2012-08-12August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August
1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, 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, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:12 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.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to add three items for discussion at the end of the meeting: the
automatic 10% contingency on capital projects; disturbed property fees pursuant to a letter from United
Land Company; and the Black Cat Road Bridge.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow said they had not received the letter from United Land.
Mr. Boyd said he thought it had gone to all of the Supervisors, and said that staff had received it.
Mr. Foley asked for clarification of what the letter was.
Mr. Boyd said it pertained to disturbed property fees related to Briarwood.
Mr. Foley stated that Mr. Dumler had received the letter from Mr. Wood and passed it onto staff,
and they were looking at it.
_____
Mr. Dumler asked if the issue related to employee health insurance and the Crossings were on
the agenda for discussion today.
Mr. Foley responded that he had sent an email to Board members asking if they wanted to
discuss the insurance issue; he did not receive a response from a majority of Board members. If the
Board wants to discuss the issue, it can be added to the end of the agenda.
Supervisors agreed that they would like to talk about those items.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she would like to know the status of declaring a disaster declaration for
agricultural due to the recent storm damage.
Mr. Foley responded that the Board could address that when they talk about the storm damage.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adopt the final agenda as
amended. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Mr. Thomas reported that he had met with the Rio Heights Homeowner’s Association the previous
evening, and they had lots of questions about the proposed Lochlyn Hills Subdivision. He said the
residents expressed concern about the second egress connection to Vegas Court, and that they do not
want that connection. Mr. Thomas said VDoT officials commented that the connection did not have to be
done. He stated that Penn Park Lane must be improved to handle traffic from the 234 units, and it is
currently a dirt road on parts of it with barely two lanes at the top. Mr. Thomas said if there must be
another entrance to the subdivision, the residents would like to see it go through the City. He added that a
traffic light needs to be put in on the corner of Rio Road and Pen Park Lane. He is planning another
meeting with the homeowners and County staff.
Ms. Mallek stated that someone from the County needs to work with City planners. She added
that the part of the development in the County is by-right so the County cannot require the developers to
do improvements to Penn Park Lane unless the City helps.
Mr. Rooker asked how many units are proposed in the development. Mr. Thomas responded that
he thinks it is 234 units.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Rooker asked how many existing homes were in the Vegas Court area. Mr. Thomas replied
that Vegas Court and Rio Heights had 29 or 30.
Ms. Mallek commented that soon there would be 3,000 cars using the road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions:
a. GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for FY11.
Mr. Bernard Ray addressed the Board, stating that he is a member of the Government Finance
Office Association and was here to present to the County a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting for the 2011 CAFRA. He said that the mission of the GFOA is to develop leaders in
financial management, and in 17 years of getting the County’s CAFRA he can see that they have done
that. Mr. Ray said that the purpose of the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting is to encourage state and local governments to go beyond the minimum requirements of
generally accepted accounting principles, and to present an annual comprehensive financial report at a full
disclosure level. He noted that the certificate is the highest form of recognition for financial management
in local government, and presented the award to Betty Burrell, the County’s Finance Director.
Board members and attendees gave a round of applause to the Finance Department.
Ms. Burrell said that she was very appreciative of having Mr. Ray make this presentation, as he is
an unofficial mentor of hers – she worked for him in the City of Richmond. She also said she appreciates
the Board allowing the opportunity to recognize employees for the work they put into this award – winning,
noting the CAFRA leaders as Ann Murray, Tammy Critzer, Sheila Minor, Jonathan Kern, and Ed Koontz.
_____
b. Proclamation recognizing September 3-7, 2012 as Payroll Week in Albemarle County.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the proclamation to Betty Burrell:
PROCLAMATION
PAYROLL WEEK
WHEREAS, the American Payroll Association and its 23,000 members have launched a nationwide public
awareness campaign that pays tribute to the more than 156 million people who work in the
United States and the payroll professionals who support the American system by paying
wages, reporting worker earnings and withholding federal employment taxes; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals in Albemarle County, Virginia play a key role in maintaining the
economic health of Albemarle County, carrying out such diverse tasks as paying into the
unemployment insurance system, providing information for child support enforcement, and
carrying out tax withholding, reporting and depositing; and
WHEREAS, payroll departments collectively spend more than $15 billion annually complying with myriad
federal and state wage and tax laws; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals play an increasingly important role ensuring the economic security of
American families by helping to identify noncustodial parents and making sure they comply
with their child support mandates; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals have become increasingly proactive in educating both the business
community and the public at large about the payroll tax withholding systems; and
WHEREAS, payroll professionals meet regularly with federal and state tax officials to discuss both
improving compliance with government procedures and how compliance can be achieved at
less cost to both government and businesses; and
WHEREAS, payroll and human resource professionals in Albemarle County, Virginia, worked tirelessly to
migrate to the new Human Resources/Payroll information system over the past year; and
WHEREAS, all employees working for Albemarle Local Government and Public Schools will be migrating
to mandatory direct deposit effective January 1, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the week in which Labor Day falls has been proclaimed National Payroll Week;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize the important and dedicated work being done by
our payroll professionals by proclaiming
September 3-7, 2012 as Payroll Week in Albemarle County, Virginia.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of August, 2012
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Burrell introduced Renee Hoover, who is now working as Chief Accountant in Payroll.
Mr. Foley recognized staff for their hard work, recognizing the uniqueness of having a Finance
Department that serves both schools and local government. He said that this staff does something much
different than most staffs our size, organizations our size, because they perform comparable to localities
twice the size of the County because they handle the school system and all those employees through our
Finance Department.
_____
c. Proclamation recognizing August 26, 2012 as Women’s Equality Day.
Ms. Mallek read and presented proclamation to Ms. Kobby Hoffman, President, Charlottesville
NOW:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, this is the 92nd Anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
giving women the right to vote in 1920; and
WHEREAS, in 1848, 164 years ago in Seneca Falls, the need was recognized and proclaimed, but
after great effort there is still no reliable protection in the U.S. Constitution for women against sex
discrimination in general; and
WHEREAS, in many other ways the tasks of providing equal opportunities to women and men, and
the tasks of removing burdens which fall unjustly on women as compared with men remain uncompleted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby proclaim
August 26, 2012,
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable
community, which acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and
men, with liberty and justice for all; and
Signed and sealed this 1st day of August 2012.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Nancy Carpenter asked the Chair to allow one or two individuals wishing to address interim
funding for the Crossings to speak, as they were delayed in arriving and the sign-in sheets had already
been collected.
Ms. Mallek said that others were always welcome to come on at the end of the list.
Ms. Carpenter said that she was here to speak about interim funding on the Crossings and
advocate for full interim funding beginning five months ago until HUD finishes their review of the
administrative plan. She stated that interim funding saved money for taxpayers of the County, as many
studies have shown that it costs a County approximately $40,000 per year per individual suffering from
chronic homelessness. Ms. Carpenter said that figure includes the cost of being involved in the criminal
justice system and the whole gamut of services, as well as the inappropriate use of medical services – ER
visits are the most costly type of medical service you can have – you also have mental health services that
weigh in on that cost as well. She added that when someone is in supportive housing, the cost can drop
to about half of that – with the $3,300 per individual per month estimate coming from Sean Donovan, HUD
Director. Ms. Carpenter stated that the cost for a rental unit in the crossings is about $600, which provides
a substantial savings. She stated that the other issue is a business concern, as the Board is asking a
business to go without a revenue stream for almost a year – and she didn’t see that happening with any
other business in the County. She said that to her it seems grossly unfair. Ms. Carpenter said that there
was some question about the $700,000 rollover from the tourism bureau revenues, and perhaps there
may be some funding that can come out of that. She asked for attendees to stand up in support of the
County providing interim funding for the nine homeless individuals who were waiting for lodging
Mr. Boyd asked if she knew the total homelessness numbers for the Albemarle/Charlottesville
area.
Ms. Carpenter responded that she did not, but there were professionals at this meeting who did.
_____
Ms. Kaki Dimock, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless,
addressed the Board and stated that there are about 325 people on any given day who are identified as
chronically homeless, there are about 400 families living in homelessness or near homelessness
according to the school system. She stated that in Charlottesville and Albemarle combined last year there
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
were about 364 kids identified as homeless throughout the course of the year – and 320 found as
individuals living on the street.
_____
Dr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, providing a definition of climate change “from the two big
authorities” stating that climate change is climate change. He said that is not a true definition. Dr. Battig
said that an American Meteorological Society report from 2011 stated “any human influence on extreme
weather risks combines with these episodic variations and the chance fluctuations that are inevitable when
dealing with rare events – we should not assume that human influence is making a particular type of event
more likely or will necessarily recur.” Dr. Battig mentioned a survey in which 10,000 were distributed,
3,000 responded, and 77 of those were deemed desirable. He said the survey included a two-part
question, “When compared to pre-1800 levels do you think that mean global temperatures have risen,
fallen or remained constant?” and “Do you think human activity is a significant factor?” Dr. Battig stated
that was a meaningless survey. He presented a bar graph of hot weather from the 1800s and 1930s,
when records were set, noting that a UK study showed in the last 15 years temperatures have been flat
and falling. He said a German study showed 2,000 years of basically cooling, and a Norway study showed
a desire for more effort on natural causes – cloud formations, variations in currents.
_____
Mr. Gary Grant, a resident of the Rio District, said that at the Board’s July 11th meeting he
submitted nine questions relating to the response to the derecho storm on June 29, 2012. He said it has
been 22 days and he has not received a reply from anyone, and his questions were sent to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Grant noted that the County Police contacted him and Steve Watson, the Crime
Prevention Officer, is planning to meet with him to answer the question pertaining to Neighborhood
Watches. He added that he is speaking as an individual today, not on behalf of the boards and services in
which he is involved. Mr. Grant also mentioned that there is a wonderful National Park Service museum
to visit about women’s equality in Seneca Falls, New York.
_____
Reverend Kathy Talley addressed the Board, stating she was present to support a citizen request
from Albemarle County for interim funding to house nine homeless individuals at the Crossings. She said
she represents Virginia Supportive Housing – the owner, developer, property manager, and supportive
service provider of The Crossings. They are a nonprofit and have projects across the State, and she is
asking the Board to support funding for the nine apartments on a month by month basis through the end
of the year and then renegotiate should the vouchers still not be available. She stated that the necessary
funding is about $5,000 per month for the nine people, based on the higher fair market rent of $646. Rev.
Talley explained that the reason HUD homeless properties have two-tiered rent structures is to make the
project financially feasible and they know that by doing that you will be able to serve more than the number
of homeless people for whom you can provide vouchers. At The Crossings, she said that they are
providing services for 11 formerly homeless individuals and eventually a total of 30 that will have
vouchers. She said that public dollars are stretched rather than overspent. Rev. Talley emphasized that
financial sustainability is vital for this project, which is funded through low income housing tax credits –
with investors putting $4.2 million on the table out of an $8.5 million development – and they expect the
property to cash flow as planned. She said that they have already sustained a $20,000 loss to date, and
adding the $5,000 in seed money – they have reached the limit on what the investors are willing to allow to
pony up. She said that VSH does not want to be in this position, but at some point investors will require an
alternative leasing strategy. She asked the Board to help them to house the medically vulnerable and
homeless citizens of Albemarle by providing the needed and necessary interim funding.
Mr. Boyd asked Rev. Talley to clarify if the rooms could be used for other programs so there
would not be a loss for the organization. Rev. Talley responded that if they did not have to hold them
vacant and use them as the original plan, they would not have lost the money.
Mr. Boyd said he was trying to determine if the nine rooms would go to other people through
another program, if the County did not provide supplemental funding. Rev. Talley explained that if
someone does not come forward with interim funding, the investors will eventually require the rooms to be
leased at market rates to stem any further losses.
Mr. Dumler asked if the VSH was under contractual obligation with the County, HUD, and others
to hold the rooms vacant until it needs to be renegotiated or project vouchers become available. Rev.
Talley confirmed that was the case.
_____
Ms. Karen Waters-Wicks, a Charlottesville resident, stated that in addition to her other
responsibilities she is occasionally substitute teaches for the County. She said that she just finished
service as Chair of the Housing Advisory Committee for the City of Charlottesville, and during her tenure
they helped create the funding opportunity for The Crossings as they felt it was a really important piece of
the entire spectrum of affordable housing available in our community. Ms. Waters-Wicks said the
homeless problem is real and it is very serious. She related a story where she was approached by a
woman at church who asked, “Please, can you help me find a home”. Ms. Waters-Wicks said the woman
is disabled, worked for the school system, and lived at Forest Lakes for many years until she lost her job –
and at the time they met the woman had been living in her car for a year. She said that she had no idea in
looking at her that this lady was living in her car. Ms. Waters-Wicks stated that the Salvation Army,
Shelter for Help and Emergency, and the Pastor at New Beginnings Church did everything they could to
find housing for this woman, who had already been on a list for the Housing Authority and the Albemarle
County Housing Office. She said that the woman was eligible to live at The Crossings, but is still in her
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
car and her health is deteriorating – she needs a place to live. Ms. Waters-Wicks asked the Board for
help in rectifying this situation.
_____
Mr. Raymond Brock addressed the Board, stating that he lives at The Crossings. He said he is a
veteran and was homeless, and the government has an opportunity and an obligation to help people who
have sacrificed for it.
_____
Mr. Edward Brooks, a resident of Esmont, said he was present to speak about the potential
closure of B. F. Yancey Elementary School and the consolidation of small southern schools prior to Mr.
Dumler and Mr. Snow’s public meeting to be held later that night. Mr. Brooks said that the $50,000 per
student number that is being bantered around is far out in the stratosphere, and there are a lot of
inaccuracies in the data that would be addressed at the meeting. The community does not want Board
members to get that number etched in their minds, because the community is going to dial it way back.
Mr. Brooks mentioned a number used in a previous assessment of $3,643 per student, and another report
comparing costs yielding a figure of $8,900. He stated the $50,000 that the Long-Range Planning
Committee has been using is not anywhere near being the truth.
_____
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, addressed the Board, stating that the community is not
being adequately served by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, not as a result of staff but because the
Board and City Council have not decided what the RSWA’s future would be. He mentioned a lot of
damage and waste on his property from the storm, and had heard that disposal at Chris Greene Lake was
free so he drove there with as much waste as he could haul but was surprised that the program was being
run by County Parks & Rec. Mr. Martin said he was grateful for the service, but would be willing to pay for
a service where he could dispose of trash after a storm – and it seems that the RSWA would be the
logical choice to run it.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that the RSWA accepts vegetative waste at Ivy anytime, and the public can
take it there.
Mr. Foley said that under emergency circumstances, everyone had to pitch in to serve the
citizens.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Solid Waste Authority does not have enough regular employees to
operate a number of emergency recipient areas during an emergency.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr.
Snow, to approve Items 8.1 through 8.6 on the consent agenda, with the exception of Item 8.2 to pull for
discussion at end of meeting, and to accept the remaining items as information. (Note: Discussions on
individual items are included with that item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: March 12(A), March 14(A), April 11(A), April 13(A), May 2, May
9(A), May 9(N), May 10, and June 6, 2012.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of March 12(A), March 14(A), April 11(A), April 13(A), and May
10, 2012, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of May 2, 2012, page 1-28, and May 9(A), 2012, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of May 2, 2012, pages 29 – end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dumler had read the minutes of May 9(N), 2012, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of June 6, 2012, pages 1-41 (end at Item #12), and found them
to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of June 6, 2012, pages 41 (begin with Item #12), and found them
to be in order.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_____
Item No. 8.2. FY 2013 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
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
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 2013 appropriations itemized below is $584,467.21. 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 nine (9) FY 2013 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013020) totaling $0.00 to distribute funding from the budgeted
Salary Reserve to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for increased personnel costs set forth in
the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. This appropriation will reallocate funding
and not increase the total appropriated budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2013022) totaling $80,000.00 for School Division grants,
donations, and activity account revenues;
One (1) appropriation (#2013024) totaling $235,873.71 to re-appropriate funding for a
General Government CIP project;
One (1) appropriation (#2013025) totaling $11,201.00 to continue to provide a part-time
officer working under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Office for the Offender Aid and
Restoration’s Drug Court program;
One (1) appropriation (#2013026) totaling $22,214.50 for Department of Voter
Registration and Elections re-appropriations;
One (1) appropriation (#2013027) totaling $90,852.00 to reappropriate the Grants
Leveraging Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2013028) totaling $64,327.00 for two grants awarded to the
Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013029) totaling $70,000.00 for professional services to assist
the Finance Department; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013030) totaling $9,999.00 for a grant awarded to the
Emergency Communications Center (ECC).
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013020, #2013022, #2013024, #2013025,
#2013026, #2013027, #2013028, #2013029 and #2013030.
*****
Appropriation #2013020 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate $21,805.00 from the budgeted Salary Reserve to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to
fund increased personnel costs set forth in the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the
County and the Circuit Court Clerk, approved by the Board on July 11, 2012. The Clerk’s Office will be
appropriately classified and placed on the County Classified Pay Plan.
Appropriation #2013022 $80,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 80,000.00
This request is to appropriate $17,500.00 in anticipated School Division donations, $50,000.00 in
anticipated School Division grants, and $12,500.00 in anticipated increases to the School Division Activity
Funds. In past budget years, these appropriations were individually requested as funds were received.
This new process of appropriating these donations, grants and raised funds on a quarterly basis, as
approved by the Board on July 11, 2012, will improve the efficiency of the County and School Division’s
budgetary and financial processes and free up staff time to provide greater oversight of the County’s
overall budget. Funds will not be expended until the revenues are actually received.
Appropriation #2013024 $235,873.71
Revenue Source: Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 235,873.71
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating General Government CIP project funding is for staff to
present to the Board a list of General Government Capital Improvement projects to which funds were
previously appropriated in the General Government Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in
that year.
The Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping project was included in a list of General Government Capital
Improvement project re-appropriations presented to the Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2012. Board
members had questions regarding this request and did not approve the appropriation request at that time.
Staff is re-presenting this request with additional clarifying information for the Board’s consideration:
This request is to re-appropriate $208,626.68 to the Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping project, as well
as the remaining balance of $27,247.03 from the engineering portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway
project, for a combined re-appropriation of $235,873.71 to the Landscaping project.
This will support design and material expenses to restore natural vegetation and enhance the landscaping
and views necessary to complete the “Linear Park” along the County’s portion (Melborne Road to Rio
Road) of the John W. Warner Parkway (a.k.a. the Meadow Creek Parkway) as provided in the “Meadow
Creek Parkway – Final Report, May 2001” prepared by Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape
Architects and adopted into the “Land Use Plan” of the County’s “Comprehensive Plan.”
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
VDOT’s design of the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment and geometry was based on the “Meadow
Creek Parkway – Final Report, May 2001”. The planning and design criteria for this report was specific in
that the design of the parkway and landscaping was to provide a “linear park”, and included
landscaping/open area recommendations to guide its creation. A landscaping capital improvement project
had been established, in part, because these provisions were beyond VDOT’s project scope. In addition,
the vision and plan for the linear park could not be created until after the Parkway was constructed and the
impacts of the clearing and grading could be fully assessed.
Staff is targeting early Fall to start design.
Appropriation #2013025 $11,201.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 11,201.00
This request is to appropriate $11,201.00 in federal grant revenues for a part-time auxiliary deputy officer
to work under the direction of the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office to assist with the administration and
monitoring of Offender Aid and Restoration‘s (OAR’s) Drug Court cases. Data from other Virginia
communities with similar arrangements indicates that the ongoing presence of an officer for program
participants yields positive outcomes. These expenses include part-time wages and vehicle fuel,
maintenance and repair costs and will be funded through federal grant revenues received from OAR. The
Board of Supervisors previously approved an appropriation for this program in FY 11/12 at its July 6, 2011
meeting. This request is to continue this program in FY 12/13 through December, 2012.
Appropriation #2013026 $22,214.50
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 22,214.50
The Department of Voter Registration and Elections requests re-appropriation of funds remaining in its FY
11/12 budget for use in FY 12/13 as follows:
The number of in-person and by-mail absentee voters has increased substantially with the past
few presidential elections, from 2,281 during the 2000 election to 6,865 in the 2008 election. The
department anticipates high numbers of absentee voters during the 2012 fall presidential election
cycle. To help address customer service and workload issues associated with this, the
department requests the following:
o Part-time temporary wages totaling $6,000.00 during the absentee voter period to assist
with data-entry and customer service.
o Purchase of an additional laptop computer with wi-fi capability to assist with the
processing of absentee ballots. The estimated cost is $1,404.50.
o Funds totaling $3,232.00 for the installation of an exit-only door room in the voter
registration office at COB 5th Street. During the 6 week absentee voting period for the
2008 November presidential election, 3,675 absentee voters voted “in-person absentee”
at the registration office, resulting in pedestrian traffic congestion that could be alleviated
by an exit-only door in the voting room.
o Additional shelving to store returned marked absentee ballots. The estimate cost is
$250.00.
Trends in past presidential elections indicate that there will be a significant spike in the number of
voter registration applications beginning in late July, 2012. The Registrar requests part-time
temporary funding of $2,800.00 to assist with processing applications and mailing voter cards to
applicants in a timely manner during the 5 week period from August 15 through September 18,
2012.
In past years, each of the precinct polling places has been run by one chief election officer and
one assistant chief election officer. For the 2012 presidential election, the electoral board would
like to add a second assistant chief to most of the precincts. With the change in the voter
identification law enacted by the legislature, the department anticipates a significant increase in
the number of voters who will be required to fill out provisional paper ballots as a result of not
having an acceptable form of identification with them at the polling place. The estimated cost of
adding 20 assistant chiefs to the 20 most populous voting precincts to assist these voters with the
provisional voting process is $4,000.00. In addition, the Registrar would like to purchase two
portable marking booths for each County voting precinct to provide privacy for voters completing
provisional paper ballots. The estimated cost is $400.00.
Purchase of a replacement printer/photocopier/fax machine totaling $400.00.
Purchase of Microsoft Project software to produce a Plan of Action and Milestones document as
requested by the Electoral Board. The estimated cost is $598.00.
The department currently has 1 frozen FTE and utilizes part-time temporary help throughout the
year in lieu of reinstating the position. During FY 11/12, the cost for this part-time help was
underestimated by $3,130.00. The Registrar would like to increase the FY 12/13 budget by
$3,130.00 to allow for the same level of assistance as in the prior year.
Appropriation #2013027 $90,852.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 90,852.00
This request is to re-appropriate $90,852.00, the amount of funding remaining in the Grants Leveraging
Fund, established in October 2010, so that these funds continue to be available to position the County to
take advantage of potential grant opportunities that would benefit its core operations. Any use of the Fund
would be in accordance with established guidelines and approved by the County Executive. All Grants
Leveraging Fund appropriation requests will be presented to the Board for approval.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
Appropriation #2013028 $64,327.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 23,602.00
Federal Revenue $ 40,725.00
This request is to appropriate two grants awarded to the Police Department:
The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) Internet Crimes Against Children
(ICAC) Fund has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant (Grant #13-
A2581AC13) in the amount of $23,602.00. This grant will provide funding for staff overtime
associated with developing and processing Internet Crimes Against Children cases. There is no
local match required for this grant.
The Department of Criminal Justice has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a
grant (Grant #13-C2149AD11) in the amount of $40,725 with a local match of $2,144 for a total
grant award of $42,869. This grant will provide funding for equipment, primarily cameras, to use
in monitoring and surveillance of suspects and potential criminal activity. The local match funds
are being provided by the Grant Leveraging Fund, which is being reappropriated in #2013027.
Appropriation #2013029 $70,000.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 70,000.00
This request is to appropriate $70,000.00 from General Fund balance to the Department of Finance to
purchase the following professional services from the County’s Financial Advisors, Davenport and
Company:
Implementation of the Investment Management Program ($40,000): Currently the Finance
Department monitors and manages cash flow on a weekly basis. Idle cash is transferred from the
County’s bank account to the Local Government Investment Pool based on informal estimates of
the County’s cash flow needs. Funding is requested for the Investment Management Program
project, which will formalize this process using historical cash flows to develop and maintain a
cash flow model and cash flow forecast. The program will include development of an investment
policy and strategies for investing idle cash. Additionally, Davenport will prepare quarterly
investment activity and cash flow activity reports that will be reviewed with the appropriate County
staff. One result of implementing the Investment Management Program should be greater
investment earnings.
Procurement of Bank Services Project ($30,000): Secondly, funding is requested for Davenport
and Company to assist with a Procurement of Bank Services project. Davenport will develop a
banking services Request for Proposal (RFP) and will work closely with staff to analyze proposals,
select the banking services vendor, negotiate a bank services contract, and assist staff with
implementation of bank services. Using Davenport’s expertise and experience to move this
delayed project forward will bring Finance into compliance with procurement regulations. This
consultation expense will also ensure the County is getting the best service and best price for its
Bank Services.
Appropriation #2013030 $9,999.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 9,999.00
This request is to appropriate $9,999.00 in federal revenue to close out the 2010 Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) Technology Grant that the Emergency Communications Center has managed
for the 5th Congressional District. These funds will be used to purchase a larger file storage server that will
store pictometry software image and data files for the ECC. These oblique aerial image files are used by
the communications officers in conjunction with the address information to help responders locate the
appropriate address that they are responding to. There is no local match required for this grant.
(Discussion: In terms of the Meadow Creek landscaping, Mr. Boyd said there is not adequate
information as to how the $325,000 is going to be spent. He said he was not clear that this was
something the County is absolutely required to do. He also noted the references to agreements and
leftover funds in the engineering area.
Mr. Foley said it might be good to move this item for discussion later in the meeting as there is
some uncertainty around the written agreements and commitments.
Mr. Boyd asked about the $90,000 grant funding and whether that was refurbishing that fund. Ms.
Allshouse explained that it was just a carryover of funding set aside in 2012.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $70,000 in the Finance Department to help with budgeting of cash flows
was approved in the budget and just being appropriated, or if it was new funds.
Mr. Foley responded that it is a request for year-end funds to use to do priority issues, and there
had been some discussion about putting that in the budget – but the cash flow was critical at this time.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was curious as to whether or not this has gone through the normal budget
process – but apparently it did not – it is actually a request for additional funds.
Mr. Foley confirmed that this had not gone through the normal budget process, and was a request
for additional funds. He explained that the normal budget process happened in the usual cycle, and the
re-appropriation process for monies at the end of the year would come before the Board a little bit later in
the year. He said that this is the same process, but staff did accelerate it in this request because there
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
was a thought that there was some urgency to it – and that it was something that would have ranked as a
#1 priority to get accomplished.
Mr. Rooker said it appeared to him that there was idle cash that they could probably have invested
overnight that was not invested, but the return on the money at such a low interest rate might not be as
good as in other times. He stated that setting up a more professional cash management system
ultimately would be revenue positive.
Mr. Foley said that staff thinks it will pay for itself, and the conclusion was based on the same
logic Mr. Rooker had expressed.)
_____
Item No. 8.3. Resolution Congratulating City of Charlottesville on 250th Anniversary.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, named for Queen Charlotte, the queen consort of King George
III of the United Kingdom, was formed by charter in 1762 along a trade route ca lled Three Notched Road
which led from Richmond to the Great Valley, and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, located in the center of the Commonwealth of Virginia, is
marking its 250th anniversary with a year of celebrations and special events to mark its rich history, culture,
and pride of its residents; and
WHEREAS, throughout its long and rich history, the City of Charlottesville has seen advances in
education, industry, as well as preservation, illustrating the important role the City and its citizens have played
in the economic and historic nature of this region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville’s rich history has withstood tumultuous times during the
American Revolution, segregation and integration of schools, and annexation; and was influential in the lives
of three founding fathers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is home to a world class academia – the University of Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville is known as a place with big city attractions within medium-
sized boundaries, helping to place our region at the top of many “best of” lists including the #1 city to live in the
country; and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has contributed greatly to the history and culture of Central
Virginia, and its residents should take pride in the accomplishments of the City, and look forward to its future;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been a valued and important partner to Albemarle County
in insuring the vitality and success of our shared regional community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
hereby honor and congratulate the City of Charlottesville on the momentous occasion of its 250th Anniversary,
and urge all citizens of the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville to join in this celebration.
_____
Item No. 8.4. FY 13/14 Operating and Capital Budget Calendar.
The executive summary states that the process of developing the County’s Operating Budget for
FY 13/14 and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY14-18 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 community 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
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
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
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 2013 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 following preliminary budget calendar:
FY 13/14 BUDGET CALENDAR
August 2012
3 Department/Agency/School CIP Project Justification & Cost Data due to OMB
September 2012
11 Operating budget manual and instructions available for County departments
October 2012
9-22 CIP Technical Review Team (TRT) meetings
10 Department Budget Presentations to Board of Supervisors (BOS)
10 BOS/School Board Compensation meeting with BOS and School Board
12 Department/office FY 13/14 budget requests due to OMB
November 2012
5 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
7 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – General Government
8 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan – School Division
9 Community agency applications due to OMB
12 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
19 CIP Oversight Committee meeting
December 2012
5 BOS Work Session – Five-Year Financial Plan
12 BOS Work Session – Approve the Five-Year Financial Plan
13 Joint CIP meeting with BOS and School Board
January 2013
25 General fund and special revenue funds balanced
February 2013
22 Budget document distributed
27 Public Hearing on County Executive’s Recommended Budget
March 2013
4 BOS Work Session – General Government
7 BOS Work Session – CIP
11 BOS Work Session – School Division
13 BOS Work Session (if needed)
27 Public Hearing on Board’s Proposed Budget
27 Public Hearing on the 2013 calendar year tax rate
April 2013
3 BOS sets the 2013 calendar year tax rate
3 BOS adopts the FY 13/14 budget and FY13-22 CIP Amendment
_____
Item No. 8.5. Proposed Changes to Financial Management Policies.
The executive summary states that County’s Financial Management Policies were last updated in
October 2000. At the September 14, 2011 Board meeting, the County’s Financial Advisors, Davenport
and Company, LLC, suggested that the County consider certain changes to the County’s financial policies.
The Board gave tacit approval of these changes, and staff considered these policy changes during the
FY13 budget development process.
Staff recommends revising the County’s Financial Management Policies as follows:
1) Capital Budget, Debt, and Fund Balance or Reserve Policies - Change the term
“undesignated” and/or “unreserved” to “unassigned” pursuant to the language
prescribed by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) in GASB
Statement #54. Currently, the fund balance that is available for appropriation is
referred to as the “undesignated, unreserved” fund balance.
2) Debt Policies – Formalize the County’s current practice of repaying 60% or more of
the County’s debt in 10 years or less.
3) Fund Balance or Reserve Policies – Increase the amount of the unassigned and
committed General Fund fund balance from 8% to 10% to maintain the County’s
position as an AAA rated jurisdiction with Moody’s and S&P.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
Staff has included these recommended changes in the attached draft policy revisions (Attachment
A). Staff plans to propose additional revisions to the County’s financial policies over the next several
months.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the revised Financial Management Policies as set forth in
Attachment A.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following revised Financial
Management Policies:
CAPITAL BUDGET POLICIES
***
The County will begin to inventory capital facilities and estimate remaining useful life and replacement
costs. Upon completion of any capital project, remaining appropriated funds in that project will be returned
to the unassigned capital project fund. Any transfer of remaining funds from one project to another must
be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
***
DEBT POLICIES
***
The County intends to maintain a 10 year payout ratio at or above 60% at the end of each adopted five-
year CIP for tax-supported debt and lease payments. When the County finances capital improvements or
other projects through bonds or capital leases, it will repay the debt within a period not to exceed the
expected useful life of the projects.
***
FUND BALANCE OR RESERVE POLICIES
***
The County does not intend, as a common practice, to use General Fund equity (unassigned fund
balance) to finance current operations. If circumstances require the use of the unassigned fund balance
that causes the balance to fall to a point below the 10% target level, the County will develop a plan during
the annual budget adoption process to replenish the unrestricted fund balance to the 10% target level over
a period of not more than three (3) years.
At the close of each fiscal year, the unassigned General Fund fund balance, plus the committed fund
balance available for fiscal cash liquidity purposes, should be equal to no less than 10% of the County’s
total operating revenues, which includes the General Fund plus the School Fund (Amended October 4,
2000).
Funds in excess of the required unassigned fund balance may be considered to supplement “pay as you
go” capital expenditures or as additions to the fund balance.
***
_____
Item No. 8.6. Resolution Authorizing County Executive to Approve transfers of Unencumbered
Funds in FY 13.
The executive summary states that on July 11, 2012, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and the Department of Finance requested the Board to consider three recommendations to improve the
County’s future appropriation processes. These proposed process improvements are expected to
significantly reduce staff overtime, improve the efficiency of the County and School Division’s budgetary
and financial processes, and free up staff to provide greater oversight of the County’s overall budget. At
the July 11 meeting, the Board:
1) Directed staff to implement the proposed carry-over CIP re-appropriation process
beginning in FY 14;
2) Directed staff to streamline the appropriation process for anticipated FY 13 School Fund
revenue for grants, donations and School activity funds by bringing forward a budget
amendment and appropriation for the anticipated funding for the Board’s approval; and
3) Requested that staff bring back information on August 1 to further clarify language in a
Resolution proposed to the Board on July 11 to authorize the County Executive to
approve expenditure transfers for the Board’s further consideration.
Attached is a Resolution that has been further clarified for the Board’s consideration. The time
period for this authorization would be for one year only and would be reconsidered annually by the Board
as part of the annual budget appropriation process. The County Executive would be authorized to
administratively approve FY 13 budget transfers of unencumbered funds of up to $50,000.00 per fund in
the fiscal year from one classification, department, or project to another within the same general
governmental fund. A summary of any fund transfer transactions that are approved by the County
Executive each quarter will be provided to the Board as part of the Finance Department’s quarterly
financial reports. As was noted in the previous research and review of this item with the Board, this type
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
of authorization to make lim ited adjustments during the year to improve operational efficiency is fairly
common practice in other localities similar to Albemarle.
The County’s accounting structure includes the following governmental fund classifications:
1) General Fund;
2) General Government Capital Improvement Fund;
3) Stormwater (Capital) Management Fund;
4) General Government Debt Service Fund;
5) Stormwater Debt Service Fund; and
6) Special Revenue Funds
a. The multiple funds included under the category of “Special Revenue Funds” are
those used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources which are
restricted to expenditures for specific purposes. This category includes funds
such as Federal and State Grant Funds, the Tourism Fund, the Comprehensive
Services Act (CSA) Fund and the Courthouse Maintenance Fund.
The authorization requested in this Resolution would apply only to the following governmental
funds:
1) General Fund;
2) General Government Capital Improvement Fund;
3) Stormwater (Capital) Management Fund:
4) General Government Debt Service Fund; and
5) Stormwater Debt Service Fund
These adjustments would have zero effect on the overall budget. This change is anticipated to
improve the efficiency of the County’s budgetary and financial processes.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the
County Executive to approve expenditure transfers of up to $50,000 per year within the same fund
necessary for the efficient operation of government. Any such transfers approved by the County Executive
will be reported to the Board as part of the quarterly financial report.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE TRANSFERS OF FY 13
UNENCUMBERED FUNDS FROM ONE CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE TO ANOTHER WITHIN
THE SAME FUND
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors currently must approve appropriation requests for budget
transfers within the same fund to meet unanticipated needs or costs, even if such transfer does not result in
an increase to the overall County budget; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the efficiency of government would be improved by
delegating to the County Executive the authority to administratively approve budget transfers of any
unencumbered funds from one classification of expenditure to another within the same fund; and
WHEREAS, any such transfers approved by the County Executive will be reported to the Board of
Supervisors quarterly as part of the quarterly finance report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to administratively approve FY 13 budget transfers of unencumbered funds of
up to $50,000.00 per fund in the fiscal year from one classification, department, or project to another within the
same general governmental fund. For purposes of this Resolution general governmental funds shall include
the following: (1) General Fund; (2) General Government Debt Service Fund; (3) Stormwater Debt Service
Fund; (4) General Government Capital Improvement Fund; and (5) Stormwater Management Fund.
_____
Item No. 8.7. Expansion of the Photo Safe Program to Richmond Road and Stony Point Road
Intersection, was received for information.
The executive summary states that in 2007, the General Assembly enacted Virginia Code §15.2-
968.1 enabling localities to establish, by ordinance, traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems. Localities
may install a photo-monitoring system at one intersection per 10,000 residents upon completing traffic
safety engineering studies and the implementation requirements set forth in the statute. The County is
authorized to install up to nine photo-monitoring systems at approved traffic signal intersections.
Responding to Board member interest in photo-monitoring systems, staff began researching
traffic light signal photo-monitoring ordinances, vendors, and agency administrative procedures in
2007. On June 3, 2009, the Board authorized staff to draft an ordinance and to secure a private
vendor to assist with the implementation and maintenance of a “Photosafe Program.” On August 5,
2009, the Board adopted the County’s traffic light signal photo-monitoring system ordinance
(“Photosafe Ordinance”) which gives the County Executive the authority to implement the Photosafe
Program.
The County entered into an Agreement with Redflex Traffic Control Systems, Inc (“Redflex”)
to establish and administer the County’s Photosafe Program. Under the Agreement, Redflex
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
assumes all responsibility for the installation, maintenance and operation of the Photosafe Program,
with the exception of issuing summonses and appearing in Court. Redflex collects assessed civil
penalties and forwards collected funds to the County monthly. Redflex is paid $4900.00 per month
per camera. If Redflex collects less than the amount it is owed in a given month, it is paid only the
amount collected. The County is not required by the contract to pay Redflex more than Redflex
collects.
The County’s Photosafe Program has been in operation and issuing summonses for
violations since December 12, 2010. Cameras are installed at the intersection of Seminole Trail and
Rio Road. The Police Department (“ACPD”) has documented a reduction of crashes at that
intersection since the cameras were installed. Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary dated
February 1, 2012, which provides a one year summary of the Photosafe Program (Attachment A).
This summary documents the effectiveness of the Photosafe Program in reducing crashes due to red
light violations.
As of July 24, 2012, there have been 16,352 incidents captured by the Photosafe Program at
the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road. 9,823 of those incidents have been approved for the
issuance of summonses. There has been minimum impact on ACPD staffing to manage the
Photosafe Program.
In 2009, ACPD identified the intersection of Richmond Road and Stony Point Road as a top
priority for inclusion in the Photosafe Program. In 2009 there were 25 crashes at that intersection, in
2010 there were 27 crashes, in 2011 there were 17 crashes, and there have been 18 crashes so far in
2012. Given the success of the Photosafe Program at the Seminole Trail/Rio Road intersection, staff
believes it is the appropriate time to expand the Photosafe Program to the Richmond Road/Stony
Point Road intersection.
Although the Photosafe Ordinance authorizes the County Executive to implement the
provisions of that ordinance, staff believes it is important to secure Board direction bef ore moving
forward with expansion of the Photosafe Program.
In selecting the Richmond Road/Stony Point Road intersection for inclusion in the Photosafe
Program, ACPD considered the factors set forth in Virginia Code Section 15.2-968.1(J), including (i)
the accident rate at the intersection, (ii) the rate of red light violations occurring at the intersection, (iii)
the difficulty experienced by law enforcement offices in apprehending violators, and (iv) the ability to
apprehend violators safely.
Prior to the expansion of the Photosafe Program to the intersection of Richmond Road and
Stony Point Road, the County must do the following:
1. Complete an engineering safety analysis.
2. If recommended by the analysis, make reasonable location specific improvements,
including signs and pavement markings.
3. Install conspicuous notification signs within 500 feet of the intersection.
4. Conduct a public awareness program advising the public that the Photosafe Program
is being expanded to the intersection.
It is anticipated that the expansion could be operational by late this year.
No County funds have been required to support this program. Redflex assumes the
preliminary costs associated with expansion of the Photosafe Program (cameras, signs, engineering
safety analysis, signs, etc.).
Net revenue to the County from the Photosafe Program has been as follows:
December 2010 – June 30, 2011: $45,544.12
July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012: $91,261.70
This revenue is designated solely for traffic safety programs.
The expansion of the Photosafe Program will continue to be supported by revenue from civil
penalties assessed for violations of the Photosafe Ordinance.
This Executive Summary is being provided for informational purposes only. Staff will proceed
with expansion of the the Photosafe Program with the installation of a traffic light signal photo-
monitoring system at the intersection of Richmond Road and Stoney Point Road in the coming
months.
_____
Item No. 8.8. FY 2012 Fourth Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and Use of Proffer
Funds, was received for information.
The executive summary states that in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report
on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on
non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on June 6, 2012 which included
information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for January-March 2012.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012
(April-June). The next quarterly proffer report will be on the Board’s November 7, 2012 agenda.
Cash Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2012 Fourth Quarter (April-June)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There was one rezoning approved this quarter that provided new cash
proffers. ZMA 2012-11 Estes Park proffered cash proffers for the CIP of up to $754,000 ($13,000
market rate per unit for up to 58 single family attached units).
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $42,764,542 and reflects annual
adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which
annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 4th Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $241,207.88 from existing cash
proffers during this quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Avinity $90,291.16 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Belvedere $7,500.00 Affordable Housing
Leake (Glenmore) $21,707.00 CIP and Affordable Housing
Old Trail $5,000.00 Schools and Parks in CIP
projects in Crozet
Westhall $28,000.00 Eastern Avenue and CIP
projects in Crozet
Wickham Pond $38,709.72 CIP-Crozet
Wickham Pond II $50,000.00 CIP-Crozet
D. Expenditures: There were no expenditures of cash proffers during this quarter.
E. Current Available Funds: As of June 30, 2012, the available proffered cash on-hand is
$2,172,850.52 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds
were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP.
Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $669,798.38 is currently appropriated. (See Attachment
A for details) The net cash balance is $1,503,052.14. Attachment B provides information on how
the net cash balance funds may be used for future appropriations.
Non Cash Proffers-Proffered
ZMA 2010-11 Estes Park was approved on April 11, 2012 to rezone 12.75 acres from R-1 to PRD
for 68 single family attached units. This rezoning proffered a public road, pedestrian/bike connection,
enhanced erosion and sediment control measures, and affordable housing (10 units), as well as cash
proffers for the CIP of up to $754,000 ($13,000 market rate per unit for up to 58 single family attached
units).
ZMA 2011-08 Three Notch’d Center was approved on May 2, 2012 to amend the application plan
associated with this rezoning and update proffers based on this application plan change. The proffer
amendments do not impact cash or non-cash contributions, as they only address amending the proffered
application plan and restricted land uses.
As part of the Planning Commission’s review of the Comprehensive Plan, Affordable Housing
proffer information was requested. This information was provided to the Commission in July and provides
a listing of all affordable housing proffers, including affordable housing units and cash received to-date
(Attachment C).
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and
they support the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through
general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds
capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide
improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer
funds on an on-going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and
to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said that the report indicates there was about $2.2 million in available
proffers and they had spent about $2.9 million. He said the Crozet Library had quite a bit of money set
aside for it, and asked if that money would be used to offset the construction costs, or if it would be used
in some other way.
Mr. Foley responded that his understanding was it would offset the cost of library construction
based on the proffers that were committed, and it would bring down what the County would have had to
spend in tax dollars.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was some plan that is going to be developed for the remainder of the
funds that are sitting out there – is staff going to bring forward a recommendation.
Mr. Foley said that staff would come before the Board during budget time with a plan for the
remaining funds. Mr. Foley noted that staff was starting the capital projects process, and asked to come
back before the Board with a report including more specifics.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker pointed out that some of the proffer funds are targeted for things such as sidewalks,
so they cannot be pulled out and used on anything.
Ms. Mallek commented that the trail issue is an incremental issue, so in working with older
properties there is a constant effort to find connections between the new projects, and that’s why it’s
taking a while. She said that Mr. Dan Mahon was working hard on all the trail systems all over the County.
Mr. Rooker said a big percentage of the $2 million was allocated for specific projects.
Mr. Foley said the update from staff would include the status of projects and specific designations.
_____
Item No. 8.9. 2011 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The report states that State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
to keep a full public record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body.
The full 2011 annual report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for
certain sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
The number of appeals received in 2011 remained the same as the number received in 2010 -- a
total of 4 cases. Three cases were affirmed and one was rendered moot prior to public hearing. The
number of variances decreased by 3, from 6 received in 2010 to 3 in 2011. Each of these three
cases was approved with conditions. The number of special use permits for off-site signs decreased
by 5, from 7 in 2010 to 2 in 2011. Both of these cases were approved with conditions.
The following Circuit Court cases were active in 2011:
1. Paul Begin, et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals and Planned Parenthood: Appeal of use
Determination.
2. HE&J, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of general accord.
3. Dominique and Rachel Kostelac v. Board of Zoning Appeals: Appeal of determination of
zoning violation.
_____
Item No. 8.10. Copy of letter dated July 11, 2012, to Lee Rasmussen, McCallum & Kudravetz,
P.C., re: LOD2012-0004 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 58, Parcel 78 (Property of Gabbro, LLC) – Samuel Miller District, was received
for information.
_____
Item No. 8.11. VDOT – Culpeper District, Monthly Report for Albemarle County, was received for
information.
The following special issues were set out in the report:
Bridge Replacement Project on Route 783 over a Branch of Mechunk Creek. The road will be
closed to through traffic at the bridge for an estimated four week period beginning on July 9 with
an estimated completion date of August 3, 2012.
Bridges on Route 745, Arrowhead Valley Road. The road will be closed at the Rail Road Bridge
on the southern end of the road beginning on June 25th. The anticipated completion date quoted
by the contractor is September 1, 2012. The bridge is currently owned and maintained by the Rail
Road. Once the construction is completed the maintenance will become the responsibility of
VDOT.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2012-00015. Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #20&21). PROPOSED: Request for installation of a
six new flush-mounted antennas on an existing tower which will involve retrofitting an extension
mount to a new height of 139 feet, relocation of the existing antenna array and changes to
associated ground equipment. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas-
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC
Entrance Corridor – Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance
from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to
provide safety and protection from flooding; AIA Airport Impact Area-Overlay to minimize adverse
impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land. SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier
III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES. LOCATION: 1575 Ingleridge Farm. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-
00-00-002A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 16 and July 23, 2012.)
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that this is a request to install six new flush-
mounted antennae on two arrays on an existing transmission tower, and also calls for the relocation of an
existing antenna array. He said it would involve an extension mount added to the top of the existing tower
– approximately 19 feet – bringing the tower to a total of 139 feet in height. Mr. Benish said there were
also some associated ground equipment changes, and there are five modifications to the ordinance that
staff is supporting as special exceptions.
He explained that the existing facility is located off of Barracks Road on the north side just west of
the Montview neighborhood, across from the Colthurst neighborhood. Mr. Benish said this is essentially a
collocation on an existing transmission tower, and the tower itself already creates a visual impact to the
area. He stated that a special use permit is necessary for the increase in height of the tower, and the
height change – which is necessary in part due to Dominion Virginia Power’s change in policy, as they say
there can no longer be wireless antennae below the level of the transmission lines. Mr. Benish presented
photo-simulations of the tower with the increased height.
He said that staff has found favorable factors to be that the improvement is located on an existing
facility, and the additional antenna will not increase or cause any new impacts to adjacent properties. Mr.
Benish said that due to the height and scale of the existing transmission tower, the increased height is not
a significant impact to the area. He stated that the ARB staff has recommended approval since the height
increase is relative to the total height of the tower. Mr. Benish said that unfavorable factors include that
the existing tower is located among other transmission lines and it does create some additional impact to
that tower. He said that staff recommends approval of the height increase, and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposal. Mr. Benish said that a motion would also be needed for waivers
of the special exceptions.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
The applicant’s representative, Lori Schweller of LeClaire Ryan law firm, addressed the Board and
explained that the purpose of the application was to provide 4G service at this particular site – so the
existing antennae would be replaced by two sets of flush-mounted antennas, one with the dual band for
PCS and cell and the other for 4G. Ms. Schweller said the reason they are requesting an extension above
rather than attaching the antennae below is because of the new policy at Dominion Power for safety
purposes, and all the work done on this site would be done by their personnel.
Mr. Rooker commented that collocation is definitely preferable, and while the change in visibility is
negative it doesn’t overcome the advantage of having collocation.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to approve SP-2012-00015
subject to the one proposed condition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant’s request
and site plans, entitled “Colthurst LTE 4G Upgrade:, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
6/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Planning Administrator.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to approve the special exceptions
for the modifications for SP-2012 -00015 Verizon Wireless Colthurst-Ingleridge LLC., Tier III PWSF with
the conditions outlined in the staff report, as amended, for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3)(i),(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(5), and
(d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8. The recommendation would allow the height
increase to 139 feet, additional antenna arrays and associated ground equipment and modifications
provided in the staff report. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2012-00016, NTELOS WIRELESS – CV825 Cedar Hill- Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #91&94). PROPOSED: A one hundred and fifteen
(115) foot tall steel monopole tower painted brown with a flush- mounted antenna array consisting
of three (3) panel antennas and associated ground equipment which will be located within a
twenty (20) foot by thirty (30) foot leased compound area. The access road to the proposed facility
is an existing paved road. 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(48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities in the RA Zoning
District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas 4 – Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre
in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO. AGRICULTURAL FORESTAL DISTRICT:
YES. LOCATION: David Road, Marshall Manor Subdivision, East Side of Rte 20. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 090B0-00-0A-01100. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 16 and July 23, 2012.)
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Benish reported that this is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop
facility, and said the reason the proposed tower is a Tier III is because it’s located within an ag/forestal
district; otherwise it would have been considered a Tier II treetop facility. At the July 17 Planning
Commission meeting, he said, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request. Mr.
Benish stated that the proposal is located on the east side of Route 20 South, and the property is off of
Davis Road in the Marshal Manor subdivision. He said that the plat is located in what was an old roadway
cut in for lots to be subdivided that subsequently will not be because the property is in an ag/forestal
district.
Mr. Benish explained that the proposed treetop tower would contain a steel monopole to be
painted brown, approximately 115 in height – 10 feet above the reference tree. He said there are two
additional antenna arrays shown on the application plan, but only one is initially proposed to be installed
with others intended for future use. Mr. Benish said there is a special exception required that the height
shall exceed seven feet up to the 10 feet being proposed, and staff is recommending the exception
favorably as well as a critical slope waiver for some minor activity on the adjacent slope. He noted that the
Ag/Forestal Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended unanimously that it was acceptable
activity as it had limited impact to agricultural and forestal uses.
Mr. Benish stated that there was a fair amount of damage that occurred from loss of trees in the
general area of the proposal, but the applicant has made modifications of their plan to reflect that. He said
the review coordinator and County staff went onsite to review the proposal, and there is no significant
impact from the storm; it is still a relatively invisible site, particularly from Route 20. Mr. Benish presented
the applicant’s photos of the balloon test. He said that favorable factors include the location of the
monopole so that it’s not skylit, and there is a substantial backdrop due to the mountainside; it is minimally
visible from Route 20; and the use would not cause substantial detriment to ag/forestal or conservation
activities. Mr. Benish stated that the only unfavorable factor is its location in that district, but staff has
noted the district’s comments. He said that based on the findings in the staff report, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the request for the monopole at a 10-feet height to the reference
tree.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification as to whether the pole was seven or 10 feet. Mr. Benish
explained that under the Tier II process, a seven-foot tower can be approved as a Tier II, and this is a 10-
foot height – which requires the exception. He said it would have come forward as a Tier II had it not been
in the ag/forestal district.
Mr. Dumler asked how minor the critical slopes disturbance was. Mr. Benish responded that
when he reviewed the site, the applicant was pushing back the location of the tower to the edge of an
already graded area for that roughed in roadway, and the roadway created an edge of grading.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board, stating that the balloon test vantage point was from the
cul- de-sac at David Road where it backs up to Route 20. She said that was one of only two places they
could find the balloon at all through the breaks in the trees. Ms. Long stated that the total disturbance
area of the critical slopes is 354 square feet, which is a very small area right on the edge of the manm ade
slope. She said that most of the trees that came down in the derecho storm were fairly small, and the
reference tree remained, with minimal impact on visibility. Ms. Long explained that they sent their
surveyor and civil engineers back on the site to go tree by tree and identify which needed to be removed
due to damage, noting that the ordinance stipulates you can only remove trees from within 200 feet of the
facility if you list them on your plans as to be removed. She said if you take down a tree that is not listed
for removal you could be in violation of your permits. Ms. Long also noted that the arborist who evaluated
the trees identified one tree that was bent over significantly from the storm and may fall onto the
equipment, so in addition to recommending removal of that tree he inventoried the remaining trees.
Mr. Rooker asked what the justification was for 10 feet over seven feet.
Ms. Long said the applicant almost always ask for the 10 feet because it makes a significant
difference in the quality of the wireless facility in terms of the distance it will travel, and in this case it’s
particularly warranted due to the backdrop of trees on the mountain behind the pole – literally every foot,
every inch in height above the tops of the trees is very important for the effectiveness of these signals.
She added that if they can make it work at seven feet they will, but often they ask for 10 because it makes
a marked difference.
Mr. Rooker responded that he will support the proposal given the backdrop, but said the 10 feet is
not an automatic thing, it’s an exception and there have to be reasons why to grant it.
Ms. Long said the ordinance talks about a material difference in visibility between a pole that is 10
feet above the trees and seven feet above, and in sites where there’s any question staff asks the applicant
to fly the balloon at both heights to determine a difference.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the Commission deleted one condition in their review, so there is now
only one condition in the proposal.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Motion was offered by Mr. Dumler, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve the modification of
Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) for the reasons outlined in the staff report and mentioned in the presentation. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dumler, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve the special exception to
allow the disturbance of critical slopes, Section 4.2.3.2, for reasons outlined in the staff report and
mentioned in the presentation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dumler, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to approve SP-2012-00016 subject
to the one proposed condition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant’s request
and site plans, entitled “Colthurst LTE 4G Upgrade:, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
6/25/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Planning Administrator.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board,
School Board Chairman.
Ms. Diantha McKeel addressed the Board, stating that the Long-Range Planning Advisory
Committee presented its CIP recommendations recently, and the report incorporated the School Board’s
direction that the Committee maintain and operate all schools, seek parity among all schools, and begin a
plan to phase out the use of trailers. She said the report included a five-year CIP request of $86 million,
with $14.5 million recommended for the FY 13-14 school year. Ms. McKeel said that nine existing school
sites are targeted for improvements or additions, reflecting the growth patterns in the northern portion of
the County – and the report also requests funding for the purchase of land for a future fourth high school.
She stated that the Committee’s recommendations reflect a needs-based analysis based on enrollment
projections for the upcoming school year; the Committee is also recommending that some redistricting
take place for students who are at Agnor Hurt – which is currently over capacity, and Meriwether Lewis
Elementary School. Ms. McKeel explained that the School Board has asked school division staff for
additional information and will be reviewing the report and recommendations from the advisory committee
in future meetings, including their August meetings. Ms. McKeel said once the School Board has
completed its discussions and review, it will forward their recommendation for the CIP to local government
– slated for later this year.
Ms. McKeel reported that the School Board has decided to update its strategic plan, so over the
next 12 months a series of community outreach opportunities will be conducted and they will be soliciting
public input for formal adoption of a new strategic plan in the next year. She said that the last time they
went through the process, hundreds of citizens and school employees were involved – and the School
Board doesn’t see this process having to be quite as involved. Ms. McKeel stated that Deborah Collins,
Director of Elementary Education Gifted and Federal Programs, will also now be the division’s Executive
Director of K-12 instruction.
She said that the CoderDojo Summer Academy is a new concept involving coding clubs for young
people, made popular in Ireland, whereby students learn how to work in a variety of computer languages
and learn how to design computer applications for download. Ms. McKeel stated that Albemarle would
conduct one and use the Mesa classrooms at Albemarle High School, running August 6-9, and they plan
to expand the clubs to a year-round program in the fall. She stated that an important aspect is the
involvement of mentors and guest speakers from public and private sectors who work with students on the
importance of math and science education in career paths in the computer sciences. Ms. McKeel said
that within an hour of opening sign-up, the class was completely full – so staff is trying to work out another
session before school starts.
She said that the schools are working to eliminate the digital divide and are in the process of
implementing a four-year plan to ensure that all students have internet broadband in their homes as well
as in the classrooms.
Mr. Snow asked for an update on where that program is, so that all students have access to
broadband in their homes. Ms. McKeel responded that she would have staff get back to him on that, but a
lot of it involved public/private partnerships and they are working on it for the school year.
Mr. Dumler pointed out that the Long-Range Planning Commission recommendation included a
chunk of money for the initiative.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
Ms. McKeel said that it does not cover it entirely, and they are hoping to fund it through
partnerships.
Mr. Snow asked what percentage of the students this would cover. Ms. McKeel responded that
Vince Shivert, the school’s technology guru, could answer those questions and send the Board information
on where it stands. She also stated that anything that the Board could do to help move this along would
be great.
Mr. Snow asked if it would be possible to get some information for his meeting in Esmont later
that evening, and Ms. McKeel said she would see what she could do.
Ms. McKeel reported that Patrick Bond, a rising senior at Monticello High School, earned a first
place medal from the National Endowment for the Humanities for a National History Day competition that
was held in Maryland, and he has won similar awards in the past. She also said that the Burley Bearettes
won a bronze medal and received a standing ovation at the World Choir Games, which is described as the
Olympics of choral music. Ms McKeel noted that they raised $30,000 from the community to finance their
trip. She also said that the report she has presented them has a list of donations to the schools.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the list of donations would be provided in place of individual
descriptions in the appropriations paragraph, and one of the main reasons to request this was to provide
donors with recognition.
Ms. McKeel said that all donors receive thank you letters, as well as recognition in the school’s
report and now the Board report.
She reported that she has the Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee’s summary report and
recommendations, and provided copies to the Board along with extra copies for Mr. Dumler’s community
meeting.
Ms. Mallek said she was thrilled to learn about the phasing out of trailers, but wondered what had
happened to cause this change.
Ms. McKeel stated that staff went through a process last year of reviewing capacity numbers for
schools using a more realistic formula, so they now have numbers that reflect how each individual school
is doing business. She said that the capacity numbers would now reflect the classrooms that are not
available for instruction due to use for specials programs and other uses, and in the discussion of the
individual school capacities the subject of trailers came up – and the School Board sent the direction that
they did not mind trailers being used as a short term solution but to solve long-term capacity issues they
did not feel they were appropriate. Ms. McKeel stated that now they are looking at a plan of how to phase
them out.
Ms. Mallek asked if the new formulas maintained the music and art rooms.
Ms. McKeel assured her that they did. Ms. McKeel said that the whole idea was to reflect the use
of those rooms, as in some cases the schools seemed fuller than they really were and vice versa. She
noted that the elementary school capacity in the County was reduced by 10%, middle school capacity
decreased by 3%, but the high school capacity increased by 1% - so there turned out to be a difference of
789 seats throughout the division. Ms. McKeel said they did make some adjustments to handle the
disparities as reflected in the upcoming budget.
Mr. Snow said that it would be reasonable to assume that 5 or 10 years down the road high school
enrollment would drop concurrent to the drop in elementary school decreases.
Ms. McKeel responded that it could be assumed, as the children matriculate through. She also
said that they will need to look at the land for the new high school through a different lens, but the School
Board is not quite sure what that will look like and how that school might be different because of
technology. Ms. McKeel stated that the schools being built right now look very different from the existing
schools such as Western and Monticello.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that what the schools were assessing here is the capacity, not the
enrollment.
Ms. McKeel clarified that this involves how many children can actually be fit into the schools.
Mr. Rooker said they are talking about creating 789 seats through reevaluation of capacity of
facilities.
Ms. McKeel responded that the School Board has also taken the stance of filling empty seats
before building new buildings. She explained that there have been drivers in education over many years
that have created the need for specialty rooms that do not serve as classroom space.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to better understand how that figure of 789 was established.
Ms. McKeel stated that there was a paragraph with an explanation, but the schools could provide
more information as needed.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Foley noted that as part of the CIP process, school capacity has been identified as an issue
that they will need to do some analysis on – including a comparison with other school divisions. He said
that they would look at a typical standard as they review the CIP and work with school staff so the Board
understands the rationale.
Mr. Boyd said that there was a comparison of Albemarle’s capacity with other successful school
systems as part of the resource utilization study, and asked if that was used as criteria in the assessment.
Ms. McKeel responded that staff went in and looked at each individual school, and the resource
utilization said Albemarle had very small class sizes and should go to the state average of class sizes –
which would increase them dramatically. She said that the consultant also stated that the small schools
were not efficient and should be combined, but the community has said very clearly that they appreciate
small class sizes and small schools. Ms. McKeel said that the consultant acknowledged as part of the
study that every community had to take into account what their community values are in looking at size of
schools and capacities.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Long-Range Planning Advisory Committee had considered what other
school systems were doing as part of their decision process. Ms. McKeel responded that she was not
sure, but they did refer to the utilization study.
Ms. Mallek said that was one person’s opinion, and a 900-child school was not going to be
embraced by the community.
Mr. Foley stated that they could simply benchmark with other localities.
Mr. Rooker agreed that they need to know that information.
Mr. Boyd said that what he was hoping to obtain was how another system might be utilizing a
40,000 square foot facility in comparison to Albemarle.
Ms. McKeel stated that perhaps they want to consider another review, even if it’s just a smaller
review, and they are certainly going to evaluate the programs as well as looking at programs in terms of
the value they bring to instruction in the system.
Ms. Mallek said that she hoped there would be some significant changes due to the No Child Left
Behind waiver.
Ms. McKeel responded that the announcement was pretty recent, and staff would be filling them in
on how it would affect the system. She noted that the School Board had been requesting a waiver for
years now.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there had to be something to put in place of those standards.
Ms. McKeel stated that they needed to move beyond the SOLs, as they are not a good measure
of what children are learning, and they would like to look at instruction through a different lens.
Mr. Dumler said that Mr. Koleszar had mentioned something about the way the School Division
was able to realize equity improvements on its property, and asked if that could be clarified as the
insinuation seemed to be there was a reverse incentive to not make certain improvements.
Mr. Davis explained that if there is a sale of surplus property, the money is returned to the general
fund.
Ms. McKeel said that as a result of the CIP recommendation that came to the School Board, there
is a lot of misinformation out in the community, and unfortunately families are getting upset. She stated
that the School Board would discuss the CIP recommendation in August, and has made no decisions but
certainly there was no interest on the part of the School Board to revisit the entire situation of small
schools. Ms. McKeel said the Board will see in the report that the recommendation from long-range
planning did not endorse spending $7 million – or approximately $50,000 per student – on adding two
classrooms and upgrading Yancey – and that is very clearly in the report. She stated that the Scottsville
School came into the discussion because the report says that as part of the long-range CIP plan there is a
recommendation to build an addition there, and their suggestion is that long term – more than five years
out – perhaps the addition could be enlarged to accommodate the Yancey students. Ms. McKeel said that
Red Hill was only discussed in the picture of staff coming back with a western feeder pattern study on
whether or not it was feasible to increase the Red Hill addition to help with growth in that area. She stated
that there have been no decisions, and there certainly was no interest on behalf of the School Board, to
discuss whether or not they want to revisit closing all small schools. She said that how it would play out in
August and how it would ultimately end up on the School Board was not yet known, and all she could do
was reference the report.
_______________
Recess. At 10:56 a.m., the Board recessed and then reconvened at 11:05 a.m.
_______________
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 12. After Action Report on July 29, 2012 Thunderstorm:
a. F. Scott Reed, Dominion Power.
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, reported that at the Board’s July 11 meeting the
Board requested that staff organize and provide briefings from various stakeholders in the after-action
report from the storm of July 29, noting that over the past 30 days there had been a series of debriefings
by several groups with more to be planned. Mr. Elliott said they were still in the preliminary phases of
putting together after action reports and follow-through items, but progress is being made.
Mr. Scott Reed, External Affairs Representative for Dominion Virginia Power, addressed the
Board and said he would provide an overview of the June 29 storm and subsequent restoration process.
He thanked the Board of Supervisors and County staff, as well as Chief Eggleston and ECC staff, for their
coordination and communication through the event. Mr. Reed also recognized the citizens of Albemarle
for their patience, understanding and tolerance. He presented a map showing electric providers and their
service areas – Dominion Virginia Power, APCo, Rappahannock Electric Cooperative and Central Virginia
Electric Cooperative. Mr. Reed said that his comments would refer only to Dominion coverage areas,
which represent approximately 40,000 Albemarle customers. He stated that transmission lines are the
high-voltage lines running across the country, substations step the voltage down into distribution level,
main distribution circuits, residential lines and service drops.
Mr. Reed explained that on June 29, storms developed over the Midwest and made their way
eastward, and their meteorologists were keeping an eye on the storms – there was a threat on the system,
and not the catastrophic threat that ended up developing. In the course of 10 hours, he said, the storms
went from Chicago to the east coast offshore – over 600 miles in 10 hours – which is a very, very rapidly
moving storm. Mr. Reed presented a slide showing winds tracked at over 80 miles per hour, which helped
create the third largest restoration event in Dominion’s 100-year history – and the largest non-hurricane
event. He stated that over one million of their 2.4 million customers were impacted, and in 2003 Hurricane
Isabel impacted 1.8 million customers, with Irene in 2011 affecting 1.2 million.
Mr. Reed said that what was unique about this event was that it came up with very little warning
and came sweeping across the entire system. He stated that with a hurricane they typically have time to
staff up and collapse resources on areas projected to be hardest hit, but with this event they did not have
that luxury. Mr. Reed said it was tough to staff up and work with supply chain and other resource
allocations. He said that there were challenges and the company met them OK but there are certainly
ways that they could do that better operationally. Mr. Reed stated that the entire state was affected, with
problems compounded with 100-degree-plus temperatures and the July 4th holiday and association
vacations. On the map provided, Mr. Reed pointed out the areas that Irene affected – Richmond and
Northern Virginia eastward – noting that the June 29 storm affected everyone.
Mr. Reed reported that on June 29 the storm blew through, with 900,000 customers initially
impacted and a state of emergency declared. He said that Dominion noted at the outset that this would be
an extended outage, although they did not know the full extent. Mr. Reed said that on June 30 there were
storms in Central Virginia with a tornado hitting Mechanicsville, knocking power out for another 55,000
customers. He added that on July 1, there was a reported tornado in North Carolina with an additional
17,000 customers out of power there. Mr. Reed explained that mutual aid agreements are part of their
emergency planning process, but that was complicated a bit because of the spread of this particular event
from Chicago eastward – and all of their utility peers to the west consumed their mutual aid personnel that
would have normally been available for such an event. He said that they had to call on peers from as far
away as Texas, Kansas and Canada – so they had 18 states and Canada bringing crews in, which took
them longer to arrive.
Mr. Reed stated that restoring power is difficult, dangerous work, and Dominion has four core
values – safety, ethics, excellence, and one dominion. He said that safety is the primary goal, and they
immediately issued safety messages about use of generators, staying clear of downed lines, taking
precautions to prepare for extending outages, and looking out after neighbors, families and pets. Mr.
Reed said that restoration for any event begins long before a storm actually arrives, and every year they
participate with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management in a drill; in Albemarle they work with
the ECC, and Dominion trains its staff to work with GIS resources and identify storm response team s. He
stated that the restoration process for this particular event is not like any widespread outage event, and
that includes restoring transmission lines first because they feed huge blocks of customers, then the
substations, the main circuits, residential lines, individual transformers, and lastly services feeding one or
two homes.
Mr. Reed noted that estimated restoration times are not available until crews reach step 4 – which
is residential lines – and that is what customers hear when they call in or look on the website for
information about their particular outage – it’s an essential planning tool and it’s a wonderful resource if it
goes well – when it goes wrong or poorly, it can be a terrible, terrible mistake – so we want to make sure
that they get that right. He said that during Irene, they had some lessons learned there. He said that in
the restoration priority list, critical infrastructure is above everything else – but in order to get to that, they
have to address transmission lines and substations first. Mr. Reed presented a photo capturing the
conditions in the field and the employee dedication and commitment, adding that linemen like the one
pictured – Randy Williams – wear 50 pounds of protective rubber equipment as they are in the buckets
trying to restore power to customers. He said that the Dominion office on Hydraulic Road serves all
customers in Charlottesville, all Dominion customers in Albemarle, and portions of Greene, Nelson, Louisa
and Fluvanna. Mr. Reed noted that 80% are Albemarle customers.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Reed presented a chart showing outages after June 29, with a peak at 6:00 a.m. June 30 of
40,000 out of power in the Charlottesville office; as of July 1 at 6:00 a.m., they had sufficient patrolling
data to estimate restoration curves. He said they used their best intelligence based on the extent of
damage, the type of event that caused the outages, resources on the ground, and statistical data, to fit a
curve to what they think the restoration might look like. Mr. Reed stated that the curve was system-wide
based on the best available information, and Dominion announced on July 1 that they would restore 80%
of customers by Wednesday and 90-95% by Friday. He said they also realized at the time that Albemarle
County was especially hard hit so future press releases always called out the Shenandoah Valley and
Albemarle County as being potentially a little longer restoration than this. Mr. Reed noted that they had
done a little better than expected and ended up under-promising and over-delivering, based on their
restoration curve, and were pleased to get virtually all customers on by Saturday morning.
Mr. Reed mentioned their storm center website – www.dom.com – and a page containing
information related to storms and emergency events. He showed Dominion’s FaceBook page and their
Twitter feed, noting that they have 16,000 followers – a number that skyrocketed after June 29. He said
they posted video updates throughout the event, and presented a screen shot of their outage map. Mr.
Reed also pointed out internal technology features used in the Dominion office to show the location of
trucks, crews, substations, transformers, etc. He said that he was pleased to work with U.Va.,
Charlottesville, the County, and VDEM on a pilot project in this area to leverage GIS resources to overlay
with some of the ECC’s information, and presented a list of critical infrastructure including hospitals, pump
stations, transfer stations, public safety, telecommunications, and other pieces. Mr. Reed emphasized
that Dominion could do a better job of working with the ECCs to identify what are critical infrastructure
components and ensure the list is kept current.
Mr. Rooker asked if every household unit was a customer. Mr. Reed responded that every meter
is a customer, and transformers cover either one meter up to a dozen meters or more in the case of
commercial properties.
Mr. Snow asked if Dominion had a way to break out critical customers, such as those on dialysis,
oxygen, or other medical needs.
Mr. Reed replied that they refer to them as special needs customers, and they have a process for
registering with the power company with a doctor’s certification of their situation, but that still does not add
them to the critical infrastructure list – all that does is allow Dominion to push out phone calls ahead of an
event and say ‘a hurricane is on its way, we’re anticipating extended outages, you need to make proper
accommodations’. He said there were some other opportunities for pushed-out communication to
customers also, but that does not mean they would be priority to restore. Mr. Reed stated that perhaps
Dominion could work with the ECC to get those customers registered.
Mr. Reed said that in terms of what went well he highlighted communications but also noted it as
something that could be improved. He stated that coordinating with the ECC worked very well and they
made site visits, in addition to daily conference calls and aide in identifying assisted living and nursing
homes to add them to the critical infrastructure list. Mr. Reed said they also helped with identification of
cooling shelters. He stated that estimated restoration times (ETRs) worked a lot better than with Irene;
they published crew work locations on their website, and that was very popular for citizens to be able to
see where crews would be working. Mr. Reed said that they hired someone to help get the word out
through the media, and that went well but could also be approved. He stated that use of social media was
a big success, and there were various improvements in the operations department.
Mr. Reed said that focus areas needing improvement include communications, as Dominion could
do a better job of having regular communications with local government and perhaps developing a
template or dashboard of information that is important to the counties and the city. He stated that he
would involve local government in development of the template, and his goal during an extended
restoration event would be to make two touch points every day. Mr. Reed said that having a place to post
updates that don’t involve electricity, such as posting at local fire stations, would also be constructive. He
stated that they could do a better job of pushing updates to media, along with educating citizens before an
event and helping them prepare and plan. Mr. Reed stated that coordinating with the ECC applies more in
other areas, but they would redouble their efforts to ensure that all personnel have an understanding of
available tools and how to use them. He added that rolling out the pilot project mentioned earlier will
greatly enhance coordination with the ECCs. Mr. Reed said that undergrounding is always a popular topic
following a restoration event, and Dominion could do a better job of explaining the challenges of doing so
– collectively [the challenges] are not insurmountable, necessarily, but collectively they make it very
difficult to wholesale underground Dominions system. He said that there were some hiccups with call
centers, as they have messages they feel are very clear but the customer hears something very different.
Mr. Reed noted that they are also looking at other utility’s outage maps that are more robust and user-
friendly, and encouraged the Board to comment on the system overall.
Mr. Boyd said that more extensive trimming of trees around power lines should be addressed.
Mr. Reed responded that when storms happen, trimming trees is embraced – but in nice weather
it can be very controversial. He said that some of their easements are old easements, and some are as
narrow as 15-feet wide, with not a lot of opportunity to do aggressive tree trimming. Mr. Reed said that
Dominion has a wonderful Forestry Department that hires contractors to do some of their work, and every
three years the same area should have a crew return to it to do more trimming.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was fair to say that Dominion had money in their budget to trim trees, but
people had to let them do it. Mr. Reed responded that that was exactly correct.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ms. Mallek commented that the contractors have been great about stepping outside of the
easement when things are leaning.
Mr. Boyd asked how the Board could help in the process with future events.
Mr. Reed said that the Board delivered everything that could be asked for, and the biggest request
would be that they indulge him as they try to implement some of the improvements – whether it’s working
on the templates or other items.
Ms. Mallek stated that another visit to the Board to explain the process – so that people can begin
to understand why there is a delay, and why the trucks have to sit. She said Dominion was under a
microscope the entire time due to the extreme heat and terrible circumstances, and there was a lot of
micromanaging going on. Ms. Mallek stated that perhaps citizens reporting downed trees on power lines
would also help.
Mr. Reed said that in Dominion’s follow-up brainstorming sessions, the idea was brought forth for
citizen patrolling and citizen feedback opportunities and he found that to be a great suggestion.
Mr. Rooker stated that if all lines were underground, there would be far less outages, but it is very
expensive to do this. He said that it would be very helpful to strategize with the County on how there could
be more of an undergrounding program here to help the power companies overcome the obstacles.
Mr. Reed responded that it would definitely take a partnership with the locality.
Mr. Rooker said that there is the added benefit of aesthetics.
Mr. Thomas said that it would be helpful to at least have undergrounding in the critical areas,
where outages happened over and over. He also stated that the right of ways needed to be larger.
Mr. Rooker stated that it was important to emphasize to the public that in order to prevent these
situations, they needed to implement strategies and needed the public’s help – and one of those
strategies would be to cut away trees that are near lines. He said there is a good opportunity to do this
now, while the event is fresh in people’s minds.
Mr. Reed agreed, adding that the FCC estimate to put all lines in the area underground would be
$80 billion, but he didn’t feel it had to be done all at once; it could be done strategically and where it makes
the most sense. He also said that in addition to the cost, there is also the right of way and most of the
easements would need to be renegotiated – with every property owner in agreement. Mr. Reed stated
that tapping into an underground line is far more expensive, and repairing lines takes much longer.
Mr. Snow commented that rather than approaching landowners individually, neighborhoods and
rows of residents could assume the burden for getting agreement on undergrounding.
Mr. Rooker said that the slides Mr. Reed presented using the analogy of the power system to the
road system were extremely helpful, and he would like to use those for his constituents in explaining how
the system works.
Mr. Reed agreed to email his presentation to Ms. Jordan. He also mentioned that in this past
incident, there were 600 man hours spent to get three customers back online.
Ms. Mallek said that is why it comes at the end.
Mr. Reed commented that he had recently visited the Hollymead transmission line project, and it
is under construction now and quite beautiful.
_____
b. Larry Jackson, Appalachian Power.
Mr. Larry Jackson, of Appalachian Power, addressed the Board, stating that utilities have a lot of
the same processes and tools that they use to restore service, so he would try not to repeat what Mr.
Reed has already said. Mr. Jackson said that APCo has the bottom third of the County, in Supervisors
Snow and Dumler’s areas – and they operate out of their Lovingston service center, with several crews
operating out of there. He stated that Appalachian Power is part of the American Electric Power system,
and Scottsville is the very furthest eastern point of the system of five million customers. Mr. Jackson also
noted that this is some of the most rugged parts of Albemarle, including Fan Mountain, Heards Mountain,
and a lot of rough areas. He said that towards the end of the storm he went up to Green Creek and ran
into a group of people from central Tennessee, and they commented on how rugged the terrain here was.
Mr. Jackson explained that when the storm started on the Friday afternoon, it started damaging
the part of the AEP system in Indiana and Michigan, and they immediately started mutual aid work here –
drawing crews in. He said that AEP was told in central Virginia to have all employees report Saturday
morning packed and ready to travel, but by 9:00 that evening they were unpacking to work locally. Mr.
Jackson presented a slide showing the storm spreading out, and it did broader damage because of that
phenomena. He said that at the peak of the storm, AEP had 1.4 of its 5 million customers out, and as the
storm came east it picked up in intensity – with 600,000, or 60% of customers out, with 83% out in the
Lynchburg/Lovingston and Albemarle County area. Mr. Jackson said that five subsequent storms caused
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
additional outages throughout the 10-day restoration period. He stated that for the Lynchburg distribution
transmission system, they replaced 172 poles – with 145,000 feet of wire replaced, working until Tuesday
after the storm just repairing transmission lines. Mr. Jackson presented a map showing cases of outages,
with Albemarle having a concentration in Scottsville and Esmont as well as Covesville and North Garden.
He added that every part of Albemarle County that APCo serves had substantial damage.
Mr. Jackson reported that this was the largest storm by damage to ever hit American Electric
Power, with twice the damage they’d ever seen in any other storm – because they don’t serve much of the
east where hurricanes are more prevalent. He said that on Friday, June 29, there was a 10% chance of
thunderstorms. Mr. Jackson stated that AEP had 5,200 workers helping restore power, with 22 states
assisting and the first outside crews arriving on June 30. He said that at the peak of the restoration effort
there were 125 line professionals working in Albemarle County on AEP’s lines, and it was quite an effort
just to get them fed and housed, but was something they had planned for and thus had systems in place
well before the storm hit.
Mr. Jackson said that extreme temperatures were an issue, and citizens expressed concern that
there were tree-trimming trucks sitting at Yancey Elementary School. He stated that the reason for that
was they would cut trees and then rest, with another crew going in the rotation. Mr. Jackson said that one
of the challenges was blocked roads, but VDoT cannot clear the roads if there are power lines wrapped up
in the trees. He said that AEP had difficulty moving the large trees involved, so it has to be an effort of
cooperation between the entities to ensure they can get there at the same time to clear the roads.
Mr. Boyd asked if AEP had pre-meetings with VDoT to discuss that type of coordination.
Mr. Jackson responded that they do, and on the AEP website they issue a warning for people not
to go near downed power lines. He said they coordinate with all jurisdictions, and the first thing that must
be done to repair a tower is clearing any debris. Mr. Jackson stated that in many cases with this storm
they had to throw away the old lines and replace them with new lines, which extended the length of the
outage.
Ms. Mallek asked if the reenergizing of lines could be done from a regional switch, or if it had to be
done in chunks.
Mr. Jackson responded that many substations have the capability of being reenergized remotely,
but after a storm like this you would not want to do that. He explained that in theory, all the lines would be
de-energized, but when people have generators on the lines that are not properly installed they can back
feed onto the lines – therefore they treat every line as a hot line, and we approach it with the rubber goods
that Scott was mentioning.
Ms. Mallek said that someone had to get involved to stop that from happening, because when
people don’t follow rules they can kill linemen.
Mr. Jackson stated that their biggest concern is having a citizen get killed, and all of the power
assessors wear devices on their chest that alert them to when they are approaching an energized line,
with all line mechanics wearing rubber gloves and sticks to ensure the line is dead. He said that people
may approach a line, thinking it’s de-energized, and may get electrocuted – and that is what AEP thinks is
the most troublesome part of this.
Mr. Jackson said that the storm had unprecedented damage, and AEP really appreciates the
cooperation from all the communities – with Mr. Foley acting as a conduit for information, and Supervisors
helping with constituents. He stated that he and Mr. Snow found that some citizens preferred transistor
radios as their form of communication.
Mr. Jackson said that they received comments on their FaceBook page from customers in
Esmont, and most radio stations put canned programs on the weekends so they weren’t able to be on the
air and read emergency warnings.
Mr. Rooker said that many radio stations have a satellite feed coming in from the outside.
Ms. Mallek commented that even when the power is on, about 50% of citizens have no internet.
Mr. Snow thanked Mr. Jackson for all the extra effort he put in to help residents in his district,
adding that Mr. Jackson had come to a town hall meeting.
_____
c. Kirby Felts, Emergency Management Coordinator.
Ms. Kirby Felts addressed the Board, stating that the ECC’s thoughts and sympathies go out to
community members who lost loved ones and to those injured in the storm ’s aftermath. She thanked the
countless County, City, and University personnel who immediately jumped to action to respond and
recover from the incident, and stressed that the response went beyond Fire/Rescue and Police, also
including Social Services, General Services, Parks and Recreation, Finance, Public Affairs, and many
more – it really leverages the full organization of employees. Ms. Felts also recognized the tremendous
volunteer effort from groups such as volunteer fire and rescue, Red Cross, the community emergency
response team, medical reserve corps, and faith communities for endless hours of support during the
power outages and the excessive heat.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Felts said that the destruction from the powerful, widespread storm system was a new
experience for many, and from the onset of the storm it quickly became clear that the community was hit
hard. She stated that between 9 p.m. and midnight the evening of June 29, more than 1,000 calls were
processed at the ECC center – and by 1:00 a.m. first responders confirmed two fatalities, significant tree
damage, and a large number of roads blocked by down trees and power lines. Ms. Felts stated that the
County declared a local emergency, anticipating issues due to the excessive heat, and the emergency
operations center opened to coordinate response activities. She noted that the derecho caused the third
highest level of power outages ever in Virginia, and the central Virginia suffered particularly complex
damage that led to the long timeframe for complete power restoration. Ms. Felts said that at its peak,
more than three-quarters of County residents had lost power.
She said that the health, safety and welfare of citizens was the priority throughout the event and
its aftermath, and they worked to identify needs and respond with support – which included operating two
overnight shelters, one that operated through July 2 and one operating through July 3 – Burley Moran
Elementary School in the City, and Albemarle High School in the County. Ms. Felts reported that water
distribution became a priority and they had six locations operating around the County – four initially
established at the fire stations and two additional locations in the following days. She said that there were
cooling centers open throughout the life of the event, with 10 locations operating at various times –
including fire stations, Victory Hall in Scottsville, King Family Vineyard, Key Recreation Center, Tonsler
Park, Covenant Church of God, the County Office Building – 5th Street, Yancey Elementary School, and
Antioch Baptist Church in Fluvanna County. Ms. Felts said that U.Va. opened their recreation facilities for
community members to come in and use their showers.
Ms. Felts reported that to address loss of food due to the storm, the Department of Social
Services communicated about replacement opportunities for those participating in the SNAP program, and
those recipients got their vouchers replaced. She said that those with other food needs were directed to
local food charities to help get them through. She also stated that Social Services reached out to those
they knew were vulnerable due to the extended power outage, and they spent an entire day individually
calling or going out and talking with people on their list to verify they had what they needed – and also
worked with fire/rescue and police to visit locations they weren’t able to reach. Ms. Felts said that the
County was able to set up four debris management sites at the parks, and the last location at Mint Springs
just closed in late July.
Ms. Felts stated that the early estimate for the cost of the storm is about $80,000, but that does
not include numbers from Fire/Rescue or debris costs. She said that the Governor’s request for federal
assistance through FEMA’s public assistance program was approved, and that reimburses local and state
governments on a cost share basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of damaged
facilities. Ms. Felts stated that most of the efforts were protective measures, and they didn’t have a lot of
facilities damage, so most of the costs would be to recover overtime costs and the debris removal costs
for the locality. She said that items that qualify are things like activation of emergency crews that respond
to the storm, operation of cooling centers and shelters, debris removal, and repairs to publicly owned
properties such as roads and water and sewer systems. Ms. Felts stated that the water system continued
to run, as the pumping stations are on generators, and there were three independently operated water
systems that were put on a boil water notice. She said that one additional element that is part of federal
assistance is hazard mitigation funding, which provides money for projects to help reduce disaster risks by
taking protective action – but most of that covers facility damage.
Ms. Felts said that Virginia was not eligible for FEMA’s individual assistance program, which
covers uninsured losses, and most of the private property that was damaged was insured. She said that
the Virginia Disaster Relief Fund is a fund of last resort if other state, federal and private aid is not
available to assist individuals, and funds are not distributed to individuals or families but are directed to
volunteer and disaster recovery groups that then provide assistance to people. Ms. Felts said if the
County has community members that are coming to them for needs, that is the sort of program they need
to look into – first looking at local charity and volunteer efforts. She reported that she is working with Kerry
Swanson to calculate the agricultural losses and submit a total to VDEM, and that must be quantified
before going ahead.
Ms. Mallek commented that the orchard damage is so unusual because of the nature of the
storm.
Ms. Felts reported that there have been preliminary discussions about lessons learned, and she
has conducted two hot-wash debriefings across all departments and agencies she has been working with,
and the goal is to conduct those as soon as possible after the incident. She said that volunteer
management is an area they could certainly approved, as volunteers support numerous response
activities, and they need to work on the coordination and management of resources – from the initial call
for volunteers to the assignment of work and regular communication with those whose operations are
supported by volunteer help. She said that folks are so willing to help on the heels of an incident but we
need to be able to put them to work appropriately and efficiently. Ms. Felts said that the federal assistance
received is a cost-share, and volunteer hours offset the local share, so being able to document those
hours is very valuable.
Ms. Felts said that communication with the public is a very high priority, and they are working to
build additional methods and depth to the communication strategies – including low-tech solutions such as
posting information in places in each community where people go, as well as leveraging social media
tools. She stated that they also needed to evaluate facilities that are relied on in emergencies to make
sure each is properly equipped to support community needs in an emergency, and this included identifying
shelter locations and cooling centers. Ms. Felts said that another key component was logistics
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
management, as the need to move supplies into the area quickly and efficiently is a priority – and they
need to dedicate some time to preplan where those commodities will be received, how they’re unloaded,
how they’re stored, and how they’re transferred to distribution sites. She added that identifying in advance
the locations, equipment and people to support these operations will significantly improve the ability to
respond.
Ms. Felts commented that some of the improvements will be quick fixes, but others would be
longer-term efforts they slowly work to improve. She concluded with recommendations for the Board to
take back to their constituents in preparation for the next incident, such as anticipating downed power
lines and setting supplies aside. Ms. Felts said that people also need to be educated on how to handle
different circumstances, and calling 911 to get advice on what to do in the m iddle of a strong thunderstorm
is not the right response. She added that people need to plan to take care of themselves by having an
emergency kit with water and shelf-stable food, and a battery-powered radio. Ms. Felts said that people
should know ahead of time where to find information, and when the social media strategy is pushed out
that should become well-known. She stated that people need to understand that new hazards exist after a
storm, such as downed power lines and carbon monoxide from generators. Ms. Felts added that when
animals are injured, their behavior will likely be different and people need to be aware and cautious of
those new hazards. She also said that people who have registered with the power company due to
special medical needs should understand what it means for them to be on that list, as it does not mean
that responders can get there immediately – and they may need to move somewhere else.
Mr. Snow said that he has heard a lot about personal preparedness, and with all the other
preparation on the government side, it’s important to get the m essage out to individuals that they’re
responsible for their well being. He also stated that he would like to maybe come up with a series of
PSA’s – maybe get with the radio and television stations – and develop a consorted effort with everyone
involved to push the message out to residents.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County had an “Are you prepared?” pamphlet that addressed some of these
issues. Ms. Felts responded that ECC has pamphlets from FEMA and VDEM that covers those things.
Mr. Boyd said if they do a PSA, they should mention their availability.
Mr. Rooker suggested distributing them at schools so students can take them home.
Mr. Snow suggested breaking the preparedness items into single steps – such as saving water in
jugs for the month of August – and everyone would be talking about that one step.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that memories are short, so talking about it now would be preferable.
Ms. Felts agreed.
Mr. Rooker suggested getting the information out through the schools, as classes will soon
resume.
Ms. Mallek said that there is the software ability to send emergency messages out via text
message or phone, and she would like to explore expanded use of that system.
Mr. Snow stated that he had several constituents mention the reverse 911 system.
Ms. Felts responded that the reverse 911 system exists now, and they are in the process of
evaluating the next generation of that use – but the challenge is the cost of subscription, and it would
come down to the cost of broad alerts. She said she has a weather radio at home, and it goes off
frequently. Ms. Felts stated that weather alert radios are $20-40 at Radio Shack, and people can get that
info right away, with the ability to zero in on specific areas. She also stated that the warning for that Friday
night was simply a severe thunderstorm warning.
Ms. Mallek mentioned a micro-climatologist in Crozet who knew about the storm four hours
ahead, but the ECC didn’t.
Mr. Rooker commented that the derecho storms started out very narrow and ended up widening.
He said that it is pretty difficult to tell what area of the country’s going to get hit when it’s 50 miles wide,
and then when it gets down to Virginia it’s 250 miles wide.
Ms. Mallek said she would rather error on the side of preparing.
Ms. Felts said that that is why the emergency kits are invaluable, because people should not have
to scramble every time a thunderstorm is coming. She said that the spectrum of damage can be nothing
to severe, but if you have your water, you have your food and you know to stay inside and go to the lowest
level of your house away from windows to be in the safest point – that is about what you can do.
Mr. Snow emphasized that if you are prepared you need not fear.
Ms. Mallek said that in the country, the first thing they always did was fill up the bathtub.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Boyd said he would like for Mr. Foley to follow up with Dr. Moran on distributing information
through the schools.
Mr. Rooker commented that they should all be proud of what the power companies did, the
County staff did, and what volunteers did in response to this emergency. He said it really helps to
understand the complexity and amount of effort that went into this event, and to acknowledge that the
people who are working on the storm fallout also have families of their own.
Ms. Mallek stated that she was talking to a man from Florida who was working on the lines in
Earlysville on the 4th of July, and he commended the companies here and the community, stating that it is
the nicest place he has ever worked in.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Rental Assistance at The Crossings.
Mr. Ron White, Chief of Housing, addressed the Board, stating that he had already sent emails
and a memo, so he would just answer any questions they had. Mr. White said that he has presented
some options to them, and if the Board wants to pursue any of them he would be glad to proceed as
directed.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any new inform ation in what he sent out.
Mr. White responded that they certainly don’t have ongoing funding in the five-year plan for an
initiative like this, and they wouldn’t anticipate needing that if they can get things resolved with HUD. He
said that there was an agreement struck last night to move forward with a continuing resolution for the
next six months starting in October, which does not bode well for getting additional funding. Mr. White
explained that that resolution at best would provide the same amount of voucher funding from the federal
government as exists this year, and that continued funding would be a dollar amount – perhaps not
sufficient depending on what happens with the rental market.
Ms. Mallek commented that the County has been fixed to a dollar amount for five years as
opposed to a voucher number, so that is not really a change.
Mr. Rooker said that he sent an email indicating his support for the County stepping up and
funding this for the interim period, with funding at the market rate – or about $5,000 a month. He stated
that a number of people have expressed an interest in this moving forward, and this is a little bit of a
different situation than just a bureaucratic situation of having vouchers unavailable – in human terms, the
nine people who were selected to receive these were basically told that when these facilities were ready,
you’re going to be able to move in there – you’re no longer going to be homeless.
Mr. Rooker said he met one of the nine people who is waiting, and she has been living under a
bush – and she has a job. He said that maybe the County should be careful about overpromising in the
future, but these are cases where the County told people that this is going to be made available to you,
and it was not. He added that everyone here go to their homes, but these are folks that the County said
was going to have a place. He added that now because of a bureaucratic snafu that the County has
nothing to do with, the people are without housing.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wants Mr. Leake to hear that they cannot get HUD to approve the
vouchers.
Mr. White explained that in June when the Board approved an annual plan and an administrative
plan, HUD had indicated they would move forward with reviewing and approving those quickly. He said
HUD had 75 days to review the annual plan, and that was approved in a much shorter timeframe. Mr.
White said that on the same day HUD sent the Housing office an email about approving the annual plan,
they sent a second email indicating they were still making comments on the administrative plan – with no
clue form those comments were taking – and said they would have the comments by the following Friday.
He stated that they did not send the comments, and the following week there were still no comments
received, and as of this meeting there is still nothing from HUD. He added that the staff does not know
how to respond to something that it does not know what it will receive, so that is the big hold up right now.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not understand all the bureaucratic red tape involved, but going
back to June there was another problem – whether or not the Housing office can produce the nine
vouchers based upon the amount of room within the existing budget.
Mr. White said that it did appear to be an issue in June, and he looked at the fund balance with
the Finance Department – and there seems to be sufficient reserves for the balance of this year to move
forward, but they cannot be used until HUD approves the administrative plan or comments on it with the
County sending needed revisions. He stated that he has not pushed HUD that hard because his office
has always had a good working relationship with them, and even though the final rule was developed in
2005 they didn’t put a notice out on it until fall 2011. He said that Charlottesville and Albemarle are not the
only ones in the state with issues; there are five, six or seven other jurisdictions in the same place that we
are. He noted that HUD had been very tenacious with this one specific requirement, which has put
everything to a stop.
Mr. White reported that in a phone conversation he was told “we don’t want to have to have the IG
come and investigate your program ” and he took that as a threat and that is why he has not pushed as
hard as he would have pushed previously.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Ms. Mallek stated that Mr. White had asked Board members not to run to General Assembly
members, but perhaps they are out of gas on waiting for a resolution.
Mr. White stated that it may be time to decide that they have taken an unreasonable length of
time, and had HUD not promised several deadlines, he might not have said it was unreasonable.
Mr. Rooker said they didn’t even know what their response would be at this point.
Mr. Dumler stated that it could take the form of requirements that the County modifies the plan, in
which case it would have to go through revisions, re-voted on by the Board, and resubmitted to HUD.
Mr. Rooker added that it would also require a public hearing.
Mr. White explained that if it is regulatory comments they would have to go through that, and if it is
suggestive comments, they would have more leeway.
Ms. Mallek said that staff were doing their best to work on procedural issues, but she supports
using County funds to carry this forward in the interim – if the Board does, it does not jeopardize these
individuals to have vouchers going forward, in the best case scenario, and it does not punish us for any of
our investment. She stated that it is clear it would not make matters worse to use local funds.
Mr. Boyd stated that the funds exist, but the Housing office cannot use them because HUD is
tying their hands.
Ms. Mallek said that those are the reserve funds, and she is talking about County funds.
Mr. Rooker then moved to put in place a deal with the Crossings to pay the market rate rents for
the nine individuals the County promised housing to in March 2012, and that staff continue to move
forward as quickly as possible to solve the bureaucratic issues that are out there so the subsidy provided
by the County would be over as short a period as possible. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion, noting that
there are some private funds that have been leveraged to supplement the commitment.
Mr. Snow asked about the amount of those funds.
Mr. Dumler replied that he was not certain, but he had heard one month, and that was something
Mr. White could investigate in drafting up the appropriation.
Mr. Boyd said that his concern was that this is open-ended, and HUD could change the rules and
drag this out for a year.
Ms. Mallek said that someone had suggested earlier at the meeting to commit through
December.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker’s motion was for staff to bring back an appropriation based on
whatever the numbers are for six months.
Mr. Rooker said that he would support funding for up to one year, and until the bureaucratic snafu
is resolved the Board should go ahead and make that commitment to provide security for those residents.
He then amended his motion to reflect a 12-month period of time.
Mr. Dumler seconded the amendment.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be September before the Board votes on it.
Mr. Foley said that staff would have to get an agreement in place and an appropriation in front of
them at the next meeting.
Mr. Snow said that it would include the contributing funds.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the contributing funds could be used for the first month, as $5,000
would enable this to move forward more quickly.
Mr. Foley stated that the contingency fund is the only place the County’s allotment could come
from.
Mr. Boyd said he needed to know how much the commitment was prior to voting on it.
Mr. Rooker stated that the maximum would be $60,000 if it turned out to be 12 months, adding
that they would hopefully work out a deal for market rent of $525 – which would be $4,100 a month.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board was not voting on that now, they were going to vote on that in
September, when they know what the amounts are – when they know what the supplements are.
Mr. Rooker said that he is asking for a vote of support.
Mr. Boyd said to bring back an appropriation in September.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Rooker said that this would also demonstrate the intent of this Board to support the
appropriation when it comes back, so if a private funder can move forward with some confidence and to
provide confidence to the person moving in. He said that his motion is basically that the Board support
doing this. He said that the appropriation would have a specific amount attached to it.
Mr. Davis stated that the appropriation would be intended to fund an agreement that would
allocate a monthly contribution to a nonprofit that would terminate upon federal funding being available.
Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Snow said he would vote on it if it is based on market rate, and if the matching fund is
available as described.
Mr. Rooker responded that The Crossings had raised $5,000, and the idea put forward here was
to use that to get people in early.
Mr. Snow he said he would like to see that as part of the motion.
Mr. Rooker said he would include that in his motion, including the market rate.
Mr. Davis stated that this would be brought back to the Board in September for approval of the
agreement and the appropriation going forward.
Ms. Mallek said that Mr. White and Mr. Davis could handle the appropriation, and she didn’t want
legalese to slow this down any further.
Mr. Thomas said he understood the amount to be $646.
Ms. Mallek said that they should just plan on that and hope it would be less.
Mr. Boyd said he understood Mr. Snow to condition his vote on the lower rate.
Mr. Elliott stated that the $646 represents the market rate, and Mr. White made a calculation
assuming the private source that would in effect be spread across the period to reduce the $646
downward. He said staff could develop an agreement with Virginia Supportive Housing for nine units for
up to that amount not to exceed one year, that way the ceiling is set at $646 – and private funding would
reduce that amount.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is for looking at the private contribution to cover the first month.
Mr. Elliott said that staff could move forward with that if the motion reflects the $646.
Mr. Rooker again amended his motion accordingly.
Mr. Dumler agreed as seconder to the motion.
Mr. Snow asked what the $525 was. Mr. Elliott said it was a scenario to apply any private funding
to reduce the $646 down to $525.
Mr. White explained that he was using the $525 as a lower rate with private funds making up the
difference from $646.
Mr. Boyd asked if the motion reflected the stipulation for private funds covering the first month.
Mr. Snow said that he would agree to that.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to put the Crossings in a position to go out and raise some money
while the County works through the legalese to work through the appropriation.
Mr. Boyd stated that his heart and compassion for the people waiting to move in will get his vote
today, but it scares him because this is a slippery slope as there are hundreds of stories like this out there.
The Board already knows that this will take care of 3% of the homeless people in the community but what
about the other 97%; the County cannot just be a cash cow to every situation. Mr. Boyd said he has met
with some of those people, and his heart would lead him to vote on this.
Mr. Rooker said he really appreciated Mr. Boyd’s statement, adding that the difference here is the
Board supported getting this kind of housing in the community – which is a good start in dealing with the
homeless problem. He stated that the Board needed to see that it is financially supported and successful.
Mr. Boyd said the County has stepped in for the state and federal government frequently, and he
is worried about how much more they are going to have to do that.
Mr. Foley said that was a major topic for the Board’s upcoming retreat.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. White for his perseverance.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. White clarified the vote for the $646 and the term of one year.
Mr. Rooker confirmed that was correct, with the funding up to one year or until the HUD issues is
resolved and the vouchers are otherwise available.
Mr. Thomas asked if anyone involved in the voucher program was not in Treesdale yet or cannot
get in.
Mr. White responded that there were two people put on hold, and with the Board’s action today he
would have to go back and look at that. He said that Treesdale is a little bit different, as the County did not
sign an agreement with them prior to the construction being done – but they did put them on hold because
of the Crossings commitment, so they stopped issuing vouchers to anyone. Mr. White said he may go
back and issue those based on the Board’s action today.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said the Board would revisit Item 8.2 regarding landscaping for the Meadow Creek
Parkway, stating that she was expecting some sort of plan.
Mr. Jack Kelsey stated that he could answer any questions or provide clarification.
Mr. Boyd said that this obligates $325,000 for landscaping, but it does not specify exactly what
that should cover.
Mr. Kelsey stated that the amount is $235,000, and the Jones & Jones report was adopted as part
of the Land Use section of the County’s Comp Plan – which provides guidance and the criteria for how to
create the County’s portion of the Parkway. He said it also includes some of the criteria from the Riley
report for the City’s portion of the Parkway, as well as the MPO’s Design Advisory Committee criteria as to
how it should be designed. Mr. Kelsey stated that it includes the landscaping needed to finish it and make
it a parkway, not just a highway, and make it consistent from McIntire Road to Rio Road. He said it gave
parameters such as landscaping should reflect a park-like setting, create a gateway setting, respect and
reinforce existing natural settings, and be pleasing in all seasons, screen undesirable views and help to
preserve desirable views. Mr. Kelsey said what exists now is a roadway that is designed not like a typical
highway, but is designed for a parkway. He stated that there has been vegetation impacted at the limits of
clearing and grading, and the idea of this plan is to enhance existing landscaping and restore some of the
natural landscaping to try to create a framework for the linear park.
Ms. Mallek asked if this would result in an RFP for bids to do this.
Mr. Kelsey said that first they would come up with concepts as to what this would look like, and
they had to wait until the end because they weren’t sure of what the impact would be of the VDoT
construction. He stated that they would hire a consultant and have them work with City staff to develop
two or three concepts of the landscape plan, along with a cost estimate, and then come back to the Board
with a final recommendation.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could be broken up into two appropriations – the appropriation for the concept
design and wait on appropriating the other dollars.
Mr. Kelsey responded that it could be done that way, and it would probably require $50,000 for
concept and design – with the contract established so the Board can decide whether or not to move
forward.
Mr. Rooker said that in order to move the project forward, the County agreed to make it a linear
park, and the binding nature of this is the agreement with the City and amendment of the Comp Plan that
the County would do what’s necessary to make it a linear park. He asked if there was something
preventing them from contacting landscaping companies and requesting a proposal as to how they would
do this.
Mr. Snow agreed, stating that it could essentially be a design-build RFP with the bid accepted that
would best suit the design the County has in mind and then the cost – it’s all integrated together.
Mr. Kelsey stated that in order to come up with the linear park, it requires a vision for what it
should look like, and that is why a consultant would be desired.
Mr. Rooker said that $50,000 is a big percentage of what would be there for planting.
Mr. Kelsey responded that staff needed to develop the scope to create an RFP, and he does not
have an exact number – but one consultant has come up with a ballpark figure of $45,000, which is a
budget number and not the exact number.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
Mr. Snow said that most landscaping firms can go out and help a shopping center completely redo
their landscaping without a consultant, and he is hoping for something low maintenance in a natural
setting. He said that almost any well-established nursery is capable of coming up with a plan that would
implement that, and a rough cost estimate. He stated that they could come in and make a presentation to
give the County an idea of whether it would accomplish the goals – so that 100% could be used for
beautifying the area – there’s other ways of getting answers besides consultants.
Mr. Foley asked for some clarification from Mr. Davis on procurement issues, and the question is
whether the County has the ability to use design-build under the Virginia Procurement Act.
Mr. Davis responded that it’s not easy to do that, and the County would need to have specific
criteria to be met and accept the lowest bidder who meets those criteria. He said there may be some
variation of this that can be worked out, but the County could not do exactly what Mr. Snow is suggesting.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could be similar to how they handled the dredging of the South Fork Rivanna
River.
Mr. Davis responded that this project would not qualify for a PPEA approach.
Mr. Rooker suggested going to U.Va. School of Architecture and having them do a class project
with a $220,000 potential budget to create a plan, and perhaps the County could make a donation or
provide an award. He said that he just hated to see the County spend $50,000 that could be put into the
beautification elements of this with a consultant.
Mr. Davis said there are other issues with procurement, such as the fact the County does not own
any of the property – and depending on how it’s designed, it’s either in the VDoT right of way or in a linear
park owned by the City. He explained that part of the Meadow Creek Parkway compromise was that
VDoT would buy replacement land for land that was acquired from McIntire Park, and VDOT has already
deeded the property to the City – so the County really does not have any ownership or ability to do this
project, except in conjunction with either VDoT or the City, so that has to be worked through as well
through the design procurement process.
Ms. Mallek asked if Will Riley had already done a plan for the City portion, and asked if the County
could just mimic that.
Mr. Kelsey responded that there is a landscaping plan associated with the interchange, and about
500 trees and shrubs planted as part of that – with about $38,000 set aside by the City for landscaping of
their portion where the interchange portion stops at Melbourne Road.
Mr. Rooker said he didn’t hear anything that would prevent the County from going to U.Va. and
seeing if they have a landscape architecture class that would take this on as a project, rather than having
a consultant come up with a plan that might not even be within budget.
Mr. Foley said staff could pursue that option and also look into what Mr. Snow suggested, as there
is no urgency on the Board appropriating these funds.
Mr. Davis stated that the Board still needed to approve the appropriation item.
Mr. Rooker moved to approve Item 8.2, to approve appropriations #2013020, #2013022,
#2013025, #2013026, #2013027, #2013028, #2013029 and #2013030, excluding appropriation #2013024.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
APP #2013020
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Adjust salaries of staff in the Clerk of the Circuit Court based on MOU with the Clerk
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 99900 499000 999908 9999 -21,805.00 CONT-RECLASSIFICATIONS
4 1000 21060 421060 110000 1002 17,733.00 Salary
4 1000 21060 421060 210000 1002 1,357.00 FICA
4 1000 21060 421060 221000 1002 2,481.00 VRS
4 1000 21060 421060 241000 1002 211.00 VRS Group Life
4 1000 21060 421060 270000 1002 23.00 Workers Comp
TOTAL 0.00
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
APP #2013022
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: School Division Grants, Donations, and Activity Accounts
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 17,500.00 Donations
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 12,500.00 Misc Revenue
4 2000 30,000.00 Reserve - Donations & Activity
Funds
3 3xxx 50,000.00 Misc Grants
4 3xxx 50,000.00 Reserve - Grants
TOTAL 160,000.00
APP #2013025
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Drug Court Officer
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 33000 33000 320240 1002 11,201.00 OAR-DOJ-DRUG COURT PROG
4 1000 21078 421070 130000 1002 8,640.00 Part time wages
4 1000 21078 421070 210000 1002 661.00 FICA
4 1000 21078 421070 580000 1002 600.00 Misc
4 1000 21078 421070 600800 1002 700.00 Vehicle & Equip Fuel
4 1000 21078 421070 600900 1002 600.00 Vehicle & Equip Repairs
TOTAL 22,402.00
APP #2013026
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Registrar reappropriations
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 13020 413020 130000 1001 11,930.00 Part Time Wages
4 1000 13020 413020 312510 1001 4,000.00 Election Officials
4 1000 13020 413020 390000 1001 400.00 Other Purchased Services
4 1000 13020 413020 800200 1001 250.00 Furniture & Fixtures
4 1000 13020 413020 800610 1001 3,232.00 Renovations
4 1000 13020 413020 800700 1001 1,404.50 ADP Equipment
4 1000 13020 413020 800701 1001 400.00 ADP Equipment - Repl.
4 1000 13020 413020 800710 1001 598.00 Data Processing Software
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 22,214.50
TOTAL 44,429.00
APP #2013027
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Grants Leveraging Fund Reappropriation
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 90,852.00 App Fund Balance
4 1000 99900 499000 999974 9999 90,852.00 Grants Leveraging
TOTAL 181,704.00
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
APP #2013028
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Police Grants
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 99900 499000 999974 9999 -2,144.00 Grants Leveraging
4 1000 93010 493010 930211 9999 2,144.00 Transfer to fund #1544
3 1544 33000 333000 330412 1003 40,725.00 Grant Revenue - Federal
3 1544 51000 351000 512004 9999 2,144.00 Transfer from GF
4 1544 31013 431010 800100 1003 42,869.00 Machinery & Equipment
3 1593 24000 324000 240500 1003 23,602.00 Grant Revenue - State
4 1593 31013 431010 120000 1003 $13,131.00 Overtime
4 1593 31013 431010 210000 1003 $1,088.00 FICA
4 1593 31013 431010 800100 1003 $9,383.00 Machinery & Equipment
TOTAL 132,942.00
APP #2013029
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Finance Professional Services
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 $70,000.00 App Fund Balance
4 1000 12141 412140 310000 1001 $70,000.00 Professional Services
TOTAL 140,000.00
APP #2013030
DATE 08/01/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: ECC Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 4125 33000 333000 330403 1003 $9,999.00
4 4125 31053 433020 312385 1003 $9,999.00
TOTAL 19,998.00
_____
Ms. Mallek said that the Board would now address the health insurance item.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Assistant County Executive, stated that all of this action and effort has been
towards the Board’s objective of providing plan design and a premium structure that is just slightly above
market. He said that even with the situation of having held premiums for four years, the County is well
above that at this point. Mr. Letteri stated that this is a transition year towards the ideal, and it is
challenging to do that, and even in this transition year they would not be increasing premiums for anyone.
He said that all premium payers would still be well above the market this year, with more benefits than
what they would generally see in the market.
Mr. Rooker asked why this was a transition year, since the high plan had already been eliminated.
Mr. Foley explained that the rates were transitioning from three different tiers of pay down to two.
Mr. Rooker said the decision has been made, and there should not be a huge amount of time
rehashing that issue. He stated that his concern is that this decision should have been brought to the
Board for consideration, and that was not done – eliminating a whole category of our plan is not what he
would call an administrative decision. Mr. Rooker said he would like to see it before it is done. He also
stated that a bonus was given to employees several years ago, and the argument for it was surplus funds
available in the medical plan reserves.
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, stated that there were savings used to fund
that, and the County did not have to have the rate increase for the contribution to medical.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Rooker said the argument for doing that was the existence of a large reserve, and in
retrospect he isn’t sure that was a great decision – as now the Board is faced with the possibility of raising
premiums by 8% in order to restore reserves.
Mr. Dumler added that simultaneously, they are decreasing benefits. He said he would like to see
the market study that yielded this.
Mr. Foley said that this should be put on the agenda with the School Board and Board of
Supervisors during budget sessions, and he conceded that this was a bigger issue than typical matters
and that was not recognized.
Mr. Foley stated that staff put a budget together, and the Board had approved a $7,500 employer
contribution, and it was not until they got into the summer that staff realized the reserve was much
stronger and thus didn’t need higher premiums. He said that they didn’t bring the reserve down, they just
didn’t make it go higher than it needed to be. Mr. Foley stated that the balance had gotten so high staff
didn’t feel it was responsible to let it continue to grow while keeping rates artificially down. He said that
staff put a plan in place to bring the reserve balance down, more in keeping with a 25% benchmark – not
50%. Mr. Foley stated that over the last three years they established that the benefits were too rich for the
market and the fund balance was too big, so they needed to ratchet it down. He said that as claims
increase, they would determine whether rate increases are necessary or not – this is just, frankly, moving
the County to best practice management of a self-insurance pool, which they were far away from before.
He stated that this represents going to two pools instead of three, and having a high plan meant the claims
were higher than the market should bear – so the cost of the program was shifted among all of the users.
Ms. Mallek responded that the other option would be to make the high plan rate high enough to
cover what it is supposed to be doing.
Mr. Foley said that people valued that program so much they never started to move away from it.
Ms. Mallek stated that she was very upset that she chose to have the high plan, and nobody told
her that all of the people in the middle plan were paying more than they should.
Mr. Rooker explained that premiums were set based on expectations and the claims of the high
plan participants have been higher than their premiums would have carried.
Mr. Snow commented that, that was the nature of insurance they all balance each other out.
Mr. Foley acknowledged that a major change like this should come back to the joint boards, and
the intent was not to sneak it by – but the charge of the committee needs to be clarified going forward. He
added that this has been evolving over the last three years to get it to a place that is a better run self-
insurance pool. Mr. Foley said that given changes in federal healthcare policy, it makes sense to bring it
back to the Board on a regular basis anyway.
Mr. Rooker stated that had it come to the Board he would have raised the issue of whether or not,
given the changes that were mentioned in healthcare, if 25% is adequate – whether or not the reserve
should be closer to 50% or somewhere in between because there are changes that are going to impact
payment to claims that the County may experience going forward.
Mr. Foley said that 25% is very conservative but that is an issue that they could have on the table
again and talk about as things change – there is a lot more uncertainties.
Ms. Gerome mentioned that the County relies on a benefits consultant to advise it on decisions
such as this, and he felt that the upcoming liability with healthcare reform, the 25% reserve was a
reasonable target.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the reasons for a high reserve is to absorb shocks in premium
increases year by year, and when reserves run down you have to raise premiums.
Mr. Foley stated that the 25% is designed to do that.
Ms. Gerome added that the County also has stop-loss insurance for claims that exceed $200,000,
so 25% is a reasonable target.
Mr. Rooker noted that they don’t have an aggregate stop-loss, which he has always suggested.
He said that part of the reason for a reserve is to pay runoff claims if your plan stops.
Mr. Foley said that the consultant would be present at their joint meeting to address some of those
issues.
Ms. Mallek said she didn’t understand having two rates for the middle plan, and the reason given
for not having one rate was not having enough money in the reserves, but now staff is saying the reserve
is too high – if people have the same benefits, they ought to pay the same price.
Ms. Gerome responded that members of the Healthcare Executive Committee, which includes
representatives from CATEC, the Albemarle County Service Authority, schools, the Blue Ridge Detention
Center, etc., understood that the County has made a commitment to employees not to increase premiums
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
– yet they knew the plan was very rich in plan design with the co-pays, plan design structure, with the
premium cost being very low at $40 for individual coverage compared to a market norm of $56 or $57 per
month. She said that the committee felt that they wouldn’t be good financial stewards to further subsidize
the plan.
Mr. Rooker said he didn’t understand that philosophy, because what they have done now is
essentially said, you cannot have that plan even if you wanted to pay for it – we’re going to put you in a
lower level plan, less benefits, higher deductibles, etc. He stated that people could have elected to do that
anyway.
Ms. Gerome responded that they had already committed to premiums staying unchanged, so they
couldn’t adjust the high plan premiums to reflect the actual cost.
Mr. Rooker said they should have made the analysis before they made that commitment, because
to tell employees now that they’re going to receive a lower level of benefits for the same price as the high
plan would be the same as an increase in premiums.
Ms. Gerome pointed out that the co-pays stay the same, the prescription coverage stays the
same, and the only change is going from 95% co-insurance to 90% for inpatient hospital care or
diagnostic tests, and increasing the out of pocket. She said that the market plans design is still very
advantageous. She added that they didn’t put a deductible on the plan, which has become common in the
marketplace, but employee feedback through surveys and focus groups indicates they feel very strongly
about not doing that. She stated that the plan still is, frankly, a rich plan.
Mr. Rooker said the Board is not complaining about the plan.
Mr. Dumler stated that the issue is the fact the decision was made without Board input. He said
that he didn’t think that anybody on the Board would have been in a position to make a promise that would
require them to then have two people pay two different amounts of money for the same benefits. He said
he understands the fiscal strategy of the committee, but it is doubtful the Supervisors would have
supported that approach.
Mr. Rooker said that they could have offered the option of going down to the middle plan and
keeping premiums as is, or continuing with the higher plan and paying a higher rate.
Mr. Boyd said that they could have said that and still kept their promise not to raise the rate,
because it was an option.
Ms. Gerome stated that staff will bring this forward in the fall, and because it’s viewed through the
lens of total compensation, that is when the conversations start about what would happen with the
premiums. She said there is a model that shows they can use the reserve throughout this year, and that
is when the communication started. Ms. Gerome added that employees haven’t seen compensation
increases, so trying to balance a medical plan and having it continue to be above market without passing
changes to employees – it’s a balancing act.
Mr. Snow noted that the cost of health insurance is going up for everyone in the real world.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that no one else was giving raises either, not just the County. He said that it
bothers him a little bit that staff had this strategy a few years ago but did not bring it forward as part of a
long range plan for benefits.
Mr. Foley responded that it was not to get rid of the plan it was to get the reserves down and get
the County more in the market. He also stated that this is the first Board that’s ever asked any of these
questions, and part of the reason is because the County is going through some dramatic changes – and
that is where staff probably missed it.
Mr. Foley said that he hoped the Board recognized that there were a lot of people working hard to
try to do the right thing, and he accepted that staff may have missed the step of coming to them.
Ms. Mallek stated that the doubling of the out of pocket from $2,000 to $4,000 is a huge impact.
Ms. Gerome responded that only about 3% of subscribers reach their out of pocket in any given
year.
Ms. Mallek said the statistics make it seem reasonable, but everyone is just one car accident
away from changing the situation completely.
_____
Ms. Mallek stated that the next issue to discuss was Mr. Boyd’s question about the 10%
contingency in CIP projects.
Mr. Boyd said that it has bothered him for a number of years that the County automatically
authorize a 10% overrun on projects, as it could be on multi-million projects too, and there should be
some limit put on that. He said that perhaps there should be a fixed amount given per project, or come
before the Board.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Rooker agreed that it should be an agenda item whereby the Board gets some data, and
maybe the best approach is putting a cap in place.
Mr. Foley said that staff can bring the policy back and provide some history as to what their
experience has been, as well as letting them know the typical way of handling this. He said that perhaps
the cap should be a percentage, as it might not be realistic to give a $50,000 contingency on a $20 million
project.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board meets twice a month and the items could be brought before them if
project costs exceed that cap.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of Office of Facilities Development, mentioned that there was an
informational item provided at the Board’s June meeting on contingency use and policies, and he sees
every change order that comes through on a project – and if one comes through that exceeds an
aggregate of 25% on the contract, or if it exceeds $50,000 he reviews it and it goes to the County
Executive for approval. He stated that staff has a really strong oversight on the management of the
contingency. He stated that he wouldn’t categorize it as overrun, as that defines projects exceeding the
appropriation, and said that many of the projects are put together at a conceptual level in the CIP process
– the goalposts are kind of wide because you don’t have a lot of detail. Mr. Henry gave the example of
having no sound study done yet for the firing range, and there is always a balance of how much they want
to put into the pre-planning phase to eliminate some of those risks.
Mr. Rooker said that it is one thing in long-range planning to have a contingency of 10%, but it’s
another matter to still have that after the project is bid out.
Mr. Henry said that was a good point, and in the past they would have a graduated contingency –
and as they would check off the unknowns and minimize risk, it could be narrowed down. He stated that
staff could look at that option and bring back a proposal. Mr. Henry emphasized that with the Crozet
Library project, you want to hold onto that contingency – because anytime you’re going into the ground you
may encounter obstacles. He said that staff could certainly highlight those risk areas that are tied to
contingency, and as you complete that phase of the project, then the risk has gone away so there could be
a way to reduce it.
Mr. Rooker commented that a remodeling project does not have the same risks as an in-ground
project, perhaps.
Mr. Henry responded that he has seen renovation projects that have significant issues.
Mr. Rooker said that part of it depends on what’s in the contract.
Mr. Foley stated that staff budgets projects, and the Board approves budgets, but staff does not
come back to them when the contract is accepted. He said the 10% is a budget number, and if it was
coming back to them for contract approval they could bring the contingency down. Mr. Foley emphasized
that staff wants to be responsible, and tightened up their policies to require approval administratively, but
they can bring back some best practices.
Mr. Boyd said he just wants the Board to be informed, and does not want to hear from
constituents that a project has gone over significantly.
Mr. Foley responded that they always have the opportunity to know that as they go along.
Mr. Rooker said that as the risk factors disappear the contingencies should come down, and
there’s no need to sit there with large appropriated amounts.
Ms Mallek asked if this was increasing the amount borrowed for the Crozet Library by 10%, on the
possibility it will be needed, and then after that the excess goes into the CIP pool for the following year –
are we borrowing that extra 10% right off the bat.
Mr. Letteri explained that the County was not, and said that most of the borrowing occurs on a
cycle that follows the project completion.
Mr. Henry stated that he tracked the number of change orders for projects, and it’s typically five or
less.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t want to nitpick or tie staff’s hands, he just wanted to see if there was
interest from the Board in bringing it back.
Mr. Foley said that would mean bringing change orders that exceed a certain amount for the
Board for approval, and that is a different ballgame I think altogether.
Ms. Mallek said it would be for information, and information-sharing is more important than
anything else.
Mr. Rooker commented that if, for example, the Crozet Library was going to run over by $500,000,
the Board would want to know that.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
Mr. Foley stated that staff would come back with some ideas to tighten the process up.
Ms. Mallek said that the next issue to discuss was the disturbed property item Mr. Boyd had
raised.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Graham if he was aware of the United Land project at Briarwood, where they
are contesting the disturbed property fees – as the applicant says he is only disturbing four acres, not the
whole project.
Mr. Graham explained that this is part of the erosion and sediment control process under the
Water Protection Ordinance. The programs with the permit fee once the developer is out in the field are
supposed to recover the County’s costs. He said that the fees are set at $100 per disturbed acre per year,
based on the approved plan – and on the approved plan the applicant shows limits of clearing and
disturbance, and when they get the permit they’re permitting to disturb anything in that area. Mr. Graham
stated that staff encourages people to revise their plan, get the work done and get the plan down to the
minimum disturbed remaining area they need to keep under permit – and to stabilize it as quickly as
possible and get out of there. He noted that many applicants do that, and ask for a bond reduction then
do a plan revision to recognize the work they have done and take off the areas they can.
Ms. Mallek noted, that also means they’ve got permanent cover on all those other areas.
Mr. Graham agreed, adding that it encourages applicants to get that work done and establish
permanent vegetation.
Mr. Boyd said he understood that, but not a situation where a developer is only disturbing a certain
portion at a time out of a large project.
Mr. Graham stated that if the applicant wanted to revise his plan and permit it for disturbing only a
certain amount of it, he can do that, and then come back the next year and revise the plan to disturb
another area and that staff would love to see that.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff could communicate that back to the applicant.
Mr. Graham responded that staff has repeatedly communicated that information to him.
Mr. Rooker said that some applicants would like to pay for a four-acre disturbance when they’ve
got a 100-acre project, and they can disturb any place they want to disturb for that fee.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t support that, obviously.
Mr. Graham said that this is a question of an applicant not paying a consultant to revise a plan to
show what they’ve done, and they don’t want to go through the expense of a bond reduction – they just
want the County to take care of it.
Mr. Boyd responded that it was the applicant’s responsibility.
Mr. Graham stated that the program is designed as a cost-recovery program to recover the
County’s costs, which is a state-required program – they’re being covered by the developer.
_____
Ms. Mallek said the next item was Black Cat Road bridge.
Mr. Boyd said he was not sure if the Board needed to send a letter supporting this, as there are a
lot of constituents who are concerned about the widening – and at least the County could try to get a no
through trucks regulation on it.
Ms. Mallek said she has tried to get no truck limits in Earlysville for 10 years, so the one-lane
bridge is the way to go.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Commonwealth Transportation Board has the power to do that with any
road, but they do it very sparingly.
Mr. Boyd said that VDoT’s time for comment had expired the previous day. He said that he
wanted to see if as a Board they wanted make a last minute comment on it.
Mr. Foley said that staff could draft something based on this conversation and get Ms. Mallek to
sign it.
Mr. Davis asked for clarification of what the Board wants.
Ms. Mallek responded that the consensus in the community seems to be keeping it a one-lane
bridge.
Mr. Boyd stated that he didn’t think it was a one lane bridge.
Mr. Rooker said that was probably 16 feet in width.
Mr. Benish said he was not sure he was privy to the issue.
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Boyd said it was something VDoT was doing, and had not been before the Board, and
constituents have said they don’t want it to be a full two-lane bridge because it would increase truck traffic
and put more trucks on Route 231.
Mr. Benish asked if the Board would want the minimum width permissible for road design to
reduce or minimize truck traffic.
Mr. Davis stated they would want it wide enough for a fire truck.
Mr. Boyd added not two fire trucks side by side.
Mr. Rooker said that the new Broomley Bridge would be two lanes, but the cut-through threat isn’t
the same there. He stated that the Black Cat Road Bridge should have a small lane on the side – four
feet usually – for pedestrians and bicycles.
Mr. Benish clarified that what the Board wanted was a narrow design to be sensitive to the cut-
through traffic issues along the roadway, and he would draft something and run it by Mr. Kelsey.
Mr. Thomas asked for assurance that horse trailers could still fit across the bridge.
Mr. Benish mentioned that the bridges replaced at Whitehall were slightly larger than one-lane
bridges, and said he would contact Joel DeNunzio about this, although he had been hard to contact
recently – it’s a little hectic over there.
Mr. Dumler reported that the TJPDC stream buffer study had been completed, and he sent it
around to other Board members – and it may make sense to explore it in some situations, although it is
unclear as to what legislation would allow the County to do.
Ms. Mallek announced that it was not too late if Board members had issues that they would like
her to carry to the VACo Environment and Agriculture Committee meeting on August 17.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting.
At 2:04 p.m., Mr. Dumler offered motion that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Dumler, to
certify to that the Board certify by recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only
public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or
considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Snow then offered motion to make the following appointments/reappointments:
reappoint Ms. Barbara Franko, Mr. Randall Switz and Dr. Martin Schulman to the Route
250 West Task Force with said terms to expire September 5, 2015;
appoint Mr. Peter Skoro to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council to fill the
unexpired term of Mr. Brian Johnson, to expire January 31, 2013; and .
appoint Mr. Wendell Wood to the Places 29 Community Advisory Council to fill the
unexpired term of Mr. Joel Spring, to expire January 31, 2013.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
August 1, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. At 2:11 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 09/12/2012
Initials: EWJ