and not silo programs that
serve different ages – which is a filter used for any new program; and 3) healthy aging – which has led
JABA to be very involved in local food usage, access to healthcare and encouraging older generations to
help younger people with the aging process as it is a lifespan issue.
Mr. Walker said that JABA‘s strategic plan is driven by growing challenges: 1) the demand for
JABA services has gone up, with assistance being sought for things like Medicare – with 1,150 people
coming into JABA last enrollment period, from mid-November and the end of December, and 800 of them
had not being served by JABA before; 2) working to ensure the community is senior friendly by working
with the Comprehensive Plan and with businesses to make sure the community is safe and accessible to
seniors; 3) government funding is flat or down; 4) aging is a lifespan even; 5) staff compensation - paying
staff accordingly for their increased workload while traditional funding resources are going down; 6) cost of
doing business is going up - cost of health insurance to employees and the cost of health insurance to
people JABA serves - people on Medicare do not have all their healthcare expenditures paid for, with 21%
of an older person‘s income going toward healthcare; and costs of food and transportation have also
risen; and 7) greater dependence on nongovernmental revenue sources.
Mr. Walker said that the majority of JABA‘s funds now are non-public, with 20% of funds being
from federal sources, 9% from state government, 23% from local government, and the remainder from
other sources (fees, grants and fundraising). He stated that for every dollar received from Albemarle
County, JABA is able to leverage $7.18 of additional revenue. In FY08 JABA served 622 persons, FY09,
686, FY10 718 persons and FY11 projected 804; those are served unduplicated meaning they are not
counted more than once. These are people who receive actual hands on service, not just answering
people on the telephone. This also does not include the 230 tenants in JABA apartments and the 105
residents in Mountainside or the assisted living facility in Crozet. Mr. Walker reported that JABA provides
services based on demand and often times are supplementing what families are trying to do. He noted
that JABA is seeing an increase in the number of older women living alone.
He stated that the community has experienced exponential growth in the number of elderly
people, with a doubling of the 65+ population in the County projected by 2030 – and even more in rural
counties – with one out of five people in Albemarle being over the age of 65 by that year. Mr. Walker said
the number of families trying to provide care continues to increase as does the need for access ible,
affordable housing. He also reported that the poverty rate among the elderly is increasing; according to
the census one out of seven people over the age of 65 living below the poverty level of $11,000 annual
income. He added that the elderly is also an asset to the community. Mr. Walker added that there are
people on the waiting list for a number of different services – home renovations/repairs, free or low-cost;
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
employment resources; home care; food; medical/dental, especially for those un-/under-insured; financial
services; utility/fuel assistance; emergency funds; and low-income housing.
Mr. Murray said that JABA is addressing many unmet needs with partnerships – such as My
Home for Life, an online product store that sells grab bars, ramps and other aging-in-place devices. Mr.
Murray said that JABA has partnered with the Charlottesville Association of Realtors and the Chamber of
Commerce to encourage migrating retirees to the area, and JABA is also working with a home healthcare
agency, housing partnerships and a caregivers‘ software maker to help meet a dual bottom line (do well
and do good). JABA is working with Albemarle to implement the 2020 Plan: Aging in the Community.
He reported that on Hillsdale Drive, JABA partnered with the Albemarle to make the road more
senior-friendly – developing crosswalks and traffic-calming devices. JABA is responding to local pressure
points: social and economic acupuncture: local revenue shortfalls; achievement gaps; workforce changes
and affordable and accessible housing. Mr. Murray said JABA is working through its Friends In School
Helping (FISH) and the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) in 16 schools with over 50 volunteers
helping hundreds of children at a time to help with the achievement gap. He stated that there is a
shortage of caregivers, especially entry-level care assistance, and the burgeoning senior population will
provide increased competition amongst jurisdictions for these jobs. Mr. Murray said this underscores the
need for affordable and accessible housing, especially in the urban ring where it‘s close to services, as
caregivers will also need housing.
Mr. Murray said that the continuum of choices for senior housing range from independent living to
general community housing to nursing homes – but AARP surveys show that 87% of baby boomers want
to age in place. Mr. Murray said that communities such as the Colonnades and Westminster Canterbury
are available to only the top 3% of the population, with assisted living costing $3,500 per month. JABA is
working to ensure that services are available at home so that seniors can remain in their residences for as
long as possible. He stated that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area is a great place to age, and seniors
spend their income in the community. Mr. Murray said that the need for more affordable assisted living
already exists, with Timberlake Place providing 27 apartment units in a livable scale community in Woolen
Mills – within walking distance to the Downtown Mall, C‘ville Produce, and the farmer‘s market. He stated
that at U.Va., 3,744 employees are over the age of 55. Mr. Murray reported that JABA is working on a
PACE program and will be partnering with Riverside Health System and U.Va. to bring all-inclusive care to
the elderly from an interdisciplinary team. He emphasized that PACE has a proven track record of
reducing costs and improving the quality of care.
Mr. Murray concluded by stating that JABA and Albemarle County share a destiny and share the
responsibility to work for area seniors.
Mr. Dorrier congratulated Mr. Walker and Mr. Murray on their work, stating it is some of the most
important in the county. He asked if Meals on Wheels demand was increasing.
Mr. Murray responded that it is increasing; aging in place has its downsides because it can be
isolating. He added that aging in place works better in urban areas because of many more services. He
added that Meals on Wheels is a great way for isolated seniors to be visited by people.
Mr. Walker pointed out that JABA received a grant from the USDA to do a study on flash-freezing
of local food, which would allow for distribution to those in rural areas. He said that currently about 75,000
meals are purchased from Florida each year, so this would generate local business and create a more
nutritious, better tasting product line. Mr. Walker noted that when gas prices increase it is harder and
harder to find volunteers to deliver meals.
Mr. Dorrier asked if JABA foresees mass transit being a help for them in the future. Mr. Walker
said that JAUNT is a great partner but their prices are increasing also. He added that it is critical to
provide housing where people can come together and thus reduce the cost of providing the services they
need. He mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce began an ―aging in place‖ workgroup, which started
out with five or six people and now it has about 50 or 60. JABA is trying to find ways to respond in a
positive way to the growing older population. JABA is trying to position itself in a way that enables it to
partner with others and/or provide people with technical assistance when they develop a product that is
going to be cost-effective.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Walker if sees the County as being able to meet the needs of the elderly from
the baby boomers. Mr. Walker responded that it is difficult to say. Baby boomers are going to put
demands on the system. He added that communities can plan appropriately and prefer for what is
inevitable which is why JABA talks about shared responsibilities. He also said that there has been a
significant change in the workplace, with people working and volunteering longer in life.
Mr. Murray added that there is a huge volunteer component in the community that has not been
tapped. Mr. Snow commented that during its recent retreat, Board members discussed the use of
volunteers in the community.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned Olli (Osher Lifelong Learning Institute) and the intellectual capacity of older
people. Mr. Walker said JABA has partnered with Olli; people can get lower tuition through Olli if they
volunteer through JABA.
Ms. Mallek thanked JABA for the presentation.
_______________
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Agenda Item No. 28. Biosolids, Tim Higgs, DEQ- Valley Regional Office.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
Biosolids are treated solids removed from wastewater at sewage treatment plants. This material
is a very good source of fertilizer and both the federal and state governments have supported the land
application of this material on agricultural and forestal lands as an alternative to burying the material in
landfills or otherwise disposing of it. Over the last several years, Board members have seen an increase in
citizen concerns with the land application of biosolids in Albemarle County. Those concerns have included
smell and potential health and environmental issues.
Citizens have questioned what the County‘s role is in this activity. Staff has responded that this
program is a state administered program and that the County has no authority to regulate this activity,
which has frustrated a number of citizens. While the County has no authority to regulate this activity, the
state program does provide a limited opportunity for the County to be involved in the inspection of these
land applications. This has raised a question as to whether there is an advantage to the County‘s
participation in the inspections of biosolids being applied on property.
This agenda item is being brought forward to the Board in order to provide the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) an opportunity to present an overview of Virginia‘s biosolids
program, answer any questions or concerns of Board members on the program, and determine if there is
any interest in the County implementing a new and enhanced level of service through implementation of a
biosolid application monitoring program as permitted under existing state code.
To assure that the Board and the public have some understanding of this program, DEQ has
provided copies of a brochure answering frequently asked questions (Attachment A) and existing state
regulations pertaining to biosolid applications (Attachment B). In addition, County staff has prepared a
map of currently permitted sites for land application of biosolids (Attachment C). The map shows that
there is at least one permitted property in each of the County‘s six magisterial districts. The County
Attorney has prepared a memorandum explaining the respective roles of DEQ and the County in
regulating the application of biosolids (Attachment D). In summary, the memorandum concludes that
localities are preempted from regulating biosolids, including its quality and when, where or how it may be
applied. Localities are limited under State law to, at their option, the role of having inspectors monitor the
application of biosolids.
State law and the attached regulations clearly show the biosolids program is to be administered by
DEQ with two opportunities for County involvement in the permit process:
1) Offering comment on advertised permit applications. This is the same as provided to any
other person in the County.
2) Inspection of land applications occurring in the County as more fully discussed below:
State law and the program‘s regulations provide an opportunity for the County to oversee
the inspections of permitted land applications in the County. The County‘s inspection role would
be limited to determining if the land application is done consistent with the permit conditions
established by DEQ. The County would have no role in establishing those permit conditions.
The regulations provide for reimbursement of costs for a County inspection program but staff
believes the County would not recover all of its costs.
The following example is provided to illustrate how state reimbursement might not prove
effective in recovering all County costs:
DEQ has noted cost recovery is usually estimated at $2.50/dry ton of biosolids. DEQ
records indicate that 12,718 dry tons were applied in the County between January 2008 and May
2010. At $2.50/dry ton, this equates to $31,705 over 29 months; approximately $1,100/month.
Assuming the County hired a part-time employee to perform these inspections, with the need for
the employee to have a vehicle, a computer, normal equipment and no benefits, this would
roughly equate to paying the employee $10/hour thereby creating the need for the County to
subsidize the cost of this position a minimum of $7.50/hour. Adding the cost of a vehicle,
computer and other incidentials, the state‘s share of the cost of this inspector would be less than
25 percent translating to the County being responsible for the balance of funds (75%) for a
position that has no regulatory authority and would in essence be monitoring a state program
yielding yet another unfunded mandate for the County to absorb.
It should also be noted that this would be very sporadic work. For example, there were no
land applications between August 2008 and March 2009 or between December 2009 and May
2010. Additionally, the biosolids permits only require that the County receive a 48 hour advance
notice of land applications, meaning it is impossible to predict workload more than a couple of
days ahead of time. On the other end of the spectrum, the data shows there were days where 4
different field applications were simultaneously occurring, meaning one inspector would not be
adequate to cover all of these sites. This information suggests a County inspection program
would really require multiple inspectors to insure coverage of all land applications.
Recognizing the difficulty of maintaining certified inspectors in this type of position and with the
historical workload, if there is interest in a County inspection program, staff recommends considering
hiring an additional full time Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) inspector, then training at least 3 of the
E&SC inspectors to be certified for biosolids inspections. This way, the additional inspector could offset
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
the biosolids demands while assuring resources are available with a very sporadic demand. With an
annual cost of roughly $50,000 to $60,000 per year for a new E&SC inspector (includes salary, benefits,
use of a County vehicle and equipment), the County cost over the above 29 month period is estimated at
$121,000, of which the County could be reimbursed roughly $31,000. This roughly equates to an
additional annual expense of $40,000 to have a qualified inspections program.
Finally, it must be noted that a County inspection program may not address any of the citizen
concerns with the smell of the materials or potential public health and environmental impacts. While a
County inspection program could provide a higher degree of assurance that permit conditions are being
met, it is suspected that very little will actually change on the ground. It should also be noted that the
public might not distinguish between the permits being issued by the State and inspections performed by
the County. The County could find itself spending a significant amount of time correcting mis perceptions
that the County is issuing these permits.
As noted in the above discussion, an inspection program as recommended by staff would result in
an annual budget impact of approximately $40,000. Before committing to this program, staff would
recommend a more detailed analysis of the cost of such a program.
This work session is for information only.
If the Board has an interest in further considering an inspection program, staff would recommend
that such a program be considered in the context of the fiscal year 2012-13 budget process in order to
provide more details on how such a program might function, its budget impact and be considered in the
context of other programs and initiatives.
If the Board is interested in proposing a State legislative position on biosolids permits, staff would
recommend this be evaluated during the annual legislative considerations.
_____
Mr. Foley reported that there has been some confusion in the press recently about the
community‘s ability to regulate and determine the application of biosolids. The purpose of this meeting is
to provide DEQ with the opportunity to present an overview of Virginia‘s biosolids program and determine
if there is any interest in the county implementing any new and enhanced level of service through
implementation of a biosolids application monitoring program as permitted under existing state law. He
said that the County Attorney has indicated that localities are preempted from regulating biosolids
including its quality and when, where and how it may be applied. Pursuant to state law, Mr. Foley said,
localities may at their option have inspectors monitor the application of biosolids. He noted that the
County‘s inspection role would be limited to determining if the land application is done consistently with the
permit conditions established by DEQ. The County would have no role in establishing those permit
conditions. Mr. Foley added that the executive summary includes anticipated costs of a monitoring
program, with positions being handled during the budget process – with the Board perhaps taking a
legislative position in the future.
Mr. Foley reiterated that this is really a DEQ responsibility and County‘s role is pretty limited even
if it were to do some more than what it is doing now.
Mr. Tim Higgs, of DEQ in Harrisonburg, said that he has with him today their Water Compliance
Program Manager, Gary Flory, and Field Inspector/Permit Writer, Tad Williams. Mr. Higgs said that there
are two companies that currently have biosolid permits in the County. One of the permits is an existing
Department of Health permit – VDHVUR biosolids use regulations permit that was carried forward from
the Department of Health after the program was received at DEQ as of January 1, 2008. That com pany is
is Synagro Central, LLC – which has a permit in the County for land application on a farm that is just over
100 acres. The other permit is a DEQ VPA permit that belongs to Recyc Systems, Inc. – which currently
stands at 5,900 acres with a modification that would put the total acres at over 6,500 acres.
Mr. Rooker asked where that company is from. Mr. Higgs responded that Recyc is located in
Fauquier County, near Culpeper.
Ms. Mallek asked if this permit (for the 6,500 acres) is under old rules. She asked if the
modification would have required notification of local meetings. Mr. Higgs responded that he is not sure if
the public notification policy when issuing permits is changing under new rules. If the modification request
is greater than 50% of the original permit acreage there is a public meeting to address the technical issues
and accept comment, but if it is less than 50% letters are sent out to adjoining landowners. He said that
this modification qualifies as less than 50%.
Mr. Rooker asked how long a permit is good for after it is obtained. Mr. Higgs responded that
once a permit is obtained it is good for 10 years.
Mr. Snow asked about the fee structure when dumping is done. Mr. Higgs explained that
currently the one-time permit issuance fee is $5,000, with an annual maintenance fee of $1,231 collected
each year. He said there is an additional $7.50 per dry ton that is land applied, paid to DEQ. All of the
funding goes into the sludge management fund – used to fund all of the DEQ compliance and inspection
programs as well as any local monitoring or reimbursement done around the state.
Mr. Snow asked how many dry tons are spread in the County each year. Mr. Graham responded
that in 29 months there was approximately 12,000 tons or about 6,000 dry tons per year.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone at DEQ had considered the ability of localities to meet imposed TMDL
requirements, if biosolids have been recently spread. Mr. Higgs responded that the TMDL program staff
continuously ask him for information about what would come down into the watershed.
Ms. Mallek asked if this is going to be part of the County‘s TMDL allocation to have offsets for the
extra tonnage. Mr. Higgs said he cannot respond to that specifically as to whether it will or will not be.
Mr. Graham said that there will not be that level of resolution with the TMDL information because
there is no way to tell whether there are biosolids or chemical fertilizers being used, which have the same
nutrients.
Mr. Flory concurred with Mr. Graham, adding that through the TMDL process there are load
allocations assigned for land application/agricultural activities, and the biosolids permitting processes are
evaluated as part of that but the resolution is not ―pound for pound‖ on acres. There is not a calculated
load the same as you would for an actual wastewater treatment plant. He added that the conditions of the
permits are designed such that there should not be impacts to surface waters or ground waters based on
the land application rate, timing and the buffers associated with that.
Mr. Snow asked about the requirement of all failing systems to go to biofilters, with the
simultaneous use of these materials while systems are failing. Mr. Flory responded that enhanced
systems are part of the watershed implementation plan, and the biosolids program is supposed to provide
nutrients to the crops without providing inputs to the surface water.
Mr. Snow said that in a homeowner‘s regular septic system you would not have the heavy metals
and things that are brought with the biosolids. Mr. Flory responded that that was incorrect; it would be the
same with a septic system because one of the biggest sources of copper is the piping used in homes, and
anything washed down the sink goes to the septic system just as sanitary waste does. He said there is an
industrial pre-treatment process that is designed and intended to limit the amount of metals and other
materials that enter the municipal systems.
Ms. Mallek asked how prevalent the pre-treatment is for the Blue Plains plant. Mr. Flory
responded that he does not have that information, but pre-treatment programs are implemented broadly
because the responsibility falls on the locality. He said that pre-treatment is required where there are
identified significant sources, but not at smaller plants where significant sources have not been identified –
such as a small town with a small wastewater treatment plant and no industries using it.
Mr. Rooker asked whether it is Class A or Class B biosolids being put down in the County. Mr.
Higgs responded that it is all Class B biosolids, which are the lower grade.
Mr. Rooker commented that unlike testing done with the FDA to prove that a substance is safe,
the approach here is almost a presumption that this is safe and someone has to prove it is not. He cited
text that states: ―Additional research is being conducted to determine whether these amounts pose
significant concerns.‖ Mr. Rooker said this is somewhat problematic when there are thousands of tons of
stuff being spread before that question has been answered, which has been a concern to citizens. He
mentioned that much of what is online is anecdotal regarding ill effects, so overall on either side it has not
really been established whether these materials are safe or not.
Mr. Rooker then asked if there are adequate personnel at DEQ to actually monitor this program,
given staff cutbacks and the budget situation. Mr. Higgs responded that at this point they have adequately
inspected and carefully reviewed permitting activity and have monitored compliance in this program. This
program is not funded through general funds so funding is available. It is open to interpretation as to
whether they have adequate staff.
Ms. Mallek noted that the General Assembly has set out these parameters, with the regional office
responsible for implementation.
Mr. Flory said that the biosolids program is the only program he has that is fully staffed, because
of the funding associated with it. They do go out to every farm, do inspection and then do follow-up
inspections. With wastewater treatment plants they go out once a year and once every five years
depending on the situation. With biosolids they are out there in the field virtually every day because there
is significant concern, and because of [those concerns] the General Assembly established a program that
had a fee structure that allows him to be fully staffed and to send those people out in the field every day
for those land applications.
Ms. Mallek noted an increase in field inspectors from three to 20 is good. She then asked if there
is groundwater testing done after the fact in the proximity of these sites to help provide baseline
information. Mr. Higgs responded that they do not typically do groundwater monitoring on the sites, but if
there is a site that receives biosolids annually at greater than the agronomic rate they can ask for the
monitoring to take place. They have very few of those sites and have not seen any reason to request that
at this point.
Ms. Mallek asked when a permit would be given to allow someone to go over the proper
ecological limit. Mr. Higgs responded that there are several ways to come up with a land application rate –
whether you are spreading it frequently (annually) or infrequently (once every three years) – as determined
by the agronomic rate at which you want to apply biosolids. He added that you can land apply annually at
greater than 50%, not to exceed the total agronomic rate, or annually, not to exceed 70% of the agronomic
rate. You can also land apply once every three years at a full agronomic rate.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Rooker commented that the DEQ does not set the parameters for the composition of the
materials in the biosolids; DEQ is given that. It is DEQ‘s job to see that things are being done within the
established limits. Mr. Higgs said that is correct.
Mr. Rooker said that the concern by citizens is whether the limits being put on the content
materials and the amount being put on property are really safe limits. Mr. Higgs respond that the EPA
establishes those criteria through risk assessment procedures and gives them to the DEQ, with the
General Assembly following suit in Virginia. He added that it is a hard question to answer to the public – is
there more DEQ should be doing.
Mr. Rooker noted that Augusta County Board of Supervisors had refused to allow out-of-state
biosolids to be used on local property, and asked if there is increasing public resistance to biosolids. Mr.
Higgs responded that as the public is more educated on this, there will be more interest concern as there
is a real need and a real opportunity to discuss the content and use of biosolids.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Higgs if he would use this on his family‘s vegetable garden. Ms. Mallek
noted he wouldn‘t be allowed to do it. Mr. Higgs said it would not be possible for him to do that because of
the restricted access timeframes, but Class A material would be suitable.
Mr. Snow asked what the time delay for Class B is. Mr. Higgs explained that the time delay for
Class B is 38 months for harvestable food crops, with grazing and haying restrictions at 32 days.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. Higgs if he would feed that to his animals. Mr. Higgs asked Mr. Snow if he
would use it on his farm. Mr. Snow replied he would not.
Mr. Higgs said if his family chose to use biosolids on their farm, he would feed it to his livestock.
He pointed out that he farms in West Virginia, where biosolids are not permitted.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Higgs had mentioned he wished there was more testing done to
determine what the make up and consequences are of using biosolids.
Mr. Higgs stated that if he land-applied biosolids to his farm, he would feed those crops to his
livestock, but he does not use this material. He added that he has not seen anything yet that leads him to
believe it would cause a significant problem.
Mr. Rooker said there are people who are flagrantly violating the rules. He also thinks people are
concerned about what EPA is establishing as safe and not safe, and how good the information and data is
that they are relying on in order to set the standards. There is also a political element to it all. He then
asked what things Mr. Higgs would recommend that a county do to assist citizens in this process. He
asked what notice goes out before activity occurs. Mr. Higgs said that currently there are signs posted at
the entrance of the farm visible by public right-of-way where the biosolids would be used at least 48 hours
before the delivery of the biosolids and for 48 hours after the process, so anyone who drives by is notified.
Mr. Rooker commented that a sign would only help someone driving by and asked if a notice is
sent to the locality. Mr. Higgs explained that there is a 14-day notice and 100-day notice requirement, with
the 14-day notice coming to DEQ and a voluntary effort by all companies to provide daily notification – and
100-day notice required to be sent to localities.
Mr. Rooker said if the County is going to spend money on this it should be on notifications, as
citizens are currently not getting notice now until a permit is applied for.
Ms. Mallek said that the 100-day notice involves every site in the state, not just the one being
done locally, and that is one of the things being changed in the new rules.
Mr. Higgs said that the final rules would not be ready until the beginning of next year.
Mr. Flory said that last month there was a follow-up meeting of the technical advisory committee
whereby a draft of the regulation was provided. Mr. Flory reported that the committee had some
recommendations, which are now being considered by the agency, and if there are substantial changes to
the draft of the regulation it will go out again for public comment. He added that there are some changes
that suggest the 48-hour timeframe is not long enough, so that is being recommended as five days notice.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is a preparation period for putting the biosolids down. Mr. Flory said
one purpose for expanding the notification is so that citizens and adjacent property owners are aware, and
to allow time for DEQ to be made aware of recent or health issues that need to be taken into
consideration. Within the new regulations there are some property line buffers that can be expanded.
DEQ has begun that procedure now but it is being memorialized in the draft regulations.
Mr. Rooker asked if the locality can request and get a notice. Mr. Flory responded that it is
possible for the locality to request that notice from the permittee. The notice DEQ staff receives is
essentially a notice of where they need to go to do the inspections. DEQ gets that notice that day. He
added that biosolid waste application companies may not know what source they are bringing until the
night before, as most of the companies have contracts with numerous facilities.
Mr. Rooker asked how long after the two day period does the person have to put down the
biosolids. Mr. Flory said that there is no end to when the dumping can occur, if it doesn‘t occur on the day
originally planned.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Mr. Williams also stated that the proposed regulations would require a 14-day notice for the DEQ
to be alerted as to where biosolid companies may be land applying, as well as making the daily notice
mandatory to DEQ and available to the locality.
Mr. Snow asked who writes the rules. Ms. Mallek responded the General Assembly, and they are
approved by the Governor. The Board‘s next role is to figure out if there is anything that people agree on
and then ask the legislators for their help.
Mr. Higgs said he also encourages working with DEQ on their GIS program for all the land
application sites. He added that County staff does communicate with them on a frequent basis when
there are concerns and questions.
Ms. Mallek asked if any consideration is given to roadway access requirements, access through
neighborhoods, etc. Mr. Flory said there is nothing in the draft that changes that part.
Ms. Mallek asked how the material in the truck is matched up with a farm, if it is not known until
the last minute what it might be. Mr. Higgs responded that that is another area within the current
regulations that is difficult to implement, but the DEQ does require that the nutrient management plan be
submitted within 30 days to DEQ, after application. The plan is intended to be based on what was applied
to be most accurate for the farmer and DEQ to do their job.
Ms. Mallek commented that that is after the fact. Mr. Higgs said they require a plan on site to
address the activity.
Ms. Mallek asked if the strength is the same from plant to plant and truck to truck. Mr. Higgs said
that the content strength of the material is essentially the same, depending on the treatment methods at
the plant. Mr. Flory said the written plan might specifically address a particular type of analysis but they
have a rate sheet that has been developed that may include other sources. Their land applying based on
agronomic rate and that is going to vary depending on the source, but the plan may not be approved until
afterwards because it is a dynamic process.
Mr. Rooker asked where the testing of the material occurs and who does it. Mr. Higgs responded
that the material goes to a lab for testing and the permittee is responsible for monitoring of that material.
Mr. Williams added that the permit the County is dealing with here is being tested in two different
places – and Recyc does their own testing in addition to the sources testing.
Mr. Rooker asked if the materials are treated at the plant before released to the permittee. Mr.
Williams responded, ―yes‖.
Ms. Mallek asked if the testing is just for the EPA-listed items or if it is for all different components.
Mr. Higgs replied they have followed 503 regulations as set forth by EPA but Virginia has also requested
testing of several other elements beyond that.
Mr. Rooker said he feels a bit more assured knowing that DEQ has the personnel in order to
monitor the biosolid usage, although there is still is a concern as to whether the products are safe for
communities – and determining that is outside of DEQ‘s purview.
Ms. Mallek commented that the mystery components are the biggest source of alarm.
Mr. Flory mentioned that when counties implement a locally monitored program it provides an
additional level of comfort to citizens. Although DEQ staff goes out to the site on a daily basis, they are
not on site all day long; they make sure the buffers are being maintained and the permit requirements are
being met. Depending upon the amount of activity on site they can be there anywhere from one to three
hours. He added that he is not aware of any county that has hired someone to fill the role of monitor as
they instead do cross-training of personnel such as building inspectors.
Mr. Snow asked how many loads come into the County each day, week or month. Mr. Graham
responded that in the winter none comes in, but then there are peak periods where a thousand tons may
be put down in a short period of time.
Mr. Rooker asked in a given year how many days contractors would be putting down material in
the County. Mr. Higgs responded that he and Mr. Williams probably come over a total of 30 days
combined in a given year. It could be ten days in a row and then none for a month or two. It also depends
on the crops in the field and how the farmer is managing those crops and whether the permittee can
spread during a certain window of opportunity. That window of opportunity seems to be the same time for
a vast majority of the farmers in the area because they are all working around the same weather schedule.
There is also the crop rotation.
Mr. Thomas asked how people with allergies and health issues might be helped. Mr. Higgs
explained that if DEQ is notified there are health-sensitive individuals in the area of land application, land
buffers can be extended. He added that the DEQ works closely with district health departments, but it
remains the individual‘s responsibility to protect his or her health. Mr. Higgs said that if there is a
recommendation from a physician for the DEQ to do something extra, they will do it.
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Flory mentioned that Mr. Higgs and Mr. Williams have the full authority now through policy to
expand residential buffers where there are people with health problems – and that can be done without the
health department.
Mr. Higgs stated that sometimes third parties such as Maryland Environmental Services will go
onsite and monitor the biosolids for quality on behalf of the treatment facility.
Mr. Rooker asked if Maryland Environmental Services shows up in Albemarle and if they are
testing the material from a chemical standpoint. Mr. Higgs responded that they have been showing up in
Albemarle County. He is not sure what their contractual obligations are but they primarily monitor material
for pH levels in order to meet vector attraction reduction requirements.
Mr. Flory noted that Maryland Environmental Services are paid through contract with the
wastewater treatment facility, not with the biosolid companies.
Board members thanked DEQ staff for attending the meeting and responding to questions.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board would now allow members of the public to make comments.
Mr. Ray Caddell, a resident of 334 Dover Road, said that Maryland Environmental Services is a
private contracting firm – but Mr. Flory clarified they are a quasi-governmental agency. Mr. Caddell said
the whole process is designed to confuse constituents. He said that he cannot imagine why all these
layers and testing are necessary with the EPA and DEQ if the material is so safe. He asked what they are
hiding. Mr. Caddell also said no one answered the question of what they are testing for, other than pH.
There is no chemist or scientist on the site looking at arsenic levels or any of the other heavy metals.
Mr. Carl Tenor, a resident of the County, said that he has been working with Recyc for nine or ten
years now and has nothing but the utmost confidence in the material and the application. He said he uses
this material on both sides of his home. The material being used today is far superior to the ―sludge‖
being used back in the 70s when his grandfather used it. Mr. Tenor stated that he agrees it does not
make sense to use outside material when local material is just being disposed of.
Mr. Snow asked Mr. David Blount if the County could advocate for changes at the state level.
Mr. Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison, responded that the issue rears its head every few years.
He added that there were some modifications in 2007 that moved the program from the Health
Department to DEQ. He said that the notification process and timeframe related to posting versus actually
spreading material could possibly be discussed within DEQ and through public comment. Mr. Blount
stated that Augusta and Shenandoah Counties have had concerns and their legislators may bring
something forward.
Mr. Rooker said there seems to be a period of time to comment before the current round of
regulations are changed, and the County should weigh in beforehand – such as the notice period.
Mr. Boyd stated that the notification should also include localities as well as neighbors.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that at the least biosolid sites could be listed on the County‘s website
and perhaps advertised through utility bills.
Mr. Flory noted that the draft regulations as currently written contain enhancements to the
notification process.
Mr. Foley suggested staff draft a letter in support of regulatory changes to increase notification
requirements.
Mr. Snow asked what it would cost to take an individual sample and do random monitoring. Mr.
Graham responded, ―A test for what?‖ He said that in wastewater there is a ―priority pollutant scan,‖ which
tests about 122 chemical compounds, and mentioned Mr. Rooker having his water tested.
Mr. Rooker said it was an online site that did it for $125, but that was for water and he is not sure
how that would translate. He noted that what it does not tell you which substance levels are ―safe‖ or not.
Mr. Snow said he would like to test a couple of samples from different sites to see what is in them
for his own assurance.
Ms. Mallek commented this was a good information seeking session.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 29. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters from the Board.
_______________
July 6, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
Agenda Item No. 30. Closed Meeting: Personnel Matters.
This item was moved to the early afternoon.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 31. Certify Closed Meeting.
This item was moved to early afternoon.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 32. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:28 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 09/07/2011
Initials: EWJ