2012-01-04January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January
4, 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,
and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the County
Executive, Mr. Thomas C. Foley.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda (moved to Item 11a).
_______________
Annual Organization
Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Chairman.
Mr. Foley reported that the first item of business was election of Chair. He explained that he
would call for nominations of the Chair, which would not need a second, followed by a vote on each
nomination in the order it was made until a Chair is elected. He said if the process did not result in the
election of a Chair, the most recently elected Chair would serve until such time as a new Chair is elected.
Mr. Foley opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Boyd offered motion to nominate Mr. Snow for Chair, noting that the Board had traditionally
moved the Vice-Chair up after a two-year period. He reminded Board members that they have always
tried to keep this as a non-political issue, and he thinks they need to continue that tradition.
Mr. Foley asked if there were any other nominations for Chair. There were none, and Mr. Foley
closed the nominations and called for a vote on the election of Mr. Snow as Chair for 2012. Roll was
called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Foley said that the result of the vote was a 3:3 tie, and asked if there were any other
nominations for Chair.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to nominate Mr. Snow as Chair, Mr. Dumler for Vice-Chair, and Mr.
Thomas and Ms. Mallek as representatives on the MPO.
Mr. Foley asked Mr. Davis to clarify the procedures for the nomination process.
Mr. Davis explained that Mr. Rooker’s nomination was not consistent with the Board’s Rules of
Order, however, if the motion is seconded and a majority approves the vote there would be no illegality to
the motion. If there is a second the motion could proceed under State law.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Foley added that the previous motion fails due to a tie vote. He asked if there were any
further nominations for Chair for Calendar Year 2012.
Mr. Boyd commented that what has happened here was a real travesty, as three members of the
Board were playing politics with a decision they have always kept out of the political scene. He said that
two years ago when he skirted with the idea of moving away from tradition, all Board members
emphasized that this was not a political issue and that they should not politicize the Chair. The current
process had been followed for a long time. Everyone came together and elected Ms. Mallek by
unanimous vote and he thinks it is appropriate that they do the same today. Previously Mr. Rooker called
it a crass political move to go away from the tradition of electing the Chair based on senority and a two
year process
Ms. Mallek stated that over the last few weeks people have asked her how she thought the 3:3
split might affect their work and said she thought the Board would work well together, as they have in the
past, when in most instances they have four, five or six votes in favor or against an issue. She said that a
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
group of three must be persuasive and bring another vote along, and must avoid one person or one group
trying to coerce the rest into voting against their conscience because of a threat on an unrelated issue.
Ms. Mallek stated that an example of that was the threat covered in the paper regarding construction of a
library, which has been planned since 1988, because someone did not get their way on a committee
appointment.
Ms. Mallek said this is completely uncalled for, and an example of the behavior in Richmond and
D.C. which has crashed citizens’ confidence in government in general. She emphasized that things are
different now, as there is a perceived split on transportation – which makes the MPO a very important
committee post. Ms. Mallek stated that no one on the MPO can act on their own to change or undermine
a policy without agreement of a majority of the Board of Supervisors – which did not happen properly last
summer. She explained that Mr. Snow could become the next Chair if he gained the support of the rest of
the Board due to his previous actions. Each year of the two years a Chair must ask for support from his or
her colleagues; it is not a given – but a custom.
Ms. Mallek stated that she supports Mr. Snow for Chair if he shows leadership to provide balance.
She said that she supports balance in representation on the MPO because last year they did not have
representatives who followed the policy of the Board of Supervisors. They presumed they could change
the policy and acted accordingly in agreements with others – and without public input, which might have
changed the outcome. Ms. Mallek noted that when there was input on June 1, 2011, discussion during
Matters from the Public, not at a public hearing, and only regarding adding the bypass policy to the agenda
of the MPO, the vote was 3:3 to leave the policy alone. Only late at night without public hearing was the
vote changed – under duress from outside agencies and without adequate information or preparation.
She also said that the Board should have gone above and beyond the process requirements to make sure
that any decision did not have the stain of malfeasance attached to it. Ms. Mallek stated that the result
might have been the same, but there would have been no public disgrace attached.
Ms. Mallek said this history is an example of what happens when one side of an important issue
bulldozes everyone else – throwing the process under the bus and alienating citizens. They must hold
each other accountable. It is not OK that people behave the way they did last summer. It is not OK for
Congress to behave as it does today. She said that she does not support rewarding people who should
be held accountable with leadership and MPO committee appointments. There must be consequences or
people by nature will take advantage. She stated that changing the representation on the MPO by one
person is a compromise – an important facet of leadership to show balance in the Board’s approach to
issues affecting the County as a whole, or neighborhoods in particular. Ms. Mallek stated that to balance
the leadership with Vice-Chair is also a compromise, adding that she could not reward the behavior shown
at the MPO, the refusal to add contingencies, to stand up for local needs, or to get anything in writing to
protect Albemarle County going forward.
Ms. Mallek read an email from a bypass supporter: “In my purely private citizen role as an
Albemarle County property owning resident of the Rio Magisterial District, I strongly encourage you to hold
out for balanced leadership appointments during this week’s meeting. In my personal opinion, political
and philosophical balance needs to be restored on the Board of Supervisors for the good of the County.”
She noted a June 14, 2011 editorial in the Daily Progress that ended with “the end run around the public
amounts to an act of contempt for the public and for the highest and best practices of public leadership.
This is exactly the sort of maneuvering we abhor when it occurs in the halls of Congress. It is even more
appalling when it occurs at such close range.”
Ms. Mallek emphasized that the Board must work to build the public’s trust and watch out for the
public’s business. She stated that she is not trying to make a power grab, but does believe that balance is
needed to restore confidence.
Mr. Rooker said that when Mr. Snow came to his office to ask for his support, he said that he
could support him as long as there was some reasonable balance. Mr. Rooker noted that there are four
positions that Supervisors are interested in, and Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd believe they should
occupy all four of those positions between them. He said there are three other Supervisors who feel that
the positions should be split, and would support Mr. Snow if that were to occur. Mr. Rooker said he does
not think that is unreasonable, and he does not think that it is out of the tradition of the Board – in fact he
made a motion to support Mr. Snow for Chair, but it was a motion that also included some balance and
representation on other committees. Mr. Rooker stated that what is going on here is not surprising given
past actions, when the group of three was able to get Mr. Dorrier to go along with their way on issues.
They have seen government by ambush on a number of occasions.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that on January 6, 2010 – the first meeting with a new Board – Mr. Boyd
showed up with a plan of action for the Board that was going to set the course for the Board for the next
two years, having circulated that to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Snow and Mr. Dorrier before the meeting but not to
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek. He said that the items included were broad items that would normally have
come up for discussion as an agenda item, and although Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow did not know the
history of most of the items they insisted on voting that day. Mr. Rooker stated that the bypass fiasco vote
was well described in the Daily Progress article entitled “Supervisors Actions Show Disrespect,” which
referenced a “one on one call from a top state official, a late night vote with no warning to the public, a
surprise switch by County leader.” He also cited the article as stating that “actions by the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors were lawful but they were disrespectful toward constituents and disdainful of
the best practices in public decision making.” Mr. Rooker said it mentioned his own quote that “at som e
point, you’ll catch the public unaware” – and the Progress indicated that is what was “engineered to
happen.”
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
He noted that the Progress article also pointed out that in order to take “its’ unexpected, late-night
vote on the bypass the Board had to rescind its earlier motion and suspend its earlier rule”. Mr. Rooker
said that the article also said the combination of those maneuvers coupled with “a personal persuasive
phone call from a state cabinet member” – and the question was raised as to who instigated that
intervention – paints a picture of “backroom manipulation that is not in the public’s best interest.” Mr.
Rooker also stated that the Progress pointed out it was not a question of what side of the issue you come
out on, but a question of “reasonable public process.” He added, that whole thing was engineered by the
two MPO members at the time – Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow – everything leading up to that meeting was
engineered by them, while the policy of this Board was in opposition to the Bypass.
Mr. Thomas commented that it came to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow had claimed at the April 6, 2011 Board meeting
that they had told Mr. Connaughton they were interested in the other projects on Route 29 – and nothing
was said about building the bypass in exchange for getting other projects done. He stated that two days
after the meeting with Secretary Connaughton, the Secretary came here to meet with Mr. Thomas and Mr.
Snow – which was not disclosed – and a memo followed from the Secretary’s office stating that he wanted
the project accomplished through design build, to begin this summer, for $200 million. The intent is to
begin construction in 2012 and complete in 2016 or 2017. This was at a time when the project was not
moving because the County’s longstanding policy was against it, as was the MPOs. Mr. Rooker
emphasized that although the Board had been against the project, the Secretary suddenly announced the
project was going forward after meeting with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow. There is also information in the
memo about the MPO and the dates of its meetings. Mr. Rooker said that in May, Mr. Thomas went to
TJPDC chief staff member, Mr. Steve Williams, and tried to get the bypass on the agenda – at a time
when the Board’s policy was clearly against it.
Mr. Rooker commented that a letter came in from Secretary Connaughton just before the MPO
meeting, and despite a request from City Council members to delay for a few weeks to give them time to
comprehend the letter, and despite Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow’s admission they hadn’t read the letter – as
well as an absence of conditions of approval in the MPO resolutions, and despite the County Attorney
advising them that conditions on the MPO resolution were the only way to create any binding conditions. In
other words, a blank check was being written without conditions. Mr. Rooker stated that despite all of
those factors and overwhelming public opposition, they felt comfortable voting for it. There was without
providing binding assurances to the community that any funding would be provided for the other
improvements; today Berkmar Extended is not being funded. He added that there was nothing in the
MPO resolution passed that dealt with any of the issues that had been raised – protection from noise,
pollution, runoff, school concerns, etc. – and even today the state has said they would provide “the bare
minimum legal requirement on those things.” Mr. Rooker said the same result may have played out even
if the Supervisors had gone through a public process and put it on an agenda, but what he sees here is
bad process and bad governance.
Mr. Rooker stated that what he’s observed has been a massive breach of trust to him and to the
public, and it was not done in the right way.
He also noted that the Supervisors were pressured by a Secretary of Transportation who wanted
to get it done. Mr. Rooker emphasized that by taking the approach they took, the County lost whatever
bargaining chips it had to obtain some significant protections for the schools, residences, and others that
might be impacted by the project. He said that despite all of that he would be willing to support Mr. Snow
as Chair as part of some balanced representation between the Board and MPO committee. Mr. Rooker
commented that he wasn’t insistent that Mr. Snow or Mr. Thomas not continue on the MPO, and said it is
fine if one of them continued, but said he certainly does not feel good about the composition as it is.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks that leadership is compromising when necessary to achieve a
result. To him leadership is not saying there are four positions and we are going to take them all or
nothing. Leadership is saying “we recognize we have a split on some issues and let’s solve these
problems in an amicable way and move on”. If that cannot be done, the Board can continue the way it is
and Ms. Mallek stays as Chair. He does not think Ms. Mallek has a desire to remain as Chair necessarily;
she was fine with the motion that he made.
Mr. Boyd asked what the makeup of those four positions was three years ago, noting that Mr.
Slutzky was Chair, Ms. Mallek was Vice-Chair, and Mr. Slutzky and Mr. Rooker were on the MPO. He
asked if there was a balance at that time. He also stated that Mr. Rooker, by his own disclosure, has a
personal interest that would be impacted by this bypass. He thinks that, contrary to what a majority of the
people in the County want, the Jack Jouett representatives have kept the road from being built for over 20
years; Mr. Rooker and his predecessor.
Mr. Boyd indicated that there had been poll after poll that indicate the majority of people in the
County want the bypass built. This is something that this community wants, and it has been stopped by
one Supervisor’s seat for 20 years. He said that he disagrees with all of the statements that Mr. Rooker
made about the non-faith with the public. He thinks that is a bunch of stuff. They have had public hearing
after public hearing about this. Mr. Rooker has rallied his forces to come in on “Other Matters” at every
meeting probably since about May. He said that never changed his mind about the bypass, and the
majority of the Board voted in favor of the bypass at that time.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Rooker was doing the very thing he was accusing them of doing –
politicizing the chair. He stated that he would not let the representation on the MPO change because Mr.
Rooker’s goal is to kill the bypass.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker said, at the public hearings that have occurred on the project, the opposition has been
overwhelming.
Mr. Snow suggested that other Board members have an opportunity to speak before previous
Board members continue with their comments.
Mr. Foley suggested that the Chair take over the meeting, noting that the nominations process
has been closed and due to the failure to elect a new Chair, the most recently elected Chair would take
over the meeting. He then suggested that Chair Mallek run the remainder of the meeting.
Mr. Boyd stated that this was a vote of no confidence for Chair. This is a poltical move by three
members on the Board; one who has never been on the Board until today.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there were three Board members who were insisting they took all four
positions.
Mr. Boyd asked who were in the four positions three years ago. He asked if there was balance at
that time. He asked if Mr. Rooker voted for balance at that time. Mr. Boyd said that he and Mr. Rooker
have argued over the MPO position for several years. At one time they wanted to put David Wyant on the
MPO, but Mr. Rooker would not let it happen. Mr. Boyd said he wanted to serve on the MPO, but Mr.
Rooker would not let that happen.
Mr. Rooker stated that the votes not to move forward with the bypass were unanimous by the
Board – not just from the Jack Jouett District – and the comments from the public have been almost 10:1
against the bypass.
Mr. Boyd asked what percentage of the residents that really represented. The people who show
up are the ones who are opposed.
Mr. Snow commented that this is a County of 100,000 and only about 200 people show up to
speak.
Ms. Mallek stated that it is up to people to speak up, and certainly not all l00,000 people in the
County were speaking up, but it is important to pay attention to the comments from those who do speak.
Mr. Snow said they continue to drag up what happened in March and April last year. He re-
explained that he and Mr. Thomas were contacted by Secretary Connaughton and asked to meet; they
agreed to meet. Mr. Snow stated that Mr. Thomas reported at the regular meeting of the Board that they
would be meeting with the Secretary. They met with him in Charlottesville and he asked if they would be
interested in supporting a bypass – at which time Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas presented him with a list of
things they wanted to have happen before supporting a bypass. He said that included the widening of
Route 29, the Hillsdale Extension, Berkmar Extended, and the on ramps on the Route 250 Bypass. When
they told Secretary Connaughton all those things were important, he looked at them and said “if we can
get those things supported, would you support a bypass” and at that point both he and Mr. Thomas
responded “yes”. Mr. Snow stated that when he and Mr. Thomas left the meeting, they did not realize the
Secretary was considering doing all of those things, but his memo seemed to indicate it was a done deal.
Mr. Snow stated that at the next Board of Supervisors meeting he reported to the rest of the Board
that they had met with Secretary Connaughton. Mr. Snow said he reported that he himself had held the
line on requesting the things that were important to this County that they had decided on, and somewhere
along the line the Secretary decided that he could come up with the money to do all the things that they
talked about. He emphasized that there was no secret dealing behind anyone’s back and everything was
out in the open, with no attempt to sneak something by without everyone knowing about it.
Mr. Snow said that for Mr. Rooker to talk about equal representation is the height of hypocrisy, as
there has been a Democrat as both Chair and Vice-Chair, and the MPO has been manipulated in such a
way that it was impossible for someone that might be open to a bypass was completely excluded from that
board; it was a planned-out agenda to make sure that this never came up again – that the bypass never
surfaced again. He is amazed that Mr. Rooker can even say that they want equal representation across
the board. He also stated that being Chair of this Board is not that important to him; Ms. Mallek can stay
there for the rest of her life, and he would be happy, but he did favor being on the MPO and seeing things
get done. They have not seen any roads in this County, except the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Snow stated that Mr. Rooker has been on the Board for 10 years and asked what he has to
show for it. From his point, not much, if anything. When he ran for election, he ran to move that
something gets done in this County instead of talking and studying. Mr. Snow said that he refuses to give
up his seat on the MPO until some of the items that have been on the agenda for a long time get done.
He will support Ms. Mallek and look forward to moving the County forward with a spirit of partisianship
after today.
Mr. Thomas commented that there was no conspiracy behind the bypass process. When he ran
for the Board he ran on economic development. He also said that everything in the County, including the
bypass, has been shoved under the carpet for 20 years and he wanted to get things done and not just
study them. He wants a plan so that things can get done and accomplished.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Rooker reiterated that the issue here was not whether or not a person was for the bypass, but
related to the process. He also said that the Board for a long tim e was unanimous on the project for a
long list of reasons.
Mr. Boyd said it was not unanimous because he has never been in support of removing the
bypass.
Mr. Rooker said every vote taken by the Board, until recently, was a unanimous vote against the
bypass. He is also not suggesting Mr. Boyd was on the Board during those votes. Mr. Rooker read the
minutes from the meeting at which Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas had mentioned their meeting with Secretary
Connaughton, and they had indicated that the topic was whether the County would be interested in a
bypass around the City. He said that Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas’ response had been that their main
concerns were the widening of Route 29 and a bridge for Berkmar Extension – and Mr. Snow had
indicated “that studies have shown that would be more beneficial to the County than anything else,” and
they left the conversation with “until those issued were solved, [the bypass] is not something they would be
interested in.” Mr. Rooker stated that it was not reported to the Board “if we could get these things done,
would you support the bypass and they said yes,” because if it had been said he would have noted the
policy of the Board not to support the project. He would have asked why their MPO representatives would
be making a deal to support a road that the Board at the whole, at that time, did not support. He
commented that they might well have had the four votes anyway, but it is the way they got there that he
found the most troubling.
Mr. Thomas stated that the support for the bypass was not nailed down until he had suggested to
the MPO that the TIP be looked at, and that is when there was a 4:2 vote by this Board.
Mr. Boyd said he was tired of hearing Mr. Rooker’s sour grapes about not getting his way on that
project. It is done, it is over, and let’s move on. The Board has decided on a no confidence vote to keep
the existing Chair and Vice-Chair, and he is ready to move on.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Election of Vice-Chairman.
Mr. Davis stated that the next item of business is the election of Vice-Chair.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to nominate Mr. Snow for Vice-Chair. Mr. Rooker seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Boyd asked if the issue of election of Chair could be revisited.
Mr. Foley said it could be. Mr. Davis stated that anytime a majority of the Board decided to select
a Chair, it would be in order.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointment of Clerk.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to appoint Ms. Ella Jordan as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
for Calendar Year 2012. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2012.
Ms. Mallek said the only changes would be moving the regular day meeting scheduled for July 4th
meeting to July 11, with the evening meeting on July 18.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to set the meeting times, dates and places for Calendar Year
2012 as follows: first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., second Wednesday of the month at 6:00
p.m., with meetings to be held in the County Office Building on McIntire Road. Due to July 4th being a
County holiday, set July 11th as the day meeting and July 18th as the night meeting for July. Set the
meeting dates for January 2013 for: January 9 – 9:00 a.m., and January 16 – 6:00 p.m. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Set Dates for Zoning Text Amendment Hearings from Citizens.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to set the dates for hearing zoning text amendment hearings
from citizens as follows: September 12 and December 12, 2012 and March 13, and June 12, 2013. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Rules of Procedure Adoption.
Mr. Davis summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
Each year at the Board’s Organizational Meeting the Board adopts the rules of procedure under
which it will operate for that year. These rules of procedure are designed and adopted for the benefit
and convenience of the Board. Their purpose is to help the Board conduct its affairs in a timely and
efficient manner. The previously adopted rules of procedure have incorporated the general principles of
parliamentary procedure found in Robert’s Rules of Order’s Procedure in Small Boards and applicable
Virginia laws.
The proposed Rules of Procedure for 2012 (Attachment A) are based on the rules previously
adopted by the Board in 2011. They include the modifications to the Rules of Procedure adopted by the
Board at its June 1, 2011 meeting. At that meeting the Board adopted rules to address adoption of a final
agenda, discussion of matters by Board members not on the agenda, and the consent agenda.
(Paragraphs D. 2, 3,& 4) The proposed Rules clarify that matters added to the final agenda for action shall
be added to the end of the agenda unless a majority of the members of the Board agree to consider the
item earlier on the agenda. This generally provides that new matters will not delay matters already
scheduled on the agenda but also provides flexibility for the Board to decide if it is appropriate to consider
a particular matter earlier on the agenda.
Three other changes to the Rules are proposed:
1. An introduction has been added setting forth the purpose of the proposed Rules.
2. Under the “Order of Business” provisions (Paragraph D.1) the Rules propose to include
the format for how a typical Board meeting is conducted. This format is consistent with
how the Board currently holds its meetings.
3. Under the “Meetings” provisions (Paragraph C.3) the Rules propose to include that
notices for special meetings can be sent to a Board member by electronic mail or
facsimile if requested by the Board member. The enabling authority for this change was
adopted by the General Assembly in the 2011 Session. This change will facilitate the
calling of special meetings, when necessary.
4. Under the “Voting Procedures” provisions (Paragraph F.1) the Rules propose to clarify
that a tie vote on a motion to approve shall be deemed a denial of the matter being
proposed for approval. This has been the consistent interpretation of a tie vote on
matters before the Board that require a final action by the Board such as zoning
applications and ordinances. This clarification will eliminate confusion that sometimes
surrounds tie votes.
All of the proposed additions to the Rules are double underlined to clearly show what has changed
from the Rules adopted at the 2011 organizational meeting. The Robert’s Rules of Order Procedure in
Small Boards, which is incorporated by reference in Paragraph I, is also attached. (Attachment B) The
provision relating to motions not requiring a second is struck out in that attachment, however, to recognize
that notwithstanding the Small Board rules the proposed Rules retain the requirement that all motions
require a second to be further considered (Paragraph F.1).
This item has no direct budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed Rules of Procedure.
_____
Mr. Davis said the most substantial changes are the changes under “Order of Business” in D.2,
D.3 and D.4 which are an attempt to put into the Rules of Procedure the changes the Board adopted mid-
year last year. Under the proposed rules (Paragraph D.2) there is now a provision that puts into place
“Adoption of the Final Agenda”, which states that items added to the agenda would go at the end – but a
majority of the Board could place it wherever it was appropriate. He reported that D.3 addresses the
Consent Agenda and sets out the process for that agenda, which was consistent with how most Consent
Agendas were handled; and D.4 attempted to clarify that Board Committee Reports and Matters not Listed
on the Agenda were not action items but items requiring brief discussion, announcement, committee
reports or items for future agenda placement.
Mr. Boyd asked if items could still be pulled from the Consent Agenda for a separate vote.
Mr. Davis responded that they could, but this was just an attempt to curb the Consent Agenda
from becoming a discussion agenda. He stated that if an item was pulled for discussion then it should go
to the end of the agenda unless the Board decided otherwise. A matter requiring only brief comment or
discussion may be considered immediately after the approval of the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Foley noted that one purpose for that would be to have staff come to the end of a meeting if
they are needed to answer questions.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with the suggestions, but does have concerns about items on
today’s Consent Agenda. He is concerned that a number of items are being put on the Consent Agenda
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
that should have been regular agenda items. He is concerned about putting an item to the end of a
meeting, as it might mean a late discussion of important items.
Ms. Mallek suggested putting the items on the following meeting’s agenda.
Mr. Rooker stated that there have not been many items on the Consent Agenda that were
discussed very long, and the most effective way is to come back to the pulled items after the Consent
Agenda is passed.
Mr. Foley said the Board can do that under these rules.
Ms. Mallek asked if Board members would be in favor of having brief announcements at the
beginning of the meetings.
Mr. Thomas said he had a small report today, but it should not take too long.
Ms. Mallek said that is something they could be flexible about.
Mr. Boyd said he wanted to address that because he has a problem with “Other Matters” being
pushed to the very end of the meeting. He then suggested “Adoption of the Final Agenda” after “Other
Matters from the Public”. That would allow the Board to discuss a matter from the public by amending the
agenda instead of suspending the rules.
Mr. Snow stated that Mr. Foley had a good suggestion, when he spoke with him about this, in that
anything brought up requiring more information could be brought back to the next meeting as an agenda
item with more information.
Mr. Boyd said he is not interested in discussing the complicated matters, but occasionally there
may be something from the public, the Board could vote on at that time. Based on these rules, it seems
the Board would have to suspend the rules in order to say it was a good idea and vote on the issue.
Mr. Rooker said that if any Board member is going to propose something to be voted on at a
meeting, it should be provided to other Board members, the Clerk, County Executive, and staff at least two
days before the meeting by 5:00 p.m. He stated that otherwise the public has no idea that a matter would
be proposed for vote, and perhaps that should be reserved for emergencies.
Mr. Boyd agreed that it would be appropriate, and said that setting the agenda after “Matters from
the Public” would provide some flexibility.
Mr. Davis clarified that for matters requiring action would require advance notice to Board
members and the County Executive at least two days before the meeting at which they would be
proposed.
Mr. Rooker said that would allow the Clerk to post the item on the agenda, post it on the website
and people who are interested in the item can speak to it at the meeting.
Mr. Boyd said on the surface that sounds fine, but it might tie the Board’s hands if something
comes up at the last minute.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board could change it, as this was a guideline.
Mr. Davis said these are the Rules of Procedure by which the Board should operate unless they
either amend or suspend them. He understands the points Mr. Boyd and Mr. Rooker are making, as the
rules are flexible and can be changed by a majority vote of the Board, but the rules attempt to give a
standard procedure that is the norm unless there is a particular circumstance that arises that the majority
of the Board wants to treat otherwise. The rules give a matter of expectation, not of prohibition.
Mr. Boyd said that based on that, it was acceptable to him.
Mr. Foley clarified that Agenda Item No. 5 would be “Brief Announcements from Board Members”.
Ms. Mallek responded, “yes”.
Mr. Davis clarified that it would take a majority vote of the Board to add an action item to the
agenda for that day, and even as it stands now the Board could suspend their rules of procedure and do
that.
Mr. Rooker commented that if you are going to have rules at all, there should be some
expectation that matters to be voted on are provided – as a general rule – and there is no reason why
general matters should not be announced with some notice. It seems to him that is a reasonable
expectation by the public, that when they look at the agenda they are going to know that what the Board is
contemplating is going to be dealt with and voted on at the meeting. He said that this wouldn’t mean that
rules couldn’t be suspended in extenuating circumstances.
Based on the discussion, Mr. Davis suggested that the following language be added in Section
D.2: “In addition, any Board member may propose to add additional items to the agenda presented by the
Clerk for action if notice of that item has been given in writing or by email to all Board members, the Clerk,
and the County Executive by 5:00 p.m. two days before the date of the meeting.”
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd asked if that language would negate the need to suspend the rules.
Mr. Davis said that this would require suspension of the rules if a Board member did not give that
notice. He reiterated that the notice should be given to the Board members, the Clerk and the County
Executive. He stated that it would still require a majority vote of the Board to approve a final agenda that
would add those items.
Ms. Mallek stated it would help people do their homework for items to be considered.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adopt the Board’s Rules of Procedures as amended.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
RULES OF PROCEDURE
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
These rules of procedure are designed and adopted for the benefit and convenience of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors. Their purpose is to help the Board conduct its affairs in a timely and efficient
manner. They incorporate the general principles of parliamentary procedure found in Robert’s Rules of
Order’s Procedure in Small Boards and applicable Virginia laws. The rules of procedure do not create
substantive rights for third parties or participants in proceedings before the Board. Further, the Board
reserves the right to suspend or amend the rules of procedure whenever a majority of the Board decides
to do so. The failure of the Board to strictly comply with the rules of procedure shall not invalidate any
action of the Board.
A. Officers
1. Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall
preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In
addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the
Board’s official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto.
(Virginia Code §§ 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423)
2. Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if
present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the
duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1422)
3. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but
either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code § 15.2-
1422)
4. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are absent
from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman.
B. Clerk and Deputy Clerks
The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall
serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia Code
§ 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time
to time. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
C. Meetings
1. Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of the
Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding year,
shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish
the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code
§ 15.2-1416)
2. Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has
been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different
days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in
accord with Virginia Code § 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day
falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next
regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares
that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to
attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting
date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press
as promptly as possible. All hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be
conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required.
(Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day or from
time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting,
until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1416)
3. Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such
times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time
to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1417)
A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or more
members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board and
shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call or
request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each
member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be
in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business, or if
requested by a member of the Board, by electronic mail or facsimile. The notice shall
state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No
matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members
are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting
or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall
notify the general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the
matters to be considered.
D. Order of Business
1. Agenda. The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation
with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the
Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation.
a. At regular meetings of the Board, the order of business shall generally be as
follows:
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda.
9. General Business (To include Public Hearings, Presentations, Work
Sessions, Appointments, and other Action Items).
10. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
11. Adjourn.
A Closed Meeting shall be held whenever necessary. Generally, a Closed
Meeting will be scheduled at the midpoint of the agenda at day Board meetings
and at the end of the agenda prior to adjournment at evening Board meetings.
b. The above order of business may be modified by the Clerk of the Board to
facilitate the business of the Board.
2. Adoption of Final Agenda. The first order of business for a regular meeting of the Board
shall be to adopt a final agenda for that meeting. The Board may modify the order of
business as part of the adoption of the final agenda. In addition, any Board member may
propose to add additional items to the agenda presented by the Clerk for action if notice
of that item has been given in writing or by email to all Board members, the Clerk, and the
County Executive by 5:00 p.m. two days before the date of the meeting. Any such item
shall be added to the end of the agenda for discussion or action unless a majority of the
members of the Board agree to consider the item earlier on the agenda. The final agenda
shall be adopted by a majority vote of the members of the Board. No matter for action not
included on the final agenda shall be considered at that meeting.
3. Consent Agenda. The “Consent Agenda” shall be used for matters that do not require
discussion or comment and are anticipated to the have the unanimous approval of the
Board. There shall be no discussion or comment on Consent Agenda matters. Any Board
member may remove an item from the Consent Agenda. Any item removed from the
Consent shall be moved to a specific time or to the end of the meeting agenda for further
discussion or action. A matter requiring only brief comment or discussion may be
considered immediately after the approval of the Consent Agenda.
4. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. “From the
Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda” shall be the last order
of business for a regular meeting of the Board unless a majority of the members of the
Board agree to consider the item earlier on the agenda. It shall be limited to matters that
are not substantial enough to be considered as additional agenda items to be added to
the final agenda. Such matters are not matters to be acted upon by the Board at that
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
meeting. Routine committee reports and information updates by Board members shall be
presented under this agenda item.
5. Public Comment. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not
on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided,
individuals will be allowed a three-minute time limit in which to speak during the time set
aside on the agenda for “From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the
Agenda”.
6. Zoning Public Hearings. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the
agenda for public hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed
written deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the
week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted
administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board
package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert
the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline and
any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be
granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be
granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely
inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert
the public when a deferral is granted.
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing for a zoning matter should not be
advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received by the
County and are available for public review. To achieve this preference, applicants should
provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other documents
deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later
than two business days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing
advertisement to the newspaper. Staff will advise applicants of this date by including it in
annual schedules for applications and by providing each applicant a minimum of two
weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing
shall not be advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development that good cause exists for the public hearing to be
advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be scheduled. If the public
hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial
revisions or amendments are made to the submitted materials after the public hearing
has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board to either defer action and schedule a
second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to deny the
application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or
not forward the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine calendar days
prior to the date of the advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent
changes from being made to proffers resulting from comments received from the public
or from Board members at the public hearing.
E. Quorum
A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. If
during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken except
to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall
continue. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1415)
A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular
or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day
to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting.
F. Voting Procedures
1. Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by
approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a
member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be
further considered. The vote on the motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall
record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member
abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be
announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion
voted upon. A tie vote on a motion to approve shall be deemed a denial of the matter
being proposed for approval. (Article VII, § 7, Virginia Constitution)
2. Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a m ajority of all elected
members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution (1)
appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes; or (3) authorizing
the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code § 15.2-1428)
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
3. Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a
public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its
discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such
matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public
hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant
shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Following the
applicant’s presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three
minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public
hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than
five minutes for a rebuttal presentation.
4. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded, shall
be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion
unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the
original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before
the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion
is again before the Board for its consideration.
5. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving
the “previous question”. Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the
motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman
shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of
the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any
other matter.
6. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion
to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same
day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any
member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted.
The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for
discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon.
7. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map amendments,
special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only be subject to
reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected
members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board.
Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion
to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map
amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed
only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters
as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration.
G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular
meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
H. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members present
and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a
proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a
rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided,
however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of
a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other
applicable law.
I. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order Procedure in Small Boards.
* * * * *
(Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80;
1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-
94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003; 1-7-2004; 1-5-2005;
1-4-2006; 1-3-2007; 1-9-2008; 1-7-2009; 1-6-2010; 1-5-2011; 1-4-2012).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Adoption of Boards and Commissions Policy.
Mr. Davis stated that there are no proposed changes to the policy as presented.
Mr. Boyd noted that there are over 20 different boards and commissions that the Supervisors sit
on and represent, not just the four previously mentioned in the meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the Boards and Commissions Policy as presented.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
POLICY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. CREATION OF NEW BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. On an annual basis the list of active boards and commissions will be purged of all bodies
not required by Federal, State, County or other regulations, which have not met at least once during the
prior twelve-month period.
2. Whenever possible and appropriate, the functions and activities of boards and
commissions will be combined, rather than encouraging the creation of new bodies.
3. Any newly created task force or ad hoc committee which is intended to serve for a limited
time period may be comprised of magisterial or at-large members at the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors. The appointment process shall follow that adopted in Section B for other magisterial and/or
at-large positions.
B. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. All appointments to boards and commissions based upon magisterial district boundaries
will be made by the members of the Board of Supervisors. At the discretion of the supervisor of that
district, magisterial positions may be advertised and selected applicants may be interviewed for the
position.
2. Prior to each day Board meeting, the Clerk will provide the Board a list of expired terms
and vacancies that will occur within the next sixty days. The Board will then advise the Clerk which
vacancies to advertise.
3. In an effort to reach as many citizens as possible, notice of boards and commissions with
appointment positions available may be published through available venues, such as, but not limited to,
the County’s website, A-mail, public service announcements and local newspapers. Interested citizens will
be provided a brief description of the duties and functions of each board, length of term of the
appointment, frequency of meetings, and qualifications necessary to fill the position. An explanation of the
appointment process for both magisterial and at-large appointments will also be sent to all applicants.
4. All interested applicants will have a minimum of thirty days from the date of the first notice
to complete and return to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a detailed application, with the
understanding that such application may be released to the public, if requested. No applications will be
accepted if they are postmarked after the advertised deadline, however, the Board, at its discretion, may
extend the deadline.
5. Once the deadline for accepting applications is reached, the Clerk will distribute all
applications received to the members of the Board of Supervisors prior to the day meeting for their review.
For magisterial appointments, the Clerk will forward applications as they are received to the supervisor of
that district who will then recommend his/her appointment.
6. From the pool of qualified candidates, the Board of Supervisors, at their discretion, may
make an appointment without conducting an interview, or may select applicants to interview for the vacant
positions. The Clerk will then schedule interviews with applicants to be held during the next day meeting.
For magisterial appointments, the decision to interview selected candidates will be determined by the
supervisor of that district.
7. All efforts will be made to interview selected applicants and make appointments within
ninety days after the application deadline. For designated agency appointments to boards and
commissions, the agency will be asked to recommend a person for appointment by the Board of
Supervisors.
8. All vacancies will be filled as they occur.
9. All incumbents will be allowed to serve on a board or commission without his/her position
being re-advertised unless, based on attendance and performance, the chairman of the body or a member
of the Board of Supervisors requests the Board of Supervisors to do otherwise.
10. As a condition to assuming office all citizen members of boards and commissions shall
file a real estate disclosure form as set forth in the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act
and thereafter shall file such form annually on or before January 15.
11. If a member of a board or commission does not participate in at least fifty percent of a
board’s or commission’s meetings, the chairman of the body may request the Board of Supervisors
terminate the appointment and refill it during the next scheduled advertising period.
C. ADOPTION
This policy shall be reviewed and readopted by the Board of Supervisors in January.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
(Amended and/or Readopted 01-07-98; 02-12-2005; 01-04-2006; 01-03-2007; 01-09-2008; 01-07-2009;
01-06-2010; 01-05-2011; 01-04-2012)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11a. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Boyd said there were people present for the discussion of the resolution proposing changing
the name of the Meadow Creek Parkway, and asked if it could be moved up to follow Agenda Item No. 13.
Board members concurred.
__________
Mr. Foley said that the Chair had mentioned a legislative item regarding a land swap.
Ms. Mallek responded that she would like to add that item to the end of the agenda. It is a
proposed Resolution to Support Legislation regarding a land exchange with Habitat for Humanity.
Mr. Rooker stated that the resolution should have been posted on the website as a proposed
agenda item, as it is an issue some people have an interest in.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the resolution referred to is not the one before the Board today, but it
would be before them in February as part of a full staff report dealing with zoning issues related to the land
swap. He clarified that the resolution today is a brief statement supporting legislation that would permit the
land swap between the State and Habitat for Humanity.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that the resolution should have been posted as part of the agenda on the
Board’s website.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker for adopt the final agenda as amended. Mr. Boyd seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12a. Recognitions: Governor’s recognition of the Albemarle/Charlottesville
Reentry Council.
Ms. Mallek said that in in July 2003 Virginia was designated one of seven states to participate in
the Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy of the National Governors Association. Through the academy, NGA
assisted State teams in developing effective prisoner reentry strategies designed to reduce costly
recidivism rates by improving pre-and post-release services. In June 2007, then Governor Kaine set forth
an executive order (#22) establishing the Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy at the State level.
The Virginia Department of Social Services approached Albemarle County about piloting an
initiative locally. In collaboration with Charlottesville Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Offender
Aid and Restoration (OAR), they established the local Prisoner Reentry Council in 2007 to develop local
plans that identify available resources and methods for interagency coordination and increased service
effectiveness. The Council was initially comprised of State identified stakeholders in each community,
some of whom remain on the Council today. The Council serves in an advisory capacity to a locally
established Steering Committee and meets twice yearly in that role.
The local Steering Committee helped to organize the Prisoner Reentry Summit held this past
summer. The outcomes of the Summit, coupled with the City’s Dialogue on Race recommendations and
the State’s initiative has helped to develop a list of priorities for the Steering Committee and Council to
work on over the next year. The Council has evolved into a network of community stakeholders that work
with ex-offenders on a regular basis and their charge is as follows:
o increase awareness among service providers and others about the local reentry
population and their assets and needs;
o to be a clearinghouse for sharing resources;
o to disseminate information about resources that could support individuals and families;
o to facilitate networking and in other ways enhance the capacity of service providers to
respond to needs and advocate for resources to support successful reentry;
o to identify and eliminate barriers to service integration and provide general advocacy for
the initiative; and
o to meet at least two times yearly.
Ms. Mallek then presented the following proclamation signed by Governor McDonnell to Ms. Kathy
Ralston, Director of Social Services: “By virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and on behalf of the grateful citizens of the Comnwnwealth of Virginia, I hereby
officially recognize the Albemarle-Charlottesville Reentry Council for its leadership in furthering successful
prisoner reentry at the local level, for its innovation as one of Virginia's six original reentry councils and for
its commitment to strengthening families and communities through effective delivery of reentry services.”
Ms. Ralston accepted the recognition and introduced Mr. Ross Carew, Assistant Director of
Offender Aid and Restoration. She mentioned that the effort is a collaboration with OAR, the Regional
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Jail, Region Ten, Legal Aid Justice Center, City Human Services, and Adult Probation and Parole. Mr.
Carew also thanked Board members for their support.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Forrest Marshall said that he and his wife, Donna, were present to thank the Board for the
resolution renaming the Meadow Creek Parkway to the John W. Warner parkway. He stated that Senator
John Warner has always been a good friend of the Marshall family. Mr. Marshall stated that Senator
Warner fell in love the community when he attended law school at the University of Virginia, and he has
been most appreciative and helpful to the community.
Ms. Marshall thanked the Board for doing this.
__________
Mr. Joey Worley, Director of Sales and Catering at Keswick Hall, said he was present to support
Mr. Burkhart, Ms. Warner and the CACVB in their request for marketing funding. Mr. Worley reported that
Keswick Hall’s occupancy over the last three years was up about 8%, and they were recently awarded the
#1 small hotel recognition by Conde Naste Traveler magazine’s readers’ poll for the second year in a row.
He stated that none of that would have been possible without a solid marketing campaign, much of which
has been spearheaded by the CACVB. Mr. Worley said there are about two dozen other hotel colleagues
at the meeting today who support the Bureau’s efforts and the reinvestment of dollars back into the
marketing can only benefit them and the other businesses. Keswick Hall values its partnership with the
CACVB, and cannot continue to be successful as a business without them. He thanked the Board for its
support.
__________
Ms. Katherine Bundy addressed the Board, stating that she and her husband own Foxfield Inn
located on Garth Road. She said that she was here to support Mr. Burkhart, the CACVB and the
marketing funds. Ms. Bundy said that in order to improve their business, these funds are needed to
aggressively market this area and to bring more tourists into the area. They need to continue to promote
agri-tourism and to put more heads in the existing beds of bed & breakfasts here.
___________
Ms. Carolyn Poulson addressed the Board, stating that she purchased a residence at 400 West
High Street and turned it into an “upscale inn,” with faith and understanding that the dollars she brought in
from outside of Charlottesville would stay in the tourism industry. She said that she finds it distressing that
these funds could go elsewhere. She hopes that the money will stay in the tourism industry and spent
locally.
Ms. Mallek clarified that there has been no discussion of taking this money and putting it into an
area that was non-tourism related.
__________
Mr. Bob Goss, the owner of the Inn at Monticello on Route 20, said he was here to speak in favor
of keeping tax dollars generated through the use and occupancy taxes in the marketing function and
hospitality sector of the local economy. He also stated that there are two busy seasons, with now being a
slow period, and this situation has generated a discussion among lodging owners about how best to
generate more guests coming during the slow season. Once a strategy is developed the marketing dollars
that are subject to this discussion will be put to good use to bring more guests and visitors to the area, and
generate more use and occupancy taxes. He asked that the Board understand their concerns.
___________
Mr. Dick Cabell addressed the Board, stating that he and his wife, Haden, operate the Inn at
Sugar Hollow Farm in the County. Mr. Cabell said there are 17 full-time bed and breakfasts in the City
and the County, with four of the inns having full-time restaurants. He stated that there are other B&Bs that
use a “guest houses” service to do their reservations, but those facilities are contributing also. Mr. Cabell
stated that to get established, their group of 17 inns has spent millions of dollars in construction to make
the inns work and they continue to spend significant amounts on maintenance. He added that they need
to maintain their visibility to attract a specific customer to come to Charlottesville as they are not
competing with local hotels like the Holiday Inn and Marriott, but other B&Bs from Orange, Williamsburg,
etc.
__________
Mr. Naresh Naran addressed the Board, stating that he ran the Comfort Inn – Monticello in the
Pantops area, and that he serves on the CACVB. Mr. Naran stated that he hopes the funding would stay
within the CACVB and said that Mr. Burkhart and the Bureau have come up with a great marketing plan.
He asked for the Board’s support in their plan.
__________
Mr. Mitch Willey said that he has owned the Clifton Inn since 1983. Mr. Willey said that he was
glad to hear Ms. Mallek say there was a misunderstanding about reallocating occupancy tax dollars – as
the group was concerned they would be reallocated elsewhere and felt strongly those monies bring more
dollars to the community through tourism. He also stated that the funding could be used to do more in the
first quarter of the calendar year to bring people to Charlottesville, as the local tourism industry “dies
during that first quarter.” He does not think that Charlottesville has been as creative as some other
communities in covering that slow period.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Rooker asked how far in advance marketing would need to be done to impact the first quarter.
Mr. Willey responded that it should start now and requires a pretty long lead time. He said there is
a fairly long incubation period before events are widely known, and other communities such as Nantucket
have a very short season but have elongated it through creativity – such as a wine festival held in May
even though there are no vineyards on the island.
__________
Mr. Eric Pfister, Manager of the Hilton Garden Inn located on Pantops, addressed the Board and
said he also appreciated that there was a misunderstanding about the allocation of funds. Mr. Feister said
that during the week his hotel caters to business travelers, but during the weekend is in the same situation
as other hotel owners. He stated that they really appreciate the efforts of the CACVB to bring people to
the area and encourage tourism. He thanked the Board for giving the Bureau the time to develop and
implement an extensive marketing and spending plan.
__________
Ms. Yolunda Armstrong, General Manager of the Red Roof Inn, said that they all have met several
times over the last month to talk about their plans in moving forward with the CACVB. She said they are
excited to come together as a community of lodgers through the Bureau’s efforts to encourage area
tourism, especially during the off seasons. She stated that the entities all have their own marketing plans,
but it is also wonderful to have the CACVB that can market on behalf of the entire City and County so they
can attract more people to the area.
__________
Mr. Bill Akers addressed the Board, stating that he was a “terminated travel specialist” at CACVB
and an advocate of many of the people here. Mr. Akers said his father worked at a hotel in Washington
D.C. that attracted many famous and prestigious guests to its Jockey Club Restaurant. He brought that
level of excellence to the CACVB, and from his perspective, he thinks that a lot of folks here could have
been supported a lot better than they were. He does not think his level of excellence and others that were
terminated by the CACVB was appreciated. He stated that he was deeply troubled during the time he was
located at the Route 20 Visitors Center that travelers used the facility as a bathroom even if it was not
open. He attempted to deal with this matter and had proposed that an international rest stop sign be
placed at Route 20 in two locations stating that there was no bathroom usage from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00
a.m. was an issue. That apparently has been ignored. This issue stands as being a shameful aspect of
CACVB.
__________
Ms. Samantha Marshall addressed the Board, stating that she was a student at Monticello High
School and introducing her classmates Burgundy Draper and Keenan Krentz. Ms. Marshall reported that
for the Citizens Action Project (CAP), they chose to research the cellular towers that are being installed
near or on public school grounds. She said there is not 100% support behind the construction of the
towers that is already in effect.
Mr. Krentz stated that after months of research, he has found it difficult to find any conclusive
medical research outlining the effects of cell tower radiation, and only adults have been tested – not
children who have more vulnerable organs and nervous systems. He said that until more tests have been
done and more evidence has been found that there are no harmful effects from cell towers, he does not
see the benefits of building one on a school site. Mr. Krentz also asked why the County would want to
taint the character of the area with an ugly unnatural tower on the skyline.
Ms. Draper said that while they realize the additional towers increase coverage and availability for
4G internet access on rural roads, she questioned whether it really outweighed the negative effects.
Towers are being constructed to potentially track buses that pick up children and to ensure that they can
be found. She asked what is the point of knowing where these children are when in a few years the
effects of the cell tower radiation begins to show.
Ms. Marshall said they are present today to inform Board members of their opinion. Members of
the community, including high school students, are concerned with the goings on in Charlottesville. They
can sit around playing Farmville on their I-Phones and grumble about how unfair it is that their connection
slows without cell towers every couple of feet, but they do have their priorities in order. Some of them
have lived here all of their lives, and it hurts to see the blinking lights and ugly metal structures invading
into their memories in this beautiful place they have grown up in. Ms. Marshall urged the Board to save
the children and the beauty of this town.
Ms. Mallek thanked the students for taking the time to address the Board this morning.
__________
Mr. Mark Milleson addressed the Board, stating that he was inspired by the students’ interaction
with the Board and participation in local government. Mr. Milleson said he was here to support keeping
the CACVB marketing funding in the industry from which it was generated. He stated he has been
running the English Inn since 1999, profitably, and said it is tough to set aside marketing money especially
in tight economic times. Mr. Milleson said that for every dollar generated by the tourism industry, dozens
of dollars are generated for other local industries. It’s good business practice to keep the marketing
funding right where [it is], speak out on behalf of local industries in general – not just his business by using
it for marketing, marketing Central Virginia. They are a bright spot in an otherwise bleak economy, and he
thinks the Board can help them remain a bright spot.
__________
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Charles Friend, a resident of the Jack Jouett District, said that he wanted to point out the
economic impact of the travel industry – which generates about $274 million annually in Albemarle County
and employs about 850 people. Mr. Friend said that the local tax collected is $4.5 million and the state tax
collected is $6.9 million. He stated that all of the lodging owners and operators in both the City and the
County have come together twice, after the Board’s December meeting, and have generated a lot of good
ideas. He thinks that this group present today will provide information and hold the CACVB accountable
for future actions. This money needs to be kept where it belongs.
__________
Mr. Timothy Hulbert, of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce, said he
would just echo the statements made by these industry representatives. This industry is important to the
Charlottesville and Albemarle region; it employs thousands of people. The CACVB has the beginnings of
an enhanced plan to really boost direct tourism marketing. He said that that’s what this money was
dedicated for, that’s its purpose, and that’s where it should be used. He is hopeful the Board also sees
that along with the industry.
__________
Mr. Anton Largiader addressed the Board, stating that he had emailed Board members about the
renaming of the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said that it is a big issue that has seemed to come up very
suddenly, with none of his friends and neighbors informed of this in advance. Nobody he knows actually
likes the idea, and in no case is it due to any dislike or disrespect intended toward Senator Warner. He
thinks this is simply a case where people like the existing name of the Meadow Creek Parkway. They’ve
grown up with the expectation of seeing it opened as the Meadow Creek Parkway. He is certainly very,
very glad to see it open as a resident of Rio Road East. Mr. Margedier emphasized that the existing name
is perfectly fine and is descriptive of its geographic location, and he personally does not like the trend
toward naming infrastructure for politicians who may have been barely out of office. He stated that the
matter is important enough to be done with more public input, as there hasn’t been any. The people he
knows do not like the idea of this renaming although it has been announced as a done deal, even though
the Board has not voted. Mr. Largiader urged the Board to get more public input.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that the decision to rename the road after Senator Warner was approved
through a resolution by the Board in 2008.
Mr. Largiader said he had found reference to that, with the resolution being contingent on whether
the City went along with it.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that yesterday he saw two signs being installed with “Meadow Creek
Parkway, ” but this road has been discussed since 1968. He thinks that Senator Warner does warrant
recognition as he was solely responsible for getting $27 million for the interchange.
_____
Mr. Foley stated that the press incorrectly reported that the Board would be making a funding
decision today on the CACVB marketing money, but that is not scheduled on the agenda. Today’s
agenda schedule has an update on the development of the marketing plan.
_______________
(Note: The Board then took up Agenda Item No. 24.)
Agenda Item No. 24. Resolution to name the County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Foley reported that the currently named Meadow Creek Parkway is scheduled to be complete
on January 6, and there would be an opening ceremony scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Friday. He said that
as part of the completion and opening of this road, the Board requested that the road be named for
Senator John W. Warner. Mr. Foley noted that the Board had a resolution before them that outlined his
extensive contributions to the country and the community, which was drafted with input from Senator
Warner.
Mr. Thomas said that everyone is invited to the ribbon cutting Friday morning at the intersection of
CATEC and Rio Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Ms. Mallek asked how the recognition would be shown, as the road sign seems to already say
Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Boyd commented that it was too late to get the signs in but they would be reordered by VDOT.
He added that it would not be a commemorative sign as that would require legislative approval.
Mr. Davis said that if the Board adopts the resolution, the road name in Albemarle County would
be the “John W. Warner Parkway” and all the signage referring to the Meadow Creek Parkway would be
removed and replaced with the new signs.
At Mr. Boyd’s suggestion, Ms. Mallek read the resolution into the record.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Mallek to adoopt the resolution as presented, naming the
County’s portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway the “John W. Warner Parkway.” Mr. Boyd seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Senator John Warner takes pride in his Virginia ancestry, which traces back to the
neighboring County of Amherst, home of his grandparents; and
WHEREAS, like so many of the World War II generation, Senator Warner enlisted at the age of 17 in
the U.S. Navy in January, 1945; was honorably discharged in 1946, and then entered his father’s alma mater,
Washington and Lee University on the GI Bill; and
WHEREAS, Senator Warner was accepted at the Law School at the University of Virginia in the Fall of
1949, completed his first year, and, was commencing his second year when he, like many other military
reservists across America, was called to active duty to meet the nation’s mobilization requirements for the
Korean War; and
WHEREAS, Senator Warner served in Korea as a First Lieutenant Communications Officer, First
Marine Air Wing and, upon his return, resumed his studies at the Law School graduating in 1953, and with the
faculty’s recommendation, he obtained a law clerkship with a Federal Judge; and
WHEREAS, the Senator has many times in Senate Floor speeches, and at public appearances,
acknowledged his everlasting gratitude for the training and experience in the military, his legal education,
respect given by the Charlottesville community and the University to the veterans of World War II and Korea,
and the individual encouragement given him by faculty and administration of the Law School. This support laid
an essential part of the foundation for his service in the U.S. Senate; and
WHEREAS, over the span of 218 years of U.S. Senate history Virginia has sent 55 individuals to
represent the Commonwealth of Virginia, of which John W. Warner is the second longest serving with 30
years of service, 1979-2009; and
WHEREAS, Senator Warner was awarded the 2008 Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Citizen
Leadership for his lifetime commitment to public service, his strong commitment to education and his
exceptional leadership; and
WHEREAS, when Senator John W. Warner announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate, on the
grounds of the Rotunda, he stated that “one’s achievements in life are largely owed to all who helped along the
way.” He quoted from the founding father of the University of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson: “There is a fullness of
time when men should go, and not occupy too long the ground to which others have the right to advance”; and
WHEREAS, Senator Warner’s advocacy and commitment to this region was instrumental in obtaining
important funding for the University of Virginia, keeping the National Ground Intelligence Center growing and a
part of this community, and funding for the construction of the interchange for the Meadow Creek Parkway;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in recognition and sincere appreciation for Senator
Warner’s longstanding commitment to not only public service and the betterment of our country, but for the
support and contributions to the Charlottesville and Albemarle community and the future of our residents, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby name the County’s portion of the Meadow Creek
Parkway the “John W. Warner Parkway.”
_____
Mr. Forrest Marshall thanked the Board for passing the resolution, and noted that it was Senator
Warner who helped keep the National Ground Intelligence Center here when Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
wanted to move it to Laurel, Maryland. If that one organization had moved from this community, it could
have had a billion dollar economic impact. He added that the building that the NGIC moved out of was
given to the City for $1, and the City resold it for several million dollars. He again thanked the Board for
their action.
_______________
(NonAgenda. The Board recessed at 10:54 a.m. and reconvened at 11:02 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to approve Items 14.1
through 14.6 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. (Note:
Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Mr. Rooker seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No.14.1. Approval of Minutes: March 14(A), April 6, September 13(A), October 12(A),
November 1(A), and November 17(A), 2011.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of March 14, 2011(A), and found them to be in order.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of April 6, 2011, pages 1–36 (end Item
#10), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read his portion of the minutes of April 6, 2011, pages 36 (begin Item
#10), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of September 13, 2011(A), and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of October 12, 2011(A), and found them to be in
order.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of November 1, 2011(A), and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of November 17, 2011(A), and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_______________
Item No.14.2. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the
currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to
all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $456,542.66. 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 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012046) totaling $18,008.48 for the completion of bonded
improvements at Abington Place;
One (1) appropriation (#2012047) totaling $203,447.18 for School Division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012048) totaling $102,000.00 for a Virginia Department of
Emergency Management grant; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012049) totaling $133,087.00 for the Firearms Range.
Staff recommends approval of the appropriations #2012046, #2012047, #2012048, and
#2012049.
Appropriation #2012046 $18,008.48
Revenue Source: Local Grants $18,008.48
This request is to appropriate $18,008.48 held by the County to bond an Abington Place Proffer for the
completion of greenway path improvements in Abington Place. The County provided a written notice of
default to the developer of Abington Place, Tribal Properties, LLC and NVR, Inc. after they failed to
complete the bonded improvements required pursuant to condition No. 4 of ZMA2002-002 by December
31, 2010. The condition states: "the principal is obligated to construct a greenway path ten (10) feet in
width that is paved with asphalt as shown on blocks I and III of the Application Plan approved in
conjunction with ZMA2002-002 (hereinafter, the "Greenway Path"). A default will arise if the Principal(s)
fail to complete construction of the Greenway Paths as required by Proffer No. 4 of ZMA2002-002 on or
before December 31, 2010." The Cashier’s Check received by the County included the bond amount of
$18,000.00 and interest for a total of $18,008.48.
Appropriation #2012047 $203,447.18
Revenue Source: Local Contributions $ 1,654.75
State Grant Revenue $ 19,178.00
Federal Revenue (ARRA) $ 182,614.43
This request is to appropriate local contributions, state grant revenues and federal ARRA revenue to the
School Division. These appropriations were approved by the School Board on December 1 and
December 8 and are as follows:
(1) This appropriates $1,654.75 in local donations to the School Division. Cale Elementary School
received a donation in the amount of $40.00 from Kelly J. Armstrong. The donor has requested that this
contribution be used to purchase music materials for students at Cale Elementary School. Henley Middle
School received a donation in the amount of $1,614.75 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support
Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time
before 9” program for the month of October at Henley Middle School.
(2) This appropriates a state grant awarded to the School Division from the Virginia Department of
Housing & Community Development in the amount of $19,178.00. This “GED and Beyond” Grant will
provide individuals who are close to completing their GED and those who have recently received a GED
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
the opportunity to participate in Employability Skills and Access to Career Pathways Workshops. These
workshops will be held at the Virginia Workforce Center and Albemarle High School, and will focus on
supporting clients’ successful transition into employment and/or into higher education or licensure
programs. The workshops will include speakers from local employers, the Virginia Workforce Center,
CATEC, PVCC and UVA. Students will develop resumes, cover letters, and thank you letters as a part of
the workshop series and will participate in mock interviews with human resources representatives from
local companies. All participants will have the opportunity to utilize technology to search for job openings,
apply for positions and to participate in on-line registration for courses in higher education. Grant funds will
be used to pay salaries and benefits for teachers and to pay rent to the Piedmont Workforce Network
through May 2012.
(3) This request appropriates $182,614.43 in federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA) funding that is available from FY 10/11 for use by the School Division in FY 11/12.
Remaining ARRA Title I, Part A funds in the amount of $41,321.00 will be used to assist in the
support of 6.23 FTE Title I teacher positions, 1.0 FTE Teaching Assistant and will provide for
instructional materials that focus on reading instruction, classroom technology and SES/Public
School Choice set aside.
Remaining ARRA Title II, Part D funds in the amount of $28,436.83 will be used to provide for or
to support the following services: university courses to support teachers in reaching state and
national certification standards in the use of technology in the classroom, workshops/staff
development for teachers and a computer/technology literacy assessment tool.
Remaining ARRA IDEA Part B-Section 611 Flow Through funds in the amount of $101,314.17 will
be used to provide for or in support of the following services: part time wages for a teacher to
supplement regular school year case management activities to enhance program development for
the students that present the most academic and behavioral challenges, contract with Public
Consulting Group to update the EasyIEP software, classroom furniture, instructional materials that
focus on reading and math interventions and technology for classrooms.
Remaining ARRA IDEA Part B-Section 619 Preschool funds in the amount of $11,542.43 will be
used to provide the following services and supports: wages for a substitute to fill in for a Pre-K
teacher assistant who resigned in May 2011, instructional materials, office furniture and minor
alterations of the Preschool Assessment Center’s waiting room in the Special Education Office.
Appropriation #2012048 $102,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $102,000.00
This request is to appropriate a federal grant in the amount of $102,000.00 that will be managed by the
Em ergency Communications Center. The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) has
awarded a $102,000 regional planning/training grant to the Regional Preparedness Advisory Committee
(RPAC-I) Region 3. RPAC-I Region 3 is comprised of 20 jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia
including the County of Albemarle. The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) will be managing this
grant for the region as the fiscal agent. The ECC requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the
ECC, make an appropriation for this grant after approving acceptance of this grant as part of a separate
January 4, 2012 consent agenda item for approval.
The purpose of this grant is to hire an emergency communications consultant to assist the region in
developing a regional Field Operations Guide (RFOG,) that will be compliant and consistent with the other
regions’ FOG programs and the statewide FOG development. The RFOG will identify and incorporate
traditional communications/radio resources as well as Commonwealth’s Link to Interoperable
Communications (COMLINC) assets and information, such as connectivity, connected resources and
contact information for each jurisdiction within Region 3. This grant is 100% reimbursable with no
matching funds required. The project will be completed by April 30, 2012.
Appropriation #2012049 $ 133,087.00
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $ 127,356.00
CIP General Govt Fund Balance $ 5,731.00
This request is to appropriate $133,087.00 in CIP funding for the design and engineering costs associated
with constructing the Firearms Range. The facility includes a 100-yard multi-purpose firearms range,
classroom, toilet facilities and parking. The facility is anticipated to be located in the southern part of the
County on the Keene landfill site pending all required approvals. Construction of the firearms range is
scheduled to begin by September 2012 and to be completed by December 2012.
There is anticipated to be a cost-share agreement with the City of Charlottesville which has not yet been
formalized. Upon reaching a cost-share agreement, the offsetting revenue from the City for the Firearms
range will be presented to the Board for approval and appropriation.
(Discussion: Referring to Appropriation #2012049, design of the firing range, Mr. Boyd said he
cannot recalled approving the $133,000 in the CIP.
Mr. Foley responded that the Board had a conversation in closed meeting on that issue as it
related to a contractual matter and staff indicated that it would bring the item back to the Board depending
on the CIP Oversight Committee’s recommendation – but the Board’s final approval wouldn’t occur until
March as part of the budget process.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Boyd asked why it is before the Board as an appropriation at this time since the CIP has not
yet been approved.
Mr. Foley responded that the issue is the timing of the contract with the current firing range. This
money is for the initial planning and if the County doesn’t get the project started it would not likely
complete construction in time to coincide with the contract they have to sign.
Mr. Boyd also said that the item also mentions a pending cost-sharing agreement with the City,
which “runs a red flag up” for him because of past experience with those arrangements.
Mr. Foley explained that the City has approved it in their recommended CIP, and this is only the
preliminary design money – with the $133,000 to be divided with the City per an agreement.
Ms. Mallek noted that the facility would belong to the County.
Mr. Rooker asked if the $133,000 would be matched by the City, or if it funds the entire design
and engineering cost.
Mr. Foley explained that it is designed to fund the entire preliminary work needed, without a
determination today as to how the cost would be shared.
Mr. Rooker said the Board had shown some interest in moving forward with the project regardless
of the City’s participation.
Mr. Foley stated that if the City couldn’t use the other facility for some reason, they would have to
pay the County to use the new facility.
Mr. Boyd asked if the work would begin immediately. Mr. Foley responded, “yes”.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the budget amendment in the amount of
$456,542.66 and approved appropriations #2012046, #2012047, #2012048, and #2012049.
APP #20120046
DATE 01/04/2011
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Proffer Bond - Abington Place: ZMA-2002-002 / $18,000 default + interest
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9016 41000 341000 410730 9999 18,008.48 Abington PL Bond Default
4 9016 91000 491000 940086 9999 18,008.48 Abington PL Bond Default
TOTAL 36,016.96
_____
APP #2012-047
DATE 01/04/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from School Board meetings on December 1 and December 8, 2011
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 1,654.75 Contributions
4 2000 62214 461101 601300 6114 40.00 Cale-Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 1,500.00 Henley-Stipends
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 114.75 Henley-FICA
3 3222 24000 324000 240322 6599 19,178.00 GED & Beyond Grant
4 3222 63222 461101 112100 6599 6,910.00 Salaries - Teacher
4 3222 63222 461101 132100 6599 5,539.72 P/T Wages - Teacher
4 3222 63222 461101 210000 6599 934.97 FICA
4 3222 63222 461101 221000 6599 989.28 VRS
4 3222 63222 461101 231000 6599 1,409.04 Health Insurance
4 3222 63222 461101 232000 6599 53.20 Dental Insurance
4 3222 63222 461101 241000 6599 23.20 Group Life Insurance
4 3222 63222 461101 540200 6599 3,318.59 Lease/Rent
3 3162 63162 333000 330101 6599 41,321.00 ARRA Title I Federal Revenue
3 3162 63162 333000 330105 6599 28,436.83 ARRA Title II Federal Revenue
3 3162 63162 333000 330110 6599 101,314.17 ARRA-IDEA
3 3162 63162 333000 330111 6599 11,542.43 ARRA - Preschool
4 3162 63162 461170 112100 6599 27,153.32 Salaries-Teacher
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
4 3162 63162 461170 114100 6599 1,221.58 Salaries-Teacher Aide
4 3162 63162 461170 132100 6599 325.00 PT/W ages-Teacher
4 3162 63162 461170 210000 6599 1,937.71 FICA
4 3162 63162 461170 221000 6599 2,426.64 Virginia Retirement System
4 3162 63162 461170 231000 6599 3,649.28 Health Insurance
4 3162 63162 461170 232000 6599 137.78 Dental Insurance
4 3162 63162 461170 241000 6599 56.95 VRS Group Life Insurance
4 3162 63162 461170 242000 6599 147.20 Group Life/Part-Time
4 3162 63162 461170 312700 6599 2,800.00 Prof. Ser. Consultants
4 3162 63162 461170 601300 6599 1,465.54 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3162 63162 461172 112100 6599 5,923.43 Salaries-Teacher
4 3162 63162 461172 210000 6599 453.14 FICA
4 3162 63162 461172 312700 6599 26,668.40 Prof. Ser. Consultants
4 3162 63162 461172 601300 6599 43,471.92 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3162 63162 461172 800100 6599 22,872.08 Machinery & Equip-Addl
4 3162 63162 461172 800200 6599 1,925.20 Furniture/Fixtures-Addl
4 3162 63162 461174 114100 6599 352.76 Salaries-Teacher Aide
4 3162 63162 461174 210000 6599 26.98 FICA
4 3162 63162 461174 601300 6599 1,180.37 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3162 63162 461174 800100 6599 1,040.06 Machinery & Equip-Addl
4 3162 63162 461174 800200 6599 1,995.26 Furniture/Fixtures-Addl
4 3162 63162 461175 160300 6599 24,093.37 Stipends-Staff/Cur. Devl.
4 3162 63162 461175 210000 6599 1,843.46 FICA
4 3162 63162 461175 312700 6599 2,500.00 Prof. Ser. Consultants
4 3162 63162 464600 800901 6599 6,947.00 Building Renovations
TOTAL 406,894.36
_____
APP #2012048
DATE 01/04/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: ECC Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 4130 33000 333000 330221 9999 102,000.00 VDEM-USDHS Emerg. Comm. Grt.
4 4130 31069 435600 312105 1003 102,000.00 Consulting Services – VDEM – USDHS
Emerg. Comm. Grt.
TOTAL 204,000.00
_____
APP #2012049
DATE 01/04/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Firearms Range - Civil Engineering
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9010 41000 341000 410500 9999 127,356.00 Loan Proceeds
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 5,731.00 CIP General Govt Fund Balance
4 9010 31029 431010 312405 3110 127,356.00 Civil Engineer
4 9010 31029 431010 312366 3110 5,731.00 Fac Dev Coordinator
TOTAL 266,174.00
_______________
Item No. 14.3. Update on Options Regarding Audio Streaming of Board of Supervisors
Meetings.
The executive summary states that at the Board’s November 2, 2011 meeting, staff presented
information regarding the possibility of video streaming Board meetings (See Attachment A for executive
summary). The information included what video services other Virginia localities provide and an estimate
of costs that would be required to video stream Board meetings. Because of the cost to video stream, and
the County’s current resource limitations, Board members directed staff to come back with information
about live audio streaming as a lower cost option for providing remote citizen access to Board meetings.
Charlottesville Tomorrow currently provides free audio streaming services to the community.
However, Charlottesville Tomorrow is under no obligation or requirement to provide this service, and it
could choose to skip certain meetings or to discontinue the service altogether.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
If the County chooses to audio stream Board meetings, the most cost effective option is to use the
U Stream channel, which would host audio streaming of the meetings with no impact to the County’s
server or bandwidth capacity. If the County runs the audio stream with advertisements on the U Stream
channel, there is no ongoing cost for the streaming. A concern regarding the audio stream with
advertisements is that the County would have no control over what advertisements would run during the
audio streaming of County meetings. If the County chooses to go with an ad-free audio stream through
the U Stream channel, the cost would be approximately $500 per month to allow for enough capacity to
serve the expected number of listeners.
One possible approach would be to establish an ad supported audio stream on U Stream on the
County’s website and Facebook page to provide a parallel broadcast to the Charlottesville Tomorrow
stream and to gauge the level of listenership. Depending on listener levels and the ongoing commitment
of Charlottesville Tomorrow to continue audio streaming, the County could decide whether use of the
service is high enough to justify taking on the additional annual cost of an ad-free stream at some time in
the future.
An ad-sponsored U Stream audio cast of the County’s Board meetings would have virtually no budget
impact. Sponsoring an ad-free audio cast would cost $500 monthly to provide the necessary listener hours to
meet the expected level of demand.
Staff recommends that the County initiate an ad supported audio stream of Board meetings on the
U Stream channel for a four-month trial period in order to assess listener levels and potential advertising
concerns to determine the best long term solution to meet the Board’s desire to provide live audio
streaming.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said this seemed to imply there should be a test for live streaming
listenership, and said the Board should define what they are looking for in terms of expectations for the
trial period.
Mr. Foley responded that even if only a few people were listening, that information would be
brought to the Board as to the value of that service.
Mr. Boyd asked what would be the cutoff point.
Ms. Mallek said that the County is fortunate to have Charlottesville Tomorrow covering the Board
– but they do not cover the School Board and perhaps they could be contracted with to cover the School
Board.
Mr. Foley clarified that the Board would try the service for three months and by allowing some
minimal advertising it would not cost the County any dollors which is what is being recommended. If the
Board is concerned about advertising, then the County would have to pay for the service.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not see a downside to trying it out for a few months.
Mr. Foley said the Board would have to decide whether the listenership warranted continuing with
the service.
Mr. Rooker commented that they could do the ad-free service for $500 per month.
Ms. Mallek responded that her preference would be to do the service ad-free.
Mr. Rooker said this could be a different universe of people served, and he would be in favor of
giving it a try.
Mr. Snow said he wasn’t concerned about the advertising.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was just hoping to have some criteria by which to evaluate its success.
Mr. Foley said that he had understood the Board to want to limit this to audio, live streaming, and
not just rely on Charlottesville Tomorrow – without staff time involved.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
commented that the County was able to find the UStream program, which requires very minimal staff time,
and the idea was to establish a consistent, reliable service for a few months then step back and assess
the level of usage.
Ms. Mallek said she would tune in to see who the advertisers were.
Mr. Boyd commented that the County might receive complaints about ads depending on who
might advertise.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved staff’s recommendation that the County
initiate an ad supported audio stream of Board meetings on the U Stream channel for a four month
trial period in order to assess listener levels and potential advertising concerns to determine the
best long term solution to meet the Board’s desire to provide live audio streaming.
_______________
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
Item No. 14.4. Resolution of Intent to Amend and Clarify the Criteria for Issuance of a Special
Use Permit for Off-Site Signs.
The executive summary states that the County has regulated and restricted off -site signs for over
30 years. Off-site signs are signs that are not located on the same lot with the use to which it pertains.
County Code § 3.1 (definition of “off-site sign”). Moreover, an off-site sign is allowed only by a special use
permit approved by the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”). County Code § 18-4.15.5. In
addition to the general criteria for issuing special use permits delineated in County Code § 18-31.6.1, an
additional criterion for off-site signs requires that the BZA find that “the issuance of a special use permit is
necessary because an on-site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off-site because of
topography or vegetation.” County Code § 18-4.15.5(c)(1). This criterion assures that special use permits
for off-site signs are approved only in those cases where conditions on the lot would render an on-site sign
ineffective.
Two recent applications for off-site signs before the BZA – Clifton Inn (approved, although staff
recommended denial) and Liberty Hall (withdrawn) – have caused the BZA to ask questions and raise
concerns about the current criterion for off-site signs in County Code § 18-4.15.5(c)(1). The purpose of the
criterion was to allow an off-site sign if an on-site sign would not be visible from other properties and the
road that provides primary access to the property. However, the language of the criterion may be more
restrictive than intended to achieve this purpose because: (1) it limits the on-site conditions to topography
and vegetation, where there may be other relevant factors to consider; and (2) it limits the determination of
an on-site sign’s effectiveness to whether it is visible off-site, without considering whether any person at
the off-site location would ever actually receive the message from the sign. The proposed resolution of
intent would initiate a zoning text amendment to amend the criterion so that it achieves the purpose
described above. Some in the discussion have suggested that the purpose of the criterion be extended to
allow an off-site sign if an on-site sign is not visible from a major roadway. Staff strongly recommends
against such an extension because it likely would lead to a proliferation of off-site signs.
An additional issue for consideration is whether the BZA or the Board of Supervisors should be
the body approving special use permits for off-site signs. Virginia Code § 15.2-2286 generally authorizes
the Board to be the approving body for special use permits, but allows it to delegate that authority in its
zoning ordinance to the BZA under Virginia Code § 15.2-2309(6). The only special use permit authority
delegated to the BZA is for the approval of off-site signs.
There is no anticipated budget impact. However, clarifying the intent of these regulations would
enable staff to more effectively and efficiently review applications.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution of intent (Attachment B).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to amend and
clarify the criteria for issuance of a Special Use Permit for off-site signs:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the criteria
for approving special use permits for off-site signs by the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the criterion unique to off-site signs is stated in County Code § 18-4.15.5(c)(1), which
requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals find “that the issuance of a special use permit is necessary
because an on-site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off-site because of topography
or vegetation”; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend this criterion to clarify that an on-site sign would be
deemed to be ineffective if topography, vegetation or any other relevant factors delineated in the criterion
prevent the sign from communicating its message to the primary access to the property seeking the sign;
and
WHEREAS, it also may be desirable to amend the Zoning Ordinance to have applications for
special use permits for off-site signs reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors, rather than the Board of Zoning Appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending County Code § 18-4.15.5, Signs Authorized by Special Use
Permit, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the
purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
_______________
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
Item No. 14.5. Interoperable Emergency Communications Planning Grant (CFDA #97.055)
(IECPG – 2009).
The executive summary states that The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)
has awarded a $102,000 regional planning/training grant through its Interoperable Emergency
Communications Grant Program (IECGP-2009) to the Regional Preparedness Advisory Committee
(RPAC-I) Region 3. RPAC-I Region 3 is comprised of 20 jurisdictions in the Commonwealth of Virginia,
including the County of Albemarle. The purpose of this grant is to hire an emergency communications
consultant to assist the region in developing a Regional Field Operations Guide (RFOG) that will be
compliant and consistent with the other regions’ FOG programs and the statewide FOG development. The
RFOG will be used to identify and incorporate traditional public safety communications/radio resourc es
throughout Region 3. It will also be used to collect information on, and identify assets pertaining to, the
Commonwealth’s Link to Interoperable Communications (COMLINC) interoperability system, including
connectivity, connected resources and contact information for each jurisdiction within Region 3.
The Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center (ECC) has
agreed to serve as the grant administrator for this training/planning grant. Because the County of
Albemarle serves as the fiscal agent for the ECC, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the
attached resolution authorizing the ECC Director or the County Executive to execute all grant-in-aid
documents required for implementation of this program in order for the ECC to administer the grant for
Region 3.
The County of Albemarle is serving as fiscal agent for the Region 3 RPAC-I. VDEM has
provided a 100 percent reimbursable grant for this effort and no local matching funds are required.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution as presented authorizing the ECC Director
or the County Executive to execute all grant-in-aid documents associated with this effort.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution authorizing the
ECC Director or the County Executive to execute all grant-in-aid documents associated with this
effort:
Governing Body Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE _Board of Supervisors_ OF THE _County of Albemarle, Virginia_
(Governing Body) (Name of Applicant)
THAT _the ECC Executive Director_____ , OR the County Executive_____________ , OR
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent) (Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
OR ______________________________________ ,
(Name or Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established
under the laws of the State of Virginia, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining federal
financial assistance provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security and sub-granted through
the State of Virginia (Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant IECGP-2009).
_______________
Item No.14.6. Amendments to 2012 Legislative Priorities.
The executive summary stated that on September 7, 2011 the Board adopted its 2012 legislative
priorities. On December 15, 2011 the Board held a meeting with its state legislators and discussed the
County’s 2012 legislative priorities. Amendments to the County’s 2012 legislative priorities are
recommended to address the Board’s position on biosolids and the composite index.
The following are proposed amendments to the County’s 2012 legislative priorities:
Biosolids— 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 related to the public safety and welfare of its citizens
and the environment. In addition, support legislation regarding land application of
biosolids that protect the environment, public health and safety.
The County has modified the priority to reflect the County’s support of legislation to enable
localities to designate and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids in
specific areas rather than a request that such legislation be introduced on behalf of the
County. This amendment is recommended because the State Water Control Board
recently approved final regulations pertaining to the land applications of biosolids, and the
regulations have not been in effect long enough to determine whether additional authority
for localities is necessary at this time. The County recognizes that legislation may be
more timely if it is determined that these regulations do not adequately address concerns
identified with the application of biosolids.
Composite Index— Support legislation to amend the Composite Index Funding Formula to
adjust the funding formula for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to account
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
for the annual transfer of funds from the County to the City required by their annexation
and revenue sharing agreement. This adjustment would more equitably reflect the
County’s and City’s “ability to pay”.
The Albemarle County School Board has requested that this Composite Index
amendment be introduced as a budget bill amendment in the 2012 General Assembly.
Such amendment to the funding formula methodology would provide a state revenue
increase to the County to support the funding of County schools. This amendment to the
Composite Index Funding Formula would reflect the County’s actual “ability to pay” taking
into account the revenue sharing agreement between the County and the City of
Charlottesville which requires the County to transfer a calculated amount of its general
fund revenue to the City of Charlottesville each year based on a composite of both
localities’ population, tax rates, and real estate values.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed amendments to its 2012 Legislative
Priorities as shown in their Attachment A.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the proposed amendments to its 2012
Legislative Priorities as follows:
Albemarle County 2012 Legislative Priorities
Growth Management, Land Use and Transportation
Biosolids—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 related
to the public safety and welfare of its citizens and the environment. In addition, support legislation regarding
land application of biosolids that protect the environment, public health and safety.
Local Authority—Support legislation to 1) strengthen localities’ authority by enabling them to utilize adequate
public facilities ordinances; and 2) not pass legislation that preempts or circumvents existing local authority to
regulate land use.
Impact Fee Authority—Support impact fee legislation that allows for 1) a fair allocation of costs representing
a “pro-rata” off-set of new growth on public facilities; 2) impact fees for facility costs related to transportation,
schools, fire, police, emergency medical services, libraries, stormwater management, open space and
parks/recreation lands; 3) effective implementation through simple locally-based formulae and reasonable
administrative requirements; 4) does not cap or limit localities’ impact fee updates; and 5) does not diminish
the existing proffer system.
Conservation Easements—Support legislation that augments local efforts in natural resource protection
through 1) continuing to fund the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation (VLCF) for locally established and
funded Purchase of Development Rights programs (e.g. ACE Program in Albemarle County); 2) continuing to
provide matching funds to localities for their Purchase of Development Rights programs through the Office of
Farmland Preservation; 3) retaining provisions in transient occupancy tax legislation so that funds can
continue to be used to protect open-space and resources of historical, cultural, ecological and scenic value
that attract tourism; and 4) increase incentives for citizens to create conservation easements.
Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhancement—Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide
for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the
visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide a method to ensure
full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County makes land use decisions in
designated areas.
Transportation Funding—Support legislation to 1) establish stable and consistent state revenues for
Virginia’s long-term transportation infrastructure needs; 2) direct funding efforts at all transportation modes; 3)
coordinate planning for transportation and land use, being mindful of local Comprehensive and regional
Transportation Plans when planning transportation systems within a locality; and 4 ) strongly oppose any
legislation or regulations that would require the transfer of responsibility to counties for construction,
maintenance or operation of new and existing secondary roads.
Health and Human Services
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)—Request that the legislature assist localities’ implementation of CSA in
a consistent, financially stable manner by: 1) fully funding the state pool for CS A with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA; 2)
enhancing state funding for grants to localities to create community-based alternatives for children served in
CSA; 3) establishing state contacts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform contract management
process, improve vendor accountability and control costs; and 4) encouraging the state to be proactive in
making service providers available and to support local and regional efforts to address areas of cost sharing
among localities by procuring services through group negotiation.
Child Care for Low Income Working Families—Request that the legislature provide additional funds to local
governments to assist low-income working families with childcare costs. This funding helps working-class
parents pay for supervised day care facilities and supports efforts for families to become self -sufficient.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Local Department of Social Services (LDSS)—Request that the legislature increase funds for LDSS to
match all available federal dollars to assist LDSS staffing needs in order to meet state mandated services and
workloads.
Local Government Administration and Finance
Voting Precincts—Request legislation to eliminate split precincts to the extent possible. The Virginia Senate
and House of Delegates redistricting plans have created split precincts in the Jack Jouett, Rio and Rivanna
Magisterial Districts. The Jack Jouett precinct is split between the 17th and 25th Senate Districts in three
places. The Woodbrook precinct is split between the 17th and the 25th Senate Districts. The Free Bridge
precinct is split between the 57th and 58th House Districts; and the Stony Point precinct is split between the 17th
and 25th Senate Districts.
Full Funding of State Mandates—Request that the state budget provide full funding for its mandates in all
areas of local government including the Standards of Quality (SOQs), positions approved by the
Compensation Board, costs related to jails and juvenile detention centers and human services positions.
Local Control of Local Revenues—Oppose legislation that restricts or limits the existing local control of local
revenues so that local government leaders can take appropriate measures to generate suffic ient revenues to
sustain and improve services.
Drug Court Funding—Request that the legislature fully fund the Drug Court Program, which provides
effective treatment and intensive supervision to drug offenders through the Circuit Courts of several Virginia
localities.
Cost to Compete Pay Differential—Due to the documented high cost of living in Albemarle County, request
that the legislature include Albemarle County Schools in the “Cost to Compete Pay Differential” so that the
County may reach and maintain competitive compensation to help recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified
and diverse teacher workforce.
Composite Index—
A. Support legislation to amend the Composite Index Funding Formula by re-defining the local true
value of real property component of the formula to include the land use taxation value of real property rather
than the fair market assessed value for those properties that have qualified and are being taxed under a land
use value taxation program.
B. Support legislation to amend the Composite Index Funding Formula to adjust the funding formula
for Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville to account for the annual transfer of funds from the County
to the City required by their annexation and revenue sharing agreement. This adjustment would more
equitably reflect the County’s and City’s “ability to pay”.
_______________
Item No. 14.7 Report on First Ten Year of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements
(ACE) Program was received for information.
The executive summary states that Albemarle County is celebrating ten years of success for the
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program, during which time significant progress has been
made in purchasing development rights in the rural area to protect open spaces and natural resources.
While funding for the program has been reduced in recent years due to the economic downturn, limited
funds are still available and applications from interested landowners are still being accepted according to
established application deadlines.
During ACE’s first ten years, the County has closed on 39 easements and 7,429 acres while
eliminating 446 development rights on these properties. This has translated to the preservation of a
significant number of family farms that together have protected over 80,000 linear feet of stream and river
frontage with riparian buffers, many of which lie within our drinking supply watersheds. Since 2001, the
County has budgeted approximately $12,100,000 for ACE, with approximately $10,700,000 having been
expended to date. The ACE program has also leveraged over $1.5 million in grants and donations. The
attached map shows all the County’s ACE properties.
A total of over 85,000 acres have been placed in conservation easements during the last 10 years
thanks to the efforts of partners including the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, Piedmont Environmental
Council, the Virginia Department of Forestry and The Nature Conservancy in combination with the
County’s ACE and PRFA programs. The combined acreage of all conservation easements in the County
along with all park land totals 104,255 acres or 22% of the County.
Albemarle County closed on its first class of conservation easement purchases in 2001, acquiring
easements on 4 properties, all of which were working family farms and two of which were in the Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District. With those first acquisitions, the County permanently protected 502
acres of prime farm and forestland and eliminated 88 development rights. The County’s latest acquisition,
a 96 acre property that joins another ACE property, has frontage on I-64 and has over 4,000 feet of
riparian buffer on Stockton Creek, which feeds into the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The newest ACE
property is owned by two sisters who want to protect their farm from development and preserve their rural
heritage.
A summary of details associated with the first ten years of ACE acquisitions is attached.
_______________
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
Item No. 14.8 Board-to-Board, January 2012, A monthly report from the Albemarle County
School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
Redistricting – The Superintendent’s Redistricting Advisory Committee has developed recommendations
to alleviate overcrowding at Hollymead and Stony Point Elementary Schools. Several options were
presented to community members at meetings at each school on November 16 and 17, 2011. Community
feedback was received at those meetings and through an online survey. The Committee will present their
recommendations to the Superintendent at a meeting on January 10, 2012.
Budget Website - The School Division is posting relevant documents regarding the development of the
FY12-13 budget on the ACPS webpage www.k12albemarle.org/budget In preparation for her funding
request presentation to the School Board on January 19, 2012, the Superintendent continues to receive
input from stakeholders and community members. In addition, the School Finance Advisory Council
consults with Superintendent Moran to examine school budgeting practices from a business perspective.
The School Finance Advisory Council members include: Rich DeMong, Ph.D., CFA, Virginia Bankers
Professor Emeritus of Bank Management, UVa McIntire School of Commerce; Ken Eades, Professor of
Business Administration and Area Coordinator of Finance, UVa Darden School of Business; Mary
Margaret Frank, Associate Professor of Business Administration, UVa Darden School of Business ; Greg
Gartland, Principal and Managing Director of the SNL Center for Financial Education LLC; Mark
Meulenberg, CFA, Portfolio Manager for VNB Trust, N.A.; Rick White, CPA, Tax Principal, and Keiter
Stephens.
School Board Legislative Issues – The School Board hosted area legislators December 15, 2011, to
discuss legislative priorities and issues in preparation for the 2012 General Assembly Session. The
School Board proactive priority issue is to request legislative relief to recognize the annual revenue
sharing amount submitted to Charlottesville City in determining the amount of State aid to Albemarle
County Public Schools. The School Board respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors support this
initiative in an effort to recognize the amount of funding not actually available to Albemarle for budget
purposes as a result of the automatic payments to Charlottesville City on an annual basis.
School Board Members Sworn In – Newly elected ACPS Board members were sworn in December 14,
2011: Jason Buyaki, Rivanna Magisterial District, and Ned Gallaway, At-Large. Re-elected members were
also sworn in: Steve Koleszar, Scottsville Magisterial District, and Barbara Massie Mouly, White Hall
Magisterial District. Each of these school board members will serve four-year terms and will officially begin
their new terms January 1, 2012.
Henley Middle School Features Renewable Energy Resource Center – A Renewable Energy
Resource Center that will feature solar photovoltaic, solar hot water and wind energy systems, made its
debut at Henley Middle School December 16, 2011. The Center, one of the first of its kind in the state, is
funded by a combination of a $211,000 grant from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy,
$40,000 in matching funds raised by the Henley community and $35,000 from Albemarle County Public
Schools.
The Center will be used to support Henley's environmental, math and science curriculums and its
resources and data will be available to all Albemarle County Public Schools. Teachers at Henley and
students from the University of Virginia are developing lesson plans on renewable energy that will
incorporate hands-on activities and experiments using the Center's technologies. The Center also will
feature curricula and kits provided by James Madison University's Center for Energy and Environmental
Sustainability.
The Renewable Energy Resource Center technologies will include:
Solar photovoltaic - 42 kW ballasted system installed on the rooftop.
Solar Thermal Hot Water - This system will be used to heat approximately 60% of the hot
water used at Henley Middle School.
Wind Turbine - The wind turbine system is the Skystream 3.7, and the system is rated at 2.4
kW.
Web-based Tracking - Data on electricity production by the solar photovoltaic and wind
systems and therms produced by the solar thermal system will be available via web-based
data acquisition software. Students from around the school division and members of the
community can access and use the data.
ACPS Student Nationally Recognized for Music Accomplishment - The GRAMMY Foundation
(www.grammyintheschools.com) selected Veronica Swift O’Brien, student at Albemarle High School, for
the 2012 GRAMMY Camp-Jazz Session. Only 30 students from the nation, 8 of whom are singers, are
selected for this spectacular event. The students’ selection launches them into the spotlight surrounding
the 54th Annual GRAMMY Awards and provides them unparalleled opportunities to perform in front of
some of music’s biggest names. The students will be flown to Los Angeles, California for 10 days to
participate in what will culminate in attendance at the GRAMMY Awards ceremony.
ACPS supports fine arts as an essential component of a rich and excellent education. The ACPS website
recognizes all student accomplishments on the Fine Arts link:
http://schoolcenter.k12albemarle.org/education/dept/dept.php?sectionid=2086
Instrumental class enrollment includes:
Middle School Instrumental – 885 (of which 244 are in strings classes)
Middle School Choral programs – 240
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
High School Instrumental – 625 (107 of which are in strings classes)
High School Choral – 324
Total students in string classes – 351
Monticello High School Health and Medical Sciences Academy – Plans are underway to organize the
Monticello High School Health and Medical Sciences Academy for enrollment in the 2012-13 school year.
The program will be open by application to all ACPS students, up to 45 9th grade students in 2012-13,
with plans to grow during the 2013-14 school year up to 150 students in grades 9th-11th, and plans for full
capacity by 2015-16 with up to 200 students in grades 9th-12th.
The Academy’s mission is to provide students for post-secondary education or workforce readiness in
certified health related professions through an integrated core curriculum. Students will participate in
engaging learning opportunities that support critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, and lifelong
learning. Case study work will be an important component of the curriculum, as well as job shadowing and
clinical opportunities. An Advisory Board to include community partners, parents, students and educators
will convene monthly to develop planning strategies.
Health and Fitness Fair – Meriwether Lewis Elementary School conducted its third annual Health and
Fitness Day, December 9, 2011 to showcase a variety of health and fitness initiatives for its 450 students,
teachers and administrators. Activities included yoga, hip hop, martial arts and zumba, with all sessions
designed to demonstrate easy, fun and interesting way to stay healthy and active.
(Discussion: Referring to the new nursing program at Monticello High School, Mr. Boyd
commented that there were already programs at CATEC, PVCC and the University. He asked if they are
competing with those other nursing programs.
Ms. Mallek stated that she had raised concerns about this at the meeting at Darden School,
because to her it sounded like everyone was galloping into this.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know the budgetary impact of this.
Mr. Foley responded that the Schools could provide that information and he would follow up.)
__________
Item No. 14.9 VDoT, Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, January 2012, was
received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Virginia Community Development Block Grant
Program. To solicit public input on local housing and community development needs in relation to the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding available to the County. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on December 19 and December 26, 2011)
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
The Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) is a federally-funded grant program
administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Since 1982,
the DHCD has provided funding to eligible units of local government (non-entitlement communities only)
for projects which address critical community needs including housing, infrastructure and economic
development. Albemarle County has received numerous grants in previous years to support housing and
community improvement initiatives.
The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted. The
purpose of the first public hearing is to provide information on eligible activities that may be funded by
CDBG, the amount of funding estimated to be available, past activities undertaken with CDBG funds and
to receive public comment on this information and potential community development and housing needs.
The follow-up public hearing is held in order to consider proposed project applications and must take
place prior to the application due date in March 2012. Applications are to be submitted by the County to
DHCD; however, the proposed activities may be undertaken by other agencies.
Albemarle County, as a non-entitlement community, is eligible to apply to DHCD for up to $1.8
million in CDBG funding for projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent slums and
blight, or address urgent community needs. Eligible activities include economic development, housing
rehabilitation, housing production, community facilities and community service facilities. Community
development projects can receive varying levels of funding depending on the nature of the activity or by
combining multiple activities. DHCD estimates that approximately $14 million will be available for
competitive grants in 2012.
Over the years, Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CDBG grant
awards. The most recent grant was awarded in 2010 to fund the installation of a sanitary sewer system in
the Oak Hill Subdivision just south of the City off of 5th Street. Previous grants have been used to support
the preservation and development of 162 affordable rental units, 66 of which are restricted to seniors.
Over the past 30 years, the County has received numerous CDBG grants to rehabilitate owner-occupied
houses.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
The Office of Housing is currently working with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
(AHIP) for a possible application for CDBG funding for a housing rehabilitation project for Orchard Acres in
Crozet. DHCD approved a planning grant for this proposal to assist the County and AHIP in developing
the project and preparing an application.
For a project to be considered by the County for CDBG funding, the applicant is required to notify
the Office of Housing no later than January 27, 2012. This notice must include a brief description of the
project, the proposed use of CDBG funds and a description of the beneficiaries of the proposed activity. A
completed application that includes the proposed budget shall be submitted to the Office of Housing
electronically by February 24, 2012, and the entire application, along with attachments, must be received
by March 6, 2012.
There is no budgetary impact until an application is made to DHCD and approved for a funded
project. Projects approved by CDBG generally require some level of local funding support. If the
proposed rehabilitation project application is submitted, the County could designate a portion of the
operational funding the County annually provides to AHIP as the County’s local funding support for the
CDBG application.
Staff recommends that the Board receive information on available CDBG funding and eligible
uses and hold the public hearing to receive input from the public on potential community development and
housing needs. Staff also recommends that the Board set a public hearing for Wednesday, March 14,
2012 for the second required public hearing to review and approve the submission of any proposed
applications.
_____
Mr. White noted that the Oak Hill project was about 25% complete now, with some houses
already hooked up. Mr. White stated that the second public hearing would bring back any applications
being requested for submission, and would take place at the Board’s second meeting in March. He added
that the County has been approved for a $30,000 planning grant – with work to begin next week doing
housing and income surveys to determine what may be needed in the Orchard Acres neighborhood. That
process must be wrapped up in time to get an application in March, and the Office of Housing will be
working with AHIP on that grant.
Ms. Mallek asked if citizens, neighborhood groups and churches could contact him to get
information on the program.
Mr. White responded that they can, adding that they did a mailing to 373 residents in Crozet in the
fall and had one residents’ meeting with about 12 attendees held at the Crozet Meadows Community
Center. He said that under the planning grant, they hope to post on each door in Orchard Acres
information about the potential grant – with staff being available to meet with property owners to assess
their needs. Mr. White stated that they also plan to meet with the Crozet Advisory Council. Ms. Ravi
Respeto, of AHIP, will be doing some additional outreach through the churches.
Ms. Mallek asked about other neighborhoods in the County that could apply. She asked if it has
to be a nonprofit or if it could be a group of neighbors.
Mr. White clarified that a group of neighbors could come together with a potential viable project,
as long as the County would administer it, and otherwise nonprofit organizations could apply.
Mr. Boyd asked if the plans Habitat has for Southwood Mobile Home Park would qualify for these
funds.
Mr. White responded that some of the redevelopment of the park could qualify – water, sewer,
roads – when they get a plan together. He said that they do not have the rezoning there ready to go yet,
and that project is probably about three years away. Projects for these funds have to be ready to go to be
competitive.
Mr. Snow asked if the County had any contribution towards the grant.
Mr. White replied that their only contribution is what’s made annually to AHIP to help support their
operations.
Mr. Rooker asked what effort was made to contact various groups to let them know about the
hearings.
Mr. White stated that the Housing Office has worked with AHIP to have them identify eligible
communities, adding that there must be a “very defined area” – not scattered sites. He said that the
DHCD is trying to develop a pilot “scattered site” CDBG project, which communities have been requesting
for about 15 years. Mr. White emphasized that the projects he mentioned that had been approved were
very specific and concentrated. He added that they wanted to do a little larger footprint in Crozet than
Orchard Acres, but DHCD did not want them to go larger in the one neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker asked how they might get the word out in the community that there is a hearing
beyond the County’s advertisement, and if there were other recognized organizations in the community
that should be notified.
Ms. Mallek stated that AHIP was the primary agency and would be in contact with the others.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. White said they have not done much outreach beyond what they were doing in this round,
adding that with the Oak Hill site, the Albemarle County Service Authority came in, and Piedmont Housing
came in for Crozet Meadows. He stated that they may consider going beyond that in the future,
particularly if scattered site grants become available.
Ms. Mallek then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson, on behalf of the Free Enterprise Forum, said the Forum was supportive of
CDBG. Mr. Williamson said the Forum asks that the County “open the lens a little bit,” as the CDBG
regulations include economic development as one factor. He encouraged the County to be proactive and
pursue funding for economic development and improving conditions.
Ms. Mallek asked for an example of what he meant by the conditions.
Mr. Williamson explained that if there was a rural enterprise that could scale up with some
investment, they could bring that idea forward as an application – either winning a CDBG grant or perhaps
attracting other funding. The idea is to bring the economic development along with improving the
condition of housing.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the business community, Chamber, etc. wanted to apply they should
come forward.
Mr. Williamson said he will be speaking to all the groups he work with on this endeavor.
Mr. Rooker said the first step was obtaining the maximum amount of funding for the County and
to ensure that the word about the program gets out in the community.
Mr. Timothy Hulbert stated that the Community Investment Collaborative, which is facilitated
through the Greater Charlottesville Area Development Corporation, received a $7,500 grant from the State
to develop a business plan and to eventually get into the micro-loan business. He said that he will share
information with them that this might be a mechanism.
There being no further public comment, Ms. Mallek closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis clarified that the only action necessary from the Board was to set the second public
hearing on March 14.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to set the second required public hearing to review and
approve the submission of any proposed applications for March 14, 2012. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful when this comes back to have some description of the scope
and scale of the projects that qualify, and the categories of areas that would qualify.
Mr. White stated that he would certainly do that, adding that they could also apply for planning
grants – so any potential project that is not ready for a competitive grant this spring could possibly get a
planning grant.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Charlottesville Albemarle Convention Visitors Bureau Marketing Plan
Update.
Ms. Lee Catlin summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
As part of the ongoing restructuring and repositioning efforts involved in developing the County’s
Five Year Plan, staff has refined the County’s approach to community agencies to focus on core services,
performance, and fund balances for these community agencies that are supported and/or funded by the
County in the same way that the County has focused on local government departments and the School
Division for the past several years.
As a result of this review, staff felt compelled to address the very significant fund balance
accumulated by the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) over the past two
years. The Five Year Plan proposes that the Board of Supervisors request that the fund balance be
reduced to a 20% level and that the excess funds be provided back to the County and City to support
tourism initiatives by both jurisdictions, an approach that was fully endorsed by the City Manager’s Office.
This would result in $50,000 in funding to be used for other tourism-related operations for each of the five
years of the County’s plan for a total of $250,000. The same amount would also be provided back to the
City over the five years.
In response to the draw down presented in the Five Year Plan, the CACVB Board sent a
resolution to the Board of Supervisors requesting that the Board allow the fund balance to remain intact
with the assurance that “The CACVB Board of Directors has directed the CACVB Director and staff to
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
develop, within a short period of time, a targeted marketing action plan to augment targeted direct
marketing of tourism attractions, events, locations, shopping, entertainment, agri-tourism, recreation and
other identified tourism assets while drawing down the accumulated Fund Balance from its present level to
an operational level of between 15% – 20% of annual operating budget levels within a period not to
exceed three (3) years.”
The Board of Supervisors indicated a willingness to consider leaving the fund balance intact
pending its reassurance that the CACVB would implement a meaningful and productive marketing plan
with performance measures that would insure that expenditure of the fund balance would achieve specific
tourism outcomes, including regular reporting and accountability. Board members requested that the
CACVB provide an update at the Board’s January 4 meeting as to the status of the marketing plan, major
objectives, and a schedule for completion and implementation, with the understanding that the CACVB
would not be able to complete a full marketing plan within this short timeframe. CACVB representatives
will be present at the January 4th Board meeting to provide an update on these items.
A decision to leave the CACVB fund balance intact would reduce revenues by $250,000 over
the course of the Five Year Plan.
Staff recommends that the Board provide guidance on how the CACVB Fund Balance will be
addressed following its discussion on this item.
_____
Ms. Catlin recognized and thanked the CACVB Board and hospitality industry members who had
worked hard over the last month and were in attendance today. Ms. Catlin then asked CACVB Director,
Mr. Kurt Burkhart, to come forward and present his update.
Mr. Burkhart said that when the CACVB came before the Board last month they indicated they
would have a plan to share – and he would present an initial plan addressing some key areas of how the
CACVB intends to use the fund balance. He stated that the CACVB has an existing marketing plan, but
what would be presented today would revise the current marketing plan efforts with additional, well-
positioned strategies. This is a starting point and everything that he will share with the Board is a work in
progress with much more to come. Mr. Burkhart said that using these funds to enhance their efforts is an
extraordinary opportunity to further stimulate visitation to the area, which translates into sustaining jobs,
increasing commerce, and providing the County with additional revenue. He stated that the CACVB is
clearly focused on fulfilling its mission of generating visitation and increasing tourism -related revenues for
Albemarle County and Charlottesville, through an enhanced, robust, comprehensive strategic marketing
plan that would use the CACVB fund balance to further enhance current efforts while providing the
financial means to expand new, previously inaccessible efforts. Mr. Burkhart said that goals were
important, and one important attainable goal is increasing annual occupancy over the next three years to
levels only previously enjoyed in FY07 – when the Dow neared 14,000 and unemployment nationally was
4.6%.
Mr. Burkhart said the CACVB understood the sense of urgency surrounding the fund balance
issue, which is why they worked to create foundational elements in the plan presented today. He stated
that the plan identifies key areas where increased marketing efforts and expenditures could be
productively invested over the next two to three years, thus creating a significant, positive return for the
region – especially Albemarle County. In short, they will be better positioned to ramp up and expand their
current marketing efforts. He emphasized that a level of flexibility is needed in order to adjust to external
pressures, such as economic conditions, emerging markets for attracting new potential visitors, and both
online and mobile technological advances.
Mr. Burkhart reported that last month the CACVB Board and staff came together to do a SWOT
analysis – strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats - of their destination of Albemarle and
Charlottesville, and they agreed it was something they need to do annually to ensure that priorities remain
accurate. Mr. Burkhart reported that the strengths identified included: world-class brands such as U.Va.,
Monticello, and the Albemarle Charlottesville region; differentiation of destination by its urban and rural
aspects; access by interstate and state road systems, rail and air providing multiple, easy travel options for
visitors; and the presence of anchor events such as a vibrant music scene and key festivals that have
become signature events.
Mr. Burkhart stated that the opportunities are incredibly exciting, and the group identified six that
could make a difference in the bottom line for many local businesses, especially in lodging, area
attractions, retailers and restaurants, as well as the influx of additional tax dollars for local government.
He said that for the CACVB’s commitment to local festivals that continue to build on out-of-town visitation,
they see additional positive economic activity for the area. Mr. Burkhart said that visitors to the area love
their experience, and the CACVB would further leverage its efforts with the Virginia Tourism Corporation
to increase that love through repeat visitation to the area. He said that one of the opportunities identified
was the area’s growing popularity with future brides.
Regarding threats or challenges, Mr. Burkhart said the group identified high unemployment and
waning consumer spending as primary areas of concern as travel is a purely discretionary item for both
Americans and international travelers. He stated that this is why competition for travel dollars, especially
in the leisure market, is so intense. Mr. Burkhart said that easy access, affordability, and value-added
experiences become key reasons why one destination wins over another. He stated that this is why they
felt that full use of the fund balance over the next several years would make a positive difference in the
community.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Burkhart said that a key component in a strategic marketing plan is having a clear
identification and understanding of target markets so that key messaging can be crafted in a compelling
way for key audience groups. He noted that two-thirds of the U.S. population resides within an eight-hour
drive of Albemarle/Charlottesville, and presented information on the top feeder markets for the area
according to research commissioned by the CACVB – which was confirmed by research from the Virginia
Tourism Corporation. Mr. Burkhart stated that D.C. is the area’s top draw, with over three million
residents in the greater Washington area and a travel distance of only 2.5 hours.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible to do promotions through Amtrak, as that would be a natural
connection.
Mr. Burkhart responded that they initially did promotions when the new service was promoted, and
he would mention that under the transportation section of his report.
Mr. Burkhart stated that having clarity of target markets will determine the various advertising and
public relations strategies for developing and delivering on specific marketing campaigns, and their plan
for engagement with a qualified marketing firm will further refine various strategies to deliver additional
visitation. He said that the CACVB is in the process of identifying and selecting a qualified marketing firm
to assist in developing a strategic marketing plan based on specific tactics and actions developed by the
CACVB staff and Board – as well as through input from community partners. Mr. Burkhart stated that they
believe the plan could be completed and delivered to the CACVB this April.
He said that over the last month, the CACVB has participated in two meetings with local lodging
executives to identify common goals and to commit to an ongoing dialogue. More heads in beds is the
desired outcome by everyone. Mr. Burkhart stated that the professional assistance sought would greatly
augment the work already being done by the small professional staff of five, and many of the area’s
competitors rely on this kind of direct marketing support.
Mr. Burkhart then presented the priority items for action: new branding, as six years has lapsed
since the initial branding undertaken by the CACVB. He said that the grow local, farm to table,
vineyards/orchards/agricultural interests, and the burgeoning music scene were practically footnotes in the
research commissioned in 2005 to support the current brand. Mr. Burkhart stated that Albemarle County
enjoys distinction from the urban Charlottesville identity that commands the current brand, and revisiting
and validating research already done by the CACVB with respect to the brand is a key priority this year –
and one area in which the fund balance would be used.
Ms. Mallek asked if this meant redoing the brand or validating the existing one.
Mr. Burkhart responded that they were looking at a brand refresh, and rediscovery of what might
have changed in six years.
Mr. Boyd commented that perhaps the brand refresh could include mention of Albemarle.
Mr. Burkhart stated that several weeks prior, Kate McGinnis-Wyatt provided the Board with an
update on the Journey Through Hallowed Ground partnership – which has promoted education and
economic development through heritage tourism that benefits students of all ages, local businesses,
heritage sites, farmers and citizens throughout the natural heritage area including Albemarle. He said that
the CACVB would continue to be a partner with the Journey and its efforts to increase visibility of the area.
Mr. Burkhart stated that the Journey is currently seeking a contribution of $35,000 to help fund their
national scenic byways project, which includes signage, and the CACVB could support this project through
their fund balance. He said they could clearly see support for this project and other direct marketing
initiatives that would likely be announced by the Journey in the months and years ahead.
Mr. Burkhart stated that with the recent launch of the Monticello Artisan Trail, the CACVB also
anticipates additional marketing support to help bolster the early successes of the trail – and has already
sponsored two bus familiarization tours of this trail, covered the cost of printing for 20,000 rack cards, and
have provided direct cash support. He said that the trail was also brought into the President’s Passport
Program through the CACVB. Mr. Burkhart stated that the CACVB will also continue to provide additional
marketing support to help increase overall awareness of the vital local wine industry, and will continue to
wrap around VTC-initiated campaigns, especially with advertising and media buy downs as well as public
relations efforts.
Mr. Burkhart reported that the CACVB recognizes that festivals can serve as an economic
magnet, and have drafted a festival funding policy that will be before the Bureau’s Board at their January
meeting. He said that they plan to use some of the fund balance to support established festivals as well
as new first year entrants that can demonstrate in their marketing approach ways they can increase out of
area visitors.
Mr. Burkhart stated that the CACVB provided underwriting support for the PBS documentary,
Vintage: the Winemakers Year, and winning the bid to bring the Wine blogger’s Conference to the area
last July. He said that targeted campaigns, some of which will be in print and on-line, as well as
placement of media storage through strategic planning, are areas where they would seek outside
guidance to “get the best bang for their buck.”
Mr. Burkhart said this region has a lot to offer to future brides. Weddings have a major economic
impact on their destination with guests of wedding partiies requiring accommodations, food and beverage,
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
transportation, and other wedding related services. Advertising in wedding publications and reaching out
to wedding planners in key markets are all be part of the strategy to bring in more weddings.
Mr. Burkhart said that the area is a world-class destination that deserves coverage in the best,
most credible media outlets available. W orking with a seasoned public relations firm to elaborate and
execute an aggressive, strategic-based plan is a necessary part of their efforts to further promote
Albemarle and Charlottesville. He stated that the end result is “earned media,” which is free publicity
generated through a direct pitch or an assist with a story. This past year the CACVB generated $652,000
in earned media and believes the number can increase significantly through their association with a
professional public relations firm. This is how the Virginia Tourism Corporation garners a large amount of
its earned media. Mr. Burkhart said that a portion of the fund balance would go to pay for the services of a
public relations firm.
The CACVB has the need for a high quality, comprehensive, official destination visitor and travel
guide that is visually appealing and content rich. To produce a new visitor’s guide that would become their
primary marketing piece will require top-shelf photography that appeals to the senses and text that is as
descriptive as the pictures that flow from page to page. Mr. Burkhart said that a portion of the fund
balance would be used for the creative and production costs of the new guide, and they want to
commence the project early in 2012. He added that they also want a promotional video for the area that
would entice leisure, professional, and other group travel – and it could be included on the CACVB
website as well as shared with other interests such as the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Mr. Burkhart said they also receive many requests from regional and national media such as NBC
Today, to provide unedited video for network viewing. The CACVB would make this available to partners
who request a copy for their promotional purposes such as hotels, b&bs, wineries, etc. Their fund balance
would allow them to procure these services.
Mr. Burkhart stated that travelers have the opportunity to see signage and other visible media that
announce or promote the area, and they need to take advantage of this opportunity to further highlight the
area to perspective visitors. The CACVB sees the potential for new ventures with the Charlottesville
Airport – with having an extension of their visitors center at the Airport with volunteers greeting and
assisting in-bound travelers and to have a standalone informational kiosk. He said that kiosks are being
contemplated for the Airport as well as the University Visitors Center, which will provide users with real-
time information about lodging, restaurant options, and current events. Mr. Burkhart stated that the tool
can entice visitors to extend their stay or show them that a return visit was indeed needed. He also said
that the CACVB is committed to supporting new and established routes for CHO to reduce leakage to
other regional airports, and with added marketing tools they can expect to see increased visitation or
lengthened stays.
Mr. Burkhart reported that the current student body population at the University is about 20,000,
which represents tremendous visitation potential by family members and friends. W orking with key
individuals at the University of Virginia, the CACVB wants to provide guests with a reason to come back
more often and increase the length of their stays. He stated that the numbers add up, with the overall
potential for increased commerce throughout the community.
Mr. Burkhart stated that in addition to their ROI end of year report card on the CACVB’s annual
performance, they believe that these six general measures provide good indicators for how the tourism
marketplace is responding to campaigns and key messaging put forward: gross lodging tax for Albemarle
and Charlottesville; average hotel occupancy for Albemarle and Charlottesville; average daily rate and
revenue per available room for Albemarle and Charlottesville; CACVB website traffic; Monticello ticket
sales - $ admissions; and ABC sales at wineries. He encouraged the Board to provide input on other
measurement tools for their consideration.
Mr. Burkhart said that he had promised the Board in August 2011 an update highlighting the most
significant activities by the CACVB. The latest of these reports has the ROI report card attached that
shows – with fund balance excluded – that CACVB produced a 10.59 to 1 return. With fund balance
included, he said, the ROI was 6.86 to 1.
Mr. Burkhart then presented information on the transient occupancy tax going back to FY07,
noting that FY11 was the second best year of the last five. Of the total tax collected, he said, the CACVB
receives 30% of the 5% TOT levied on overnight lodging guests in the County. He stated that there has
been a steady increase in lodging occupancy since FY09, and FY07 had an annual average occupancy of
70%. Mr. Burkhart stated that they have not yet reached where they were prior to the economic downturn,
and this is a national trend. He said that with full use of the fund balance, it would be reasonable to expect
that over the next two to three years, occupancy could be at or above the FY07 levels. Mr. Burkhart
stated that the average daily rate for lodging establishments in the area showed seven months of new
highs in FY11, with May showing a historic high of $123; REVPAR, the revenue per available room, is the
barometer used by the lodging industry and the trend locally follows the other indicators shown.
Mr. Burkhart reported that the CACVB has seen healthy growth in the number of visitors and
unique visitors to their website, and social media sites have become increasingly important for
destinations – providing another avenue for innovative marketing beyond traditional websites. He said
that the CACVB will continue to make significant investments to further support their destination’s online
presence, adding that 31% of website visitors will actually visit Charlottesville/Albemarle sometime in the
future.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Burkhart stated that the next steps are: to engage the services of a qualified marketing firm to
help develop and implement strategic marketing efforts of the CACVB over the next two to three years,
and the process for identifying that firm is already underway. He said that the CACVB will be
implementing an enhanced marketing program by April 2012. Second, the CACVB, in concert with this
firm, will prioritize items – both tactical and strategic – within the marketing plan, to be executed with
resources allocated and dedicated to each item. Third, the CACVB will work to strengthen partnerships to
provide mutual benefit and allow them to achieve their goals. Mr. Burkhart said they also intend to
develop and implement a festival funding policy to be in effect by July 1 2012.
Mr. Burkhart thanked the Board for the opportunity to present their strategy moving forward to
make an effective use of the current CACVB fund balance. He said they are excited about further
enhancing marketing efforts to increase visitation to the area, and increasing direct economic impact of
tourism in Albemarle and Charlottesville. Fully utilizing this fund balance will provide them with a unique
one time opportunity to put forth many of the initiatives that have been outlined in this presentation.
Mr. Boyd asked if the CACVB has reached out to DIA and NGIC, as they bring in thousands of
people for seminars each year. He noted that this might be a way to offset the downtimes as they could
have their seminars in the wintertime.
Mr. Burkhart responded that CACVB staff had accompanied Ms. Susan Stimart to Bolling Air
Force Base two years ago, and agreed that this was an area they should continue to pursue.
Mr. Rooker said that U.Va. sports remain the #1 attraction in the area, bringing about 750,000
people here per year, and asked if packages could be put together for sports – offering people game
tickets along with rooms.
Mr. Boyd said that was a great idea, mentioning that the approach was often taken with bowl
game packages.
Mr. Burkhart mentioned that the CACVB was bringing in one of the best, nationally-known
creators of consumer packages on January 12, and agreed that the U.Va. suggestion should be pursued.
Ms. Mallek said that there needed to be a way to get Albemarle’s presence on the U.Va. website
as it is absent right now. She also asked what the CACVB’s strategy was to put packages together, as
they have traditionally shifted the burden to individual businesses, and it should be CACVB’s responsibility
to put them together.
Mr. Burkhart stated that that’s the whole reason for having the packaging consultant come in,
adding that the package begins with the lodging facility. He said that they are hopeful that by bringing in
Mr. Joe Venito – “the Opportunity Guy” – who has created successful packages from Monterey to Ashville,
they would be able to move forward with a better strategy.
Ms. Mallek said that she really wanted the CACVB to be more active and supportive of all the
individual businesses in that effort. She stated that she had studied the plan in depth and would like to get
the details on the outcomes of some of their approaches. Ms. Mallek asked about the mention of a
strategic marketing plan for 2011, and asked if it had ever gone forward or if this current plan was the
same thing.
Mr. Burkhart responded that the CACVB envisioned specifics such as agri-tourism as being folded
into the larger plan.
Ms. Mallek asked about plans for improving the functionality of the CACVB website, as the mobile
version seemed to only send a bunch of links. She added that many small businesses have said that the
website is their primary value from the CACVB, rather than a color glossy welcome book.
Mr. Burkhart stated that they would be bringing mobile technology that is different from the main
website. That is currently being worked on.
Mr. Rooker commented that a lot of this plan relies on hiring a marketing firm, and asked what
process is being implemented to recruit a firm and how it would be compensated.
Mr. Burkhart responded that the RFP should go out this week and would be a competitive
process, with a 60-day window being reasonable for establishing a draft plan. He said they would also
encourage local firms to bid on the project.
Ms. Mallek commented that a firm that has innate local experience is worth a lot. She added that
she does not want to have a learning curve that they are having to pay for.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was a scientific formula for the projected 2% increase in annual
occupancy as mentioned in the report.
Mr. Burkhart replied that it was not scientific, but is based on some optimism that the economy will
strengthen; it is a goal.
Mr. Foley asked if the Board’s expectation is to see a marketing plan prior to making a decision
about the fund balance.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
Ms. Mallek said that one of the CACVB’s representatives had said it would be ready in two weeks
when they addressed the Board in December.
Mr. Foley asked Mr. Burkhart’s about the CACVB’s process for going forward in presenting this
Board with a marketing plan.
Ms. Mallek said she would be happy to have another update next month.
Mr. Burkhart stated that they had indicated in the RFP that the selected firm would come back
with the CACVB to present a marketing plan. He is prepared to come to the Board monthly to provide it
with a one-page update on what they are doing.
Mr. Foley asked when the marketing plan would be presented to the Board.
Mr. Burkhart responded that if they can sign a contract in mid February and move the process on
the proposed schedule, with the final product in their hands within 60 days, they should be able to come
back to the Board sometime in mid April. He added that there will be one person from the County as part
of the RFP review process.
Mr. Foley said staff will schedule this on the Board’s April agenda.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Board needed to make some budget decisions prior to April, and he
was inclined to let the CACVB keep the money, and not plan for it in the County’s budget.
Ms. Mallek said there should be another update from them before then.
Mr. Foley noted that the proposed budget would not rely on using any of those funds, and
emphasized that it is one-time money that is not available for the long term.
Mr. Snow said that items such as the Festival of the Book could now be funded by the CACVB, so
they could be eliminated from the County’s budget.
Mr. Foley agreed, adding that there are still some questions as to which the CACVB thinks are
appropriate to fund and that would have to be addressed during the budget process.
Mr. Snow commented that there seemed to be some disagreement as to which they wanted to
fund.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. Burkhart for his presentation and the CACVB’s efforts, especially with the
Journey for Hallowed Ground and the signs.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Update.
Mr. Gary O’Connell, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, summarized
the following report which was forwarded to Board members:
“On behalf of the ACSA Board of Directors and our employees, we appreciate the opportunity to
brief the Board. This continues our quarterly water and sewer briefings into the New Year.
1. Water Supply - The dam project design is complete and the project to bid. ACSA funded the final
design of the new earthen dam at Ragged Mountain. We can update you on the latest status of
the water agreements at your Board meeting. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA)
Board is scheduled to approve the construction contract on December 28, 2011, and the City
Council is scheduled for a public hearing and vote on January 3, 2012.
2. Rivanna Pump Station - RWSA Board takes up the selection of one of the three alternatives at the
December 28, 2011 Board meeting (to meet a December 31, 2011 legal deadline from DEQ).
3. Capital Projects - We have over $20 million in projects underway, here are a few summary
highlights:
• North Fork Regional Pump Station: Largest project, to build a new sewer line and two
pump stations to serve the northern Route 29 urban corridor; line and pump station work
well underway, several of the major sections of this project are completed. On time, within
budget. The sewer force main crossing the North Fork of the Rivanna River is the next
major phase of work.
• Key West Water Main Replacement: Preliminary design underway, designing a route for
an interconnection with Dunlora across the river.
• St. George Avenue/Buck Road Water Main Replacement: Design complete, easement
acquisitions.
• Ashcroft Water Improvements: Ninety-percent design; state review; improvements of
water tanks and water lines.
• West Leigh Water Replacement - Phase 2 (Williston & Emerson Drives): Project bid;
below estimates; contractor mobilizing.
• Berwick Road Water Main Replacement: Around Boar's Head, project bid, below budget,
construction scheduled to begin on January 3, 2012.
• Glenmore Tank Study: Balloon flow for digital rendering of the future tank; land
negotiation; spring community meeting.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
• Hardware Street Water Extension/Scottsville Phase 2 Sewer: Design complete; working
with adjacent property owners for easements.
• Buckingham Circle Water Main Replacement: Readying to bid after the first of the year.
• Oak Hill Phase 1 Sewer: Federal Community Development Block Grant project in
conjunction with Albemarle County. About 20% complete.
• Crozet Drainage Basin Phase 1 (SSES): Project completed; identified several properties
with sump pumps connected to sanitary sewer have been eliminated. Phase 2 is 95%
complete with sewer rehabilitation and 75 private sewer service lateral defects connected.
• Meadow Creek Drainage Basin Sewer Rehabilitation: Townsend subdivision work
completed; the full phase of the Meadowcreek Drainage Basin Sewer Replacement and
Rehabilitation has been completed, a multi-year project.
• Hollymead Water Main Replacement: Phased project by ACSA crews, installed new line
on Poe's Lane, next phase is Raven's Place.
• Water Tank Inspections: Four ACSA tanks tested inside (by divers with video) and
outside; no major repairs needed.
• SCADA System (computerized controls) - Design complete for this three year/three phase
project; bid after the first of the year; remote computerized monitoring, data collection and
emergency "red flags."
• Large Meter/Random Test Program - Third party test and calibration of all large meters
(300) and 10% of the 17,000 residential meters (1,700) random testing. Project 90%
complete; analysis in process. Meter replacements for accuracy ongoing throughout this
project.
• Active Development Projects (attached) - New areas are Belvedere Town Center
apartments/townhouses, Rivanna Plaza (Route 29 at Kegler's) commercial buildings.
• Water and Sewer Reports - I have attached a recent monthly report to give you a more
detailed view of the ACSA customer base in our four systems. We now have 17,315
water accounts serving 27,428 "units" serving 64,000 customers.
• Environmental Management System (EMS) - Going through a detailed I.S.0. certification
process, looking inside/out at the ACSA facilities from an environmental impact and
regulatory lens. A very detailed and constructive process.
• Wastewater Rates - A continuing reminder that due to the number of major Rivanna
sewer projects ($150 million), we will see double digit wastewater increases next July 1st.
• Budget/Capital Improvement Program - Our Budget and Capital Improvement Program
will be presented to the Board in April.
• Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program - Keep these out of your sewer; do not dump down
the drain, a major source of sewer overflows that can damage our rivers. ACSA has an
aggressive educational program underway targeting problem areas and particularly
apartment complexes. A community holiday print ad sent to all customers and radio ad
sent to Charlottesville Radio Group (see attached).
• Winter Water Tips –
Keep garage doors closed, if there are waters lines in the garage;
Open kitchen and bathroom cabinet doors to allow warmer air to circulate around
the plumbing. Be sure to move any harmful cleaners and household chemicals
out of the reach of children;
When the weather is very cold outside, let the cold water drip (at a minimal
amount) from the faucet served by exposed pipes. Running water through the
pipe, even at a trickle, helps prevent frozen pipes;
During extreme cold, keep the thermostat set to the same temperature both
during the day and at night;
If you will be going away during cold weather, leave the heat set to a temperature
no lower than 55°F.”
Mr. O’Connell also reminded Board members that wastewater rates would be increasing by
double digits next July due to the $160 million in the RWSA’s wastewater treatment projects and the
ACSA’s share of that. He also stated that one of the biggest issues in the system is FOG – fat, oil, grease
– whereby people dump grease down their drains and clog up the pipes.
Mr. O’Connell reported that all of the ACSA’s agreements would be posted on their website,
adding that the water agreement meets future long-term needs. He said that one of the ACSA’s goals is
to build a full-height dam, and much of the recent negotiations have revolved around that specific point.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the third key part to the agreements is the fact that the County is paying for 80%
of the new supply, and if the City would ever need to purchase supply there would be payment for it –
which is different from how agreements had been handled in the past. Mr. O’Connell noted that City
Council takes the issue up on January 16, 2012, with the ACSA Board taking it up on the January 19th and
Rivanna Board taking it up the following week. He mentioned that the second part of the agreements
involves the property use agreement, which allows for construction of the dam at Ragged Mountain and
the construction of a future pipeline and facilities at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. O’Connell reported that at the last RWSA Board meeting, “Option E,” which is the tunnel
option and the most expensive choice, was approved for the wastewater treatment plant. He said that
there would also be another cost allocation agreement to work through with that process that must be
finalized by June. He added that the ACSA also has a number of ongoing capital projects.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of the City’s claim that they are paying more for less water.
Mr. O’Connell explained that when Rivanna was created in 1973 there was an agreement that
there would be shared use of the water in all of the reservoirs, and there was a deed to lease those water
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
rights in 1983. He stated that the water has been on a first-come, first-serve basis since 1973, and there
hasn’t been an allocation before – so the agreement sets a new allocation based on the County paying for
85% of the dam and 80% of the pipeline. Mr. O’Connell said that the ACSA Board felt it was critical to
have some kind of payback if the City ever used what ACSA customers had paid for in the beginning. It is
a new and different approach.
Ms. Mallek said that it was much fairer to approach it that way, as a person that moves into an
apartment building must buy into what other long-term ratepayers had been paying for all along.
Mr. Boyd noted that the reason why there was declining value is that the SFRR was still continuing
to silt in, and even dredging would not be able to completely stop that. It is a proportionate reduction for
both the County and the City.
Mr. O’Connell stated that the agreement says that “of the new water being provided by the dam
and future pipeline, 80% of it would be allocated to the County”.
Ms. Mallek said the County is basically doing what the City asked as it said they needed no more
water than that amount. Mr. O’Connell confirmed that that was the basis for the discussion.
Ms. Mallek commented that she was worried about the 85% trigger being based upon a whole 12-
month consumption, and she hoped there was consideration for restricting it to a warm season flow. She
said that the chart Mr. John Martin prepared showed that the community is way over its safe yield in the
summertime, but nowhere near the 85% year-long trigger.
Mr. O’Connell responded that what they are trying to establish is that this was for the trigger for
the additional 12 feet raise of the Reservoir height. There are two places where average daily demand is
involved – the true-up he mentioned previously and the trigger, but it’s not the raise of the dam, and it’s
based on a 12-month consecutive average day use. For 2010, he said, the average daily demand was
9.96 million gallons. Because August is when they hit the picks, he thinks they will be looking at the
August to August time frame. Mr. O’Connell stated that water planning was done on that basis, and the
agreement follows that as do state planning guidelines – with the 85% being a state planning guideline.
He said when it hits 85% of the current safe yield it triggers the 12 feet, and Rivanna can go do what is
necessary, which is essentially remove the trees and raise the reservoir height – but all the infrastructure
for the full-height reservoir would be in place.
Ms. Mallek said when the County goes over the 85%, it means the water restrictions will have to
be applied.
Mr. O’Connell also stated that part of the water supply planning and having additional capacity at
Ragged Mountain is to put more water in the system so that there is water available during drought
periods to be put back into use while still meeting in-stream flows required by permits. If they get close to
exceeding that, then they raise the height of the reservoir. If they get close to exceeding that again, then
that’s when the pipeline get’s triggered in. He noted that it was those three phases that create the 50-
year+ water plan – based upon usage.
Mr. Rooker said as he recalled there wasn’t a very good way of determining what the City uses
versus what the County uses.
Mr. O’Connell stated that there are some major meters at the treatment plants to measure the
water, but there are some locations where there’s not – and part of the agreement is to have a much more
aggressive metering program that would look at the system from the City’s use, the County’s use, and
from the University’s use. He said that their belief is that looking at the system for drought management
included looking at it to prevent leaks, which requires a metering arrangement. Mr. O’Connell added that
there is a 12-13% loss that occurs, and part of this addressed where that is going, how to address it, and
who pays for it.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a lot more incentive to repair the problems causing that loss
if you are paying for it. Mr. O’Connell agreed.
Ms. Mallek asked what the timeframe is for the land needed that would be inundated.
Mr. O’Connell responded that it is a property use agreement that is like a lease to be filed at the
Clerk’s office, with a 40-year period of time.
Mr. Rooker asked what the term of the original lease for the existing facilities was.
Mr. Davis said that the four-party agreement was for the life of the agreement, and for the dam
inundation property it would remain for the life of the agreement; the five-acre outflow parcel is part of the
40-year lease.
Mr. O’Connell stated that in essence it is preserving the current arrangement at Ragged Mountain,
and RWSA would essentially be leasing the water to then sell it to the City and the County.
Mr. Thomas asked if it was typical of regional water supply.
Mr. O’Connell said he thinks that each one is set up a little differently.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
Referring to Mr. O’Connell’s written report, Mr. Boyd commented that Briarwood Subdivision is no
longer located in the Rivanna District, but is now in the Rio District.
Ms. Mallek asked if most of the homes in Oak Hill have agreed to hook up. Mr. O’Connell
responded that most did, but a few decided not to in the end. Ms. Mallek asked if they have to hook up if
their system failed. Mr. O’Connell responded, “yes”. He added that they originally got agreements from 52
property owners out of 54 property owners.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful at some point to see a hook-up fee comparison with other
localities, as he continues to receive comments from constituents about it.
Mr. O’Connell responded that he could bring that forward, adding that the simple answer is that
high-growth localities with a lot of infrastructure improvements have higher connection fees.
Mr. Rooker said he would like the information on not only high growth communitities, but
surrounding communities and those that are comparable in size.
Mr. O’Connell also noted that the RWSA’s capital improvements program is $201 million, and
those costs get calculated into connection fees. He stated that they are tryin to pay for future capacity to
be able to handle new development. It is the method that the ACSA have used to calculate fair share for
growth. He noted that developers are seeing this in many other places around the State. Mr. O’Connell
stated that the Route 29 North project, for North Point and other new properties, will cost more than $10
million, and a special new connection fee was used to be able to finance that.
Mr. Rooker commented that it’s almost like a service district fee.
Mr. O’Connell agreed, adding that while property owners were involved in that it is not until they
come pay the tab that it becomes clear.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Update.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director, summarized the following report which was forwarded to
the Board:
“1. Ragged Mountain Dam: The R WSA Board has authorized the Executive Director to
award a construction contract for the dam to Thalle Construction Company as soon as
four remaining items are completed: (1) executed cost share agreement; (2) executed
land use agreement; (3) VDOT/FHWA approval of design for 1-64 embankment; and (4)
completion of needed acquisition/easements on private property. The fourth item will be
completed by RWSA by the end of January, hopefully by consent but if necessary by
condemnation. The other three items depend on other parties beyond RWSA's control.
As the Supervisors are aware, an announcement was made on December 14, 2011 by
the ACSA and City that the negotiating parties had reached an agreement on major terms
for the cost share agreement, which would also clear the way for the land use agreement
(the City had previously informed RWSA they would not consider the land use agreement
before terms of the cost share agreement were reached). Formal approval by the City
Council and ACSA Board of Directors remains to complete this process; something we
hope will be accomplished in January.
RWSA met with VDOT's chief engineer in Richmond in December and resolved several
issues that had been raised by VDOT, which we hope will clear the way to obtain final
approvals on the 1-64 embankment. Following VDOT approval FHWA needs to review
and concur. We have been working with VDOT and FHWA on this issue since the spring
of 20 1 0, and submitted final design drawings for final approval on October 4, 2011.
We are expecting a decision from the U S Army Corps of Engineers on our permit
modification within the first two weeks of January. The Corps has informed us that we
have satisfactorily addressed all of their questions on our application. As you are aware,
the Virginia State Water Control Board approved the permit modification on December
14.
With the successful resolution of the above issues, we are hoping to begin construction in
March 2012. We are presently lowering the water levels at the existing Ragged Mountain
Reservoir (-3.2 feet as of December 30, 2011) in anticipation of that construction. Local
streams have been above normal in December and all other reservoirs are full.
2. Rivanna Interceptor Pumping: Facing a deadline to select a single preferred alternative by
the end of 20 11, derived from a Consent Order from the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, the RWSA Board of Directors on December 28 selected Concept
E by a 4-3 vote. Concept E will relocate the pump station from its existing location
adjacent to the City's Riverview Park and Woolen Mills neighborhood to the RWSA's
Wastewater Treatment Plant site, which will require an underground tunnel be
constructed between Riverview Park and the WWTP site to extend the 60-inch Rivanna
Interceptor to the new pump station. The new pump station will be capable of pumping at
a peak flow rate equivalent to 53 million gallons per day, which will accommodate the
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
increased wastewater flow during a 2-year recurrence rain storm event in 2020 provided
the City, ACSA, and RWSA collectively reduce stormwater infiltration and inflow into the
regional sewer systems by at least 25% compared to measured levels in 2006.
The project is expected to cost $38-$40 million based on the selection of Concept E. In
approving Concept E, the R WSA Board also started that the project financing by the City
and ACSA must be based upon a cost share agreement to be negotiated by June 30,
2012.
3. Dredging of the South Fork Reservoir: The RWSA Board of Directors decided in
September to re-start work by HDR and McGuire Woods on preparing support documents
for the issuance of a Request for Proposals, after deciding in August to suspend such
work until a cost share agreement was reached on the dam project. The restart included
a clause that the City would advance the reimbursement of RWSA's costs to continue this
work until a cost share agreement was reached. A report to the R WSA Board on these
documents is expected at the January 24 Board meeting. The recent December 14
announcement on the cost share agreement included a 50/50 split between the City and
ACSA for a dredging project, with a cap of$3.5 million.
4. Virginia Water Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF): The WQIF has not been adequately
funded by the Virginia legislature to cover the Commonwealth's obligations for WWTP
nutrient treatment upgrades for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay, which has also
impacted us locally (the Commonwealth owes RWSA over $3 million in grant funds
related to RWSA's nutrient upgrade at the Moores Creek WW TP). We expect a bill to be
introduced in the 2012 Session, supported by many environmental groups and the
Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, to add over $300 million to this
fund through bonds sold in 2013 to overcome the current deficit. We expect the Virginia
Association of Counties to also support this bill and encourage Albemarle County to do
the same.”
Mr. Frederick said that the RWSA Board awarded a contract to Thalle Construction last week
based on bids received December 8 for the dam, with the amount being $21.5 million – contingent on the
execution of the cost-share agreement and the land use agreement. He stated that there was an
outstanding permitting issue with VDOT and the FHWA on the I-64 encroachment, and all indications
were that the review was going well and would simply take some time. Mr. Frederick added that he had
learned from VDOT that they would push for a speedy review by the Federal Highway Administration, and
while that’s not binding they usually follow the request. He said that the RWSA is expecting to hear from
the Army Corps of Engineers soon and indications are that it would be positive.
Mr. Frederick mentioned that there was one outstanding access easement, and if there is not
voluntary consent by January 22 the RWSA will ask their Board to exercise imminent domain – as the
request has been going on for nine months now. He said it would be using a path that is already
established to access property and upgrading it so that vehicles get access to the reservoir site, adding
that with the flooding of the culvert there would no longer be a way to get from Reservoir Road through the
property to the south side. Mr. Frederick also stated that he was very comfortable with the 85% level
based on average annual demand, adding that it could be done monthly not daily because in a single day
there could be a spike. He stated that he confirmed with Hydrologics, who does all of their modeling, that
when they run their model that determines the safe yield based on the average annual yield, so it’s a fair
comparison. Mr. Frederick said that the 85% gives a 15% cushion to take necessary actions.
He also reported that the RWSA is now being asked to build the dam for the 42-foot height but set
the pool level initially at 30 feet, adding that it would cost about $34,000 to re-do the CAD work so the
contractor has an issue for construction set that tells them what to build – as well as some permit
modifications, including one from DCR. Mr. Frederick said that his suggestion to the RWSA Board has
been to pursue this as an amendment, not start over, so that construction could begin in March on the
tunnel that carries the intake water to the pipeline – and then the dam foundation, which would take many
months.
Mr. Snow asked how long it would take to clear the trees and prepare the area for the additional
height.
Mr. Frederick responded that it could be done within a 12-month time period provided there were
no endangered species, but they did include a provision in the perm it regarding an endangered bat that
has not been identified previously. He said they have a three-year reprieve on that but when they come
back to raise the level 12 feet they will have to go back through the process, which could limit the seasons
of the year in which tree removal would be permitted.
Mr. Snow asked about the expansion of the sewer to RWSA property, which would be a 35%
increase, and asked what part of that would be the cost of moving it under Option E.
Mr. Frederick responded that he doesn’t have the breakdown with him. Building the pump station
on the wastewater treatment plant site versus building it on the site where the existing pump station is
would not be a significant cost difference; the big expense would be the tunnel and the extension of the
60-inch Rivanna interceptor where it terminates now at the existing pump station, to extend it to terminate
at the new pump site.
Mr. Rooker asked about ongoing operating costs.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Frederick replied that there might actually be a slight decrease, because by pumping closer to
the source there might be some energy savings. He said that added costs would all be on the capital front
end side.
Ms. Mallek asked if the current plant would be decommissioned.
Mr. Frederick said that the plan would be to decommission the existing station, and even if they
were able to sell the property it may not be a moneymaker because of decommissioning costs.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Department of Forestry Annual Report.
Mr. Eric Filep addressed the Board, stating that he is the new County Forester and was replacing
Mr. Nelson Shaw – who had to be reassigned due to some health issues. Mr. Filep stated that he has
been with the Department for about seven years, working in various parts of the region. He reported that
in 2011 there were a total of 24 fires in the County that the Department of Forestry was called in on, with a
total of 960 acres burned – a little bit higher than in previous years. Mr. Filep said that the largest fire
consumed 609 acres near Ragged Mountain on February 19, during a time period that tended to be the
worst week of fire season. He stated that from February 15 to the end of April, citizens are not allowed to
burn between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and midnight, with the County’s law being more stringent in an effort
to minimize fires.
Mr. Filep reported that the Department held a firefighter refresher course at Wintergreen in Nelson
County, which had 32 participants focusing on everything from engine work to learning how to work with
aircraft, learning GPS capabilities, and other tasks to make them more effective on the ground. He said
that the Department hires quite a few part-time firefighters to help them with their operations and provide
coverage. Mr. Filep reported that they have done six Smokey Bear programs since August in area public
and private schools, as well as 10 youth forestry programs that include some internship opportunities. He
said that the Department has done seven adult forestry programs, including fire prevention and real
forestry for real estate.
Mr. Filep stated that they have done four riparian restoration projects encompassing about 18
acres, which was low but would likely increase in 2012, and those projects equaled about 2.8 miles now in
conserved, planted riparian area. He said that they wrote 14 stewardship plans or management plans
over the last year for just over 4,000 acres – involving both the DOF and private consultant foresters. He
also stated that the Department did informal plans for 27 tracts totaling 794 acres, and 12 incentive plans
for different cost-share measures, covering 272 acres. Mr. Filep stated that logging in the County was
slightly lower than usual as there is not a strong timber market, and they had about 70 logging notifications
so far for this year – compared to an average of about 100. He noted that they had very few law
enforcement actions or water quality issues related to logging, and an unusually low number of
complaints.
Ms. Mallek asked if one of the primary reasons he is called in is because people neglect to call
him before they start. Mr. Filep responded that it is more of them catching them doing something that they
are not supposed to do. Most of their failures to notify are from citizen calls. This year they have had no
cases of that.
Mr. Filep reported that they had four tracts totaling 154 acres, mostly in pine planting, and some of
that is due to having three different people covering the County in between his hiring and Mr. Shaw’s
departure. He stated that this spring they would be planting six areas for about 146 acres, and one area
of hardwood for about 40 acres – which is notable for an area that size that’s not riparian. Mr. Filep said
that vegetation control included planting of spring pines to keep hardwoods out and grow healthy, faster
trees – and totaled seven tracts for 430 acres. He stated that they have had 19 stands this year of
commercial thinning for over 700 acres, and a lot of that came from one very active landowner. He noted
that thinning is very effective in preventing massive insect outbreaks and large-scale forest fires. Mr. Filep
said that Charlottesville celebrated its fifth year of being a “Tree City USA,” and would be lining up for their
sixth year.
Ms. Mallek asked if that program was strictly for municipalities.
Mr. Filep replied that it was, but perhaps Scottsville would qualify.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Closed Meeting.
At 12:56 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler for the Board to go into a closed meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711.A of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding a specific legal matter regarding tax exempt property. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
Agenda Item No. 22. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:25 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler that the Board certified by recorded vote that to
the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the
open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies and Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appoints/reappointments:
reappoint Mr. Ross Stevens and Mr. Joseph Samuels to the ACE Appraisal Review
Committee, with said term s to expire December 31, 2012.
reappoint Mr. Bill Kittrell, as the White Hall District representative, and Mr. Clarence
Roberts, as the Rivanna District representative, to the Albemarle County Service Authority
Board of Directors, with said terms to expire December 31, 2015.
appoint Mr. Timothy O’Brien to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation
Advisory Committee (CHART), with said term to expire April 3, 2014.
reappoint Mr. John C. Lowry, as the Samuel Miller District representative, and Mr. Elton
J. Oliver, as the Scottsville District representative, to the Economic Development
Authority with said terms to expire January 19, 2016.
reappoint Mr. Alan Collier, Mr. David Cooke II, Ms. Virginia Gardner, Mr. William Rich
and Mr. John C. Lowry to the Equalization Board, with said terms to expire December 31,
2012.
appoint Mr. Richard Randolph, as the Scottsville District representative, to the Planning
Commission, with said term to expire December 31, 2015.
reappoint Mr. Calvin Morris, as the Rivanna District representative, and Mr. Tom Loach,
as the White Hall District representative, to the Planning Commission, with said terms to
expire December 31, 2015.
appoint Mr. Richard Hewitt to the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee, with
said term to expire March 5, 2014.
reappoint Mr. A. Bruce Dotson to the Public Recreation Facilities Authority, with said
term to expire December 31, 2014.
reappoint Mr. Steven James and Mr. Vincent Day to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Citizens Advisory Committee, with said terms to expire December 31, 2013.
reappoint Mr. Lincoln Lewis, as the Rivanna District representative, to the Social
Services Board, with said term to expire December 31, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_____
Motion was then entered by Mr. Snow to appoint Board members to the following boards and
committees:
Ken Boyd:
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Christopher Dumler:
Audit Committee
Jail Authority
Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
Ann Mallek:
ACE
Piedmont Workforce Network Council
Property Committee
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
CIP Oversight Committee
Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee
Dennis Rooker:
Audit Committee
Charlottesville/Albemarle/UVA Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee
High Growth Coalition
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
CIP Oversight Committee
Rivanna River Basin Commission
Duane Snow:
Property Committee
High Growth Coalition
Historic Preservation Committee
Rivanna River Basin Commission
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Rodney Thomas:
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee
Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee
Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Report.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board stated that The Board of Supervisors adopted an
Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010, following extensive public discussion and review.
That plan established a schedule for staff to provide quarterly reports to the Board on staff’s progress and
activities related to the Action Plan. Staff will present the first quarterly report of the Plan’s second year of
implementation at this meeting. This item is related to one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan
Goals - FY 10/11- FY 11/12 –
Goal 3: By June 30, 2012, the County and its partners will complete the first two year’s activities identified
in the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Launched updated Economic Development website (as of January 1, 2012) – Significantly
expanded economic development website presence and functionality including new logo/visual
identity for our efforts– future specific marketing efforts will be guided by the results of the Target
Industry Study.
Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) – Continued partnership using state
grant resources to benefit existing business expansion as well as new business expansion and
managing GOF performance reporting to VEDP on behalf of MicroAire expansion.
Virginia Economic Development Association (VEDA) – County staff continues active
involvement with this group, most recently attended annual meeting in Williamsburg in December.
Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS) – County staff continues
active involvement as a member of the Virginia Agricultural Development Officers (VADO) group,
most recently attended quarterly meeting in December.
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC) – County staff engages with this important
local group by serving on the Board of Directors and actively supporting CBIC programs.
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Strategic fast track review process – Board members have expressed interest in the possibility
of a fast-track review process for projects that provide significant economic benefits, including
creation of high paying employment opportunities or expansion of the County’s industrial tax base
– staff is researching this issue and will bring information back to the Board on February 1 as part
of the Target Industry Study discussion.
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Target Industry Study – Study is underway with final results to be available in mid-February – an
overview of preliminary results of the study is scheduled for the Board’s February 1 meeting.
CBIC Tech Tour – County staff helped organize and run the 2012 Tech Tour which involved 400
students (including 120 middle-schoolers) from 21 area schools which was the largest group ever
involved in this activity – 63 local high tech companies provided 81 separate tours.
Albemarle Business First – In the program’s first year of rededicated effort, county staff and
local partners had face-to-face visits with 50 Albemarle County businesses. Staff is continuing to
refine the program’s focus and the goal is to contact 75 businesses in our identified target group
in 2012.
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Stakeholders Roundtable – County staff convened a roundtable to solicit feedback/input for the
Comprehensive Plan update process with a specific focus on industrial uses and interstate
interchanges. Results of the roundtable will be part of staff’s discussion with the Planning
Commission on January 31 and highlights will be shared with the Board on February 1.
Industrial districts’ uses and commercial and industrial setbacks and buffers – A work
session with the Planning Commission is scheduled for early spring.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism
Stakeholders Roundtable - County staff convened a roundtable to solicit feedback/input for the
Comprehensive Plan update process with a specific focus on agribusiness possibilities. Results of
the roundtable were part of a Planning Commission work session on November 29 focusing on
rural land use.
Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) Strategic Marketing
Plan – The CACVB Board and staff are developing a strategic marketing plan that will focus more
effort and resources on promoting the community’s tourism assets, including agri-tourism and
other attractions in the County.
USDA Specialty Crop Competitive Grant – A USDA Specialty Crop Competitive Grant in the
amount of $30,000 was recently awarded to Albemarle and Nelson Counties which will support
further study into the production and expansion of hard cider (fermented apple juice) in this region
and across the commonwealth.
Presidents Passport Cooperative Marketing Program – CACVB, Monticello and Montpelier
have announced a cooperative marketing program designed to encourage tourism to the greater
Charlottesville area starting in late January 2012. The program, Presidents Passport, is supported
by over $180,000 in marketing partnership spending from the CACVB, Monticello, and Montpelier
including a substantial grant by the Virginia Tourism Corporation for $50,000. The Presidents
Passport campaign is designed to build on the excitement surrounding the opening of the new
landmark Smithsonian/Monticello exhibition opening in D.C. and encourage visitors to explore the
extensive history and tourism attractions in Charlottesville, Albemarle, and surrounding areas.
Data reporting
As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and
the local business climate in order to proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The
most recent quarterly indicators report is attached.
Staff reported that there was no budget impact, and no action was required by the Board.
______
Ms. Catlin addressed the Board, stating that she and Ms. Stimart would present the first quarter’s
update for the second year of the plan. She said, in following the same format as in previous reports, she
would like to present to the Board a quick scan on some things going on in the environment, progress
highlights on the plan’s five goals and then lastly, provide a review of the economic indicator data. She
stated that a recent nationwide survey found the Charlottesville Metropolitan Area to be one of the
country’s strongest markets for growing and maintaining jobs, with the Milliken Institute’s yearly survey
ranking the area #14 among the nation’s 179 smallest metropolitan areas. Ms. Catlin said this area had
the strongest showing among Virginia’s smaller metropolitan areas, with the region improving from a #20
ranking last year.
Ms. Catlin reported that funding for the Amtrak pilot program had been extended for two more
years. The Amtrak train runs daily from Lynchburg to Boston and has increased the area’s access to New
York and other cities in the northeast. Ms. Catlin stated that a new state budget proposal specifically
allows the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to allocate money from the six-year Rail
Enhancement Fund into a new fund to support this program for at least two more years and, with the
ridership exceeding expectations, it is hopeful that the funding will continue to keep the program going.
She reported that the National College would be relocating to a new $5.5 million campus near the airport,
an 18,000 square feet, two-story structure, with classes scheduled to begin in February and will include a
medical lab, three computer classrooms, an information systems engineering lab, and more than 80
computer workstations. She said the National College is another way to promote workforce training in this
area and will include specific technical skills needed by certain businesses as well.
Mr. Boyd asked if the National College would be offering a complimentary intelligence analyst
boot-camp similar to what is being offered at Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC).
Ms. Catlin replied that the two programs are separate. She explained that PVCC just completed
their first 10-week boot-camp class. It was very successful with a total of 19 graduates, and a write-up on
the front page of the Washington Post “Metro” section. She noted that this was a partnership between an
Ohio-based nonprofit corporation called the “Advanced Technical Intelligence Center,” and they are
getting ready to start up a second program . This program provided a great opportunity for those people
who wanted to get into the intelligence analyst field in addition to making it easier for them to obtain their
security clearance as a part of the program. Ms. Catlin said that some of the graduates were local and
some were from out of the area.
Ms. Catlin reported that the County’s AAA bond rating had been reaffirmed by both Moody’s and
Standard & Poor’s, with the S&P addressing the County’s sound and growing local economy, which
continues to experience healthy property tax base growth and employment diversification. She said that
the County got significant savings in December when it issued its lease-revenue bonds to finance its
capital program, realizing a total interest savings of about $2.3 million over the life of the bonds. Ms.
Catlin stated that the County also saw some significant progress on several road projects this year, with
the opening of the Meadowcreek/Warner Parkway, addition of sidewalks and bike lanes to Georgetown
Road, and the Jarman’s Gap project getting significantly underway. She said that the Board’s strategic
plan ending in 2010 had a goal of developing policies and infrastructure improvements to address the
County’s growing needs, and one of the strategies specifically named those projects as needing
completion. She also stated that the Governor’s legislative economic package that was just released
mentioned the possibility of a grant program for agricultural enterprises that may have great potential for
the area, in addition to other things he was proposing.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Catlin stated that the County has continued its focus on local, regional and state partnerships
and continued interaction with those groups. She mentioned that the expansion and upgrading of the
website included an initial step of creating a visual identity for economic development and for the
economic vitality program that communicates who Albemarle County is, what the County values and what
the County is all about, and presented the “Growing Ideas and Opportunities” theme. Ms. Catlin said that
the theme captures what the County is about – innovation, entrepreneurship, a connection to the
intellectual energy of the University of Virginia and the agricultural nature of the County. She stated that
this would be the theme moving forward as the County progresses in its economic development efforts.
Mr. Rooker asked if an outside marketing firm was hired to do the design.
Ms. Catlin said staff came up with the name and then the County gave a small, local firm the
slogan and they drew it into the current logo.
Ms. Catlin presented the economic development website, and encouraged the Board to visit the
site at their own convenience. Ms. Catlin said that the focus of the site included easy access to
information and resources which businesses would need in order to locate here, amenities, strategic
location, accessibility, expanding or relocating a business, etc. She stated that the site includes a
community profile and demographics, in addition to a page on “Getting to know Albemarle County,” which
speaks more to the character of the area.
Mr. Boyd asked if there had been any feedback yet on the new website.
Ms. Catlin responded that the new site was just launched yesterday.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to get feedback from those involved in economic development in the
community.
Ms. Catlin stated that staff has spoken with Tim O’Brien and a few others but, now that it has
gone live, staff will send the link around to partners at the Chamber, to Neil Williamson and others to
solicit feedback.
Ms. Catlin stated that goal #2 in the plan was “simplifying and creating certainty in the review
process,” and the strategies in the plan included possible amendments to development ordinances in an
effort to reduce complexity of plan approval and assisting small businesses in reaching compliance with
County development standards. She said the new website would hopefully help in that regard. She said
that the single point of contact idea to assist small businesses would be a strong focus over the next few
months. Ms. Catlin stated that the Board held a shared work session last year on the legislative and
ministerial application process revisions, which were both moving forward and both having resolutions of
intent adopted; and Planning Commission work sessions are planned in early 2012 for both of those
processes. She also said that staff had been reviewing the fast track review process and was in the
process of researching that potential, seeing what’s possible and what specifics there might be in terms of
criteria and ways of expediting the process for those businesses that are attractive to the County as a
community. She added that information will be brought back to the Board in February for additional
guidance.
Ms. Catlin reported that the Target Industry Study was progressing, and many Board members
attended a recent session on that, with preliminary results expected by the February 1 meeting and final
results anticipated by mid to late February. She said that stakeholders from all the involved jurisdictions
would be attending a big rollout at that point. She reported that “Albemarle Business First”– the existing
business retention and outreach effort – continued to be a critical area of focus, adding that a recent
statistic showed that 95% of the job gains in an average state each year are due to expansion or new
establishments born in a locality. Ms. Catlin stated that they have increased the goal from 50 outreaches
this year to up to 75 next year, and have tried to be strategic in how they are prioritized based on
expansion and job creation potential as well as businesses that might be feeling vulnerable in the current
economy. These efforts have yielded great results in some of the projects that staff is following up on and
good connections have been made because of conversations through the Business First program.
Ms. Catlin reported that goal #4 related to industrial land options contemplates amending the
County Zoning Ordinance and considering options to increase industrial inventory within areas designated
as development areas in the Comp Plan. She said that many of the Board members attended the
roundtable for stakeholders on November 28, which included a conversation and feedback on
infrastructure, site criteria, amenities, and other elements needed to support different types of businesses.
Ms. Catlin stated that they also got feedback on items that would be detrimental and potentially hinder
business possibilities that the Community Development staff was able to take note of and be mindful of as
they put together recommendations for the Comp Plan update. Those recommendations will come back
to the Planning Commission and then to the Board for consideration. She said they also discussed rural
interstate interchanges, noting that there was an action item in the economic action plan that states: “to
develop for the Board’s consideration a proposed modification of the interstate interc hange policy that
might allow lower impact industrial and rural serving uses at those intersections located in the rural areas
but also served by highway access.” Ms. Catlin stated that the results of the roundtable and further work
and analysis by staff would be presented to the Planning Commission on January 31; and, on February 1,
the Board would hear the status of the Comp Plan and interchange items. Ms. Catlin said that the
industrial district uses designation is also being evaluated, and the Commission has a work session
planned on that item for January 31 also.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
Ms. Catlin reported that the last goal in the plan focused on rural economy. A roundtable was held
on agri-business opportunities and the Planning Commission heard feedback from that roundtable along
with further staff work in a November 29 work session, at which time they provided some further guidance
and suggestions which specifically focused on tourism possibilities and how the Comp Plan should
address those. Ms. Catlin said that the topics of interest included transient lodging, food service or
restaurants, distilleries and breweries, special events, low-impact commercial recreation, and areas of
assembly. She reported that there was good agreement and consensus both at the roundtable and again
at the Planning Commission about some alternative uses and possibilities that people felt should be
explored further. She reported that the President’s Passport initiative – which is supported by over
$180,000 in marketing partnership spending from CACVB, Monticello and Montpelier to include a grant
from the Virginia Tourism Corporation for $50,000 – is building on the fact that Monticello is having an
exhibit at the Smithsonian on slavery for the next year. She explained that the President’s Passport would
include discounts and benefits that would encourage a percentage of those Smithsonian visitors to visit
the Charlottesville/Albemarle area.
Mr. Thomas asked if Ash Lawn-Highland was participating in that program.
Ms. Catlin responded that Ash Lawn chose not to be involved at the highest level of sponsorship,
but were included in the publicity material.
Ms. Catlin reported that the County, along with Nelson County, was awarded a USDA specialty
crop competitive grant in the amount of $30,000 to support further study of the production and expansion
of hard cider in this region, noting that this area is recognized as growing the best types of apples for
making the cider. She stated that there are currently eight apple producers in Albemarle and Nelson and
two existing cider producers.
Ms. Susan Stimart addressed the Board, stating that Steve Allshouse’s report shows that there
was a little bit of positive growth. She said that there was a negative 10% in the sales tax category,
attributable to a major retail establishment moving from the County to the City. She said, if one were to
compare the sales tax revenue year to date, 2010 versus 2011, there was a slight increase of about 7%.
Ms. Stimart also reported that meals tax increased slightly when compared to 3rd quarter 2010. Regarding
job numbers, Ms. Stimart said that there had been some growth in the healthcare sector, administrative
and waste services sector, retail trades, and education services with some loss in the construction and
manufacturing sectors. Ms. Stimart reported that, while the time series data was not available to the
Board today, it would be by the time they present the next quarterly report.
Ms. Stimart stated that staff was not able to fully capture the number of single family homes for
sale and, while the supply had decreased slightly, it was not known if this number reflects homeowners
simply taking their houses off the market. Ms. Stimart reported that the supply of unsold homes was
about 11 months worth, versus the target of 6 months. She also said that new construction was down
now that the hospital building was complete, with a slight decrease of 2% from 2010 to 2011. Ms. Stimart
said that the County was beginning to climb out of the sales tax slump, with food and beverage climbing
up slightly along with lodging tax. She stated that positive employment figures were only available with a
six-month lag, but unemployment rates were captured monthly and shows a continued drop in the rate
down to 5.1% for third quarter. Ms. Stimart noted that the healthcare sector added about 500 jobs,
administrative and waste services added 271 jobs, retail trade added 200 jobs, and education services
added 161 jobs.
Mr. Thomas asked if any of the defense industry jobs were included in those numbers.
Ms. Stimart responded that she would have to bring that information back to the Board, and
confirmed for Ms. Mallek that the Micro-Aire and Siemans jobs were not yet reflected in these figures.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff could provide information on total tax revenues generated, percentages
and dollars, from all business-related activities for multiple years, such as apartments generating business
income. Mr. Boyd said this is the method used in other counties.
Mr. Foley said that that was an annual indicator, but all the data is behind it and could be brought
forward to the Board.
Ms. Catlin added that Mr. Allshouse was looking to establish a methodology by which to measure
land use valuation as an economic indicator, so the next time these indicators come forth, the information
should reflect that effort. She added that multi-unit properties are calculated in the residential real estate
revenues.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to see that information ‘chunked’ out because, if it is a huge
amount, that would be helpful information to have.
Mr. Rooker said that this area has earned a substantial list of accolades over the years, and some
of those things should appear in the County’s marketing information. In terms of the Visitors’ Bureau
efforts to put together various marketing packages, he said it is very important to highlight the many
attributes the community has received.
Ms. Catlin stated that staff has begun to include those on the website. She pointed out that, on
the business page, staff has included ones that have to do with business. She agreed that they need to
be featured more prominently on the site overall.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Snow said that he would like to see another roundtable created that would focus on newer
internet technology and cell coverage for rural areas.
Mr. Foley stated that the study underway from the consultant on the wireless policy includes a
specific request to address that as a beginning point and, after that data is brought forth, it might be a
good time to form the roundtable as a next step.
Mr. Rooker commented that he has looked at this over a number of years and a few communities
have received large federal grants for broadband technology for rural areas but, unless the County wants
government to get into that business, it’s up to private businesses to decide whether it’s economical for
them to do it. He said the reason businesses aren’t out in the remote parts of the County was that they
don’t find it profitable to invest in tower construction.
Mr. Snow agreed, but said there are advances in technology coming forth all the time and he
would like to convene a roundtable to see what is available, what is new, and what is on the horizon that
would help facilitate getting internet into the rural areas.
Mr. Foley stated that the consultant would provide the latest information that would be a
springboard for that effort.
__________
Agenda Item No. 25. Public Safety Classification and Salary Review.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that the Board of Supervisors and
School Board jointly adopted Total Compensation Strategy for Albemarle County is designed to target
employee salaries at 100% of market median and benefits slightly above market. The process to maintain
this strategy involves annually surveying our adopted competitive market and recommending salary
budget amounts based upon where the County’s pay structure stands relative to this market.
To support this strategy, there is a schedule for a comprehensive classification review of all
departments on an ongoing basis. Priorities for review are set based on identified internal equity issues,
substantial changes in position descriptions, and existing market data. Due to budgetary constraints, long
term classification plan and department-wide reviews were not funded for several years. In early 2010,
staff became concerned about increased difficulties in recruiting quality applicants in the Police and Fire
Rescue Departments and began to receive anecdotal feedback that the County was falling behind in its
compensation structure for this group of employees. As a result of these concerns, a Pay and
Classification review for public safety employees was initiated in March of 2011.
Each pay and classification review is based on the Albemarle County Job Evaluation System.
This system was established to ensure employees are both correctly classified for the work performed and
equitable relationships exist among all positions in the organization. Each position is assigned weighted
points based on seven factors to produce a total point score. Positions are evaluated on a point factor
system based on the following:
Job complexity
Education and experience
Scope and impact
Supervision received
Working relationships
Working environment
Physical demands
A questionnaire designed to acquire relevant information around these factors is completed by the
incumbent in a position. Supervisors then review their staff’s questionnaires and provide additional
information. A point factor system is used to analyze the positions and they are assigned to pay grades
based on the total point score. Additional information is obtained and vetted through meetings with staff
members, supervisors, and Department management. Department-wide reviews require HR to utilize
additional resources outside of the County; using a consultant also provides a broader perspective that is
important in large-scale reviews. Recommendations are also reviewed in light of market data from the
Joint Board adopted market, indicated below:
Augusta County City of Virginia Beach James City County Roanoke County
City of Charlottesville City of Williamsburg Loudoun County Rockingham County
City of Chesapeake Buckingham County Louisa County Spotsylvania County
City of Danville Chesterfield County Madison County Albemarle Co. Svc. Authority
City of Harrisonburg Fauquier County Montgomery County Martha Jefferson Hospital
City of Lynchburg Fluvanna County Nelson County UVA Health Systems
City of Roanoke Greene County Orange County
City of Staunton Hanover County Prince William County
In addition to the Job Evaluation System, survey data was obtained on a number of benchmark
positions in the 2011 Market Survey (indicated below). As the data indicates, several of these positions
are significantly below market. The market data is reviewed to compare ourselves with our competitive
market and to ensure consistency with the job evaluation recommendations.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
Position Albemarle Salary
relative to Market
Minimum
Albemarle Salary
relative to Market
Midpoint
Albemarle Salary relative
to Market Maximum
Fire Rescue Battalion
Chief
-22.97% -19.89% -19.73
Fire Captain -15.48% -16.12% -15.55%
Firefighter EMT -4.02% -3.99% -3.97%
Police Officer -12.06% -8.48% -6.70%
Police Records Clerk -2.67% -2.67% -2.79%
The classification review of the Police Department, Fire Rescue Department and the Sheriff’s
Office began March 1, 2011. Seventy questionnaires were analyzed and a total of forty four (44) positions
were reviewed. A majority of positions in these operations are recommended to be classified into higher
pay grades based upon this comprehensive evaluation.
To effectively and consistently administer a departmental classification review, HR uses a matrix
based on market compensation trends. The current methodology is consistent with the compensation
strategy to accelerate employees to the midpoint. For a one pay grade adjustment, the amount of the pay
increase is 3% if above midpoint and 4 % if below midpoint. If the position is reclassified two or more pay
grades, then the pay increase is 6% or 8%, respectively.
The Board, through the adopted FY2012 Operating Budget, allocated the sum of $200,000 to
implement anticipated recommendations for implementation of this study. Based on the actual outcomes
of this classification review, staff included an additional $350,000 in the recently adopted 5 Year Financial
Plan for full implementation of these recommendations in FY2013. Additionally, $125,000 is proposed to
be allocated beginning in FY2013 to implement a strategy to recruit highly qualified candidates for
traditionally hard to fill public safety positions. Experience shows that Albemarle’s public safety agencies
are having difficulty attracting entry-level candidates mainly due to competition with the starting salary.
Research among Albemarle’s peer localities reveals that peer public safety agencies are successful with
recruiting entry level employees by offering additional pay for education, experience, and skills while
ensuring parity with existing employees. Human Resources and Public Safety staff have met on a number
of occasions to discuss the issues and will continue to further develop a recruitment strategy specifically to
recruit traditionally hard to fill positions and utilize these proposed resources, if appropriated by the Board,
to pursue this strategy.
Staff recommends that the Board concur with the 2011 Public Safety Classification and Pay
Review process and authorize staff to proceed with including full implementation of these
recommendations in the County Executive’s FY13 Recommended Operating Budget.
________
Mr. Foley addressed the Board, stating that the purpose of this item was to review the process
followed with the recent public safety classification and pay study. He explained that there were indicators
that the County was beginning to fall behind the market, so staff established the study in 2010. Mr. Foley
stated that Ms. Lorna Gerome, the County’s Human Resources Director, the Chief of Police and Chief of
Fire/Rescue were in attendance to present information, noting that staff had incorporated the implementa-
tion of the study into the balanced five-year plan. He said staff wanted to ensure that they met the Board’s
policy in keeping up with the market, adding that there was $200,000 in the current fiscal year for
implementation of this; however, that amount was not adequate because the County had fallen further
behind the market when the process was started a couple of years ago. Staff included an additional
$350,000 in next year’s budget for a total of $550,000 to fully implement the pay changes. Mr. Foley
stated that they would also talk about $125,000 set aside in the five-year plan as a way to do some more
aggressive and specific recruitment strategies necessary to remain competitive with staff. He said staff’s
recommendation is to move forward to implement pay improvements for public safety staff beginning in
the current fiscal year.
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, addressed the Board, stating that staff uses an
adopted market and an adopted strategy, with an eye to internal equity and a goal that benefits are slightly
above market. She reported that, several years ago, they started a classification schedule whereby they
would evaluate department classifications on a regular, ongoing basis but, due to budgetary constraints,
that process was put on hold. Ms. Gerome stated that they looked at the ECC Center last year and
another department on the school side, but hadn’t been doing departmental reviews until some data
surfaced related to quality of public safety position applications. She said that, of the 303 applicants for
police department jobs, only 3% of that pool were able to be hired; fire and rescue had a similar trend with
9% of 180 applicants being hired.
Mr. Boyd asked what the numbers are relative to job offers.
Ms. Gerome responded that these numbers reflect those who were able to m ake it through the
screening. She explained that they were not able to find enough qualified candidates that made it through
the County’s intensive interview and background check process. She stated that the applicant pool for
police officers had 303 applications, with 3% qualified to be offered a job. Ms. Gerome said that staff was
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
doing some best practices review now as to what other localities are able to offer and currently they only
have base salary information as a comparison point.
Mr. Rooker asked how many applicants were offered jobs and then turned them down.
Police Chief, Colonel Steve Sellers, stated that two certified, qualified police officers from other
jurisdictions had turned down the County job offers in the past week.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were officers who were leaving the County because of better offers
elsewhere.
Chief Sellers responded that that had only begun within the last few months, with the most recent
incident being an officer leaving for a position with Augusta County.
Chief Eggleston said that fire and rescue had experienced the same thing.
Mr. Thomas asked if the County’s benefits had any connection.
Ms. Gerome responded that Albemarle’s benefits compare favorably with other localities, and
sometimes you can explain that but sometimes employees are just looking at cash. She presented a slide
on market salary data and said that staff does benchmark positions with a goal of seeing no less than -10
when comparing. Ms. Gerome stated that they need to focus on the midpoint because that is considered
the market rate, but the County also needs to consider the minimum salary for a given position because it
is currently impacting hiring ability.
Mr. Thomas asked if Albemarle was considered city or rural when using comparisons.
Ms. Gerome explained that this is the adopted market that staff uses each year, and there is a
mix of market points, stating that Prince William, Loudon, Fauquier, James City, and Williamsburg are
often used for comparison.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the 30 localities used were adopted by the Board about 10 years ago as
the comparative market, and they are a mix of urban and rural localities, but not every community
responds every time.
Ms. Gerome commented that it was a good and balanced response rate this time, and confirmed
for Ms. Mallek that they used the original market group, despite previous concerns about specific
comparative localities.
Mr. Boyd said he was on the committee that selected the market comparisons ten years ago, and
establishing the peer group was the most difficult decision in the process. He commented that just
because a teacher works in a locality that can’t pay as much doesn’t mean they are a better or worse
teacher. He said it is still a competitive market because these are the communities Albemarle County is
competing against for police officers.
Ms. Gerome stated that they are doing some best practice research now on public safety pay in
terms of what kind of hiring incentives are out there, career development, skill-based pay, paying for
language skills, etc.
Ms. Gerome reported that the job evaluation system was structured to ensure that all employees
were correctly classified based on the work that they do, and every position in the County was reviewed
with the same point factor analysis except for the County Executive and Superintendent. Ms. Gerome
explained that there were seven factors considered with points assigned and an ultimate score that
correlates to one of the 28 pay grades, so every position ends up being on the pay scale with a certain
width between the minimum and maximum . She said the thought was that a separate pay scale should
be considered specifically for public safety positions. She stated that the factors considered to classify
positions include the complexity of the job, how much independent judgment is used, education and
experience, type of background required, scope and impact of a particular position, supervision received
versus latitude to make decisions, the nature of working relationships, the working environment, and
physical demands.
Ms. Gerome said that they use a position analysis questionnaire that an incumbent in the position
needed to complete, and not every single police officer or firefighter had to complete a questionnaire as a
representative group was used. She stated that the supervisors then reviewed the questionnaire and then
submitted it to Human Resources, and an outside consultant is used for large departmental reviews. Ms.
Gerome said that there was a lot of back and forth in the process, as there was often more information
needed. She also stated that they looked at the recommendations in light of the market data and there
was not a formulaic driver in that part of the process.
Mr. Rooker asked how many communities include police and public safety officials in their general
pay bands.
Ms. Gerome responded that she would know more in a month as staff was collecting data on that
currently.
Mr. Rooker said that it seemed to be a category that cries out for separate categorization. He said
it was hard to compare certain level employees to those who go into dangerous situations adding that it is
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
a specialty area, and it’s very difficult to compare those employees to employees in other categories. He
said it will be important to know that people in those positions are receiving reasonable pay to make
certain the County attracts people and keeps people.
Chief Sellers agreed and said the department was working with HR to explore and evaluate.
Mr. Foley stated that they were trying to take a more sophisticated approach to this and bring back
information in the future.
Mr. Boyd noted that staff is comparing police officers and firefighters to those same positions in
other localities.
Mr. Rooker said that those positions would be included within that pay band, and public safety
should be considered differently than teachers.
Mr. Boyd said, for example, a planner and a police officer could end up at the same pay grade for
different reasons, but the reasons could be complexity of job, danger of the job, etc.
Ms. Gerome pointed out that employees move through the range by merit increases, so the bands
are not changed. When a scale adjustment is made, the minimum would be moved. The pay grades are
not moved unless the entire scale is adjusted.
Ms. Gerome reported that the recommendations from the public safety classification review were
attached for the Board, and they include a recommendation for 208 out of 254 incumbent employees
reviewed, or 81%, which is much higher than the normal classification study findings. She stated that this
points to the changing jobs, the complexity, and the length of time since staff has had a classification
review. She said these recommendations were received from the classification consultant based on the
position analysis questionnaire information. Ms. Gerome said that this was more of an internal review
than a market review, but the market information was used to validate the recommendations.
Mr. Foley said that there have been changes in the nature of some public safety positions, with
some increasing complexity and responsibility in those jobs.
Chief Eggleston added that the market has changed the complexity for public safety adding that,
for fire and rescue, the level of employee hired was more complex now than it was 10 years ago and that
is driven primarily by an ‘all hazard’ approach to fire and rescue.
Mr. Thomas commented that it was the same in his industry because current technology requires
a more educated person.
Chief Eggleston said that fire and rescue is encouraged with the possibility of some additional
funding for their positions so they can attract people with special skills and education, noting that highly
skilled and educated employees were choosing to go to, for example, Prince William or Orange or Henrico
because those counties recognize those skills.
Ms. Mallek said that was because Albemarle’s entry level salary doesn’t recognize the extra
training required, which would cost the County a lot to get them to that level.
Chief Eggleston said, in the long run, it’s much better to hire a person with more skills than to
educate them. He explained that if someone came in and desired to be a hazmat technician, which is a
position desperately needed, the County would have to spend money to send them to school.
Mr. Snow asked if the type of employee with hazmat training would be started at the minimum
level.
Chief Eggleston responded that the County would hire that person at above minimum.
Mr. Foley said the $125,000 would give staff the flexibility to do that, but it was not currently being
done.
Ms. Gerome presented a slide showing that there were 45 public safety positions reviewed, with
30 of them recommended for change. She reported that, several years ago, there was a prescribed
amount for pay grade increases, but there were difficulties because it would allow employees to leapfrog
others if they got a promotion, so they changed the policy. Ms. Gerome said that, in doing a departmental
classification, they felt it would be best to have some kind of methodology so, last spring, they did some
research around that and found there wasn’t a best practices trend. She stated that some organizations
wouldn’t give anything if an employee was above midpoint after a reclassification; some had a fixed
amount; some had a percentage tied to where they were in the range. Ms. Gerome said that staff
developed a methodology that they felt was consistent with salary administration strategy, which is trying
to accelerate employees to midpoint in an effort to pay them at the market rate. She stated that the first
model of the matrix was developed in the spring, and the data they had at that time had slightly higher
increases for classification and promotional increases of 5.5% and 6.5%. Ms. Gerome said that, when
they did the market survey in the summer, the data showed that 3% or 4% was more in line with market,
depending on whether an employee is at or below midpoint.
Ms. Gerome said that they began a reclassification study for the Emergency Communications
Center last August and it was finalized in May, with the ECC Board approving it to be effective in October
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
2011. She stated that the higher matrix was used for that classification because that was the data
available at the time, so the recommendation is to change the matrix based on the data collected with the
summer market survey. Ms. Gerome also presented information on the length of time it took to work
through a classification review, which was about one year.
Ms. Gerome presented a chart that showed at what point the County would come out of the red
and get into the black if the recommendations were implemented. Ms. Gerome pointed out that the
midpoint for the battalion chief was below market by 19.89%, with the maximum being below market by
19.73%; fire captain was below market by 15% at the minimum, 16% at the midpoint, and 15% at the
maximum; a police officer was below by 12% at the minimum, 8% at the midpoint, and 6% at the
maximum. She said that the recommendations would go a long way in bringing the County closer to
market with these benchmark positions.
Ms. Gerome presented a costing summary reflecting the additional cost to implement the 208 pay
changes, along with the additional benefits costs that are tied to salary, i.e., FICA, VRS, group life
insurance.
Mr. Thomas asked if the workman’s comp for the volunteers was included in these figures.
Ms. Gerome replied that this was only looking at paid staff, adding that this was just base salary,
with the five-year plan building in added overtime costs. She said staff is currently evaluating starting
salaries and hiring incentives in an effort to bring on board a higher quality employee, maybe its education,
maybe it is skills or language proficiency but to also be able to address the equity with the County’s
existing employees that already have those skills but have not recognized.
Mr. Foley noted that the amount was only $50,000 extra for overtime, and said that the basic
change based on the analysis was $550,000 with the $125,000 being based upon the rest of the research.
He said that there was a lot of research still out there and staff would bring that back to the Board as a
way to improve recruitment, and also stated that Colonel Sellers has some specific ideas about what types
of officers he’d like to recruit in order to meet some of the goals he has set for the department as the new
chief.
Mr. Boyd asked if a person with a special skill set – like Spanish – would get an additional stipend
along with new hires that have a certain skill set.
Colonel Sellers responded that there were officers who have that skill and haven’t been
compensated, so part of that $125,000 would help bring those officers into line with new hires.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be similar to paying school teachers who have a masters or
doctorate, as it would pay an augmented amount based on certain attributes a person had when they
applied or that they might acquire while on the job.
Colonel Sellers stated that he did not have a public safety compensation plan, which is why they
are working to bring some recommendations back to the Board. He said that one of the unintended
consequences of freezing merit increases was its impact on recruiting, and he would bring back some
possible solutions to them for the long-term.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County currently provided extra money for people who are on the SWAT
team or the JADE task force.
Colonel Sellers responded that it does not give extra funding specifically for those skill sets, but it
would if those employees accumulated certain skills that would qualify them for the skills proficiency
program, i.e., SWAT team participation.
Chief Eggleston noted that fire and rescue had been allowing additional pay for paramedic type
services, which has saved a tremendous amount of money in the long run. He also said that they wanted
to go out to market and see what they place value on, as it was important to track where employees are
going when they’re leaving and how the County can remain competitive within the market. Chief
Eggleston confirmed for Mr. Rooker that the department does exit interviews, adding that the reason for
some employees leaving is often because the starting pay was not competitive.
Mr. Foley said other departments that have gone through the process have not been brought to
the Board, but this one has because there were 280 out of 550 employees who are affected by this
situation; however, these employees are being treated the same way as any other employee and is
according to practices and policies supported and implemented by the Board. He added that the plan is to
phase this into the plan over two years and said it is affordable and at the top of staff’s list in terms of
priorities for the County.
Mr. Boyd said that including this in the five-year plan was a no-brainer, stating it’s imperative that
the County adequately compensate its emergency services and public safety officers.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek agreed.
_______________
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 51)
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board had before them a short version of the support resolution for the
enabling legislation which Delegate Toscano would put forward for the County to authorize them to
negotiate and for the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) to negotiate a land swap with
Habitat as part of Biscuit Run Park.
Mr. Boyd said he had no problem with the resolution, but the County already had existing land for
which there was no money to develop into ball fields, so there shouldn’t be an impression given that this
resolution would mean ball fields just because there was new land available.
Mr. Davis stated that, even if the legislation was adopted, there are very stringent guidelines for
how property swaps would be handled which includes a finding of fair market value and equal open space
value of the properties, and five different criteria that have to be met. He pointed out that this is going to
be a tough one to pull off. He said he agreed that the Board should initiate the process because it has the
potential to be a win-win for a lot of people; however, the process itself is a difficult one and it may not be
successful even after a lot of effort.
Ms. Mallek said DCR had already indicated that they were interested in pursuing it, which was a
huge obstacle that has already been cleared and she is optimistic.
Mr. Boyd commented that, if it could be done, it would be an immediate help to Southwood Mobile
Home Park and Habitat so that they could move forward with their plan, which he believes is important.
Mr. Rooker said that it was a crying shame that the state wouldn’t accept the request the County
made a number of times to make room within Biscuit Run for playing fields, as the state has 1,200 acres
but no money to develop the park at this point. He said that leasing 75 acres or so to the County would
not have severely impacted their plans for the park and would have provided a badly needed public
service.
Ms. Mallek suggested the County try a different approach.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dumler to adopt the resolution as presented. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports a legislative act to
authorize the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation to negotiate a land exchange with Habitat
for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville of certain parcels in an area known as Biscuit Run in Albemarle
County, Virginia.
___________
Ms. Mallek asked about the reconsideration of the running at large leash law issue.
Mr. Elliott explained that they were targeting the first quarter of the calendar year to have
something from Colonel Sellers presented on the matter.
Mr. Foley said it would likely be March.
__________
Mr. Thomas announced that he had been working with VDOT on the crossover at Rio Road and
Penn Park Road to help pedestrians from the two schools, and was getting some results with work from
David Benish, Joel DeNunzio, and David Crim. He said that one of his constituents had contacted him
regarding a signal installation at Belvedere next to Covenant Church, and he indicated to the citizen that a
traffic study could be requested for that location and would include an evaluation of a signal installation,
and could take six to eight weeks.
Mr. Boyd noted that, on Sundays, both of the churches at that location have policemen directing
traffic because it is so congested and dangerous there.
_____
Mr. Thomas reported that he had also been working with VDOT on Rio Mills Road, and Mr. Crim
informed him that their plans were to try to reduce the speed limit on the paved part to 35 mph, and 25
mph on the gravel portion.
_____
Mr. Thomas said he had received a call from a Rio Road resident that the noise at Rockydale
Quarry is much better. He added that this totals three positive calls since the Rockydale Quarry meeting.
Ms. Mallek commented that it was still bad at Ms. Judy Moon’s and Mr. Bill Tomlin’s because of
the valley carrying the sound up.
_____
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Thomas had mentioned the funding for the Crozet pool, noting that citizens there had raised
enough money for a dome and other amenities.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t realize there was County money for that.
Ms. Mallek said it was just a swap, as citizens raised all the money for the pool themselves.
Mr. Foley stated that item is on the agenda for January 11, and the Board will receive a full report
and proposal at that time.
__________
Mr. Rooker said that there had been some specific recommendations that came out of meetings
with some City Council members regarding regional cooperative efforts, and asked if there could be a
report back as to how resources were being shared.
Mr. Foley agreed that staff could put together a status report on that.
Ms. Mallek said Schools had been asked to do the same thing.
Mr. Foley pointed out that that question has been asked of them several times, and what the
County has been told is that the City Council has to support it so the County can’t go forward.
Ms. Mallek commented that that’s the reason why the County has moved forward with legislative
action, because the alternative that was put off last year isn’t going to happen.
Mr. Rooker said the County deferred that issue for a year in an effort to give the school systems
an opportunity to work together toward a joint program whereby some of the revenue sharing money might
assist County students as well as City students, and nothing ever came back from them.
Mr. Thomas asked about the status of the Fire/Rescue committee and Mr. Foley said he would
make that a part of the report that comes back to the Board about joint efforts.
_____
Mr. Rooker also said that, in April, he had brought up the idea of adding the lane from Hydraulic
down to the Route 250 Bypass, and the County got special legislation so it could get primary road funds
for a road in the City, which had previously been disallowed. Mr. Rooker said that legislation passed, and
there was $2.3 million allocated to primary road funds, along with a proffer from Albemarle Place, and the
City is going to use revenue sharing funds. He stated that Albemarle Place would be building the lane
from the Waffle House down to Hydraulic Road, and if the lane could be timed down to the Rt. 250 bypass
and the additional ramp, it would make a lot of sense to have a concurrent project going on.
Mr. Rooker said, when he brought that suggestion up in April, Mr. Thomas stated that, at the last
MPO meeting, City officials indicated they were waiting for the proffer, which they could not get initiated
until the site plan was approved. He stated that the site plan is approved. He said Mr. Benish indicated
he would follow up and request that a City official come to a Board meeting to explain what is going on.
Mr. Rooker said that Jim Utterback had said, two or three years ago, that if the state could take it over,
they could get it done a lot quicker. He said that this was a significant traffic flow project in one of the
most congested parts of the City/County area, and it makes sense to get it done while the other
construction was being done.
Ms. Mallek said she didn’t know what could be done to light a fire under them, as they got
completely distracted by the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Foley said that Mr. Utterback could possibly come to a meeting and explain what’s going on,
but said that there had been some complications with the proffers and there were some questions about
what the funding identified was to help the project move forward, and what requirements the City had put
on the project when they turned it over to VDOT. He pointed out that there were some process
requirements that have also been added to the schedule; a total of three components that are important to
get a report on. He added that this issue has been talked about a lot in the meetings with Delegate
Toscano. Mr. Foley also said that VDOT had only done some preliminary estimates and Mr. Utterback
had indicated to him that the costs would go up and the question becomes whether there would be
enough money to complete the project. He said this particular project has been a top priority for Jim Rich
and he has been pushing hard to help get extra money.
Mr. Rooker stated that Mr. Utterback had told him that if more money were needed for the project
he would find a way to get it, and what’s bothersome is the time that has elapsed and he is not sure any
ground has been gained on this issue. He said that whatever the issues were with the project, they would
have to be worked through regardless of when they are dealt with and the sooner, the better. He added
that there are a lot of good reasons to try to have this done concurrently with the project to the north.
Mr. Snow asked what the timeframe was for the lane to be built up to Hydraulic.
Mr. Rooker responded that they would start it within the next few months.
Mr. Davis explained that it was a condition of the occupancy permit of Stonefield’s first building, so
it would have to be done quickly.
January 4, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Foley said that the likelihood of those being timed together, according to Mr. Sprinkle, was
pretty slim.
Mr. Rooker stated that, if the conditions are so problematic, they should be put on the table and
worked through.
Mr. Foley said that the procurement the City would have had to do did not have to be done
because they were able to get a consultant on board sooner, but the question as to how far along the
consultant is would need to be answered.
_____
Mr. Rooker also reported that there was a chart in the December 9 VACo report on who pays for
K-12 education that was worth looking at, and it shows that in 2010 the average per-pupil expense around
the state was $13,304 and the local share of that was around 60% on average. He said that this was
worth keeping in mind when they meet with the schools.
__________
Mr. Boyd reported that, for the record, he voted against the Rivanna Authority pump station
agreement as directed by the Board, because the additional $13 million cost, more than 30% of the total
cost if the recommendations could be implemented, benefits only City residents. It was the County’s
thought that this is something that should be borne by the City in that agreement. He said that an
important factor to keep in mind is, if that pump station is removed, it will remove the only above-ground
facility from the City. The City would then have no above-ground sewer facilities.
______
Mr. Boyd also welcomed Mr. Dumler to the Board.
Mr. Dumler said he was looking forward to serving.
__________
Mr. Davis noted that he had circulated the adopted rules of procedure which were adopted earlier
in the day with changes, highlighted in yellow, and wanted to get that back to the Board as those would be
the official operating procedures.
__________
Mr. Rooker asked if everyone had received the Fairfax County prescription card.
Ms. Mallek said she wanted to know if it provided more service than the NaCo card.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County provided a link to the NACo card information on the County
website. He stated that it should be known that a discount prescription card is available to every citizen
through NACo.
Mr. Bryan Elliott mentioned that the information was available at the County’s Department of
Social Services and some other locations, and staff has also worked with the Health Department on
distributing that information. He said that there was also a similar card available through the United Way.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 05/09/2012
Initials: EWJ