2012-11-07November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 7, 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 9:04 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any items Board members would like to add for discussion and/or
action at the end of the agenda.
Mr. Snow stated that he had some VDOT-related items he wished to discuss.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to discuss through-truck closure for Earlysville Road.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek thanked County staff for their work throughout Election Day, noting how smoothly
everything went.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions:
Item No. 6a. Reaccreditation Certificate – Police Department.
Mr. Gary Dillon, Program Manager for Virginia’s Law Enforcement Accreditation Program, said he
was present to recognize the County’s Police Department for its commitment to law enforcement
excellence by participating in the Accreditation Program. All accreditation programs are designed to
measure and confirm compliance of the participating agency with the professional standards in whatever
discipline or profession they’re involved in. It is one of the only means by which citizens and government
leaders can be assured that the agency is maintaining the high-performance marks to which the
community has a right. Mr. Dillon stated that in Virginia law enforcement agencies can seek and achieve
accredited status but the program is completely voluntary. Since the program was created in the mid-
1990s, he said, over 400 agencies have been eligible for accreditation, but only 85 have met the
standards. He said that each agency that participates must meet or exceed their standards by proving to
the Program’s assessors that they follow their standards and that they comply its’ own policies, rules and
regulations. He reported that recently a team of assessors inspected the Albemarle County Police
Department and issued a report to the Commission advising that they had found the Department to be in
compliance with all applicable standards as required by the Accreditation Program. Mr. Dillon stated that
recently the Commission met and unanimously approved the Police Department.
On behalf of the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the Secretary of Public Safety, Mr.
Dillon congratulated the Police Department, Police Chief Sellers, and Nicole Marshall, Accreditation
Manager, for maintaining the volume of files necessary for bringing the accreditation to fruition. He added
that he recently moved to Crozet, and he is excited that this Department continues to excel.
Mr. Dillon then introduced Chief Tim Longo, Chairman of the Professional Standards
Commission, to present the certificate.
Chief Longo said this is the second time he has had the privilege to appear before the Board on
behalf of one of its law enforcement agencies who have achieved accredited status. The Police
Department achieved accredited status by showing compliance in 187 professional standards with over
500 subcomponent parts to those standards. He then awarded Police Chief Colonel Sellers and the
Police Department with the Certificate of Reaccreditation, and read the following: “This document certifies
that the Albemarle County Police Department came before the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional
Standards Commission on August 9, 2012, has met the requirements set forth by the said Commission
and is therefore certified as an accredited agency for a period of four years.”
Police Chief Sellers came forward and accepted the award, thanking the men and women of the
Police Department, County civilians and Nicole Marshall. He said that an enormous amount of work went
into the process, and that he was very proud of everyone.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek thanked the Department for their work.
_____
Item No. 6b. Proclamation recognizing Virginia Cider Week.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation recognizing Potter’s Craft, Castle Hill
and Albemarle Cider:
PROCLAMATION
VIRGINIA CIDER WEEK
WHEREAS, cider was a colonial beverage enjoyed by not only our forefathers such as Thomas
Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington, but the common farmer, lawyer, butcher and soldier; and
WHEREAS, orchards were planted by early settlers and colonials to provide apples to ferment for the
production of cider; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is currently the sixth largest apple producing state by acreage in the United
States and cider is a value-added product of apples, supporting an existing industry in the state; and
WHEREAS, agriculture in the Commonwealth is the state’s largest industry, with an economic impact
of $55 billion annually; and
WHEREAS, agri-tourism is a growing component of Virginia’s tourism industry; and
WHEREAS, the cider industry in Virginia has experienced significant growth, with six cideries started
since 2006 and three prospective cideries currently being planned; and
WHEREAS, the sales of cider nationwide have increased over twenty percent in the last year; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia House of Delegates and State Senate passed House Joint Resolution 105 in
2012 to designate the full week before Thanksgiving as Virginia Cider Week in Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann Mallek, Chair of the Board of Supervisors, do hereby designate
November 11-17, 2012 as VIRGINIA CIDER WEEK in Albemarle County, and call this observance to the
attention of all our citizens.
Ms. Mallek then invited representatives from the cideries to come forward: Tim Edmond and Dan
Potter of Potter’s Craft Cider in Free Union; John Rhett of Castle Hill Cider in Keswick; and Chuck and
Charlotte Shelton of Albemarle CiderWorks in North Garden.
On behalf of Castle Hill Cider, Mr. John Rhett thanked the Board for its recognition. He noted that
this business is growing by leaps and bounds, and is reestablishing a business that had been here
centuries ago with their founding fathers. This is a special time to be in the cider business.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Sean McGowan, Executive Director of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, said he was
present to represent members of their Central Virginia Chapter – who work locally and would benefit from
construction of the proposed firearms range. He said that one primary function of the Association is to
increase professionalism in law enforcement, and training is at the heart of professionalism. Mr.
McGowan stated that the training provided through the facility would not only improve public safety but
would reduce the risk of liability that exists now due to the minimal firearms training available to police
officers. He noted that frequent firearms training produce officers who can take the proper action in
critical incident situations, thus increasing public safety. Mr. McGowan stated that under the current
arrangement with a local private range is for one session of firearms training, which will not and cannot
produce firearms proficiency. The training facility will help the officers, police administration, and
ultimately the taxpayer reduce the risk of exposure to civil liability. He said that the Association fully
supports construction of the facility because it will improve the working conditions for its members, and
because of the impact it will have on ensuring the safe return of law enforcement professionals to their
families and loved ones at the end of their shift every day.
Mr. McGowan mentioned that he is a retired police officer from the City of Alexandria, where he
served 25 years, and in that city they have a firearms range on Eisenhower Avenue – a semi-covered
facility made of block construction and no roof, located just a few block s from residential areas. He said
that the Alexandria Police Department keeps an open dialogue with residents who live near the range.
Colonel Sellers has taken the same steps to involve the local residents here. Mr. McGowan said that he is
confident that the range and local residents can coexist as they have for 30+ years in the City of
Alexandria.
_____
Ms. Linda Wachtmeister said that she lives on Plain Dealing Farm near Keene in Scottsville. She
said that she breeds and trains horses for the sport of events. She said that in 2004 she was honored by
the Board because her horses represented the USA in the Olympics in Greece, bringing home a silver and
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
bronze medal. Receiving the document was one of the proudest moments of her life. She stated that this
could never have been accomplished if she was not living where she does. Ms. Wachtmeister expressed
serious concern over the location of the firing range and its potential impact on their way of life. She said
that the plans at the firing range will put the people and animals of Southern Albemarle in jeopardy. She
said that she is proud of what they have accomplished on Plain Dealing; her children are taking over the
business, and yesterday she found out that one of her daughters is the #1 rider in the country at her level.
She stated that she understands the need to balance out the deer population, but the first day of hunting
season is like living in a war zone, and the thought of this happening every day is frightening. Ms.
Wachtmeister noted that the effect of this on the health of horses as well as people is profound. She
asked the Board to consider other options to accomplish the goals of the police. She emphasized that
she has great respect for what the police does for citizens, but asked the Board to consider other ways to
meet their goals. Ms. Wachmeister asked the Board to please respect their livelihood.
_____
Mr. Bill Dickie addressed the Board, stating that he manages Plain Dealing Farm and concurs with
Ms. Wachtmeister’s sentiments. He said that the Police Department does need to be highly trained, but
the Ag/Forestal District Committee stated at the Planning Commission meeting in April that “this was not
in standing with what they have set guidelines for, and that the noise exceeds those limits.” Mr. Dickie
added that he would like to see measures in place to mitigate the noise from the range.
_____
Mr. Robert Strini stated that stray bullets have appeared across the nation in the past month and
have hit people sitting on front stoops in Philadelphia and Brooklyn, a student in Alabama, a nurse in
Florida, a man in San Francisco, and a teenage girl in Springfield, Massachusetts – as well as toddlers
and children in other locations. Mr. Strini expressed concern about putting this outside firing range one
and one-half miles from a local school, and there are alternatives to consider – such as locating in
Scottsville, where there is a large building available that could be an indoor firing range that could be
sound proofed, and contain all lead and materials that could harm the environment.
_____
Mr. Sam Huddleston addressed the Board, stating that he is an Army veteran and community
member. He said that he has a lot of experience in weapons qualification training, having trained military
units from 20 soldiers up to 3,500 soldiers, and is a graduate of the U.S. Army SWAT School. Mr.
Huddleston emphasized that weapons training is a public safety issue. The Army has found out that this
training is directly correlated with reducing accidental discharges and bad shoots – which occurs when you
shoot something or someone other than you intended to. He noted that the officers in this County are
getting about one-third of the training of the average police force across the country, which means they
are at greater risk for accidents. Mr. Huddleston said that they determined in the military that “static, fixed-
distance ranges” do not translate to the kind of shooting you have to do in high stress critical incidents.
You have to be able to move, you have to be able to change the target background so that you do not hit
people and things behind the target that might present a problem later and lead to a bad shoot. He stated
that they also need to incorporate vehicles into this training. In terms of location of the facility, Mr.
Huddleston said that the County would have to take all the police officers off the force for at least several
days to conduct this training if it put the facility somewhere else.
_____
Ms. Paula Beazley addressed the Board, stating that issue is not whether the police need
adequate training; it is whether the Keene site is the appropriate site. Ms. Beazley said that the proposed
site is in the rural area, surrounded by an ag/forestall district, conservation easements, rural rustic roads
and farms. The issue is that animals cannot survive with a constant 200 shots per minute situation, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She emphasized that farmers are in this environment all day. There are other training
facilities available – even though they may be a good distance away. Many people commute for their jobs
and the amount of funds required would be minimal compared to what it would cost for this site. Ms.
Beazley said that $1.3 million has been allocated for the Keene facility, and apparently $600,000 is for the
road alone. She stated that residents have concerns about the lead content from bullets, as there are
multiple streams and wetlands on the site as well as three perennial streams that directly feed into
Scottsville’s water supply. Ms. Beazley added that the noise would far exceed the levels permitted in the
rural areas. She encouraged the Board to look at the Scottsville site as an alternative.
_____
Dr. Charles Battig made a presentation on “Planning Away Private Property Rights, Part 1 ‘Rural
Areas’ (copy on file in Clerk’s office). Courtesy of Wikipedia, “a planned economy is an economic system
in which decisions regarding production and investment are embodied in a plan formulated by a central
authority, usually by a government agency. The General American Planning Association published last
May a close examination of all the ideas of compact growth, clustered housing, noting that it was never
really examined and when it was the conclusion in many cases was there was less housing choice,
crowding and congestion, and more expensive housing, yet smart growth and sprawl prevention remain in
the County’s policy, in spite of now proven negative impacts. He said that the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission did a survey, and most people indicated they wanted to live outside the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area because they found better value in the rural areas. Dr. Battig stated that
the recent survey showed that top priorities include protecting private property rights and decreasing
regulation. He added that this Board is on the record for supporting the eminent domain constitutional
amendment – but nibbling away at private property rights and reducing its value is just another means of
taking away property.
_____
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Wayne Proffit, a resident of the Keene area, asked the Board if the goal of the newly passed
leash law is to discourage County residents from hunting with dogs. Mr. Proffit said that hunters are
constantly being harassed by County police officers and DGIF officials in his area. In reading the current
ordinance it states that “any dog allowed to run at large in the County is a violation,” and that a dog is
deemed to be at large “if he is self-hunting, roaming off the property,” and the owner not having
“immediate control.” He stated that it also states that dogs should not be at large during hunting season,
but should be on a bona fide hunt in the company of a licensed hunter – and when accompanied by its
owner. He said that under the ordinance, fox hunting is allowed 365 days a year and is an open season.
Mr. Proffit said that he has raised and trained fox hounds for over 40 years, but when attempting to hunt
they are being constantly harassed – which goes against the ordinance. He said that he does not know if
it is because of a lack of knowledge on the County’s part, but something needs to be done. He has been
involved in more than four incidents where one person paid $500+ in fines, another paid $200+ in fines,
one person went to court which was dismissed, and another incident where an individual was given a
court summons this past Saturday. If it is hunting season, they cannot follow hunting dogs. He stated that
they spend thousands of dollars in tracking equipment to recover the dogs and lease massive acreage for
hunting. Mr. Proffit said the County’s hunting regulation is putting the hunters out of their hobby.
_____
Mr. Glenn Spradlin, a resident of Southern Albemarle, said he and some other individuals were
fox hunting last Saturday and he received a summons for his dog running at large. He emphasized that
he does not want his dogs to run off, but sometimes they do and they should not be covered in the leash
law.
_____
Mr. Grant Cosner said that he was with Mr. Spradlin when he got the ticket for not keeping the
dog under control, but the dog was only about 150 yards down the road and had a tracking collar. He said
the summons was totally unnecessary, as the dog was within sight and was not bothering anyone.
_____
Mr. Gary Grant addressed the Board, stating that he paid his real estate taxes today – around
$1,500 for six months, which he feels is very reasonable. Mr. Grant said that he has a problem though
with an expenditure by the Board made under the authority of Mr. Foley in August. He stated that
$1,600.35 was spent on a thank-you ad for those who helped with the derecho and the aftermath of the
storm. Each Board member could have written thank-you notes to the six agencies listed in the ad with
the postage totaling $14.85 plus $30.00 in stationery. He asked the Board to not waste his tax money
doing something that is unnecessary. Mr. Grant also noted that one of the groups thanked in the ad was
the County Executive’s office.
_____
Mr. Bryan Ward, a resident of Keene, spoke about the police firing range. He said that his uncle
bought a farm in Berks County, PA and was a mile from a shooting range; when he was out gardening
one day, he was shot. Mr. Ward stated that there is a building available in Scottsville, and it would be a
better site for a world-class training facility. An indoor facility that could be used year round in Scottsville
would be a better solution. He added that he also does not think that $1.3 million is a realistic cost for the
facility. If the County spent a little more money on a better facility, it could make it available to police
officers in other counties. Mr. Ward suggested that the County collaborate with the counties of
Buckingham and Fluvanna.
_____
Dr. Bill Tunner said the police are public servants and they do a great job, and he is a public
servant also as a physician – and his particular concern is the health of children. Dr. Tunner stated that
the firing range proposed at the Keene Landfill poses some real health issues in his opinion, specifically
the heavy metal intoxication of the water supply that goes down to Scottsville through the leaching of lead
fragments and other heavy metals into the soil – and the creeks that traverse the landfill. He said that
there is also an issue with the staccato gunfire noise of many rounds of high-caliber weapons, as it
creates an unacceptable nuisance of noise to neighbors, and the noise pollution is both audible and
subliminal, which can adversely affect a child’s behavior with attention deficit, learning disabilities,
cognitive development and cerebral problems. There are also some irritable stress factors for adults with
cardiovascular and GI systems. There is firm documentation of wayward rounds and ricochets that
endanger the lives of gun range neighbors. Mr. Tunner stated that the County has moved the range from
the south end of the landfill to the middle, which makes it more of a threat to the neighbors. Dr. Tunner
asked the Board to look at other sites. There are opportunities for collaboration between the County and
the private sector.
_____
Mr. D. G. Van Clief, a resident of southern Albemarle County, said he was also present to speak
about the proposed firing range. He said there is a group comprised of over 300 individuals who have
signed a petition indicating serious concerns about the project. He said that the group met with Colonel
Sellers and senior project officers the previous morning, and learned a lot more about their needs. Mr.
Van Clief said that the group fully understands the need for tactical training, firearms qualifications and
development of unit integrity, but still has concerns about serious quality of life issues which revolve
around safety and noise, as well as property value issues. He noted that the group has obtained
indications and qualified opinions from real estate agents that property will be devalued 20-30%. The
group does believe there are alternatives. The group does not think it is right for the southern end of the
County to pay a terrible price for training that could be accomplished in other ways just as efficiently.
_____
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. John Cruickshank, Chair of the Virginia Sierra Club, said they recently sent a letter to the
Federal Highway Administration and VDOT recently regarding the environmental assessment for the
Route 29 Bypass (copy on file in Clerk’s office).
Mr. Cruickshank said that, in part, the letter states that the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club has
serious concerns about the draft Environmental Assessment for the Route 29 Bypass. This document
does not adequately assess the environmental and health effects this proposed road will have on the local
community. The Sierra Club urges the FHWA and VDOT to prepare a new Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement before completing a review of this transportation project.
The draft EA does not adequately analyze the health effects on children and adults that are
caused by traffic related air pollution. Thousands of children and a number of pregnant women spend six
to ten hours a day in the schools along the Bypass route for 180 days or more days a year. The draft EA
states that the Health Effects Institute (HEI) considered studies published between January 1980 and
October 2008. In the past four years many new studies have provided evidence of increased health risks
caused by vehicle emissions. Additionally, the draft EA draws its conclusions solely from an organization
(HEI) that receives half of its funding from the motor vehicle industry.
Mr. Cruickshank also provided a copy of 13 studies done in the last four years that document the
health effects of auto emissions.
_____
Mr. Tom Olivier, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said that the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle are two of the communities that represent their membership
area. The Piedmont Group, which is the local group of the Sierra Club, shares many of the same
concerns of the draft Environmental Assessment that was recently produced by VDoT. The Sierra Club
has contacted both the FHWA and VDOT expressing concerns regarding the analysis involving an old
road design, which did not fully consider recent studies of the potential effects of the bypass on school
children, etc. These concerns have been summarized in the Sierra Club’s letter (copy on file in Clerk’s
office).
_____
Mr. Barry Van Clief addressed the Board, stating that the NRA’s rule of thumb is that the sound of
gunfire can travel five miles in a rural area. Even with sound mitigation procedures, people who live near
gun ranges have reported hearing the noise for various distances. He said that the obvious negative
impacts the range would have are not just an issue for the surrounding community. He added that the
Board should look for better alternatives to satisfy the training needs of the officers.
_____
Mr. Kim Higgins said that she has lived in the County since 1998, currently serves on the Police
Department’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee, served as a Domestic Violence Services Coordinator for six
years, worked as a therapist with child victims of sexual assault, and ran programming and court advocacy
for victims of domestic violence. Ms. Higgins said that local officers have always been responsive and
value training as a needed tool. Police officers interact with the public on a day-to-day basis in otherwise
routine matters that could go bad quickly. Citizens need police officers to be the calming influence and the
influx of safety. She added that this only happens when the officers are well trained, and officers have told
her that when they respond to incidents the training takes over. Ms Higgins emphasized that the officers
need this range now, and need it locally. When officers are well-trained and their training takes over,
families are safer and neighbors are safer.
_____
Ms. Laney Kaminer, a County resident, said that she was present to draw Board member’s
attention to the latest Taxpayers for Common Sense report – “Sliding Past Sequestration.” Ms. Kaminer
said that Taxpayers for Common Sense has spent the last 17 years going through federal budgets looking
for wasteful spending and earmarks, such as Senator Stephens’ “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska – which
was exposed for wasting taxpayer dollars and embarrassing Alaska and its legislators. Ms. Kaminer
stated that the Route 29 Western Bypass now has the “dubious honor” of making this list, adding that it
has been listed as one of the most wasteful highway projects in the nation. She said that the bypass is
extremely expensive when compared to other similar projects and will cost almost $40 million per mile,
and State transportation officials found that none of the bypass alternatives would have much if any
impact on the “F” level of service rating on the existing US 29 corridor. Ms. Kaminer stated that more
fiscally responsible alternatives, such as overpass and design improvements to US 29 have shown
promise of achieving the same goals. She said that Congress should block any funding for this wasteful
roadway, and the insistence of some Board members on building this road is drawing very negative
national attention in this era of fiscal restraint.
_____
Mr. George Larie, speaking for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO),
said that over 500 people attended the public hearing on the proposed Route 29 bypass – and over 1,900
signed CATCO’s petition requesting that a full, supplemental environmental impact statement be prepared
for this road. In addition, he said, many organizations have filed statements critical of the environmental
assessment and are requesting a full SEIS, including the Southern Environmental Law Center, Piedmont
Environmental Council, Sierra Club, CATCO, League of Women Voters, Albemarle County Schools, St.
Anne’s Belfield School, the Colonnades, the Environmental Protection Agency, Rivanna Conservation
Society, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, the Culpeper District Transportation Board
representative, and many other individuals.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Larie said that CATCO’s statement points out several issues with the EA, such as its failure to
address the 2012 Skanska design, its lack of analysis of this design versus alternative, overstating of
traffic forecasts – which do not consider traffic north of the northern terminus. He stated that it does not
take into account the many recent health studies on the effect of highway emissions on children, adding
that more than 3,000 children attend the six schools adjacent to the bypass. Mr. Larie said that it also
does not take into consideration the noise impacts of truckers shifting on the 11.4% grade at the southern
terminus, nor does it consider that the level of service on Route 29 will still be an “F” after construction of
the bypass. CATCO believes that these various serious issues require the preparation of a full SEIS.
_____
Mr. Thomas Joyce addressed the Board, stating that he is in support of the firing range as
proposed. Mr. Joyce said he moved to the County in the summer 2011 and has come to love the County.
Mr. Joyce stated that he is a former lieutenant of the New York City Police Department, commanding the
cold case squad upon his retirement. He said that he cannot emphasize enough the importance of
valuable and frequent training, and if first responders here were to have a first-rate training facility of their
own with a solid curriculum it would raise morale as well as improving the level of professionalism
expected from uniformed services. Mr. Joyce stated that for law enforcement to work in a community, the
community must trust the agency that services them - and to earn that trust, law enforcement members
must display the highest level of professionalism at all times. In turn, he said, people must support the
police department and he would like to do so by providing them with the proper tools. Mr. Joyce said that
the training facility is not a “nice to have”, it is a “must have”.
_____
Dr. Alan Romanella said that he is a graduate of the Charlottesville, Albemarle and FBI citizens
police academies as well as an active member of the Virginia Gang Intelligence Agency Unit. Dr.
Romanella said that criminal elements in society have a full range of automatic and semi-automatic
weapons at their disposal. These weapons and the violence they create are a grave threat to the
community and the law enforcement officers who are responsible for the safety of the citizens. He stated
that the police firearms range is vital to the local police department’s advanced weapons training and the
protection of officers, and is essential to an immediate and strategic response to incidents that threaten
the citizens.
_____
Mr. David Hilliard, County resident and owner of local business, said that he is here to support the
firing range, as his tax dollars should be used to train forces to use their weapons appropriately. Mr.
Hilliard said that the use of the Keene Landfill land is currently not very useful, and having the County
police there would be a positive thing. He stated that he constantly hears yard equipment running in the
area, and this should be weighed against the noise accompanying the shooting range. He reiterated that
he thinks the firing range is important for the County.
_____
Mr. Terry Hawkins said that he has been involved in law enforcement for 47 years – 42 of which
was spent in Albemarle as Sheriff and Police Department Captain. He said that they have been trying to
get a training facility for as long as he can remember, at least back to 1970, and it is due time that the
officers get a facility. Mr. Hawkins said the officers need the facility desperately, and time is of the
essence.
_____
Mr. L.F. Wood said that he is a long supporter of the Police Department noting that this is
something they have worked on for many years. He said that he is a member of the Police Advisory
Board and Foundation that support the police departments, and they strongly support the improvements
for the training center at the landfill. The County needs a facility to help better train its police officers, and
fire and rescue personnel.
_____
Mr. Harold Pillar said that he has had over 40 years of run-ins with the County Police Department.
He stated that the Albemarle County Police Department is the most courteous it could possibly be. Even
when he was in the wrong, the Police Department treated him as a decent human being. He agrees that
the police officers need training, but as a taxpayer, there needs to be other taxpayers. Mr. Pillar said that
$1.3 million is a lot of money to consider during these times, noting the School Board’s likely shortfall, and
the County is no longer rich. He mentioned the possible use of the Nottaway facility or Galaxy Farm
located off of Route 20 which is also available for a firing range and training facility.
_____
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said that the primary impetus of the Western Bypass is
to serve the economic interests of Lynchburg and Southside. On October 21 in the Sunday papers there
were two editorials worthy of note: one in the Lynchburg News & Advance, entitled “Southside Virginia:
The Next Appalachia,” which purports that the area is “almost an economic wasteland, laid low by the
collapse more than 20 years ago of the textile/furniture industries, which closed up to move offshore, and
the virtual disintegration of the domestic tobacco industry.” Mr. Martin said that the article contends that
“investments must be made in public infrastructure” and “marketing the region must be a priority of state
government.”
He stated that the second editorial in the Daily Progress and is captioned “Any Bypass Better
Than No Bypass.” Mr. Martin noted that the article asserts that the bypass design “would dump
northbound traffic right back into the congestion just north of the South Fork Rivanna River,” and
commuters and through drivers would “still have to deal with miles of busy roadway.” He stated that the
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
article concludes that “a limited bypass is better than no bypass; we come to agree, the so-called ‘close-in
bypass’ is a compromise; it is not the best plan, but it is better than nothing.” Mr. Martin emphasized that
a “better than nothing” bypass is still going to cost $250 million, and rather than build a better than nothing
bypass that money should be invested in the infrastructure in Southside Virginia. He added that Route 29
is never going to be an interstate because it is impractical and there is too much development going on.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that VDOT is reviewing comments
on the Western Bypass draft environmental assessment – and the Board has the opportunity to demand
some answers. He said that the draft EA states that an interchange at Rio and Route 29 reduces peak
hour delays to about 38 seconds, and without it the delays might be several minutes; add the bypass and
the delay is 36 seconds, so it is the interchange – not the bypass – that alleviates congestion at Rio. Mr.
Werner stated that with $250 million going to the bypass, it is unlikely there will be funding anytime soon
for the necessary improvements on Route 29 – improvements that are necessary according to VDOT
even with the bypass. He said that to get costs down, VDOT has altered several things from its prior
design – removing landscaping, taking out sound barriers, and putting in two lights and an 11% grade at
the southern interchange. VDoT has also omitted necessary improvements on the Route 250 bypass.
Mr. Werner stated that across the country and the state, transportation infrastructure is crumbling,
and even in a good economy funding was inadequate to keep up with maintenance – let alone new
construction. He said that in Albemarle, VDOT identified 37 bridges that are structurally deficient and 81
that are functionally obsolete, and the County’s current six-year plan addresses only a few of these. Mr.
Werner said that VDOT promised Berkmar Drive, then only a bridge, then a promise not to preclude the
bridge. He stated that the bypass may save a few minutes, but it dumps traffic right back onto Route 29.
The bypass will not create limited access highway and it will not solve congestion. Mr. Werner stated that
bypass proponents admit that the bypass is not perfect, but most troubling is how determined they are in
refusing to admit the full scope, scale and cost of that imperfection.
_____
Mr. Rooker commented that the Taxpayers for Common Sense report selected the worst federal
projects in the country of all kinds in terms of wasting tax dollars and only selected eight transportation
projects – and the local bypass was one of those eight.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Snow
to pull Items 8.1 and 8.2 (to discuss later in the afternoon), to approve Items 8.3 through 8.10, and to
accept the remaining items for information. (Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda
item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: September 21, 2012.
Mr. Snow asked that the minutes be pulled and moved to the next agenda.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board pulled the minutes and moved to the November 14,
2012 agenda.
_____
Item No. 8.2. Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft FY 2012-2019 Six Year
Improvements Program (SYIP).
The executive summary states that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) scheduled a
series of public hearings in October and November to give citizens and public officials an opportunity to
provide comments on projects in the Working Draft Fiscal Year 2014-2019 Six-Year Improvements
Program (SYIP). Projects can include interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
improvement priorities. Comments can also be sent to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) by November 30, 2012.
This process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that specific amounts of funds are
set aside for secondary road projects in the County after a local public hearing, whereas funds for
interstate and primary road projects are allocated for each construction district after the scheduled
statewide public hearings. All interstate and primary road projects proposed within individual localities in
the district compete for those district funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
Attachment A is staff’s recommended priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2014-
2019 SYIP based on the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Constrained
Project List, the current Comprehensive Plan and prior Board priority lists. The list in Attachment A is
essentially the same list adopted by the Board in May 2012, but has been updated to note the latest status
of projects (funding, design and/or construction), as well as a new major improvement project on Route 29
North.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The proposed new major improvement is:
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS (Page 1):
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
d. Intersection improvements at the Route 29 - Polo Ground Road (east)/Rio Mills Road
(west) intersection to address traffic back -ups on Polo Grounds Rd. Consider
signalization improvements and/or construction of turn lanes on Polo Grounds Road
This project has been recently identified by the Board as a priority due to recently approved
developments in that area, a significant increase in traffic on Polo Grounds Road over time and the
resulting stacking of vehicles on the road waiting to turn onto Route 29 North.
Note that in addition to the above change, a new section was added to Attachment A when the
Board last adopted the priorities in May 2012. This new section notes major projects which have been
fully funded in the State Six Year Improvement Plan. This section is identified as: “OTHER APPROVED
PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN”. Including this section
enables anyone viewing the document to see both the projects recommended for development as well as
those currently programmed for construction.
With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to VDOT (and VDRPT) by November
30, 2012.
This is a state-funded program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the County’s Priority List (Attachment A) as modified for
this year.
(Note: Mr. Rooker asked that this item be pulled for discussion during Others Matters at the end
of the meeting.)
_____
Item No. 8.3. 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
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 $151,910.49. 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 four (4) FY 2013 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013050) totaling $105,000.00 for Avemore bond funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2013051) totaling $38,675.00 for a grant awarded by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles to the Police Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2013052) totaling -$31,764.51 for various re-appropriation and
proffers adjustments; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013053) totaling $40,000.00 for various Emergency
Communication Center projects.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2013050, #2013051 #2013052, and #2012053.
*****
Appropriation #2013050 $105,000.00
Source: Other Fund Balance $ 105,000.00
This request is to appropriate $105,000.00 received from Wachoiva Bank in FY 10 as a result of
Community Development calling a letter of credit securing a performance bond for the Avemore
development. Since calling the bond, the property has been sold and the new property owner has
diligently worked to complete the bonded improvements. The property owner has recently submitted
inspection requests to the County and is now in the process of completing the bonded improvements.
Upon the County being satisfied that the improvements are complete, the County must return these funds
to the bank. Funding needs to be appropriated in FY 13 so that the money can be disbursed.
Appropriation #2013051 $38,675.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 38,675.00
Grants Leveraging Fund* $ 2,203.00
*The “Grants Leveraging Fund” component of this appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate $38,675.00 in federal revenue for a grant awarded by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles to the Police Department (Grant #SC-2013-53353-5068-20.600-Highway
Safety Grant). This grant requires a local match of $2,203.00, which is requested to be provided from the
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Grants Leveraging Fund, for a total grant award of $40,878.00. There is also an in-kind match required for
this grant totaling $17,134 that will be covered by vehicle use, court time, administrative expenditures, and
regular traffic enforcement activities. The purpose of this grant is to assist in the purchase of four radar
units and five preliminary breath testing devices for use with DUI enforcement, as well as to fund
approximately 800 overtime hours for DUI speed enforcement and saturation patrols.
Appropriation #2013052 -$31,764.51
Source: School CIP Fund Balance $ -28,759.55
General Gov’t Fund Balance $ -2,292.41
Other Fund Balance (Proffers/Spec Rev) $ -712.55
As staff works to close out FY 12, budget adjustments are required to ensure that the budgeted funding
and the associated expenditures are included in the correct fiscal year. Project funding amounts listed
below have been moved forward into FY 13, however, the actual expenditures occurred in FY 12. To
ensure the funding remains appropriated in the correct fiscal year, this request reduces the use of fund
balance brought forward in FY 13 by a total of $31,764.51, as follows:
Description Revenue Amount Reduced
Greer Elementary School Project School CIP Fund Balance -$14,402.40
School Maintenance/Replacement Program School CIP Fund Balance -$14,357.15
Fire Dept Mobile Data Computers General Government Fund Balance -$159.08
Public Works Facility Maintenance General Government Fund Balance -$227.50
COB Brick Repointing General Government Fund Balance -$1,167.25
Parks & Rec Maintenance General Government Fund Balance -$347.23
Tourism-Greenway Program General Government Fund Balance -$391.35
Belvedere Bond Project Belvedere Bond Project Fund Balance -$374.00
Old Crozet School Old Crozet School Fund Balance -$338.55
In summary, this reduces the use of (a) School CIP Fund Balance by $28,759.55, (b) General
Government CIP Fund Balance by $2,292.41, (c) Belvedere Bond Project Fund Balance by
$374.00, and Old Crozet School Fund Balance by $338.55 for a total of $31,764.51.
In addition, this request adjusts the proffer revenues supporting the Crozet Library previously approved on
July 11, 2012 in Appropriation 2013-013. The adjustment has a net zero impact to the budget, by
reducing the use of Poplar Glen II proffers by $18,362.24 and increasing the use of Wickham Pond
proffers by the equivalent amount of $18,362.24. Initially, Poplar Glen II proffers were considered to be an
appropriate source to support the Crozet Library, however, these proffers are limited to expenditures
relating to affordable housing.
Appropriation #2013053 $40,000.00
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 40,000.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the
ECC, appropriate funding from the ECC’s fund balance for the following requests, which have been
approved by the ECC Management Board:
$25,000.00 for the ECC Back-up Facility at the 5th Street County Office Building (COB-5).This is a
continuation of a project in which the County is leasing space to the ECC Management Board to
be used as a back-up 911 call center location for the ECC in the event the primary location needs
to be evacuated or is damaged in some way. This funding is being used to renovate the office
space on the second floor at COB-5 and install the appropriate electrical circuits, receptacles,
switches, antennas, telephone lines, furnishings and equipment in the backup location. The total
set aside for the project was $77,000.00, and $52,100.00 was appropriated for this project in July.
This request is to appropriate the remaining balance required to complete the project.
$15,000.00 Replacement Micro Computers for the ECC Operations. This funding is requested to
be appropriated from the ECC Fund Balance Account to purchase replacement micro-computers
for the ECC’s 13 dispatch consoles and several administrative staff locations.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriations #2013050, #2013051
#2013052, and #2012053.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2013050 3-9014-51000-351000-510100-9999 105,000.00 Avemore Bond Default - Avemore Connector Road
2013050 4-9014-91000-491000-940083-9999 105,000.00 Avemore Bond Default - Avemore Connector Road
2013051 4-1000-99900-499000-999974-9999 -2,203.00 Grants Leveraging Fund
2013051 4-1000---- 2,203.00 Transfer to fund 1596
2013051 3-1596-33000-333000-330011-1003 38,675.00 Grant Revenue - DMV Federal
2013051 3-1596-51000-351000-512004-9999 2,203.00 Transfer From - Grant Leveraging Fund
2013051 4-1596-31013-431010-120000-1003 28,800.00 Overtime
2013051 4-1596-31013-431010-210000-1003 2,203.00 FICA
2013051 4-1596-31013-431010-800100-1003 9,875.00 Machinery & Equipment
2013052 4-9010-32010-432010-800317-3140 -159.08 Fire Dept Mobile Data Computers
2013052 4-9010-43100-443200-800666-9999 -227.50 Public Works Facility Maintenance
2013052 4-9010-43100-443200-950103-1100 -1,167.25 COB Brick Repointing
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
2013052 4-9010-71020-471020-800949-7100 -347.23 Parks & Rec Maintenance
2013052 4-9010-72030-471010-950026-7100 -391.35 Tourism-Greenway Program
2013052 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 -2,292.41 Approp Fund Balance
2013052 4-9011-91000-491000-940080-9999 -374.00 Belvedere Bond Project
2013052 3-9011-51000-351000-510100-9999 -374.00 Approp Fund Balance
2013052 4-8610-91081-496010-800949-9999 -338.55 Old Crozet School
2013052 3-8610-51000-351000-510100-9999 -338.55 Approp Fund Balance
2013052 3-9010-51000-351000-512070-9999 -18,362.24 TRS FR Proffer, Poplar Glen II
2013052 4-8546-93010-493010-930010-9999 -18,362.24 Poplar Glen II-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
2013052 3-8546-51000-351000-510100-9999 -18,362.24 Poplar Glen II-App Fund Balance
2013052 3-9010-51000-351000-512056-9999 18,362.24 TRS FR Proffer, Wickham Pond
2013052 4-8540-93010-493010-930010-9999 18,362.24 Wickham Pond-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
2013052 3-8540-51000-351000-510100-9999 18,362.24 Wickham Pond-App Fund Balance
2013053 4-4100-35600-435600-800663-1003 25,000.00 ECC - BACKUP FACILITY
2013053 4-4100-31041-435600-800700-1003 15,000.00 ADP EQUIPMENT
2013053 3-4100-51000-351000-510100-9999 40,000.00 Approp. Fund Balance
2013052 4-9000-69985-466730-800200-6104 -9,071.40 Greer E S Furniture
2013052 4-9000-69985-466730-800605-6104 -5,331.00 Greer E S Construction
2013052 4-9000-69980-464600-800949-6599 -14,357.15 Maint/Repl - General & - Crozet E S
2013052 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 -28,759.55 Approp Fund Balance
TOTAL 308,226.98
_____
Item No. 8.4. FY 11/12 ACE Appraisals and Easement Acquisitions.
The executive summary states that on June 6, 2012, the Board approved the Acquisition of
Conservation Easement (ACE) Committee’s request to have the top three ranked properties from the
Round 11 applicant pool (FY 11/12) appraised: the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties (see
Attachment A). Based on estimated easement values for these properties prior to the official appraisals,
the ACE Committee believed that the ACE Program fund balance would be enough to purchase most or
all of the easements. Even if it were not, the Committee believed it would be prudent to obtain appraisals
on extra properties in the event that any applications were withdrawn.
The Board of Supervisors determines which easements are to be purchased in the ACE Program.
County Code § A.1-111(A) provides: "From the list of applications received under section A.1-110(D), the
board of supervisors shall designate the initial pool of parcels identified for conservation easements to be
purchased. The size of the pool shall be based upon the funds available for easement purchases in the
current fiscal year and the purchase price of each conservation easement in the pool established under
section A.1-111(B)." Because it is possible that not every invited applicant will submit an actual offer to
sell, if one or more applicants were to drop out of the pool, other applicants would be substituted until the
eligible applicants or available funding were exhausted.
The appraisals for the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties were completed in early
August and submitted to the Appraisal Review Committee (ARC) (Attachment B). On September 12, the
ARC officially approved each of the appraisals.
The ACE Committee recommends the purchase of easements on the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith,
and Davis properties. Acquisition of these easements would eliminate 41 development rights and result in
the protection of the following resources:
382 acres of farm and forestland, 137 acres of which is “prime” farm and forestland
4,300 feet of state road frontage
12,900 feet of riparian buffer, including 1,100 feet on the Moormans River, a state scenic river
5 acres of mountain top area
12,676 feet of common boundary with other protected lands
Funding for the purchase of these conservation easements is available from existing funds in the
CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
There is $483,257 of re-appropriated ACE Program funds from FY 11/12 and $178,000 of
appropriated ACE Program funds for FY 12/13, providing a total of $661,257 of available funds for
easement acquisitions. With a projected net cost of $382,500 for these properties, the ACE Program has
enough funding to acquire these three, highest-ranked properties from the FY 11/12 applicant pool (see
Attachment C) and have funds in excess of $270,000 remaining for additional strategic acquisitions. The
Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP) plans to make another $110,000+ grant available to the County’s
ACE program in early 2013. This matching grant can be used for purchases from the current class of
applicants or those in the class of FY12/13. These grant funds, if obtainable, will be held by OFP until the
County submits reimbursement requests for 50% of the total acquisition costs.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the three (3) appraisals by Pape and Company for applications from the year FY 11/12
applicant pool (see Attachment B);
2) Approve the purchase of ACE easements on the top three ranked properties from the year FY 11/12
applicant pool, (the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties); and
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
3) Authorize staff to invite these three applicants to make written offers to sell conservation easements to
the County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the three (3) appraisals by Pape and
Company for applications from the year FY 11/12 applicant pool; approved the purchase of ACE
easements on the top three ranked properties from the year FY 11/12 applicant pool, (the
Frankfurt, Manning-Smith and Davis properties); and authorized staff to invite the three applicants
to make written offers to sell conservation easements to the County.
_____
Item No. 8.5. Resolution to Participate in the FY 2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program .
The executive summary states that the Board reviewed the County’s proposal to apply for FY
2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program funds at its meeting on October 3, 2012 and directed staff to apply
for matching funds for four sidewalk projects and for the deployment of an adaptive traffic control system
on US 29 from the City limits to Hollymead.
The attached resolution is consistent with the Board’s direction for the FY 2014 application. The
Board’s adopted resolution is required as part of the County’s application for program funds.
Participation in the VDOT Revenue Sharing Program leverages matching funds from VDOT to
advance important transportation projects. The Board has programmed $1.0 million in the FY 2014 CIP
budget for the local match for the FY 2014 Revenue Sharing request (4-9010-41020-441200-950081-
9999, Revenue Sharing Road Program).
The total estimated cost of the five identified projects is $2.22 million. If the Board wishes to
proceed with the five projects, it will need to appropriate $1.11 million in local funds in FY 2014. One
million dollars is currently programmed for this purpose in FY 2014. The additional $110,000 in local
funding can be identified in the FY 14 budget process.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution to participate in the FY 2014
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for up to $1.11 million of revenue sharing funds.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to participate in
the FY 2014 VDOT Revenue Sharing Program for up to $1.11 million of revenue sharing funds :
RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE IN
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to submit an application for up to $1.11 million of
revenue sharing funds through the Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Sharing
Program; and
WHEREAS, the County is willing to commit $1.11.million in local funds in order to compete for a
Revenue Sharing Program award; and
WHEREAS, these funds are requested to fund the County’s Sidewalk Construction Program to install
new sidewalks along roadways in the following locations:
1. Old Lynchburg Road, (new construction and replacement/relocation) from Region10 Offices to Fifth
Street;
2. Rio Road, from existing sidewalks to the Pen Park Road intersection and on Pen Park Road;
3. Avon Street at two locations: 1) from Peregory Lane to Mill Creek Drive and 2) from Stoney Creek
Drive to Arden Drive, and including crosswalks at Cale Elementary School;
4. US 250 West in Crozet, in the Cory Farms and Blue Ridge Shopping Center area; and
WHEREAS, these funds are also requested to fund the deployment of an adaptive traffic control
system or other equivalent signal synchronization enhancements to US 29, from the City limits to Hollymead.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
commits to provide up to $1.11 million of local funds in its application for up to $1.11 million of revenue sharing
funds from the FY 2014 Virginia Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and requests that
the Virginia Department of Transportation approve the County’s application.
_____
Item No. 8.6. County Sidewalk Construction Program Projects – VDOT Project Administration
Agreement.
The executive summary states that in November 2011 the County applied for FY 13 Revenue
Sharing matching funds for four (4) sidewalk projects listed in the Sidewalk Construction Program. Th ose
projects were: Crozet Avenue North - Rte 810 (St. George Avenue to Ballard Drive); South Pantops Drive
(Rte 1140) and State Farm Boulevard (Rte 1117); Barracks Road - Rte 654 (Charlottesville City Limits to
Barracks West Apartments); and Hydraulic Road - Rte 743 (south of Commonwealth Drive to Georgetown
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Road). In June, 2012, the County was awarded $1,000,000 in FY 13 Revenue Sharing matching funds for
those sidewalk projects.
To utilize the Revenue Sharing funds for these projects, the County is required to execute a
Project Administration Agreement with VDOT (Attachment A). This Agreement outlines the County’s and
VDOT’s project responsibilities. Staff will first proceed with the Crozet Avenue North and the South
Pantops Drive - State Farm Boulevard sidewalk projects. Construction plans and specifications are being
finalized, and right-of-way/easement acquisition have been initiated for both projects. Staff will then
initiate the design phase for the Barracks Road and Hydraulic Road sidewalk projects.
The FY 13 Revenue Sharing funds will be provided by VDOT as a reimbursement to the County.
The funding already appropriated to these projects provides $760,000 of the necessary match funding.
The balance of the match funding (approximately $240,000) will be funded from the Transportation
Improvement Program CIP Fund which has a current balance of $726,690.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution (Attachment B) to authorize
the County Executive to execute the Project Administration Agreement for these sidewalk projects
identified in the County Sidewalk Construction Program.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to authorize the
County Executive to execute the Project Administration Agreement for these sidewalk projects
identified in the County Sidewalk Construction Program:
RESOLUTION APPROVING A
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT FOR
COUNTY SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PROJECTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the County Executive is
authorized, on behalf of the County, to execute the Standard Project Administration Agreement for the County
Sidewalk Construction Program Projects (Project Number 9999-002-R45; UPC 102886).
_____
Item No. 8.7. Old Trail Block 13 - Special exception to waive overlot grading plan standards for
driveways.
The executive summary states that the Old Trail rezoning was approved in September 2005 with
8 proffers. Proffer 7 required an overlot grading plan and Proffer 7(H) provides that “the driveway grading
shall provide an area in front of the proposed garage, or an area proposed for vehicle parking where no
garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen (18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than
eight (8) percent.” Proffer 7(J) allows any requirement of Proffer 7 to be waived. The applicant has
requested that the minimum length and maximum grade standards for driveways be waived in Old Trail
Block 13. Under current procedures, these standards may be waived by special exception approved by
the Board. The applicant’s original request and related exhibits are provided in Attachment A.
In evaluating this request, Proffer 7(J) provides that the Board should “consider whether the
alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an
equivalent degree.” Staff has concluded that the purpose for the minimum length and maximum grade
standards for driveways in Proffer 7(H) is to ensure safe and convenient access. The standards provide
adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting garages, appropriate sight lines for vehicles entering and
exiting garages, and prevent vehicles from scraping driveways at severe grade transitions. Staff’s analysis
focuses on this purpose.
Reduction in Driveway Length
The applicant has requested approval to reduce the minimum length of driveways in front of
garages to either 5 feet or 16 feet. Staff has evaluated the minimum length of a driveway that is necessary
in order to provide safe sight distance for vehicles exiting garages, and has concluded that the safe
minimum length is 7 feet from the edge of the pavem ent. Driveways shorter than 7 feet would require the
vehicle to partially back into the alley before the driver could see oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. The
following illustrations depict staff’s sight distance concern:
Illustrations 1 and 2: Driveways shorter than 7 feet from the edge of the alley would not provide sight
distance until part of the vehicle was in the alley.
Therefore, staff supports a reduction in minimum driveway length to 7 feet, measured from the
edge of the pavement rather than from the boundary of the alley easement.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Increase in Driveway Grade
The applicant has requested permission to increase the grade of driveways above the maximum
8% grade allowed by proffer 7(J), but has not specified a particular grade. Staff has evaluated the request
and has concluded that a driver’s sight lines are restricted at grades of 10% or greater. Steeper grades
prevent a driver from seeing the lower portion of the garage upon entry, or low-lying objects in the the alley
directly behind the vehicle, upon exit. Staff also has concluded that the bottoms of vehicles will scrape a
driveway if grade transitions are approximately 20% or greater. The following illustrations depict staff’s
driveway grade concerns:
Illustrations 3 and 4: At grades greater than 10%, sight lines are adversely affected. Illustration 5: At
grades 10% or less, sight lines are appropriate.
Illustration 6: At grades of 20% or greater, scraping occurs at grade transitions.
Based upon the foregoing, the maximum 8% grade in Proffer 7(H) is reasonable and staff
recommends that it not be changed, but that a grade transition not to exceed 10% be allowed.
Overlot Grading Plans for Blocks 13A and 13B
As part of its review of the applicant’s request, staff has discovered that the overlot grading plans
for Blocks 13A and 13B, shown on the road plans for those blocks, do not match up and must be revised
so that they do. Staff recommends that the Board require a revised overlot grading plan for Block 13 as a
condition of approval of this special exception.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to the following conditions:
1. Garages shall be set back from the edge of pavement of the alley at least seven (7) feet.
2. Driveway grades shall be 8% or less. The grade transition on the driveway shall not
exceed 10%.
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of an amended overlot grading plan for each block,
phase, or sub-phase within Block 13 before any permits are issued within Block 13.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the special exception subject to the
following three conditions:
1. Garages shall be set back from the edge of pavement of the alley at least seven (7) feet.
2. Driveway grades shall be eight percent (8%) or less. The grade transition on the driveway shall
not exceed ten percent (10%).
3. The applicant shall obtain approval of an amended overlot grading plan for each block, phase, or
sub-phase within Block 13 before any permits are issued within Block 13.
_____
Item No. 8.8. SDP-2012-00058. Charlottesville High School Field Lighting – Zoning Ordinance
Waiver.
The executive summary states that the Charlottesville High School athletic field complex,
including the football stadium, is located on the north side of Melbourne Road, about 800 feet from the
intersection of Melbourne Road and Rio Road East [State Route 631]. The athletic field complex is located
mostly within the County. The City/County line runs through the High School football stadium. The portion
of the property within the County is identified as Tax Map 61 Parcel 193, is zoned R15 residential, and
contains 26.75 acres. The portion of the property in the County is located in the Rio Magisterial District.
There are six (6) proposed field lighting fixtures; however, the special exception is requested for the four
fixtures located in the County. City planning staff has indicated that they are comfortable with the
proposed improvements.
County Code § 18-4.17.4(a) requires that outdoor luminaires be full cutoff luminaires to protect
dark skies, to control spillover, and to prevent glare. This requirement may be waived by special
exception.
The City of Charlottesville Facilities Development Department is seeking a special exception to
allow a waiver of the requirements of County Code § 18-4.17.4(a) to allow new light fixtures to be installed
on the existing poles at the Charlottesville High School stadium that do not meet the requirement that they
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
be full cutoff luminaires . The lighting proposed to be installed is Musco brand lighting, which is similar to
the lighting that has been installed on various types of playfields in the County, including three County high
school baseball fields used for competitive play. The Musco design was used in most of these County
locations because there was no alternative design available that could meet both the full cutoff
requirement and provide the minimum foot-candle illumination needed for the competitive use of the field.
The applicant has provided a lighting measurement exhibit that shows the current foot candle
readings when the stadium lights are in use, and a photometric plan that demonstrates what the values
would be with the proposed fixtures installed. This information illustrates that the new fixtures provide
better lighting of the field of play while reducing the amount of light emitted onto areas outside of the field.
The proposed Musco lighting system meets the standards specified by the Virginia High School League to
promote the health and safety of those using the field.
County Code §§ 18-4.17.5 and 18-31.8 allow the requirement for a full cutoff luminaire to be
waived by special exception. County Code § 18-31.8(b) provides that the Board, when acting on a special
exception, “shall consider the factors, standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the
applicable sections of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be required to make specific findings
in support of its decision.” In approving a special exception, County Code § 18-31.8(c) authorizes the
Board to impose “impose reasonable conditions to address any possible impacts of the special exception.”
County Code §§ 18-4.17.5(a)(1) and (2) (italicized below) set forth the factors to be considered in
reviewing this request:
1. Strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or
otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the
owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to an
equivalent degree.
Strict application of the lighting standards would prohibit Charlottesville High School from
improving its field lighting to meet Virginia High School League standards, while also maintaining a higher
level of spillover outside of the field of play.
2. An outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires, required for an athletic facility
cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the
facility for its safe use, as determined by recommended practices adopted by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for that type of facility and activity or
other evidence if a recommended practice is not applicable. (Amended 10-17-01)
It does not appear that there are any lighting systems currently available that both reasonably
comply with the requirement for a full cutoff luminaire and provide sufficient and safe illumination of
athletic fields as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America It was originally
thought that an alternative lighting system on the market would meet the County’s standard. However,
over time, it has been determined that that system may not provide the lighting levels required and is
significantly more costly to install. Even though they do not meet the County’s requirement for a full cutoff
luminaire, the proposed Musco luminaires have been determined to be a reasonable compromise that
provide adequate lighting levels, reduce spillover, and limit light emitted above the horizontal plane.
Staff recommends approval of the special exception with the following conditions:
1. The lighting fixtures installed shall be Musco Model LSG 1500 (Light Structure Green).
2. The height of the existing light poles shall not be increased.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the special exception subject to the
following two conditions:
1. The lighting fixtures installed shall be Musco Model LSG 1500 (Light Structure Green).
2. The height of the existing light poles shall not be increased.
_____
Item No. 8.9. Authorize County Executive to sign Dominion Power Easement Across County
Property at Darden Towe Park.
The executive summary states that the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center is being constructed
within a leased area in the northeast portion of Darden Towe Park located on TMP 06200-00-00-02300,
which is jointly owned by the County and the City. It will be an educational center for visitors of all ages,
will commemorate the Lewis and Clark expedition, and will fulfill an important need in the community for
outdoor education with an emphasis on history, transportation, and science. An easement is necessary
for Dominion Virginia Power to provide electric service to the Center.
The proposed easement is necessary to extend electric service from the existing Dominion
Virginia Power lines located along Stony Point Road (St Rte 20) westward to the location of the Center. A
copy of the proposed Dominion Virginia Power Right of Way Plat indicating the approximate location of the
easement is included as Attachment A.
Because the City of Charlottesville co-owns Darden Towe Park, the City must also approve this
easement request.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
There is no budget impact associated with granting this easement.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) approving the
granting of an easement to Dominion Virginia Power, and authorizing the County Executive to sign, in a
form approved by the County Attorney, a Right of Way Agreement on behalf of the County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
granting of an easement to Dominion Virginia Power, and authorized the County Executive to sign,
in a form approved by the County Attorney, a Right of Way Agreement on behalf of the County:
RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR SERVICE
TO THE LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORATORY CENTER
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville jointly own Darden Towe Park
(Parcel 06200-00-00-02300); and
WHEREAS, the County and City have leased a portion of Darden Towe Park for the construction and
operation of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center; and
WHEREAS, an easement is necessary for Dominion Virginia Power to extend electric service to the
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the granting of an easement to Dominion Virginia Power, and authorizes the County Executive to
sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, a Right of Way Agreement with Dominion Virginia Power for
an easement over Parcel 06200-00-00-02300 in order to provide electric service to the Lewis and Clark
Exploratory Center at Darden Towe Park.
_____
Item No. 8.10. SUB-2012-00038 Westlake Hills. Special Exception to Authorize Disturbance of
Critical Slopes.
The executive summary states that Westlake Hills is located South of Route 240 and the CSX
railroad, and west of the Western Ridge subdivision in Crozet. The subdivision proposal is to create 131
lots on three parcels totaling 140.186 acres, at a density of 0.93 dwelling units per acre. The standard
level development in R1 zoning is 1 unit per acre, and up to 1.45 units per acre bonus level. No bonus
density is requested. The proposal is a by-right R-1 layout using cluster development standards, and thus
provides approximately 58 acres (41% of the site) in open space, including areas for expansion of the
greenway system. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request.
The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has
submitted a request and justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed for both the
Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3.b of the
Zoning Ordinance restrict building sites and earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section
4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive or modify this restriction. However, due to a recent
State Supreme Court decision, the waiver must now be approved by the Board of Supervisors as a
Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 31.8.
The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be natural. Staff is recommending
approval of this waiver request. This recommendation for approval is based on staff’s assessment which
finds that the critical slopes being disturbed have substantially met the requirements listed in Section
4.2.5(a):
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This is a proposed single unit subdivision and includes several small (less than 200 syd) critical slope
areas. The applicant is proposing to include subdivision roads and utilities to serve 131 development units
with proposed slopes up to 3:1.
Areas Acres
Total site 140.186 acres approximately
Critical slopes 12.21 9% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 1.40 11% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
82% of proposed critical slope disturbances are exempt (including all proposed critical slopes
disturbances in conflict with area proposed to be Eastern Park in Crozet Master Plan).
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2:
“movement of soil and rock”
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent any
movement of soil. Much of that will depend on activities of individual builders.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
“excessive stormwater runoff”
Stormwater runoff will be increased in this area, as steeper man-made slopes typically result from
leveling associated with building construction.
“siltation”
Inspection and bonding by the County will help to ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. However, the lots proposed existing or
proposed critical slopes make future critical slope disturbances likely if not properly planned.
“loss of aesthetic resource”
The proposed development is consistent with the Crozet Master Plan.
“septic effluent”
This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, engineering recommends conditional approval of this critical slope
impacts waiver request. Specific challenges to the project as proposed include serving lots with driveways
with 16% maximum slope which include existing or proposed critical slopes. An overlot grading plan is
recommended for all lots with existing or proposed critical slope disturbances.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and
purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
C. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting
the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use
of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Based on the review above, there are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval
of the critical slope disturbance request.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as
follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this chapter
shall be considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this chapter shall
be considered and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of this section, a decision
by the planning commission does not include the consideration and action by the
commission on a preliminary or final site plan under section 32 of this chapter or any
action provided in section 32 enabled under Virginia Code § 15.2-2242(1).
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the factors,
standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections of this chapter,
provided that the board shall not be required to make specific findings in support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable conditions to
address any possible impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within ninety (90)
days after the date of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map amendment, special use
permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the applicable
section of this chapter.
Staff recommends approval of this critical slope waiver request with the following condition:
The applicant must provide an overlot grading plan prior to Final Plat approval.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the critical slope waiver request subject
to the following condition: The applicant must provide an overlot grading plan prior to Final Plat
approval.
_____
Item No. 8.11. FY 2013 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and FY 2012 State Survey
of Cash Proffers, 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 August 1, 2012, which included
information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for April through June, 2012.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the first quarter of FY 2013
(July-September). This report also includes the County’s annual report to the State for FY 2012, which
includes historical cash proffer data for FY 2005 through FY 2012. The next quarterly proffer report will be
on the Board’s February 6, 2013 agenda.
Cash Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2013 First Quarter (July-September)
A. New Proffered Revenue: ZMA 2009-01 5th Street-Avon Center was approved by the
Board on September 12, 2012 to amend the application plan, development framework
and other proffers for the project. Amendments affecting cash proffers resulted in a total
of up to $450,000 being proffered for the development. This total includes $250,000 for a
greenway trail, a greenway park and bike/pedestrian master plan, up to $100,000 for a
pedestrian link to Willoughby subdivision, and up to $100,000 for transit.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $43,214,542. This reflects annual
adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in
which annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 1st Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $121,400.45 from existing
cash proffers during this quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Avinity $105,924.64 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5
Belvedere Station $4,250.00 Affordable Housing
Old Trail Village $8,000.00 CIP-Crozet Parks/Schools
Wickham Pond $3,225.81 CIP-Crozet
Total $121,400.45
D. Expenditures: There were no expenditures of cash proffers during this quarter.
E. FY 2012 End of Year Reconciliation: During the FY 2012 accounting reconciliation
process for proffer funds it was discovered that the following proffer revenue was received
(or accrued) by the County prior to June 30, 2012; however, was not submitted to the
County’s Accounting Department for processing until after June 30, 2012. When
processed, the revenue was recorded as received (or accrued) in FY2013 but should
have been recorded as received (or accrued) in FY2012. This mistake was corrected and
the following revenue is now recognized as FY 2012 revenue rather than FY 2013:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Belvedere Station $2,000 Affordable Housing
Old Trail Village $6,000.00 CIP-Crozet Parks/Schools
Wickham Pond $12,903.24 CIP-Crozet
Total $20,903.24
Based on end of FY 2012 corrections, the following expenditures have now been
recognized as FY 2012 expenditures rather than FY 2013:
Development Amount Interest Intended Purpose
Poplar Glenn II $32,993.24 $22.81 Affordable Housing
Belvedere Station $57,250.00 $759.66 Affordable Housing
North Pointe $0.00 $20,359.50 Affordable Housing
Total $90,243.24 $21,141.97
F. Current Available Funds: As of September 30, 2012, the available proffered cash on-
hand is $2,206,117.37 (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, $1,125,337.95 is currently appropriated. (See
Attachment A for details) The net cash balance is $1,080,779.42. Attachment B provides
information on how the net cash may be used.
FY 2012 Survey of Cash Proffer for Commission on Local Government
The state mandates that localities accepting cash proffers report to the Commission on Local
Government (CLG) annually. The report for FY 2012 is attached (Attachment B). During FY 2012, the
County collected $859,240.84 in cash proffers and expended $113,223.06. Expended cash proffers in FY
2012 were allocated primarily to affordable housing and parks and recreation maintenance.
Since FY 2005, staff has tracked proffers pledged, collected and expended by fiscal year and by
category of expenditure. Please see attachment C for further comparisons over the past seven fiscal
years (FY 2004 – FY 2012).
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.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
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.
_____
Item No. 8.12. Overview of November 12, 2012 Animal Summit to be held at the McIntire Road
Albemarle County Office Building, was received for information.
The executive summary states that over the past several years, there has been growing interest
in the community to identify ways to better communicate and share ideas and issues related to animal
welfare. As a result of this interest, the Police Department has organized an Animal Summit to take place
at the McIntire Road County Office Building on November 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
The purpose of the Summit is to bring community members together to have a discussion on key
issues related to the County’s animal population. The Summit will consist of a panel of animal welfare
experts and professionals who will cover a wide range of topics, followed by a question and answer period.
Staff has identified several key topics to be discussed, including animal welfare, emergency animal
sheltering, hunting/ wildlife, and state and local legislative procedures. The panelists will discuss their
specific roles and responsibilities, which will help give clarity and provide a better understanding of who to
contact to address specific questions or concerns. Community members will have an opportunity to ask the
panel questions. The question and answer session will play an important role in allowing staff to identify the
top community animal concerns so that staff can educate the community on the procedures necessary to
address those concerns. See Attachment A for the Animal Summit Agenda.
Panel Representatives:
Kimberley Maddox- Albemarle County Animal Control Officer
Jennifer Tevendale- Assistant Albemarle County Attorney
Steve Ferguson- Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries
Jennifer Hall- SPCA
Cori Lewis- Veterinarian
Legislative Representative – to be determined
Summit Advertisement:
The Summit will be advertised using the following means:
Media Announcement several days prior to event
Radio Advertisement (Coordinate with Public Information Officer)
Social Media (SPCA)
Albemarle County Website
Personal Invitations
There is no impact to the budget.
(Note: Mr. Boyd asked if this summit was something the individuals (fox hunters) who spoke
during Other Matters should attend. Ms. Mallek said they would address the issue.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Field School of Charlottesville’s Lease for part of the Old Crozet School.
To consider amending the lease with the Field School of Charlottesville for a portion of the old Crozet
Elementary School, property located at 1408 Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia 22932 (Parcels 05600-00-
00-06100 and 05600-00-00-06200), by adding 1,193 square feet to the leased space effective November
7, 2012. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 29, 2012.)
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
The County currently leases the Old Crozet School to two tenants. The Field School of
Charlottesville (“Field School”) currently leases 11,360 square feet pursuant to a lease agreement dated
February 10, 2010 (Attachment A) and Amendments dated April 9, 2010 and March 25, 2011. The
second tenant, the Old Crozet School Arts (“OCSA”), currently leases 4,826 square feet. The OCSA’s
lease was renewed on August 1, 2012.
On October 3, 2012, staff presented to the Board a proposed Field School lease amendment to
increase the square footage by 33.75 square feet. The Board directed staff to schedule a November 7,
2012 public hearing. Since that time, the Field School has requested to lease an additional 1,159.25
square feet, for a total increase of 1,193 square feet.
Upon review of the February 10, 2010 lease agreement and the two subsequent amendments, the
County Attorney’s Office prepared a Lease Amendment to include all previously adopted lease provisions
for clarity (Attachment B). Additional revisions to the terms of the lease regarding renewals and the
addition of square footage, discussed further below, have also been included.
The proposed lease amendment addresses three items:
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
1 – Additional Space. The Field School has identified a need for additional classroom and storage
space. Specifically, it would like to lease an additional 1,193 square feet of currently unused
space on the ground floor and on the upper floor in the older section as soon as possible. To
include this additional space, the lease must be amended. The current rental fee is $4.28 per
square foot. Use of this space by the Field School would have no foreseeable impact on the
OCSA’s operations.
2 – Lease Renewal. The current lease allows for automatic renewal for up to four additional 12-
month terms, through June 30, 2015, after which a new lease would have to be negotiated if the
Tenant wished to continue leasing the space. Two of the four possible renewal periods remain.
The proposed lease amendment removes the limit on the number of renewals, but maintains that
the lease can be terminated by either party upon providing 60 days notice prior to the end of any
term of the lease.
3 – Adding Square Footage To The Premises. The final proposed amendment allows for
additional square footage to be added upon written agreement of the parties.
A lease amendment, which has been approved by the County Attorney’s office and signed by the
Tenant, is attached (Attachment B), along with a Resolution approving the proposed lease amendment
and authorizing the County Executive to sign the lease amendment (Attachment C). A public hearing is
required pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 prior to the leasing of County-owned property.
The approval of this lease amendment based on a rental fee of $4.28 per square foot would result
in a revenue increase of $3,318.93 in FY2013.
Eliminating the renewal limitation and adding the provision to allow for additional square footage
upon written agreement would save staff time and advertisement costs in the future.
Mr. Foley said after the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed
Resolution (Attachment C) approving the proposed lease amendment effective November 7, 2012 and
authorizing the County Executive to sign the amended lease.
Ms. Mallek opened the public hearing.
Mr. Todd Barnett, Founder and Headmaster of Field School, thanked the Board for considering
the School’s request to lease more space in the old Crozet School building. He said the Field School is
now in its sixth year as a school, its fourth in the old Crozet School – now with 70 boys in grades 5-8. He
stated that he started the school in 2007 after a decade of running a camp in the area, adding that there
was a well-established girls middle school in town but no place for boys. Mr. Barnett said that boys-only
education is not nearly as available in the U.S., but he sensed the community would embrace the school.
The School has been about as successful as he could have imagined. The School has made a lot of
progress with hard work.
He reported that their only liability as a school is that they don’t own their own space, but they are
making efforts to find a property to control and develop – ideally one with lots of outdoor space. Mr.
Barnett said that he hopes to find a site that is not too far from the population area nor too expensive,
which is not an easy task. He stated that according to the County Code, there are no pieces of property
where they can build without seeking a special use permit – and that can become a costly campaign for
support. Mr. Barnett indicated that public schools can establish in RA districts without a special permit,
but not independent schools. He said that Field School has appreciated the Board’s support over the
years, and hopes the Board will keep the School’s critical interests in developing the school in mind. Mr.
Barnett stated that at some point the School will be seeking a special permit on a piece of property to
develop the school, one that currently serves 55 County students without taxpayer dollars, and one that
provides one-half of its families with financial aid – and up to full scholarships for some students.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker noted that this property has come up in a CIP meeting earlier in the week, and the
maintenance obligations for the facility are much, much higher than the rent received from the two tenants
– and are expected to be that way for the foreseeable future. He said that in order to get the facility into
good condition would require a significant County investment. Mr. Rooker stated that he does not oppose
adding some additional space to the current lease, but the Board needs to take a long-term view of what it
is going to do with this facility. He added that the Board needs to make that decision sooner rather than
later so that it does not invest money into a facility that it may decide it does not expect to keep.
Mr. Boyd asked if he was saying that the current leases are not covering the maintenance for the
building. Mr. Rooker responded, “no”.
Ms. Mallek commented that the current lease would increase the space but the time would be the
same as the existing period. Mr. Foley said the lease allows for one-year renewal but the County can give
60 days notice at any point to cancel renewals.
Mr. Davis confirmed that there would be no change in the term of the lease with this action today.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt the proposed resolution approving the proposed
lease amendment effective November 7, 2012 and to authorize the County Executive to sign the amended
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
lease. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDED
AGREEMENT OF LEASE BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
AND THE FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (“the County”) and the Field School of Charlottesville (the “Field
School”) entered into a Lease Agreement dated February 25, 2009 in which the County agreed to lease space
in the Old Crozet School to the Field School of Charlottesville; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Field School have entered into Amended Lease Agreements dated
February 8, 2010, April 9, 2010 and March 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Field School wishes to lease an additional 1,193 square feet for a total of 12,553
square feet; and
WHEREAS, the attached Fourth Amended Agreement of Lease includes an additional 1,193 square
feet of leased space, removes the limitation on the number of renewals, allows additional space to be added to
the lease in the future upon written agreement of the parties and incorporates the other terms previously
amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Fourth Amended
Agreement of Lease between the County of Albemarle and the Field School of Charlottesville.
*****
FOURTH AMENDED AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made this 7th day of November, 2012 by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and the Field School of Charlottesville, Tenant. This Fourth Amended
Agreement of Lease shall supersede all prior leases between the parties.
ARTICLE I. PREMISES AND IMPROVEMENTS
In consideration of the rents and covenants herein set forth, Landlord hereby leases to Tenant, and
Tenant hereby rents from Landlord, the premises described on Exhibit A attached heret o and made a part
hereof, including that area marked as the Lower Athletic Field, together with any and all improvements thereon
(the "Leased Premises”). The Leased Premises shall be occupied by the Field School of Charlottesville.
ARTICLE II. TITLE: QUIET ENJOYMENT
So long as Tenant is not in default hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet enjoyment, use
and possession of the Leased Premises without hindrance on the part of the Landlord or anyone claiming by,
through, or under Landlord.
ARTICLE III. TERM
Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. The initial term of this Lease shall commence on
November 7, 2012 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire June 30, 2013. All references to the
“term” of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to be a reference to
the initial term described herein.
Section 3.2. Renewal. This Lease shall automatically renew for additional 12-month terms unless
written notice is given by either Landlord or Tenant no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of any term.
ARTICLE IV. RENT
Section 4.1. Annual Rent. During the initial term of this Lease, which expires June 30, 2013, Tenant
agrees to pay to Landlord total rent of $30,870.00, payable in equal monthly installments of $4,410.00, in
advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof. Gross square feet shall be calculated within
the perimeter of the area to be used solely by the Field School of Charlottesville.
After the first term of this Lease, the monthly rent for each subsequent term of the Lease shall be
indexed for inflation and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the
level of the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of that month which is two months before the
month in which the Date of Commencement occurs in the subsequent terms, and the denominator of which
shall be the level of the CPI Index as of the first day of that month which is two months before the initial Date
of Commencement. The resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the monthly rent agreed upon or established
for the first term of the Lease to determine the monthly rent due for that term. The rental figure shall be
revised each term based upon this formula. The CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index (all items, all urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI Index shall be
discontinued, Landlord shall designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having the same general
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
acceptance as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute shall be used as if originally
designated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the monthly rent due during any lease
term decrease below the monthly rent payable during the first term.
Upon mutual written agreement of the parties, this Lease may be amended to add additional square
footage to the Premises. Should additional square footage be added to the Premises during any term of this
lease, the total rent will be increased by the product of multiplying the additional square footage by the base
rental rate for the term during which the additional square footage is to be added and prorated for the number
of months remaining in that term. The base rental rate is defined as the then-current total rent for the term
during which the additional square footage is to be added divided by the ten-current gross square feet for the
term during which the additional square footage is to be added.
Section 4.2. Address for Rent Payment. All payments of rent due Landlord pursuant to Section
4.1 shall be made to Landlord at the address specified in Section 18.3, or to such other party or at such other
address as hereinafter may be designated by Landlord by written notice delivered to Tenant at least ten (10)
days prior to the next ensuing monthly rental payment date.
ARTICLE V. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Landlord shall provide water, sewer, electricity, and heating services as part of Tenant’s rent. Tenant
shall exercise reasonable and responsible care to conserve these utilities. The Tenant agrees that the
monthly rent stipulated above may be adjusted to reflect any change in the cost to the Landlord of providing
those utility services above. The Landlord shall provide the Tenant with prompt notice of any such change,
and shall make available evidence of its actual utility costs. Tenant shall provide telephone, janitorial, garbage
disposal, grass cutting, snow removal and all other services.
ARTICLE VI. USE OF PROPERTY
Section 6.1. Permitted Use. Tenant shall have use of the Leased Premises as a school. No other
use of the Leased Premises is permitted without the prior consent of the Landlord.
Section 6.2. Parking. Tenant shall be entitled to the use of parking spaces in the parking lot and an
access easement to the Leased Premises. Landlord reserves the nonexclusive right to use the parking lot
after 5 p.m. in conjunction with the community use of the Upper Athletic Field.
ARTICLE VII. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND SIGNS
Section 7.1. Installation by Tenant.
(a) Tenant may, from time to time, make or cause to be made any interior non-structural alterations,
additions or improvements which do not damage or alter the Leased Premises, provided that Lan dlord's
consent shall have first been obtained in writing, and provided that Tenant shall obtain all required
governmental permits for such alterations, additions or improvements. All such alterations, additions or
improvements shall be at the sole expense of the Tenant.
(b) Tenant may, from time to time, make interior structural alterations, additions or improvements,
only with Landlord's prior written consent to plans and specifications therefor, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. All such alterations, additions or improvements shall be at the sole expense of the
Tenant. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, Landlord shall have the option (exercisable
upon sixty (60) days notice to Tenant except in the case of a termi nation of this Lease due to a default by
Tenant, in which case no such notice shall be required) to require Tenant to remove at Tenant's sole cost and
expense any and all improvements made by Tenant to the Leased Premises or to elect to keep such
improvement as Landlord's property. In the event Tenant is required to remove any improvements, (i) Tenant
shall be responsible for the repair of all damage caused by the installation or removal thereof, and (ii) if Tenant
fails to properly remove such improvements or provide for the repair of the Leased Premises, Landlord may
perform the same at Tenant's cost and expense.
Section 7.2. Signs. Tenant shall have the right to place signs on the interior or exterior of the Leased
Premises with the prior written approval of Landlord.
ARTICLE VIII MAINTENANCE OF LEASED PREMISES
Section 8.1. Maintenance. Tenant shall keep the Property clean, neat, orderly, presentable and in
good repair at all times. Landlord shall deliver the Property to Tenant at the beginning of the term in its
present condition. Landlord shall be responsible for all repairs and maintenance for the Leased Premises,
except as provided below, whether ordinary or extraordinary, structural or non-structural, foreseen or
unforeseen, including, but not limited to, plumbing, heating, electrical, plate glass and windows. Tenant shall
be responsible for routine repairs and maintenance (excluding repairs and maintenance of the building and
structural components identified above), except that the Tenant’s obligation for such routine repairs and
maintenance shall not exceed $2,500.00 in any one year of the initial or subsequent term(s). Tenant shall be
responsible for normal grounds/turf maintenance for that portion of the grounds detailed in Exhibit A. Tenant
shall be responsible for mowing and trimming vegetation during the growing season (typically April through
November). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall be responsible for all maintenance and repairs
necessitated by the negligence of Tenant, its employees and invitees.
Section 8.2. Right of Entry. Landlord reserves the right for itself, its agents and employees to
enter upon the Leased premises at any reasonable time to make repairs, alterations or improvements;
provided, however, that such repairs, alterations, or improvements shall not unreasonably interfere with
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Tenant’s operations. Such right to enter shall also include the right to enter upon the leased premises for the
purposes of inspection.
Section 8.3. Surrender of Leased Premises. At the expiration of the tenancy hereby created, Tenant
shall surrender the Leased Premises and all keys for the Leased Premises to Landlord at the place then fixed
for the payment of rent and shall inform Landlord of all combinations on locks, safes and vaults, if any, which
Landlord has granted permission to have left in the Leased Premises. At such time, the Leased Premises
shall be broom clean and in good condition and repair, commensurate with its age. If Tenant leaves any of
Tenant's personal property in the Leased Premises, Landlord, at its option, may remove and store any or all of
such property at Tenant's expense or may deem the same abandoned and, in such event, the property
deemed abandoned shall become the property of Landlord.
ARTICLE IX. INSURANCE
Section 9.1. Liability Insurance of Tenant. Tenant covenants and agrees that it will, at all times during
the term of this Lease, keep in full force and effect a policy of public liability and property damage insurance
with respect to the Leased Premises and the business operated by Tenant and any sub-tenants of Tenant on
the Leased Premises in which the limits of public liability for bodily injury and property damage shall not be
less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, combined single limit. The policy shall name Landlord
as additional insured. The policy shall provide that the insurance thereunder shall not be cancelled until thirty
(30) days after written notice thereof to all named insured.
Section 9.2. Fire and Extended Coverage. Landlord agrees that it will, during the initial and any
renewal term of this Lease, insure and keep insured, for the benefit of Landlord and its respective successors
in interest, the Leased Premises, or any portion thereof then in being. Such policy shall contain coverage
against loss, damage or destruction by fire and such other hazards as are covered and protected against, at
standard rates under policies of insurance commonly referred to and known as "extended coverage," as the
same may exist from time to time. Landlord agrees to name Tenant as an additional insured on such policy,
as its interest may appear.
Section 9.3. Evidence of Insurance. Copies of policies of insurance (or certificates of the insurers) for
insurance required to be maintained by Tenant and Landlord pursuant to Sections 9.1 and 9.2 shall be
delivered by Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, to the other upon the issuance of such insurance and
thereafter not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration dates thereof.
Section 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Tenant hereby releases the Landlord from any and all liability or
responsibility to Tenant or anyone claiming through or under it, by way of subrogation or otherwise, from any
loss or damage to property caused by any peril insured under Tenant’s policies of insurance covering such
property (but only to the extent of the insurance proceeds payable under such policies), even if such loss or
damage is attributable to the fault or negligence of Landlord, or anyone for whom the Landlord may be
responsible; provided, however, that this release shall be applicable and in force and effect only with respect
to loss or damage occurring during such time as any such release shall not adversely affect or impair the
releasor’s policies or insurance or prejudice the right of the releaser to recover thereunder.
ARTICLE X. WASTE, NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE WITH
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Section 10.1. Waste or Nuisance. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to be committed any waste or
any nuisance upon the Leased Premises.
Section 10.2. Governmental Regulations. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall, at Tenant's
sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements of all county, municipal, state, federal and other
applicable governmental authorities, now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Leased
Premises or Tenant’s use and occupancy thereof.
ARTICLE XI. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY
If the Leased Premises shall be damaged so as to render two-thirds (2/3) or more of the Leased
Premises untenantable by fire or other casualty insured against under the insurance required to be carried by
Landlord pursuant to Section 9.2, Landlord may elect to either terminate this Lease as of the date of damage
or repair the Leased Premises. Unless Landlord elects to terminate this Lease, such damage or destruction
shall in no way annul or void this Lease except that Tenant shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of the
rent payable under Article IV while such repairs are being made, such proportionate reduction to be based
upon the proportion of the Leased Premises rendered untenantable as a result of such damage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any damage or destruction from any cause whatsoever has not been
repaired and such repairs have not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date thereof,
Tenant may, as its exclusive remedy, terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to Landlord.
ARTICLE XII CONDEMNATION
If the whole or any part of the Leased Premises shall be taken under the power of eminent domain,
then this Lease shall terminate as to the part so taken on the day when Tenant is required to yield possession
thereof, the Landlord shall make such repairs and alterations as may be necessary in order to restore the part
not taken to useful condition; and the rent payable under Article IV shall be reduced proportionately as to the
portion of the Leased Premises so taken. If the amount of the Leased Premises so taken is such as to impair
substantially the usefulness of the Leased Premises for the purposes for which the same are hereby leased,
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
then either party shall have the option to terminate this Lease as of the date when Tenant is required to yield
possession.
ARTICLE XIII DEFAULT OF TENANT
Section 13.1. Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall be deemed a "default" under this
Lease:
(a) Tenant fails to pay when due any amount of rent, additional rent or other monies due under this
Lease, including Articles IV and V, and such payment is not received by Landlord within ten (10) days
after written notice of such failure is received by Tenant; or
(b) a default in any of the other provisions of this Lease, and such default continues uncured for a
period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Landlord.
Section 13.2. Remedies. In the event of any default or breach hereof by Tenant, Landlord shall have
the right (in addition to all other rights and remedies provided by law) to terminate this Lease or to re-enter and
take possession of the Leased Premises, peaceably or by force, and to remove any property therein without
liability for damage to and without obligation to store such property, but may store the same at Tenant's
expense, and to collect from Tenant all rent then due and which would accrue for the unexpired portion of the
term hereof, together with reasonable attorney's fees. In addition, in the event of a failure to pay rent,
additional rent or other money within five (5) days of its due date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the greater of
Twenty-Five and no/100 Dollars ($25.00) or one half (1/2) of one percent (1%) of such sum for each day after
the fifth day such rent or other money is late.
ARTICLE XIV HOLDING OVER, SIGNS, SUCCESSORS
Section 14.1. Holding Over. Any holding over after the expiration of the term hereof, with the consent
of Landlord, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month-to-month at the same rent herein specified
(prorated on a monthly basis) and shall otherwise be on the terms and conditions herein specified as far as
applicable.
Section 14.2. Showing the Leased Premises. During the last ninety (90) days of the term hereof,
Tenant shall allow Landlord, or its agents, to show the Leased Premises to prospective tenants or purchasers
at such times as Landlord may reasonably desire.
Section 14.3. Successors. All rights and liabilities herein given to, or imposed upon the respective
parties hereto, shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns
of the parties. All covenants, representations and agreements of Landlord shall be deemed the covenants,
representations and agreements of the fee owner from time to time of the Leased Premises and Landlord
shall be automatically released of all liability under this Lease from and after the date of any sale by Landlord
of the Leased Premises. All covenants, representations and agreements of Tenant shall be deemed the
covenants, representations, and agreements of the occupant or occupants of the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XV. BROKER’S FEES
Tenant and Landlord hereby warrant that there are no brokerage commissions due in connection with
this Lease.
ARTICLE XVI. NO ASSIGNMENT
Tenant shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Leased Premises, either directly
or indirectly, without the prior written consent of Landlord. No assignment, sublease or transfer of this Lease
by Tenant shall (i) be effective unless and until the assignee, subtenant or transferee expressly assumes in
writing Tenant's obligations under this Lease, or (ii) relieve Tenant of its obligations hereunder, and Tenant
shall thereafter remain liable for the obligations of the Tenant under this Lease whether arising before or after
such assignment, sublease or transfer.
ARTICLE XVII. SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This Lease and all rights of Tenant hereunder are and shall be subject and subordinate in all respects
to (1) any mortgages, deeds of trust and building loan agreements affecting the Leased Premises, including
any and all renewals, replacements, modifications, substitutions, supplements and extensions thereof, and (2)
each advance made or to be made thereunder. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly
upon the request of Landlord execute and deliver an instrument in recordable form satisfactory to Landlord
evidencing such subordination; and if Tenant fails to execute, acknowledge or deliver any such instrument
within ten (10) days after request therefor, T enant hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints Landlord as
Tenant's attorney-in-fact, coupled with an interest, to execute, acknowledge and deliver any such instruments
on behalf of Tenant. Tenant further agrees that in the event any such mortgagee or lender requests
reasonable modifications to this Lease as a condition of such financing, Tenant shall not withhold or delay its
consent thereto.
ARTICLE XVIII. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 18.1. Waiver. The waiver by landlord or Tenant of any breach of any term, covenant or
condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition or any
subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein. The subsequent
acceptance or payment of rent hereunder by Landlord or Tenant, respectively, shall not be deemed to be a
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
waiver of any breach by Tenant or Landlord, respectively, of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease
regardless of knowledge of such breach at the time of acceptance or paym ent of such rent. No covenant,
term, or condition of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by Tenant or Landlord unless the waiver
be in writing signed by the party to be charged thereby.
Section 18.2. Entire Agreement. This Lease, and the Exhibits attached hereto and forming a part
hereof, set forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and understandings between Landlord
and Tenant concerning the Leased Premises; and there are no covenants, promises, agreements, conditions
or understandings, either oral or written, between them other than as herein set forth. Except as herein
otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Lease shall be binding
upon Landlord or Tenant unless reduced in writing and signed by them.
Section 18.3. Notices. Any notice, demand, request or other instrument which may be, or are
required to be given under this Lease, shall be in writing and delivered in person or by United States certified
mail, postage prepaid, and shall be addressed:
(a) if to Landlord, at
County of Albemarle
County Executive’s Office
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
or at such other address as Landlord may designate by written notice;
(b) if to Tenant, at
Field School of Charlottesville
P. O. Box 4234
Charlottesville, VA 22905
or at such other address as Tenant shall designate by written notice.
Section 18.4. Captions and Section Numbers. The captions and section numbers appearing in this
Lease are inserted only as a matter of convenience and in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope
or intent of such sections of this Lease nor in any way do they affect this Lease.
Section 18.5. Partial Invalidity. If any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, or the application
thereof, to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Lease, or the application of such term, covenant, or condition to persons or circumstances other than those as
to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term, covenant, or condition
of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Section 18.6. Recording. Upon request of either party, a memorandum of lease will be executed and
recorded. Such memorandum shall contain any provisions of this Lease which either party requests except
for the provisions of Article IV, which shall not be included. The cost of recording such memorandum of lease
or a short form hereof shall be borne by the party requesting such recordation.
Section 18.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Section 18.8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year first
above written.
TENANT
FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By: (Signed) Todd Barnett
Print Name: Todd Barnett
Title: Head of School
LANDLORD
This Lease is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C. Foley, County Executive,
following a duly-held public hearing, and pursuant to a Resolution of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: (Signed) Thomas C. Foley
Print Name: Thomas C. Foely
Title: County Executive
Approved as to form:
Larry W. Davis___________________
Albemarle County Attorney
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES
[Insert Description of Leased Premises, including location and square footage.]
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. 2013 TJPD Legislative Program, David Blount, Legislative Liaison.
Mr. Blount reported that the draft program has two sections with six priority items that have been
reformatted to clearly delineate the priority statement, the supporting rationale, and other positions. He
said that the six priority items include state mandates and funding obligations, transportation funding and
devolution, public education funding, Chesapeake Bay TMDL, land use and growth management, and the
Comprehensive Services Act. Mr. Blount stated that these have been the priorities for a number of years,
although the wording changes from time to time.
Mr. Thomas asked what changes were anticipated with the devolution and TMDL issues. Mr.
Blount responded that the language has changed, but the priority statements have not changed much. He
said that the positions before the Board look very similar to what it has received in the past, and any new
language is underlined.
Mr. Blount reported that with the second section addresses local requests received from the
different localities within the region, as well as addressing policy statements outside of the priority areas.
He said that the first priority is a renewed focus on state mandates and cost shifting, urging the state not to
impose financial or administrative mandates on localities, not to shift the cost of state programs to
localities, and not to restrict local revenue authorities. Mr. Blount said that this section points out that
localities are continuing to see mandates and cost shifting even at a time when there are state budget
surpluses. He stated that there is a strong statement in the position urging the restoration of the Aid to
Localities program, as the state has “clawed back” several million dollars from Albemarle County and over
$300 million from localities across the state in an effort to balance its own budget.
Mr. Blount said that it is also recognized in the position statement the limited revenue resources
available at the local level, and requests that those resources be broadened rather than limited by the
state.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
He stated that the second priority is transportation funding and devolution, and the position asks
for dedicated revenues for transportation, and as the Board discussed in September, Mr. Rooker brought
up the need to emphasize restoration of secondary road construction allocation.
Mr. Blount said there is a new position in this priority that opposes a recommendation that has
come out recently from the state that would reallocate state transit assistance through a new formula,
which has caused great concern among transit agencies regionally and statewide.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Blount if he knew the details of that proposal, so the County can understand
what would happen if it were approved.
Mr. Blount responded that there are some new standards, criteria and performance measures,
and the funding would be reallocated based on performance and service. For example, more densely
populated areas with increased ridership and expanded service would be rewarded more than this area or
rural areas where the service is not growing, even though it might be an efficient service.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible the County might lose money under that scenario. Mr. Blount
responded that Ms. Donna Shaunessy, Executive Director of JAUNT, would probably have a better handle
on that, but his understanding is that JAUNT might initially benefit but would see those dollars decline over
the long term.
Mr. Blount reported that the second section is where the local requests are received and are
incorporated, including the specific requests for legislation that the Board approved a few months ago
related to inoperable vehicles and signs in the right-of-way. He said that there are also other statements
addressing issues that may come up during the next General Assembly session based on some
discussions here in the “off season.”
Mr. Blount reported that under the economic development section, the position put in just last year
calling for the reenactment of a memorandum of understanding between the state and local workforce
investment boards. He said that the state had been dragging its feet on that, but it has now been
reenacted so he would be taking the statement out.
Mr. Blount reminded the Board about the legislative forum to be held on the evening of November
29, which will focus on mandates and cost-shifting. Mr. Neil Manx, Director of Fiscal Policy for of the
Virginia Municipal League will be present at the event. Mr. Blount noted that Mr. Manx is also a former
Senate Finance Committee staffer.
Mr. Snow asked what the difference was between that event and the legislative day with the
TJPDC. Mr. Blount said that the TJPDC luncheon event is on the 28th, and will focus on the legislative
priorities approved back in August, whereas the regional event on the 29th will focus on the cost-shifting
and mandates topic – inclusive of all the regions and the legislators representing those localities.
Mr. Boyd asked about a bulleted item under “Local Government Structures and Laws,” which calls
for support of a pilot program combining voting precincts. He said that there was a firehouse primary held
now that is exactly that, where it is all done in a centralized location.
Mr. Blount explained that this is a request that came from the City of Charlottesville, and was
approved in their legislative priorities. The City is asking for enabling authority to enable them as a City
Council to make a decision for a primary election only rather than opening up every single voting precinct
to be able to consolidate those precincts into centers in an effort to reduce costs. He said that in the June
primary, the City had one precinct open in which one person voted – so there are not only efficiency
issues, but issues regarding knowledge of how that person voted.
Mr. Boyd said that it made sense in the City, but he does not see how it would work in the County
where there are intertwined districts.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be used for a larger race that everyone was involved in, such as
state and Congressional offices.
Mr. Blount said that it was being considered for Presidential primaries and elections on a larger
scale, and it would be enabling legislation so it would be optional for localities.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL legislation will clearly have costs pushed to
localities. The costs have not yet been quantified although they could run into millions of dollars for
localities. He asked if the Board might want to include some specific language that talks about the state
allocating some of the surplus every year to be distributed to localities for meeting the TMDL requirements
of the Chesapeake Bay Act. None of the localities are prepared to handle the expense this is going to
impose. Mr. Rooker said that it seem s logical for the Board to consider requesting legislators to start
focusing on this problem and start finding a way to address the funds necessary. He stated that this is a
statewide goal whereby they divide the goal among localities and assign them a “pollutant diet,” and then
localities must find a way to meet those levels of pollution control. Mr. Rooker reiterated that it might be
helpful to include a recommendation that part of the state surplus each year be designated to go into a
fund to help localities meet TMDL requirements as they get assigned.
Mr. Blount said that if it is the will of the Board, it would be relatively easy to add some language to
the position to put that request forward.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Davis stated that the position statement now asks the state to provide full funding, rather than
partial funding.
Mr. Rooker said he does not want to cut into that, but that the Board could include a
recommendation that the state consider allocating part of any surplus to the fund necessary to accomplish
the goal.
Mr. Snow stated that it would be better to ask to have the money returned to localities.
Ms. Mallek noted that that’s where the Local Aid Agreement comes in.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any provision for the consideration for compensating landowners who
would lose value in their property because of what legislation might come out of this. Mr. Blount
responded that there is nothing in the language currently, and he believes it was discussed when the
position was drafted two years ago – with an effort to pull in other sector stakeholders to get their input, as
well as staff from localities and elected officials. He said that he recalls some discussion about that, but
he is not certain that it is addressed up front and center in this position.
Ms. Mallek commented that it is addressed in the position statement under item 3, which seeks
funding for the agencies that help bring about the BMPs, but there are also long-standing federal
programs that reimburse farmers annually for the properties behind the buffer fence. That is part of the
funding that is separate from the offset for the investment in the fencing and the watering systems.
Mr. Rooker pointed out a typographical error under the Comprehensive Services Act position
statement, under item 5, as it needs to say “should be proactive.”
Mr. Rooker said that the only other issue he wants to raise is the issue regarding local authority to
remove signs in the right of way. The County has an agreement with the state that allows it to remove
those signs. The agreement specifically references “commercial signs” but not “political signs” even
though they are in violation. Mr. Rooker noted that Fairfax County obtained authority a year or so ago to
remove all signs not limited to commercial signs, and they have had great success – in cooperation with
political parties in the area. He asked if the Board would like to consider to seek the authority to remove
all signs when they are in the right of way, as opposed to just commercial signs.
Mr. Davis explained that as a result of an amendment in 2012, the County has the enabling
authority to do that – but what’s currently in place is an agreement with VDOT that limited the authority to
only remove advertisements, which do not include political signs. He said that the Board would need to
amend its’ agreement with VDoT to include signs as well as advertisements.
Mr. Boyd said that all the polls he visited have signs all over the place.
Ms. Mallek stated that there would be a time limit – seven days or 24 hours, etc.
Mr. Davis said that signs on private property are regulated by zoning regulations, and most
localities do allow political signs to be posted for a period of time. The signs posted in the right of way are
actually unlawful, and VDoT now has sole jurisdiction to remove those signs, but they do not have the
manpower, and they are not directed to do that in most instances, unless the signs are blocking sight
distance. He said that VDoT relies on removal of those signs through private sources, and currently the
agreement does not include political signs.
Mr. Rooker said that he is suggesting amending the agreement to include all signs. He
mentioned that several years ago the County had a campaign to eliminate political signs in rights of way,
and letters were sent out to political offices.
Ms. Mallek noted that there was also a $100-fine per sign.
Mr. Rooker said the Board could indicate that signs would not be confiscated around polling areas
during an election cycle; the Board has the ability to be proactive when it wants to be proactive. He
emphasized that the Board should try to require that everybody abide by the law. Unfortunately people
who do not abide in this situation actually get an advantage over those who do.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with this as long as the County is given the authority, and it is
not dictated that it be done.
Ms. Mallek also noted that they were asking that the localities get the money from the fines when
the localities are in charge of picking up the signs, which only Fairfax now has that ability. She confirmed
that what Mr. Rooker is suggesting is separate from what is in the legislative program.
Mr. Rooker said it should be a broader thing not done just for Albemarle County; they need to talk
to VACo about it.
Ms. Mallek said that she is in favor of whatever way is easiest to get it adopted, rather than waiting
for a broader measure.
Mr. Blount said that when there is discussion with legislators about introducing that bill, there is
some language from the Fairfax statute that could be picked up and put into the general statute to allow
for fees to be retained or sent to the locality.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Ms. Mallek commented that it would be helpful to get some guidance from legislators as to what
they think would be the most effective and quickest.
Mr. Blount said that there was a bill last year to do that, along with proposing to increase the
penalty from $100 to $250 with the amount split between the state and localities. Mr. Blount said that
Fairfax’s authority allows them to retain all of the fine money.
Mr. Boyd asked if the person has to pay the fine to get the sign back. Mr. Davis explained that it is
a civil penalty for having the sign there.
Mr. Snow asked who would be fined in the case of political signs. Mr. Davis responded that it
would be the person who placed the sign, and there is a presumption under the statute that the person
whose name is on the sign placed it – but they could certainly rebut that assumption.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that they are talking about signs in the right of way, not those in people’s
yards. He said that several years ago, he caught someone stealing his political signs and he drove off
with a load of them in the back of his truck.
Mr. Boyd asked what was happening today when they find advertising signs in the right of way.
Mr. Davis explained that at this time the County collects the signs and put them in a safe place. If
someone comes in and asks for the signs they are returned. He said that currently the County is not
pursuing civil fines, and if VDOT pursues that it is their option although it hasn’t been their practice. Mr.
Davis stated that the County can prosecute the advertisement sign cases but would not get any of the
money under the current provisions.
Mr. Foley said that the County can look at amending the agreement with VDoT.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board delay this request until the General Assembly meets, and
determines whether two changes are needed or just one. He said that the legislative program which
would allow the County to keep fines would also require an amendment of the agreement, so rather than
having two amendments the County could delay the VDoT initiative until spring.
Mr. Dumler said that position statement 4 under Chesapeake Bay TMDL contemplates the
importance of some kind of inter-watershed requirement, and asked if there was any discussion at the
state level of also mandating some kind of upstream reduction policy.
Mr. Blount responded that there is a regulatory process for nutrient credit trading that is just
getting underway. It will probably be 18-24 months until that rolled out, so that is the best place to engage
those thoughts.
Ms. Mallek stated that it is the “adjacent watershed” term that causes her a lot of concern,
because it is what has allowed people locally to go to other localities. She said that she really likes Mr.
Dumler’s “upstream” idea.
Mr. Blount said that he sent something out previously, but he will make sure Board members have
that information.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt the Legislative Program, as modified. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The proposed 2013 TJPD legislative program is set out below:)
2013
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
October 2012
Joe Chesser, Chairman
Steve Williams, Executive Director
David Blount, Legislative Liaison
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to 1) not impose
financial or administrative mandates on localities; 2) not shift costs for state programs to localities;
and 3) not further restrict local revenue authority.
Rationale: Sluggish local revenue, continued state funding reductions and additional requirements will
continue to challenge locality budgets this year. State assistance to localities has declined from pre-recession
levels, dropping by seven points as a percentage of the general fund budget since FY09. These reductions
have not been accompanied by program changes that could alleviate financial burdens on localities, as state
standards prescribe how services are to be delivered and localities have to meet such standards regardless of
the costs. While there was some recognition from the 2012 General Assembly that localities cannot bear
mandated expenses alone, other enacted policies have long term consequences. The governor and state
officials have boasted of state budget “surpluses” the past three years, yet continue to approve unfunded and
underfunded state requirements and shift costs to localities, straining local ability to craft effective and efficient
budgets that meet services that are mandated by the state or demanded by residents.
Position Statements:
We oppose unfunded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that occurs when the state fails
to fund requirements or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. Any state funding
reductions for state-required services/programs should be accompanied by relaxation or suspension of the
state requirement or flexibility for the locality to meet the requirement.
Having realized three consecutive years of a state budget “surplus,” the state should restore across -
the-board reductions in aid-to-localities, budgeted to be $95 million in FY13/FY14. These funds provide
financial assistance for local implementation of required or high-priority state programs. If the state cannot
meet this commitment, then program criteria and requirements should be adjusted to reflect the decrease in
state resources.
Changes to Virginia’s tax code or in state policy should not reduce local government revenue sources
or restrict local taxing authority. This includes proposals to alter or eliminate the BPOL and Machinery and
Tools taxes, or to divert Communications Sales and Use Tax Fund revenues intended for localities to other
uses. Instead, the legislature should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments. The state
also should not confiscate or redirect local general fund dollars to the state treasury, as it did this past year
when it directed a portion of fines and fees collected at the local level pursuant to the enforcement of local
ordinances to the Literary Fund. The state should refrain from establishing local tax policy at the state level
and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine the equity of local taxation policy.
The state should equalize the revenue-raising authority of counties with that of cities. The state also should
ensure the appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes from online transactions.
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the state to establish separate, dedicated and
permanent state revenues to expand and maintain our transportation infrastructure. We urge
restoration of formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved roads. We
oppose any legislation or regulations that would transfer responsibility to counties for construction,
maintenance or operation of current or new secondary roads.
Rationale: The need for the state to fund a declining transportation infrastructure is dire and state dollars
remain inadequate. The VTrans 2035 Report notes that “the General Assembly must substantially raise
investment in transportation to keep Virginia moving.” Absent such an investment, Virginia faces a congestion
and mobility crisis that could stifle economic growth and negatively affect the quality of life of our residents.
Maintenance of existing roads continues to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars from the construction budget
and formula distributions for construction have been eliminated. It is estimated that under current conditions,
there will be little, if any, money left in the construction fund by 2017.
Position Statements:
We urge the state to fund transportation needs with stable and recurring revenues that are separate
from the general fund and that are sufficient to meet Virginia’s well-documented highway, transit and other
needs. We urge the state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved
roads, and we support stable and increasing dollars for cities and towns to maintain roads within their
jurisdictional boundaries. Funding for urban, suburban and secondary road improvements are vital to our
region’s ability to respond to local and regional congestion and economic development issues.
PRIORITY ITEMS
STATE MANDATES & FUNDING OBLIGATIONS
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING and DEVOLUTION
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Concerning secondary road devolution, we believe that efficient and effective transportation
infrastructure, including the secondary road system, is critical to a healthy economy, job creation, a cleaner
environment and public safety. In the past 20 years, the number of miles travelled on Virginia roadways has
steadily increased, while the attention to maintaining the nearly 50,000 m ile secondary system has taken a
back seat. We oppose shifting the responsibility for secondary roads to local entities, which could result in vast
differences among existing road systems in different localities, potentially placing the state at a competitive
economic disadvantage with other states when considering business and job recruitment and movement of
goods.
We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning,
without eroding local land use authority, and state incentives for localities that do so. We urge VDOT to be
mindful of various local and regional plans when conducting corridor or transportation planning within a locality
or region. We also take the following positions:
1) We support enabling authority to establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-transit
projects in the region.
2) We oppose recommendations that would reallocate much of existing state transit
assistance through a less efficient and less predictable one-size-fits-all formula.
3) While we opposed the closing of VDOT’s Louisa residency facilities and support its
reopening, we also support the option for the locality to purchase the property.
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the legislature to fully fund the state share of the
realistic costs of the Standards of Quality without making allocation formula and policy changes that
reduce state funding or shift funding responsibility to localities.
Rationale: The state will spend about $5.3 billion on public education per year in FY13 and FY14, about
30% of its general fund budget. This level of funding remains below the FY09 amount by about $600 million
over the biennium, with state per pupil expenditures standing at $450 less per pupil than in FY09. Meanwhile,
local governments boost education funding by spending over $3.3 billion more per year than required by the
state.
While the 2012 General Assembly did restore some of K-12 reductions that were proposed in the
introduced budget, reductions in state public education funding the last few years have been accomplished in
large part through a number policy changes that are decreasing the state’s funding obligatio ns moving
forward. For example, the state “saved” millions of dollars by shifting costs to localities through making some
spending ineligible for state reimbursement or lowering the amount of the payback. Three years ago, it
imposed a cap on state funding for education support personnel. It has reduced funding for other support
costs and supplanted general fund dollars with lottery funds to produce other savings. Policy changes to the
Virginia Retirement System this past year (mandatory teacher 5% for 5%) will cost localities money and do
nothing to reduce unfunded teacher pension liability. Changes to the Standards of Accreditation and
Standards of Learning, such as higher standards in math and science, also drive increased expenditures.
Position Statements:
We urge the state to resist further policy changes that require localities to fund a greater share of
costs. State funding should be realistic and recognize actual educational needs, practices and costs;
otherwise, more of the education funding burden will fall on local taxpayers. Localities and school divisions
should have flexibility to meet requirements and management their budgets when state funding decreases and
cost-shifting occur.
We also take the following positions:
1) The state should not eliminate or decrease its funding for benefits for school employees.
2) Localities in our region should be included in the “Cost of Competing Adjustment” available to
various localities primarily in Northern Virginia.
3) We support establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the calculated Local
Composite Index to the state.
4) We urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs, including
funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs. The state should
discontinue its seizing of dollars from the Literary Fund to pay state costs for teacher
retirement.
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities support the goal of improved water quality, but believe it is
imperative that we have major and reliable forms of financial and technical assistance from the federal
and state governments if comprehensive water quality improvement strategies for local and state
waters emptying into the Chesapeake Bay are to be effective. We support fairness in applying
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
requirements for reductions in nutrient and sediment loading across source sectors, along with
accompanying authority and incentives for all sectors to meet such requirements. We believe fairness
across sectors will require appropriate regulatory mechanisms at both the state and local government
levels. The Planning District localities are in strong agreement that we will oppose actions that impose
monitoring, management or similar requirements without providing sufficient resources.
Rationale: As the result of various court settlements concerning the Clean Water Act of 1972, the
Environmental Protection Agency is enforcing water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by
imposing a pollution diet (known as Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL) to reduce pollution to acceptable
levels. Bay states submitted plans for achieving TMDL goals of reducing nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment
flowing into the Bay. The proposed TMDL and Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan require two-year
milestones for the state and localities. As local governments will be greatly impacted by initiatives to reduce
pollutants into state waters of the Bay watershed, it is imperative that aggressive state investment in meeting
such milestones occurs. This investment must take the form of authority, funding and other resources being in
place to assure success, and must ensure that cost/benefit analyses are conducted of solutions that generate
the greatest pollution reductions per dollar spent.
Local governments particularly are concerned about the various effects on their communities and their
economic growth. There will be costs to meet reduced pollutant discharge limitations for localities that
own/operate treatment plants. Local governments will be required to develop and implement nutrient
management programs for certain large, public properties. Costs for stormwater management regulations will
fall on both new development and redevelopment. There will be economic impacts due to increased cost for
compliance by agriculture and increased fees charged by the permitted dischargers.
Position Statements:
1) We support sufficient state funds for the full cost of implementing T MDL measures that will be required
of local governments, including those associated with revised stormwater management regulations and
any new requirement for locally-implemented stormwater management programs. The state should
consider using state budget surplus dollars to fund such measures.
2) We support sufficient federal funds for grants and low-interest loans for capital costs, such as for
permitted dischargers to upgrade treatment plants and for any retrofitting of developed areas, while
minimizing the economic impact of increased fees.
3) We support sufficient state funding for and direction a) to the Cooperative Extension Service and Soil
and Water Conservation Districts to aid farmers with best management practices (BMP) in their
operations, and b) to the Soil and Water Conservation Board for monitoring resource management plan
compliance.
4) We believe that any expansion of the Nutrient Exchange Program to allow trading and offsets of
nutrients among stormwater, onsite septic, wastewater, agriculture and forestry should be contained
within and be relevant to a particular watershed so as to improve the health of local waters.
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities encourage the state to provide local governments with
additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or circumventing existing authorities.
Rationale: In the past, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use
provisions applicable to local governments in order to address growth issues. While some have been helpful,
others have prescribed one-size-fits-all rules that hamper various localities that may approach their land use
planning differently. Preemption or circumvention of existing local authority hinders localities in implementing
the comprehensive plan or overseeing land uses. Moreover, current land use authority often is inadequate to
allow local governments to provide for balanced growth in a manner that protects and improves quality of life.
Position Statements:
The General Assembly should grant localities additional tools necessary to meet important
infrastructure needs that are driven by development. We endorse efforts to have impact fee and proffer
systems that are workable and meaningful for various parties, but we oppose attempts to weaken our current
proffer authority. Rather, we support the 2007 road impact fee authority being revised to include additional
localities and to provide: 1) a fair allocation of the costs of new growth on public facilities; 2) facility costs that
include various transportation modes, schools, public safety, libraries and parks; 3) effective implementation
and reasonable administrative requirem ents; and 4) no caps or limits on locality impact fee updates.
We also take the following positions:
1) To enhance our ability to pay for infrastructure costs and to implement services associated
with new developments, we support localities being given authority to enact local ordinances
for determining whether public facilities are adequate (“adequate public facility,” or APF
ordinances).
2) We support optional cluster development as a land use tool for local governments.
3) Concerning conservation of land, we support a) state funding for localities, at their option, to
acquire, preserve and maintain open space; b) authority to generate local dollars for such
LAND USE and GROWTH MANAGEMENT
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
efforts; c) additional incentives for citizens to create conservation easements; and d) authority
for localities, at their option, to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts.
Legislative Position of Charlottesville City and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson
PRIORITY: The Planning District localities urge the state to be partners in containing costs of the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better balance CSA responsibilities between state and local
government. We also request increased state dollars for local CSA administrative costs.
Rationale: Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act in the early 1990’s, there has been
pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match levels
and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs. After four
years of steep increases (ranging from five to 16 percent) in state and local costs of residential and non -
residential mandated services, CSA pool expenditures for state and local governments have declined the last
several years. Costs remain challenging to forecast because of factors beyond state and local control (number
of mandated children in a community, severity of problems, service rates, and availability of alternative
funding).
In addition, localities pay the overwhelming majority (80%) of costs to administer this shared program.
State dollars for administration have not increased since the late 1990’s. At the same time, administrative
costs have jumped due to additional data collection/compilation and reporting requirements.
Position Statements:
We take the following positions:
1) The state should either provide additional funding to localities for administrative support or
revise its data collection and reporting requirements.
2) The state should provide full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need.
3) The state should establish a cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local costs
for serving mandated children, costs often driven by unanticipated placements in a locality.
4) The categories of populations mandated for services should not be expanded unless the
state pays all the costs.
5) The state should be proactive in making residential facilities and service providers available,
especially in rural areas.
6) In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to local governments, we
recommend that the state establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform
contract management process, to improve vendor accountability and to control costs.
We encourage the state to consider penalties for individuals who have had children removed from
their care due to abuse or neglect. We also support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
AREAS OF CONTINUING CONCERN
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as
essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals of
economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities
and revenue sources. We also support increased state funding for workforce development programs.
We support the state’s Economic and Workforce Development Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth
that more clearly defines responsibilities of state and local governments and emphasizes regional
cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism development. We also urge re-enactment of a
memorandum of understanding that outlines the expected cooperation by state-level agencies in
effectively partnering with local Workforce Investment Boards and other entities in the operation of
One-Stop delivery systems.
We support enhanced funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to continue meaningful
opportunities for regional projects. We also support increased state funding for the Industrial Site
Development Fund, the Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that help promote
economic development in localities and regions.
We encourage the state and local governments to work with other entities to identify, incentivize and
promote local, regional and state agricultural products and rural enterprises, and to encourage
expansion and opportunities for such products and enterprises.
We support restructuring of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service (VCES) that preserves
beneficial extension agents and the services they provide, and that increases state funding for VCES.
We appreciate and encourage continuing state incentives and support for expediting deployment and
reducing the cost of broadband technology, particularly in underserved areas.
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and
promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste management,
land conservation, climate change and land use policies. We are committed to protection and enhancement of
the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and
the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of available revenues. Such an approach
requires regional cooperation due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of many environmental resources, and
adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts.
We believe the following:
The state should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other
local services to pay for state environmental programs. To do so would set a disturbing
precedent whereby the state could levy surcharges on local user fees to fund state priorities.
The legislature should provide funding for wastewater treatment and other necessary
assistance to localities as it works to clean up the state’s impaired waterways. The state also
should explore alternative means of preventing and remediating water pollution.
We oppose legislation mandating expansion of the area covered by the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act. Instead, we urge the state to 1) provide legal, financial and technical
support to localities that wish to comply with any of the Act’s provisions, 2) allow localities to
use other practices to improve water quality, and 3) provide funding for other strategies that
address point and non-point source pollution.
We support legislative and regulatory action to 1) ensure that alternative on-site sewage
systems (AOSS) will be operated and maintained in a manner that protects public health and
the environment, and 2) increase options for localities to secure owner abatement or
correction of system deficiencies.
The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and
should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in
regional projects. Also, the state’s water supply planning efforts should continue to involve
local governments.
We support legislation enabling localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to designate
and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality,
based on criteria designed to further protect the public safety and welfare of citizens. In
addition, we support increased local government representation on the Biosolids Use
Regulation Advisory Committee (BURAC).
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing
circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can achieve
their full potential. Funding reductions to community agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities
often end up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health and human se rvices must be a
collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure funding is
available to continue such valuable preventive services.
We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of
costs for human services.
The state should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA)
program, which has cut in half the number of juvenile justice commitments over the past decade. The
state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding.
The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs) to meet the
challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including maximizing the use of Medicaid
funding. We believe children with mental health needs should be treated in the mental health system,
where CSBs are the point of entry. We support state action to increase investment in the MR waiver
program for adults and young people and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services. We
also oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the state to localities., and request
sufficient federal and/or state financial resources associated with new or additional roles and
responsibilities for local governments due to any expansion of Medicaid.
We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention centers.
We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding.
We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match all available federal dollars for the
administration of mandated services within the Department of Social Services (DSS), and to meet the
staffing standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law. Additionally, the
state should not assess penalties on localities resulting from federal Title IV-E foster care audit
findings; rather it should adequately fund, equip and support local DSS offices.
W e support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion and in home
services, home delivered meals and transportation.
We support the continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs
(and renewal of CSA Trust Fund dollars to support them), including school-based prevention
programs which can make a difference in children’s lives. This would include the state’s program for
at-risk four-year-olds and the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs, as well as Part
C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (infants and toddlers).
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and TANF (and former TANF)
families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised day care
facilities and support efforts for families to become self -sufficient. We oppose any initiatives to shift
traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We
believe the current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain
within the social services realm. We also support a TANF plan that takes into account and fully funds
state and local implementation and support services costs.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to
afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and localities should work to expand and preserve the
supply and improve the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, disabled, and low- and moderate-income
households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible.
We support the following: 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs, 2)
creation of a state housing trust fund, 3) local flexibility in establishment of affordable dwelling unit
ordinances, 4) the award of grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing
dwellings, and 5) the provision of other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
We support enabling legislation that allows property tax relief for community land trusts that hold land
for the purpose of providing affordable homeownership.
We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning
districts that permit single-family dwellings.
We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using environmentally friendly
(green) building materials and techniques, which can contribute to the long-term health, vitality and
sustainability of the region.
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and
assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services
responsibilities carried out locally.
We urge the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local positions
that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding constitutional offices or
divert funding away from local offices, but increase money needed for their operation. Local
governments continue to provide much supplemental funding for constitutional officer budgets when
state funding is reduced.
We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance with Code
of Virginia provisions), the drug court program and the Offender Reentry and Transition Services
(ORTS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. We also support continued state
endorsement of the role and authority of pretrial services offices.
The state should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and restore the per
diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners to $14 per day. Also, the state
should not shift costs to localities by altering the definition of state-responsible prisoner.
We support restoration of state funding responsibility for the Line of Duty Act.
We urge state funding for the Volunteer Firefighters’ and Rescue Squad Workers’ Service Award
Program and other incentives that would help recruit and retain emergency service providers. Further,
the state should improve access to and support for training for volunteer and paid providers.
We encourage shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails;
however, we do not believe the state should operate local and regional jails.
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place
at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom
and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government authority to
establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees; matters that can be
adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances.
We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve 1) a local
governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records currently exempt from
disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of customized computer records. We
support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic meetings as now
permitted for state public bodies.
We support allowing localities to use alternatives to newspapers for publishing various legal
advertisements and public notices.
We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate noise or the
discharge of firearms.
We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE and LAWS
HOUSING
PUBLIC SAFETY
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
The state should amend the Code to require litigants in civil cases to pay for the costs associated with
compensating jury members.
We support legislation include Albemarle County as a locality enabled to restrict the number of
inoperable vehicles which may be kept outside of an enclosed building or structure on residential or
commercial property.
We support legislation to allow localities to give developers the option to install sidewalks or to
contribute corresponding funds in connection with new residential development.
The state should enable localities to retain civil penalties collected from illegal sign removal in the
right-of-way.
We support a pilot program to combine voting precincts into centralized voting centers for primary
elections, in order to study their potential efficacy and cost savings.
We support increased state funding for regional planning districts.
We support legislation to increase permissible fees for courthouse maintenance.
The state should ensure that local connectivity and compatibility are considered in any centralizing of
state computer functions.
We oppose attempts to reduce sovereign immunity protections for localities.
We support enactment of an interest rate cap of 36% on payday loans, fees and other related
charges.
_______________
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:56 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Update on Public Safety Training Center – Phase 1 Police Firearms Range.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On April 3, 2012, the Albemarle County Planning Commission determined that the proposed
Firearms Training Facility is in general accord with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. The
Commission’s approval was communicated to the Board on the May 2, 2012 consent agenda for
information (Attachment A). On April 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved the proposed FY 13
capital budget which included funding for the Firearms Training Facility. The site plan was submitted to
the Community Development Department for review on August 20, 2012. The application started in the
Site Review Committee process but has since been called up to the Planning Commission for its
consideration.
The Charlottesville Police Department is a financial and operational partner with the County Police
Department on this project with the City budgeting 50% of the funds necessary to develop and construct
the range.
The Police Firearms Range is the first phase of development on this parcel. Ultimately, the facility
will be used to train police, fire-rescue, jail and sheriff’s departments on the critical skills they must
maintain to keep our community safe. Future phases may include a burn building for firefighters, shared
classroom spaces and a driving track for advanced driver training. These investments will ensure our
public safety employees have the correct level of training required to respond to critical incidents, lower
the liability associated with high-risk incidents and help us to better protect our community.
The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update to the Board on this project and to
address concerns raised by the public regarding noise, safety, lead management, and environmental
impacts. The project update will include the current schedule and projected costs.
Two documents are attached to provide additional information about the project (Attachments B
and C). Both documents will be made available to the public through the County’s website and the Police
Department’s social media sites.
The project is fully funded in the approved Capital Budget. A local County-owned and
operated training facility will reduce training costs in the long term.
This matter is for information only. No action by the Board is required.
_____
Colonel Steve Sellers, Chief of Police, said that with the assistance of Mr. Trevor Henry, Officer
Rob Heide, Mr. Neale Craft, Chief Dan Eggleston, and Mr. Brian McPeters, this a “tag-team” process
where they will be providing an update on the first phase of the public safety training facility, also known as
the police firearms range. Mr. Sellers recognized the following partners in the process: Chief Lehman, of
the Scottsville Police Department, Sheriff Brown, of the City of Charlottesville, Chief Deputy Bobbie
Shifflett, of the Albemarle County’ Sheriff’s Office, Chief Dan Eggleston, of the County Fire and Rescue,
and Chief Tim Longo, of the Charlottesville Police Department.
Chief Sellers explained that he will provide a review of the critical need, why the Keene property
was selected, the project status, some maps and graphics that better illustrate the location, a discussion
on community input, rationale as to why an outdoor range is preferred, design consideration as it relates
noise, lead, environmental stewardship and safety, cost estimates, alternative range options, and possible
enhancements to the current design. He said that they will also review project milestones, and finally
Chief Eggleston will discuss future phases.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Chief Sellers reported that the police firearms range is the first phase of a larger concept to utilize
the 169-acre County-owned landfill property in rural Keene to train police, fire and rescue personnel, Jail
personnel, the Sheriff’s departments on the critical needs they must maintain to keep the community safe.
He said that future phases could include a burn building, hazardous materials training facilities to train
firefighters, shared classroom spaces, and a driver’s training track.
Chief Sellers reported that in the mid-1990s, following the closure of the police firearms range at
the airport property, Albemarle County and Charlottesville have been in search of a suitable location to
build a replacement range. Chief Sellers said that thanks to the generosity of the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol
Club, a temporary solution was offered to County and City law enforcement to train there until a
permanent solution could be found – and 17 years later, the City and County’s 403 officers still train at that
facility. He said that in 2004, the police firearms range was placed in the Capital Improvem ent Program
and as funding later became available, a consultant was hired to evaluate potential locations within the
County – which will be discussed by Mr. Henry. In 2011, he said, the range was rated as the County’s
most critical CIP project.
In terms of the current state of training, Chief Sellers stated that in his first year in office as Police
Chief, he conducted a bottom to top assessment of the Albemarle County Police Department in which he
identified several priority issues requiring attention. He said that public safety training, especially as it
relates to firearm use, scenario-based training, and critical decision-making were identified as areas in
need of critical attention. Chief Sellers said that today, the region’s law enforcement agencies have limited
access to a private range, which confines training time to an average of only once a year for each police
officer – the minimum required by the Commonwealth of Virginia. He stated that over the past 17 years,
the capacity to accommodate a growing law enforcement training need, coupled with the growth of the
Rivanna range membership, have resulted in diminished training for both the City and the County. For
officers requiring a higher level of firearms training, such as SWAT teams members and firearms
instructors, they have had to go out of the County to other law enforcement training facilities.
Chief Sellers stated that the Rivanna range is not designed for scenario-based training or critical
decision-making exercises; a professionally-designed law enforcement firearms range is. He said that
Albemarle and Charlottesville want to keep up with the best practices in public safety training to better
protect citizens. Today they train in silos due to training constraints faced, and tomorrow they must
leverage opportunities to train together not only as a region but in a multidisciplinary approach. Chief
Sellers said that one of their many responsibilities as administrators is to minimize risk in terms of local
government liability, guns and driving being the highest risks. He stated that local officers only train once
a year with firearms; the national average for law enforcement personnel is three times per year. Chief
Sellers added that one in five agencies train more frequently than that. He said that one of the best ways
to mitigate risk is to improve the level of training offered to men and women.
Chief Sellers said that the importance of doing this facility now is because there is opportunity, a
chance to improve training, and safety. He explained that there is an opportunity today to create the future
and develop a public safety training model which leverages county-owned property, leverages the financial
backing of partners in the City, and supports the County’s basic public safety infrastructure. He
commented that with economic uncertainty still on the horizon, local governments must learn to leverage
training needs and services through effective regional partnerships. Chief Sellers said that both the City
and County feel that the facility partnership will be a model that other regions will want to emulate. Every
day they delay is another day that they are providing less than average training for the men and women
who are charged with protecting the community. Chief Sellers said that every public safety chief and
sheriff present shares the colossal responsibility to ensure that officer s return home safely each and every
day to their homes. He emphasized that getting officers above the minimum required levels of firearms
proficiency is critical, and timing is critical.
He then addressed why there is a need for a facility locally. Mr. Seller said that Albemarle has the
leanest county police department in the state and for that reason it cannot afford to employ full-time,
technical and specialized positions. To meet the demand for those tasks, his predecessor created several
specialized teams within the Police Department – such as the SWAT team, the canine unit, hostage
negotiators, the crash reconstruction team, and field force. Chief Sellers stated that these highly trained
officers are the same ones that comprise the patrol force, and they all wear multiple hats. As Chief, he
said, he prefers that these highly skilled technical assets remained close to the County, and training an
hour or more away erodes their ability to bring technical and tactical support rapidly to public safety
emergencies. Chief Sellers stated that the Keene Landfill is within a reasonable proximity to County and
City law enforcement assets, and officers with special skills could be called upon to respond to emergency
situations fairly rapidly.
At every community meeting he attended in southern Albemarle County in 2011 and 2012, he
said, a predominant theme emerged at every meeting: citizens wanted to see a greater police presence
within their communities. He stated that a police firearms facility will bring a greater police presence to
southern Albemarle County, and he is confident it will increase business for the Town of Scottsville and
the surrounding area. Chief Sellers commented that control over their own training schedule is something
they do not have today with their current arrangement with Rivanna, and while adhering to specific
preplanned training dates sound easy, it is not. Unfortunately, police work often gets in the way, and
officers are redeployed to handle emergencies or staffing shortages and training dates need to be
rescheduled. When the training dates are gone, Chief Sellers said, they do not come back so it pushes
the training further and further back or creates a situation whereby he must send officers out of the
County. He stated that when you do not have control over schedules, you lose flexibility and making up
training is difficult – and you also lose flexibility with on-duty resources. Chief Sellers said that with a
locally-anchored facility you maintain the flexibility to set up and establish locally-relevant training
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
scenarios with regional partners who they work adjacent too on a daily basis. Additionally, he said, a local
facility better supports the current goal of combined multidisciplinary training. For example, sending an
entire fire crew an hour or two out of the County so they could train with the Police Department would
probably not be endorsed by volunteer and professional fire chiefs. He said that he also does not
recommend sending critical law enforcement assets and equipment out of the County.
Mr. Trevor Henry, of the Office of Facilities Development, said that he would address the Keene
location and provide an update on project status, and then focus on the site. Mr. McPeters and Officer
Heide will then provide more details on the design as it relates to noise mitigation, range safety and
environmental concerns.
Mr. Henry reiterated that the need and priority of a public safety training safety including the firing
range has been in play for several decades. The project has been in and out of the CIP – and most
recently in 2008 funding was authorized for a Teng study that looked at three locations that were County-
owned properties: the Preddy Creek site, the Byrom site, and the old landfill at Keene. He explained that
some study was done working with public safety stakeholders to define what the needs might be and then
try to do test fits on each location. The result of that study was that Keene would be the only suitable site.
Mr. Henry said this was primarily due to the soils at Keene, the least impact on critical slopes and
wetlands, the repurposing of an existing County site, and a location that meets regional training goals.
He stated that the status of the project, as Chief Sellers mentioned, is a number one ranking in
the by the CIP technical review. Mr. Henry said that it was prioritized and recommended to the Oversight
Committee, which endorsed it, and then went to the Board – which authorized funding for the work to
proceed. He stated that staff has been working through the project, and are at about a 50%-phase of the
design. The site plan has been submitted, and after several reviews with Community Development staff is
poised to resubmit it for final site plan. Mr. Henry stated that the site plan was called up by an adjoining
neighbor for Planning Commission review, which is scheduled for November 12, 2012.
Mr. Henry mentioned that there are waivers requested related to the site that have been
recommended for approval by staff and are scheduled to come to the Board in December for action. He
said that the project is preliminarily designed and staff has incorporated feedback as best as possible from
the community and the reviewers. The public outreach process has been quite extensive over the past
year – and continues to be.
Mr. Henry presented a map depicting the location of the proposed facility, noting that Scottsville is
about four to five miles to the southeast; and Yancey Elementary School is about a mile and one-half to
the southwest, in opposite direction of the range. He presented an image of the site plan, noting that the
site is accessed via Fortune Lane – which is the same road used by garbage and dump trucks when it
was an active landfill. He said that the design of the range and the road is to stay off the cap that circum-
navigates the site, and there is a mile lane that wraps around the site and ends with the gravel parking lot
and range. In looking at a close up of the site, he said, two of the smaller ranges are 50-yard ranges with
the larger being a 110-yard range. He stated that the earthen berms are about 20-feet high, 45 feet in
width. Mr. Henry said there is a gravel parking lot and there is a plan to have a “learning cottage,” a semi-
permanent facility for classroom training and a vault toilet as well as some storage. He stated that there is
also a stormwater management facility that is part of the County’s quality and quantity control for any
runoff.
Mr. Henry presented a model done with a computer program called “Sketch Up,” which provides a
3-D representation of what officers might feel as they are shooting into the rear berm – which is 20 feet
tall. He said that there will also be “eyebrows” built on top of the berm, providing an additional barrier to
catch rounds from rolling on top of the range.
Mr. Snow asked if there would be trees on top of the berm. Mr. Henry replied that there would not
be.
Mr. Snow asked him to confirm that the school was located behind the range. Mr. Henry stated
that it was, in the opposite direction of the lanes.
Mr. Rooker asked what material would typically be used for the berms. Mr. Brian McPeters, of
Kimberly Horn and Associates, responded that the berms would be 20 feet tall at a slope of 1:1 on the
firing side, in order to prevent the likelihood of a round traveling up the berm . The soil and the first 18
inches to two feet would be a clean filtered soil to avoid ricochet, and inside of that would be earthen fill.
Mr. Rooker asked if the material used is a type specially designed for this use. Mr. McPeters said
it is just soil, but the soil on the surface and where the round would impact the backstop or the edges of
the side berms, that would be impacted, will be a select material brought in that has a certain high
specification. The material cannot have rocks or anything trash-related that could cause a ricochet and/or
influence it to potentially leave the range. The material in the backstop will be excavated onsite to build
the project. There will be constraints, specifications and special provisions in the contract for the
contractor to build that.
Mr. Boyd asked what the impact is of this being called up before the Planning Commission as it
has no authority to change anything. Mr. Henry responded that the Planning Commission approved the
use in a Comp Plan review in March/April of this year, and as part of the site plan review process it was
called up. The Commission can review it in terms of the design of the site itself, not for its use.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Davis said that was correct as this is not a special use permit process. It is a ministerial site
plan review. The role of the Planning Commission is to make sure that all the Zoning Ordinance
requirements are met that are applicable to the project; the Commission does not have discretion to add
conditions or require modifications that are not consistent.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would precipitate another review by the Board. Mr. Davis said it does not
require review by the Board, except for the waivers associated with it, and they are fairly standard
modifications that are granted in development projects.
Chief Sellers stated that the community around the Keene landfill has been absolutely gracious
during this process, and he has enjoyed meeting with them all along. He said that from the beginning of
this project, the County intended to work with the community in its development and management to best
balance the public safety training needs with being good neighbors. He does support the community’s
wishes and endorse them in terms of participating in the development of a “good neighbor agreement”
that may lay out some written conditions on things such as training hours, training days, and noise
monitoring.
Chief Sellers reported that in mid-January 2012, he and Chief Eggleston sent a letter to each
property owner within one-half mile of the proposed range providing a short overview of the County’s
plans for the landfill property. He added that they also said in their letter that they planned to come
through the neighborhood on a subsequent day the following week to go door to door. The following week
he and other County and City officials and law enforcement leaders made home visits to the neighboring
property owners in order to share more detailed information, answer questions, and gain input. Chief
Sellers stated that they did not go outside the one-half mile radius of the range. In an effort to be as
transparent as possible, the Albemarle County Police Department established a public website in March
2012 to allow the community to track the project. Since that time, he said, the ACPT has met several
times with neighbors both collectively and individually throughout the summer and fall. He and his staff
spoke publicly about the new range and fielded a number of questions during four town hall meetings
between February and September 2012.
In April 2012, Chief Sellers reported, the plan went before the Planning Commission and the
public at which time residents were offered additional comments. He said that they recently posted an
FAQ segment on the County website that answers the top concerns that were raised in some discussions
with the media: environmental concerns, lead management, safety and noise. Chief Sellers added that
on the ACPD Facebook page they produced and posted an informational video. He said that he would
have Officer Rob Heide and Brian McPeters talk about the design and why they want to go outside.
Officer Heide said that the same conversation about an indoor versus outdoor facility took place in
2007, and the design of this facility was not done in a vacuum. He said that all things being equal, with
money not being an object, they would still choose an outdoor facility because of what it avails for training
and the type of training it allows. Officer Heide said that the facility allows for qualification training, which
is very static, as well as tactical or scenario-based training where you look at data from officer-involved
shootings around the country and learn from that officer’s death. He stated that they turn that into a
scenario they can build on the range, and hopefully officers that attend that training can take something
away that will serve them in their work.
Officer Heide explained that an outdoor facility allows the officers to move freely; there are no
“hardscapes” in the range design; and there are no sidewalks or roofs over the shooting lines. The
proposed facility supports multiple shooting positions. He said that in law enforcement if you end up in a
physical fight with someone, you end up on the ground, so teaching officers that they can break the habit
of having to get to their feet before they can shoot is a way of better training them for realistic scenarios on
the street.
He explained that they are building three ranges at this location for a price that is less than
building one indoor range. The outdoor project is one-third the cost for one indoor facility, and that is just
building costs and not operating costs. Officer Heide stated that it is far less expensive to operate an
outside range; the driving force for that is OSHA regulations on indoor facilities whether it is a government
or private facility. Officer Heide said that the proposed facility also supports joint training opportunities and
maximizing partnerships, because when you have multiple ranges you can do multiple things, thus making
the training more efficient.
Mr. McPeters said that the biggest design element in dealing with a range – either indoor or
outdoor – is the noise mitigation. He stated that in the NRA range source book, they emphasize the
importance of paying special attention to this, and with this project the design team has done that and will
continue to throughout completion of the final design. Mr. McPeters explained that they are talking about
noise, which is measured in decibels – a measure of intensity, not the ability of a sound to be heard. He
noted that because things are certain decibels and certain intensity it makes them easier to be heard, but
it does not measure in any way whether a person will hear that sound-producing event. Mr. McPeters said
that with noise mitigation on an outdoor range they are addressing berms and sidewalls, and on the range
as it is designed currently the backstop and side berms are at an elevation of approximately 20 feet from
the firing line. He said that those berms will mitigate noise from the high-intensity levels coming out of the
barrel of the weapon being fired – upwards of 90 to over 100 decibels at the muzzle of the fired piece –
and the berm thereby reflects and/or dissipates noise to a level that gets it to a point whereby if you are at
the property line it is not at that high a level of intensity.
Mr. McPeters added that the noise level is also mitigated by things on the Keene property, with
40-50 acres being the used landfill as unusable space, and it is surrounded by a vegetative tree buffer
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
both on the County property and off – which helps with the mitigation. He said that the next piece of noise
mitigation relates more to scheduling of use than project design. The Police Department has talked with
neighbors and the plan is to have the firing range operate during business hours, and occasionally
weekend and holiday use based on training requirements. Mr. McPeters said that on an average training
day, approximately two hours would be spent in the classroom going over the scenario-based training
event and the use of the range, then participants would go to the range and do their scenario-based
training. He stated that it would be an intermittent noise generation throughout the day based on the
training regimen.
Mr. Boyd asked what the floor of the range would be. The Board has heard concerns about a
“lead mist” that will go into the soil and drain into the watershed.
Mr. McPeters responded that the range will primarily be grass and/or stone dust covered, because
it must have a surface that does not cause a round to ricochet and leave the range. He noted that the two
lead management issues include the spent round in the backstop, and the particulate.
Officer Heide explained that they basically used three manuals in designing the range, primarily
one from the EPA entitled Best Management Practices at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, and that becomes
their “bible.” He said that with this range, they either meet or exceed the standards of the manual. The
other two manuals are an NRA range construction specification manual which includes blueprints,
dimensions, etc., for different types of infrastructure; and the National Shooting Sports Foundation Range
Management Manual. Officer Heide explained that with the EPA manual, they talk about four steps to
lead management. The first step is control and contain, which addresses design of the range, what it is
built to be, and the amount of forethought going into range design that makes the cleaning up of lead
easier and more economical. The part of the range to shoot into is the backstop. The backstop is
designed to be 45 feet thick and 20 feet high. The side berms does not need to be anywhere need that
level of height, but it is one the standards that was exceeded with this design; their side berms are the
same dimension and thus can serve as a backstop. They did not want to go with a substandard
characteristic to the side berms because they are equally as important.
Officer Heide said that the second step in lead management is preventing bullet migration. There
are two different types of lead characteristics on a range – the bullet that is in the backstop and the
particulate that goes out the end of the barrel and settles to the range deck. He said that preventing
migration prevents both of those types of lead characteristics on a range. He explained that they would
prevent migration through soil testing; they will monitor the soil at various places on the facility – with the
ideal pH balance sought being 6.5-8.5%, and based on that level it will precipitate other steps for treating
the soil. Officer Heide said that immobilizing the lead involves physically immobilizing it, which pertains to
the design. The eyebrows help prevent ricochets and rounds leaving the range by increasing the height of
the berm. He stated that because they have an overhang they also keep rainfall from impacting the slope
of the berm, which creates erosion and allows water to come into contact with the lead. Officer Heide said
that the other measure used for immobilizing lead is binding it, which is done through a very clay soil –
another reason Keene was selected. He added that it is also done through proper pH levels in the soil,
which causes the lead to bind so that it does not dissolve and create migration.
Mr. Rooker asked what the time frequency for cleanup would be noting that in the report it says it
would happen about every million rounds. Officer Heide added that that question leads into the third step
– remove and recycle. The EPA has no mandates when you clean a range up, but it suggests 100,000
rounds per firing position. W ith the regional use anticipated and the number of rounds being fired, they
are looking at every three to four years. He explained that an EPA-licensed company would come in and
remove the lead, sift it, package it, rebuild the berms, and then haul the lead off to resell it at a recycling
center to help offset the cost of its removal.
Mr. Rooker asked how many rounds would be fired in the three to four year period. Officer Heide
responded that if there are 15 lanes on the range, it would be 1.5 million.
Mr. Rooker asked why there would not be mats for the lead that comes out from the shooter. It
seems to him that if there was a rubber mat under the officer’s feet, the rubber mat could be taken up and
washed weekly. Officer Heide said it is a particulate. There are ranges that do that, but they are in a
much more confined shooting area. For a range of this proposed size, that would not be practical.
Mr. Heidi said that step four involves record-keeping, which would be kept for the life of the range
so they can judge their performance.
Mr. McPeters reported that going hand in hand with the lead management plan is the
environmental stewardship plan, which is the guiding document that verifies that the design keeps the
environmental concerns (primarily lead) on the range to a manageable standpoint that meets the
requirements of the stewardship program , that meets the requirements of the laws and that meets the
requirements of Albemarle County and the Police Department. He said that they would use a sub-
consultant to write the environmental stewardship plan for this particular project, and that will address both
the design and how the range is used. Mr. McPeters noted that the plan will include treatment of the soil
for the range floor with lime to “grab the lead particles” so they can be transported to the stormwater
management basin. He mentioned that they are using a nationally recognized expert to help craft the
plan, and he is a speaker at the NRA’s national range design conferences.
Mr. Rooker asked if they have done an estimate of the operational costs to maintain the facility.
Officer Heide responded that it is in CIP documentation, and the first year estimate is $10,000 to operate
the range.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Rooker said that the report says there would be a full-time employee at the facility. Officer
Heide explained that instructors will be there no matter where they are training. At the third and fourth
year the cost will increase to $25,000-$30,000 for lead removal with some of the cost offset with salvage.
Mr. McPeters said that the environmental stewardship plan works hand in hand with the
stormwater management plan. Typically on a development project there must be a focus on quality and
quantity of runoff – and on this particular site they must make sure they are not degrading the downstream
channels that exist on the site. He added that in this case, they also have to design the system to address
the lead particulate management which can be done in a couple of ways. One approach is to treat the
range floor with lime dust that will then bind to the particulate, thus making it easier for it to translate its
way via the stormwater runoff and/or stormwater management system to a detention basin. Mr. McPeters
said that the detention basin will have a clay liner in it that will prevent the lead particulate bound to the
lime from escaping from the basin, and over time they will have to clean out and replace the clay liner,
which will remove the lead. Once the particulate is contained to the detention basin, they can deal with
offline water quality treatment and that will also help with any lead not detained in the basin.
He noted that they do not put trees on top of the berms because every three to four years they will
have to deconstruct the backstop and take the rounds out using a specialty contractor who will reclaim the
lead and rebuild the backstop. McPeters said that the 1:1 slope of the backstop is not a typical design, but
they want it to be as steep as possible to prevent bullet travel and over time the berm itself will have to be
reconstructed.
Mr. Rooker asked what reconstruction of a berm would typically cost. Mr. McPeters said that the
cost of the other elements – the range, the parking lot, the classroom and vault trailer – is roughly
$300,000-$400,000 – and the majority of the money will go to dealing with permitting costs, building the
roadway into the site, etc.
Officer Heide stated that putting the berm back is included in the cost of lead removal, so every
three to four years it will cost $25,000-$30,000 total.
Mr. Snow asked what the average depth of a round would be, going into a slope like that. Officer
Heide responded that it would vary depending on the amount of shooting because of “hotspots” created.
The EPA manual recommends that the clean fill depth to be 18-24 inches, but they are taking it four feet
deep with this design. He does not think the round penetrates that far.
Mr. Rooker asked if the range on Old Lynchburg Road incorporates all of these measures.
Officer Heide said that being a private club, they might be under a different microscope; but he is not sure
if they have to follow all the same regulations. They do mitigate their indoor range by having the collection
trays pulled out and emptied.
Mr. Boyd commented that a member of that club told him they had to put in an extensive plan to
reclaim the lead, and were required by the EPA to do something sizeable.
Officer Heide reported that safety is accomplished through both the design and staffing of the
facility. W hen they go to the range with 12 to 14 officers there are five instructors there – with four running
the line of fire and looking out for students; the fifth person is in the background watching the Tolle picture
and looking for someone walking onto the range or wildlife crossing the range. He said that the more
intense and realistic the course, the smaller the student/instructor ratio becomes, and that instructor cost
would apply no matter where they train.
Mr. Rooker asked if someone would be assigned to oversee the site eight hours per day. Officer
Heide responded that that was correct, and by taking advantage of partnerships they can ensure that
there are sole people responsible while trainees are on the range.
Officer Heide stated that the shooting points of the facility will all be within the structure of the
berms, so there will be no shooting outside of them. The impact areas will be the deepest half of the
range facility. He noted that that’s the area where there will be four feet of clean fill, and it will be covered
by the eyebrows, all of which puts the lead in one area for removal and allows them to keep the bullet
impacts in the most protected section of the range. Officer Heide stated that they will install signage to
make sure no targets are put in improper areas, that all of the bullet impacts occur where they’re intended
and designed to occur.
Officer Heide said that through effective design, staffing and maintenance, they are looking
forward to this facility being a model for other jurisdictions trying to do the same thing.
Mr. Rooker stated that one major issue raised has been safety for people outside of the facility
due to stray shots, and asked if there had been any statistics on stray shot accidents with respect to
outdoor shooting ranges around the country. Officer Heide responded that there have been, but he
cannot find any data on accidents relating specifically to police ranges. He said that he has “burned up
the records, burned up the phone lines” trying to find that data and either no one is keeping it or there is
not enough to keep. Officer Heide stated that there are no guarantees in this line of work, but it would
have to be a hugely negligent oversight for a round to leave the range. He said that he can guarantee that
they have painstakingly designed this facility to ensure that does not happen and also to mitigate the lead
impacts.
Mr. Boyd asked what the history has been at Rivanna, even though it may not be a clean
comparison. Officer Heide responded that before Rivanna did some enhancements, he was aware of one
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
law enforcement round leaving that range. The realistic training they were doing coupled with a range
facility not designed for law enforcement use helped contribute to that accident. He said that they have
since raised their berms and put eyebrows on top of that. He added that the other incidents he is aware of
occurred when officers mishandled their weapons which could happen anywhere, and has nothing to do
with the range.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was an image available of the eyebrows. Officer Heide responded that
he could not find a good image.
Mr. Snow asked about the size of it and the construction material. Officer Heide responded that it
varies and there is no one way of doing it, adding that some of the material is railroad ties, some of it is
steel with a coating on the front, some of it is a built wooden box filled with gravel; it takes many forms.
He said that the height average is six to eight feet up from the berm, and out at a 45-degree angle over
the berm, then adding another six or eight feet. He mentioned that there is some existing natural grade
behind the berm, a minimum of 12 feet and higher in other locations.
Mr. Dumler asked if there was vegetative cover on that natural grade. Officer Heide responded
that there is. Mr. McPeters said that the cap will not be covered with vegetation, but the stream area
undisturbed by the cap is covered.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are any scrubby pines or anything on the ridge. Mr. McPeters said that
the majority of the ridge is the cap, but beyond the cap on the County property is a fairly sizeable ravine
that is very heavily wooded with pines and other types of trees.
Mr. Henry reported that the associated costs are for the road, the berms, and an added cost of
wetland delineation and permitting related to mitigation. He said that other costs include the classroom,
vault toilet, and three ranges – with an estimate of $1.6 million including site plan submission. Mr. Henry
said that there is an incremental cost increase over the original, based on the current design. That
request has gone through the CIP process and is in front of the Oversight Committee as a
recommendation to include it in next year’s budget. He said that based on the timing of the project, they
will be in construction over the summer with completion during that timeframe. Mr. Henry said that the
City remains committed to sharing the cost, and the addition of a 110-yard range and the timing of it has
caused a slight bump in the construction cost.
Mr. Rooker said that he has met several times with the Police Department and there is obviously a
need for a better training facility, and the inter-governmental cooperation here is important. He stated that
when Chief Sellers is presenting the advantages of doing this, he talks about things that are not planned
for this firing range – so this first phase is $1.6 million. Mr. Rooker said that burn areas have been
mentioned, interdisciplinary disaster training, etc., and all of those things have their own physical needs
and impact activity with respect to the site. He stated that the concern he has is that they are only looking
at a piece of the cost of doing these things with this proposal, adding that the Nottoway facility was built
with $25 million in State taxpayer money, and they have a plethora of things available – outdoor, indoor,
driving ranges for different kinds of accident simulations, etc. Mr. Rooker said that it is approximately and
hour and one-half away. If he were in the Police or Fire Department, he would much rather have the
facility closer – but they spent $25 million on that facility and staff it with eight full-time employees. The
question to him is what their end goal is here with the Keene facility. He wants to make sure that the
decision ultimately made here provides people with the best training available at an understood and
reasonable cost to the taxpayer in a location that makes sense. He commented that the proposal looks
good, and in breaking down the number of shots it is about 2.5 per minute – and there will be some impact
on people living in the area.
Mr. Foley said that there are a few more parts of the presentation that will answer some of those
questions.
Mr. McPeters stated that they have heard a lot from the public in individual and group meetings,
and in working as a project team they have developed some “add-ons” that could further mitigate the
noise. He said that it would not be true to say that these measures will drastically reduce the chance of
sound being heard offsite, but they will lower the decibel level and sound intensity. Mr. McPeters stated
that they first looked at ballistic or acoustic walls, which will replace either every berm on the project or just
the exterior berms. He said that the ballistic material will have a sound-mitigating component to it that
would help capture some of the sound, as opposed to the berms dissipating or dispersing and/or
redirecting noise in different directions – thereby reducing the decibel levels. Mr. McPeters stated that
these acoustical walls are a technology used to lessen the noise impact, and they cost on average $1.3
million, and two on the range would be $2.6 million. He said that they were also asked to report on a
bullet-trap system, and one of those running the length of the ranges as shown in the site plan would be
approximately $1.2 million, and it could create some potential sound issues that would have to be
evaluated.
Mr. McPeters stated that the third option they were charged with exploring was an indoor range,
and the price for one 50-yard indoor range - $4.5 million – which would drastically reduce the scenario-
based training – would be the same cost as a full outdoor range. He said that there was interest in using
the vacant Scottsville tire plant, and if the County were to buy the building and install one indoor 50-yard
range the cost would be $8-$12 million including the purchase of the building.
Mr. Dumler asked if there are any decibel-reduction estimates for option one. Mr. McPeters
responded that if you talk to the manufacturers of acoustic walls, they will tell you there is decent noise
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
reduction; if you talk to sound consultants, they will say that because you are still disbursing and
redirecting sound that is somewhat debatable.
Mr. Rooker noted that the acoustic walls work for the sound that’s headed in that direction. Mr.
McPeters said that is correct, but the sound will still bounce off and redirect. It depends on where the
shooter is, where the muzzle of the gun is pointed, which firing lane he is in – so it is hard to give an exact
number.
Mr. Foley asked if that was the cost for all the walls together. Mr. McPeters said that the cost
would be $2.6 million for four walls, and $1.3 million for one or both of the two qualification berms. They
are roughly about a little less than a $1.0 million apiece.
Ms. Mallek asked if the scenario training and using the open space would all happen in phase
one. Mr. McPeters confirmed that it would. He added that the range is actually designed for the scenario-
based training.
Officer Heide reported that in terms of other facilities identified that they could travel to, they
identified Staunton/Augusta/Waynesboro as having a regional firearms training facility at their landfill in
Augusta County – and those departments built that facility, using it with no fees. He said that their fee for
an outside department to use it is $500 per day. Officer Heide said that using the Augusta County facility
would also involve travel costs, so the estimates to use it would be about $1,063 per day to take 17 people
there for training – and if they go three times per year, which is the national average and the training goal
– it would cost about $25,500 per year. He stated that they also looked at Harrisonburg, and while there
are no fees associated with that facility it is small and getting time there may not be guaranteed.
Mr. Rooker asked how big the Augusta facility is. Officer Heide said that it is about 1.5 times of
one of the local ranges, so it is not as large as what’s being proposed here. He stated that they have two
ranges there, so they could rent the other one out and have two different departments there. Officer
Heide said it is designed like the proposed Keene facility, but is not as big because they do not have the
personnel need for it. He stated that Harrisonburg would cost about $28,500 in travel costs; Henrico has a
very nice facility, and they are the second furthest away – with a training cost there of about $45,200
annually, for officers to go three times a year. Officer Heide stated that the assumptions being made here
are that all of these facilities will and can accommodate Albemarle officers. All of the facilities have the
available time. Lastly, while the goal is to train three times a year it does not take into account the one day
that the SWAT team needs their training or any type of remedial training. This is just three times a year
for the average officer.
Mr. Snow asked if the Augusta facility’s design has 20-foot berms with the eyebrows. Officer
Heide responded that it is not that big, but the design is similar in that it is an open arrangement outdoors.
He added that all of the ranges, except one, are law enforcement.
Mr. Snow asked if there are any ranges in the vicinity that have the 20-foot berms and the
eyebrow. Officer Heide responded that he is not aware of any. The closest one in design and location
might be Henrico – but not even their entire range. The Keene facility would go above and beyond those
in terms of protecting against stray shots and sound.
Officer Heide said that they also looked at a commercial range – Colonial Shooting Academy in
Richmond, which is a repurposed furniture warehouse and factory on Broad Street near I-64 and a $33
million facility – and the cost would be about $50,000 a year to take local officers there. They charge $800
per day or $84 per hour. Because it is an indoor facility, he noted that their ranges cannot accommodate
all of the training needs since they do not have the distances needed, so they would still have to go
somewhere else in addition. Officer Heide said that the VSP facility in Blackstone (Nottaway) has also
been mentioned a lot, and while that is a wonderful facility in the making, there are no firearms ranges
currently there now. He stated that they are intending to build three outdoor ranges, but they are shorter
distances than what the Keen range proposes. Officer Heide explained that they are not big enough to
accommodate the entire VSP contingent, and that means that the facility is designed for entry-level
training and special schools. He said that the organization of Virginia State Police is divisions around the
state, and each of them has a place to shoot within their division so they would not travel to this facility.
Mr. Boyd asked if the estimates provided include the specialized training for SWAT teams and
other special trainings. Officer Heide responded that it does not, and the travel costs associated to go to a
facility like Blackstone would be about $58,800 annually.
Mr. Rooker asked what the best facility would be should the County not to build a local facility. He
asked which of the facilities mentioned, Officer Heide would choose. Officer Heide responded that he
thinks they would have to pick multiple facilities, because you could not guarantee the time would be
available. There is not one that could accommodate the County, let alone the region.
Mr. Rooker asked if they would not normally schedule these things in advance. Officer Heide
responded that they do, but so does everybody else and it is a first come, first serve arrangement.
Mr. Rooker asked if they would typically just schedule the group of officers in advance. Officer
Heide said that you must get things in place such as liability and use agreem ents ahead of time, and then
those facilities ask for a prediction as to when you would use the facility. When you are at another
person’s beck and call, it is really hard to do effective training and that is why they have outgrown Rivanna.
He said that they would be trading those scheduling conflicts for another facility they would have to pay for
and travel to. It is hard for them to wrap their head around traveling for firearms training.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Boyd asked what that would do for regional training if they did decide to travel in Albemarle
County. Officer Heide responded that it would probably kill it. Mr. Boyd said he would think so too
because it would be tough to coordinate between the two departments.
Mr. Rooker said that currently officers are training once a year for four hours, and what they are
talking about doing is tripling the training regardless of which option is chosen. He commented that inter-
jurisdictional training is a different thing, and asked how often that would be done. Officer Heide
responded that it is hard to say because it has never been done.
Mr. Rooker stated that if you did it twice per year, it would be two more times than it is being done
now. Chief Sellers said that their vision is to overlap some of those training days. They see a vision of
trying to combine forces to overlap some of those training days together at least once a year. He does not
see any significant additional overlap. He said they will also need to train with the Fire department at
some point.
Chief Longo stated that they have never had the opportunity to do this, so he does not know that
they can stand here and describe it. This is an opportunity to converge and it is far beyond just firearms
training; they are looking ahead 10 years. He added that this is the golden opportunity for the City and
County to do things more efficiently and demonstrate that it can be done, not just with the police
department but the fire service, with EMS, and with every other public safety component that serves this
community. Chief Longo said he hopes to be able to describe this in a year from now when it comes to
fruition – to be able to talk about some of the models they have been able to introduce and how effective it
has been for the organizations.
Ms. Mallek asked if the additional training time was all shooting time or if it also involved
classroom time and strategic time. Officer Heide responded that it would include all of it, with some
instruction and some shooting. He said that the reason they are at four hours now is so the 400 regional
officers using Rivanna can get there and simply qualify. He noted that in the late 1990s, officers were
shooting three times per year because there were fewer issues with capacity.
Officer Heide added that there is also a training liability associated with not being able to choose
times at a facility. People who do not qualify need to get right back to the range for immediate training –
not wait a few weeks or a month. It is not good practice for instructors – let alone the department or the
County – to accept the risk associated with someone who cannot shoot, for the period of time until you
can get availability at another facility. He stated that they still have a good relationship with Rivanna to
bring two people or so over to work on skills, but that will not be possible if they are traveling to Nottaway.
Mr. Rooker said they could continue to work with Rivanna on that basis, understanding that they
do not want the County there all the time. He stated that when you are talking about investing $1.3 million,
that climbs to $2.6 to $3 million with soundproof walls – and the interest alone on that would pay for
training eight times over a year. He said that he wants to make sure that they are probing all the options,
understand the cost differentials, and what the cost differential buys. It may be worth it to buy that cost
differential.
Officer Heide said he follows Mr. Rooker’s discussion that if the comparison is only cost
differentials for the training, but a price cannot be put on having resources in the County available for
emergency calls. He stated that while it might look like a viable option, it is not one if tactics team is in
Nottoway County and there is an incident locally.
Mr. Rooker said that he can relate to that, but Augusta is not one and one-half hours away. The
primary difference here is being able to go to the facility anytime rather than having to schedule time at an
outside facility; there is an advantage to that. The question is whether or not it is worth the cost difference,
and it is a very significant cost difference.
Officer Heide stated that the primary advantage of having a local facility is having the Police
Department resources available to the public.
Mr. Rooker said that the County could hire 10 additional officers for the additional annual cost of
doing this.
Mr. Foley said that the objective today was to lay out all of the different factors, some that are
easy to quantify and others that are more difficult. He said that staff and the project team could provide
more information, or the Board can use some judgment based on what it has heard.
In terms of project milestones, Mr. Henry stated that if staff can keep on target for the site plan
resubmittal, they should be able to continue with construction next summer.
Chief Dan Eggleston said that the Board has heard throughout the presentation the importance of
training for public safety. He added that all of their jobs are high risk and they hold training in high regard.
He emphasized that the fire and EMS volunteer program alone trains about 50-60 new volunteer
firefighters per year, which is over 10,000 hours annually – most of which occurs during nights and
weekends. Chief Eggleston said that the current facility used by fire and EMS personnel is located behind
the regional jail is woefully inadequate. He said that it is important that they secure a site that will fulfill
needs in the long term and provide a good platform on which to train both volunteer and career staff.
Chief Eggleston stated that they believe the Keene site provides this flexibility, and for future expansion –
share classrooms, storage facilities, a fire training building that will include advanced propane burn rooms
to help address firefighter safety and reduce emissions, vehicle extrication site to train personnel in
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
advanced technologies used with today’s vehicles, and a spill mitigation site to train firefighters as to how
to adequately dam and divert any spills to help protect property and the environment. Chief Eggleston
noted that those things are very new in the fire service, and they need to provide a site in which to provide
adequate training. He said that it is also important to provide adequate driver training, and the new facility
would have space for that. Chief Eggleston said that, overall, they believe that this site will accommodate
their long term needs and help fire personnel continue to provide good focus and timely training for
volunteer and career personnel.
Mr. Rooker asked if there had been an estimate established for the cost of putting these facilities
on the Keene site. Chief Eggleston responded that they have some costs in terms of constructing those
props, and very little site prep work would be involved. He said that the costs for buildout of the facility are
estimated incrementally, but he is not sure what they are offhand.
Mr. Henry said that the TENG study put a total build-out, and the estimate was done at the peak of
construction costs, and the total is about $20 million if everything were done. He suggested that all of the
elements be looked at along with further refinement on scope and costs before finalizing a number.
Mr. Foley explained that they had a broad concept and worked it down to the specific things that
have the greatest need. As they look at the future phases each one would have some decision points as
to whether those things are best provided at this facility. He said that staff did not want to do a
presentation today on just a police firing range as if nothing else was being contemplated there, also
recognizing that they are not going to have great answers for the ultimate cost of this – or the decisions
that need to be made along the way including working cooperatively with City and County fire. Mr. Foley
added that the value of what is before the Board is for a police firing range, whether it is done here or
somewhere else. Regardless of future plans hopefully board members have enough information on that
one item.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not think the Board can consider the advantages of what Chief
Eggleston is talking about in making the decision on whether or not to go forward with the firing range
because it is a totally separate decision, and the County is not going to get those added features with this
proposed $1.6 million phase.
Mr. Foley commented that the Board can make that decision independently.
Mr. Boyd asked how they might have cross-training with fire/rescue and police personnel. Chief
Eggleston explained that one of their biggest initiatives currently is cross-training of all public safety
personnel in the use of incident command systems. For example a vehicle accident will involve fire, EMS
and police – and how they interact as a unified team on the scene is very important in terms of how they
manage the scene. He said that joint leadership training and working through simulations is extremely
valuable to personnel.
Mr. Rooker asked if that opportunity would be provided with phase one of the plan. Mr. McPeters
responded that they would in both the classroom and outside facilities. Mr. Rooker said it is important to
understand the total benefits of the $800,000 investment.
Chief Eggleston said that the advantages with this site are that it is local, it is within driving
distance for those who have to attend classes, and it is big enough to accommodate future initiatives and
collaborative training.
Chief Sellers stated that completion of the project will ensure that public safety employees have
the highest level of training to improve readiness in responding to critical incidents, lower the liability
associated with high-risk incidents, and help better protect the community. He said that it permits the
public safety administrators to best live up to their responsibility to ensure that personnel have the best
chance of returning home safely. Chief Sellers stated that embracing the long-term plan of consolidating
public safety training needs onto one campus and repurposing a landfill to provide a safer community just
makes sense to them. He added that the County-City partnership and multidisciplinary training facility
allows departments to pool resources to better afford technology, better instruction, and more diverse
curriculum. Chief Sellers said that a police firearms range is one small step toward making the Police and
Sheriff’s Departments better prepared to handle deadly encounters and active shooter incidents.
Regional, multidisciplinary, and integrated public safety training is the way of the future. It is more cost
effective than the alternatives, and it is more effective than their current model. He added that traveling
outside of the community to a facility controlled by another entity can jeopardize the safety of citizens here
due to limited staffing, and place undue restrictions on the force’s ability to manage the scheduling of
resources – negatively impacting overtime and gas expenditures.
Chief Sellers said that even more importantly, an outside facility impedes their ability to train
together as City/County police officers, firefighters and rescue workers – moving in the opposite direction
of lessons learned in past terror events and active shooter incidents.
Chief Longo thanked the Board for listening to all of the information. He said that he was
encouraged by the public comments that it should be done somewhere, and that what they do is
important, with training personnel to be able to do it well for the protection of the community is extremely
important. He said that even those opposing this particular site will agree with that point. He said that he
hates to see officers have to commute to go to work – and he certainly wants them to train in the
community they serve. This is not just an investment in real estate for training purposes, but an
investment in the personnel hired to do their jobs. It would be a strong message to those personnel that
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
the County values what they do if it is willing to make this investment and give them the tools to train in a
way that makes this the world-class community that he thinks it is.
Mr. Boyd asked if City Council has already approved this and put it in their budget. Chief Longo
responded that City Council and City administration have approved and embraced the proposal. In
addition, the City Police Department looks forward to it.
Mr. Foley commented that the proposal is in the City’s CIP.
Mr. Rooker added that it is also in the County’s CIP.
Mr. Snow stated that he wanted some clarification as to whether the ballistic baffles would be a
ground-level feature going up a certain distance. Mr. Henry responded that it is a replacement of the
berm, and it is about 24 inches thick. Mr. Snow asked how often that would have to be replaced.
Officer Heide explained that they would have to look at training slightly differently if they had
ballistic walls versus berms. The proposed facility would allow the tactical training to be done in a 180-
degree area in the designated impact area of the range. He said that the ballistic walls are a safety
measure in case you happen to shoot them, but they are not there intending to be shot. It is a safety
replacement, not a shooting replacement.
Mr. Henry said it would be the side walls. Officer Heide added that they would be more static with
those walls in place. They could shoot into them as much as they want, but then there would be the
replacement costs.
Mr. Snow asked how thick the top of the berm is. Officer Heide confirmed that the top of the berm
is five feet wide, 20 feet high.
Mr. Snow asked if the eyebrow could be constructed out of baffle material to help reduce the
sound. Officer Heide responded that he has seen soundproof matting on eyebrows, and there is a
weatherization replacement cost to that because it is not weather proof.
Mr. Snow said that he is satisfied with all the safety precautions being taken, and his concern is
the sound impacts on neighbors. He asked if there was no other range in the area with a 20-foot berm.
Officer Heide responded that Henrico is about the closest, and it is not 20 feet everywhere.
Mr. Snow asked how close they were to residential areas. Officer Heide responded that their
closest structures are similar to the closest in Keene, but they are also adjacent to a racetrack so people
are more accustomed to noise.
Ms. Mallek asked if the baffle could be added in a second phase inside the baffle constructed to
keep the rollovers from happening. Officer Heide said that if the noise-mitigating material is not added in
the first place, it could be, but there is no harm in adding it in the beginning – it just needs to be built into
the cost of the eyebrows. He does not think is anything huge. He noted that the Milton range used by
UVA has some of the material on its security fencing to try to absorb more sound.
Mr. Snow noted that that range is close to Stone Robinson, and asked how it sounded from that
school. Ms. Mallek said that she has never heard it when teaching there.
Mr. Rooker stated that the neighbors in that area came in recently to one of the Board meetings to
complain about the expanded shooting taking place there because they do hear it, but they are closer than
people would be to this facility.
Mr. Foley said that there are lots of differences between Keene and Milton.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to know the extra cost of adding sound buffer material in the
eyebrows.
Mr. Boyd stated that he recently attended a dinner at which Chief Sellers was the speaker and
pointed out the fact that Albemarle has the fewest number of officers per capita of any county in the state.
He said that the County has been handicapping the Police Department for a long time; the Board is
underfunding the number of officers needed. He can empathize with the neighbors, but the County has
been taking a band aid approach to training and having officers travel out of the area is just another
obstacle for them to deal with. Mr. Boyd noted that there will be some impact on neighbors and he is
concerned about that, but there is a great deal being done to mitigate the impact of the facility. He said
that he is prepared today to give them what they need to move forward with this project.
Mr. Snow asked about the woman north of town whom was recently shot accidentally in her car,
and asked how lack of training contributed to that incident. Chief Sellers responded that he could not
really answer that question, nor could his counterparts.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to make sure the Board looks at all the options because this is a
big investment, and evaluate the benefits of this investment. The neighbors have raised a number of
issues, some of which still needs to be addressed. He also said that he is impressed with the amount of
public participation the Police Department has invited on this project, and ways they might mitigate any
issues. Mr. Rooker stated that while using offsite facilities will be less expensive, the tradeoff will probably
not be a good one. He said that the Board tentatively made a decision in the CIP to move forward with
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
this before, and a lot of information has come up in the interim. Mr. Rooker said that the Board has
effectively explored those possibilities, and he is prepared to continue to support the project. His support
is subject to the condition that they not make the facility available beyond the local police forces
(Charlottesville, Albemarle, perhaps UVA, Sheriff and Jail), because that expands the impacts and
concerns of neighbors. Any decision to expand the use beyond today’s discussion should be done
thoughtfully with consideration for the neighbors. He thinks that they should only be talking about the uses
that were put before the Board. He said that he also thinks the County should explore ways to reduce
noise impacts, even if there is some significant cost involved because this could mean two shots per
minute over a ten hour day. He thinks that they should make certain that any potential for stray shots
have been minimized to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Rooker stated that he also wants to ensure
that the City will share in any additional costs for noise mitigation.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board needs to make a motion. Mr. Foley responded that the only thing
different he is hearing is additional noise mitigation measures.
Mr. Boyd said that what he is hearing from the Board is that it is willing to put up some extra
money for additional soundproofing and safety measures, and given the cooperative history here he would
like the police and neighbors to keep working on those things.
Mr. Foley stated that that’s the one thing staff will do some extra work on, but otherwise they will
just outline certain hours, etc. and come back to the Board with some line item costs as to what it could
spend on additional measures and the value that will be realized from those additional costs.
Mr. Thomas commented that that is an extra point. He is going through the noise issue with
Rockydale Quarry. He asked what testing there could be done regarding the noise. Mr. Rooker said that
the Board needs to understand the noise impacts with respect to the facility after it is built, and then be
prepared, if needed, to spend some additional money to mitigate that impact.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to reaffirm the prior decision to move forward with the police
training facility, to request staff to work with the community on noise mitigation, and that no outside
organizations shall have use of the facility without prior approval by the Board.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Dumler
NAYS: None.
Mr. Foley thanked all public safety representatives, including the City, and the OFD staff for their
work on this, as they have put a lot of time into this effort.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Fire/Rescue Overtime.
Note: Due to time constraints this item was moved to the December 5, 2012 meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Capital Project Contingency.
Note: Due to time constraints this item was moved to the afternoon portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. FY 12 General Fund Year End Financial Report.
Note: Due to time constraints this item was moved to the afternoon portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. CACVB Marketing Plan Update.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On July 11, 2012, the Board endorsed the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors
Bureau (CACVB) strategic marketing plan developed in consultation with CACVB’s consultant, Payne,
Ross and Associates (PRA). The success of the marketing plan largely depends on a refreshed and
refocused brand for our area to achieve the desired goals of increased visitation and extended visitor
stays. The purpose of this presentation is to share with the Board the efforts to refresh the CACVB’s
brand for our region by creating a destination identity that is compelling, distinctive, and memorable, and
that reflects the area’s emerging assets as well as established amenities.
The CACVB hired Payne, Ross and Associates to research, develop and roll out the CACVB’s
refreshed brand. The process, which began in early July, 2012, included extensive research, surveying
and community engagement, and is nearing completion with a target date of mid-November, 2012. PRA
organized a series of six focus group meetings in September, 2012 to meet with elected government and
business leaders, key stakeholders and influencers for their input and feedback. Input fro m those
meetings, along with data from a community-wide survey conducted by PRA and extensive research from
Virginia Tourism Corporation, has provided information necessary to align our regional brand with our
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
region’s established and emerging tourism assets. The CACVB Board has reviewed and endorsed the
concepts developed by PRA as a refreshed brand for regional tourism. Staff from CACVB and PRA will
be present at the meeting to present the branding concepts.
There is no budget impact to the County. Funding for the branding initiative was provided through
the CACVB fund balance as discussed previously with the Board.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors support the CACVB Board of Directors’
endorsement of the branding concepts developed by PRA to be presented at the November 7, 2012
Board meeting.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
reported that this is the next phase of the tourism marketing program . W hen the marketing plan was
presented several months earlier it was based on the understanding that they needed to refresh the
existing brand to ensure that it was dynamic, engaging, and that it reflected the traditional assets that have
always had a strong appeal for the community as well as incorporating new and emerging tourism
activities and attractions – such as agri-tourism, the food scene, the music scene, etc. Ms. Catlin said that
what the Board is about to see has been reviewed and endorsed by the CACVB Executive Board, and
also by City Council on the past Monday night. They hope that after seeing the presentation, the Board
will provide its endorsement to the tourism direction.
Ms. Catlin then expressed appreciation to the CACVB staff who worked hard on the proposal, and
to their consultant partner, Payne, Ross and Associates.
Ms. Susan Payne said that they are happy to be back today to present the refreshed logo. She
said that at their last presentation, they expressed the goal of “more people staying longer, spending
more.” Since that time they have evaluated what their product is and determined that it is that
“Charlottesville and Albemarle County is a place treasured by all who have visited, worked, learned, lived
or fallen in love here.” Ms. Payne said that it is a place with a thriving economy thanks in large part to the
intellectual engine that is the University of Virginia, which brings in and attracts smart people with big
ideas. She stated that it is a place filled with world class cultural events and extremely convenient leisure
activities. People of all kinds – artists, professors, famers and musicians - know how to live well and live
healthfully in Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
Ms. Payne said that they have conducted many focus groups over the past several months, have
distributed online surveys to thousands of people, met with stakeholders in the tourism industry in this
area, and have audited existing research from the Virginia Tourism Corporation. She added that they
have from the ground up involved as many people as possible in this process to come up with the new
logo.
Ms. Payne reported that from their research they have found that the primary market is people
from Washington D.C. and Virginia. The people are going for an extended weekend and are traveling by
car. The majority of visitors are between 30-50 with higher education and many with children. She said
that in this area, tourism is a $490 million revenue generator, in an industry that supports 5,000 jobs and in
the past year generated $35 million in state and local taxes for Charlottesville/Albemarle.
After the synopsis of research and focus group information, Ms. Payne said the brand has helped
lead them to the fact that the Charlottesville/Albemarle County brand is an easy access getaway where the
juxtaposition of history, tradition and energy and innovation make a unique and unforgettable destination.
The unique promise is that a visitor need not leave the area to enjoy this eclectic mix of traditions and
innovations. She said that one can enjoy great food, wine trails, shopping, skiing, hiking, biking, live
music, historical sites, and more all within the region and at their own pace and their own itinerary.
Mr. Jamie Howard, Payne, Ross and Associates Creative Director, addressed the Board. He said
that in their research, they discovered that history plays a big part but they also wanted to “discover.” He
said that they combined these two concepts to create the following idea:
Mr. Howard said this idea avoids the “moldy, oldie historical place that is just frozen in time.
Charlottesville is a place with history and is not locked. Their attempt is to refurbish and renovate it. The
line “Where tradition is always new” speaks to tourists and the area itself. Mr. Howard said that their Art
Director, Ms. Vicki Brothers will explain the design.
Ms. Brothers said that the overwhelming reason for people coming to this area is the history idea,
but the brand promise talks about the juxtaposition of history and innovation. They have created a more
modern approach to a Jeffersonian piece of architecture, setting it atop the word “Charlottesville” and
“Albemarle County, Virginia” with a landscape scene depicting the region. The design reinforces the
juxtaposition of City and County. She said that when tourists look for destinations they look regionally.
Using Albemarle County opens the brand and offerings. She noted that the CACVB has approved the
logo, so this is the recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that “Albemarle” type could be larger.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. Thomas and Ms. Mallek said they thought the same thing.
Mr. Rooker said that if it was made larger, visually it would extend beyond the margins.
Ms. Catlin mentioned that this is a compromise between recognizing that “Charlottesville” has
been the brand for a long time, and people recognize city names – but bringing “Albemarle County” into it
was part of a conscious choice to bring the word “county” in because it implies that there are both city and
county offerings.
Mr. Boyd said that he was not completely serious with his comment, but people do not think of
Charlottesville as wine country, they think of Albemarle County as wine country.
Mr. Thomas commented that the “Rotunda” is a cross between Montpelier.
Ms. Brothers stated that their cues were Jeffersonian architecture.
Mr. Rooker said that he likes the logo; it is the type of thing that needs to “soak in.”
Ms. Brothers said they are not really finished, but wanted to give a preview.
Mr. Thomas said that he likes the use of gold for the Rotunda and said the logo looks great.
Ms. Mallek stated that she loves the tag line.
Ms. Brothers then showed several examples of how the logo and tagline would be used in ads.
She said that the focus groups provided significant guidance as to the photography direction. Lively and
energetic were a couple words that kept coming up in their focus groups, and so they wanted to make
sure that was captured.
Mr. Rooker commented that if they used color to change the “Albemarle County” component, they
would not have to change the size ratio to make it stand out.
Mr. Howard said that they could spend some time adjusting the elements. He then presented
several different ad shots.
Mr. Rooker said that he does not like the use of gray in “Albemarle County, Virginia,” and other
Board members agreed that it was difficult to see. Mr. Howard commented that it is actually white but
because it is smaller, it looks gray. Mr. Rooker added that another color would possibly make it more
readable. Ms. Catlin said they can look at that.
Mr. Howard presented images of possible web, video, mobile application and YouTube formats.
He showed examples of a video that could be located at a kiosk at the airport, train station, etc.
Ms. Payne stated that the area is getting known for the many different festivals, and they want to
promote collaboration to cross-promote events so they are all integrated together. She said that the
Virginia tourism site has one million visitors per month, and they will feature events on that site – which will
then click away to the local tourism site, and then cross-promote a vineyard or overnight stay and bring it
back to the festival website. The idea is, again, that they want people spending one more night and if they
are coming here for an artists’ fair or book festival, they want them to know that they should plan an extra
evening.”
Mr. Boyd asked if the domain of “visitalbemarle.org” was available. Ms. Payne responded that
she would find out, and said that was a good idea. Ms. Catlin noted that they do have that domain, and it
points to the CACVB website.
Mr. Howard then presented a brief promotional video.
Ms. Payne said that they know there will be changes and input on the videos and ads, but today
they want the Board to focus mostly on the logo.
Mr. Boyd responded that what the Board is saying at this point is that it would like to see
“Albemarle” a little more prominently.
Ms. Payne said that this is a rough draft, and they would not do an ad that could not be read. She
said that they have studied, listened and decided that the word “County” is important to put with
“Albemarle” so they can extend the brand reach by offering wine and food, etc., and that comes across
more clearly when it is coupled with “Albemarle County.” Ms. Payne stated that some people that were in
the focus groups did not know what “Albemarle” was on its own, which is why they put it with the County
and Virginia.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the wording is done in an appropriate way if they could use color. He
again suggested that the wording may be in the color of wine or something else so that it stands out a little
bit.
Other Board members agreed that they’d like “Albemarle County” to stand out more, but the
overall look of the logo is great.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Ms. Catlin stated that today they were hoping to get endorsement of the direction of the tagline,
the logo, the brand message, the brand promise, etc. – and it sounds like the Board’s consensus is that
“Albemarle County” be more prominent.
Ms. Mallek said that the cross branding about the festivals is very important because of public and
tourist dollars.
Ms. Payne mentioned that they are going to be doing 10 or more videos, and they want people to
know that whenever they come there there’s something to do – such as Austin or Charleston.
Mr. Boyd noted that he did not see anything related to the arts in here. Ms. Payne stated that they
would be adding that aspect – performing arts, visual arts, etc.
Ms. Mallek said that in the surveys many people associate the area with coming by car, and
perhaps it would be good to include something in the video about the train coming here.
Ms. Payne responded that they have some more product work to do to connect some of the
transportation networks and the access points to do things like taking a wine tour, rent a kayak, etc.
Ms. Catlin stated that that’s all part of how this is moving forward. By January or so the Board will
start to see these roll out in media buys and more visible/tangible elem ents. She thanked the CACVB and
Payne and Ross for their work up to now.
Mr. Rooker suggested that they make sure they include various ethnicities in the videos, etc. Ms.
Payne agreed. She reiterated that they are far away from completion with all the pieces of the product.
Ms. Mallek thanked them for their work thus far.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting.
At 1:26 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler that the Board adjourn 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; under Subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for
public uses because an open meeting discussion would adversely affect the bargaining position of the
County; under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters
requiring legal advice relating to the negotiation of an agreement to terminate a contract; and under
Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal
advice relating to public records and meetings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
Note: Due to the hour, Ms. Mallek stated that the Board would be reconvening around 2:45 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:49 p.m., the Board reconvened into open meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Dumler to
certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the
closed meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Snow. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appointments/reappointments;
reappoint Mr. John Quale to the Architectural Review Board with said term to expire November
14, 2016;
appoint Ms. Amy Durbin to the Historic Preservation Committee with said term to expire June 4,
2015; and
appoint Mr. Brian Morse to the Natural Heritage Committee with said term to expire September
30, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
NAYS: None.
_______________
Note: At this time the Board went back and discussed agenda items moved from the
morning portion of the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 13. Capital Project Contingency.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On June 06, 2012, the Board was provided information on project contingency planning and
management. Since that time, the Board has requested additional information on the planning and
management of these funds.
Contingency is an integral part of the total estimated costs of a project. Establishing an adequate
contingency prepares the County, financially and operationally, to address unforeseen and unpredictable
conditions that typically arise during the design/construction phase. Because many factors can make a
cost estimate inaccurate, especially during the initial phase of planning a project, setting aside an amount
is critically important for the financial planning of a project. The goal of a contingency is to plan for
unexpected financial obligations or costs that would be disruptive to the budget or divert resources from
other projects or needs. The earlier the stage of project development, the more uncertainty there is in the
estimate and the larger the contingency should be. Contingency serves three core purposes:
To account for errors and omissions in the construction documents.
To pay for unknown conditions, such as excess rock, beyond the allowance or price
escalation of a product (i.e. copper).
To accommodate necessary construction changes that are realized on-site during
construction.
The complexity of the project dictates the size of the contingency, normally measured as a
percent of total project cost, and will change appropriately, as the project moves from concept to
accepting the bid as risks become better defined and/or eliminated. Rules of thumb for the percentage of
a contingency throughout a project are as follows:
Concept/Desk Estimate: ~ 20-25%
At 50%-75% Design: ~ 15-20%
100% design, pre-bid: ~10-15%
Bid Opening/Notice to Proceed: ~5%-10%
This practice is consistent with guidelines in the Virginia Construction and Professional Services
Manual and from the American Institute of Architects. Projects at the conceptual level are typically
estimated utilizing a dollar per gross square foot methodology for building construction and cost per acre
for site work. Estimates at this stage in a project’s life cycle, which are based on limited design/evaluation
efforts, typically require some level of contingency, usually 10%, built in at the line item level with an
additional 10% design contingency overall to adequately account for unknown project requirements. As
the project moves through the development life cycle risks are reduced or better defined allowing the
contingency budget to be properly allocated, or liquidated, as appropriate to complete the project.
Contingency balances will be shared with the Board on a quarterly basis, thus allowing for the opportunity
to liquidate contingencies that exceed the recommended target. Typical contingency at the start of
construction should be 5-10%. Contingency enables the project to proceed with minimal interruptions or
delays to the schedule, and mitigates any costs associated with delays. Contingency is not an
unnecessary expense, but rather a critical and necessary component of project costs and a tool to
complete the project on time and within budget.
In order to more effectively address and enhance the planning and management of project
contingency funds, the Office of Facilities Development, in collaboration with the General Services
Department and Schools Building Services Department, has documented its practices and developed the
attached Contingency Guidelines and Use procedural document. The intent of the document is to clearly
define how project contingency funds are planned, managed and reported. Also attached is OFD’s
Project Change Order Guidelines and Procedures for the processing of change orders.
Budgeting project contingencies anticipates and enables projects to proceed with minimal
delays when unforeseen or unpredictable conditions arise, and plans for those costs within a project
budget. If the project contingency is not sufficient to fund the required changes, a request to the
Board of Supervisors for approval of an additional appropriation is required for continuing the project.
This report is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
_____
Mr. Trevor Henry stated that he was present to discuss contingency use and practices. He added
that he hopes the documentation provided should address any questions the Board has. He explained
that he would quickly highlight the information provided to them, and answer any questions they might
have. He reported that contingency is used to account for errors or omissions in construction documents
during the execution of a project and to give the County some reserve against unknown conditions such
as bad soils, things that you find behind the walls as you get into a demolition project or a site project, or to
accommodate necessary changes when a site condition gets known in the midst of a construction project
that allows that schedule to keep going. Mr. Henry emphasized that contingency is a necessary
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
component to the planning and budgeting process to ensure there are no disruptive elements to capital
projects.
Mr. Henry stated that the biggest question is how much is the right number on contingency and
the answer is that there is no one-size fits all number, and by the time you get to a construction project the
rule of the thumb typically is five to ten percent of the cost of construction. He said that what is before the
Board in the CIP are projects that have been estimated at a very conceptual level to projects that have
gone all the way through and have design and bidding numbers. He stated that the range of contingency
associated with that really varies based on the phase of the project that it’s in and it’s important that this be
part of the County’s practice. Mr. Henry stated that as staff defines the unknowns, they can allocate
previous contingencies to actual work.
He gave the example of the Seminole Trail Fire Department, stating that in the spring estimate
OFD had contingency at about 15%; through the summer staff has done investigative work, furthered the
design and testing of the site including soil analysis and water pressure measurement. Mr. Henry said
that the assumption was that there was enough water pressure to sprinkle the third floor, but the testing
indicated that it actually isn’t – so that is an example of a project where staff would have to use a percent
level of contingency to put a water booster pump in to meet the fire code. He said that having the ability to
move that money and allocate it for elements of the construction project allows OFD to keep it moving on
schedule.
Mr. Henry reported that staff has put together a guidelines document, which provides a sense of
the process undertaken, and the piece that will help offer more security is the reporting component. He
said that beginning with the end of the current quarter, he will be coming back to the Board with a quarterly
report of all major capital projects that will provide a detailed breakdown of the budget, the baseline, the
estimate to complete, and any change orders on the project. Mr. Henry said that the Board will get a
report quarterly on major projects, similar to how they get the financial report, and at least twice per year
he would come in and address the Board.
He presented the “SharePoint” site to the Board, noting that the County has recently converted to
that system and stating that it would allow the “teammates” to get access to project sites – and will also
allow the County to turn on at least the top level to the public so they can see the scope and status of
projects. Mr. Henry said that OFD also has a rigorous budgeting process, with Microsoft Excel workbooks
breaking down every type of cost that could be part of a project, and that it is all summarized at the upper
level reporting. He stated that the project is broken down into funding sources and use of funds,
summarized between hard costs, soft costs and contingency. Mr. Henry said that the baseline is that
point in time when the project will be initiated, and the Board can help define that baseline – either upon
approval of the CIP or preferably when they have a better handle on the design and construction costs.
He stated that the estimate at completion includes actual expenditures and any future costs anticipated.
Mr. Henry stated that the Project Managers from OFD meet monthly and present to the management-level
representatives of the County and Building Services adding that Assistant County Executives sit in.
He added that anytime OFD processes a change order on a contract for a project, they fall under
the County’s Procurement Manual requirements of getting the County Executive’s signature if it exceeds
either the 25% aggregate of the contract or if the individual request is $50,000 or above. He said that there
are a lot of controls on how money is being allocated and spent on the County’s capital projects. Mr.
Henry stated that the piece that has been missing is just a more formal communication to the Board and
hopefully the quarterly reporting will help address that.
Mr. Boyd said that he was the one who brought this up because he was concerned about large
projects that might have a $2 million contingency. He asked Mr. Henry if he as staff feels that he has a
blank check to expand a project. He cited an example of staff getting $10,000 windows instead of $5,000
because they are staying within 10% and asked if there is something by policy that says that cannot be
done.
Mr. Henry responded that when the County takes on a project, staff has well-defined elements as
to what the scope and requirements are, so within the execution of that project the Project Manager along
with the architect and stakeholder will make decisions based on what is in front of them . In most cases
staff is always looking at ways to keep the scope of the project and incorporate the least expensive option
– not the most. He said that if there was a decision made to try to add something beyond what was
authorized – staff would only do that with Board of Supervisors approval. Mr. Henry mentioned that with
Brownsville, they were running with $800,000 to $900,000 that looked like it might be liquidated at the end
of the project – but due to input from stakeholders and staff on the project, they felt it would be an
opportunity to do a renovation to the remainder of the school to tie in the new addition. He said that
because that was a scope change and significant, it came back through the School Board and then a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. He added that that’s the practice.
Mr. Boyd commented that staff could have gone ahead with that, as long as they stayed within the
contingency amount. Mr. Foley said no, that’s a change in scope. Mr. Henry stated that as stipulated in
the CIP policy, staff must come back if there is a change in project scope. Mr. Boyd commented that the
reporting should serve the purpose.
Mr. Rooker asked what staff could do with $567,000 contingency in the example provided that
wouldn’t require Board approval, and what would require approval. Mr. Henry replied that this is the
Crozet Library building, which is a great example. He said that staff is trying to get a stormwater pipe
across Crozet Avenue. There has been a lot of coordination with the design of the streetscape with VDOT
and Jarman’s Gap. During the implementation process it came up that the waterline needed to be
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
designed such that water could be maintained to the neighbors. That was not part of the original design
and because the change order has not been administratively processed staff has not seen anything yet.
There is going to be some additional costs for that component. He said that the staff put in the water line,
and did it in a way that didn’t cause two to five days of a water supply being shut down for that block of
Crozet. He added that that’s an example of where the project team was able to make that decision.
Mr. Henry said that currently staff is working with Embarq, Century Link and VDOT on an Embarq
line that is located where the utility line needs to go. There will likely be some costs associated with that
move, and staff will have the ability to use contingency funds for that.
Ms. Mallek noted that it wasn’t on any map.
Mr. Boyd said that in the future, the item would show up on the quarterly report. Mr. Henry stated
that it would be in the quarterly report, along with the change order and the reason for it.
Mr. Rooker said that Attachment A, dealing with the use of contingency funds and change order
process, has a paragraph with the Virginia Code stipulation that no fixed price contract may be increased
by more than 25% of the amount of the contract or $50,000 – whichever is greater – without the advanced
written approval of the governing body in the case of the political subdivisions. Mr. Rooker said that with a
$10 million contract, the amount would be $2.5 million.
Ms. Mallek said it’s whichever is greater.
Mr. Rooker said that $2.5 million is greater, and the Board has designated the County Executive
as its agent.
Mr. Davis stated that the purchasing manual authorizes the County Executive to take the role on
rather than the Board of Supervisors. Any change order greater than $50,000 is subject to review – so the
County has a more stringent requirement than the State Code.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is subject to review by the Board or the County Executive. Mr. Davis
responded by the County Executive and that has been authorized by the Board by the adoption of the
purchasing manual.
Mr. Rooker asked if the attachment was inaccurate. Mr. Davis explained that the State Code
requirement is more lenient than the County’s purchasing manual policy, with the exception that the Board
has delegated the approval process to the County Executive.
Mr. Rooker asked for any amount. Mr. Davis replied that anything greater than $50,000 requires
the County Executive to approve it.
Mr. Rooker said that the question is if there is $2.5 million, the County Executive still has the
authority without coming to the Board. Mr. Davis replied that’s correct.
Mr. Rooker said that he thought the Board had instituted a cap that led up to all of this, and there
was a limit to how much the County Executive could approve. Mr. Davis stated that the Board hasn’t
adopted that policy yet, but it stipulated that the County Executive would bring that to it before approval.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board did approve the transfer of funds and put a limit on it, but that’s a
different issue.
Mr. Rooker stated that it’s not prudent to him to have an unlimited amount that can be approved
by any staff person without it coming to the Board of Supervisors at some level adding that he thinks the
County needs it.
Mr. Davis said that the “check” would be that the change would have to be within the amount of
money appropriated for the project, and the County Executive can’t appropriate money. He explained that
if the amount of the change order exceeded the amount of the appropriation then it would have to come
back before the Board for that appropriation. He said that is why it is really a non-issue in most instances
because you don’t’ have that much.
Mr. Boyd said that the appropriation includes a 10% contingency, so a $20 million project would
have $2 million.
Mr. Rooker said that there is a difference between contractually obligated and the County
Executive signs a contract between the Board and a third party – that contract is enforceable. He said that
the County Executive might be in trouble with the Board because they didn’t approve the appropriation, but
that doesn’t affect the right of the third party to get paid.
Mr. Davis said that the County Attorney could not approve a contract unless the money has been
appropriated – so that never happens. He said that Mr. Rooker is correct – if you had a $2 million
contingency that had been appropriated it is technically possible for the County Executive to approve a
change order for that amount, but he doesn’t think the Board would see one do that. He added that the
process has been in place for 25-30 years.
Mr. Rooker said that he still does not feel it is a good situation.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Boyd said that is why he is was curious about what the over runs and change orders were
historically – does that $50,000 make any sense without tying your hands to make a decision to add a
pump to get water pressure up such as the Seminole example.
Mr. Foley explained that the authorization of the County Executive per the procurement manual
becomes a different question that can be reviewed by the Board if they are not comfortable with it.
Mr. Davis said that change orders usually happen because of a problem, and unless problems
can be addressed quickly. They delay projects – so the advantage of this system is that outside of the
first two weeks of the month during regular Board meeting times, it’s very difficult to get Board approval for
something quickly, the County Executive is available to make those decisions on the Boards behalf and
keep projects on track.
Mr. Foley said that even when he was Assistant County Executive and was overseeing projects as
Mr. Letteri does now, he wasn’t comfortable without more checks and balances and staff developed some
of these guidelines to ensure there was review at another level. He said that Mr. Henry is indicating that
the Board will see changes and activity on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Boyd stated that he’s OK with the quarterly reporting system and seeing what kind of numbers
are showing up on it and then take it up at another time.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks there should be a limit on a dollar amount.
Mr. Boyd said that he agrees if he starts to see a lot of $100,000 change orders on the quarterly
report.
Mr. Foley suggested that staff take some of this feedback and start the process of reporting, and
do some discussion at the staff level and make some recommendations that would not create problems
as far as project momentum.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Henry if he had some history on projects. Mr. Henry said that he could
provide a report that would say over the past year how many times OFD has hit the change order thresh
hold that would require the County Executives review.
Mr. Snow stated that he would like to see the report. Mr. Henry said that it is not many, but the
one exception is when you hit the 25% aggregate then if there is any change order, even if it is $100 then
it will go through the County Executive review.
Mr. Rooker said that what he is looking for is a number set that would require Board approval – a
number that would be pretty unusual for staff to want to do without coming to the Board.
Mr. Foley stated that in reality staff has done that, but setting an absolute direction from the Board
is a good way to put the checks and balances formally in place. He said that staff would bring this back
with the first report, and provide the history of using contingencies.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. FY 12 General Fund Year End Financial Report.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
The attached unaudited Annual Financial Report (AFR) (Attachment A) provides information
about the County’s General Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2012.
The AFR reflects year-end data through June 30, 2012, the end of FY 12. The data in the
attached AFR is organized in a way that is consistent with Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Line item titles in the AFR match the line item titles in the CAFR. The
columns in the AFR show FY 12 Adopted Budget revenues and expenditures, Revised Budget revenues
and expenditures, as well as Year End actual revenues and expenditures. Each of these Year End figures
subsequently is expressed as a percentage of the amount of the relevant line item of the FY 12 Revised
Budget.
Additionally, this AFR includes corresponding data for FY 11 so that the current fiscal year’s
financial data can be compared easily to that of the previous fiscal year. An important feature of this
report is that data is provided for a point in time (June 30, 2012) and is compared to data from the same
point in time for the prior fiscal year (June 30, 2012). Anomalies and similarities between fiscal years
become readily apparent using this comparison format.
Highlights of the attached report include:
Revenues – Year End Actual
Year End total revenues in FY 12 came to $219,190,219 compared to $215,377,074 in FY 11, an
increase of 1.77%, or roughly in line with the 1.66% increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)
during this time period. FY 12 Year End actual revenues, as a percentage of FY 12 Revised Budget
revenues, stood at 102.40% compared to 101.80% in FY 11. This result means that the County’s actual
total revenues in both years were within roughly 2% of forecasted total revenue. This variance is well
below the +/- 5% range of forecasting error that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
considers reasonable. Most revenue streams performed fairly consistently in FY 12 compared to FY 11.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
In dollar terms, the line item with the largest variance between the two years was Property Taxes; this item
grew roughly $3.7 million, due largely to the County’s enhanced efforts to collect delinquent taxes.
Another factor that had an impact on property tax revenue was the decision by the Board to equalize the
tax rate, at $0.762 per $100 of assessed value, which impacted June 5, 2012 real property tax bills. For
additional information about variances, please see the analysis page in the AFR.
Expenditures – Year End Actual
Year End total expenditures in FY 12 equaled $192,352,921 compared to $190,660,603 in FY 11,
an increase of 0.9%, or less than the increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) during this time
period. FY 12 Year End actual expenditures, as a percentage of FY 12 Revised Budget expenditures,
stood at 97.87% compared to 97.32% in FY 11. Again, this result means that the County’s actual total
expenditures in both years were within roughly 2% ~ 3% of forecasted total expenditures. In dollar terms,
the item with the largest variance between the two years was Public Safety; this item grew by about $1.35
million between the two years. Several factors contributed to this increase, including a rise of almost
$900,000 in Police expenditures.
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures
Consistent with best practices among AAA-rated localities, Albemarle takes a cautious, but reasonable
approach in budgeting revenues and expenditures. In terms of revenue budgeting, this approach means
that the County’s projections tend to be moderately conservative while, in terms of expenditure budgeting,
the County does not assume that there will be cost savings for items over which the County has little or no
control (e.g., early retirements, salary lapse, etc.). This situation means that, in many fiscal years,
revenues come in greater than expenditures. This phenomenon is consistent with the experience of other
AAA-rated jurisdictions. Note that, with regard to Albemarle County, Standard & Poor’s remarked recently
that, “[w]hat we believe are strong and conservative fiscal policies, and a well-seasoned management
team, have allowed management to maintain, in our opinion, its solid finances and low debt, providing
rating stability.”1 Similarly, Moody’s noted that the company, “believes that the county’s financial
operations, characterized by ample reserve levels, will remain strong given conservative management
practices and healthy revenue streams.”2
In FY 12, revenues, including net transfers, came in at $7,793,026 over expenditures. This
excess reflects, in part, the fact that in FY 12 Actual expenditures were only 98.61% of FY 12 Revised
Budget expenditures. In dollar terms, the difference between revised budgeted and actual expenditures
equaled $4,181,925. A significant portion of these expenditure savings is associated with salary lapse and
related benefits (totaling approximately $1.2 million) and unused set-asides for such things as Board
Contingencies, Job Opportunity Fund, Grants Leveraging Fund and potential CSA liabilities.
____________
1. Standard & Poor’s, “Summary: Albemarle County Economic Development Authority, Virginia;
Albemarle County; Appropriations General Obligation” memorandum, p. 5. (4 November 2011).
2. Moody’s Investors Services, “Moody’s Assigns Aa1 Rating to Economic Development Authority of
Albemarle County’s (VA) $38.1 Million Public Facility Revenue Bonds (Albemarle County Project), Series
2011” memorandum, p. 1. (1 November 2011).
General Fund FY 12 Fund Balance & Use of FY 12 Fund Balance
The unaudited June 30, 2012 Fund Balance is $39,774,591. There is no projected addition to
fund balance for FY 13. According to County policy, $27,653,715 of this amount is to be put into
unassigned fund balance reserve, while $7,214,066 of the $39,774,591 represents actual and planned
used of fund balance, including Board approved transfers to capital. The remainder of the projected June
30, 2013 excess fund balance of $4,906,810 equals the dollar amount anticipated to be available for
Watch List/Capital going forward.
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the AFR reflect the state of the County’s budget-to-
actual performance as of June 30, 2012.
This report is for information only, and no action is requested.
_____
Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, addressed the Board, stating that the annual financial report
presents the FY12 financial results in the same format as that they will be in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report or CAFER, as well as a comparison to FY11 results. Ms. Burrell stated that the Finance
Departments external audit is still ongoing and their CAFER is not final, so these are unaudited results but
staff believes them to be materially correct and accurate. She said that staff wanted to bring together
some significant budget to actual variances, and overall revenues were within approximately two percent
of budget, which is within reasonable limits.
Ms. Burrell stated that a major component of the revenue variance is related directly to the
delinquent collection efforts that Finance went through between January and June. Combined, the
budgeted amounts for delinquent collections and penalties and interest associated with the delinquent
accounts total over $2,711,800 million, and the actual combined collections in the two categories of
revenues was $4,963,020 million. In FY12, she said, actual revenues – net of transfers – came to $5.6
million above the budgeted amounts; with the delinquencies, the County ended up with about $2.3 million
above budget. Ms. Burrell thanked the revenue and taxation staff and the business staff for all the effort in
getting taxes collected. She said that Finance also had a much higher percentage of collection on current
taxes, going from 94.41% of current collections in FY11 to 95.43% in FY12, which also impacted
additional revenue.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Ms. Burrell reported that overall expenditures were also within two percent, which is also an
industry standard, and the savings were largely attributable to salary lapse, and 3.1% of expenditure
savings were attributable to those. She said that four departments were largely responsible for the
savings – Police, Fire, Facilities Development, and Social Services. Of the fund balance reported as of
June 30, $27 million is the Board’s ten percent fund balance amount – so that’s already committed to the
fund balance – and the Board has already since July 1 made supplemental appropriations of $3.5 million.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Board needs to keep in mind that collection of delinquent tax
revenues is a one-time thing, and some of it went back quite some time. He noted that these aren’t
recurring revenues.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board,
School Board Chairman.
Mr. Steve Koleszar addressed the Board, stating that he wanted to highlight a few things from the
written report he provided. He stated that recently the SAT scores were released – and in writing,
Albemarle students were the second-highest division in the state, for math and reading they were the
third-highest in the state. Mr. Koleszar said that the schools have always had fairly high participation in
college courses, and last year that number reached 71%. He said that Albemarle County Public Schools
got recognized by the SAT for the high percentage in AP courses. He said that where ACPS had 560
students take one or more AP courses out of a graduating class of 970; had 431 students who took dual
enrollment courses, and 34 who took one or more dual credit courses. Mr. Koleszar noted that the on time
graduation rate is still at 92.4%.
Mr. Koleszar reported that on Monday, November 5 the school division had their annual staff
development conference, and he did a presentation on the School Board goals of going beyond the SOLs.
He said that a teacher said that she’d worked in several divisions before coming to Albemarle, and what
she liked about staff development in Albemarle was that staff development focused on how to teach better
and improve what’s done in the classroom. He said that to see the level of energy and enthusiasm that
Albemarle’s teachers have is really phenomenal. He also stated that MESA students, in the first two years
they’ve graduated, average $27,000 a year in merit scholarships.
Mr. Koleszar thanked the Board members who came to the Health and Medical Sciences kick off
and said that the School Board is hoping to have the same kind of good results with that program.
Mr. Snow said that it was a great program and that he really enjoyed it.
Mr. Koleszar said that when people get to see what the kids are doing it is really exciting.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the great things about the Health and Medical Sciences program is
how quickly students took an interest in it and the extent of the applications received for the first class.
Ms. Mallek said that the presentations that the ninth graders who had only been in it for 2 ½
months were also pretty good and they had a lot of competency already.
Mr. Koleszar stated that the School Board is really trying to drive that they want to measure kids
by what they can do – not how well they take SOL tests. He said that creating that change in culture and
change in attitude takes time, but the School Board is very much committed to doing it and it is part of the
strategic planning process.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to learn at some point how things are being adapted with the
DOE waiver. Mr. Kolezar responded that the issue is that every school gets measured by SOLs, and
there is a lot of pressure to do well on the test – even though there are no longer sanctions as there were
under No Child Left Behind. He said that as part of the School Boards strategic plan they are going to
develop their own criteria as to what academic excellence is to measure their division against.
Ms. Mallek asked if the schools still have to do the 80,000 tests.
Mr. Koleszar replied that they still have to do the 80,000 tests. He said that the tests do have
some value, but the test results themselves don’t have to be treated like that’s the definition of good
education.
Ms. Mallek commented that there would hopefully be less hysteria on the part of the students.
Mr. Koleszar said that his concern is more the teachers’ hysteria, because they get locked into the
mentality of teaching to the test, so they aren’t really teaching what would be optimal for students.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Rivanna Snapshop, Rivanna River Basin Commission, Leslie Middleton.
Ms. Leslie Middleton addressed the Board, stating that she would talk about the “Rivanna
Watershed Snapshot” and the action plan associated with it, which dovetails with some of the things the
County is doing. Ms. Middleton said that Rivanna River Basin Commission is not calling this a “report
card”, because giving localities a grade doesn’t help anybody. She stated that the RRBC call it a snapshot
also because in some areas they simply don’t have the data to be able to track trends, and the RRBC
really has not done this kind of assessment since the 1998 State of the Basin was produced by the
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Ms. Middleton said that the RRBC would talk about land
use, how that relates to population throughout the entire watershed, things that are important to the
Boards constituencies that relate watershed health to quality of life – such as the presence of fish species,
public boating access, and how well the rivers are doing. She said that the sad truth is that there are a
number of stream miles that are impaired for one or another different kinds of excess pollutants – one
being too much bacteria to make it truly safe to swim and do contact recreation, and other problems
related to excessive sediment.
Ms. Middleton stated that the RRBC will begin the conversation about watershed health in a larger
context, so that they are talking about landscape scale, preservation, restoration, and conservation. She
said that wise people have been quoted as saying that the river is “the report card of how we are living on
the land”, so everyone needs to be looking at how the land use interfaces with the ecology and what the
community wants to do moving forward.
Ms. Mallek asked if the online imagine be able to have County boundary’s or anything else more
recognizable than the big picture that people could zoom in on.
Ms. Middleton said that for the snapshot it would not be possible. She stated that the RRBC is
gathering information locality by locality, but are aggregating most of the data – and want to promote a
dialogue between localities that have different needs, different challenges, different ways of solving
problems, different regulatory drivers. She said that the RRBC would talk about stormwater best
management practices and where they are, adding that the RRBC is building up their own database of
where they exist. Ms. Middleton stated that she would show conservation lands, which areas are
protected and in what manner, and would talk a little bit about land use planning.
She added that her report would highlight the report that came out from Stream Watch, as it is
really important and extremely fortunate that such an organization has worked for so long and so well in
our watershed, assessing the health of streams through a huge cadre of volunteers going out and looking
at the state of aquatic life. Ms. Middleton stated that there is now enough data to be able to predict stream
health if the land use is known, and it is not surprising – where there is increased development, even with
a density of one house per 17 acres you start to see stream degradation. She said that these findings are
consistent with County policy, a there is nothing that suggests that encouraging growth in the growth areas
shouldn’t happen.
Mr. Rooker referenced the statistic that said forest coverage averages 70 percent and there is 17
acres for every house and asked if that was throughout.
Ms. Middleton replied that it is an average throughout the watershed, with all participating
jurisdictions, and this particular study was done on a “sub-watershed basis”. Ms. Middleton said that a
model was created, and it has shown to be predictive – which is the importance of this study.
Mr. Thomas asked if Meadow Creek would have a large effect on the percentage.
Ms. Middleton responded that it would have an incredibly important effect on the resulting water
quality, and there are opportunities for retrofit that are extremely helpful.
Mr. Thomas said that Meadow Creek died in the late 1950’s and asked if it has anything in it now.
Ms. Middleton replied that there is a stream restoration effort which is an extensive project,
starting from Hydraulic Road.
Ms. Middleton said that the snapshot will be available in print and online, and the RRBC will take it
out to localities – with a public opening on December 7 at City Space – and will be seeking people’s
visions for the Rivanna. She added that there would be three other events, and this effort would really
launch the development of the Rivanna Watershed Action Plan and planning process. Ms. Middleton said
there would be a companion document to the snapshot, a technical document for those who want to dig
deeper and understand the origin of data. She emphasized that there are not only regulatory drivers, but
many ways of studying land use that are coming together as people struggle to put together how TMDL
legislation will impact Albemarle County’s stormwater permitting, for example. Ms. Middleton said that the
project hopes to piece all of that together in one document, so that it can be determined where legal and
ecological requirements match up – and where they don’t. She stated that the RRBC intends it to be
something that could be included by reference in Comprehensive Plan updates or otherwise, and in a
number of different ways. She said that the RRBC thinks that there is going to be a tremendous amount
of utility to this process.
Ms. Middleton stated that the RRBC intends to undertake a process to identify some of the most
important existing healthy streams and sub-watersheds so there is a basis for making decisions where
there is still room to make decisions about land use. She said RRBC would heavily involve their technical
advisory committee and that means Albemarle County, as two staff members serve on that, and the
Commission itself will be vetting the Watershed Action Plan. Ms. Middleton stated that the RRBC also
plans to create a structure for evaluating what is going to be the inevitable requests for mitigating effects
of stormwater on a site by site basis, and currently there is no way for any locality to look at those kinds of
proposals and put it into a context of watershed health and other drivers. In addition, she said, there is no
good construct yet for evaluating nutrient trading between watersheds, although it’s been articulated and
promulgated through the law. She also said that the document would serve as the kind of document that
will be essential in going after certain kinds of federal funding for implementation.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Ms. Middleton presented the schedule for public meetings, adding that RRBC are working closely
with their Technical Advisory Committee and with planning professionals in the County in terms of the
Comp Plan upgrade activity taking place now.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21a. Work Session: ZTA-2012-00012. Critical Slopes.
The following executive summary was received by Board members:
On May 2, 2007, the Development Review Task Force (DRTF) presented the Board its
recommendations for review and consideration including a provision that would “…establish staff authority
for waivers and modifications in development areas.” On January 14, 2009, the Board adopted a zoning
text amendment authorizing the County’s agent to authorize critical slopes (slopes of 25% or greater) to
be disturbed in those zoning districts typically found in the Development Areas in two specific
circumstances: (1) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a
site plan approved by the County; and (2) the critical slopes would be disturbed to replace an existing
structure located on critical slopes under specified circumstances. In the initial discussion of that
amendment on January 7, 2009, the Board indicated that the regulations delineating the circumstances
under which the agent may authorize the disturbance of critical slopes in the Development Areas should
be broadened.
The Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend the critical slopes regulations on April 1, 2009.
(Attachment A) Staff began work on the regulations and held roundtables with stakeholders in December
2009 and February 2010. A summary of the roundtable comments is included as Attachment B. Staff
continued to work on further assessing revisions to the regulations throughout 2010, however, that work
was temporarily suspended due to reductions in staffing levels as well as undertaking more recent Board
priorities such as the Ministerial and Legislative Process changes, the fast track process, biosolids, home
occupancy regulations, farm winery regulations, and Wireless policy and regulations. Staff is now seeking
Board concurrence on the proposed approach before proceeding to public hearing with a draft ordinance.
Staff considered the comments made at the roundtables, reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
(Attachment C) and studied how other localities regulate critical slopes to identify the best practices for
preserving and managing them. Staff also has applied its experience in processing a large number of
critical slopes waivers to determine the most important issues to the community. A more detailed
discussion of critical slopes and management strategies is provided as Attachment D.
Based on the cumulative results of this research, staff mapped all critical slopes in the
Development Areas. Because different critical slopes may have different qualities and characteristics, staff
has classified the areas of critical slopes as either “Preserved” or “Managed.” Those areas of c ritical
slopes classified as “Preserved” would not be allowed to be disturbed. Staff recommends establishing an
overlay district that would identify and regulate the Preserved areas. Those areas of critical slopes
classified as “Managed” could be disturbed by right, subject to applicable performance standards. Certain
activities would be exempt from the applicable critical slopes regulations in both the Preserved and
Managed areas. Owners of lands within a Preserved area could request a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals to disturb Preserved critical slopes.
The attached maps (Attachments E through K) show all of the existing critical slopes in the
Development Areas and identify them as either Preserved or Managed. The areas shown in green are the
proposed Preserved areas and the areas shown in orange are the proposed Managed areas. The areas
shown in purple are protected stream buffers. The proposed zoning text amendment would not expand
the areas of regulated critical slopes.
Staff applied the following criteria in classifying critical slopes areas as Preserved or Managed:
Preserved Areas
- The slopes are part of a system of slopes associated with a water feature.
- The slopes are part of a hillside system.
- The slopes are identified as a resource in the Open Space Plan.
- The slopes are identified as a resource in the Comprehensive Plan.
- The slopes may be of significant value to the Entrance Corridor District.
- The slopes are a contiguous area of 10,000 square feet or more or a close grouping of slopes
less than 10,000 square feet.
- The slopes are shown to be preserved by a prior County action.
Managed Areas
- The contiguous area of critical slopes is limited or fragmented.
- The slopes are not associated with a water feature.
- The slopes are not natural.
- The slopes have been significantly disturbed prior to June 1, 2012.
- The slopes are located within previously approved single family residential lots.
- The slopes are shown to be disturbed by a prior County action.
These areas are subject to change as additional information is obtained. The disturbance of
critical slopes in the Rural Areas will continue to be allowed only by special exception.
Establishing development standards will allow for a more efficient review of projects ultimately
reducing staff and Board workload required to review waiver requests. While the number of critical slopes
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
waivers is not enough to result in a need for fewer staff, this change should provide significant cost
reductions for applicants.
During the development of new regulations, the County will incur costs related to publishing
notifications, sending mailings to property owners in the development areas, and holding open houses and
work sessions. The large number of property owners that will be notified will have a significant impact on
the Community Development’s existing budget for advertisement and printing.
Staff anticipates that adoption of a zoning text amendment would (1) reduce staff time and costs
associated with reviewing projects, preparing staff reports, and making presentations before the Planning
Commission and the Board for applications for special exceptions; and (2) reduce the applicant’s time and
cost.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to (1) continue to work on the development of a
critical slopes overlay district containing “Preserved” critical slopes; (2) generate development standards
for “Managed” critical slopes; and (3) develop a list of exempt activities. Upon completion of this work,
staff will prepare a zoning text amendment for consideration.
Staff recommends that the following steps to amend the critical slopes regulations be taken prior
to scheduling a public hearing:
- Meet with the Board appointed Citizen Advisory Councils for the various neighborhoods for input.
These meeting are expected to occur in January and February of 2013.
- Hold an Open House with notification being mailed to affected property owners in the
development areas. It is expected that multiple Open Houses will be required. These meetings
are expected to occur during the 2nd quarter of 2013.
- Hold a work session with the Planning Commission to review public input received at the Open
House and to determine if the proposed zoning text amendment is ready to be scheduled for
public hearings. It is expected that this work session will occur in the early part of the 3rd quarter of
2013.
_____
Mr. Bill Fritz addressed the Board, noting that this is a work session on critical slopes, reminding
the Board that in January 2009 they approved a zoning text amendment that allowed for administrative
approval of disturbance of critical slopes if they had been created by a previous action, or to allow
replacement of structures. He said that subsequently a resolution of intent was adopted to further amend
critical slopes, and the County held some roundtables. Mr. Fritz said that staff considered comments
made at those roundtables, which are included as part of this report. He stated that staff considered those
comments, reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, studied how other localities were dealing with critical
slopes, and applied County experiences in processing a large number of waivers.
Mr. Fritz reported that the recommendations to be considered today are only for the development
areas, and there is no discussion about the rural areas at all. He said that there is no expansion of the
areas designated as critical slopes, so staff left the 25% benchmark – with no increase or decrease in the
areas designated. Mr. Fritz said that all critical slopes retain protection, and the key difference is that staff
is proposing a tiering of the protection – with an overlay district created to designate preserved and
managed areas. He stated that the preserved slopes may not be disturbed except for exempt activities,
and that’s a key change because now a waiver can be done through the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Mallek asked if an example of that would be sewage or stormwater. Mr. Fritz responded that
those are examples, and he has some others as well such as utilities and roads that would be exempt
activities.
He explained that managed slopes could be disturbed by right, and nothing needs to be done
other than the normal building permit/site plan/subdivision process, but what is proposed is that there
would be applicable performance standards with some exempt activities in both preserved and managed
areas. Mr. Fritz stated that to designate areas as preserved or managed, staff came up with criteria, and
it’s important to note that they are not absolute – and there are some cases where there would be a
particular critical slope and it would fit both columns. He said that this is just a starting point, and staff is
recommending that more work be done on this including an extensive public process.
Using the example of the Pantops area, Mr. Fritz presented a map showing all areas in that
development area with slopes of 25% or greater, and then a map showing what is being proposed as
“preserved slopes”. He said that staff calculated the total area of critical slopes in the Pantops
neighborhood, and 59% of the critical slopes would be designated as preserved – with 41% being
designated as managed. Mr. Fritz stated that staff denoted large systems associated with streams had
already been designated by a prior action of the County as being protected by rezoning, site plan, master
plan greenway etc, or if staff felt that it might be significant because it had a significant value to the
entrance corridor district, and noted on the map what the result would be by applying the criteria. He said
that he does not want to imply that staff went through every one of the slopes and knows that it should be
preserved or managed. He said that staff thinks that, that should be a further discussion and encourages
it, and added that what they are trying to do is get a starting point.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff would do this kind of assessment with respect to every slope.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff already has, within the development areas, doing the analysis with
GIS only. He said that if staff goes through a public process that warrants going out and looking at a
particular site in the field, then that’s what they will do.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Rooker said that he is trying to get a feel for how much time and effort this is taking, and what
is achieved by it and how useful that is. He stated that his understanding is that staff is trying to come up
with a process that is more efficient for everyone in the long run, as people can look at the kind of slope
they have and know what the process will be.
Mr. Fritz said that even if the County designates an area as “managed” as opposed to
“preserved”, there would still be performance standards on how those particular slopes would be
protected. He said that staff is not proposing that any area currently shown as a critical slope be taken
away from having protection, they are changing the type of evaluation that goes on with that slope.
Mr. Dumler asked about the types of performance standards.
Mr. Fritz explained that in creating a level pad, you can sometimes end up with slopes that are
steeper than existing slopes. He said that fill slopes would be blended with the natural steep hillside so
there are not abrupt changes in the grades, transitioning from the existing grade into a manufactured
slope – and from that slope back into a natural slope. Mr. Fritz said that landforms and curved grading
patterns are things that are routinely used in localities as an example of best practices in grading.
Ms. Mallek said that it sounds like “contour farming”.
Mr. Fritz said that to a degree it is, and staff has included some terracing specifics in the policy.
He stated that many of the recommended provisions were taken from ordinances in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Frtiz noted that exempt activities could potentially include things like road construction,
utilities, recreation facilities such as trails, etc. He said that this is a key provision of the ordinance, stating
that in a lot of subdivisions the County had approved there were large areas of critical slopes that were put
into open space in master plans – but some of those slopes fed up into individual lots, so it is part of a
large system with the majority of those slopes in open space but some on individual lots. He stated that
staff tried to map where those boundaries were, and it was a very cumbersome, tedious and difficult
process. He said that instead, staff came up with exempt activity – which may need to be worked on –
and accessory uses are permitted on those slopes provided that performance standards are met.
Mr. Rooker asked if that meant even in preserved slopes. Mr. Fritz responded yes even in
preserved slopes.
Ms. Mallek said that for something like a pool, there would have to be an enormous terrace and it
would cause significant land disturbance. She said that these are not in the managed groups they are in
the protected slopes. Mr. Fritz responded that they are potentially exempt activities on both managed and
preserved slopes.
Mr. Dumler noted that one of the categories of “managed slopes” in the recommendation is
previously approved, single-family residential units, and staff is purporting to put all of those designations
in the managed category.
Mr. Fritz said that staff put them in the managed category and tried to actually map them, but
found it to be very difficult to do so they created the exemption. He noted that to crop every single one of
those slopes was a very time-consuming process.
Ms. Mallek stated that if someone wanted to put a garage or shed at the bottom of a hill they
would have to create a road and it seems like the County is setting up for a terrible trap.
Mr. Fritz said that this is a “first blush” look at what exempt activities might be, and those are the
issues staff feels more work needs to be put into – as none of the ordinance language has been
developed yet.
Mr. Snow said that by the same token someone could take that same garage and put it right next
to their house and cut into the bank to put it there – then it’s just a small disturbance and could be handled
right simply. Mr. Fritz responded in “some cases”. He said that in some jurisdictions they are actually
detailed about how to build an existing structure into an existing slope and use the house itself as the
retaining wall and how to then blend with the existing slope.
Mr. Rooker asked if a lot can be approved where there is no existing building site, based on
critical slopes. Mr. Fritz replied that it is a carryover of an existing exemption, and there are lots that were
created prior to the adoption of critical slopes regulations that are all critical slopes. He said that what the
existing ordinance says and what staff proposes that this amendment would say is “to the extent that there
is not an area available”.
Ms. Mallek said that distinction was very important, because in the mountain areas people would
leave the flat area at the bottom of the hill and put structures on top because they can.
Mr. Fritz emphasized that this only applies in the development areas, not the rural areas, and staff
wrote the provision to make sure they are not making any lots undevelopable that were previously
approved.
Mr. Davis stated that the rule exists in the rural areas today, regarding buildable area.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Fritz said that staff is proposing that they continue to work on the development of a critical
slopes overlay district containing preserved and managed slopes, that they generate development
standards and keep refining that for the managed critical slopes, using a maximum disturbed area as an
example; that staff develop a list of exempt activities and further refine those. Upon completion, he said
that staff would bring it back as a zoning text amendment for consideration. He explained that what staff
is recommending as steps is to first meeting with the Board-appointed citizens advisory councils for
various neighbors to get input. He said that staff would like to do that in January or February; then hold
open houses in the second quarter of the year with notifications mailed to affected property owners as
identified through managed and preserved slopes. He said that at those meetings, staff anticipates
receiving specific concerns about very specific slopes whereby they may have to do further work either
looking at aerial photographs or actually going on the ground. Mr. Fritz stated that staff would then hold a
work session with the Planning Commission to review all the public input received at those meetings, and
determine if the proposed ZTA is ready to be scheduled for public hearings – hopefully by the third quarter
of 2013.
Mr. Fritz summarized the recommendations as development area only, no increase in acreage or
area affected by critical slopes regulations, a tiered standard for critical slopes, development standards
and an extensive public process to develop an ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was no increase or decrease. Mr. Fritz responded no increase or
decrease in the area protected by the critical slope regulations.
Mr. Dumler commented that the definition doesn’t change.
Mr. Fritz said that right now everything over 25% is a critical slope and what staff is proposing is
that everything over 25% would be either a managed or preserved slope in the future.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Fritz how staff determines if something is a natural slope if they haven’t
been there to look at it. Mr. Fritz replied that a lot of the times it could be done by looking at the aerial
photographs or by looking at the topography. He explained that natural tend to be more gentle and
rounding, and if there is abrupt changes it would probably have to be field checked.
Mr. Rooker said that this sounds like a lot of additional staff work, and it seems like almost
everyone is an affected property owner because you have to anticipate that someone might be adding a
deck or may want to put a pool in – so anyone who has critical slopes on their property basically becomes
a noticed party. He asked Mr. Fritz at the end of this process what will have been achieved that is
valuable enough that warrants all this input of staff time and expense.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff believes it provides a very predictable outcome for both the
development community and for the residents, as they know which slopes are preserved, which are
protected, what can happen, what can’t happen. He said that critical slope waivers take a long time, with
a lot of work required for the applicant to submit the waiver, for staff to review the waiver and ultimately
bring it forward as a recommendation. He stated that this would eliminate waivers and said that the time
that staff is spending on reviewing waivers would go away. Mr. Fritz stated that this essentially does all
the work on waivers up front so staff wouldn’t have to do it in the future, and they wouldn’t be looking at it
on a case by case basis.
Mr. Rooker said that he just wants to be sure that the end gain is worth the up-front effort, as the
process as described seems to be extremely intensive. He stated that if the Board is talking about
predictability for 10,000 pieces of property – only a hundred of which would have filed an application at
some point – did we really save any time.
Mr. Thomas asked if the goal here for staff was gaining efficiency. Mr. Fritz responded that in the
review process, it does that significantly.
Mr. Snow asked if it would allow these items to be handled administratively. Mr. Fritz replied that
for managed slopes, it would be a matter of simply looking at the grading plan that comes in to determine
if it meets performance standards.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Board made a change already to make most of them ministerial.
Mr. Thomas asked if it might encourage growth in the rural area, rather than the development
area. Mr. Fritz said that he really couldn’t answer that question, adding that during the review of a
rezoning, they are making a lot of those determinations so this might not impact that. He stated that
because of the Sinclair case, even administrative things must come forward.
Mr. Rooker said that they can be on the Consent Agenda. He stated that this is a lot of good work,
and he appreciates that, but he wants to make sure the Board is not spending a dollar to save a dime.
Ms. Mallek said that she wants to make sure there aren’t too many things in the exempt list.
Mr. Rooker agreed and said that he was trying to figure out what is it you can’t do.
Mr. Fritz responded that there would need to be some criteria for those exemptions, such as road
construction only where there is no reasonable alternative, etc. – and some jurisdictions have actually
done that by giving performance standards to make sure it’s an objective analysis.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Rooker commented that he finds the list very objectionable because you are basically saying
you can virtually do anything without limit, but then when you start putting provisos on, the situation is back
to having staff have to review something to make a determination.
Mr. Fritz said that reviewing a road based on predetermined standards becomes a pretty efficient
review process for staff because they are not being subjective in their analysis.
Ms. Mallek commented that as long as the County doesn’t get into the trap of the soil disturbance
routine where people played with the map to make the gentle road look so objectionable.
Mr. Fritz asked if the Board wanted staff to go ahead with the recommendations and move
forward with the work.
Board members nodded in agreement, but Mr. Rooker said that he would like to understand what
this would cost to implement and to better understand who and what time it’s going to save at the back
end, and on how many parcels. He said that if staff has got to go and do work on two thousand parcels
because over the next five years they may have applications on seventy-five of those, then he is not sure if
any time or money has been saved.
Mr. Snow said that a quick analysis of what it would save the applicant and what it would save the
County would be helpful in making an objective review.
Mr. Rooker added and what the cost of this process is going to be to get there.
Mr. Snow agreed, stating that if it doesn’t save the applicant anything, and it doesn’t save the
County, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Mr. Rooker said, and if it costs too much up front of everybody’s time.
Mr. Boyd suggested that this be the next step.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that staff could bring it back at the next available meeting.
Mr. Foley said that staff would take a step back look at this, and then bring it back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Fritz outlined a very extensive process with public involvement, and that’s
going to be expensive. He added that he wants to make sure it’s balanced with other priorities.
Mr. Boyd commented that it needs to be looked at from all angles – the landowner’s standpoint,
staff standpoint, and Board standpoint.
Mr. Rooker stated that he agreed with Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Mallek asked if evaluating preserved and managed slopes might put staff back in the position
of acting subjectively.
Mr. Fritz responded only in the initial adoption of what is preserved and managed, which staff
would be bringing to the Board, because once it’s designated – it’s designated.
Mr. Foley said that staff would do a cost-benefit analysis before going to the next step, adding that
staff has already put a lot of time into this.
Mr. Rooker stated that staff is doing exactly what the Board asked them to do, but what he is
seeing now is that the process is more tedious, time-consuming, and perhaps expensive than anticipated.
Ms. Mallek commented that all of the work done thus far will still be very helpful even if the Board
doesn’t move forward.
Mr. Snow said that he appreciated what staff, especially Mr. Fritz, have done thus far.
Mr. Fritz thanked him.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21b. Five Year Financial Plan – General Fund.
Mr. Foley reported that staff puts a significant amount of time into the five-year plan, and thanked
them for their work. He said that this process has really done a lot for the County’s financial planning,
especially policy direction. Mr. Foley stated that the purpose of today’s discussion is to flesh out some
things on the horizon and see what direction the Board wants to go in, before the annual budget is put
together. He said that he has asked staff and departments to put some extra effort into thinking about the
next five years, because they basically haven’t thought about that for the past four years because they
knew there was no money. Mr. Foley said that the County is accumulating needs, not based upon
enhanced services but based on keeping up with core services. He stated that while staffing is back to
2002-03 levels, the County population is at the 2012 level – and some things are starting to accumulate.
Mr. Foley said that when staff present unfunded capital projects, there is also a list of unfunded operating
needs that are starting to build up. He stated that while staff has a pretty good plan to take some steps
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
forward, it is a very modest plan in spite of some measures such as a 7/10 penny on the tax rate in year
three.
Mr. Foley said that there are four major principles reflected in the plan, including support of
essential services with some new police officers, social services workers, and a continued commitment to
the schools. He stated that the police officer level keeps up with population in this plan, but doesn’t move
“geo-policing” forward – it just keeps up with the call load. Mr. Foley said that there are some additional
social services workers also in the third year, but the workload data says they’re needed in the first year –
and the workload is pretty significant. He stated that underlying the support of police officers is training
staff that needs to help those officers be ready to serve, and those kinds of things are not really funded in
this plan. Mr. Foley said that as part of the process, staff will provide the Board with some of the unmet
operating needs to give them a sense of anticipated needs – and those things are included to try to keep
up with essential services.
Mr. Foley noted that it does acknowledge the continued financial uncertainty that we face, and
stays focused on maintaining the County’s AAA-bond rating by maintaining and enhancing some reserves.
He said it includes a small tax increase in year three, but only after two years of continued declining
property values – a total of 2% over the first two years of the plan – so the increase is more of a make-up
with the things the County is falling behind on, primarily the social services workers in year three. Mr.
Foley stated that the plan continues to build an agile and responsive organization focused on the future,
and the five-year plan even as it stands also assumes cutting an additional $200,000 over the timeframe
to achieve some efficiencies and do some restructuring. He said that we start with an obligation that
we’ve got to continue to work on getting better, being more innovative, getting creative on how we provide
services. He added that staff is committed to finding another $200,000 in savings over the five years,
adding that the plan really represents that financially the County is still struggling.
Mr. Foley said that as a priority, the County recognizes that staff has been working very hard
under difficult conditions over the last few years – and in this plan the County finally gets back to a 2%
pay-for-performance in each of the five years of the plan. He stated that it also establishes an intern fund
to address workload challenges without adding permanent staff going forward. Mr. Foley said that the
plan also embraces creativity and innovation to advance strategic priorities that move the community
forward, and it does include an assumption of expanding collection of EMS fees across the County. He
noted that it takes a modest approach to that collection, and staff will be talking to the Board over the next
month as to how those fees might be expanded further, which might help address moving social services
workers into the first year and perhaps even begin moving geo-policing forward in small steps.
Mr. Foley said that the plan also assumes the establishment of a stormwater district to address
the new mandates with the TMDL, and there is still some uncertainty about those ultimate requirements –
but some things are known, and one of them is that the County’s permit for stormwater is up for renewal
nest year again and when it gets renewed it will have some conditions that are different than before. Mr.
Foley mentioned that some other localities have had theirs renewed, and had new conditions, and then
the EPA has inspected them and fined them – prompting negotiated settlements that have required
adding staff to meet requirements. He said that staff have assumed a very modest step forward toward
the establishment of stormwater fees, and it is a very complex discussion, and in this plan staff have not
assumed a major new million-dollar revenue source but instead have assumed only enough additional
revenue to hire three more stormwater inspectors and to offset the cost of two inspectors or two
stormwater staff they have now. Mr. Foley said that there is the equivalent of five positions and some
operating costs to help meet this mandate, but the revenue is only set at the lower level. He stated that if
the County moves forward to meet mandates, it may take more staff, but it will certainly take more capital
construction. Mr. Foley noted that the stormwater fund is down to about $75,000 per year, and it used to
be much more significant. He said that if the County has to upgrade or retrofit facilities to meet new
phosphorus requirements, or have to put new programs in place to work with farmers and create
incentives for them, those kinds of things must be done.
Mr. Foley said that he is not trying to blow this out of proportion, but thinks all Board members
know this is on the horizon and is pretty significant. He said that some localities are in the process of
getting fines now. He stated that the plan takes a modest step of assuming that a utility will be
established, and that gives the Board total flexibility as to how it’s established – but for now, just to the
extent of the five positions until there is more discussion held.
Mr. Rooker asked what year staff projected to have a stormwater utility established and the
revenue that would come in from that.
Mr. Foley said that staff has it in the second year of the plan, which would be a year and a half out
from now. He said that staff would have the breakdown as to additional stormwater taxes.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Five Year Plan would show how much staff is talking about in additional
stormwater taxes.
Mr. Foley said that it would have the break down so the Board can see the assumptions. He
reiterated that at the highest level it is one of those things that’s being put on the table and will need some
discussion on how it will proceed, and that a five year context is the best way to describe it. He stated that
the plan also establishes an innovation investment fund to promote and enable savings and efficiencies
and to get the $200,000 in savings the Board may have to restructure – perhaps creating a centralized
operation that may require some investment to get set up, but will save money in the long run. He said
that this fund essentially would be set aside for investment in measures that will save operating monies
going forward.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr. Foley emphasized that his overall message is that this is a fairly modest plan, and there is a
continued growth in population while expenditures remain suppressed.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that she would provide some of the assumptions built into the plan, summarize where they are, and
then have some Board discussion and direction. She said that the Board is in the five-year plan process,
beginning with the Board’s retreat in September – which included the idea of the Stormwater District. She
said that in October the Board held a joint work session with the School Board in which they addressed
compensation and benefits, and that gave staff guidance as to what they would build into this plan. Ms.
Allshouse thanked staff and the Office of Management and Budget for taking all of that information and
building it into a balanced five-year plan, and the work really comes in with the balancing. She said that
staff doesn’t want there to be loose ends with the assumptions.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the following day the Board would have another work session with the
School Board, at which they would share insights on the schools’ five-year plan. She said the Board
would hold another work session on December 5, wrapping up on December 12, which would take them
right into the beginning of the annual budgeting process.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that this is not a budget, it’s just a plan, and numbers are included to
make sure it can all work based on the best information available today – but every day new information
comes in for budgeting, so those figures will be updated and amended as the Board moves into the
annual plan. She said that staff believes the five-year plan does support the priorities of the Board and
provides direction to staff, and essentially brings together the CIP and the existing capital program for both
schools and general government.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the plan assumes slow revenue growth, presenting information on
how staff projected growth over the next five years. She said that real estate taxes are declining slightly,
as assessment values are assumed to decrease – but there is also some new construction and some
growth in the base to offset that. Ms. Allshouse stated that other property taxes are increasing about
2.8%, just above inflation, and other local taxes including sales tax, BPOL, transient occupancy, food and
beverage, etc. are estimated to be a little higher – at 4%. She said that local revenue non-tax is projected
to increase 2.8% because the Office of Facilities Development was in this budget but was moved to a
separate internal service fund, which reduces the amount of money into the General Fund. She said that
was purely a housekeeping matter.
In terms of state revenue, Ms. Allshouse said that was nearly flat, and she said that the 8%
increase in federal revenue related to categorical aid – or reimbursements – from federal government
increased by about 8% or $300,000 for social services.
Mr. Rooker asked if that was a pass-through expense, or additional money for administration. Ms.
Allshouse replied that those were not additional funds for administration. She explained that it’s a
categorical aid which is funds that are for a specific purpose by the County. She said that staff assumes
that the federal government will pick up more in what they help support the County with currently.
Ms. Mallek said that it will offset a little bit of local government expenditure because currently the
County is doing those jobs.
Mr. Snow asked if it is the federal government used to pay for it – they are starting to pay a little bit
more of it again. Ms. Allshouse responded yes – that is staff’s assumption.
Ms. Allshouse said that the report talked about the real estate taxable assessed values, and the
assessors are currently staying with the current assumption of a -1.5% for 2013, a -.5% for 2014, believing
that the total taxable assessed values will even out for 2015 with slight increases in the out years.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is on a year-to-year basis or if it is accumulative – in other words the
second year it’s going to be down 2 % or will it be down another .5%.
Ms. Allshouse responded that it will be down another .5%.
Ms. Allshouse stated that with revenue assumptions there are some sources that are increasing,
including the consumer utility taxes coming up about 2%, BPOL increasing by about 5% in 2014, sales tax
would be up about 6% based on economic activity observed – but it is not until FY16 of the plan that
revenues will be back to the FY06 levels. Ms. Allshouse said that personal property tax revenue would
increase by almost 11%, due to the work by Finance in collecting taxes, and delinquencies will go down in
that area but enhanced collections for personal property tax will increase. She said that new car sales are
starting to pick up nationwide, and staff is seeing some of that locally as well.
Mr. Foley stated that the bottom line was only a 1.3% change. Explaining that property values are
continuing to decline, and sales are going up – which are washing each other out – including the new
values with Stonefield. He said that there is new construction even though there is a 2% decline. He said
that there are good signs but real estate values are still keeping the County from moving forward.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is a positive 1.3% and not a negative.
Mr. Foley said that it is not gangbusters even though the other numbers look good – it is
offsetting.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Mr. Rooker commented that that’s because real estate taxes comprise such a big percentage of
total revenue, so if assessments drop by 1.5%, it takes a whole lot of positive revenues in other
categories.
Mr. Foley noted that 52% of revenue comes from real estate taxes.
Mr. Snow said that compared to previous years, 1.3% is gangbusters.
Mr. Foley stated that prior to the recession, the County revenue was growing at 4-7% per year, so
it’s a very different world than back then but it’s positive movement.
Ms. Mallek said that the County is better off with 52% than other jurisdictions with a much higher
percentage.
Mr. Dumler asked to what extent the numbers rely on the expected inflation rate.
Ms. Allshouse responded that that is a really good point, because even if it is 1.3% in FY14 the
expected inflation rate in general is 2.6% - so the County would still be below the inflation rate. She
explained that when the Finance Department put the revenues together they built the inflation rate as one
of the assumption built into each one of the categories. She said that it was taken into consideration with
some things tracking with inflation and others doing better.
Mr. Dumler said that the delta is between the expected growth and the inflation because the only
expected inflation numbers that he has heard have been 1.6% - 1.5% over the next decade tops. He said
that he wants to know if the inflation rate is the basis for the estimates.
Ms. Allshouse stated that her understanding was that it was the average inflation rate over the five
years, but she could get more information and get back to him.
Mr. Rooker stated that it says target inflation rate is over 2%, and a lot of economists say that if
things turn around there will be huge inflation because of all the money pumped in the system.
Mr. Dumler said that at that point the feds would raise interest rates, and the numbers he has
heard is 1.5% over the next decade not 2.6%.
Ms. Allshouse reported that some of the alternative revenue enhancements assume a stormwater
district in FY15 to support the TMDL mandate, and it would pick up the two positions as Mr. Foley
mentioned. She said that a quick estimate showed those costs to be about $500,000, given all of the
expenses to support that type of work.
Ms. Mallek said that any structural improvements would require that the County increase the
stormwater rate in order to generate some capital revenue.
Mr. Foley stated that realistically any rate the Board started with would generate a lot more than
what would offset the cost.
Mr. Boyd said that those numbers would not show up because it is an income offsetting the
expense.
Ms. Allshouse responded that it would be a separate fund, but it does show up in FY15, when the
two positions would be moved off the General Fund.
Mr. Boyd asked if the two positions would be put into the General Fund.
Mr. Foley explained that currently the positions are support by general tax revenue and in the
future they would be supported by the fees from stormwater, and thus off the General Fund, so that would
allow funding of police officers.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is nothing in the five-year plan that specifically says these are
the expected revenues from the stormwater utilities.
Mr. Foley responded that it would be in a separate enterprise fund and not on the General Fund.
He said that it is a simple calculation that could be put on a slide that says there are $500,000 in fees
coming in and here is the cost of the positions and its equal amounts.
Mr. Rooker said that that is not in the revenue assumption that is being presented. Ms. Allshouse
replied that it is not – it would be separate.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff is planning for the stormwater dollars in the overall balancing of the budget
over the next five years.
Mr. Foley replied yes.
Mr. Rooker commented in terms of moving an expense factor over to the separate operation.
Mr. Boyd added plus the revenues from $500,000 worth of stormwater management fees of some
type.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Mr. Rooker reiterated that his question is that there is no revenue contained in the five-year plan
for the new stormwater district.
Mr. Foley responded that it would not be General Fund revenue – it would be Stormwater Fund
revenues. He explained that in the General Fund the Board would have reduced cost by two positions.
Mr. Boyd said that if two positions are moved out of the General Fund and two new police officers
are funded from the General Fund then both the cost and the revenue are being added somewhere in the
numbers.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board will be keeping the same costs but will be hiring police officers
instead of the stormwater people.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board will not be keeping the same cost. He said the Board will be
covering the cost with the stormwater utility and it does not show up on the five-year plan. He stated that it
is separate but it does not show up.
Mr. Boyd said that he knows that it is separate, but it is still in the five-year projections.
Mr. Foley said that Board members are saying the same thing but articulating it differently.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the plan has enhanced EMS recovery assumed to generate an
additional net increase of $176,500 beginning in FY14, based on some of the changes that are currently
under negotiation.
She said that this particular plan assumes a tax rate increase by .07 cents, for a total of 76.9
cents for FY15-16, and is included only after a projected additional drop in assessed values and provides
an additional $600,000 for the school division, an additional $115,000 for CIP or debt, and would support
four DSS positions in FY16.
Mr. Boyd asked if the additional $600,000 for the school division was based on the .07 cent
increase.
Ms. Allshouse said that it was based on the County’s formula.
Mr. Rooker noted that the equalization would have been an increase of about 1.5 cents, at 2% of
76 cents because of the loss of 2% in assessed value.
Mr. Foley stated that staff is not proposing to equalize, but in the third year the needs are strong
enough that a modest increase is reasonable. He added that if revenues are stronger, that could be
eliminated also depending on where the Board wants to go with needs.
Ms. Allshouse said that with expenditure assumptions, there are several different considerations –
personnel, operations, agencies, transfers and reserves. She stated that the general government salaries
are geared toward the County continuing to support its evolving workforce, with a 2% pay for performance
increase in all years of the plan. Ms. Allshouse said that 2.55% was the W orld at Word percentage and
the 2% is less than that and could give an employee up to a 4% increase if they’re below midpoint and
getting the very highest score on their performance. She explained that it isn’t given out equally, it’s given
out according to performance.
Ms. Allshouse stated that this plan would also provide for two Bright Stars positions in the first
year, FY14, to prevent the loss of service to children at Stony Point and Red Hill after the Safe Schools
and Healthy Students grant ends, as that grant has been in place for four years supporting some children
at those schools. She said that the plan provides for 10 police officer positions over the next five years
throughout the plan; provides for three stormwater inspection positions as mentioned to support the TMDL
mandate in FY15, and four social services positions in FY16 – an eligibility worker, senior eligibility worker,
an adult case worker, and a foster care worker. Ms. Allshouse said that DSS has had a big increase in
caseloads, and coupled with the population increase staff are really pressured.
Mr. Dumler mentioned that the 2% pay increase in light of the 2.6% inflation increase would really
mean about a 5% decrease in take-home pay over five years for the average employee.
Mr. Boyd said that that is the reality of today.
Mr. Rooker stated that a person does not necessarily incur inflationary adjustments from year to
year in every expense; if there is a presumed increase in housing cost, your mortgage wouldn’t
automatically go up – only if you buy a house at that time.
Ms. Allshouse said that the plan also provides employee training funding throughout, and in the
current year budget staff has added some training funds to help increase training for some departments –
about $67,000. She said that the plan also establishes a paid intern plan with one-time money, to help
departments that are currently overwhelmed. Ms. Allshouse stated that the plan also includes the 5/5
VRS funding that was put in last year with one-time money, as it was agreed that that would be the first
thing put back with permanent funding. She said that staff built in an increase every other year in the VRS
payment for the employer. Ms. Allshouse stated that the dental insurance assumes a 7% annual
employer increase in all five years of the plan, and health insurance assumes a 7% increase for both
employer and employee in FY14, and an 8% increase for employee and employer share in FY15-18. She
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
said that it would be subject to future plan design changes with the Board, but there would be some
pressures anticipated in the healthcare area.
Mr. Foley pointed out that behind the numbers are real projects on claims experience, what the
trends are, and other factors – and staff has done more scrutiny on it over the past few years than has
ever been done before.
Ms. Allshouse said that other assumptions built into the plan, including a 2% inflationary increase
in operations. She stated that some departments might get more depending on their needs, but the 2% is
just a placeholder to anticipate any increases. Ms. Allshouse said that the Five-Year Plan continues to
restructure and do efficiency savings, and in FY14 staff is saying that they will come up with $100,000 in
savings and efficiencies – and Mr. Foley has asked all employees to come up with ideas. She added that
an additional $50,000 savings in FY15 and FY16 are built into the plan. Ms. Allshouse said that the plan
increases the amount budgeted for salary attrition lapse and it would be 1.25% of personnel costs. She
stated that it also provides for operational impacts of the capital projects that are included in the current
plan, so it does not have the impacts of the capital plan being developed. She said that the Five-Year
Plan also provides $975,000 in tax relief for the elderly and disabled as well.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff is basing the tax relief on increased claims. Ms. Allshouse responded that
it is budgeted a little less than what it is currently. She explained that staff watch the actuals and are
bringing it down for next year.
Mr. Foley explained that it is roughly at the same place based on the current formula.
Ms. Allshouse said that agencies are about $20 million in the budget and reported that the County
funds a number of agencies – both large and small – that provide core critical services across the County.
She said that the plan provides $158,000 for the Crozet Library operating impacts, and explained that the
County would pick up all the costs for maintaining the building and grounds, and half of the costs for
operations for the library based on commitments last year. Ms. Allshouse noted that it includes $70,000 in
additional funding each year for agencies which is just a placeholder number.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are several hundred agencies that use varying amounts of
money.
Ms. Allshouse said that County has a lot of ABRT – human service agencies – which are small
and do a lot of good things, and other agencies of different sizes such like CAT, JAUNT and JABA. She
explained that for public service agencies like the Jail, ECC, and the SPCA – that has a formula or
contract with the County – staff built those figures into the plan over and above the $70,000. Ms. Allshouse
said that the Five-Year Plan assumes a 2% increase for fire/rescue volunteer stations, and a 2% increase
for libraries each year of the plan.
Ms. Allshouse presented a slide on revenue sharing with the City of Charlottesville, which
illustrated that from FY08-13 there was an increase in payments to the City – but with modest increases in
revenues the payment is now decreasing to the City by about $600,000, and each year until FY17 it
continues to decrease with the first increase in FY18. She stated that the transfer to the school division
increases by 1.7%, a transfer to them by formula - $101.8 million for FY14 and increasing up to 3.8% by
FY16.
Mr. Boyd asked if the net of school bus costs had been incorporated. Ms. Allshouse responded
that it had not been.
Mr. Foley noted that the schools would pay for buses out of the numbers presented along with
other revenues, and said that it does not shift anything to capital. He said that the Board’s last direction
was to leave it in the operating budget, but at the meeting the following day with the schools they would
address whether they want to change that.
Mr. Snow asked if the figure also factored in the .07 cent increase. Ms. Allshouse said that it did
include that.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the other transfer in the budget is the transfer to CIP debt, and for
FY13 staff transferred about $2.5 million over for the Seminole Fire Department, the ACE program and
transportation revenue-sharing – which is why the percentage is down – and it doesn’t yet include the fund
balance transfer for FY14.
She stated that the undesignated General Fund balance of 10% is reserved for the County and
maintained through the plan, and it also includes a $250,000 operating contingency reserve – also called
the Board reserve. Ms. Allshouse noted that staff would maintain the same number now for the next five
years, and mentioned that it establishes a $100,000 fuel contingency from one-time money that has never
been done before. She said that the City and the school division do this, and up to now the County has
just been budgeting high in the General Fund budget – but this year staff will bring the number down and
set a reserve outside of that, using one-time fund balance funds.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Board has a state and federal revenue reserve of one-time money
they approved last year that they held the fund balance for, just in case there were changes there. She
said that with the Budget Control Act and the unknown factors of how state and federal money may affect
the County, staff is recommending that the $1/2 million in reserves be increased by another $1/2 million to
hold $1 million and not spend it. Ms. Allshouse said that if there are no significant changes in revenues, it
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
could be moved over to capital. She stated that staff is also suggesting a repurposing of fund balance,
and last year the Board reserved money for the performance pool – so what is recommended this year is
releasing that and repurposing it for the paid internship program and the innovation fund.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were all first year in the plan.
Ms. Allshouse said that they were, adding that the performance pool repurposing could be moved
around.
Mr. Foley said that the concept is to set it up in the first year and see how it goes.
Mr. Snow asked if staff had calculated how much money the County saves by going to an intern
program rather than hiring another position. Ms. Allshouse responded that it is fairly substantial, given
benefits and FICA costs, etc., but a cursory estimate showed a savings of about $18,000 per intern.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the fund balance as of June 30, 2011 was $31.9 million; the
unaudited end of year funds is about $7.8 million, so the fund balance would increase to $39.7 million.
Mr. Foley said that this is revenues beyond projection and expenditure savings, and roughly $5.1
million is revenues beyond projection – but almost half of it was one-time additional collection of
delinquent taxes. He stated that on the revenue side the County came in at about 1% within projections
when removing the delinquencies, and about 2% on spending – so $7.8 million is about 3.6% of the whole
operating budget. He said that it is very, very tight on both the revenues and expenditures side and that it
is the combined revenue and savings expenditures.
Ms. Allshouse said that once the Board holds their 10% - $27.6 million – it leaves a preliminary
excess fund balance of about $12.1 million; and of that $12.1 there are commitments that have been
made by the Board, such as the performance incentive pool. She stated that there are some anticipated
appropriations for FY13 that have not occurred yet, such as the derecho storm cleanup, Access
Albemarle, etc. – so staff would suggest a hold of about $400,000 in FY13. Ms. Allshouse stated that the
Board has already appropriated $3.5 million of the fund balance, with $2.5 million for Seminole, revenue
sharing, and ACE.
Mr. Rooker commented that it went to the capital because they were capital projects.
Ms. Allshouse said that that is correct. She said that it just moved over which to where the Board
would move it to anyway.
Mr. Foley said that the Board didn’t want to wait another six months to get projects started – when
the County could capture the savings and construction climate.
Ms. Allshouse said that given that there are other commitments in the plan and that the Board had
agreed that staff should hold a little bit for appropriations that may be coming there would be $4.7 million
held from the $12.1. Because it is already committed in some way, leaving about $7.4 million in excess
available fund balance – that the Board could start thinking about as they are planning the next five years,
the FY14 budget and the CIP.
Ms. Allshouse stated that there are some recommendations included in the five-year plan:
increase the revenue contingency to $1 million from the current $1/2 million; establish a fuel reserve of
$100,000; and repurpose the performance incentive pool.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $1 million is not needed for the fiscal cliff, would it go over to CIP at some
point.
Ms. Allshouse responded that it would go wherever the Board wanted, and that it is what she
would suggest.
She said that there are some one-time expenses built into the five-year financial plan of $50,000,
associated with the Ivy Fire Station as one-time operational funding. Ms. Allshouse said that staff
recommends holding $250,000 available for the Economic Development Fund to refurbish if those funds
are used.
Mr. Boyd asked how the $250,000 is additional when the Board didn’t use it last year.
Mr. Foley said that it is not additional. He said that it rolls back into fund balance and the Board
has to set it aside again.
Ms Allshouse stated that the total recommendations for use of the fund balance would be
$900,000, so it leaves about $6.5 million available and the Board could assign it to the CIP or watch list
items. Ms. Allshouse said that OMB is suggesting that the Board take $5.5 million and preliminarily send it
to capital so that the oversight committee and budget staff could use it in their planning numbers for the
capital side.
Mr. Snow asked if the money going to the CIP is available for one-time revenue sharing with the
state for roads. Ms. Allshouse said that it could be – it is wherever the Board wants to designate it.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Foley said that that is one of a number of things that could be done with capital money in total,
and the oversight committee would make recommendations, then the Board will make a final decision.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like the oversight committee to finish their work first, because once
any money is moved over it is spent.
Mr. Rooker said that that is true of anything, and this is one-time money so it can’t be financed
against. He stated that he is on the CIP Committee and feels they need to have a realistic view of what
the revenues are going to be, and then allocate and recommend projects according to the priorities based
upon a realistic budget. He said that the Board’s policy is to move the money over to capital. He
explained that they only have two more CIP oversight meetings after already having one this week. He
said that he would like to make certain the CIP Committee understands what it is they have to work with.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker is saying “we have it let’s spend it”. Mr. Rooker asked if he would
rather have it sit in a fund, unused. Mr. Boyd said that he would like it to sit there until the Board gets
recommendations from the CIP Oversight Committee.
Ms. Mallek explained that this simply allows for a constrained list going forward. There’s no point
in having CIP recommend 14 things if the County only has money for two.
Mr. Snow said that the CIP committee isn’t spending a dime of it – they’re just coming back with
recommendations, and if the Board decides they want to do something different with it, they can do
something different with it.
Mr. Boyd stated that it could be set aside in reserves for a rainy day fund.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board has several reserves built in.
Mr. Snow stated that the Board could always increase the reserve fund.
Mr. Rooker said that if the Board doesn’t think reserves are adequate somewhere, that’s a
legitimate discussion and use of money. He said that the Board is setting aside $1 million for
contingencies, but it doesn’t make any sense for the CIP committee to provide a list that gets cut off.
Mr. Boyd said that that is what’s bothering him is the concept of putting it over so the Board can
spend it.
Ms. Mallek said that the policy has been in place for years and years, and for several years the
Board didn’t do the 3% to capital transfer because of declining revenues. She said that now that there is
some, it is imperative that the Board starts to put it back, because they’re already 10 or 12 cents down on
what would have normally put in – which is why the Board has such a problem with the long list and isn’t
able to make any progress. She mentioned that because of circumstances beyond their control, the
Board was not able to take advantage of about $2 million in savings costs for the Crozet Library – and the
40% savings was long gone.
Mr. Boyd said that that is because the minute the Board got their hands on the $10 million surplus,
they spent it.
Mr. Rooker said that if operating money doesn’t go to capital, 60% would go to schools.
Mr. Boyd stated that he isn’t saying not to do it, he is saying not to do it at this time.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to move $5.5 million over to the projected Capital Fund
for FY 14 so it can be included in the budget that is currently being reviewed by the CIP Oversight
Committee.
Mr. Snow reiterated that just because it’s moved over doesn’t mean it has to be spent. He said
that the CIP Oversight Committee is putting together a plan for that money that will be brought back to the
Board at the CIP meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked how many transportation projects the CIP committee was looking at.
Mr. Snow responded, whatever they come out rated.
Mr. Rooker said that in light of the discussion today, perhaps the amount of money to revenue
sharing should be increased. He said that that is on the list.
Ms. Mallek said that it is definitely on the list.
Mr. Rooker added that he did not want to not recommend it and act like the money’s not there.
He reiterated Ms. Mallek’s point that the Board in prior years had budgeted an excess amount going over
to the CIP year by year for utilization of capital projects – and they haven’t been doing that for the last four
or five years, and that’s why the Board pretty much eliminated their capital plan.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Foley said that a discussion on capital transfer by the Oversight Committee might be
appropriate as well, since the majority supports the Oversight Committee considering any fund balance –
depending on the Board’s decision with the schools tomorrow.
Ms. Allshouse summarized that the Five-Year Plan does support the County’s essential services,
and the County does have a lot of workload pressures that departments have brought forward very
sincerely, so it does provide new police officers, additional social services workers, schools, Bright Stars
positions, and stormwater inspection positions. She said that the plan acknowledges the Countys
continued financial uncertainty and continues to build an agile, responsive organizational focus on the
future. Ms. Allshouse said that staff would continue to look for savings and restructuring, and the plan
does support the workforce as well as embracing creativity and innovation to advance strategic priorities
going forward, including the EMS fees, stormwater district and the innovation fund.
Ms. Mallek commented that it does cause her some concern to use part-time employees because
it puts a burden on them, but hopefully they can get benefits from their spouse.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that the plan doesn’t fully address everything – it doesn’t provide
funding for longer term capital needs; it doesn’t move the police geo-policing model forward, although they
are starting some pieces of it; it doesn’t provide the staffing at the level in the Comp Plan but the County
doesn’t fall any further behind. She said that it doesn’t fully address growth in calls for services. Ms.
Allshouse said that the Five-Year Plan doesn’t provide any funding for the FEMA positions – the nine
positions from the two-year grant – so that’s a hole in the budget if the Board considers that those
positions should continue.
Mr. Rooker asked how realistic it would be not to continue those positions, as those employees
are being used to staff a fire station that the County is opening.
Mr. Foley explained that hopefully this will give staff a couple more years to recruit volunteers so
that career staff isn’t needed, and staff would be talking more with the Board about EMS countywide and
how that might provide some revenues to continue those positions.
Mr. Snow asked if the EMS recovery fees were factored into this budget.
Mr. Foley responded, only modestly, which is moving three people from CARS up to 29 to
generate some revenue. He said staff is in the process of a negotiation on this with some of the rescue
squads, and staff would provide an update in closed session next week.
Ms. Allshouse commented that there are emerging needs and unfunded mandates: healthcare
reform may have some Medicaid expansion that will affect DSS workers; devolution is an ongoing
concern; and there is a potential reduction in state and federal funds. She said that the plan doesn’t take
care of the longer term quality of life items, such as the court and library facility upgrades, ACE,
greenways, master plan implementation, etc. She said that the County still has a ways to go. Ms.
Allshouse said that her presentation had concluded, and asked the Board if they had any responses to the
proposal.
Mr. Foley said that if there was something the Board wanted to look at in December more closely,
staff would need that feedback.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Note: At this time, the Board took up Item 8.2 from the Consent Agenda.
Item No. 8.2. Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft FY 2012-2019 Six Year
Improvements Program (SYIP).
Mr. Rooker said that the Six Year Plan has roads that are funded out of secondary road funds,
and does not include federal MPO projects. He said that his question is whether a particular project
should be included in the County’s six-year plan, which is funded out of secondary road funds or revenue-
sharing funds. Mr. Rooker said that the Route 29 Bypass is included under new construction, and he has
been a long-time opponent of the project – so his question is whether projects like that need to be
included, as he would prefer not to vote for them.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that the other approved projects fully funded in the state
six-year improvement plan is informational, and the idea was to acknowledge some of the projects
because the Board and MPO have wanted the transportation plans to be fairly consistent – indicating
projects that are ongoing in some form within state and local programs, budgets or plans – so this was a
way to acknowledge those things that were funded in the VDOT plan on the priority list, so they were
intended to be informational.
Mr. Rooker said he would recommend that they say for information only.
Mr. Benish suggested that staff is suggesting the adaptive signalization system for revenue
sharing, so it would be beneficial in the review of the six-year plan in terms of looking at how they rank to
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
show it on the approved plan. He mentioned that he also wanted to acknowledge the Polo Grounds Road
intersection.
Mr. Boyd suggested adjusting the list and bringing it back next week.
Mr. Rooker said that his understanding with Polo Grounds Road was that nothing would be done
until the Board understands what the plan for the bypass is and how the widening would affect that area.
Whatever plan the Board comes up with for that intersection should be coordinated with that widening
project and that section.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Joel DeNunzio had indicated to him that that is not something VDoT would
consider because they would have to buy right of way and they don’t have any at that intersection.
Mr. Benish stated that his understanding is that VDOT would consider improvements to Polo
Grounds Road as part of the bypass design work, but the widening project only goes as far as the bypass
interchange – and the denotation would just indicate that the intersection was something of importance to
consider, so it is on the Board’s list to look at it and try to address in some way.
Mr. Rooker said that the widening project was supposed to go from the river to Ashwood, and it
would be in that section. He said that there isn’t anything in the VDOT plan right now that shows what they
are doing south of the stretch from Ashwood to Hollymead, and the additional lane is not included in the
current bypass design.
Mr. Boyd said that he hasn’t gotten anything in writing, but VDoT has told him that the lower
stretch would be part of the Route 29 widening plan, not part of the bypass plan.
Ms. Mallek said that there is no funding for that.
Mr. Boyd said that the Route 29 widening plan has been funded.
Mr. Rooker stated that the widening plan as VDoT defines it only covers the northern section that
is why this issue is being raised.
Mr. Boyd stated that his understanding is that Polo Grounds would be included in the Route 29
widening plan.
Mr. Rooker said that it should be certified in writing.
Mr. Boyd said that he liked Mr. Benish’s idea of including it in the list.
Mr. Foley suggested having it clarified and brought back to the Board at the following week’s
meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked if the projects that are funded in revenue sharing such as bridges needed to be
shown in the six-year plan.
Mr. Benish said that they show up in the six-year secondary road plan as projects. He said that
the intent is to show what future projects the Board would like to approve. He added that this it is a wish
list for what the Board would want to include in the primary interstate or urban system improvements in the
future.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to get some clarification on the “no through truck restriction”
on Black Cat Road, as the Board had also raised the issue of reinvigorating the Earlysville Road section
from the roundabout at the end of the runway south to Hydraulic – because there is an alternative on
Route 29. She said that both of them could be prepared with citizen petitions then forwarded to
Richmond.
Mr. Benish said that the same process would need to be followed with both.
Mr. Davis said that the petition is the Board’s own process, and the question was whether or not
they wanted to require it after neighbors had appeared at the prior Board meeting – and the conclusion
was that the Board was still going to get a petition to ensure that a majority of property owners were in
favor of the process. He said that it is not legally required, it is a Board policy.
Mr. Foley stated that staff had been looking into that, and would provide an update at the next
Board meeting.
Mr. Boyd said that he needs to know for Black Cat Road if there is a certain number of homes
required, so the County doesn’t set up false hope for residents there.
Mr. Foley responded that if it doesn’t meet the criteria, then residents don’t have to go down that
road, and he would bring back that status.
Mr. Thomas said that Commonwealth Drive residents were getting petitions signed for trucks.
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Mr. Rooker said that he is on that road all the time, and has never seen an 18-wheeler.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that the TJPDC is taking the next step to ensure that there is completion of the
joint livability project with the City.
_____
Mr. Snow said that there was a fatal accident at the intersection of Route 250 and Tillman Road
where the caution light is, and he had received a number of emails regarding the sight distance in that
area. He asked if there was something that could be initiated for improvements at that intersection.
Mr. Benish responded that one of the first steps was the priority list that the Board was looking at,
as it’s been identified for safety improvements on Route 250 West – including intersection improvements
for Tillman Road, Owensville Road, Route 240 at Mechum’s Bridge, and 151 near Nelson County. He
said that the next step is funding that, so staff would need to work with VDOT on eligibility and funding
opportunities for those projects. Mr. Benish stated that Mr. Kelsey would be handling those types of
issues, so he would make sure he inquires about those improvements.
Ms. Mallek asked if there needed to be an official request made for a safety study at the Tillman
Road corner, because the traffic crossing is going to affect what VDoT is going to be willing to do.
Mr. Benish said that consensus on the minutes that the Board wants the intersection evaluated
would be sufficient for Mr. Kelsey to talk with Mr. Denunzio to begin that work.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that there is a “huge gaping hole” in the safety study file when these items
go to VDOT because the people on the ground will say that “this and this and this need to be done,” and it
goes upstairs and it “disappears from the face of the earth.” She added that the Board is going to have to
light a fire about getting some response on these things.
Mr. Benish said that the intersection has a very old history, and in the past it hasn’t been eligible
under the warrants for VDOT for a traffic signal – but at Owensville Road, traffic circles have been
considered, so there might be a possibility for other types of improvements.
Ms. Mallek said that with Earlysville VDoT told her that it had to be 50/50 traffic.
Mr. Rooker stated that it would be impossible with Polo Ground Road.
Mr. Benish stated that there are a number of warrants.
_____
Mr. Rooker said that he had one more issue to bring up – a safety issue on Route 29 – because
where VDoT has widened the intersection at Hydraulic for Stonefield, the lanes are unsafe. He said that
when you’re on the east side of the road and come across, the lanes do not line up on one side of the
intersection with the lanes on the other side. Mr. Rooker said that you have to move over to get in the
lane, and it is especially bad at night. He explained that when you go across in the right-hand lane from
east to west, you get in the left-hand lane, and there is no room for the person on the left so everybody
has to move over.
Ms. Mallek suggested an arrow next to the stop light on the bar showing the lane shift.
Mr. Rooker said that when you get in the middle of the intersection, there are no lanes, so when
you cross you end up in the wrong lane.
Mr. Foley indicated that staff would get with VDoT to come up with a solution.
Mr. Rooker also said that the light that hangs over the lanes do not match up with the lanes, so
drivers are looking at a light that does not apply to them.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley reported that next week’s closed meeting is not on the Board’s calendars, but the Board
would need to meet at 4:45 or 5:00 p.m. prior to their 6:00 p.m. regular meeting.
Mr. Foley announced that the Airport Authority is nearing completion of choosing an Airport
Director, and hopes to have a person on board soon after the first of the year.
_______________
November 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn to November 8, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Room 241.
At 5:44 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Boyd to adjourn to November 8, 2012, 2:30 p.m., Room
241. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 02/06/2013
Initials: EWJ