2011-09-07September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
September 7, 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 9:03 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.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Foley to clarify changes to the agenda prior to Board members making their
suggestions.
Mr. Foley stated that Agenda Item #5c “Proclamation recognizing September 21, 2011 as
International Day of Peace” has been added to the regular agenda. Consent Agenda Item #7.10
“Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project” has been moved to Agenda Item #21 on the regular agenda. In
addition the Board needs to adjourn to September 13, 2011, 3:00 p.m., City Space, for a joint meeting of
the four Boards to discuss the W ater Supply Plan. Finally, the Board will be meeting on September 14,
2011, 4:00 p.m., for a work session on capital financing.
Ms. Mallek said she has provided Board members with a proposed resolution on the Route 29
bypass to be discussed after VDoT’s update by Mr. Utterback.
Mr. Boyd asked if the items on Cool Counties and the Route 29 Bypass would allow for public
comment, or if people would need to speak under “Other Matters.”
Ms. Mallek said that given the number of people who have signed up to speak, she thinks it would
be appropriate from them to do so under “Other Matters.”
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt the final agenda. 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.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Recognitions.
Item No. 5a. Proclamation recognizing September 2011 as Truancy Month.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing September 2011 as Truancy Month and
presented it to Ms. Debbie Chlebnikow:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (JJAC) is charged with
convening stakeholders to study local juvenile justice practices; and
WHEREAS, the JJAC develops and implements strategies to prevent delinquency and promote
accountability and rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, truancy has long been identified as an educational, social and juvenile justice issue worthy of
public and private attention; and
WHEREAS, the JJAC has identified truancy prevention as an area of focus in its efforts; and
WHEREAS, Truancy Prevention Awareness Month will encourage and promote daily school attendance;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize September, 2011 as
TRUANCY PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and call this observance to the attention of all our
citizens.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Chlebnikow said that JJAC has identified truancy as a very important issue that affects
everyone in the community. She thanked the Board for recognizing September as Truancy Month.
_______________
Item No. 5b. Proclamation recognizing October 2011 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing October 2011 as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month and presented it to Ms. Robin Goldstein:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, violence against women, children, and men continues to become more prevalent as a
social problem in our society; and
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but
cross all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity, security, and
humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control and/or
abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging, affecting individuals and society as a whole; and
WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we
must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often suffer grave physic al, psychological and
financial losses; and
WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to
bring peace and equality to the home; and
WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic violence on
their own—we must work together to educate our entire population about what can be done to prevent such
violence, support victims/survivors and their families, and increase support for agencies providing services to
those community members; and
WHEREAS, for 32 years, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the County of
Albemarle and five surrounding communities of Planning District 10 providing unparalleled services to women,
children and men who have been victimized by domestic violence. These services include 24-hour crisis
hotline, safe shelter, case management and support services, legal advocacy, information and referral and
safety planning; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, in Albemarle and the five surrounding counties of Planning District 10, the
Shelter for Help in Emergency offered 24-hour intervention and referrals in response to 801 hotline calls; safe
shelter to 115 women and 102 children, for a total of 3,981 nights; over 4,000 hours of advocacy and
counseling; including advocacy services to 134 women who did not stay in our residential facility; provided
information and educational materials to over 10,000 members of the community; with support from 7,500
volunteer hours;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the important work being done by the
Shelter for Help in Emergency, that I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2011 as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS
MONTH, and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the
Shelter for Help in Emergency, and to work toward the elimination of personal and institutional violence
against women, children and men.
Ms. Goldstein thanked the Board for recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month. She announced that the Shelter for Help and Emergency would be holding a silent vigil on
October 3rd at Jackson Park at 7:00 p.m. She also stated that they have brown bag lunches every
Wednesday from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. at the SHE offices.
_______________
Item No. 5c. Proclamation recognizing September 21, 2011 as International Day of Peace.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing September 21, 2011 as International Day
of Peace and presented it to Mr. Robert McAdams:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the International Day of Peace has been recognized and celebrated by millions of people
worldwide since it was started by a United Nations resolution almost thirty years ago; and
WHEREAS, many civic organizations and religious congregations in our community have formed a
coalition to both celebrate the International Day of Peace and to challenge our community to
envision peace and non-violence in our society; and
WHEREAS, the benefits of peace and non-violence in our community include greater personal and
communal well-being, greater public safety, and greater effectiveness in the resolution of
disagreements;
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize September 21, 2011 as the
International Day of Peace
in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and call this observance to the attention of all our
citizens.
Mr. McAdams thanked the Board on behalf of the many civic organizations and congregations that
have been working on this challenge to envision peace in the community. He also asked the Board to
communicate this resolution to any sister municipalities with whom they have a relationship around the
world. He stated that there would be a celebration of the International Day of Peace on Wednesday,
September 21st, at the Burley Middle School Auditorium, at 7:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Emerald Young, on behalf of the Piedmont Sierra Club, as its Transportation Chair, stated
that she was present to express their opposition to the Route 29 Bypass. The reasons for opposition are:
exclusion of the public, health risks, risks to the water supply and financial risks. She emphasized that
she wants to clarify that this is a fight between the forces that want to privatize the public sector and the
public. Ms. Young said that the business party #1 is the Republican Party, with the business party #2
being the Democratic Party – with #1 having “a more accelerated pace of privatization.” The Route 29
bypass is an example of such a project where private interests work through elected officials to push
through ill-conceived expensive and badly designed public works. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work
because whoever is going to build it is going to get paid.
Ms. Young said that she distributed to the Board a letter she had submitted to the Louisa County
Board of Supervisors suggesting that they petition the Governor to transfer some of that omnibus money
to the repair of their damaged schools and to fortify the dangerous nuclear North Anna reactors. That is a
better use of public funds than pushing through ill-conceived projects. She said that she expects public
officials to protect her from these types of projects.
__________
Mr. Bill Tomlin, a resident of 2855 Earlysville Road, said he lives about 3,000 feet from the new
Rockydale Quarry mining operation. Mr. Tomlin stated that he and his neighbors have presented a
petition to the Board, with about 40 people objecting to the quarry because of its noise levels and the
blasting effects on their homes and wells. He said that he has worked with the Mr. J.T. Newberry of the
County Zoning Department who has taken three separate readings at his house. He has been working
with Mr. Vernon Harris on the blasting issue. Mr. Tomlin also said that on August 2, 2010 his house was
jolted to the point it felt like a 4.0-5.0 magnitude earthquake, and it took him about a month to discover he
had an active mine behind his house. He stated that he has been working on this with Mr. Thomas and
would continue to work on it until they can find a resolution. He asked the Board to review the County’s
noise ordinance as it needs to have new limits. Mr. Tomlin added that he has also been working with
Delegate Rob Bell on having limits for the blasting, noting that it has an impact on property values and the
environment.
__________
Mr. Charles Battig presented a power point presentation entitled “A Cool County” (copy on file in
the Clerk’s office). Mr. Batting said that the James City County Board of Supervisors dropped ICLEI
membership last month and a dozen other counties across the U.S. have also withdrawn. Mr. Battig
presented “an actual document” with scientists who disagree with the principle of climate change. He
presented a graph depicting over 10 years showing that carbon dioxide is increasing but temperature is
actually going down. He said that if the entire state were shut down to nothing right now for 50 days, the
rest of the world would still surpass Virginia in greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Battig stated that Cool
Counties is “an obsession with carbon emissions out of touch with the real world’s need for reliable and
low-cost electricity based on the unproved notion that manmade carbon dioxide is a prime driver of
climate.” He also said that hurricane activity has actually been declining even as CO2 has gone up. In
2011 it is all about “clouds, cosmic rays and climate and not CO2.” Mr. Battig asked the Board to rescind
its membership in Cool Counties. He stated that people are not uninformed to energy costs. They make
their individual energy use decisions based on their individual needs and resources. If emissions go up, it
might well be an indicator of increased economic activity; much needed in Albemarle County as only
eleven new jobs were created in the County and City in all of 2010.
__________
Mr. John Cruickshank addressed the Board, stating that he came before them five years ago to
urge them to sign the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. He said that 1,330 community
members had signed the Sierra Club petition asking the City and County to take this important step to
ensure a healthy future for our country and the planet. He stated that the people of Albemarle were very
proud when the Board signed the agreement and a year later adopted the U.S. Cool Counties Climate
Stabilization Declaration, which led to the County’s participation in the Charlottesville Citizens Committee
on Environmental Sustainability and the Local Climate Action Planning Process. Mr. Cruickshank said
that significant progress has been made in lowering energy costs, reducing greenhouse gas emis sions
and improving air quality. He stated that during the past five years, the certainty of climate change has
been confirmed – and 97% of climate scientists worldwide believe that human actions are contributing to
the overall rise in global temperatures. Mr. Cruickshank stated that we also know that burning fossil fuels
is polluting air and water supplies and threatening the health of people. During these same years the oil
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
and coal lobbies have spent millions in the U.S. to undermine climate science. He said that their long-
term viability will be challenged by a conversion to cleaner forms of energy such as wind and geothermal,
and energy efficiency and conservation may well reduce their profits – but with their unlimited money and
lobbyists the fossil fuel industry has done everything possible to politicize science.
Mr. Cruickshank said the pressure to reject established climate science has now reached the
local level. He encouraged members of the Board to keep their word and remain in the Cool Counties
program – a nationwide program that originated in Virginia. He stated that the Board made the correct
decision and 2007. He said that hopes the Board has the courage to confirm that commitment today. To
do otherwise will cause Albemarle to lose credibility and will undermine the important work of the Local
Climate Action Planning Process.
__________
Mr. Gerry Sackett said that in 2002 his daughter was in a collision at the intersection of Route 762
(Rose Hill Church Lane) and Route 732 (Milton). Mr. Sackett said that fortunately the colliding vehicle was
hit behind the driver’s door, but she could have been killed and his grandson was also in the vehicle. He
stated that the problem is both of those roads are rising to the stop and the visibility lines are terrible. Mr.
Sackett reported that he made a detailed study shooting site lines and computing the amount of fill it
would take to level Rose Hill Church Lane at the stop sign and submitted it to VDOT in 2002. He
presented to the Board a full record of that including a copy of a letter from VDOT expressing their
approval of this idea. He also said that copies were sent to Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Juandiego Wade, and that
was supposed to have put it in the Six-Year Road Improvement Plan – but it is been nine years and now
he has received word that VDOT is proposing to pave Rose Hill Church Lane. This kind of waste just
makes him mad – to pave the road before you do the improvement to the intersection – and so he would
like to get that moved forward. He said he met yesterday with a representative of Monticello, which owns
all sides of the intersection, and they would support it. Mr. Sackett stated that he also has a petition that is
a redo of the petition he started in 2002 when he presented it to Mr. Whit Clements, who was Secretary of
Transportation at that time.
Ms. Mallek noted that VDOT would be here later in the meeting, and she would bring it up at that
time.
__________
Mr. Francis Fife addressed the Board, stating that he has a letter from Mr. George Larie in which
he points out the “huge discrepancy” in the cost of building the Western Bypass per vehicle served
compared to the Hillsdale Drive Extended and Berkmar Drive Extended – both of which would do a great
deal more for the traffic situation and at much less cost. Mr. Fife stated that it would be to the Board’s
great credit if it would reconsider doing the Bypass, but supported doing these other improvements and
see what happens, as it may obviate the Bypass.
__________
Ms. Nancy Goodrich addressed the Board, stating that she has written an open letter to the
Governor regarding the bypass:
“Dear Governor McDonnell: It is the understanding among many of us here in Central Virginia
that your administration is strongly supporting the construction of a bypass for Charlottesville. No doubt
you have agreed to support this particular bypass design because you’ve been led to believe that it’s good
for our community and will provide a much needed way around our town for travelers heading north and
south on Route 29. Sounds good, indeed; who could be against it? Well there are many of us against it,
right here in Central Virginia. Because I am a Republican and formerly a volunteer in the campaign for
your election, I want very much to give you the benefit of the doubt in your giving this plan your stamp of
approval. I don’t believe that anyone has probably ever really gone into detail with you about this bypass
design. You’re very busy, extremely so, and much leave such things to others – but you should know that
this design is an old and very tired proposal which had been turned down years ago by our local
leadership for very solid reasons. Its’ negative impact on a highly developed, close-in area of schools and
neighborhoods and reservoir has been well-researched and documented. It is not a bypass in the true
sense of the word; it is simply a six-mile parallel express lane for Route 29. Destined to be a $300 million
mistake, it is one we urge you not to make - six miles of highway at $50 million a mile. Yet in five years
from its completion there’s bound to be still an overwhelming and even greater need to build a real bypass
out of the way, far away, from the center of our town. I urge you, Governor, to insist on knowing the full
story. Thank you so much. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Goodrich from Albemarle County.”
__________
Mr. Morgan Butler speaking on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that the
SELC was very disappointed to learn that the Board’s interest in tightening up important language in the
TIP entry for the Route 29 Bypass has apparently dissolved between their last meeting and this one. This
summer, he said, members of the Board promised County citizens that they would only vote for the
bypass if they received firm commitments from the State toward a set of other key projects. At the its’ last
meeting, the Board seemed to have consensus that several of the commitments made in the State’s last
minute letter to the MPO were not very clear. He stated that since that was the same language that was
then incorporated into the TIP, the Board acknowledged it was worth considering revisions to the TIP that
would clarify the Board’s expectations and strengthen the conditions on the County support for the bypass.
Mr. Butler said that as the Board discussed last month, one of the biggest question marks
surrounds Berkmar Drive Extended, a top priority in the Places 29 Master Plan. He stated that the public
was promised that building the bypass would advance Berkmar because a bridge for the bypass would be
designed and engineered to also serve Berkmar, however, all the State agreed to do was come up with a
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
conceptual design that shows how building the bypass “does not preclude Berkmar from being built.” Mr.
Butler said that is a far cry from designing the bypass bridge to serve Berkmar and it is hard to see how
Berkmar has been advanced in any way. He urged the Board to spell out much more clearly how it would
be advanced and put that language into the TIP, as well as seeking stronger funding commitments for
other projects such as Hillsdale Drive Extension and the Belmont Bridge. Mr. Butler said that the County
Attorney has indicated that the only way to make these commitments stick is to condition their support for
construction funding of the bypass on the commitments actually being met. SELC urges the Board to not
abandon this effort to strengthen the TIP and to make sure the promises it made to County citizens are
kept.
__________
Mr. James Pierce addressed the Board as Executive Director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Central
Virginia, stating that their top three priorities are: on-time graduation, promoting healthy lifestyles and
fostering service to the community. Mr. Pierce said that in Albemarle they run one school-year site at Jack
Jouett, one comprehensive year-round site at the Southwood Community, and one day college prep
program at Monticello High School. He stated that at their clubs, 60% of the kids qualify for free or
reduced lunch, and over 500 kids participated in homework completion, with 53% from single-parent
households. Mr. Pierce noted that the program runs until 7:00 p.m. after school and at Southwood is open
full-time during the summer and during school breaks, until 7:30 p.m.
He said that the reason he is here today is to remind the Board of the impact of the Boys & Girls
Club in this community, to thank them for their partnership, and to highlight a few people and departments
who have helped. Mr. Pierce said that Colin Powell put it best when he spoke on the occasion of opening
a new club: “we can either put our community resources into proactive programs like the club, or we can
spend it building prisons, where the average cost of incarceration is now over $40,000 a year”. He noted
that the average cost for supporting a child at the club for an entire year is about $2,000 – which provides
about 1,300 hours of responsible adults having a positive impact on young people ages 6-18. Mr. Pierce
added that the program meets the after-school and summer needs that often go unmet in these difficult
times. Many parents say that having a reliable and positive program for their kids during the summer and
school year keeps them from having to take on extra jobs and allows them to be together more as a
family.
He stated that the 30 kids in the Sea Quest program at Monticello High School have a 100%
college acceptance rate, noting that the program helps them with applications, financial aid forms and
taking SAT prep courses. Mr. Pierce said he cannot thank Dr. Moran and Col. Sellers enough, so he
would come back another day to talk about their help and involvement. He also stated that on September
18th there would be a cycling challenge, with 300 cyclists in Western Albemarle riding for the benefit of the
Boys & Girls Club. This is the sixth year of the cycling challenge.
__________
Ms. Ann Carter, a resident of Rose Hill Church Lane, mentioned the petition Mr. Sackett
presented. The residents are excited that pavement is scheduled to start next week. The petition was
signed by several residents of the neighborhood, but they were unaware that the petition requested a
deference of the pavement of the road. Ms. Carter stated that the suggestion of the community is that
they would continue to proceed with the paving of that road, and then add the part of raising the road to a
later part of the proceedings with that project. She reiterated that she is present to support paving the
road and expressed thanks to the Board for getting the road on the list.
__________
Ms. Rebecca Foster addressed the Board, stating that she is a County resident and adding her
voice to the opposition about the bypass. She said that a bypass is perhaps necessary, but the other
projects Mr. Fife mentioned should be tried first – adding that the bypass project is “a boondoggle,” “a pig
in a poke,” and is being shoved down their throats while moving further and further from the control of the
community. Ms. Foster stated there was a rush to approve something that was already outdated and then
suddenly it was going to be redesigned – but the question is by whom – an unofficial committee or
contractors who are now putting in bids on budget and design. It really gets further and further from the
community. She pointed out that a huge ugly scar on the County’s landscape is not good for business,
since the beauty of the County is one of the main attractions. She is opposed to the bypass.
__________
Ms. Cynthia Neff, a County resident, said that today is one of the more important Board meetings
they will have – given that they will be discussing two items that will determine how progressive and
enlightened the community is: the bypass and Cool Counties. Ms. Neff said that it is unfortunate in 2011
for them to be having a debate with “the flat earth society” about whether they need to do things voluntarily
to try to maintain sustainability and do the right things, adding that the Chamber of Commerce, Better
Business Bureau have a whole sustainability effort going on that is voluntary and is just good business.
She would hate to see the County move away from a sustainability program like Cool Counties.
She stated that there is so much angst in the community about the bypass, and as the SELC
points out there is nothing in writing – and as a member of the Places 29 Advisory Council she is offended
that the item has never been brought up there for discussion. Ms. Neff suggested that rather than
engaging one district’s citizen group to study this that a citizens’ advisory council be put together, adding
that she hopes everyone read George Larie’s letter to the editor yesterday. She again encouraged the
Board to remain in Cool Counties and take a pause on the bypass process to try to do the right thing for
County citizens and keep this community what it is.
__________
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Otto Bates, a member of the Rose Hill community for 40 years, stated that he is against the
petition Mr. Sackett has distributed against the paving of the road as delaying it any longer would be “a
slap in the face at this time.” He thinks elevating the road should be done as a separate project. Rose Hill
Church Lane needs to be paved.
__________
Ms. Pauline Johnson addressed the Board, stating that she is also against delaying the paving of
Rose Hill Church Lane – as she has been waiting more than 40 years for it. She appreciates the Board
moving forward with this project.
__________
Mr. George Larie, a County resident, said that he wanted to hit the highlights of his recent letter to
the editor: Is the bypass cost effective? He said that the Board in February passed the Places 29 plan,
and have now thrown it out and gone to a completely different plan. Cost effectiveness - the bypass would
take approximately 14,000 cars per day off Route 29 at a cost of $250 - $300-million or $18,000 per car
per day; the Meadow Creek Parkway would cost about $41 million or $2,400 per car per day; the Hillsdale
Drive Extended to Airport Road would cost about $24 million or $2,000 per car per day; Berkmar Drive
would pull 20,000 vehicles per day off Route 29 at a cost of $38 million or $1,900 per car per day. He
stated that the Places 29 plan will remove much more traffic off Route 29 than the Western Bypass and
will cost less than one-half of the bypass. Mr. Larie asked if, in this age of fiscal restraint, building the road
for political reasons makes common sense. “Clearly the answer is ‘no.’”
__________
Mr. Milton Moore, a resident of the County for 23 years, said that he finds it interesting that Mr.
Boyd claims his committee for input on the northern terminus of the bypass isn’t political – as everything
done up to now has been political. It is what you are selling and how you do it that is important. Mr. Moore
stated that Mr. Boyd held a press conference then confined meetings to those in his district, but all citizens
are concerned about the entire bypass – including the northern terminus. Mr. Moore said that the meeting
was going to be closed but is now open – although he has not seen any announcements of times – and
Mr. Boyd did not involve the entire Board of Supervisors or the MPO. He stated that in the past the MPO
established the Citizens Design Advisory Committee to provide input on all phases and parts of the
bypass, with a VDOT representative serving as a member of that committee. Mr. Moore stated that he
attended nearly every meeting they had, and the DAC “was not owned by one Board of Supervisors
member whose motivation was reelection.” Hopefully the MPO will form a Design Advisory Committee that
is open to the public, which will provide input on every inch and input on the bypass. He also said that an
updated environmental impact statement is essential before the bypass goes out for bid on a design-build
process. He asked why this Board does not insist on that.
__________
Ms. Amanda Rose, a resident of Rose Hill Church Lane, said she is very upset that Mr. Sackett
brought the petition forward against paving. Paving this road will help the values of their homes and help
during emergency situations. Ms. Rose said that she understands the danger at the top of that road, but
asked why Mr. Sackett did not bring this issue before the Board at an earlier time. She encouraged the
Board to move forward with the paving.
__________
Mr. David Blount addressed the Board, stating that this is one of two meetings in which he would
discuss the regional legislative program . He will be visiting all the regional local governing bodies in
September, will be drafting the program and forwarding it to the Board in October, and then come back in
November to discuss the program and seek the Board’s approval. Mr. Blount said that he has been able
to work over the last several months with staff and would be incorporating new items into the regional
program.
Mr. Blount said that state and local economies are still facing challenges, and the state will be
exercising a lot of restraint when they develop the two-year budget during the 2012 General Assembly.
He mentioned the public education re-benchmarking – a $300 million proposition for the state, dramatic
increases in VRS and perhaps Medicaid, and continued pressure to fund health and human services,
public safety, etc. Mr. Blount said that the notion of the state pushing down secondary road construction
and maintenance to localities would also be a focus, as well as some looming environmental issues. He
asked that if the Board has any other items it wants to include in the program, to get those to him in the
next couple of weeks for review.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that if the devolution goes in the direction of providing localities an amount
of money to assist them in maintaining roads, the result has always been that the funding does not
increase as costs increase – so the locality ends up bearing that cost.
Mr. Blount agreed, noting that later on down the road the state will change the rules and perhaps
put it all off on local government.
Ms. Mallek said that there is inefficiency in having each locality having a small department instead
of having the state run the depots on a regional basis.
Mr. Blount pointed out that when they have the annual legislative forum this fall, the devolution
issue would be the focus.
__________
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Audrey Welborn, a 40-year resident of the County, said that she is against the County’s
involvement in Cool Counties as it is unrealistic to set a goal for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.
Ms. Welborn claimed that from what she has read “this would take us back to the 1800s or early 1900s.”
She also said no one wants to go backward with energy use, as people can always conserve and be good
stewards of what they have – but these emission standards are way too drastic. She also expressed
concern with the involvement of Cool Counties and ICLEI, adding that she feels the grants and everything
involved with the TJPDC and Sierra Club is just another layer. Ms. Welborn said that global warming
science doesn’t support this and more and more revelations are becoming apparent that there’s been a lot
of faulty science involved with this. She encouraged the County to step back and take a look at this before
they become involved in another similar program.
Ms. Welborn said that she supports the bypass because of the traffic and the heavy trucks on
Route 29. She is pleased that the Board has taken the initiative to go forward with the bypass.
__________
Ms. Betty Sevacho addressed the Board, stating that she is a 25-year resident of the community
and is a senior citizen who lives on a fixed income. She said that she is fiscally responsible with her
budget and her resources. She said that she thinks Cool Counties is a huge mistake because she doesn’t
want government telling her how she can spend her resources and live her life. Ms. Sevacho explained
that she is fiscally responsible with her resources because she recently put a water heater timer in, and
said the control needs to be in the hands of the people and not have outside organizations telling them
how they can live and spend their resources. She asked the Board to vote against Cool Counties.
Ms. Sevacho also thanked the Board members for moving forward with the Western Bypass,
stating that the bypass helped Culpeper County, where she used to live. The bypass will do the same for
Charlottesville. She asked for that they move forward with limited government, fiscal responsibility and
free markets which will return power out of the hands of government and into the hands of the people
where it belongs.
__________
Ms. Peggy Gilgis addressed the Board, stating that she is an Ivy resident and would like
Albemarle to remain a Cool County as it is very important to be proactive and not reactive. Ms. Gilgis said
that as human population explodes and energy demands increase there needs to be a plan of action to
reduce carbon in the atmosphere. It is clear that the audience here represents an older generation that
needs to take responsibility for the actions and decisions made today. Ms. Gilgis said that Cool Counties
is for future generations and is “not about us.” She added that Albemarle is a well-educated community of
planners and doers. She asked that they keep Albemarle cool.
__________
Mr. Corky Shakelford, a County resident, said that he has heard lots of comments made about the
bypass, but it is long overdue and anything to take trucks and through traffic away from six miles of
Emmet Street/Route 29 is worth doing. He said that he hopes the Board will continue its’ support of the
bypass.
__________
Ms. Carol Thorpe addressed the Board, stating that the science of global warming is not settled.
Recent information based on NASA’s own terra satellite data discredits global warming models that are at
the foundation of assumptions trumpeted by the Cool Counties initiative. She said that research published
in late July demonstrates this, and the satellite data suggests that when the climate warms Earth’s
atmosphere is actually more efficient in releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate
change may indicate. Manmade climate change theory insists, she said, that warming caused by
enhanced greenhouse gasses should change cloud cover in ways that should cause additional warming,
but NASA terra satellite data showed the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from
the oceans, and other factors make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of the earth’s
changing climate is feedback – if any – from human-made greenhouse gasses. Additionally, Ms. Thorpe
said, evidence presented by Dr. Charles Battig proves that CO2 emissions trended upwards during the
last 15 years, and global temperatures trended downwards. Up-to-the-minute science coupled with the
rampant implosion of green energy economics – like those recently suffered by retailers like Wal-Mart
should guide the Supervisors. She stated that the Board instead persists in placating local environmental
organizations in an endless cycle of wasted time and taxpayer dollars. Ms. Thorpe asked for evidence
that local County policies can significantly impact, let alone successfully change, the climate. She asked if
it was really the role of this Board to educate people on common-sense energy-saving techniques. She
asked if they honestly believe this is among the expectations of the majority of the people who elected
them. In conclusion, Ms. Thorpe said that she supports reasonable conservation and responsible
stewardship of our resources; however, she urges the Board to rescind participation in the Cool Counties
initiatives. She asked the Board to focus on the pressing needs of the citizens that are within the proper
role of the County Board of Supervisors.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that on June 8th the
community came in here and overwhelmingly expressed their support for Cool Counties and sustainability
but Board members did not listen. It is about clean air and it is about saving money. If those are things
Board members does not support, then he guess they should vote against them.
During the last couple of months, this Board has heard overwhelmingly from the community that
they oppose the bypass, but Board members did not listen to that either. Mr. Werner said he is amazed at
the number of fiscal conservatives who have come out in support of the bypass, adding that the $200
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
million is coming from the State borrowing against future federal funding. That is what they keep hearing
that fiscal conservatives are going to cut from Congress, so the question is who is going to pay for that
$200 million. When the project goes to costing $250 million it will be curious as to where the State finds
that money. It is a $200 million project to bypass about four miles of Route 29, not six miles. Mr. Werner
emphasized that the bypass will dump out south of NGIC, south of Hollymead, south of Northpointe and
south of the airport. He asked what is the Board’s plan for not having the same mess north of the bypass.
He stated that in Places 29 there has been mention of grade-separated interchanges and closing several
access points, but the Board was opposed to those things south of the bypass. Mr. Werner said that
VDOT told the County that if they do not make improvements to local Route 29 – even with a bypass –
they will have congestion and gridlock on the four-mile section they are bypassing. That is the heart of
your commercial corridor. The whole reason this Board eviscerated Places 29, was its concern for the
viability of that economic area – yet what is the Board’s plan to fix it?” He stated that VDOT told them a
bypass would not fix it, but VDOT did say that the County needed to fix Rio Road and Hydraulic Road, but
Board members do not seem to want to do that.
________________
NonAgenda.
Mr. Rooker announced his intention to create a Jack Jouett Bypass Advisory Committee, as more
than 50% of the bypass is located in the Jack Jouett District; six of the seven schools impacted are in the
district; seven neighborhoods in the district are either bisected or are abutted by the bypass. Mr. Rooker
said that Secretary Connaughton has indicated the State would enter into a design-build concept for the
bypass, which would appear to have limited public input opportunities. He stated that there are a huge
number of issues that will face the people in his district, and people there want to have a mechanism to
provide input. The residents want to provide design suggestions to the extent they will still be entertained;
they want to have input with respect to mitigation of impacts from the road, mitigation of impacts during
construction, stormwater impacts before and after construction, and maintenance of access to
neighborhoods where roads are being bisected in neighborhoods. Mr. Rooker said that the cut through
Stillhouse Mountain would be the biggest cut made for a transportation project in the County other than
the crossing at Afton Mountain, which was a non-residential rural area. He stated that there would be
significant blasting and a huge amount of dirt removal with the project, thus impacting local streets, roads
and neighborhoods. Because of all those things, and because Mr. Boyd decided to move forward with a
separate committee for looking at the northern interchange, he said that he intends to appoint a committee
of citizens to look out after these impacts in the Jack Jouett District – which will be hugely impacted.
Mr. Rooker also said that he spoke with Mr. Utterback about the approaches to providing public
input and he said that consolidated input would be preferable.
__________
Ms. Mallek announced that on Saturday, September 17th the Monticello Heritage Harvest Festival,
which is a conglomeration of local food and farmers and artisans, would take place on the lawn behind the
main house.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 7.1(as read) through 7.9 on the consent agenda, to move Item 7.10 to the
regular agenda; and to accept the remaining items for information. (Discussions on individual items are
included with that agenda item). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 7.1. Approval of Minutes: February 25, March 3, March 30, May 11, June 1, June 2,
June 30, July 6, and July 27, 2011.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of February 25, 2011 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of March 30, 2011 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of May 11, 2011, pages 1-39 (end Item #10), and found them to
be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of May 11, 2011, pages 39 (begin Item #10) – end, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of June 1, 2011, pages 30 (begin Item #18) – end, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes June 2, 2011 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of June 30, 2011 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of July 6, 2011, pages 1-42 (end Item #17a), and found them to
be in order.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of July 6, 2011, pages 42 (begin Item #17a) – end, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of July 27, 2011 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read. The remaining
minutes were carried forward to the next meeting.
_______________
Item No. 7.2. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $638,287.42. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of five (4) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012019) totaling $192,000.00 for parking lot modifications at Stone
Robinson Elementary School and Hollymead Elementary School;
One (1) appropriation (#2012020) totaling $250,028.10 for a Renewable Energy Resource Center
at Henley Middle School;
One (1) appropriation (#2012021) totaling $3,032.50 for rental income and expenses related to
the Old Crozet Elementary School; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012022) totaling $193,226.82 for various ECC items, including a
maintenance contract, Computer Aided Dispatch Microcomputer replacement, salary increases
resulting from reclassifications, resurfacing the ECC parking lot and replacing its HVAC system;
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $638,287.42 and the
approval of Appropriations #2012019, #2012020, #2012021, and #2012022.
****
Appropriation #2012019 $ 192,000.00
Revenue Source: School Fund Balance $ 192,000.00
This request is to re-appropriate $192,000.00 in funding to construct satellite bus parking areas as
approved by the School Board on May 26, 2011.
In FY 10/11, one-time operating funding was appropriated to be used to construct satellite bus
parking in support of the Transportation Department’s policy changes to reduce “deadhead miles” (the
number of miles a bus must continue to travel after all children have been dropped off.)
The School Division completed the planning and design phase and began construction of the
parking areas on June 13, 2011. The School Division is requesting $192,000.00 to be re-appropriated in
FY 11/12 to fund the completion of construction of the parking areas. The request will also transfer the
funds from an operating account to CIP accounts to appropriately identify these expenditures. The
majority of these funds, $131,000.00, will pay for the Stone Robinson Parking Lot Modifications which will
create 17 permanent bus parking spaces. The remaining funds will support the Hollymead Drop-Off
Modifications which will create eight permanent bus parking spaces. The total cost of the construction at
Hollymead is estimated to be $298,000.00. The remaining money for this project will be provided by the
CIP Maintenance fund.
Appropriation #2012020 $250,028.10
Revenue Source: Federal Grant Revenues $ 211,872.00
School Self-Sustaining Fund Bal. $ 38,156.10
This request is to appropriate $250,028.10 in Federal Revenue and School Self-Sustaining Fund
Balance funding to open a Renewable Energy Resource Center at Henley Middle School as approved by
the School Board on August 25, 2011.
Albemarle County Public Schools has received a grant from the Virginia Department of Mines,
Minerals and Energy (VA Dept of MM&E) in the amount of $211,872.00 through the Virginia Local
Government and School Renewable Energy Utilization Program. These funds will be used to open a
Renewable Energy Resource Center at Henley Middle School. The Center will include a solar
photovoltaic system that will generate electricity and a solar thermal hot water system that will heat about
sixty percent of the water used at Henley.
In addition to the VA Dept of MM&E grant funding, support for this project will be provided by Self-
Sustaining Fund Balance monies which includes a Dominion Education Partnership grant in the amount of
$7,500.00, an Exxon Mobile Grant in the amount of $750.00, a General Mills Box Top for Education
donation in the amount of $903.00 and from various donations in the amount of $29,003.10.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The School Division’s Building Services will also contribute $30,000.00 from the CIP
Environmental Compliance funds. (This is for informational purposes as this $30,000.000 is not included
in this appropriation request).
Appropriation #2012021 $ 3,032.50
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Rent) $ 3,032.50
This request is to appropriate $3,032.50 in rental income revenues to support costs of the Old
Crozet Elementary School and is intended to be used to fund major capital replacements and repairs. The
terms of the recently renewed leases with the Field School of Charlottesville and the Old Crozet School
Arts (OCSA) resulted in an increase of $3,032.50 in annual total rent revenues over the amount budgeted
in FY 11.
Appropriation #2012022 $ 193,226.82
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 193,226.82
This request is to appropriate $193,226.82 for FY 11/12 Emergency Communications Center
(ECC) projects from ECC’s Fund Balance account.
At its meeting on August 16, 2011, the ECC Management Board approved the following
appropriations:
Maintenance Contract for the Fire/Rescue Paging System: The ECC installed a new paging
system for Fire/Rescue Services for the County and the City. This appropriation request is for the
maintenance contract for the new system for the first year, totaling $16,980.00;
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Microcomputer Replacement: The CAD System
microcomputers are in need of replacement. They were installed in 2005 and have been used
continually around the clock since that time. Several have started experiencing problems with two
failing recently. They are no longer covered by warranty. This appropriation request is for the
replacement of all 15 workstations within the center, totaling $25,755.00.
ECC Compensation Re-Classification: The Albemarle County Human Resource Department
began a classification/compensation analysis for ECC in November 2010. The study is now
complete. One of the requirements of ECC’s Accreditation process is that a classification/
compensation analysis be conducted every third year. The reclassification was done to ensure
that employees were correctly classified for the work they actually perform. This appropriation
request is for the salary increases due to the reclassification for the period of October 1, 2011
through June 30, 2012, totaling $70,491.82. After that, the cost of the reclassification will be
added to the regular operations budget for the city, county, and university.
At its February 15, 2011 meeting, the ECC Management Board approved the following transfer of
funds from the ECC Fund Balance Account for the following ECC CIP Projects for FY 2011/2012:
Resurface ECC Parking Lot: This appropriation request is for the resurfacing and painting of the
front and back parking lots at the ECC building, totaling $60,000.00.
HVAC System Replacement: This appropriation request is for the second phase of a five-year
project to replace the HVAC systems within the ECC building, totaling $20,000.00. The current
units are 10 years old and ECC is starting to have service problems. The City Maintenance
Department oversees ECC’s HVAC maintenance and has recommended this course of action be
carried out.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker stated that one of the things in this amendment was replacement of
ECC HVAC systems – stating that “the current units are 10 years old and are starting to have service
problems.” He said he was surprised to read that, as most rooftop commercial units get 15-20 years of
service today, and someone should look into why they are in need of replacement and ensure that they do
not make another purchasing mistake this time around.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the FY 2012 budget amendment in the
amount of $638,287.42 and the approved Appropriations #2012019, #2012020, #2012021, and
#2012022.
APP #2012-019
DATE 08/03/2011
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 351000 510100 6599 192,000.00 Fund Balance
4 2000 62433 464600 930004 6599 192,000.00 Transfer to Schools CIP
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
3 9000 51000 351000 512001 9999 192,000.00 Transfer from School Fund
4 9000 69980 466200 800675 6110 131,000.00 Stone Robinson Parking Lot
4 9000 69980 466200 800675 6105 61,000.00 Hollymead Parking Lot
TOTAL 768,000.00
*****
APP #2012-020
DATE 08/03/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meeting on August 25, 2011
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 3104 63104 351000 512001 6599 38,156.10 Fund Balance
3 3164 63164 333000 330224 6599 211,872.00 VA Dept of MM&E
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6252 38,156.10 Solar Panels - Henley
4 3164 63164 462421 800621 6252 211,872.00 Solar Panels - Henley
TOTAL 500,056.20
*****
APP #2012-021
DATE 08/03/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Old Crozet School Rent Adjustment
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 8610 15000 315000 150262 9999 3,032.50 Rental Income
4 8610 91081 496010 800666 9999 3,032.50 Old Crozet Sch Operating Maint
TOTAL 6,065.00
*****
APP #2012-022
DATE 08/03/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: ECC Request 8/16/11: Maintenance Contract for the Fire/Rescue Paging System; CAD
Microcomputer Replacement; & ECC Compensation Re-Classification
ECC Request 2/15/11: Resurface ECC Parking Lot and HVAC System Replacement
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 4100 51000 351000 510100 9999 193,226.82 ECC Fund Balance
4 4100 31041 435600 332100 1003 16,980.00 Admin - Maint. Contract-Equip
4 4100 31041 435600 800700 1003 25,755.00 Admin - ADP Equipment
4 4100 31040 435600 110000 1003 38,107.82 Oper - Salaries (Re-class)
4 4100 31041 435600 110000 1003 3,052.00 Admin - Salaries (Re-class)
4 4100 31043 435600 110000 1003 8,924.00 EMD - Salaries (Re-class)
4 4100 31045 435600 110000 1003 3,062.00 Emerg Serv - Salaries (Re-class)
4 4100 31049 435600 110000 1003 8,300.00 City Fire Disp - Salaries (Re-class)
4 4100 31047 435600 110000 1003 9,046.00 Fire Disp - Salaries (Re-class)
4 4100 31041 435600 800675 1003 60,000.00 Resurface ECC Parking Lot
4 4100 31041 435600 331800 1003 20,000.00 HVAC System Replacement
TOTAL 386,453.64
_______________
Item No. 7.3. Resolution to accept road(s) in Old Trail Creekside Subdivision into the State
Secondary System of Highways.
At the request of the County Engineer, by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Old Trail Creekside Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 dated September 7, 2011, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the
Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Old Trail Creekside Subdivision, as
described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated September 7, 2011, to the secondary system of state
highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as
described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer
for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Mountain Path Terrace (State Route 1823) from Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821)
south to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3587, pages 482-495, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.08 miles.
2) Welbourne Lane (State Route 1820) from Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821) west to
the end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3587, pages 482-495, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.17 miles.
3) Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821) from Mountain Path Terrace (State Route 1823)
north to Mountain Path Court, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3587, pages 482-495, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
4) Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821) from Mountain Vista Lane (State Route 1822)
north to Mountain Path Terrace (State Route 1823), as shown on plat recorded in the office
the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3191, pages 130-153, with a 40-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 miles.
5) Welbourne Lane (State Route 1820) from Old Trail Drive (State Route 1815) west to
Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3191, pages 130-153, with a 40-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.23 miles.
6) Mountain Path Court (State Route 1824) from Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821)
south to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3587, pages 482-495, with a 40-foot right-of-way
width, for a length of 0.03 miles.
7) Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821) from Welbourne Lane (State Route 1820) north to
Mountain Vista Lane (State Route 1822), as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3191, pages 130-153, with a 40-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.06 miles.
8) Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821) from Mountain Path Court (State Route 1824)
north to the end of state maintenance, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3587, pages 482-495, with a 40-foot right-of-
way width, for a length of 0.01 miles.
9) Mountain Vista Lane (State Route 1822) from Mountain Path Drive (State Route 1821)
west to end of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 3191, pages 130-153, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a
length of 0.18 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.90
_______________
Item No 7.4. FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar.
The executive summary states that the process of developing the County’s Operating Budget for
FY 12/13 and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY13-17 is underway. The proposed calendar
is provided to the Board to establish firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the budget and
CIP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned comm unity meetings, public
hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and CIP.
There are several dates in the budget presentation and approval process that are driven by state
code requirements and are reflected in the attached calendar. The first is the requirement that the tax rate
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
be adopted by April 15th for localities with a first-half tax year collection in June. In addition, the Virginia
Code requires that there be at least seven days between the public advertisement of the budget public
hearings and the actual hearing dates, and at least seven days between the public hearing and the
adoption of the budget. During the 2007 session of the General Assembly, legislation was enacted that
requires localities to provide at least 30 days notice of the tax rate public hearing if the reassessment
would result in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levied compared to the
prior year’s tax levies. In addition to these state requirements, the School Board has requested that the
second public hearing be scheduled so that it does not coincide with Spring Break.
Attachment A provides a preliminary budget calendar for the FY 12/13 budget process that
conforms to the Virginia Code requirements and meets the School Board’s request. This calendar can be
used if real estate tax levies resulting from the reassessment are less than 101% of the prior year’s tax
levies, as current projections indicate. If real estate tax levies resulting from the reassessment equal or
exceed 101% of the prior year’s tax levies, staff will make adjustments to the calendar.
Because it is unlikely that the 2012 reassessment will require the 30 day notice for the tax rate
public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the preliminary budget calendar set forth in
Attachment A.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the preliminary budget calendar as set
forth in Attachment A:
FY 12/13 BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2011
5 Department/Agency/School CIP Project Justifications & Cost Data Due to OMB
September 2011
9 Operating budget manual and instructions available for County departments
October 2011
11-27 CIP Technical Review Team (TRT) Meetings
12 Department Budget Presentations to Board of Supervisors (BOS)
12 School Board/BOS Joint Work Session – Compensation/Benefits
14 Department/office FY 12/13 budget requests due to OMB
November 2011
8 CIP Oversight Committee Meeting
9 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – General Government
10 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan - Schools
11 Community Agency applications due to OMB
15 CIP Oversight Committee Meeting
22 CIP Oversight Committee Meeting
December 2011
7 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan
14 BOS Work Session – Approve the Five-Year Financial Plan
14 Joint meeting with BOS and School Board regarding CIP
January 2012
28 General Fund and Special Revenue Funds balanced
February 2012
24 Budget document distributed
29 Public Hearing on County Executive’s Recommended Budget
March 2012
5 Budget Work Session – General Government
7 Budget Work Session – Schools
12 Budget Work Session – CIP
14 Budget Work Session – wrap up (if needed)
28 Public hearing on BOS proposed budget and CIP
28 Public hearing on the 2012 calendar year tax rate
April 2012
4 BOS adopts FY 12/13 budget & FY 13-22 CIP
4 BOS sets 2012 tax rate
_______________
Item No. 7.5. Fiscal Year 2012 Region Ten Community Services Performance Contract.
The executive summary states that each year, the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health &
Developmental Services (DBHDS) requires Community Service Boards (CSBs) to enter into Community
Service Performance Contracts for the delivery of certain services in their respective communities.
Although Region Ten, as the designated CSB for Albemarle County, is the representative party to this
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Contract, federal and state regulations require that local governing bodies approve the contract in order for
the CSB to be eligible to receive funding.
Annual Community Services Performance Contracts between the DBHDS and CSBs delineate the
responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the CSBs for the delivery of mental health, intellectual disability
and substance abuse services in their respective service areas. These contracts describe sources of
funding for the CSB, stipulate requirements for compliance with federal regulations and establish
performance measures. Virginia Code § 37.2-508(D) requires that the local governing bodies that have
established a CSB approve the Contract in order for the CSB to be eligible to receive state-controlled
funds for identified services.
Staff has reviewed the proposed Contract and found no terms that are objectionable to the
County. A copy of the FY 2012 Region Ten Performance Contract is available in the Clerk’s Office for
review.
In the past, the Board has expressed interest in receiving additional information on the
Performance Measures that Region Ten reports to DBHDS. On December 1, 2010 representatives of
Region Ten presented the Board with outcome data and demographic information and indicated that it
would provide this data for the Board’s use going forward. Attachment A offers broad demographic data
on Albemarle County adults and children in care during Fiscal Year 2011 as summarized below:
1,265 Albemarle County citizens -- 937 adults (74%) and 328 children (26%) – were
provided Mental Health, Intellectual Disability and Substance Abuse Services in FY2011.
Of the adults served, 53 percent were female and 47 percent were male while 61 percent
of all children served were female.
47 percent of all County residents served were treated for Mental Health illnesses (588)
while 31 percent (398) were served for “Other” conditions (ie. emergency services,
access/intake services). 13.4 percent were treated for substance abuse.
Most adults, 82 percent, lived in a private residence while almost 30 percent were
unemployed and 31 percent had completed high school.
55 percent of adults indicated their primary drug to be alcohol while 25 percent reported
marijuana to be their primary drug.
In terms of mental health services, 34 percent of all adults were being seen for Mood
Disorders followed by 12 percent being under care for alcohol-related disorders.
Approximately 59 percent of children served were currently enrolled in elementary school
while another 22 percent had completed some level of high school.
153 children (47%) were being seen for Attention-Deficit and Disruption Behavior
disorders while another 60 children (18%) were in care for Mood Disorders.
22 of the 29 children in care for substance abuse were being treated for marijuana
addiction.
Following is summary of Region Ten’s Outcome Measures for Fiscal Year 2011 as reported to
DBHDS:
Outcome #1: Minimize the time between first access appointment and first treatment appointment.
73 percent of all individuals were seen for their first treatment appointment within one
week of their access appointment.
Although this appears to be a decrease from FY10, Region Ten notes that the reduction
was the result of a systems change with substance abuse consumers being assessed by
outpatient services rather than central intake. This allowed outpatient services to
decrease the time between access and first treatment appointments and therefore
operate without a waiting list in FY11.
Outcome #2: Individuals who began and ended mental health treatment in FY11 will either
maintain or experience a positive change in their Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score
and social connectedness.
91% of individuals maintained or increased their GAF score. 80% maintained their GAF
score and 11% increased their GAF score.
Social connectedness data was collected from 154 individuals during the year; 98% (151)
maintained or increased their number of social contacts within 30 days of their
appointment.
Outcome #3: Individuals who began and ended substance abuse services in FY11 will show a
positive change in the number of arrests in past 30 days, and frequency of drug or alcohol use.
All of the 368 individuals surveyed indicated that they had no change in the number of
arrests during their treatment.
In a survey of 380 individuals, 99 percent (376) indicated no change or a positive change
in primary drug frequency use.
Outcome #4: Percent of children referred to the Assessment and Diagnostic Center who are
placed in congregate care within 4 months of Assessment and Diagnostic services.
There were a total of 39 assessment and diagnostic consumers seen during FY11. To
measure whether congregate care occurred within 4 months of discharge only consumers
seen prior to April 1 were considered, leaving a total of 28 consumers. Of the 28
consumers, 7 were from Albemarle, 3 of the 7 remained at home, 3 stepped down to a
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
lesser residential placement, and 1 was placed in a residential placement within 4 m onths
of their assessment and diagnostic service.
The County’s FY12 appropriation for Region Ten totals $575,226. Of this amount, $462,931 is
identified as “comprehensive services,” including outpatient, case management, emergency, day support,
residential, prevention and early intervention services for mental health, mental retardation, and substance
use disorders and prevention. The balance of funding ($112,295) represents the County’s share of local
programs funded by the City and County such as the Mohr Center, jail services, children services and
early intervention grants for children.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Fiscal Year 2012 Region Ten Community Services
Performance Contract.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the FY2012 Region Ten Community Services
Performance Contract.
_______________
Item No. 7.6. Set public hearing on ACSA-2011-00003, Arlin Martin -- Request to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water service.
The executive summary states that Arlin Martin has filed an application requesting public water
service for Tax Map 56, Parcel 80, an approximately 0.9 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas, located in an
area designated as Rural Area in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. (See Location Map, Attachment A)
This property is currently in the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area, with a
designation for “water only to existing structures.” (See Jurisdictional Area Map, Attachment B) The
applicant wishes to replace the existing single family residence with a new home on the property.
The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan provides the following concerning water service to the
Rural Area:
General Principle: Utilization of central water and/or sewer systems or extension of the public
water or sewer into the Rural Area is strongly discouraged except in cases where public health or safety is
endangered.
Recommendation: Only allow changes to the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated
Development Area boundaries in cases where property is: (1) adjacent to existing lines; and, (2) public
health or safety is endangered.
In this particular situation the existing house is in a severe state of disrepair and the applicant
wishes to replace it with a new single family home. Because the current designation only allows service to
the existing structure, a new home could not be served. Due to the small size of the parcel (0.946 acres),
it will be difficult to safely provide both private well and septic service to this parcel. The parcel is currently
served by a septic system on-site. It should be noted that the applicant recently received approval of a
variance (VA 2010-0004) to further reduce the size of this parcel by 0.106 acre, permitting a boundary line
adjustment that transfers this acreage to the adjacent parcel (Parcel 80B), which is currently only 0.378
acres. This will reduce TMP 56-80 to a 0.84 acre parcel. A previous owner of TMP 56-80B received
County approval for this boundary adjustment in 1976, but failed to record the plat.
The current “water only to existing structures” designation was placed on this property when the
Board established the Jurisdictional Area maps and process in the early 1980s. Staff understands that the
“service only to existing structures” designation was generally intended to recognize certain properties that
were located outside the Development Area boundaries, but located adjacent to existing service lines, that
were already developed in a more urban manner and/or already served by public water (or sewer).
However, there is no documentation on file specifically noting the reason why this property has this
designation.
While there is no well on the property, there is also no documentation of a health or safety
problem with an on-site water source. However, as noted previously, the size of the parcel (either the
current 0.946 acres or ultimate 0.84 acres) would make it difficult to provide a well on the property that
would be adequately/safely separated from the existing septic system and home.
Staff can identify only one other case similar to this one for a property in the Rural Area. In that
case a building eligible for service under a “water only to existing structure” designation and located on a
two-acre parcel off of Georgetown Road was demolished because it was in a severe state of disrepair.
The owners, not aware of the jurisdictional area restrictions, subsequently requested a new service
designation in 2000 (ACSA Amendment Request, Barbara Flowers) when they decided to build a new
house. Because the property was two acres in size, could not be further subdivided, and is located outside
of a designated Development Area, making it not likely to be rezoned to a more intensive use, the Board
approved a change in the Jurisdictional Area designation on this parcel to “water only to one structure.”
Similarly, the applicant’s property, while zoned RA, Rural Areas: 1) is less than one acre in size;
2) cannot be further subdivided; 3) is unlikely to be rezoned to a more intensive use as it is located in the
Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Area; and, 4) will be used for one residence, which was the intended service
with the original Jurisdictional Area designation. As such, staff finds that a Jurisdictional Area designation
for “water service to one single-family dwelling only” would be acceptable.
If the request is approved, the property owner will bear the cost to connect to an adjacent water
line.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing to amend the Jurisdictional Area boundary
to provide “water service to one single-family dwelling only” on Tax Map 56, Parcel 80.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing for October 5, 2011 to amend
the Jurisdictional Area boundary to provide “water service to one single-family dwelling only” on
Tax Map 56, Parcel 80.
_______________
Item No 7.7. Resolution to amend and readopt the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual.
The executive summary states that in 2001, the Board approved the initial Albemarle County
Purchasing Manual. The Manual establishes the written procedures for the centralized County/School
Division purchasing system, as authorized by state law. It also serves as a reference tool for staff involved
in the purchasing process. Since 2001, the Virginia Public Procurement Act, on which the Manual is
largely based, has been amended on several occasions. In addition, over time, staff has discovered
inefficiencies in the current Purchasing Manual, as written. In an effort to keep the centralized Purchasing
Manual up to date with the current Virginia Public Procurement Act and to improve the efficiency of
purchasing practices, County and School Division staff are recommending certain revisions to the
centralized Purchasing Manual.
The following revisions to the Purchasing Manual are recommended:
Summary
• Raise the small purchase limit for professional services from $30,000 to $50,000,
following the 2009 amendment to Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(H).
Chapter 1
• Add definition of “service disabled veteran” to match 2007 amendments to Virginia Code
§ 2.2-4310.
Chapter 3
• Add a prohibition against discrimination based on status as a service disabled veteran, to
match 2007 amendments to Virginia Code § 2.2-4310.
• Welcomes the participation of service disabled veterans (as with women- and minority-
owned businesses) in procurement transactions, to match 2007 amendments to Virginia
Code § 2.2-4310.
• Exempt charter public schools from the conflict of interests provisions, to match the 2004
enactment of Virginia Code § 2.2-3109(C)(6).
• Raise from $22,500 to $35,000 the annual salary needed to create a “material financial
interest” for conflict of interests purposes, following a 2010 amendment to Virginia Code §
2.2-3110(B). When two spouses or relatives residing in the same household are
employed by the same governmental agency, a “material financial interest” is deemed to
exist only where (a) one such person is employed in a direct supervisory and/or
administrative position with respect to the other and (b) the annual salary of the
subordinate is (now) $35,000 or more.
Chapter 4
• Raise the small purchase limit for professional services from $30,000 to $50,000,
following the 2009 amendment to Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(H).
• Narrow the allowable use of competitive negotiation in construction contracts, following
the 2011 deletion of the former Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(D)(2).
Chapter 5
• Raise the small purchase limit for professional services from $30,000 to $50,000,
following the 2009 amendment to Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(H).
Chapter 11
• Raise the small purchase limit for professional services from $30,000 to $50,000,
following the 2009 amendment to Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(H).
Chapter 22
• Raise the small purchase limit for professional services from $30,000 to $50,000,
following the 2009 amendment to Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(H).
• Specify that a purchase order is required on any purchase over $1,000.
• Specify that purchases of goods or nonprofessional services that are expected to exceed
$30,000 shall require the posting of a public notice on appropriate website(s), following
the 2011 amendment to Virginia Code § 2.2-4303(G).
• Add a cross-reference to the definition of “professional services.”
While the other small purchase limits are recommended to remain the same for now, staff
may recommend revisiting these limits if/when a purchasing card system is implemented.
Chapter 26
• Modify references to the purchasing agent to reflect the practice of contracts sometimes
being initiated and prepared by the involved County or School Division department (such
as the Office of Facilities Development, Department of General Services, or the Schools’
Building Services Department).
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
• Reference the required contract provisions of Virginia Code § 2.2-4311 through § 2.2-
4312.
• Delete the requirement that the County/School Board be named an additional insured on
a vendor’s professional liability policy. The County/School Board would continue to be
named an additional insured on vendors’ other insurance policies (such as on general and
auto liability coverage).
• Delete the prohibition against striking the words “endeavor to” from the required notice to
the County when certified insurance is cancelled. As a named insured, the County/School
Board is already entitled to the same notice as the insured.
• Add Section 26-2.6 to specify who has signature authority, formalizing a proposal
developed with the School and Finance administration.
• Add Section 26-4 to reflect Albemarle’s procedure for approving change orders,
consistent with Virginia Code § 2.2-4309(A).
The Virginia Public Procurement Act may be implemented by regulations consistent with the Act
adopted by Resolution of the Board. The adoption of the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual, by
Resolution, will therefore control the procurement of goods and services for the County and Public
Schools.
No budget impact is expected.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) amending and re-
adopting the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual, incorporating the revisions to the Purchasing Manual
set forth in attachments B through I.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution amending and re-
adopting the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual and incorporating the revisions as presented
by staff.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PURCHASING MANUAL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual (“Manual”) delineates not only the
requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, but also the methods and procedures that best enable
the County to procure the highest quality goods and services at a reasonable cost and in an efficient, fair, and
competitive manner; and
WHEREAS, the Manual was last substantially revised on November 14, 2001 and, since 2001, there
have been several amendments to the Virginia Public Procurement Act (“Act”), the state code on which the
Manual is largely based; and
WHEREAS, the Manual needs to be revised and updated to reflect the changes in the Act and to
provide the most comprehensive and efficient procurement of goods and services possible in the County; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to adopt the amendments to the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual is hereby
amended and re-adopted and shall supersede any purchasing policy adopted prior to this date.
_______________
Item No. 7.8. Set public hearing to consider amending the Water Protection Ordinance.
The executive summary states that staff periodically reviews water protection regulations to
assure that they are doing what they were intended to do. Experience shows that three areas of regulation
warrant consideration for amendment: (1) certain fees may be reduced because the time required for staff
to provide the service is less than anticipated; (2) language regarding the allowance of limited disturbance
of the outer fifty feet of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas should be clarified; and (3)
the regulations need to allow timing of the review and action on sediment control plans, stormwater
management/BMP plans and mitigation plans to be better coordinated when they are simultaneously
submitted.
The follow changes are proposed:
Sec. 17-209 Fees.
Sec. 17-310 Fees.
The proposed amendments to these sections would reduce the fees for variances and mitigation
plans. The current variance fee is based on the belief that they would require review by multiple
staff members and would generally be for complex projects. Staff experience is that variance
applications are much smaller and simpler, are primarily intended to accommodate individual sites
with tight topography or other unique circumstances, and require only 2-4 hours of staff time to
review. Similarly, mitigation plans are usually a simple planting plan that can be incorporated into
other plans and require limited staff time to review.
Sec. 17-321 Types of development which may be allowed in stream buffer by program
authority.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
The proposed amendment to this section would clarify that limited disturbances of the outer 50
feet of stream buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas are permitted with mitigation.
Prior to a 2009 amendment, stream buffers were placed on intermittent streams only in the water
supply watersheds. The 2009 amendment added stream buffers on intermittent streams in the
rural areas. The 2009 amendment created uncertainty as to whether any disturbance of stream
buffers on intermittent streams in the rural areas was allowed, regardless of mitigation. This
uncertainty was not intended. Since 1998, limited disturbances of the outer 50 feet of stream
buffers have been permitted with mitigation.
Sec. 17-304 Review and approval of stormwater management/BMP plan.
Sec. 17-322 Mitigation plan if development allowed in stream buffer.
The proposed amendments to these sections are intended to allow the coordinated review and
action on erosion and sediment control plans, stormwater management/BMP plans, and mitigation
plans when they are simultaneously submitted. The current time limits on the approval and re-
submittal of erosion and sediment control plans have been difficult to properly implement when
owners combine the three plans into one physical plan set and submit them simultaneously. The
proposed amendments would also void dormant applications and approved plans that are not
implemented within the specified periods.
Although the reduced fees will result in reduced revenues, they will more accurately reflect staff
time required for the services. The amount of reduced revenues will be evaluated as part of staff’s
analysis of this proposed ordinance amendment, but staff anticipates that the amended fees will result in
less than a $5,000 reduction. The other proposed amendments would not have a budget impact though
they would allow the more efficient administration of the Water Protection Ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached ordinance for a public hearing on October 12,
2011.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the proposed ordinance for public hearing on
October 5, 2011.
_______________
Item No. 7.9. Cancel September 14, 2011 regular night meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved cancellation of their September 14, 2011
regular night meeting.
_______________
Item No. 7.10. Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. (moved to regular agenda).
_______________
Item No. 7.11. Board-to-Board Report for September 2011, a monthly report from the Albemarle
County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 7.12. Copy of letter dated August 3, 2011 from Mr. Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of
Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Brian S. Ray, c/o Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc., re:
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 121, Parcels
51, 52 and 54 (property of Meadow Farm, LLC) Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for
information.
_______________
Item No. 7.13. Copy of letter dated August 8, 2011 from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner,
to Mr. Brian S. Ray, c/o Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc., re: LOD-2011-0007 - OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD – Tax Map 91, Parcel 12 (property of Galaxie, LLC)
Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
Item No. 7.14. Albemarle County Monthly VDoT Report, September 2011, was received for
information.
_______________
Item No. 7.15. Midyear Update on Community Development Work Program , was received for
information.
The executive summary states that this report provides the Board an update on Community
Development’s progress on its 2011 work program. This work program was presented to the Board in
February, 2011, and includes changes to reflect the Board’s direction to prioritize additional work items,
such as Critical Slopes and Rural Area Churches. Additionally, the Board directed staff to consider the
Interstate Interchange Policy review with the Comprehensive Plan Update so that the targeted industry
study may first be completed.
Attachment 1 is the work program as presented to the Board in February, 2011. Attachment 2
presents the work program status as of August, 2011. Staff notes the following highlights:
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
1. Work completed since February, 2011 includes Places 29 Master Plan, Redistricting,
Zoning Fees, Phase 2 of Winery changes, and Phases 1 and 2 of Light Industrial zoning
changes.
2. As a result of work on the LI zoning changes, staff is investigating the need for a third
phase beyond what was previously anticipated. This third phase would consider the
broadening of uses allowed in the Light Industrial zoning category.
3. Staff estimates the Comprehensive Plan update has been delayed approximately 2
months due to the need to obtain Board concurrence with the Consortium Agreement and
the inability to move forward until that agreement was approved.
4. The ministerial and legislative changes remain on schedule, with the ministerial changes
anticipated to reach the Board in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the legislative changes
anticipated to reach the Board in the first quarter of 2012.
5. Work on the Critical Slopes amendment is anticipated to restart as the ministerial
changes are finalized. Work on the Rural Areas churches has been delayed until 2012
pursuant to the Board’s direction at the April 2011 work session.
6. Finally, work on possible amendments to the sign ordinance have been delayed
approximately six months, but are now proceeding to public hearing, and it is anticipated
to be presented to the Board in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Staff anticipates there will be no budget impact resulting from this executive summary.
This report is for information only and no action is required.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said he is a little concerned that the work being done on Light Industrial
would not come to the Board until next year. He said that that was a top priority identified by the Board
and he is concerned that it is taking that long. Mr. Boyd also asked if there would be two different studies
done on Light Industrial land uses, given that there are also Comp Plan reviews pending. He asked when
the County is going to have this ready to roll out, because the community is anxious for it and he is
anxious for it. He thinks it is important and would like to see it accelerated.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, responded that staff has already done
two parts of the LI study, which were the anticipated parts. Staff added a third part to go beyond what was
originally anticipated. He said that staff has done the anticipated changes to the Zoning Ordinance and
are now looking at additional things. The idea with the Comp Plan was to try to get to a point of discussion
in the next calendar year as to whether the Board wanted to accelerate separate parts – such as the
interstate interchange policy. Mr. Graham said that the review would be wrapped up this fall to go to the
Planning Commission and then to the Board in January.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is having trouble understanding how this all meshes together into getting
something accomplished and leading to Comp Plan changes, as there are people “sitting in the wings”
waiting for the interstate interchange process to be addressed so they can apply for Comp Plan
amendments or Special Use Permits, if necessary. He said that several businesses expressed concern at
recent roundtable discussions about their expansion possibilities or even staying in this county, that is
pending on the whole discussion of Light Industrial and its availability.
Mr. Graham said that he appreciates the concern, but when staff brought the work program to the
Board in February the Board asked them to come back in April to look at accelerating interstate
interchange policy or rural area churches – but coming out of that meeting the decision was “neither of
those,” that staff was going to accelerate critical slopes. That is what staff has done. Staff has tried to
reflect the direction they were given by the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he was just a little disappointed that this is not moving forward faster.
Ms. Mallek stated that the approach of changing zoning on properties for landowners who were in
the Comp Plan as Light Industrial – but their zoning did not reflect that – is also further down the road.
Mr. Graham explained that that’s part of the Comp Plan review.
Ms. Mallek said that that’s where it should be, as it is a whole change of view.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County was “holding people off” by telling them that the Comp Plan changes
are being reviewed.
Mr. Graham responded that no one is being held off if they are proposing a use consistent with
the current Comp Plan, but if they are trying to accelerate a change to the Comp Plan then from one
perspective it could be said that they are being held off.
Mr. Rooker said that the quickest and easiest to deal with are people who have property that’s
currently designated for LI that’s not zoned that way, but any changes to the Comp Plan generally have to
be done with some broader scope in mind. There is a somewhat lengthy process of public input, et
cetera, dictated by statute to get there. He also stated that a lot is said about the need for Light Industrial,
but there is LI property around – including 50+ acres at the interchange of I-64 and 5th Street that sat there
for 20 years as LI but the owners said they could never find anyone to go in there, so they ultimately
converted it to commercial use. Mr. Rooker said that there have been numerous cases of Light Industrial
property being converted to some other use because the owner claimed he couldn’t find a LI user for the
property. You get anecdotal information on both sides of this issue.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd stated that there has been no one ready to step up with “pad-ready sites,” and that is
what he is hearing from the business community.
Mr. Rooker said the property he was referring to was already zoned LI and there was no zoning
required, and they could have gone in at any time to put pad sites in.
Mr. Boyd stated that the owner there was not willing to go to that expense, but owners of other
properties are willing to go to that expense and that is what the Board has to look at. He said that if other
people in the community are willing to make that investment, he would like to look at it. Mr. Boyd
commented that some of those LI properties don’t have water and sewer or adequate internet
infrastructure.
Mr. Rooker noted that that would be true to the extent that rural property would be rezoned. A lot
of it is going to be a long way from water and sewer. That is why he thinks areas like the 5th Street area
and other areas that are strategically located are the best sites to focus on Light Industrial.
Mr. Boyd said there was a lot of good information at the roundtable that was brought out by the
business community about how the County could create jobs in community, and that is his number one
priority – to create good career ladder jobs. He commented that the Board needs to somehow accelerate
the process to bring jobs to the community. He thinks that the County needs to proactively go out and do
some things.
Mr. Rooker commented that they need to make certain that whatever is done has its intended
effects.
Ms. Mallek said that the upcoming meetings would be a great opportunity to get the ideas out and
focus on this.
Mr. Foley mentioned that staff was very deliberate in putting this item on the agenda, because
things come along constantly about changes and acceleration and so forth, and staff is doing the best they
can do to keep this program moving, given the resources.
Mr. Boyd stated that he understands that, but there needs to be a continual reminder that a top
priority of theirs is to provide an environment where businesses can thrive here. He said that he heard a
number of businesses imply that they were thinking about leaving the County.
Ms. Mallek said that it was for different reasons.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: SP-2011-00012. Locally Grown Festival (Signs #62&64).
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit to allow a one-time music event for a maximum of 700 people
between the hours of 1-9 p.m. in the fall of 2011.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.42 Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
LOCATION: 5152 Mount Juliet Farm, approximately one-half mile northwest of junction with White
Hall Road (810).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 040000000026A1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22 and August 29, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the applicant for the project was in attendance, stating that staff had heard
from the applicant that they might want to defer but they never confirmed. He said that if the applicant is
not here the item should at least be deferred until October.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a time issue with the application.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that one of the changes that the applicant had asked, for this one event,
was to allow them to have until the end of 2012. Mr. Cilimberg said from a time standpoint, it is probably
not critical to them. He suggested the Board defer the request until October. He also suggested that the
Board hold the public hearing so as not to re-advertise the public hearing.
Mr. Davis said that unless the Board wants it re-advertised, staff’s recommendation would be to
hold the public hearing and then defer the matter.
Ms. Mallek stated that she does not see a reason to re-advertise it.
Ms. Mallek then opened the public hearing.
There being no public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker moved to defer SP-2011-00012 until October 5, 2011. Mr. Dorrier seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: ZMA-2011-00004. Albemarle Place Proffer Amendment
(Signs #66&67).
PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers on property zoned NMD which allows residential (3 – 34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No new dwellings or change in
residential density proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in Destination Center) – retail,
residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban Mixed Use (in
areas around Centers) – commercial and retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers; and
Commercial Mixed Use – commercial, retail, employment uses, with supporting residential, office,
or institutional uses.
LOCATION: Northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in
Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-
03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 22 and August 29, 2011.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board is familiar with the site and its location, which is zoned for
the Neighborhood Model District. He stated that the request here is for two substantive changes –
phasing of a through road improvement for the street connecting Hydraulic Road and Route 29 that would
run through the project, and also changes to inter-parcel street connections. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
under the current requirements, Sections A, B, C and D would be built before any connection of the
through-road – which is now being called Stonefield Boulevard – and the proffers would require that this
road be connected through from the back side of Sperry to Route 29 after the cons truction of A, B, C and
D occur. He said that with the development of part E that road connection would be a requirement, and
their request is to also allow Section E to develop without having to build the full urban cross-section street
in this alignment from the back of Sperry to Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg stated there could be two options as
to how that could otherwise be dealt with during the development of all five parcels – to either build a
temporary road through, which would ultimately be replaced with a permanent road with the development
of F and G, or to delay any connection altogether if traffic studies indicate there is not a negative impact as
a result of that.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the other change is that under this plan there was a street referred to
as “Second Street” that had the potential of being connected through, but with plans as currently proposed
that would not be possible physically so the applicants are asking that the connection be removed with
other connections left for future decisions as development occurs, with potential for connections identified;
and if not possible then there could be a waiver to allow the connections not to occur. He said that other
connections would be dependent on the ability to actually physically build them in the adjacent areas,
which are not under their control. Mr. Cilimberg stated that initially with the outset of the development of
this project there are going to be improvements on the frontage of both Route 29 and Hydraulic Road
undertaken, which will create better opportunities for access and overall circulation of traffic on both the
southbound side of Route 29 as well as the westbound and eastbound sections of Hydraulic Road. With
those improvements, he said, staff feels the critical nature of connecting through this particular street as a
full-blown urban cross-section boulevard is not a necessity as this part of the development takes place.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that there is an allowance of flexibility in the design and timing of that
boulevard and the number and/or location of inter-parcel connections that still assures streets are
provided commensurate with the needs generated by the development, and this does not create
inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has noted, he said, that the construction of the full
urban cross-section boulevard will be delayed as compared to what the current proffers would require. He
stated that staff along with the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the zoning map
amendment, which is basically the proffers dated August 5, 2011.
Ms. Mallek asked about the connector street between Parcels E and F, as Mr. Cilimberg had
indicated there is no outlet at the moment because of the houses built along Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that the developers would need adjacent areas to be available in order
for connections to be made and they don’t control those connections, but the only removed section they
are asking for is Second Street.
Mr. Snow noted that Mr. Cilimberg mentioned the possibility of a temporary road going out and
asked him what he meant by “temporary.”
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the road would not be a full-blown urban cross-section street, but
would be a road built probably as a rural cross-section – although staff is asking that they include a path
for pedestrians. He said it would be a road that could be easily removed in the development of F and G.
Ms. Mallek said it also wouldn’t be damaged by construction traffic when they do F and G. Mr.
Cilimberg said that is true.
Mr. Snow asked if it could be a road used by commuters and other people in the area.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it would be. He also said that in the development of Section E the
developer would provide a traffic study that indicates that connecting the road through would not be
necessary for the purpose of serving the traffic in the area, and that would be a decision made by the
County Engineer and VDOT as to whether that would be acceptable. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the proffer
would allow the applicant to not have to build any road whatsoever until they get into the development of F
and G, but that will not be known until the site plans and traffic study are in to give an indication of traffic
impact.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is clearly defined with guidelines. Mr. Cilimberg responded that that will be
defined as part of the normal traffic study review. He added that there are guidelines.
Mr. Boyd asked where the outlets are to get in and out of the development.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are multiple connections including the entrance in the back that
will already exist, a potential connection going into the Sperry property, a potential connection to the north
going into the Comdial property and to the west using the back entrance to Comdial. He confirmed that
based on the current build-out for A-E, the current access would be at Hydraulic road and potentially down
to Route 29 if this road were required to be built – even as a temporary – and their new Main Street
connecting directly to Route 29.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there are two entries on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is also an entrance further to the east on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Boyd asked if E would all be residential.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the developer submitted a site plan that shows apartments primarily
in that section, but there are some areas not as yet showing what development would occur because they
have not reached the point of knowing what their market demand is.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff feels comfortable that what the developer is proposing would be adequate.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the County has the opportunity through the traffic study to determine
whether or not the connection needs to be made, and as a temporary road in the short term – before F
and G are built – there will still be a full-through access. He also said there is a crossover that has been
approved by VDOT, and signalization would be VDOT’s determination.
Mr. Rooker asked if the temporary road would exit at the same spot.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that one of the primary reasons for that access is so traffic leaving and
going north would not have to go through Hydraulic Road, which is an important facet in this.
Ms. Mallek noted that it only works if there is a light.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that VDOT said lights could be sequenced so it doesn’t really impact
the flow through there. He added that the County needs to look very carefully at allowing anything other
than the temporary road solution, which would provide for that outlet.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that staff would not remove the requirement of that connection unless
the traffic studies indicated it was not necessary.
Ms. Mallek commented that they are only talking about the timing, not that the road is going away.
Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that is the case, adding that it would be evaluated with each section or
piece of development occurring within the project.
Ms. Mallek said that normal procedures would require bonds, so if they got a certificate of
occupancy there would still be a requirement to get the road done. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the
proffers would require that it be done.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, Edens and Avant, introduced the Project Manager,
Tom Gallagher, and addressed the Board. She said that there is no intent to eliminate the connection; it is
a matter of whether it is built to a temporary standard. It would be usable for the traveling public. It would
not be the full urban cross section that it would ultimately be required to be. She said that before a
certificate of occupancy for the F and G blocks can be issued the road must be in its final state and
approved by VDOT. Ms. Long said that in order to have COs for the residential dwelling units that would
be built in Block E, the applicant would either have to build the temporary road through to Route 29 or, if
they had a current traffic study that demonstrates that all traffic from the first phase of the project A-D and
block E residential units doesn’t cause the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection to fall below an
acceptable level of service then it is acceptable. She stated that in Phase 1 it is blocks A-D, but in addition
there cannot be more than 370,000 square feet of commercial space and 170 dwelling units – and those
numbers were arrived at in working with VDOT because that is the volume they think the Hydraulic
Road/Route 29 Intersection can handle. Ms. Long also mentioned that a residential developer came
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
forward expressing interest in building the apartments in block E, and VDOT and staff said the developer
would need to prove that levels of service would still be sufficient – or they would have to build a
temporary road. She emphasized that the applicants may build the temporary road anyway, and the
proffers are written in a way that provides a great amount of discretion and authority to the County and
VDOT to make those decisions.
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant is required to do a traffic study at that point.
Ms. Long replied that they would not have to do one necessarily, but the only way to get relief from
building the temporary road at that time would be to demonstrate through a traffic analysis that all of the
traffic from blocks A-E would not cause the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection to fall below an
acceptable level of service. She confirmed that there is an obligation in the proffers for the applicant to go
through that process.
Mr. Rooker said he wasn’t sure if the developer had looked to try to make a connection to
Commonwealth Drive as a way to alleviate the traffic from block E.
Ms. Long said that they have not looked at that yet, as it would require displacing residents or
buying out their properties and at this point the applicants have not pursued that.
Mr. Thomas recalled that there were discussions about the road going out to Commonwealth
Drive, with two outlets.
Ms. Long stated that on the application plan there are future connections planned, including one in
the back entrance where the former Comdial facility is, and there are three or four extending towards
Commonwealth Drive that are future potential connections. She said that nothing is actually planned at
this point but the proffers all require that land be dedicated in these locations to facilitate future
construction of those connections by other owners – if and when the opportunity arises – as well as a
separate proffer pertaining to the back entrance at Comdial.
Mr. Thomas asked what Ms. Long meant by other owners. Ms. Long responded that if those
properties are ever redeveloped in the future. The Albemarle Place developers would not build the
connection because they do not control those properties. If someone ever wanted to redevelop that area
and facilitate a connection, the Albemarle Place project would have reserved that land so that those
connections could be made without requiring condemnation for purposes of right-of-way.
Mr. Rooker said that one option would be the developer buying a row of townhouses to assume
right-of-way there to provide a two-lane outlet to Commonwealth Drive. He noted that it might be less
expensive than the other plan. There are a lot of investors who own property in that area.
Mr. Snow asked if there was an anticipated timeframe for the build out of block E.
Ms. Long replied that there is a developer who is very interested and is working with Edens and
Avant to pursue development of apartments. She thinks they are hoping to pursue it in the later part of
Phase I.
Mr. Dorrier asked how long Phase 1 would take.
Ms. Long stated that it’s not really tied to a time limit, but instead is linked to what is included in
the scope of Phase 1 – blocks A-D and potentially block E. She said that the developer does have a
deadline to complete the first few buildings in Phase 1.
Mr. Gallagher explained that Edens and Avant is currently completing site work and would
commence vertical construction this fall for all the retail in blocks A-C, as well as establishing a pad site for
the Hyatt Place going up on the west side of Stonefield Boulevard – with a plan to deliver a pad site for
block E in the spring of 2012. He said that concurrent with that, they will either look at doing a traffic study
or commence with the temporary road connection. Mr. Gallagher stated that Faulconer is under
construction onsite and would commence some of the improvements to Route 29 South and Hydraulic
Road within the next few weeks, so all of the offsite improvements would be done before the first CO
takes place on the property. He added that all onsite roads and infrastructure, including the connection
through to Route 29 would be addressed either through the traffic analysis or temporary road construction.
Mr. Boyd commented that the offsite improvements are just those in County property and do not
include the expansion of the Best Buy ramp.
Mr. Gallagher confirmed that is the case.
Mr. Rooker said they are contributing money, but it is a State project. He noted that there was a
meeting last week to try to get that project coordinated so that when Faulconer finishes their work at
Albemarle Place they could seamlessly move forward to the south which would certainly make sense.
Mr. Snow asked when the doors would be open at Stonefield.
Mr. Gallagher responded that they are targeting for fall 2012, and to deliver that they need to
deliver the entire Town Center.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve ZMA-2011-0004 inclusive of the proffers dated August 5, 2011.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below:)
Albemarle Place
PROFFER FORM
Date: August 5, 2011
ZMA # 2011-00004 Albemarle Place
Tax Map and Parcel Numbers: 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-
03-00-02400, and 61W0-03-00-02500
65.034 Acres zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) to be rezoned to Neighborhood Model District
(NMD)
Albemarle Place EAAP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the fee simple owner (the “Owner”) of tax
map parcels 061W0-03-00-019A0, 061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300, 061W0-03-00-02400, and
061W0-03-00-02500 (collectively, the “Property”), which is the subject of zoning map amendment application
number ZMA 2011-00004 known as “Albemarle Place Amendment.”
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed in this proffer statement, which shall be applied to the Property if the rezoning is approved by
Albemarle County. These conditions are proffered as part of the rezoning and it is acknowledged that the
conditions are reasonable.
The Albemarle Place project was originally approved by the County Board of Supervisors on October 22, 2003
as ZMA 2001-007, along with proffers from the prior owner dated October 22, 2003, and a Code of
Development prepared by The Cox Company dated October 15, 2003 (with Exhibit A to the Code of
Development last revised July 8, 2010) (the “Code of Development”). The Code of Development included an
application plan (the “Application Plan”). The improvements proposed for the Property are collectively referred
to as the “Project.”
The term “Owner” as referenced herein shall include within its meaning the owner of record and successors in
interest. The term “Application Plan” refers to Exhibit A. The term “Code of Development” refers to Exhibit B.
The proffers dated October 22, 2003 that were approved with ZMA 2001-007 were amended by proffers
dated July 23, 2010 that were approved with ZMA 2008-0003 by the County Board of Supervisors on August 4,
2010. These proffers amend and supersede the proffers accepted in conjunction with the approval of ZMA
2001-007 and ZMA 2008-0003.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall
not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provisions of the proffers.
1. Phasing of Albemarle Place Improvements: The Owner shall phase development of the Project as
follows:
A. Phase 1: Phase 1 of the Project shall be composed of Blocks A, B, C and D as shown on the
Application Plan, and as shown in more detail on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto (“Phase 1”), and shall
include street and utility improvements to serve the planned building improvements contained within
Phase 1. As part of Phase 1, the Owner shall design and construct Albemarle Place Boulevard (also
known as Fourth Street/Cedar Hill Road) (“Albemarle Place Boulevard”) from Hydraulic Road to the
point where Albemarle Place Boulevard connects with the new planned western entrance to the
Sperry Marine facility in the location shown on the Application Plan, and as shown in more detail on
Exhibit A-1. This first phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard shall include all supporting utility
infrastructure on such street, and shall be completed prior to issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy for any buildings within Blocks A, B, C and D. Construction of the first phase of Albemarle
Place Boulevard shall be deemed complete when it is constructed in conformance with the plans
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) and the County Engineer has
approved it for vehicular travel. No more than three hundred seventy thousand (370,000) square feet
of commercial space and one hundred seventy (170) dwelling units may be constructed within the
Project until the remainder of Albemarle Place Boulevard is constructed to the new planned
intersection with U.S. Route 29 as shown on the Application Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Paragraph 1A, the Owner shall be permitted to utilize portions of the Phase
2 land (as shown on Exhibit A-1) for the installation of infrastructure to serve the Phase 1 building
improvements to be constructed in Blocks A, B, C and D.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
B. Phase 2: Phase 2 of the Project shall be composed of Blocks E, F and G as shown on the
Application Plan and as shown in more detail on Exhibit A-1 (“Phase 2”), and shall include street and
utility improvements to serve the planned building improvements contained within Phase 2. As part of
Phase 2, the Owner shall design and construct Albemarle Place Boulevard from the point where it
connects with the new planned western entrance to the Sperry Marine facility north and east through
Blocks E, F and G to the new planned intersection with U.S. Route 29 as shown on the Application
Plan and as shown in more detail on Exhibit A-1. This second phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard
shall include all supporting utility infrastructure on such street and shall be completed prior to issuance
of a final certificate of occupancy for any buildings within Blocks E, F and G. Construction of the
second phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard shall be deemed complete when it is construc ted in
conformance with the plans approved by VDOT and the County Engineer has approved it for
vehicular travel. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Paragraph 1B, the Owner
shall be permitted to utilize portions of the Phase 2 land (as shown on Exhibit A-1) for the installation
of infrastructure to serve the Phase 1 building improvements to be constructed in Blocks A, B, C and
D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this paragraph 1B or in paragraph 1A above,
final certificates of occupancy may be issued for buildings within Blocks A, B, C, D or E beyond the
threshold levels contained in paragraph 1A, provided that the Owner (i) has constructed at least a
temporary road (at standards acceptable to the Director of Com munity Development) connecting the
first phase of Albemarle Place Boulevard to the new planned intersection with U.S. Route 29, or (ii)
can demonstrate during the site plan review process, through traffic analysis acceptable to the
Director of Community Development and VDOT, that additional traffic from such buildings, when
aggregated with the traffic generated by the uses for which certificates of occupancy have been
issued for buildings in Phase 1, will not cause the Hydraulic Road/U.S. Route 29 intersection to fall
below an acceptable level of service.
C. Landscape improvements and associated streetscape improvements to serve the planned
building improvements contained within each block shall be reviewed at the time of final site plan
review for each block. The Project shall have a consistently designed and planted streetscape along
Route 29 and Hydraulic Road.
2. Community Development Authority Participation: Upon request by the County, the Owner shall
petition for and consent to all tax map parcels used for non-residential purposes participating in a
Community Development Authority (“CDA”) established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the
Code of Virginia (“Code”) to be created for the purpose of implementing Route 29 regional
transportation improvements, including but not limited to transportation improvements within the
“Super Block” (the geographical area bounded by Route 29, Hydraulic Road, Commonwealth Drive,
and Greenbrier Drive) and intersectional improvements associated therewith.
3. Cash Proffer for Route 29 Regional Transportation: The Owner will make a cash contribution to
the County for the MPO/29H250 Phase 2 Route 29 regional transportation study in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). The cash contribution shall be made by the Owner within
thirty (30) days upon request by the County. This proffer has been satisfied.
4. Cash Proffer for City of Charlottesville Traffic Calming Improvements: The Owner shall
contribute Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to the City of Charlottesville for the construction by the
City of traffic calming improvements on Swanson Road, Cedar Hill Road and other City streets
intersecting Hydraulic Road in the vicinity of Albemarle Place. The cash contribution shall be made by
the Owner within thirty (30) days upon request by the City. If the traffic calming improvements are not
implemented by October 15, 2007, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner. The City
constructed the traffic calming improvements, and requested the prior owner of the Property to pay
the contribution on November 9, 2005, but there are no immediately available records that such
contribution was ever received by the City. Upon evidence of prior payment of such funds that is
satisfactory to the County, the requirements of this Paragraph 4 shall be deemed satisfied. In the
event the Owner has not produced such evidence to the County by March 31, 2010, the Owner shall
contribute the funds to the City within thirty (30) days of a written request from the City, provided that
such request is made no sooner than April 1, 2011. At the time such funds are delivered to the City,
the Owner shall provide notice of such payment to the County.
5. Cash Proffer for Charlottesville Area Transit (“CAT”) Commercial Corridor “Jitney Service”:
Upon the request of the County, the Owner shall contribute Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00)
per annum or an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the annual operating and maintenance
costs, whichever is less, for a period not to exceed five years for operating and/or maintaining a
dedicated “jitney bus” service to retail commercial developments, including Albemarle Place, along
the Route 29 Corridor. If the CAT “jitney service” is not placed into operation by the date of issuance
of the first occupancy permit for a commercial building in Albemarle Place, then the Owner shall
contribute Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00) per annum, for a period not to exceed five years, to
CAT for costs associated with operating existing CAT bus route(s) that provide service to Albemarle
Place.
6. Cash Proffer for Capital Improvements: The Owner shall contribute One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) (hereinafter referred to as the “Total Contribution”) to the County
for the purpose of funding capital improvements related to Albemarle Place. The contribution shall be
paid as follows: (a) Three Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($375,000.00) shall be
contributed to the County within thirty (30) days after the first final site plan or subdivision plat
containing residential dwelling units is approved for Albemarle Place; (b) an additional Three Hundred
and Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($375,000.00) of the total contribution shall be contributed to the
County prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential dwelling unit in
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Albemarle Place, and (c) the remaining Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) of the
Total Contribution shall be paid on a pro rata basis of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per
residential dwelling unit at the time certificates of occupancy are issued for the first two hundred fifty
(250) dwelling units. No additional contribution shall be required for the next two hundred fifty (250)
dwelling units.
If, five (5) years from the date of approval of the first final site plan or subdivision plat for residential
dwelling units, the Total Contribution has not been fully paid, the balance of the Total Contribution
shall be contributed to the County within thirty (30) days upon request by the County. If this fund has
not been exhausted by the County for the stated purpose within five (5) years from the date the last
contribution is made, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
In addition to the foregoing, after building permits have been issued for the first five hundred (500)
dwelling units within Albemarle Place, the Owner shall pay to the County Three Thousand Dollars
($3,000.00) prior to the issuance of a building permit for each new residential dwelling unit thereafter.
7. Construction of Frontage improvements on Route 29 and Hydraulic Road: At its expense, the
Owner shall plan, design, bond and construct travel lane improvements to be dedicated for public use
on its Hydraulic Road and Route 29 frontage. The design shall be submitted with the first site plan
for the initial phase of Albemarle Place. The subject frontage improvements are depicted by Exhibit
F, “Short Term Route 29 Transportation Improvements.” The County may require these
improvements to be completed as a prerequisite to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy.
The construction of the subject improvements shall be deemed complete when they are constructed
in conformance with the plans approved by VDOT and opened to public use as approved by VDOT.
8. Construction of Off-Site Improvements: Upon request by the County or as provided herein, the
Owner shall plan, design, bond and construct off-site transportation improvements in the County and
the City, as depicted on Exhibit F, “Short Term Route 29 Transportation Improvements”. If the
improvements are required to be constructed, the County may require these improvements to be
completed as a prerequisite to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. Construction shall be
deemed complete when the improvements are constructed in conformance with the plans approved
by VDOT and opened to public use as approved by VDOT.
A. Off-site Improvements in the County at the Northwest Quadrant of the Hydraulic
Road/Route 29 Intersection. The engineering, plats and construction documents for off-site
improvements in the County shall be submitted with the first final site plan for Phase 1 of
Albemarle Place.
B. Off-site Improvements in the City at the Northeast Quadrant of the Hydraulic
Road/Route 29 Intersection (numbered items 4 and 11 on Exhibit F). The Owner shall
submit the engineering, plats and construction documents (the “Plans”) for the improvements
in the City of Charlottesville to the City of Charlottesville within sixty (60) days after the first
final site plan for Phase 1 of Albemarle Place is submitted to the County. The Owner shall
diligently pursue approval of the Plans in the City. If the City does not approve the Plans
within six (6) months after the first final site plan for the first phase of Albemarle Place is
approved by the County, the Owner shall not be required by this proffer to construct any
improvements for which approvals have not been obtained. The Owner shall not be required
by this proffer to acquire or otherwise pay for right of way in the City for these improvements.
If the improvements are required to be constructed, the Owner shall complete construction of
the improvements for which right of way is available within twelve (12) months after the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within Albemarle Place. Construction shall be
deemed complete when the improvements are constructed in conformance with the plans
approved by VDOT and opened to public use as approved by VDOT.
This Paragraph 8(B) is subject to the terms of Paragraph 14, “Substituted Transportation
Improvements.”
9. Reservation and Dedication of land for Regional Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Intersection
Improvements: The Owner shall reserve for the future dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia
certain land on the Property in the County for certain short-term transportation improvements for the
Route 29 and Hydraulic Road intersection (the “Short- Term Route 29/Hydraulic Road
Improvements”) as follows: (a) the land shown as “Parcel A 6,511 S.F.” on the plat of Kirk Hughes
and Associates dated March 3, 2009, last revised March 25, 2010, which plat is attached hereto as
Exhibit H; and (b) any portions of the parcels shown as “Parcel One Future Right of Way 1,117 S.F.,”
“Parcel Two Future Right of Way 9,079 S.F.,” “Parcel Four Future Right of Way 1,660 S.F.,” and
“Parcel Five Future Right of Way 790 S.F.,” on the Official Map adopted by the County on December
2, 2009, a copy of which Official Map is attached hereto as Exhibit I, that are required by VDOT for
the Short-Term Route 29/Hydraulic Road Improvements (collectively, the “Short-Term Improvements
Dedication Area”), provided, however, that the subdivision plats depicting the Short-Term
Improvements Dedication Area are subject to final approval by the County Department of Community
Development and that the precise boundaries and size of the Short-Term Improvements Dedication
Area may be adjusted accordingly.
The Owner shall dedicate the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area to the Commonwealth of
Virginia in fee simple by October 1, 2010, or within thirty (30) days after the County approves the
subdivision plat necessary to dedicate the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area, whichever is
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
first to occur. In addition to the dedication of the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area, the
Owner shall dedicate and convey all necessary drainage and construction easements for the Short-
Term Route 29/Hydraulic Road Improvements. If the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area is
not dedicated and conveyed as part of a subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay all costs of surveying
and preparing legal documents in a form acceptable to the Office of the Attorney General necessary
to dedicate and convey the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area land.
After dedication and until the subject regional transportation improvements are funded for
construction, the Owner shall, at the request of the County, and with the consent of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, maintain the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area land until
requested by the County to no longer do so provided the Owner is granted the right to the exclusive
use of the land for landscaped open space, a pocket park, temporary parking, fencing, signage,
utilities or other purpose as may be approved with the final site plan for the first phase of Albemarle
Place. Upon being requested by the County to no longer maintain the land, the Owner shall cease all
use of the land and remove all improvements established by the Owner that the County requests be
removed.
In the event that the adopted design for future public intersection improvements does not require the
utilization of all of the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area land, upon the Owner’s request, the
residual portion of the dedicated land shall be transferred to the Owner at no expense to the Owner.
The deed(s) of dedication for the Short-Term Improvements Dedication Area may provide for such
conditions.
10. Reservation and Dedication of Additional Land for Route 29 and Hydraulic Road Intersection
Improvements: The Owner shall reserve for future dedication to the County, subject to the
conditions herein below, certain additional land on the Property for the right of way for future
Hydraulic Road and Route 29 related regional transportation improvements (the “Long-Term Route
29/Hydraulic Road Improvements”) as follows: (a) the area shown as “Parcel A1 1,432 S.F.” on
Exhibit H; and (b) any portions of the parcels shown on Exhibit I that were not previously dedicated to
the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Short-Term Route 29/Hydraulic Road Improvements pursuant
to the Paragraph 9 herein (collectively, the “Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area”) provided,
however, that the subdivision plats depicting the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area are
subject to final approval by the County Department of Community Development and that the precise
boundaries and size of the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area may be adjusted accordingly.
The Owner shall dedicate the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area to the County within ninety
(90) days after the County’s request for such dedication, and such dedication shall include the
dedication and conveyance of all necessary drainage and construction easements for the Long-Term
Route 29/Hydraulic Road Improvements. If the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area is not
dedicated and conveyed as part of a subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay all costs of surveying and
preparing legal documents in a form acceptable to the County Attorney’s Office necessary to dedicate
and convey the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area.
Until the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area land is dedicated, the Owner shall maintain the
land and shall retain the right to the exclusive use of the land for landscaped open space, a pocket
park, temporary parking, fencing, utilities or other purposes as may be approved with the first final site
plan for Phase 1 of Albemarle Place.
The conditions on the subject reservation and dedication shall be as follows:
(a) In the event that the adopted design for future public intersection improvements does not require
the utilization of all of the Long-Term Improvements Dedication Area land, upon request of the
Owner the residual portion shall be released by the County from the reservation or, if the land has
been dedicated, upon request of the Owner title shall be transferred back to, and for the use of,
the Owner at no expense to Owner. The deed(s) of dedication for the Long-Term Improvements
Dedication Area may provide for such conditions.
(b) The design and construction of the Long-Term Route 29/Hydraulic Road Improvements shall
substantially maintain the access, function, and continuity of service of the planned intersection of
Swanson Road (Extended) and existing Hydraulic Road into Albemarle Place at the location of
the existing Swanson Road and Hydraulic Road intersection; otherwise this proffer becomes null
and void.
11. Signalization of Hydraulic Road and Route 29 Intersections: The Owner shall be responsible for
traffic signalization improvements as follows:
A. The Owner at its expense shall engineer, bond, and construct traffic signalization improvements at
the intersection of Albemarle Place Boulevard and Hydraulic Road. The traffic signalization
improvements at this intersection shall be constructed when the County or VDOT request
installation of such, but in any event prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
building in Blocks A, B, C or D, provided that such signal is warranted by the traffic volumes or is
otherwise approved by VDOT.
B. Owner at its expense shall engineer, bond and construct traffic signalization improvements at the
intersection of Albemarle Place Boulevard and U.S. Route 29. The traffic signalization
improvements at this intersection shall be constructed when the County or VDOT request
installation of such, but in any event prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
building in Blocks E, F or G, provided that such signal is warranted by the traffic volumes or is
otherwise approved by VDOT, provided that such signal is warranted by the traffic volumes or is
otherwise approved by VDOT.
12. Commonwealth Drive Connection: Upon demand of the County, but no earlier than the issuance of
a building permit for any building within Block F, the Owner shall reserve right-of-way along the
northern edge of the parking lot in Block F of the Property for a future street connection to
Commonwealth Drive through the “Comdial Property” (TM 61W -3-18). The future connection will be
a two lane facility.
Upon the request of the County, the Owner shall engineer, bond and construct both the on-site and
the off-site portions of the connection to Commonwealth Drive on the “Comdial Property” provided
that easements and acquisition of right-of-way as may be necessary for such construction for the
connection through off-site properties for this improvement have been granted at no cost to the
Owner, and the request for such connection through the off-site property is made by the County prior
to October 15, 2020. Upon the request of the County, the connection shall be completed by the
Owner within twelve (12) months from the date of satisfaction of the conditions as set forth above.
13. Other “Super Block” Street Connections: The Owner shall reserve land and grant construction
and permanent access easements or right of way at no expense to the County for the purposes of
future construction (by others) of inter-parcel street connections within the “Super Block” at the
following locations; First Street (to west to Commonwealth Drive), Third Street (to west to
Commonwealth Drive), Cedar Hill Road Extended (in Block F north to “Comdial Property”), Fourth
Street (between Blocks F and G north to “Comdial Property”), Swanson Road Extended (to north to
“Sperry Property”) and at two additional locations into Sperry Property.
The locations for easement or right of way reservation and dedication are as generally depicted on
Exhibit A and labeled thereon as “Future Extension.” However, the locations and numbers of such
inter-parcel street connections may be modified by the Owner upon a variation granted by the County
Planning Director. These easement or right of way locations shall be identified, platted and dedicated
at the request of the County in conjunction with subsequent site plan applications for Albemarle
Place.
14. Substituted Transportation Improvements.
A. In lieu of constructing the improvements referenced in Paragraph 8(B) herein, which Paragraph
8(B) refers to certain off-site improvements in the City of Charlottesville at the northwest quadrant
of the Hydraulic Road/Route 29 intersection, and also other improvements along the City side of
Route 29 between Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive, which improvements are collectively
hereinafter referred to as the “Paragraph 8(B) Improvements”, the Owner may elect, in its sole
discretion, and on the terms and conditions contained in this Paragraph 14, to contribute cash to
the City for certain transportation improvements in the City known as the “Rte. 29/250 Bypass
Interchange Improvement Project” identified as VDOT and City project number 0029 -104-248
(the “Substituted Improvements Project”).
B. In the event the Owner elects to contribute cash toward the Substituted Improvements Project
(the “Owner’s Contribution”) in lieu of constructing the Paragraph 8(B) Improvements, the
following terms shall apply:
1. The Owner shall notify the County’s Director of Community Development (the “Director”) in
writing of its election within sixty (60) days after the approval of the first final site plan for
Phase 1 of Albemarle Place (the “Notice”). The Owner shall also send a copy of the Notice to
the City Development Services Manager at the same time it is sent to the Director.
2. The submission of the Notice to the Director shall suspend the deadline for the Owner to
submit the Plans (as “Plans” is defined in Paragraph 8(B)) to the City, if applicable.
3. The amount of the Owner’s Contribution to the Substituted Improvements Project shall be
subject to a written agreement between the Owner and the City (the “City Agreement”). Within
ten (10) days after full execution of the City Agreement, the Owner shall provide a copy of the
City Agreement to the Director.
4. Within six (6) months after the Notice is sent to the Director, or within sixty (60) days after
execution of the City Agreement, whichever is later to occur, the Owner shall contribute a
portion of the Owner’s Contribution to the City in the amount of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000), less any amounts credited by the City and VDOT to the Owner for planning and
design work on the Paragraph 8(B) Improvements (the “Net Contribution”). The Net
Contribution may be in the form of cash or a letter of credit issued by a bank approved by the
City, or a combination thereof. The City Agreement shall set forth the terms of and schedule
for draw down of the Net Contribution.
5. In the event that the Substituted Improvements Project is terminated, or has not otherwise
been completed (as described herein) within thirty-six (36) months after the City receives the
Net Contribution (which thirty-six (36) month period may be extended by mutual agreement of
the Charlottesville City Manager and the Albemarle County Executive), and upon the City’s
refunding of the Net Contribution to the Owner pursuant to the City Agreement, the Owner
shall forward funds equal to Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to the County for
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
funding transportation improvements in the vicinity of the U.S. Route 29/Hydraulic Road
intersection identified in the County’s Capital Improvements Program. In the event such funds
have not been expended by the County for the stated purpose within ten (10) years from the
date the funds were contributed to the County, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the
Owner. Construction of the Substituted Improvements Project shall be deemed complete
when the improvements are accepted by the appropriate public entity or are bonded for the
entity’s acceptance.
6. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 14(B)(5) herein, upon the City’s receipt of the Net
Contribution, the Owner shall be relieved of any obligation to construct the Paragraph 8(B)
Improvements.
WITNESS the following signature:
ALBEMARLE PLACE EAAP, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: Edens Albemarle, LLC,
a South Carolina limited liability company, its manager
By: __(Signed) Jodie W. McLean__
Jodie W. McLean, President
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28, 2011.)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of Budget and Performance Management, summarized the following
executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
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 new requested FY 2011 appropriations, itemized below, is $696,107.17. Because
the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a
budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2011 Budget Amendment totals $3,492,355.98. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 96,580.00
Special Revenue Funds $ 187,727.20
School Fund $ 46,162.37
School Self-Sustaining Funds $ 745,774.21
Emergency Communications Center $ 122,099.00
Capital Improvements Funds $ 2,294,013.20
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 3,492,355.98
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue (non-tax)* $ 104,588.91
State Revenue $ 693,498.75
Federal Revenue $ 661,912.12
Loan Proceeds $ 400,000.00
General Fund Balance $ 2,092,380.00
Storm Water Fund Balance $ (800,000.00)
Other Fund Balances $ 339,976.20
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,492,355.98
*The local revenue in this amendment includes $30,893.87 in donations, a $21,344.45
reimbursement from ACSA, $21,900.00 in cable royalties, and $30,450.59 in grants and miscellaneous
local revenue.
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-four (24) separate appropriations as follows, 20 of
which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved April 6, 2011:
Two (2) appropriations (#2011070 and #2011072) totaling $42,148.46 for various School Division
programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2011071) totaling $187,727.20 to re-appropriate funding for the purchase
of replacement vehicles for the Police Department;
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
One (1) appropriation (#2011073) totaling $3,000.00 from the Board’s contingency reserve to fund
expenses associated with the 2011 Prisoner Reentry Summit to be held in April 2011. This
appropriation did not increase the total County budget; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011074) totaling $190,000.00 in Safe Routes to Schools Grant funding
from the Virginia Department of Transportation for an extension of the Crozet North Sidewalk
improvements.
Approved May 4, 2011:
Three (3) appropriations (#2011075, #2011076, and #2011079) totaling $45,034.49 for various
School Division programs and
One (1) appropriation (#2011078) totaling $74,829.00 for the Emergency Communication Center
(ECC) for a five-year maintenance contract that covers the 800 MHz in-building equipment in 26
public buildings.
Approved June 1, 2011:
One (1) appropriation (#2011077) totaling $2,000,000.00 for Capital Improvement Plan projects
from the FY 2009/10 undesignated fund balance;
One (1) appropriation (#2011080) totaling $21,344.45 for the Crozet Streetscape Phase 2 project
received from the Albemarle County Service Authority for expenses incurred by the County for the
waterline construction component of the project;
One (1) appropriation (#2011081) totaling $117,800.00 for advance payment to the Central
Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy for the Sheriff’s Office, Police Department and
Emergency Communications Center’s training costs to be incurred in FY 2012;
One (1) appropriation (#2011082) totaling $82,668.75 for the ACE program from the Farmland
Preservation’s Local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011083) totaling $3,844.63 for school division donations.
Approved June 8, 2011:
One (1) appropriation (#2011084) totaling $21,850.00 for two reimbursable Emergency
Management grants for the Emergency Communications Center (ECC).
Approved July 6, 2011:
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 recognized
$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 did not increase the budget.
Approved August 3, 2011:
One (1) appropriation (#2011088) totaling $3,256.78 for school division donations and
One (1) appropriation (#2011089) totaling a net amount of $0.00. This appropriation amends a
previously approved appropriation, #2011087, of funding received from the Virginia Resources
Authority to more accurately reflect both components of the revenue in the County’s financial
accounting system. $400,000.00 of the loan will be identified as “loan proceeds” and $400,000.00
in forgivable loan proceeds will be identified as “a grant.” This appropriation did not increase the
budget.
The three (3) new appropriations and one (1) appropriation correction requested for Board
approval on September 7 are as follows:
Three (3) appropriations (#2011090, #2011091, and #2011092) totaling $696,107.17 for school
division programs; and
One (1) appropriation correction (#2011088) totaling $270.00.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2011 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $3,492,355.98, approval of Appropriations #2011090, #2011091, and #2011092, and correction
of Appropriation #2011088 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and programs
described in Attachment A:
*****
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011090 $ 204.28
Revenue Source: Donations $ 204.28
This request is to appropriate a $204.28 donation awarded to Henley Middle School from Henley’s Parent and
Teacher Support Organization. The donor requested that their contribution be used to help fund the
“Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of June, 2011. This request is to align the budget with the
expenditures which occurred during the FY 10/11 School year. This appropriation was approved by the
School Board at its July 14, 2011 meeting.
Appropriation #2011091 $68,305.72
Revenue Source: Donations $ 10,305.72
Grants $ 6,000.00
Fund Balance $ 52,000.00
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
This request is to appropriate $68,305.72 in School Division donations, grants, and fund balance to align
revenues received in FY 10/11 with appropriations. These appropriations were approved by the School Board
at its August 11, 2011 meeting.
The specific appropriation requests are described below:
Western Albemarle High School was awarded a grant in the amount of $750.00 from the Exxon Mobile
Educational Alliance Program. These funds are to be used to purchase Science and Math instructional
supplies.
Monticello High School was awarded a grant in the amount of $250.00 from the Nest Realty Group. These
funds are to be used to plant vegetables and flowers in an existing garden as a project of the school's Ecology
classes.
Greer Elementary School was awarded a Target Field Trip grant in the amount of $700.00. These funds are to
be used towards a trip to the Paramount Theater.
Gloria Rockhold, in her professional capacity as an employee in the Office of Community Engagement, was
awarded a grant in the amount of $300.00 from the Optimist Club of the Blue Ridge. These funds were used to
purchase materials for the Readers Theater in the Southwood summer program.
Greer Elementary School was awarded a grant in the amount of $4,000 from the Bama Works Fund of Dave
Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds are for the creation of a
mosaic mural art project at the school during the FY 10/11 school year.
In FY 09/10 federal funds were provided to the state pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA). The state provided ARRA funds to Albemarle County to fund capital technology purchases,
improve technology infrastructure, provide four FTEs in technology staffing, and purchase testing materials.
The School Division requests that $52,000.00 in ARRA-State Stimulus Fund FY 09/10 fund balance be moved
forward into the FY 10/11 budget to align revenues with appropriations in FY 10/11.
Jack Jouett Middle School received $336.49 and Stony Point Elementary School received $3,532.31 in
reimbursements for field trips. These funds are reimbursements for field trips which occurred during the FY
10/11 school year.
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Amber Aiken. The donor
requested that this contribution be used to help with any needs in the Special Education program at Hollymead
Elementary School.
The Community Public Charter School received $5,936.92 in donations from anonymous donors to be used
for payroll and benefits. The mission of the Community Public Charter School is to provide an alternative and
innovative learning environment, using the arts, to help children in grades six through eight learn in ways that
match their learning styles; developing the whole child intellectually, emotionally, physically and socially.
Seeking to serve students who have not succeeded in school, the program works to close their achievement
gap by offering a balance of literacy tutorials and an arts-infused curriculum in support of the Division’s
strategic plan. The Community Public Charter School is responsible for the following major programs and/or
services: 6th and 7th Grade Instructional Program, Literacy and Arts Infused Education, Choice Theory School
Development; and Mastery Learning.
Appropriation #2011092 $627,597.17
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 627,597.17
This request is to appropriate $627,597.17 in Federal Education Jobs funding for the School Division as
approved by the School Board at its November 10, 2010 meeting. Information regarding this appropriation
request was provided by the School Division to the Office of Management and Budget on July 29, 2011. The
delay in bringing this item to the Board of Supervisors is the result of an administrative oversight. $441,390.96
in funding has been received by the County and as of August 24, 2011, the School Division has requested the
remainder of $186,206.21 for reimbursement from the state.
The following information regarding this appropriation request was provided to the School Board at its
November 10, 2010 School Board meeting:
“The federal Education Jobs Fund legislation was signed into law on August 10, 2010. The primary purpose of
the Education Jobs Fund legislation is to provide additional funding to states for the support of local teacher
(and other school-level personnel) salary and related costs at the early childhood, elementary, and secondary
school levels. As these funds are available on a one-time basis only, it is critical that local planning for the use
of the funds reflect this one-time availability. These funds will be used to offset the costs associated with the
un-projected enrollment growth of 185 students and 11.07 FTE. The total cost of the FTE is anticipated to total
$627,597.17.”
Appropriation #2011088 - Correction $ 270.00
Revenue Source: Donations $ 270.00
This is to correct appropriation #2011088 which incorrectly appropriated $3,256.78 in donations to Henley
Middle School in FY 10/11 due to a keying error in the Office of Management and Budget. The correct total is
$3,526.78, requiring an increased appropriation of $270.00.
_____
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Ms. Allshouse concluded that the appropriations being requested by the Board for approval today
are all School Division appropriations that have been approved by the School Board. She said that staff
requests that after the public hearing the Board approve the budget amendment and additional
appropriations in Attachment A.
Mr. Rooker asked for clarification under “Estimated Revenues” a storm water fund balance of
negative $800,000.
Ms. Allshouse explained that the County had to clarify where they had a loan and a grant and had
to do an adjustment, so there was a positive and negative that netted out to yield a zero appropriation.
Mr. Davis clarified that it was the VRA loan, of which $400,000 is a grant and $400,000 is a loan.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment provided, and the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter
was placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve the proposed FY11 budget amendment in the amount of
$3,492,355.98 and to approve Appropriations #2011090, #2011091, #2011092 and correction of
Appropriation of #2011088 for various school and general government programs. Mr. Dorrier seconded
the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
APP #2011-090
DATE 09/07/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meeting on July 14, 2011
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 204.28 Donations
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 189.76 Stipends-Instructional
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 14.52 FICA
TOTAL 408.56
*****
APP #2011-091
DATE 09/07/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meeting on August 11, 2011
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 4,368.80 Donations
3 3104 63104 318000 181324 6599 700.00 Grant Revenue
3 3104 63104 318000 189900 6599 5,300.00 Grant Revenue
3 3163 63163 351000 510100 52,000.00 Fund Balance
3 3380 63380 318100 181080 6280 5,936.92 Charter School Donations
4 2000 62205 461102 601300 6105 500.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 2000 62211 461101 420100 6111 3,532.31 Field Trips
4 2000 62253 461101 420100 6253 336.49 Field Trips
4 3104 63104 460700 420100 6104 700.00 Field Trips
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6104 4,000.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6302 750.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6304 250.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3104 63104 461101 601300 6599 300.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3163 63163 461101 800100 6599 1,160.00 Machinery/Equipment - New
4 3163 63163 466200 114300 6599 37,262.22 Salaries - Other Technical
4 3163 63163 466200 210000 6599 2,655.55 FICA
4 3163 63163 466200 221000 6599 3,508.20 VRS
4 3163 63163 466200 231000 6599 7,045.00 Health Insurance
4 3163 63163 466200 232000 6599 266.00 Dental Insurance
4 3163 63163 466200 241000 6599 103.03 Group Life Insurance
4 3380 63380 461101 112100 6280 5,515.03 Salaries - Teacher
4 3380 63380 461101 210000 6280 421.89 FICA
TOTAL 136,611.44
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
APP #2011-092
DATE 09/07/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meeting on November 11, 2010
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 3162 63162 333000 330038 6599 627,597.17 Federal Revenue
4 3162 63162 461178 112100 6599 502,461.14 Salaries-Teacher
4 3162 63162 461178 210000 6599 38,437.59 FICA
4 3162 63162 461178 221000 6599 35,399.58 VRS
4 3162 63162 461178 231000 6599 48,561.16 Health Insurance
4 3162 63162 461178 232000 6599 1,697.63 Dental Insurance
4 3162 63162 461178 241000 6599 1,040.07 VRS-Group
TOTAL 1,255,194.34
*****
APP #2011-088
DATE 09/07/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meeting on June 23, 2011;
This corrects the original 2011088 appropriation form from the August 3, 2011 meeting.
AC COUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 3,526.78 Donations
4 2000 62252 461101 134100 6252 2,396.66 Part Time - Teacher Aids
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 879.50 Stipends-Instructional
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 250.62 FICA
TOTAL 7,053.56
_______________
Note: The Board took a recess at 10:51 a.m. and reconvened at 11:04 a.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPPP) Final Report.
The following executive summary was provided to Board members:
The Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP) is an effort by the County of Albemarle, the
City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia to work collaboratively on the regional topic of energy
and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Each entity has made individual public commitments to reduce
energy consumption and associated emissions (i.e. Cool Counties Resolution, U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement and internal policies) and LCAPP was formed to give guidance to help meet those
goals. In January 2009 the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC), the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council endorsed the collaborative effort to form LCAPP. (See
Resolution adopted by the Board, Attachment A) In May 2009 senior executives from the County of
Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville extended an invitation to local community representatives to
serve on a multidisciplinary Steering Committee leading a Local Climate Action Planning Process
(LCAPP). (See Attachment B) Over an 18-month period the LCAPP Steering Committee, supported by a
network of more than 50 local subject matter experts, local business representatives and other interested
parties, examined best practices to assess their appropriateness and effectiveness for the community.
The community has been involved most notably through a workshop in February 2011, in which was
attended by approximately 100 community members.
The attached final report (Attachment C) is submitted to the County, the City and UVA on behalf of
the LCAPP Steering Committee.
Staff will provide an overview of the LCAPP report at the Board’s meeting of September 7, 2011.
In the opinion of staff, the efforts associated with LCAPP represent a sensible, responsible and locally
focused approach to reducing energy use and emissions.
The Board can consider if the LCAPP Report provides adequate, appropriate and timely
information for staff to integrate recommendations and strategies into the County’s Energy Management
and Conservation Program.
Staff believes there is no budget impact related to this executive summary.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Accept the principles and next steps recommended by the LCAPP Steering Committee as
guidance and direction for the County with respect to the subject of energy and
emissions;
2) Continue to support efforts to utilize resources and mechanisms currently in place to
accomplish actions that can result in measurable energy reductions and emission
reductions; and
3) Build on local experience and successes to prioritize additional actions that promote
progress toward reduction goals and commitments.
_____
Ms. Mallek stated that this is very exciting to her because she has been involved with the
committee for a year and a one-half and it has been a terrific collaboration of people from many diverse
perspectives.
Mr. Andrew Lowe, Environmental Compliance Manager, addressed the Board, stating that he is
presenting the report on behalf of the Local Climate Action Planning Process Steering Committee,
thanking colleagues from the City and U.Va. for helping with the process and recognizing the significant
public support. He said that the process has been a joint effort by the County, City and U.Va. All three
entities have been working on separate initiatives regarding climate protection and energy management.
In 2006, he said, Charlottesville made a public comment through a resolution supporting the Mayor’s
Climate Protection by the U.S. Conference of Mayors; similarly, Albemarle County in 2006 passed a
resolution supporting the intent of the U.S. Mayors Climate Agreement. He stated that in December 2007
Albemarle Supervisors passed a resolution supporting the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization
Declaration, and at the same time the University had been working on emissions studies and energy
reduction strategies. In the interest of all three community entities trying to achieve similar goals, Mr.
Lowe explained that an effort to work collaboratively on these issues came to fruition.
He referenced a slide presented showing a 2000 baseline study of emissions data, including the
entire region – with U.Va. included in the “Commercial/Institutional” section (28%), contributing 10% of the
overall energy and emissions associated with the region. Mr. Lowe said that the largest individual sector
is transportation/commercial (38%) – which would be about 18% without U.Va.; the residential sector
comprises 24%. He stated that the municipal sector is a total of 4% and includes local government and
school operations for both the County and City. Mr. Lowe said that they also look at the “combined built
environment” that would include both residential and commercial – excluding U.Va. (18%) from the
commercial and adding it to residential, the built environment is 42%, which shows the two largest sectors
being built environment and transportation.
Mr. Snow asked if the 80% reduction mentioned refers to each section.
Mr. Lowe explained that the entire pie would shrink, not necessarily coming out of every section
equally or all coming out of one section. He also said that the goal of non-binding Cool Counties
resolution was an 80% reduction by 2050 community-wide, which would be Albemarle County’s
geographic area – slightly different than the combined chart. Mr. Lowe stated that the 80% is community-
wide so the total of the pie chart is a per-unit of metric tons of equivalent carbon dioxides.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the resolution deals with emissions, not energy use. This does not
presume an 80% reduction in energy use – it presumes an 80% reduction in emissions. He noted that
Chesapeake has converted all their vehicles to compact natural gas, which produce a lot less emissions
and would save $14,000 per year per truck - $740,000 per year according to the Virginia Town & Country
magazine. There are all kinds of ways you can reduce emissions without reducing energy use; there is no
presumption here that energy use itself is going down by some drastic amount – in fact energy use we
know increases, with people using more computers, etc. Mr. Rooker pointed out that new federal
standards were recently announced for transportation vehicles, which localities would have little part in.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that it was done by Presidential decree.
Mr. Rooker agreed, but noted it is been done that way by many Presidents, including Nixon. He
said that without some action by somebody, we might still be in a situation with commercial vehicles
getting six or seven miles to the gallon – using leaded gasoline. He said that he does not know if there is
a civilized country in the world that does not have some kind of emissions standards on vehicles.
Mr. Boyd asked why CO2 emissions are the sole measurement of whether or not we are
protecting our environment.
Mr. Lowe responded that this is an equivalent carbon dioxide equation so it takes into account all
greenhouse gases – nitrous oxide, sulfur oxides, methane and carbon dioxides and equates those to what
they represent as a carbon dioxide. He stated that there are other particulates in the atmosphere, but this
just gives it a carbon equivalent.
Mr. Boyd asked who defines that.
Mr. Lowe replied that the scientific community and the international and national EPA have
researched the carbon equivalent methods, so it is set at a high level scientifically.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is a way to establish a single pie chart instead of having numerous
measurements, with an eye toward improving efficiency.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Boyd stated that there seems to be a lot of discussion in the scientific community lately as to
how much is manmade and how much is natural.
Mr. Lowe said that this effort is focusing on manmade, as that is what can be controlled.
Mr. Boyd said that he has been reading and seeing lately that says if we did away with all human-
generated carbon emissions it would be miniscule in terms of the impact to the environment.
Ms. Mallek stated that is really only one side of the opinion.
Mr. Snow said that this chart says the effort addresses emissions. He then referenced a
resolution adopted in California which talked about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Foley commented to Mr. Lowe that he might want to explain the relationship between energy
and emissions as there seems to be some confusion.
Mr. Snow stated that the discussion seemed to change from gasses to energy.
Mr. Lowe said that the chart deals with energy-based emissions – residential, commercial and
transportation – with the residential sector for example using electricity and natural gas to heat and cool
homes, and transportation using diesel and unleaded fuels. He explained that the methane coming off of
the Keene Landfill is also a greenhouse gas pollutant but is not associated with energy use. A national
statistic indicated that 87% of emissions are related back to energy use. Mr. Lowe noted that other
sources include agricultural uses, but energy and emissions are correlated and emissions are a byproduct
of energy use.
Mr. Snow asked again whether this means the intent is to reduce energy consumption by 80%
also.
Mr. Rooker explained that coal burning generates much more emissions than natural gas, and
cars that get better mileage produce less emissions than those with lower mileage standards. He said
that sources such as wind, geothermal and solar have virtually no emissions – so no one is projecting
reducing energy use by 80%, and this is just a nonbinding intent to reduce pollutants, some of which result
from energy use. Mr. Rooker added that nitrogen and sulfur dioxide are just converted to CO2 units as a
way to provide equivalencies so there is a reasonable standard for discussing what emissions are.
Mr. Foley stated that reductions in energy use and reductions in things like vehicle emissions all
together are the targets to achieve the 80% goal.
Ms. Mallek said that another way to describe it is “increases in energy efficiency” so you get the
same job done using less.
Mr. Snow commented that you still have to produce electricity.
Mr. Foley suggested that the presentation continue, noting that the LCAPP has some
recommendations that are voluntary suggestions and guidelines, and Cool Counties is the opportunity to
set a goal.
Mr. Lowe stated that Dominion would have to produce three times the amount of energy at its
plants because its distribution system is so inefficient that only one-third of the energy actually makes it to
a residence or business. He said that the Local Climate Action Process Steering Committee was facing a
lot of interesting issues that they accepted they didn’t have to address, and shifted from looking at it from a
climate action basis to studying energy use. Mr. Lowe added that it started as a local movement with the
three entities, which used the Planning and Coordinating Council (PACC) structure – going to PACC Tech
for guidance and in some cases the full PACC. He said that in January 2009 the Board supported it with a
resolution, along with the City of Charlottesville with a similar resolution, and that resolution started the
process of working collaboratively on these issues – energy efficiencies and climate protection – which
also led to work on a grant application to form the Local Energy Alliance Program. Mr. Lowe reported that
in May 2009 an invitation letter for the steering committee was sent out by the City Manager and County
Executive, with U.Va. also participating. He said that in the two-year timeframe the steering committee
met several times and a community workshop was offered in the County Building, with citizens providing
important feedback on materials presented and areas that needed to be considered. Mr. Lowe stated that
this final report has been submitted to PACC Tech, PACC, City Council and now the Board of
Supervisors.
He explained that the steering committee represented a wide range of community members from
the community at large – and specific sectors of that – with University leaders, elected officials, business
leaders and scientific experts. Mr. Lowe said that representation included members of the homebuilders
community, the Chamber of Commerce, environmental interests and the community at large. He reported
that their first meeting was August 2009 with their last meeting in July 2011, and every member stuck with
the process and provided input throughout the entire timeframe. All the steering committee members
signed the letter associated with the report and supported the consensus of the report. Mr. Lowe added
that there was a workgroup structure that provided some of the hard research and information to the
steering committee, with over 50 local individuals who were both users of energy-efficient measures such
as homebuilders and transportation or energy experts. He noted that one of the first products that came
out of the process was a “Five-Part Framework for Out Community Energy Profile”, with emissions being
closely related to the way in which energy moves throughout the community. Mr. Lowe said that it is no
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
mistake that “energy in the built environment” and “energy and mobility” are the first two categories as they
are the biggest users and have the structure in which things can be addressed more quickly.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not see a single thing on the slide that the County has not been
practicing for many, many years, both in the private and public sectors, before this group was put together.
Mr. Lowe stated that part of the process has shown that a recommitment to the areas in which
there has been focus previously – such as building to green standards and promoting energy efficiencies
for residents – was reconfirmed through this process. He said that there have been a few new items, but
the steering committee did not want to be prescriptive on getting down to the minute detail of how the City
Council, Supervisors, or U.Va. should address each of their entities. They left it at high level and principle
level recommendations so that the community internally can choose how to move forward with things.
Mr. Boyd said that he is trying to determine in his own mind what the concept of Cool Counties
had to do with studying things the County is already doing, or why that drove or helped this process.
Ms. Mallek said that there was an awful lot the community did not know before about what was
happening locally and where the community stood, and the process also helped educate and offer
information to people who want it.
Mr. Boyd stated that most of this is common sense stuff. Most of the business people he knows
have been looking at energy efficiency and improving their bottom line for a long time.
Mr. Rooker said it helps to provide a forum to share ideas about how to best accomplish things
they want to accomplish individually. He added that these Board members are “old,” and if you talk with
young business people they want to live in an area that has some emphasis on the environment.
Mr. Boyd asked if they really need this effort to teach them how to do this.
Mr. Rooker stated that this is the same as economic development, with the County taking a
leadership position.
Mr. Boyd said that he has always felt that the County should stay out of the way of business.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is why there is a big economic development program in which staff and
government resources are being spent on. Why do you need all this infrastructure and staff working on
things to “stay out of the way”. He added that part of Mr. Boyd’s goal is to have Albemarle considered
more business-friendly, and that is a perception issue – and a lot of showing that you care about the
environment is a perception issue also.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Rooker if phrases or buzzwords demonstrate that the County is community-
friendly.
Mr. Rooker responded that there are buzzwords in the economic development plan also, and
there is importance in taking some community leadership in various areas – including the environment.
Ms. Mallek commented that the community surveys have certainly interested that citizens are very
interested in it.
Mr. Dorrier expressed concern about the cost of doing these measures and/or mandating some of
them.
Ms. Mallek reiterated that this is completely voluntary.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that nothing is being mandated here, adding that the Cool Counties initiative
and the LEAP program – which has generated several million dollars for the local community – were both
voluntary programs. Albemarle County did not put any money into it.
Mr. Foley noted that the LCAPP report represents the first regional effort with government and
business working together to set some principles that would be guidelines for the future. Albemarle
County and the City of Charlottesville have been leaders in sustainability for many years, and this kind of
gets our whole community on the same page. In terms of what it prescribes to do, he said, it sets out
guidelines and the County can apply whatever resources it wants to – but that is a decision the Board
would have to make. Mr. Foley stated that in considering the Cool Counties resolution, it called for
regional targets that would be established and LCAPP has not set regional targets – it has instead set
some measures and guidelines that would help move the County’s program forward.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is not criticizing the report; he is just trying to understand some pieces of it
and some of the rationale behind it.
Ms. Mallek cited an example of the Waldorf School wanting to have a shed roof to collect
rainwater, with ARB standards in competition with that – so the Board had to make changes and
modernize its approach. This is just the same background, same idea.
Mr. Boyd said that is an example of the County getting out of the way of free market decisions
that people want to make. He added that if the public has an interest in energy efficiency and green
building the County should stay out of their way and let them move forward with it – encourage them even.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Ms. Mallek stated that this is really what is encouraging people and helping to provide some
information.
Mr. Boyd said that the County shouldn’t mandate it.
Mr. Rooker said there is no mandate in the resolution.
Ms. Mallek said that saying that is causing upset for no reason.
Mr. Thomas said that he has seen no mandate in the resolution.
Mr. Lowe stated that the steering committee focused attention on some co-benefit aspects of
emissions reductions: 1) Environmental - mitigate global climate change, improve local air and water
quality; 2) Financial - reduce monthly utility bills, savings to families and businesses; 3) Economic - create
green jobs, strengthen local economy, attract new businesses; 4) Infrastructure - alleviate traffic
congestion, reduce transportation costs; 5) Health - increase activity, reduce asthma, respiratory problems
and obesity; and 6) Leadership - provide model for citizens, other communities, earn recognition.
Mr. Lowe said that the recommended principles are: 1) to continue to demonstrate leadership in
energy and carbon reductions at the local level; 2) to build on existing synergies by continued collaboration
of City, County, University of Virginia and community partners; 3) to integrate the role of energy and
carbon emissions in projects and planning; 4) to identify and promote actions that enable the community
to reap the health, economic, and environmental benefits that accompany sound energy-based decisions;
and 5) to equip the community at all levels to make informed decisions about the impacts of carbon
emissions and energy. Mr. Lowe commented that the fifth principle aligns with State goals, as a recent
survey indicated that only about 50% of citizens felt they knew how their use of energy really affected their
bottom line and bills. Mr. Lowe pointed out that one of the State’s main goals is informing citizens, and the
steering committee agreed that people need this information.
Mr. Lowe said that the steering committee has recommended two main next steps: 1) act on
existing commitments to further address carbon and energy considerations in planning and operations: a)
comprehensive and other planning efforts; b) Action Plan identifying near-term goals; and c) regular
updates on progress toward reducing emissions; and 2) build on stakeholder involvement developed
through the LCAPP to expand information exchange: a) celebration of local successes; b) Community
Toolkit; c) annual meeting of management and project leaders; and d) community engagement.
Mr. Lowe said that in terms of the first recommendation, it could be in association with Cool
Counties and emissions reduction but also internally through an energy management and conservation
plan with schools and local government. There are also commitments from both the City and U.Va. In
terms of acting on these commitments, Mr. Lowe said, the steering committee felt that the Comprehensive
Plan and other planning efforts was a way to solidify some efforts, with a lot of them being a
reconfirmation of previous commitments. He stated that there is a long-term goal of reducing emissions,
but there are also near and mid-term goals that can be set relating more to emissions and energy on a
2022 or 2030 level, so there is flexibility in this plan. In terms of celebrating local successes, Mr. Lowe
said that businesses have been touting their green energy efforts and energy efficiencies, and County
government celebrates those successes as well as private industry. He noted that those entities do not
have all the information they need, so part of the recommendation is to build on the framework action
strategies to develop toolkits for residents, businesses and all community members to use.
Mr. Lowe explained that last month there was a resolution last month that about 65 local
businesses participated in energy efficiency – reducing waste and reducing water – and those firms have
said clearly that they need resources and information, as they are busy running a business not
investigating environmental initiatives. He said that LEAP sees the same thing with residents. The
residents have a life to live; they don’t know the HVAC systems; and this is a resource. Mr. Lowe stated
that the economic development team, City and County participated in the small business development
workshop focusing on energy efficiencies and understanding utility bills – and the program was quite well
received, with businesses stating their appreciation of the event. He noted the recommended principles
and next steps, along with the action strategies associated with those five sectors. Mr. Lowe emphasized
that the steering committee wanted each community to be able to pick and choose where they wanted to
focus their energy.
In summary, Mr. Lowe reiterated the recommendations, part of which is considering the principles
and next steps as guidance and direction associated with energy and emissions reductions, utilizing
existing resources and mechanisms in place now to achieve reductions and energy use and emissions –
and using the five-part framework and action strategies to evaluate, promote and encourage all residents,
community members and the County on these commitments.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the County and City were only representing 4% of usage, and where the
other 96% was coming from.
Ms. Mallek explained that the 4% only represents municipality usage – public buildings, schools,
etc.
Mr. Rooker noted that emissions could be reduced in the area of transportation by improving the
public transit system where vehicle use is lessened; converting vehicles to something other than gas-
burning reduces emissions. There are areas where the County can lead and there are areas where the
County cannot, but it helps to provide information to people so they can make their choices and save
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
themselves the most money and at the same time reduce emissions. He said that this group has been a
catalyst for meetings and distribution of educational information that help people reduce emissions and
also save money.
Mr. Dorrier said that the recommended principles and recommended next steps are right on point.
Mr. Boyd asked what the cost is to implement the next steps, and asked if there is a big marketing
campaign associated with this initiative.
Mr. Foley stated that that’s a good question, but today what is before the Board is whether these
principles make sense for guidance. It does not commit the Board to how much money is being spent on
this. He said that the specific items to be implemented would come back via five-year planning.
Mr. Boyd said that the problem with that approach is when the Board signs off on these principles,
staff sort of takes it and runs with it and the Board never really knows how much it did cost us or what
direction it took you in. He stated that he is not interested in spending money to come up with a cost
justification, as the LCAPP group should have come up with that already.
Mr. Foley stated that the LCAPP group by design did not go to that extent, but intended to provide
what they thought the community agrees upon as being good principles to follow. The degree to which
you implement this and how much you spend is completely up to you. He reiterated that what is before
the Board is the recommendations on guiding principles and strategies, and staff would come back to the
Board and say what expenditure they would suggest. Staff thinks that endorsing these principles does not
commit the Board to a certain level of spending.
Mr. Rooker said that every year the Board considers something called a “budget,” whereby they
make decisions as to how they spend the money – and it is helpful to go back in the Comp Plan to see if
those decisions align with broader goals. Whether or not the Board allocates separate resources for
those things is a budget decision every year.
Mr. Boyd stated that there was no Board decision made to support Mr. Lowe’s position, and
apparently Mr. Tucker felt that it was a direction the Board wanted to head in, and so he put that in his
budget.
Ms. Mallek said that there has been tremendous support for environmental stewardship for years.
Mr. Rooker added that the Board at that time was much more environmentally oriented than the
Board today. The Board provided that guidance; it was not staff driven. He added that the decision to
spend any money on environmental issues in the community is a decision made each year at budget time,
and hopefully the County would continue to devote resources there. These things are important for
collaboration purposes. He thinks they are important for providing some perception among regional
partners and among State partners, that Albemarle is a community that has an interest in that area. Mr.
Rooker said that there will be new innovative ideas to reduce emissions that cannot even be envisioned
today, so 40-year targets are a long iterative process – with no mandatory objectives being put on
anybody. The question is, are we a community that recognizes that we are part of a larger world, and that
what we do in this community has an impact in the larger world. He added that taking a leadership role is
a good thing.
Mr. Boyd said that he and Mr. Rooker want the same objectives but have different approaches of
getting there. He said that he has always wanted to be a good steward of the environment and does
composting, recycles, keeps rain barrels, etc. He just does not see that government has to take the lead
role in this because those inventions that Mr. Rooker talk about, they are going to come out of the private
sector, they are not going to come out of government.
Mr. Rooker stated that a lot of them will come out of universities and university-funded research
and will require government subsidy in the beginning. Mr. Boyd responded that that is because of private
partnerships.
Ms. Mallek said that there other advantages that need to be emphasized here, as in the “Google
world” companies are going to be researching communities before they locate here – noting that a
business recently came and looked for space in Albemarle County because of its reputation of having a
very strong environmental and sustainability ethic. They wanted to put their name in a place that was not
contrary to that. Albemarle is not by itself in this whole effort. Governor McDonnell, the Commonwealth of
Virginia Energy Plan and the State legislature direct efforts to researching cost benefits of seques tering
greenhouse gasses. The State is tasked with trying to facilitate energy reductions by its residents. These
are things coming from the Governor’s office. She also mentioned recent conversations she had had with
the Green Building Council about community efforts.
Mr. Boyd said that the Green Building Council did not need government to do that.
Ms. Mallek stated that this report is not saying government would be taking the lead on anything –
it is simply creating a chapter in County history that says, “we think these things are important; and we
think it’s going to benefit our community as a whole.”
She also read a paragraph from a letter written by the steering committee: “If we learned anything
during this process, we learned that we want to take a positive approach to suggesting ways for lowering
our community’s energy consumption, and thus greenhouse gas emissions. Who would disagree with
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
saving money and creating jobs while making our buildings more energy efficient? All of us would like to
spend less time in our cars and more time with our friends and families. New technologies that can help
us create energy with less pollution are important to support. In general, the old adage ‘waste not want
not’ is probably true when it comes to the things we buy, use and throw away. Wise conservation of our
natural infrastructure is necessary to ensure that we have environmental services like the work that forests
do to protect our water supplies and help us with storm water control.”
Ms. Mallek said that this committee worked long and hard to try to gather up this kind of
information, and it is unfair to turn this into a mandatory effort of any sort – because it was clear from the
outset that these items would be nonstarters if they were required.
Mr. Foley stated that the specific staff recommendations are an effort to capture the work of this
government and business group that got together to set some principles and guidelines together, which
are not mandatory.
Mr. Boyd asked what those recommendations are.
Mr. Rooker pointed out they have been presented to the Board and are in front of them.
Mr. Boyd asked who would do the actions mentioned.
Ms. Mallek explained that it is going to be the community and the three different agencies with
their own staff, but there would not be anyone hired to do them.
Mr. Foley said that the first recommendation is to accept the principles and next steps. Staff is
suggesting that some principles be established that would guide what is done in the future which would
have to come back to the Board. The second recommendation is to continue current efforts and utilize
current resources to do the things already being done. The third recommendation is to promote progress
and continue to talk about these things. Those are staff’s recommendations based upon the work of this
group as a concluding recomm endation.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure what that all means. He asked if the County, City and University
would take a lead role in educating the public and the business community on these issues, or would
LCAPP be doing this work with support from County staff.
Mr. Foley commented that those are next steps. In terms of actions today, if the Board is
supportive of the principles but if the actions are contingent on how they will be implemented, staff would
need to bring that information back to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he supports everything Ms. Mallek just stated and encourages those things
because they are common sense. The difference is how to get there and the role of government.
Mr. Dorrier said he is supportive of the principles and thinks the Board should get on board and
support the committee.
Mr. Rooker then moved to adopt the recommendations as presented by staff: 1) accept the
principles and next steps recommended by the LCAPP Steering Committee as guidance and direction for
the County with respect to the subject of energy and emissions; 2) continue to support efforts to utilize
resources and mechanisms currently in place to accomplish actions that can result in measurable energy
reductions and emission reductions; and 3) build on local experience and successes to prioritize additional
actions that promote progress toward reduction goals and commitments. These recommendations do not
involve committing any additional dollars. He thinks it is important that the County participate with the
University and City to make this a better place for citizens and nothing in this action commits any funding.
Mr. Boyd said that if that is the motion, he would support it.
Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Snow agreed, and seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration Resolution.
The following executive summary had been provided to Board members:
On June 8, 2011, the Board discussed whether to continue its support of the Cool Counties
Climate Stabilization Resolution. (See Attachment A for the June 8th executive summary) During the June
8th discussion, the Board deferred any action until the Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPPP)
Steering Committee could finalize and submit its report. The LCAPPP will present its report to the Board
on September 7th, which will serve to inform the discussion of the Cool Counties Resolution. The Cool
Counties Resolution is a voluntary, self-imposed long-term target to reduce County-wide greenhouse gas
emissions 80 % from a baseline year of 2000 by 2050.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
The history leading to the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration Resolution
On October 4, 2006, the Board unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the intent of a resolution
adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement as part of the County’s effort toward Green Building initiatives and sustainability. (Attachment
B)
On February 7, 2007, staff provided a status report to the Board on progress and efforts made to
increase sustainability in the four areas identified by the Board during the September 13, 2006 work
session. (See Attachment C for the February 7, 2007 executive summary) The four areas were:
1. Work with the public to expand knowledge and benefits of green building
2. Work with development community to promote green building and remove obstacles
3. Work with County policy and operations to demonstrate and promote green building and
overall efficiency
4. Amend the Comprehensive Plan in support of green building
During the Board meeting on July 11, 2007, Supervisor Rooker distributed the “US Cool Counties
Climate Stabilization Declaration” and stated he would like to discuss it at a future meeting for possible
adoption. Also during the July 11, 2007 meeting the Board unanimously approved CPA-2007-003, Green
Building and Sustainability Amendment to the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. (Attachment D)
The adoption of the “U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration” resolution (Attachment
E) was unanimously approved by the Board at its December 5, 2007 meeting. This resolution contained
the following statements:
“i. Create an inventory of our county government (operational) greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and implement policies, programs and operations to achieve significant,
measurable and sustainable reduction of those operational GHG emissions to help
contribute to the regional reduction targets as identified in paragraph ii; and
ii. Work closely with local, state and federal governments and other leaders to reduce
county geographical GHG emissions to 80 percent below current levels by 2050, by
developing a GHG emissions inventory and regional plan that established short-, mid-,
and long-term GHG reduction targets, with recommended goals to stop increasing
emissions by 2010, and to achieve a 10 percent reduction every five years thereafter
through to 2050; and
iii. Urge Congress and the Administration to enact a multi-sector national program of
requirements, market-based limits, and incentives for reducing GHG emissions to 80
percent below current levels by 2050. Urge Congress and the Administration to
strengthen standards by enacting legislation to strengthen standards by enacting
legislation such as a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFÉ”) standard that achieves
at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) within 10 years for cars and light trucks.
We will take immediate steps to identify regional climate change impacts; and
We will draft and implement a county plan to prepare for and build resilience to those impacts.”
Currently staff has completed an “Emissions Baseline Report” which summarizes the greenhouse
gas and criteria air pollutant emissions for the County using a baseline year of 2000. Updates to the
report for 2006 and 2008 have also been completed and included in the report. The goal of the program
has been to continue tracking emission levels every 2 years. Staff can continue to monitor emission data
using existing software for baseline and updates to keep the program moving forward. All information
used in the software program remains on the County’s internal hard drive and is not linked to outside
entities. The energy data collected and used in the software program is aggregate level data from energy
suppliers and not individual data.
In a subsequent effort to advance regional GHG reductions, the County, City and UVA formed a
local steering committee to make recommendations for a strategic plan that would enable the three
entities to reach their respective goals. The steering committee’s charge, entitled Local Climate Action
Planning Process (LCAPPP), was endorsed by the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC). A
resolution passed unanimously by the BOS on January 14, 2009 endorsed this collaborative effort.
(Attachment F) LCAPPP consists of over 70 local citizens from government, business, real estate,
corporate, academia, and construction areas and have met regularly in an effort to formulate a GHG
reduction plan to meet the goals in the Cool County Resolution.
The County has implemented administrative policies to assure that the County complies with
environmental law requirements and best practices and to promote energy savings and efficiencies. (See
Attachments G, H and I)
The Board can consider if the targets and principles articulated in Cool Counties Climate
Stabilization Declaration Resolution are appropriate and still meet Albemarle County’s vision statement
and Comprehensive Plan goals. Alternatively, the Board could continue to support the resolution, but
modify some of the specific targets. For example, the Board could set targets that are aligned with the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which in 2010 passed a state-wide energy reduction goal of 10% by the year
2022.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
A third alternative would be to rescind the Resolution of December 5, 2007 and direct staff to
recommend new goals for the Energy Management and Conservation Program. Staff can compile
benchmarking examples for direction on new targets and scope.
For internal operations Albemarle County has been a leader in pursuing energy reductions and
has realized monetary savings as a result. The County can continue to provide leadership to the
community at-large and help encourage the energy savings that lead to utility bill savings.
Staff believes there is no budget impact related to this executive summary.
It is the opinion of staff that the targets and goals set out in the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization
Resolution are appropriate for Albemarle County and recommend the Board continue support of the
resolution.
_____
Mr. Foley reported that the essence of what is before the Board is whether they want to have
goals in place that drive what staff does in terms of the efforts based upon the Cool Counties resolution,
which is a voluntary self-imposed long-term target to reduce County-wide greenhouse gas emissions by
80% from the baseline year of 2000 to 2050. He noted that it’s not just something the County would do,
but the whole community would share that goal. Mr. Foley said the way to go about doing that is mostly
through voluntary efforts – promoting riding a bicycle to work, etc. – and while the LCAPP effort could
have set very hard targets, it did not. He stated that after that the only consideration is how aggressive the
Board wants the goal to be and what they will approve along the way to help get to that. Mr. Foley said if
the Board wants to do something different than what staff is recommending, staff recommends coming
back with established targets after hearing the Board’s conversation.
Mr. Snow said that he supports LCAPP but Cool Counties is not a community-driven program and
he would not support it going forward. He thinks the County can do it on a local basis. As new
technologies become available the County does not need an international group telling it there are things
out there that are more efficient and that the Board should adopt them. He thinks the County can do that
on its own and working together as a community.
Ms. Mallek stated that Cool Counties began with Arlington and other counties in Virginia setting
out a challenge of who can do better – and Albemarle County has won twice, and has won cash.
Mr. Lowe mentioned that the National Association of Counties now leads the effort.
Ms. Mallek said that NACo picked up the effort and it was a way to raise awareness of the big
picture and how working together encourages a better future.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Mr. Rooker said that is not what is being discussed here.
Mr. Boyd asked what Cool Counties brings to the table.
Mr. Rooker responded that it helps foster a positive perception among the County’s partners.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is just symbolic.
Mr. Rooker replied that it costs no money to participate in this resolution.
Mr. Boyd said that he recalled a budget proposal from Ms. Sarah Templeton for several million
dollars to implement measures related to Cool Counties.
Mr. Foley clarified that it was a five-year proposal to help meet the 80% targets set but there was
not sufficient funding.
Mr. Boyd said that doesn’t mean if times get better staff would come back with another $2 million
proposal. He brought that up because Mr. Rooker said there were no costs involved with Cool Counties.
Mr. Rooker stated that at that time the Board would make a decision about whether to fund. He
explained that there are various ways to achieve goals and some of them will incur costs, but they do not
have to be adopted.
Mr. Boyd then asked if Cool Counties was a “propaganda-type thing” to prove that Albemarle is
energy efficient and believes in the environment.
Mr. Foley reiterated that it establishes a goal.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is necessary for the County to sign onto what is now a national effort.
Mr. Rooker commented that it started in Fairfax County but was adopted by NACo. He said that
he thinks it creates a perception among the County’s partners, the state and the nation that this is a
community that takes its participation seriously in acting as an environmental steward and in leading by
example. He mentioned that the State has a climate energy policy and among things in the State statute
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
is promoting the generation of electricity through technologies that do not contribute to greenhouse gasses
and global warming.
Mr. Boyd asked if the support of Cool Counties is used as leverage to try to get legislation through
the federal government. It is like café standards and he does not know why Albemarle is getting that
political at a national level.
Mr. Rooker said that he doesn’t recall the County supporting any positions on national legislation.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Rooker had stated that Cool Counties would send a message to the rest of
the world that Albemarle County belongs to it.
Ms. Mallek stated that it helps attract the kinds of businesses that value that type of thing, and the
County has taken a role in things such as the triple-truck issue. She said that the current Governor of
Virginia has a 10% reduction by 2022 as a state goal, and perhaps if something shorter term is desired
that should be discussed. Ms. Mallek stated that a goal is something that inspires the County to do better,
and you do better work if you have a goal to get there.
Mr. Snow said that he doesn’t have any problem with goals and feel they are beneficial to
communities and personal lives, but where he disagrees is with a specific reference in the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the Board at the time was not comfortable with adopting the U.S.
Mayors resolution and only supported the intent of it, so they did a separate resolution.
Mr. Snow stated that he was not comfortable with the statement in the U.S. Mayors resolution that
“38 of the 141 countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions…” He said they are no longer just talking about a goal.
Ms. Mallek added that that was by their own decision.
Mr. Snow said that the very fact that this is all part of the resolution shows that somewhere
somebody’s got the idea that this is a good thing.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek stated that other people do think it is a good thing. Ms. Mallek pointed
out that the U.S. never adopted the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Snow is not reading the resolution the Board adopted. None of the
language Mr. Snow read is in the resolution adopted by the Board.
Mr. Snow stated that he didn’t like the idea that it is a good thing to have legally required
mandates.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board should focus on what they approved, which is in Attachment E and
was not word for word anything that was handed to them.
Mr. Foley commented that if the Board wants to rescind that resolution, it can do so. The
resolution adopted by the Board basically says that the County would set a target of that 80% reduction
and work regionally to help achieve that. Mr. Foley said if that is not an appropriate target, the County can
set a new target, but it basically talks about energy reduction and reduction in emissions. Those are the
two purposes of all of this. If those are things Board members all agree with and they want to set a
different target, staff can come back to you with a resolution that established what they agree on in terms
of principles and set some different targets.
Ms. Mallek said that Attachment F is the one that was adopted most recently by the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked what LCAPP endorsed.
Mr. Foley responded that U.Va. the City and County have all adopted different resolutions.
Mr. Boyd said that Attachment E is what the Board approved.
Mr. Rooker said that it is the resolution before the Board to decide whether to rescind it or not.
Mr. Boyd stated that he is in favor of rescinding it and adopting “our own Cool Counties for
Albemarle County, rather than signing onto what is now an international group.
Ms. Mallek said that is going to require more staff time.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Boyd read the resolution before and voted for it, and didn’t see anything
objectionable in it.
Mr. Boyd said it was because Mr. Rooker convinced him that it was nothing more than an
objective with no lasting sort of direction.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County has done anything that you did not vote for to date.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Boyd responded, “no”, but he has learned a lot since then.
Mr. Boyd then moved to rescind the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Mr. Rooker commented that doing so will make a statement to our partners, the State and
businesses that are interested in this area that Albemarle is not as interested in protecting the
environment as many places are. He said that this resolution has nothing objectionable in it and he thinks
rescinding it is a mistake.
Mr. Snow said he supports Attachment F.
Mr. Rooker suggested that they take them one at a time.
Mr. Boyd said he is going to recommend that Albemarle develop its own initiative.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the LCAPP position is on this issue.
Mr. Lowe stated that the recommended next step from the steering committee is to act on existing
commitments, acting on Cool Counties – with U.Va. and the City having their own commitments. He said
they voted in favor of staying in Cool Counties.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the three jurisdictions each have different goals but have decided to
work together to achieve them.
Mr. Rooker added that the City’s is more aggressive than the others.
Mr. Boyd asked why a resolution is needed that talks about what is going on in California, et
cetera.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Foley said that at this point, the staff has no goals to work toward and it would be nice to have
some direction as to what the Board expects from them.
Mr. Boyd asked why Attachment F would not cover it. It is a resolution that supports the County,
City and University working collaboratively to address energy efficiency and climate change.
Mr. Foley said that the foundational goals of the program were established through Cool Counties,
which was to shoot for a target. Staff would like to know how aggressively the Board would like to move
because that will impact what staff brings back. He noted that the State and University have established
different goals.
Mr. Snow asked if the County could just set its own goals.
Mr. Rooker asked what he suggests those goals be.
Mr. Foley said that staff could do some research on what the State and U.Va. are doing.
Mr. Boyd stated that that’s the only thing out of Cool Counties is really providing, a goal.
Mr. Foley said he assumes the Board still wants to continue to work regionally. He said that it is
important for the Board to make a statement as to where it stands on this. If they do not believe in climate
change that is fine, but if it does believe in energy and emissions reduction, it is important to make that
clear. Currently there is no target set.
Mr. Snow stated that the goals in the LCAPP report have five achievements listed and he would
agree with those.
Mr. Foley said that staff could make reference to those in a resolution for the Board, adding that
the only question is really whether they want to set a reduction target – because the LCAPP report sets no
reduction targets.
Mr. Boyd responded that individual achievements could just be the targets and asked why a
carbon standard is needed. Citing initiatives such as Energy Star and LEED certified buildings, and the
waste management efforts, Mr. Boyd said these things all stand in and of themselves as demonstration of
the County’s commitment to the environment.
Ms. Mallek said that Albemarle could take a leadership role and needs to make a statement about
its commitments to these efforts in energy.
Mr. Rooker noted that there have been numerous grants obtained locally because the community
has been viewed to be on the cutting edge of supporting environmental issues, and some of these things
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
are perception. He mentioned that when Dominion Power made a decision about where to offer digital
smart-meters in a community, they chose Albemarle because of its participation in ICLEI and Cool
Counties and image as a leader. Perception is important in environmentalism. They picked this
community and they rolled out a huge Service Star community that can save our citizens a lot of money
and provide them with a lot more control over our homes, et cetera. Mr. Rooker said that the direction the
County is heading in now seems to indicate it is afraid to be perceived as environmentally committed
because the Tea Party has told the Board it is a bad thing and they can send out an email that says “We
got Albemarle County out of ICLEI and we got Albemarle County out of Cool Counties.” He stated that
this is about a “notch on the gun” for them, and that is what this is about.
Mr. Snow disagreed, stating that this is an opportunity for the County to set its own goals and be
aggressive about it. He does not think the Board needs an international organization.
Mr. Rooker said there is no international involvement here at all.
Ms. Mallek stated that NACo is the lead agency here.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff can bring back proposals based on these objectives, as to how to measure
progress on the environment locally.
Mr. Foley said that staff can put together something that incorporates a lot of the principles today
on which there was consensus, but the only question is whether targets to reduce emissions should be
included.
Mr. Boyd said he does not.
Mr. Rooker said that not having targets is a mistake. Governor McDonnell just adopted a target.
It goes across political spectrums. He stated that without any targets there is no direction, so all it does is
to establish that localities take decisions into consideration that help reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Boyd said they are disagreeing on the end product to which they want to get. For example,
the first item under the Five-Part Framework is energy and the built environment – reduce energy demand
in existing buildings. He is saying that the County can establish a goal for that item which is something
that is tangible. Reducing carbon emissions for the entire County is a complicated issue which would take
a lot of time to calculate.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the measures taken through Cool Counties have saved local
governments and schools $400,000 to date.
Mr. Boyd commented that the County can check that one off since it has already been done.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek said you want to continue to do those things.
Mr. Foley asked if staff could at least bring back information about what others have done.
Ms. Mallek said that as a minimum the County should at least adopt the Governor’s goal.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. CIP allocation for FY12 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
On May 11, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution (Attachment A) to participate in VDOT’s FY12
Revenue Sharing Program and commit $1.5 million in matching funds for the County’s application of up to
$1.5 million in funding for the Broomley Road Bridge project. The County has subsequently received
approval for the full $1.5 million and the Revenue Sharing Program requires a dollar for dollar match from
the locality.
The Board appropriated $484,222 in FY 12 to be used for participation in the VDOT Revenue
Sharing Program. In addition, there is a remaining balance of $74,698 in Revenue Sharing funds
appropriated in FY 11 that are available to be used for this match. Staff recommends that the Board
appropriate the remaining amount of matching funds needed ($941,080) from the Transportation
Improvement Program (Local) funds. These funds were allocated to advance the completion of high
priority transportation projects. The Broomley Road Bridge replacement project is considered one of three
high priority bridge projects identified in the County’s Priority List of Secondary Road Improvements and in
VDOT’s Six Year Secondary Construction Program.
Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program leverages matching funds from VDOT to
advance important transportation projects. Re-appropriation of the FY 11 VDOT Revenue Sharing
Program balance provides $74,698 of available matching funds. Reallocation of $941,080 from the
Transportation Improvement Program funds for this match will leave a balance of $655,170 in that fund for
use on other priority projects.
Funding Source Budget Code Funding Amount
FY11/12 Revenue Sharing Program Alloc. 4-9010-41020-441200-950081-9999 $484,222
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
FY 10/11 Revenue Sharing Program Balance 4-9010-41020-441200-950081-9999 $74,698
FY 11/12 Trans Improvement Program-Local 4-9010-41020-441200-950136-9999 $941,080
Total/Match Amount n/a $1,500,000
Staff recommends that the Board approve the use of the FY 12 Revenue Sharing Program funds
($484,222), the re-appropriation of the FY 11 Revenue Sharing Program balance ($74,698) and the
reallocation of some of the FY 11/12 Transportation Improvement Program (Local) funds ($941,080) to
provide the required match ($1,500,000) to participate in the FY12 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program.
If approved, staff will present a formal appropriation request to the Board in October.
_____
Mr. Benish added that the bulk of the funding is coming from the CIP Transportation Local Fund,
which was set aside for priority improvements. It leaves a resulting amount of funds in that line item at
about $670,000.
Mr. Foley reiterated that staff is recommending that this be reallocated to the revenue sharing
from the transportation money that is set aside.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve the use of FY12 Revenue Sharing Program funds ($484,222), the
re-appropriation of the FY 11 Revenue Sharing Program balance ($74,698) and the reallocation of some
of the FY 11/12 Transportation Improvement Program (Local) funds ($941,080) to provide the required
match ($1,500,000) to participate in the FY12 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Mallek stated that VDOT now has a procedure that an RFP has to be issued for anything over
$5,000, which has completely endangered all rural road paving projects. Instead of going to pave Blufton
Road, VDOT is now getting a consultant to write a RFP to get the bids to pave the road. It makes no
sense because there is no design on these roads; they are just paved from side to side. She said that a
$100,000 project now costs $425,000, and she is furious that the County’s money is being wasted. Ms.
Mallek stated that she is drafting a letter for the Board’s review in objection that will go to Delegate Rob
Bell and Delegate Steve Landes to try to straighten this out.
Mr. Rooker said it puts an end to common sense.
Mr. Snow agreed.
Ms. Mallek commented that it gives her no trust at all that VDOT seems to know what they are
doing.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 14. Review of County Grant Approval Process.
Ms. Lori Allshouse summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
For a number of years the County has secured grant funding for a host of projects, programs and
initiatives which benefit County citizens. Recent economic challenges, coupled with the availability of
Federal, State and regional grant opportunities to support economic and job growth, environmental efforts
and many community health and safety initiatives, raised the County’s interest and involvement in
competing for grants.
While individual departments had varying experience with applying for and receiving grants, in
2009, the County recognized a need to develop consistent, effective, and efficient procedures for use by
departments and outside agencies when applying for grant opportunities. The following initiatives were
implemented in 2009:
The County Executive created a Grants Team of County staff with experience in grant writing to
develop procedures for and provide guidance to departments and agencies involved in grant
application and administration.
The Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the County Executive or his designee to act on behalf
of the County to execute grant applications or proposals along with any necessary certifications
and supporting or related contracts or documents required to retain or accept a grant, provided
that such documents are approved as to form and content by the County Attorney. (Attachment
A)
The County Executive approved a County Administrative Policy regarding the application for and
management of grants. (Attachment B)
The County established an internal grant tracking process and initiated training programs to
enhance the County’s ability to write, obtain and manage grants.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
In September 2010 the Board approved the establishment of a “Grants Leveraging Fund” with an
initial funding of up to $100,000 from the County’s FY 09/10 year-end operational expenditure savings.
Use of this fund is based upon a set of strict policies and guidelines so that the County’s matching
contributions would be used to support core County priorities and grants that would provide an adequate
return on investment.
In May 2011, Ron White, the Director of Housing, who has extensive background in grants
management, took a leadership role in providing guidance and oversight to departments when they are
considering the pursuit of a grant, providing assistance with County process for outside agencies for which
the County is a fiscal agent, and for coordination and management of the County’s grant management
processes and procedures, including the Grant Leveraging Fund, in addition to his other duties.
In June 2011, Board members requested additional information about the County’s Grant
Approval Process and ways to ensure that Board members are better informed regarding the County’s
pursuit of Grant Opportunities.
There are several different types of grant opportunities pursued by the County. There are grants
which are on-going and reliable sources of funding that support governmental services and therefore are
included in the County’s annual budget, such as the Victim Witness Grant and the Community Corrections
Grant. In addition, the Police Department has a history of success in obtaining Criminal Justice
Department (DCJD) grants and continues to apply for and receive renewals of grants that have regularly
been awarded to the County and approved by the Board in past years.
In addition, the County serves as the fiscal agent to other entities that receive grants such as the
Emergency Communications Center (ECC) and the OAR-Jefferson Area Community Corrections Program
(OAR). Other grant awards are periodically pursued by County departments after receiving approval by
the County Executive’s Office.
To provide the Board with the scope and range of grants received by the general government and
other entities, attached is a spreadsheet outlining recent grant activities. (Attachment C).
To be successful in receiving grant awards, it is important that the County has an efficient grants
application process which provides the County with flexibility to enable staff to be successful and meet the
tight timelines associated with many grant offerings. At the same time, it is important that the Board be
kept informed of grant initiatives.
The Board retains the ultimate control over grants because it must appropriate all grant funds for
County Departments and non-County agencies, including any new matching funds, prior to the
expenditure of grant funding by the County. In addition, there is time between a grant application and
grant approval for staff to provide information regarding a grant and any fiscal impacts of the grant to the
Board. One means of doing this is to provide grant application summaries to the Board on a regular basis
as information items on the consent agenda. If the Board has concerns about any grant application,
additional information can be provided to the Board for it to consider prior to the acceptance of a grant.
The County Executive will continue to consult with the Board regarding any grant applications that may
commit the County to ongoing funding obligations.
Grants can provide funding for critical citizen services that may otherwise be funded by general
tax revenue or not funded.
To enable the County to continue to have the flexibility to be competitive in pursuing grant
opportunities, while ensuring additional transparency and oversight by the Board, staff recommends the
following:
1) that the County Executive continues to retain the authority provided by the Board in its May 2009
Resolution regarding the submission and approval of grant applications. (Attachment A).
2) that grant application summaries for general government grants be provided to the Board on a
regular basis as consent agenda information items prior to grant funding being accepted or
approved.
3) that the County Executive continue to consult with the Board regarding grant applications that may
commit the County to ongoing funding obligations.
_____
Ms. Allshouse noted that Attachment C to the executive summary is a list of recent County grants.
The total is $6.4 million – one-half of which is public safety grants. Some of the renewal grants are part of
the Board’s annual budget which is reviewed and approved during the budgeting process.
Ms. Mallek commented that she is in favor of having the County Executive be in charge of sending
these out because there are so many efforts it would be a real mistake to have staff come to the Board
with every grant.
Mr. Snow said he supports staff’s recommendations.
Mr. Boyd said that he is in favor of it also, but when there is any matching required from the
County in dollars or staff time it should be brought to the Board.
Mr. Foley stated that the information would be included in the information provided on the Consent
Agenda.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Ms. Allshouse asked if the Board wants a matrix of all the grant activity or the grant applications.
Mr. Rooker said the Board doesn’t necessarily need to see the whole application, but it would be
helpful to have a summary and a list of what grants have been applied for.
Mr. Snow expressed his appreciation to staff for going after these grants.
Ms. Allshouse responded that one-half of these are for public safety, which is really critical.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve staff’s recommendations: 1) that the County Executive continues
to retain the authority provided by the Board in its May 2009 Resolution regarding the submission and
approval of grant applications; 2) that grant application summaries for General Government grants be
provided to the Board on a regular basis as consent agenda information items prior to grant funding being
accepted or approved; and that the County Executive continue to consult with the Board regarding grant
applications that may commit the County to ongoing funding obligations
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Meeting.
At 12:41 p.m., a motion was offered by Mr. Thomas that the Board go into a closed meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection 1 to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; and under Subsection 7 to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice regarding public safety training and facilities. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:40 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Mr. Thomas moved that the Board certify
by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters
lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and
identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed
meeting. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 17. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appointments:
Cynthia Conte to the Historic Preservation Committee and
Bruce Dodson and Steven McLean to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Committee.
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 18. PVCC Annual Report – Dr. Frank Friedman.
Dr. Frank Friedman, President, addressed the Board, stating that two PVCC Board Members from
Albemarle County are in attendance – Kip Newland and Debbie Goodman – and Donna Plasket and
Stanley Cook could not make the meeting. Dr. Friedman thanked the Board for those appointments and
said they have been wonderful additions to the PVCC Board.
Dr. Friedman reported that in the past year – fall, spring and summer - Piedmont enrolled 7,800
individuals in for-credit classes – compared to 6,200 in 2005-06; a growth of approximately 25%. He
stated that last fall PVCC had 5,551 students – compared to 4,100 in fall 2005-06. The growth among
Albemarle County residents has grown from 2,300 five years ago to 3,200 last year, or a 36%-increase.
Dr. Friedman noted that Albemarle County residents now account for 41% of enrollment, which is now at
an all-time high. He said that in the community college world, enrollments increase during recessionary
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
times, with enrollment at PVCC growing in the adult population but also in the traditional age population
because of the economy – as tuition costs about one-third of that of a state college like JMU, U.Va. or
Virginia Tech.
Dr. Friedman reported that in Albemarle County there has been growth in dual enrollment with
Albemarle County high schools. It has more than doubled in five years, with 650 high school students last
year from the County high schools taking PVCC courses at their high schools. He stated that tuition is
free for these students and if the College had been charging them, tuition would have been a little over
$500,000. Dr. Friedman indicated that in the past year, over 1,000 of those 3,200 from Albemarle County
took at least one of their courses from PVCC online, which provides a tremendous convenience factor for
students. He reported that last year the College opened up the Kluge-Moses Science Building, which is
35,000 square feet, enabling PVCC to expand its health science programs. Dr. Friedman said that the
College now offers licenses practical nursing, diagnostic medical stenography, and radiologic technology,
with about 200 individuals graduating each year with degrees that take them right into healthcare
professions – with the nursing program being the biggest.
He reported that last year, thanks in part to County support, PVCC opened the Stultz Center for
Business and Career Development as its workforce development center, located in the old Monticello
Visitors Center. Dr. Friedman stated that last year over 4,000 individuals took noncredit courses in that
building – most of whom are working individuals who are taking courses to upgrade their skills or to enter
a new job. Thanks to that building, he said, the College was able to partner with the Chamber of
Commerce to expand and move the Chamber Business Academy onto PVCC’s campus. He also stated
that next month PVCC will start the first class in the “analyst boot camp,” developed in association with the
various defense contractors and expansion of the intelligence industry in Albemarle County – starting
October 3, 2011 with 14-20 students expected for that class.
Dr. Friedman reported that next fall PVCC will be opening operations in the Jefferson School in
downtown Charlottesville, with about 6,000 square feet in that building for a new culinary arts program
there. He said that the College also expects to open a center in Greene County, with the County providing
PVCC with the second floor of their library in Stanardsville – 14,000 square feet, which will need to be
renovated and equipped by next fall.
He also stated that PVCC has a major initiative to increase the graduation rate of students, as just
“taking a few courses” does not lead to a goal – with students in that situation being twice as likely to drop
out without ever earning a certificate or degree. Dr. Friedman said that PVCC has started an initiative to
focus on advising, career counseling, educational planning and mentoring to work with those students to
increase their graduation rate. He stated that the College is in the second year of a major effort to
increase students’ writing ability which is called their quality enhancement plan. Business owners and
employers have said that they want students to be accomplished in writing and math. Dr. Friedman added
that PVCC is also in a big initiative to redesign how math is taught, as it is the #1 hurdle for students to
overcome in order to earn their degrees. He said that the College is designing a “math emporium” – a
concept borrowed from Virginia Tech in which computer-assisted instruction is merged with in-class time –
which should be operational by next fall.
Dr. Friedman also explained that as of this fall PVCC is employing “lecture capture,” whereby
audio and/or video of courses are recorded and made available for students at any time. He emphasized
that the lectures will also be searchable by certain terms. This is still in the pilot phase, but he believes
that within a few years at least one-half of the College’s classes will be offered with that technology.
Mr. Boyd asked how students would be encouraged to come to class.
Dr. Friedman responded that faculty has also had that concern, but lecture capture suggests that
the academic process be flipped from an approach of lecture + homework – with lectures prerecorded as
homework and class work reserved for problem solving, applications, discussions, debates and case
studies. They cannot miss the class time, because that is where the real interaction and engagement
occurs. This technology should make that possible in a large number of our classes. They actually think
it’s a better way for students to learn.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the age range is for most students.
Dr. Friedman replied that they span the gamut, with a handful of students age 14 or 15, but about
one-half of students being below age 24 and 25% being over age 35.
Mr. Rooker asked how the College is dealing with its budget issues.
Dr. Friedman responded that it is a problem for everyone in public education and higher
education. PVCC operates on about $6,000 per full-time equivalent student. He said that five years ago
the College got 60% of that money from the State and 40% from student tuition but it has now reversed to
be 60% from student tuition and 40% from the State. Five years ago PVCC received approximately
$3,400 per full time equivalent student from the State; today that amount is $2,300. Dr. Friedman stated
that PVCC has raised tuition to make up for what has been lost in State funding.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many transfers go onto U.Va. each year.
Dr. Friedman responded that the College averages about 100 transfers to U.Va. each year, with
only about 300-350 total transfers accepted at U.Va. from all colleges nationwide each year.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Dr. Friedman thanked the Board for the County’s continued support.
Ms. Mallek thanked him for the workforce center and the one-stop center on Hydraulic Road.
Dr. Friedman said that effort has been a wonderful success for the College.
Mr. Snow asked how many of the 100 transfers graduate from U.Va.
Dr. Friedman replied that 85-90 graduate, doing equally well to their native freshmen. U.Va. has
one of the highest graduation rates in the nation; they graduate over 90% of their freshmen. PVCC
graduates graduate with a GPA of 3.1 which is the average for U.Va. freshmen. They do that study every
year with U.Va. to check to see how well the students are prepared.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 19. VDoT Updates, Bypass Milestones, Jim Utterback.
Mr. Jim Utterback addressed the Board, stating that he would be updating Board members on the
next steps with the bypass. He announced that Mr. David Crim will be the Charlottesville Residency
Administrator, taking on the role that Ms. Karen Kilby had prior to her retirement.
Before discussing the bypass, Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Crim to look into the spraying of round-up on
sidewalks in the entrance corridors, along Hydraulic Road and Georgetown Road. There is a wonderful
new sidewalk and road surface, but there are three-foot high weeds right alongside it and even breaking it
up in places on Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Crim said that he would look into it and noted that the maintenance office is looking into more
needs for herbicide.
__________
Mr. Snow mentioned the grading and paving on Rose Hill Church Road that citizens had
mentioned earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that someone had gone to VDOT nine years ago with concerns about the
safety elevations. VDoT had agreed that the road should be raised in elevation as it approached the stop
sign at the intersection, but for funding reasons that was not done at the time – so the person who
presented those plans had some residents sign a petition requesting that the work be done before the
paving occurred; but there are more who do not want the paving held up.
Mr. Utterback said that Mr. Crim would handle that issue.
__________
Mr. Utterback reported that Mr. Harold Jones, the Project Manager, would be making a
presentation on the bypass with about 15 slides of information. The presentation will provide a brief
background on the bypass project, next steps and project milestones and then solicit input from the Board
on County and public input/involvement. He also indicated that Mr. Chris Collins from the Central Office
would be managing the reevaluation effort, and he is the most experienced person in the Department to
handle the project. Mr. Utterback also said that in attendance is Mr. John Giametti, the District Location
and Design Engineer; and Mr. Kenneth Shirley, the District Construction Engineer.
Mr. Utterback stated that it is a challenge for VDOT to pick up a project that has been dormant
this long. No work has been done on it since the 2002 timeframe other than administrative updates for
various things – including the estimate. VDOT has been working for about six weeks to establish a
direction to move forward, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
Mr. Jones reiterated that he is VDOT Project Manager for the Route 29 Bypass project. His
objective today is to provide a brief background on the project, discuss next steps and project milestones
as well as soliciting input from Board members on public involvement and input for the project.
Mr. Jones said that the project was originally developed and a location was approved in 1990 by
the Commonwealth Transportation Board after a series of location hearings. In 1997, he said, a design
public hearing was held and the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the design. Mr. Jones
stated that the design includes a 6.2-mile limited access four-lane roadway from Route 29 North of the
South Fork of the Rivanna River southward west of Business Route 29 down to the Route 250/29 Bypass.
He reported that in 1997, the traffic was forecast for the bypass to have a little over 24,000 cars per day
for a design year of 2022; if the bypass were in place today it would skip 13 traffic lights – 14 with the
oncoming Shops at Stonefield. Mr. Jones said that the bypass would provide an alternative northern route
to the UVA campus via Leonard Sandridge Drive, which was completed in 2006.
He then presented a project location map, illustrating the alignment that was approved in 1990 for
the design approved in 1997. Mr. Jones said that a lawsuit was filed in 1998 alleging violations of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and while the courts ruled in VDOT’s favor they required
completion of a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address impacts at the northern
terminus. He stated that a final Environmental Impact Statement was approved by the FHWA in 2003,
and a Record of Decision was issued in September 2003 – with the required environmental assessment
under NEPA completed for that current location and design.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Jones reported that 83 parcels of the required right-of-way have been purchased, including
one parcel to the north of the South Fork Rivanna River and the balance to the south of the River.
Currently 36 properties owned by VDOT are being rented; utilities will need to be relocated; and
easements were identified earlier but will need to be updated. He stated that there are three family
cemeteries that lie within the environmental footprint that need to be relocated. Mr. Jones presented a
graphic on the status of the right-of-way, focusing only on the southern part, south of the River, because of
the incomplete design of the northern terminus. He pointed out the properties that have been purchased
by VDOT and the easements that have been acquired – also noting properties that have yet to be
acquired and existing right-of-way, primarily on the Route 250/29 Bypass. Mr. Jones stated that several
other properties are not indicated here, which are public properties of UVA, and once the southern
terminus is finally designed those properties can be identified and right-of-way can be acquired.
Mr. Jones reiterated that the original design year of 2022 had over 24,000 cars per day projected
to use the bypass and 7% truck traffic, but with the lawsuit, design work was halted in 1998 and the
interchange for the northern terminus was incomplete. As was the policy in the mid 1990s, the survey and
design were done in metric units. He noted that Leonard Sandridge Drive (formerly known as the North
Grounds Connector) has been constructed to tie into the Route 250 Bypass.
Funding for the project comes from state and federal funds. Mr. Jones said that the project
estimate is just under $21 million for preliminary engineering, over $105 million for right-of-way, and over
$118 million for construction – totaling approximately $245 million. The project is fully funded for all
phases in the current Six Year Plan.
He stated that next steps include procurement of the project through a design-build process,
pursuing a low-bid, single-phase procurement. Mr. Jones said that an environmental reevaluation would
begin this month to update the status of the final Environmental Impact Statement due to the nature of the
time that has lapsed since that was approved. He added that VDOT would be updating that through
contract.
Mr. Rooker asked who they would be contracting with. Mr. Jones responded that it is Parsons
Transportation Group would be doing it.
Mr. Jones explained that the right-of-way acquisition process would begin and VDOT and the
design-build team would both need to acquire right-of-way, with the northern interchange right-of-way
acquired by the design-build firm and VDOT handling the right-of-way south of the River. He said that
VDOT would update the environmental document beginning this month and that would take the form of an
environmental assessment, which includes public involvement. Mr. Jones stated that they would update
traffic forecasts and provide additional environmental studies such as air studies, noise studies, cultural
resource studies, hazardous material studies, and evaluation of endangered species. Public involvement
will be part of the process. He said that VDOT anticipates a citizen’s information meeting in the first or
second quarter of next calendar year with regard to the environmental reevaluation.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Jones to clarify the order of the public input as it relates to the report. Mr.
Jones responded that it is part of the process, so there will be some information there on which to
comment but it is not complete until that part is done.
Mr. Jones explained that the reevaluation would take the form of an environmental assessment
and is part of a two-part process. VDOT will prepare a draft environmental assessment with studies,
updated traffic, etc. which will be made available to the public with comments solicited. He said that
VDOT would then respond to the comments and finalize the document. The public involvement is in the
middle of the process, so that information is available but VDOT will still have an opportunity to react to the
public comment.
Mr. Jones stated that VDOT would acquire 13 properties south of the River, and that process
would start this month with letters being sent out beginning tomorrow. He said that two long-vacant
structures would be demolished with an existing contract. The design builder would be in charge of
acquiring right-of-way north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River based on the design that they come up
with. Mr. Jones added that they would also be responsible for any railroad agreements, contracts or other
involvement as required. He said that VDOT would also facilitate disinterment and re-internment for three
family cemeteries.
Mr. Jones explained that there are advantages to design-build procurement: 1) accelerated
project delivery can be expected through this process; 2) innovative construction methods and techniques
are encouraged (contractors involved early in the process); 3) supports economic development; 4)
maximizes use of available funding; 5) risks are shared with the design builder and VDOT.
Mr. Rooker asked what the schedule is for construction, noting that the Secretary made a
comment in Lynchburg that the State intends to put out an RFP within the next 30 days. He asked what
the timeframe would be for putting the RFP out and potentially signing the contract.
Mr. Jones responded that it would be four to six months. He also reported that the design-build
proposals would not compromise the Environmental Impact Statement, and VDOT would restrict the
design builder to stay within the existing environmental footprint. Mr. Jones said that the design year has
now increased to 2036 since time has lapsed. The estimated traffic count is 35,000 cars per day and the
actual update would be determined through the reevaluation of the environm ental document.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Rooker commented that every study he has seen shows that traffic estimates were done
based upon having either one or two interchanges intermediate on the bypass, which significantly affects
the traffic count. He suggested that whoever is doing the traffic numbers should make sure they have the
right starting point.
Mr. Jones said that the 35,000 estimate figure is based on three to four year old counts and
forecasts with growth rates, and the Parsons Transportation Group would be beginning their full traffic
update this month.
Mr. Rooker asked who the engineer assigned to this project is, because he would like to know
what the assumptions are that he is starting with unless it is being based on the origin destination study –
which has not had a new one since 1989.
Ms. Mallek noted that the household study is supposed to be out now that is based on the 2010
Census.
Mr. Shirley said that traffic can be forecasted in a couple of different ways. It can be grown
linearly, and as part of the reevaluation there are forecasting tools that can be done – including modeling
based on new counts. He concurred that if 1990 traffic figures were grown at a standard growth rate there
would be a very different answer. Mr. Shirley stated that he has not set the scope of work yet but would as
they move forward, adding that there will be scores of engineers who would be working on this project.
When that scope of work is set, they will use a modeling tool that is appropriate for forecasting traffic and
getting an updated answer for 2036. He reiterated that no work has been done on this since about 2002
and therefore he is at somewhat of a disadvantage in answering the question of what will happen.
Mr. Rooker stated that the numbers originally done for this project, forecasted out to 2010, the
number at Route 29 and Hydraulic Road is about 30% higher than it actually is today.
Mr. Shirley responded that that is why it is called forecasting.
Mr. Rooker said if you don’t have an origin destination study it is difficult to tell where people are
going, adding that he has seen huge discrepancies between projections and actualities.
Mr. Shirley stated that models are full of all kinds of assumptions, but they will come up with one
that best meets needs. He added that the public process would allow VDOT to tweak the plan if there are
elements that are right or wrong. He said that the 1.7% growth is not the method that will be used for the
reevaluation, it is just to get them moving towards that RFP right now.
Mr. Rooker said that he is more concerned about the starting point and the old data should be
reevaluated to establish a good starting point.
Mr. Shirley responded that that is what they will do.
Mr. Jones stated that the design will include a 60 mile per hour design speed and will have 12-foot
lanes with wide shoulders, with eight feet of that paved. He said that the RFP will state that the design
needs to perform at a level of service C for the design year at 2036.
Mr. Rooker asked if the prior work was done on a 55 mph design speed.
Mr. Jones responded that earlier design was in metric, 100 kilometers per hour, effectively a 60
mph design. He added that the design speed has not changed, and typically roads are posted a little bit
slower than design speed. He said that they anticipate select areas along the corridor and interchanges
for enhanced landscaping part of context-sensitive design and may also include architectural treatment
and a smaller footprint over the whole corridor.
Ms. Mallek asked where the sound mitigation for schools would come in.
Mr. Jones replied that it would be developed through the reevaluation and would be part of any
measures implemented from that.
Mr. Jones indicated that public involvement for the reevaluation is not a requirement, but they
would incorporate it into the process due to the nature and the history of the project. A public design
hearing is not required for approval as it was handled in 1997. He said that there was also a previous
design advisory committee and there are opportunities for public input to the design build through an
addendum to the RFP that VDOT plans to issue in November 2011, which will also include updated
information on geotechnical data and any traffic data acquired by that point.
Mr. Jones stated that by the end of this month VDOT would be underway with environmental
reevaluation, right-of-way acquisition and initial public involvement, and plan to issue the RFP by the end
of September with the addendum issued in November and proposals due by the end of the year with an
expected award in the first quarter of calendar year 2012. He said that additional public involvement
would be included in the second quarter with the environmental reevaluation. VDOT expects construction
to begin near the end of calendar year 2012.
Mr. Rooker asked if this would be a fixed-cost contract.
Mr. Jones responded that this is a single-phase, low-bid contract.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Rooker asked if VDOT would typically go with the lowest qualified bidder and they would bond
the work. Mr. Jones responded, “yes”.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Jones for his definition of bypass.
Mr. Jones responded that going around 13 traffic lights and the one additional light anticipated at
Stonefields, decreasing travel time and realizing fuel cost savings from stopping and starting, would
constitute a bypass. Mr. Jones then asked the Board for any questions or comments.
Mr. Rooker introduced himself to Mr. Jones and informed him that more than one-half of this
project is located in the Jack Jouett District – which includes the southern bypass interchange, the
University and Stillhouse Mountain. Mr. Rooker said that six of the seven schools impacted are in his
district, and seven neighborhoods are either bisected or have the road go right by it. He said that he has a
significant stake in how this project goes forward. He said that he announced this morning that he would
appoint a bypass advisory committee for the Jack Jouett District after talking with Mr. Utterback about how
input could occur. Mr. Utterback indicated that he would prefer to not have eight neighborhoods, etc., but
rather have some cohesive group that could deal with those issues. They are not only concerned about
design issues because a lot of the design has already been done although there is some hope that the
southern interchange might be improved upon. There are a lot of ongoing impacts such as road detours,
huge amounts of earth being moved on County roads, and impacts to schools. They certainly want
protection for the schools from the noise and other impacts of this project. He is going to be looking for
opportunities for the committee that he appoints to interact with the appropriate people at VDOT and also
the ultimate contractor that gets awarded the contract. Mr. Rooker stated that the intent of this input is not
to take up time, but to provide meaningful input that will be appreciated by the residents in the district with
respect to the impacts that may occur there.
Mr. Utterback said that VDOT is pleased that Mr. Rooker volunteered to step forward with this,
and said that VDOT is willing to listen and [would] try to include input as they can moving forward. He also
said that there is a significant portion of communication and involvement with the public in the design-build
contract. It is a major project and it impacts a number of people going forward. He reiterated that it is
very important to get input, work with the community and work with the Board in moving forward.
Mr. Jones stated that VDOT is formulating an RFP to be put out this month and has been working
with a group to help with that, and they have contacted a public relations firm to assist in that aspect. He
said that between now and the contract time there are several opportunities to meet and the task force
groups are part of that, but there is also the reevaluation of the environmental document that includes a
phase of public involvement. Mr. Jones added that the design-build contractor knows that they are
committed to public involvement through the duration of the project.
Ms. Mallek said that she is still trying to understand what it means to be the low-bid design build,
as the bid depends on the quality of what is proposed and where the road is going to be located. There
seem to be so many variables it seems like they are putting themselves out there to be at risk. She also
asked if the right-of-way purchase north of the river would be handled by the design builder and determine
what land is needed.
Mr. Jones explained that VDOT would pay for the right-of-way after the design builder establishes
which parcels are needed.
Mr. Utterback explained that VDOT has a federally approved environmental document and
whatever a design builder proposes has to be within that footprint, adding that there may be opportunities
to downscale. He said that the interchanges are significant and are designed with high-speed ramps, so
there are some opportunities to look at that – and in moving the project forward VDOT would include
public input and listen to those things and they are going to evaluate it going forward over the next year
and look at how they can improve, and take opportunities to downscale and lessen the impact if they can
and still meet the purpose and need of the project.
Mr. Rooker said that once a contract is signed with a design builder, his bid includes design
proposals. He asked how public input that might affect design would fit in that process. For example,
there may be ways to scale down the southern interchange. He asked if VDOT was looking to the people
who bid on the contract to come up with those suggestions.
Mr. Utterback responded that there will be an addendum . He added that the traffic data is needed
to determine the level of service that would drive minimum/maximum requirements on the intersection/
interchange, so VDOT is hoping to get some parameters on what a design builder could bid. He said that
once the project is under contract, any change in scope would necessitate a work order.
Mr. Rooker stated that once a bid is accepted based on a design, then change orders would need
to be issued to alter that design. He said that there would be a significant increase in traffic arriving at the
North Grounds by the U.Va. Law School that was not previously there, and he hopes traffic engineer
would address how those impacts might be ameliorated. Mr. Rooker added that the traffic numbers
based on the years that have passed would also impact the designs for the road and the exit ramps, and
he wondered how the traffic projections coming off the interchange and its connectors would be handled.
They still have to deal with the Leonard Sandridge Connector at Barracks Road, the Route 250 bypass,
Ivy Road exit, the railroad tracks, etc. He said that he assumes there was a lot of money spent designing
that interchange and it was not done with the idea of maximizing the cost of what was going to be put
there. He thinks there are a lot of people that would like to have some input into that phase, including
some people that may hire engineers themselves to look at what is being done. He thinks they need to
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
make certain they have the process set up to take input at a point where it is meaningful rather than
having to say ‘sorry, but we already designed that’ or ‘our contract doesn’t include that’ or ‘we’ll have to
issue a change order.’ If there are good ideas, he would hope those good ideas could germinate before
VDOT become locked in.
Mr. Utterback said that Mr. Rooker has captured the challenges that lie ahead for VDOT, and at
the end they must come up with a design that provides a certain level of service. He stated that what is
critical over the next few months is the collection of data and forecasting tools.
Mr. Dorrier asked if he was talking about a four lane road with a median down the middle. Mr.
Utterback responded, “yes”.
Mr. Rooker added that currently the road has varying widths depending on its location.
Mr. Thomas stated that this was originally designed as an interstate highway, and any traffic
problems coming into U.Va. would be addressed through a “humongous interchange” on the southern
terminus. He said he can’t see it being a problem with Leonard Sandridge Road because it was designed
to accommodate the big interchange that was put there, so he envisions the traffic being centralized to the
North Grounds.
Ms. Mallek said that she understands the issue to be that the traffic is going to stack up and come
right back because it is not going to be able to exit fast enough.
Mr. Rooker stated that a lot of the traffic today goes straight down Emmett Street, and he just
wants to make sure the traffic within U.Va. is distributed and handled.
Mr. Boyd said that VDOT has done design build projects before.
Mr. Utterback responded that there have been a num ber of projects across the state, such as
Zion’s Crossroads, with the “diverging diamond” concept, and this would be the second design build
project for this district. He said there are a number of design builds that are part of larger PPTAs but they
are a bit different, adding that there are some larger projects in the eastern region of the state.
Ms. Mallek said that this is pretty complicated compared to just a straight intersection, adding that
the contract would be awarded for a certain amount before any public input is gathered so the contractor
won’t have the benefit of that public input until they are in an agreement with the Commonwealth. She
said that she can guarantee that when they have a great idea, people are going to say, ‘oh that’s a nice
idea but we’re not going to spend the extra $10 million to do that.”
Mr. Utterback stated that the RFP addendum for November provides a few months to get some
initial input into the RFP.
Ms. Mallek asked what VDOT’s public process is to gather that information, between now and
November.
Mr. Utterback replied that at this point the approach would be working with the committees
appointed by Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd. That is also one of the reasons they are present today. He added
that there is no requirement for VDOT to have public involvement on the design phase. They crossed
those milestones for formal public hearings long ago. They are here to try to get some solicited and some
organized input from Board members to try to feed that input back into the design build.
Mr. Dorrier asked what role the MPO plays in this.
Mr. Rooker said there is not a huge amount of time between now and November. It appears to
him that any meaningful input needs to take place in the next few months. He noted that the
environmental impact process would take six to eight months.
Mr. Utterback responded that it would take almost a year.
Mr. Rooker asked how that would work with noise barriers and berms to protect neighborhoods
and schools. He asked if they would wait before considering those issues.
Mr. Utterback stated that VDOT would incorporate into the contract whatever comes out of the
reevaluation, so there would be a change order if things like noise walls were required. The design build
contractor would not bid those things currently because they are not in the plans.
Mr. Collins said that VDOT would do additional noise analysis as part of the reevaluation. The
walls portrayed 10 years ago would likely be different because traffic and noise regulations have changed.
He stated that that would come out in about six months, but as part of every project there is a final design
noise analysis that falls on the designer – and the barriers in the environmental document are potential,
but the real decisions comes in the design process. That is not something he would expect anybody to
bid on at this point regardless of the delivery approach VDOT takes.
Mr. Rooker asked if those things won’t be precluded by the contractor’s bid. He also asked if the
recommendations that come out cost another $20 million, will the money be available to do them.
Mr. Collins confirmed that those things would not be precluded by the contractor’s bid. He added
that Mr. Utterback would need to speak to any funding issues.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Ms. Mallek asked if the design build contractor would be the one to determine what kind of noise
walls would be built regardless of the recommendations from the environmental evaluation.
Mr. Collins said the noise model required by the Federal Highway Administration spits an answer
out as to which barriers qualify based on decibels of increase, absolute noise levels, cost and other
factors. Mr. Collins said that the art is in designing them, but the decision is largely an empirical answer.
The short answer is that it either qualifies or it doesn’t.
Mr. Rooker commented that there seems to often be a political aspect as to who gets sound walls
and who does not, noting that in his home region of Southwest Virginia there are walls that likely came to
fruition because of efforts to get them there.
Mr. Collins said that may be true but there are sound walls in many areas where there is nothing
behind them because the noise analysis is based on planned development, and often the development
that is approved does not exist yet. He added that other factors may come into play, but the things that
qualify will go through the process, and the model does take into account topographical features.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any chance in creating a lower design speed for the project, as the
traffic is going to be pouring back into heavily trafficked areas and the difference in time saved for a few
miles is minuscule. Lowering design speeds allows the road to be fit in different ways. It may also save
costs.
Mr. Giametti responded that the mainline of the bypass has been established through the design
hearing process at 60 miles per hour, and there is not a lot of flexibility there, but the opportunities for
flexibility will be at the northern and southern termini, recognizing that they are coming into a lower speed
highway on the northern terminus than what they were coming into back in the 1990s. He said they would
be looking at opportunities to tighten up some of the radii on the ramps and to take advantage of some of
the downscaling Mr. Utterback addressed earlier. The same things will also be looked at the southern
termini, opportunities to lessen the design speed of some of the ramps in order to tie in and lessen the
footprint.
Mr. Rooker said that there may actually be cost savings with a lower design speed and it might
also possibly lessen the impacts to surrounding area. A five mile an hour difference is going to be
miniscule in time if you are talking about seconds.
Mr. Utterback agreed, stating that he would take an action to go back to look at that, adding that
they have had similar discussions internally as well. He is glad to hear that coming from the Board.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the interchange will have a traffic light involved. Mr. Utterback responded,
“no”.
Ms. Mallek commented that if capacity is the most important thing, they know the smaller the
speed with the cars together means there will be more cars on it.
Mr. Boyd said that there is not much time, and his group would be meeting about this next week
regarding the northern terminus as that is the area that impacts his district the most.
Mr. Utterback stated that this is a complicated project and a complex process but VDOT will
listen, adding that there would be citizen involvement in the spring so there is the potential for some
design change opportunity but it cannot be quantified at this time. He said that the earlier the input is
given, the better. The Board and MPO are stakeholders in this project and VDOT will work with them to
try to accommodate them within reason.
Ms. Mallek asked if Parsons could have their own public meeting regarding input to the
environmental process.
Mr. Utterback responded that they are not authorized to do that.
Ms. Mallek said that the environmental meeting would be in April or May.
Mr. Utterback commented that after the studies Mr. Collins mentioned are accomplished – so
there is a draft taken out for public input – and that is beyond what is normally required for reevaluation.
He said that a typical reevaluation is one shot, three months, but given the time that has expired with this
project and the concerns, it makes sense to do an environmental assessment which will take about a year
process.
Mr. Dorrier asked for a rough estimate of completion time.
Mr. Utterback replied that they do not have that as of yet but it would go out with the RFP, adding
that it could realistically be five years.
Mr. Foley asked if VDOT would come back to the Board and give updates.
Mr. Utterback said that this isn’t the only time VDOT will be here, and they will share information
as appropriate. Anytime the Board wants an update, he asked that they be contacted.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Boyd announced that the public meeting for the northern terminus group would be held on
September 26th at 6:00 p.m. in the COB-5th Office Building, Room A.
Mr. Utterback thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them today.
Board members thanked VDOT for attending today.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 20. Albemarle County 2012 Legislative Priorities.
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary that was forwarded to the Board:
Each year the Board identifies and approves its legislative priorities for the upcoming General
Assembly and submits them to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACo) and the Virginia Municipal League (VML). Generally, the TJPDC’s
legislative program incorporates the County’s legislative priorities. Other initiatives are sometimes added
prior to the General Assembly session. This executive summary will provide a review of the Board’s 2011
Legislative Priorities and presents to the Board, for review and approval, the 2012 Legislative Priorities.
A review of the County’s 2011 Legislative Priorities is provided in the attached “2011 Legislative
Priorities Report” (Attachment B). The report details previous action taken on the priorities, an
assessment of what priorities should be continued in the future and links to the final legislative reports of
the TJPDC, VACo and VML.
Many of the proposed 2012 Legislative Priorities carry forward the 2011 Legislative Priorities
(Attachment A). Two new priorities have been identified for the 2012 Legislative Priorities.
1. a. Support legislation regarding land application of biosolids that protect the
environment, public health and safety.
b. Request legislation enabling localities, as part of their zoning ordinances, to
designate and/or reasonably restrict the land application of sewage sludge to specific areas within the
locality based on criteria related to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the environment.
VACo’s position statement on bio-solids is as follows:
VACo contends that the land application of biosolids, when conducted properly, provides
important benefits to the public and Virginia’s agricultural sector. To reduce risks that might occur
because of improper land application, VACo supports an effective statewide program and regulations
governing land application of biosolids that protect the environment, public health and safety. VACo also
supports the ability of local governments to monitor compliance with such regulations and the ability of
local governments to submit recommendations for site-specific conditions into the permitting process.
2. Eliminate split precincts to the extent possible. The Virginia Senate and House of
Delegates redistricting plans created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna Magisterial
Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts in three places. The
Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts. The Free Bridge precinct is
split between the 57th and 58th House Districts; and the Stony Point precinct is split between the 17th and
25th Senate Districts. After the redistricting process, subsequent General Assemblies usually revisit split
precincts and attempt, where possible, to eliminate such splits. It would be advantageous to address this
issue prior to the 2013 Senate and House elections.
In addition, staff recommends reaffirmation of the Board’s previous opposition to any legislation or
regulations that would require the transfer of responsibility to counties for construction, maintenance or
operation of new and existing secondary roads. VACo has identified devolution of responsibility for the
secondary roads as a major topic for the upcoming 2012 session. Earlier this year VACo was provided
the opportunity to comment on a draft report regarding the policy options and management of secondary
roads in Virginia. A copy of VACo’s comments on the draft report is attached as additional information for
the Board (Attachment D).
After the Board’s input and approval, staff will submit the Board’s 2012 Legislative Priorities to the
TJPDC, VACo and VML for coordination into their respective legislative programs. The 2012 TJPDC
Legislative Program will return to the Board for additional input and approval.
The County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure that the state adequately funds its mandated
responsibilities and does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the
policies (including fiscal) and programs that it deems necessary. There are no specific, identifiable budget
impacts.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed 2012 Legislative Priorities (Attachment
A), and any additions it feels are appropriate, for submission to the TJPDC, VACo and VML.
_____
Mr. Davis commented that there is a Campbell County initiative that Albemarle borrowed some
language from that would be asking for General Assembly authority to be given to localities to actually
regulate where biosolids could be applied under zoning authority. Mr. Davis said that staff feels this is an
interesting concept to explore as it is not enabled under current law, and with this specific authority the
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
County may be able to devise a way under the Zoning Ordinance to determine whether biosolids may be
spread in relationship to the growth area, rivers and streams – and watershed protection aspects could be
taken into account. He suggested one terminology change: “biosolids” instead of “sewage sludge,”
because under DEQ regulations sewage sludge is not allowed to be applied but after it is processed it
becomes a biosolid.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is the Class B material, not the Class A that can be bagged and
sold for people’s yards.
Mr. Davis responded that it is still classified as biosolids, and that terminology needs to be clear
moving forward.
Mr. Rooker asked about establishing areas where you could use Class A but not Class B, as there
may be different land categories where it might be appropriate to use a higher grade that has less
contaminants.
Mr. Davis said that under this legislation, if you could prohibit it you could also layer it based on
classification. He said that he thinks that is a good concept.
In terms of split precincts, Mr. Davis said it would be more efficient and economical if the General
Assembly could change the Senate and House lines to fit existing precinct lines of the County – and he is
hopeful this would be accomplished in 2012 or 2013 when an omnibus bill is considered. He added that
there are several hundreds of these across the state and he thinks the efficiencies will be looked at as the
General Assembly moves forward in the process.
Mr. Davis said the VDOT issue is going to be the subject of a lot of discussion in the General
Assembly. Mr. Davis said that devolution is a scary concept if there is insufficient funding, and also
because it may not be the most efficient way to deal with roads. He reiterated that the County’s position
will be important to express as they move forward.
Mr. Boyd asked if the postponement of the redistricting issue means localities might have to go
through two election cycles with the split precincts.
Mr. Davis responded that it would be caught for the next General Assembly elections, with the
2013 elections having the correction.
Mr. Davis added stated that the other requests are carry-over priorities from 2011. Staff
recommends that the Board preliminarily adopt the 2012 legislative priorities subject to further review and
consideration as the session moves forward. Staff will bring these back in November or December. The
Board will also be meeting with local legislators in December and at that time there will be an opportunity
to enhance or change this going forward. Mr. Davis said this information will be shared with Mr. David
Blount in the TJPDC process and also preliminarily with VaCo and VML to add more official Board
positions going forward with legislative priorities.
Ms. Mallek moved to grant preliminary approval to the legislative program as presented in
Attachment A with the correction of “sewage sludge” to “biosolids.” Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Albemarle County 2012 Legislative Priorities
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Biosolids—Request legislation enabling localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to designate and/or
reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality based on criteria related
to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the environment. In addition, support legislation regarding
land application of biosolids that protect the environment, public health and safety.
Local Authority—Support legislation to 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to utilize adequate
public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to
regulate land use.
Impact Fee Authority—Support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs representing
a “pro-rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility costs related to transportation,
schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries, stormwater management, o pen space and
parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable
administrative requirements; 4) does not cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish
the existing proffer system.
Conservation Easements—Support legislation that augments local efforts in natural resource protection
through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for locally established and
funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in Albemarle County); 2) continuing to
provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of Development Rights programs through the Office of
Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
continue to be used to protect open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value
that attract tourism; and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide
for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the
visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure
full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County makes land use decisions in
designated areas.
Transportation Funding—Support legislation to 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues for
Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all transportation modes; 3)
coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of local Comprehensive and regional
Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems within a locality; and 4) strongly oppose any
legislation or regulations that would require the transfer of responsibility to counties for construction,
maintenance or operation of new and existing secondary roads.
Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request that the legislature assist localities’ implementation of CSA in
a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state pool for CSA with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2)
enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create community-based alternatives for children served in
CSA; 3) establishing state contacts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management
process, improve vendor accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in
making service providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request that the legislature provide additional funds to local
governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This funding helps working-class
parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families to become self -sufficient.
Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request that the legislature increase funds for LDSS to
match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state mandated services and
workloads.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Voting Precincts—Request legislation to eliminate split precincts to the extent possible. The Virginia Senate
and House of Delegates redistricting plans have created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna
Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts in three
places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts. The Free Bridge
precinct is split between the 57th and 58th House Districts; and the Stony Point precinct is split between the 17th
and 25th Senate Districts.
Full Funding of State Mandates—Request that the state budget provide full funding for its mandates in all
areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the
Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions.
Local Control of Local Revenues—Oppose legislation that restricts or limits the existing local control of local
revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to generate sufficient revenues to
sustain and improve services.
Drug Court Funding—Request that the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which provides
effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of several Virginia
localities.
Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle County, request
that the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay Differential” so that the
County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified
and diverse teacher workforce.
Composite Index—Support legislation to amend the Composite Index Funding Formula by re-defining the
local true values component of the formula to include the land use taxation value of real property rather than
the fair market assessed value for those properties that have qualified and are being taxed under a land use
value taxation program.
_____________
Agenda Item No. 21. Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project.
Mr. Greg Harper, Water Resources Manager, summarized the following executive summary
which was forwarded to the Board.
On November 7, 2007, the Board authorized staff to proceed with the land acquisition, concept
development, and design of a regional stormwater management system for downtown Crozet (See
Attachment A for the November 7, 2007 executive summary). The original budget for the project, based
on concept-level estimates, was $600,000. In July of 2009, staff advised the Board that the project cost
estimate had increased to $1,039,056 due to actual property costs, refined plans, and additional project
elements such as addressing sanitary-stormwater conflicts, and the Board approved moving forward with
the project (See Attachment B for the July 1, 2009 executive summary). Since July, 2009, staff
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
successfully secured financial assistance in the form of a grant and forgivable loan to fund a significant
portion of the project cost (See Attachment C for the June 1, 2011 executive summary).
The construction portion of the project went to bid on June 9, 2011, and the low bid exceeded the
2009 cost estimate by $418,594. In response, staff conducted a value engineering exercise and, through
negotiations with the contractor, was able to reduce the project scope and cost by $90,465. An additional
net savings of $15,305 was realized in other areas of the budget. The total project budget is now
$1,351,880.
Despite the increase in construction cost, the objectives of the project are fundamentally
unchanged from its initial introduction to the Board in 2007. The objectives of the project are to 1) serve
future development, including any County improvements, within a 53-acre downtown Crozet watershed by
means of a constructed storm sewer system and improvements to an existing channel and 2) provide
additional water quality protection to downstream resources, including high-value streams and a water
supply reservoir, through the construction of a forebay and stormwater wetland system.
This second objective, though initially driven by Board directives and the Comprehensive Plan, will
earn the County credit towards its nutrient and sediment reduction targets currently being assigned
through the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP)
administered by the Department of Conservation and Recreation. This water quality component is
supported by the Department of Environmental Quality and the Rivanna River Basin Commission in
concept and, more concretely, through the received financial assistance.
The total project budget of $1,351,880, if approved, is supported by various none tax revenue
sources including the DEQ’s Construction Assistance Program grant, Rivanna River Basin Commission
Grant, and a Grayrock Subdivision proffer totaling approximately $500,000. $781,880.00 has already
been appropriated to this project. An appropriation request for the remainder of funds, $570,000, is
included with this request (#2012023) in attachment D.
Annual maintenance of this County-owned facility is estimated at $2,000.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the final project budget as described above and
authorize staff to proceed with construction. In addition, staff recommends approval of the associated
budget amendment (Attachment D) in the amount of $570,000.00 and the approval of Appropriation
#2012023.
_____
Mr. Harper that he is here to request that the Board give its final approval to the downtown Crozet
storm water wetlands project and appropriate funds necessary to complete the project. Mr. Harper
explained that the project has a goal of improving conveyance of stormwater from the downtown Crozet
area, Jarman’s Gap Road, down to Powell’s Creek – and this will provide stormwater management for
future development so that future development in the downtown area does not have to provide onsite
detention of storm water management, and will instead safely convey it down to Powell’s Creek without
eroding the channel and flooding properties. He said that the other major goal is to provide some
additional water quality treatment as this is a water supply area and designated development area with
existing density and future increased density likely. Mr. Harper stated that there is no existing stormwater
management in the area, and because of the Lickinghole Basin there are no water quality requirements
even for future development in this area.
Mr. Harper explained that the two major elements to the project are the channel improvements
and the constructed four-bay and offline wetlands system that would provide water quality treatment. He
said that in 2007, based on a $600,000 cost estimate, the Board gave their support to the project and
authorized staff to proceed with planning, design, property acquisition. Staff came back in 2009 with a
revised cost estim ate based on 70% construction drawings, which exceeded over $1 million. Mr. Harper
stated that at the time the Board authorized purchase of the property and appropriated a proffer and a
grant, with the Board appropriating an additional DEQ grant to the project earlier this year. He said that
the bids opened in June and the low bid exceeded construction cost estimates by $420,000, so staff
immediately performed a value engineering exercise with the contractor and the engineering consultant to
reduce the cost by $90,000, with a resulting project cost of $1.35 million.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is an estimate of contributions that might be received from using this.
Mr. Harper reported that in addition to the one-half million dollars received in financial assistance
through grants and proffers, staff anticipates that if the Board chooses to set up a regional storm water
management service district they expect private developers to pay into this – two potential development
projects in the watershed have been identified, at about $30,000 per impervious acre. He said the
streetscape project or library project would both need to provide stormwater management by themselves if
this project is not done, with the value there estimated at almost one-half million dollars.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there are offsets in cost with this project, and it makes sense to him
to create a service district.
Mr. Boyd said that the Fiscal Impact Committee, when putting together the proffer policy,
considered the idea of allowing some of the proffer money to go into a fund for infrastructure costs. He
asked if some of that money would go back into the stormwater management fund.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Davis responded that part of the issue is that downtown Crozet was upzoned to by-right uses,
so there won’t be any rezoning to generate proffer monies, but perhaps some outlying areas would have
proffer money for this purpose. He clarified that there is already a pro-rata recovery for the Lickinghole
Basin that covers this area, so there is already one pro-rata plan in place for the stormwater pond created
at Lickinghole. Mr. Davis said it is possible to do another one for this particular project, but it is limited to
pro-rata recovery of cost and only for new development. He stated that it was estimated at one point to be
$50,000 but would not be significant.
Mr. Foley said that the library stormwater management would have to be paid for anyway, so that
could be looked at as an offset.
Ms. Mallek stated that this is a very important feature for the small lots west of Crozet Avenue
because they are so small they do not have room to do onsite collection, and that process would already
exist because they have to manage the stormwater anyway.
Mr. Davis explained that they would have to pay their pro-rata share of Lickinghole under the
existing plan in effect now, and if the Board chooses to exercise an additional pro-rata plan they could pay
that share at site plan stage for this facility.
Mr. Foley noted that it would require setting up a service district and a pretty involved process,
which the Board has steered away from in the past.
Mr. Rooker said there is already a service district in effect for Lickinghole.
Mr. Davis explained that it is under zoning authority that you can have a pro-rata service area
once the County funds the capital for a stormwater project, by setting up a designated service area with a
study in advance of the development that can recapture on a pro-rata basis the cost as it applies to each
individual property as it develops. It is not a service district in the concept that is based on assessed value
that is collected as part of your tax bill. He added that a service district could be implemented based on
assessed value and collected with property taxes, but that is not the case here at this point.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is more of a stormwater utility.
Mr. Foley agreed.
Mr. Davis said it is similar, but not exactly, because it is based on pro-rata cost not a per-unit
basis. He explained that a stormwater utility could be used for this type of project and other stormwater
projects but that would be a fee assessed to everyone on an annual basis, based on the amount of
impervious surface they have.
Mr. Dorrier asked where the Albemarle County Service Authority fits into this process.
Mr. Davis responded that the Albemarle County Service Authority has no part in this, adding that
the Lickinghole Basin was built at the request of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority because it
protects the reservoir.
Mr. Dorrier asked if additional staff would be needed to manage this stormwater project.
Mr. Foley responded that the County estimates a $2,000 annual maintenance cost when this is
fully operational.
Mr. Davis noted that the County would be responsible for the facility.
Mr. Rooker asked about the difference between the original estimate and the final cost.
Mr. Harper explained that there have been elements added to the project, such as unforeseen
utility conflicts, replacement of bridges when acquiring easements from property owners along the channel
corridor, some additional inlets and sediment control required by permitting agencies, and energy costs
have increased significantly. He noted that the price of gas in the Richmond area when the 2009 estimate
was done was $1.95, and when bids were submitted they were $3.57 a gallon. Mr. Harper said that this is
an energy-intensive project with lots of material hauling.
Mr. Foley said that there is a cross-departmental team that would do an assessment of this to
examine why the bid was so much higher in the end, noting any processes that could be changed in the
future.
Mr. Snow asked if there were additional opportunities for grants.
Mr. Harper replied that the time for grants has probably passed, but as the price increased there
was more funding assistance than originally anticipated – so the net cost to the County is only about
$10,000 more today than what was presented in 2009.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve the final budget as described, to authorize staff to proceed with
construction, to approve the budget amendment in the amount of $570,000 and to approve Appropriation
#2012023. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
APP #2012-023
DATE 08/03/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project increase to support construction costs
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9100 82062 482040 800605 9999 570,000.00 Downtown Crozet S/w Const
3 9100 24000 324000 240052 1008 378,531.19 VRA-DEQ Grant/Revolving Fund
3 9100 51000 351000 510100 9999 191,468.81 Stormwater Fund Balance
TOTAL 1,140,000.00
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Dorrier asked what else could be done to improve Rose Hill Church Road.
Ms. Mallek suggested that he contact Mr. David Crim of VDOT.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is Board support for additional improvements.
Ms. Mallek said it has to stay within the budget that is been established for it, and the citizens
certainly did not want the paving delayed in order to get design work on elevation.
Mr. Thomas commented that it is not in the Six-Year plan.
Ms. Mallek added that the change in elevation is not on the list, only the rural rustic paving.
Mr. Davis said that unless it would be considered a maintenance project it would not be possible
to do it quickly.
Mr. Rooker stated that the paving is already planned, but there is no cost estimate on revising the
rise in elevation.
Mr. Dorrier said that someone called him and talked with him for a one-half hour to explain that his
daughter was injured at the intersection, and as a practical matter it could be fixed and then paved as the
smart thing to do.
Ms. Mallek suggested that Mr. Dorrier talk to Mr. Crim.
__________
Ms. Mallek then asked that the Board discuss the proposed resolution regarding the Route 29
Western Bypass:
Resolution
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization amended its Constrained
Long-Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program on July 27, 2011, to remove
language opposing the allocation of construction funding to the proposed Route 29 western bypass
(“bypass”); and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation has announced that the state will soon begin
advertising for bids for the design and construction of the bypass; and
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 29 Bypass was completed eighteen years
ago and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was completed eight years ago, and VDOT is
therefore required to prepare a written reevaluation of the environmental impact statements; and
WHEREAS, among other items, the traffic modeling, the traffic estimates, the air quality analyses and the
noise analyses in the environmental impact statements are now outdated and additional analysis needs to
be done; and
WHEREAS, there is significant new information that has been developed since the environmental impact
statements were prepared, including new scientific research documenting the detrimental effects of
highway pollutants on the health of individuals, and children, especially; and
WHEREAS, new data and analyses that should be developed as part of a thorough and properly done
review of the bypass and its impacts, including results of traffic modeling, will be necessary in order to
provide updated and accurate information about health, noise, and other impacts of the bypass, as well as
to identify strategies to mitigate those impacts; and,
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
WHEREAS, the new data and analyses should be made available before it becomes costly and difficult to
make changes to the proposed plans for the bypass; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests
that, before issuing a request for proposals concerning the design and construction of the bypass, the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
Evaluate updated traffic modeling for the bypass that includes a comparison of at least
two scenarios, including one that evaluates a baseline set of improvements with the
bypass, and one that evaluates the same baseline set of improvements without the
bypass; and,
Consider new scientific research documenting the detrimental effects of highway
pollutants on the health of individuals, and children, especially; and
Conduct thorough analyses of the potential health and noise impacts of the bypass on
children attending the six schools and the residents of the neighborhoods located along
its proposed route; and,
Engage in meetings with impacted citizens and representatives of impacted schools
concerning appropriate strategies to mitigate such impacts in time to appropriately
implement mitigation strategies into design and construction of the bypass; and,
Hold a public hearing to allow comment on the above information after it has been
prepared.
Ms. Mallek said the proposed resolution brings together numerous ideas related to the project.
The first paragraph assumes that the MPO long-range plan has been amended, with the knowledge that
bids are about to go out.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is anything on this list that VDOT did not say they were going to do,
because they did pick up a copy.
Mr. Thomas responded that everything on the list is either VDOT-enforced or federal guidelines.
Mr. Rooker said this resolution really just addresses the order. VDOT said they will do an updated
traffic modeling for the bypass. The first bullet asks that they do a comparison of two scenarios. The
second bullet is not something that they said specifically they would address, but he hopes they will. This
resolution asks for some things that are not mandatory, such as the environmental assessment. The third
bullet relates to impacts on schools. The fourth bullets relates to engaging in meetings with impacted
citizens. The last bullet asks that they hold a public hearing to allow comment on the above information
after it has been prepared. VDOT said they will hold a public hearing and he does not see any harm in
sending a resolution asking for that public hearing and making certain that it get done. He added that the
Board should have some input along the way as to when public input is gathered. There is nothing to
prevent the County from hosting a meeting and asking VDOT to attend and allow citizens to provide input
at an earlier point than what VDOT is considering. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the current timeframe has
citizen input coming much later in the process, adding that it is a little more difficult to get something
addressed in a change order than it is up front.
Mr. Thomas said the whole key to it is that it is a design project, and there are a lot of things
VDOT does not have to do.
Mr. Boyd suggested postponing the resolution until next Wednesday to allow Board members time
to review it.
Mr. Foley asked if the agenda was amended to take action on this.
Ms. Mallek confirmed that it was.
Mr. Dorrier commented that Mr. Utterback had agreed to most of these things.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think there is any problem with it, but he has not had time to review it.
Mr. Davis explained that this resolution is asking that before issuing an RFP these things be
addressed, with the VDOT schedule proposing that the things be accomplished throughout the design
build process. He said that VDOT agreed to address these things, but not before the RFP was issued.
Mr. Foley said that this is why it is important to have staff analysis prior to putting an item on the
agenda for action.
Mr. Boyd suggested putting it on the agenda for next Wednesday.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the entire bypass was voted on without a staff report.
Mr. Dorrier said this could be a technical impediment to getting the project done.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that this is a request and does not impose anything mandatory on VDOT.
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Thomas said that Mr. Utterback’s comment was that “VDOT will listen to what we say.”
Ms. Mallek said that saying something to VDOT so they can listen and have the information is
worthwhile, adding that they might save a lot of money in change orders if they slow down in the beginning
and get it done right.
Mr. Rooker stated that the design build process is relatively new, and the question is how
meaningful the input can be – so this request is for input to be given at the earlier stage.
Mr. Boyd said the only item he has concern about is the first bullet – “Evaluate updated traffic
modeling for the bypass that includes comparison of at least two scenarios, including one that evaluates
the baseline set of improvements with the bypass and one that evaluates the same baseline set without
the bypass.”
Mr. Rooker explained that it is the same set of improvements, adding that in order to determine
the level of service you must have a with and without comparison. Otherwise, it is somewhat
meaningless.
Mr. Boyd asked what good it does to study something they do not have the money to do.
Mr. Rooker said they could allocate whatever money they want, and it does not do a whole lot of
good to do a traffic study if you do not have something to compare it against.
Mr. Boyd commented that he understood their traffic study was to focus on speed, access ramps,
and other design elements – not an alternative design.
Mr. Rooker stated that it also includes the impact on the existing Route 29, and how it would
improve or not improve that level of service.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would include the widening of Route 29, as that is the County’s top priority –
not Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Rooker said those items were not put in any order; they were just in a top five. He stated that
all the Board is doing is asking for from VDOT is what improvement results from the construction of the
bypass.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with Mr. Rooker; he is not saying he is opposed to this, he just has not
had a lot of time to think about it.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he thinks this puts VDOT on the spot, as it makes requests to be
completed prior to issuing the RFP.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would certainly hope that the Board would be interested in impacts on
school kids, and would seek to mitigate those impacts as well as possible in the design of the road.
Ms. Mallek said that in the past they have done environmental assessments and determined what
the needs are, then did the design and then built it. Getting this information as soon as possible and
having it be part of the design as much as possible, since the design is going to take a whole year instead
of just this fall, then it seems like there would be plenty of item.
Mr. Dorrier asked why don’t the Board just write VDOT a letter and ask them if they can consider
these items.
Mr. Rooker responded that that’s basically what this is; it is a resolution of request. The Board
does not impose its will on VDOT; it is asking them to do something. If VDOT cannot do this, they can
come back and say they cannot do it, but it would be helpful to at least make the request on the behalf of
County citizens.
Mr. Boyd stated that this kind of implies that all of this has to be done before they put it out for bid,
but the County knows based on what VDOT said earlier that this goes out for bids in 30 days. He does
not think VDOT is going to change its plans.
Mr. Rooker said that perhaps if you back off of this timeframe you could say that before signing a
contract for design and construction of the bypass these things would be accomplished. He reiterated that
his concern is that public input and information would come after the contract is signed, adding that his
suggestion of a lower design speed could lower the cost and impacts. Mr. Rooker emphasized that once
they issue the RFP they are not going to go back and ask for a bid for a lower design speed. If you flush
them out in advance, you can have some meaningful input. He added that the Transportation Department
has a tendency to view these items as “checking off the list,” and if the list is designed it should have some
meaning – and in order to have meaning the input must be provided at a time it could make a difference.
Regarding the design speed, Mr. Thomas said he knows VDOT would downsize the ramp area on
the south end because it was originally designed for interstate standards. VDOT will probably keep the
design speed at 55 mph on the bypass and then reduce it to get back on Route 29 north.
Mr. Rooker said he was addressing the design speed of the road, as it dictates the vertical and
horizontal alignments and requires a straight shot versus following the land, adding that the time
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
difference in 5 miles per hour is nominal, but it may make a difference in the cost, the design of the
interchange and the cut across Stillhouse Mountain. All the Board can do is ask VDOT.
Ms. Mallek suggested that the design speed should be added in the new data bullet.
Mr. Boyd suggested voting on the proposed resolution next week which would allow them time to
wordsmith it in the interim.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Foley asked if staff should be involved. If staff did anything, they would probably ask Mr.
Utterback if it is consistent with their plan.
Mr. Boyd said that it would not hurt.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it should be checked to see if there is anything illegal with it.
Mr. Davis responded that there is nothing illegal with it, but it is inconsistent with what they
presented today and whether they would change their design and construction schedule is up to VDOT.
Board members agreed that they would welcome staff comment on this.
Mr. Rooker said that the idea here is not to hand VDOT what they are going to do, but simply to
make a request from the community for the Department to address things they might not otherwise. He
stated that he does not want staff to go to VDOT to make it what they want to do, adding that if requests
are done before the project is signed off for design and construction they become kind of meaningless.
Ms. Mallek said she is also not interested in that type of feedback from VDOT either.
Mr. Dorrier said that VDOT’s slide presentation already has that information in it.
Ms. Mallek said it is all very conceptual.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that this resolution asks that some of those things be done before a contract
is signed, because once VDOT signs a contract it is for a specific design proposal that a third party has
provided – it will not be informed by public comment at that point to any significant extent unless the Board
asks for it.
Mr. Boyd again suggested the resolution be brought back next week with that change.
Mr. Snow said that a lot would be learned from the Environmental Impact Study so some changes
would have to be made in the spring, but agreed with Mr. Rooker to get as much as possible in here now.
He said that the request is for these issues to be addressed prior to the signing of the design and
construction contract, rather than after it is signed.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would change this based on the discussion and bring it back.
Mr. Thomas said that all items being requested are stipulated by VDOT or the federal
government. He if the Board was requesting that they be done before VDOT does anything.
Mr. Rooker explained that the request is for VDOT to address these things prior to signing the
contract.
Mr. Snow said none of this is coming down with the TIP, it is just a request.
Board members agreed to have it brought back with the one change.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to bring back the sustainability accords discussion and would
like the “short version” of what the County adopted, not the long version that does not apply locally.
Mr. Foley stated that staff can bring this back as part of the Cool Counties discussion, as this
really is the basis for what is being done.
_______________
September 7, 2011 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Agenda Item No. 23 Adjourn to September 13, 2011, 3:00 p.m., CitySpace.
At 3:52 p.m., Ms. Mallek moved to adjourn the Board meeting until the four boards meeting on
September 13, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at City Space in Charlottesville. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/7/2011
Initials: EWJ