2012-03-07March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
7, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher 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 9:02 a.m., by the Chair,
Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if Board members had any additional action items for the agenda. None were
presented, and the meeting proceeded.
Motion was offered by Mr. Thomas to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Snow seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Mr. Thomas reported that there would be a meeting regarding the Rockydale Quarry held on
March 15, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., at the Hollymead Fire Station.
Mr. Rooker said they should decide what other Board members would be attending.
Mr. Thomas indicated that Mr. Boyd planned to attend the meeting.
_____
Mr. Rooker commented that Board members had received an invitation from the Rivanna River
Basin Commission to attend a May 10th tour of stormwater facilities. He stated that sometime between
now and then Board members need to let Mr. Davis know whether they plan to attend it so they can take
appropriate action to adjourn to the meeting.
Ms. Mallek said that at least three Board members have already indicated they plan to attend the
meeting. Mr. Davis said he would coordinate with Ms. Jordan to ensure the proper requirements are met.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that she had attended her first meeting of the National Association of
Counties’ Land Use and Energy Committee in Washington D.C. She said that the terminology used
across the country to describe people in this role is extremely diverse – ranging from “police jurors” to
“judges” to “freeholders” to “commissioners” and “counselors.” She added that she is grateful that this
Board does not have to deal with all the issues that other people across the country deal with.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Recognitions: Introduction of TJPED Executive Director, Helen Cauthen.
Ms. Mallek introduced the new Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for
Economic Development, Helen Cauthen.
Mr. Foley said that Ms. Cauthen started in the leadership for the TJPED on February 1, 2012.
She has over 25 years of experience in economic development and government relations. Most recently,
Ms. Cauthen served as President and CEO of the Team Volusia Economic Development Corporation, a
regional organization, and prior to that she served eight years as Vice President of the Greensboro
Economic Development Alliance in North Carolina. Ms. Cauthen has a lot of experience in regional
economic development efforts. She has a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration from the
University of Missouri and is a Certified Economic Development Developer accredited by the International
Economic Development Council.
Mr. Foley said that after going through an extensive search, Ms. Cauthen continuously remained
at the top of the list of candidates and brings lots of energy to the position. Ms. Cauthen is the right fit for
the right time for this region as they look at their Target Industry Study and some of the things that the
region is planning to do to move to the next level.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Foley added that he served as Chairman of TJPED as this position was being filled. He then
welcomed Ms. Cauthen to the County.
Ms. Cauthen stated that she has already worked closely with Ms. Lee Catlin and Ms. Susan
Stimart as well as with Mr. Foley, and has had a chance to meet with Ms. Mallek. She said that she
greatly appreciates the Board’s support of TJPED. TJPED represents eight counties and the City of
Charlottesville. Albemarle is a very important partner as the largest County. She also appreciates the
Board’s support on the Target Industry Study, which would be released on April 11th at 10:00 a.m., at
PVCC – and again in Culpeper the following day at Germanna Community College. TJPED is very
excited about the release of the Study and announced that the public is welcomed to attend. She said that
she hopes Board members would be present to hear the recommended targets. She stated that Ms.
Sharon Younger will present regional targets as well as County and City targets.
Ms. Cauthen said that in Greensboro when they switched to a targeted industry cluster approach
to economic development, she led the implementation in that effort. She said that she has some
experience and is comfortable to how it is done. She added that she looks forward to working with Board
members on that effort.
Board members welcomed her to the community. Ms. Cauthen added that her husband grew up
in this community which she visited over the years.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Jack Renard stated that he was the President of the Colonnades Residents Association and a
retired naval officer having served 30 years on active duty and 12 years as Dean of Admissions at the
U.S. Naval Academy. He said that he has spoken to Board members before regarding the impact the
proposed Western Bypass could have on the Colonnades community of 360 senior residents, 31 of whom
were in attendance today to demonstrate their serious concern for their quality of life and the future of the
Colonnades. Mr. Renard stated that the approved footprint of the bypass comes within 600 feet of their
healthcare center, and they believe they are particularly vulnerable to the extensive blasting that would be
required during construction – along with the traffic noise, the fumes, and the toxic pollution that would
occur with both the construction and operation of the road. He said that they have tried to get their
message across to VDOT, which has apparently just ignored the thoughtful and thorough
recommendations of the Jack Jouett Committee. Mr. Renard stated that they have not received a
response from the Federal Highway Administration, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor. He
said that the Environmental Impact Statements of 1993 and 2003 did not include the Colonnades, and
residents call upon the Board to insist that the Federal Highway Administration require a supplemental
environmental impact study. They consider their situation significant enough to require [that] up to date,
factual data on noise, fumes, and toxic pollution be available before proceeding with the bypass.
__________
Mr. Mark Kastan, Executive Director of the Colonnades, stated that the Colonnades will be
located 600 feet from the current footprint of the Western Bypass. He said that he believes the building of
the bypass might be detrimental to residents of the Colonnades, who moved there because of its serene
location, close proximity to the City, and natural surroundings – as well as for healing from serious illness
and injuries to living out the rest of their lives in a caring and nurturing environment. He said that the calm
and quiet atmosphere would go away with the building of the bypass. At this time no one from VDOT or
any other government agency – except for a few Supervisors – has taken the time to meet with them to
discuss the impact and ensure that the facility would be viable after the project is over. Mr. Kastan stated
that they have attended meetings to express concerns but to no avail. He added that the area located
directly behind the Colonnades would involve the greatest amount of construction as construction would
have to go through a mountain to put in the bypass. He said that the frailest, most susceptible individuals
in the community live in this particular area of the facility. The building of the project would require
blasting, truck noises, and any other construction involved with the destruction of a mountain. Mr. Kastan
said the health of these residents will be directly affected as well as the health of the rest of the
community. Mr. Kastan said that while they oppose the project they know they probably cannot stop it,
and therefore they insist that their concerns be taken into account and addressed moving forward. The
Colonnades has already started to lose business because potential customers ask what impact the
bypass would have on them. He asked the Board to require VDOT to build a new and in-depth
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the bypass that will take into regards the Colonnades
community; the lives of the residents and the jobs of their employees depend on it.
__________
Mr. George Goodrich stated that he is a retired judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. He said that he and his wife first came to the area in 1949 and are residents in independent
living at the Colonnades. Mr. Goodrich said that most residents believe that the bypass plan is “ill advised
and extremely unfortunate” for those caught in its path, as the benefits are meager and the cost
extraordinary. He stated that the Colonnades are located at the southern terminus at Stillhouse Mountain,
making residents there particularly vulnerable. The bypass has the potential of putting the facility out of
business. Mr. Goodrich said that last spring he had a bought of pneumonia and heart complications that
put him in Martha Jefferson Hospital, with the two weeks upon release spent recovering in the Colonnades
Health Center – where his room looked out over Stillhouse Mountain. He stated that the prospect of the
noise and other effects from the construction of the bypass convinces him that the bypass is a doomsday
waiting to happen for them at the Colonnades. Mr. Goodrich asked the Board to act while there is still
time.
__________
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Donald Gross stated that he is Chair of the Building and Grounds Committee of the
Colonnades Residents Association. Mr. Gross said that the southern terminus of the proposed bypass will
have a devastating effect on the grounds of the Colonnades, noting that there are lovely hiking trails used
by ambulatory residents on a regular basis for a quiet walk in the woods. He stated that blasting on
Stillhouse Mountain during construction and trucks accelerating and decelerating once the road is
operational will render the walks undesirable and unhealthy. Mr. Gross said that there are many benches
on the grounds where less ambulatory residents – including his wife, who has been battling Parkinson’s
disease – can sit and enjoy the landscaped beauty and quiet surroundings. He stated that this would no
longer be possible. They moved to the Colonnades hoping to live out their lives in this environment, but
now they – and many others – will have to consider relocating, as life here will be quite intolerable if the
bypass is built as planned.
__________
Mr. David Weiss addressed the Board, stating that he has lived in the area since 1954 when he
came to teach in the Dram a Department at U.Va. He said that his late wife, Penny, grew up on Stadium
Road which at that time was in the County. Mr. Weiss said that they were very active in the community in
various ways, and their interest in the quality of life was always lively. He emphasized that the bypass is
ill-advised in its present route. If the project goes through everyone in the Colonnades must suffer through
the trauma of construction and the never-ending sounds of traffic on the bypass. Mr. Weiss asked if the
benefits to the bypass really outweigh the negatives that come with following through on a plan that
obviously does not make sense today. He said that it is hard for him to see so little value in return on their
investments with this unsatisfactory solution to a dubious need. Mr. Weiss stated that the proposed
budget is only the beginning – not the ultimate cost. He said that residents come forward today to raise
their voices as a group that will be severely affected in their declining years. The live in the Colonnades
because it offers them security and comfort as residents in need of special care. If the bypass goes
through as planned, the residents may still have their security, but the comfort and quality of life they have
come to enjoy will be severely curtailed. He added that there is surely a better alternative.
__________
Ms. Sylvia Warner addressed the Board, stating that she has lived at the Colonnades for 19 years
and every moment has been a pleasure. Ms. Warner said that she has cherished looking out her
windows to the beautiful woods behind, with peace, quiet and serenity. She stated that the residents all
came to the Colonnades for health reasons and/or encroaching old age. At the age of 101 she is afraid
she will have to find a new home. There will never be another home like the Colonnades. It offers the
residents beauty, comfort and care. Ms. Warner asked the Board to vote against the bypass.
__________
Ms. Teresa Lindsey said that she is the skilled nursing administrator for the Colonnades
Healthcare Center and was addressing the Board today because she is greatly concerned over the health
and welfare of the residents living in the facility. Ms. Lindsey said that people who live or visit the center
range in age from 65 to 100 years old. The center is composed of an assisted living neighborhood for
individuals who need 24-hour nursing care, a memory care neighborhood for individuals with dementia
and Alzheimer’s disease, and a skilled nursing center for individuals recovering from strokes, heart
attacks and other serious illnesses. The environment that they live in is an extremely important part of
their recovery. They have found that a calm, comfortable setting adds greatly to their happiness, recovery
and well-being.” She stated that they have worked hard over the years to create such an atmosphere and
it would be distressing to see that go away. The building of the bypass will incur incredible noise from the
blasting, rock crushing and traffic needed to construct this road. Ms. Lindsey said that she was asking on
behalf of the most fragile seniors, who want to continue to live the lives they have come to enjoy at the
Colonnades, to require VDOT to prepare a new and in-depth supplemental environmental impact
statement for the bypass project that will take their community into regards. The lives and quality of life of
the residents of the Colonnades depends on that.
__________
Mr. Kirk Bowers thanked everyone from the Colonnades for coming out to speak. Mr. Bowers
said that he was speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club’s Piedmont Chapter, which had 1,300 members
and strongly opposes the Western Bypass. He said that the proposed bypass is an onerous intrusion
upon the community and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The proposed bypass does not serve its intended
purpose of diverting traffic away from congested areas of the County and when compared to Places 29
Mater Plan, the bypass project is double or triple in cost. The proposed bypass will only divert 12% of
existing traffic away from the northern Albemarle corridor. Mr. Bowers stated that the Sierra Club fully
supports conducting a full environmental impact review of the bypass out of concern that it has serious
negative impacts on the environment, and that there has been major land uses changes over the last 20
years. He said that several components of the final EIS needs final evaluation, such as updating of the
traffic analysis, an air quality analysis based on the updated travel demand analysis, an updated noise and
water quality analysis due to changes in stormwater regulations, and a complete update of the socio-
economic impact – as well as an impact analysis on community character and cohesion.
__________
Ms. Martha Levering, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/
Albemarle, said the League wants to comment on one provision under the fast track review process
(Agenda Item No. 19). The provision relates to selected industrial land use applications. She stated that
there are many aspects to this provision but, they are concerned about the aspect related to “where
applicable, the project may be scheduled for a joint Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors public
hearing, and legally required Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors advertisements can be run
simultaneously.” Ms. Levering said that this streamlining provision concerns the League even if it applies
to a small select group of applicants. The League urges the Board to not combine the public hearings into
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
one as two hearings allow for more opportunities for citizens to express opinions and make comments.
She stated that this also allow the Planning Commission to listen to citizens, distill what they had been
told, and advice the Board of Supervisors based on citizen input. The process allows the Board to have
the benefit of the Commission’s advice as well as hearing from the citizens. In general, two hearings
show respect for citizens’ views and participation. The single hearing makes it all too easy to simply
appear to be listening – and leave a frustrated citizenry. Ms. Levering stated that citizen input is crucial to
intelligent governing. The League strongly objects to the provision that would cut in half the opportunities
that citizens currently have to provide input into land use decisions. She asked the Board to reject this
aspect of the proposal.
__________
Ms. Linda Goodling stated that she was also speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters.
Ms. Goodling said that on January 27, 2012 the League sent a letter to the Federal Highway
Administration stating their concern about the environmental impact of the proposed bypass on the
community. She said that the League has never taken a formal position on the proposed bypass, but both
the national and local leagues have been active in their support for citizen participation and governmental
decisions – as well as environmental goals such as clean water. Ms. Goodling said that the League urged
the FHWA to require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, as a significant
amount of information from prior studies of this proposed road is now outdated due to the passage of time
and changed circumstances. She stated that a meaningful, complete traffic study comparing the
effectiveness of different alternatives has not been undertaken for almost 20 years. The League believes
that insuring a SEIS is the best way to ensure the proper level of analysis. She said that the League urges
this Board to make its own request for a SEIS.
__________
Mr. Daniel Bowman addressed the Board, a County resident, said that he was speaking on behalf
of the Sierra Club, ASAP, the PEC, and the SELC. Mr. Bowman said that they are concerned about the
update of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. For the past several decades the County’s planning policies
have been anchored solidly in the concept of wise growth management. He stated that managing growth
allows the community to preserve and protect its natural and fiscal resources while providing community
services efficiently. This core concept has long been of critical importance to the residents of this
community and is woven throughout the current Comp Plan. Mr. Bowman said that they understand that
the goals for the Board’s strategic plan may be used to guide the Comp Plan update. Leaders of these
groups were surprised and disappointed to see that their draft strategic plan goals omit any mention of
managing growth. He stated that they believe it is critical that the County’s longstanding commitment to
growth management continues to be a high priority for its planning and policies, and thus point the Board
to a goal in the Planning Commission’s July 26, 2011 discussion of the pending revisions, which read,
“Manage growth in order to provide for the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.” Mr. Bowman noted that this goal has been omitted in the Board’s
recent version of its strategic plan and encourage them to incorporate it back into the goals for both the
strategic plan and the updated Comp Plan.
__________
Ms. Jane Kopp, a resident of Earlysville, said that she understands the bypass has been approved
and the process is going forward for construction – with money allocated and bids being secured – and
she believes that an updated environmental study is being done. She said that she believes this updated
survey is sufficient, and anything further would continue to delay the building of the road. There is no
reason to continue to find reasons to delay the road. Ms. Kopp said that she sympathize with the
residents of the Colonnades, but the footprint of the road was determined many years ago and the
potential construction should have been disclosed to prospective residents when they considered moving
there.
__________
Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, noting that the sustainability definition mentioned by the
ASAP speaker originated with the United Nations. He said that “skepticism is the first step to truth,” and
mentioned that three more entities have dropped out of ICLE. Mr. Battig said that the presentation from
two University professors at an earlier meeting implied that “U.Va. accepts the United Nations as their
authority, that computers are useful in other fields; therefore they must be useful in climate.” He added
that computer models are not truth machines. He stated that all of the U.N. experts had “four shots at
this,” and all of their predictions were on the high side and failed.
__________
Mr. Carter Myers, a County resident, said that he served on the Commonwealth Transportation
Board from 1994 to 2008 and was involved while the environmental impact statement was being done on
the proposed bypass – and it was a very thorough and very expensive study that was good enough to
withstand a lawsuit. Mr. Myers said that there have been very few changes or development in the corridor
in that was approved, and he would be concerned about the time and money required for another study.
He stated that he has full confidence that VDOT would work with the people of the area, and expressed
concern that delaying the project might jeopardize money that has been set aside for Hillsdale Drive,
Berkmar Drive, the Belmont Bridge and the Best Buy ramp. The staff at VDOT is committed public
servants and they will do their best to solve a problem in the community. VDOT have worked with a
number of groups and worked to make sure the reservoir was protected. He asked that they not waste
money to work on studies, but instead use the money to improve the process. He said that now is the
time to focus on building the road, building it right, and ending this debate.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Rooker asked him for specifics about the money he mentioned for Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Myers said that there was a bridge design that was part of it.
Mr. Rooker stated that he had asked that question twice of the VDOT project manager, and he
said they would build the bypass in a way that would not preclude building Berkmar.
Mr. Myers said there was also some engineering design but added, he does not know any more
than Mr. Rooker knows.
__________
Mr. Jack Marshall, on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, addressed the
Board regarding Agenda Item No. 19 (fast track review process). Mr. Marshall stated that because
industrial development forever shapes the community’s environment and character, decisions to approve
new and expanded industries should not be hasty. He said that before the Board considers the
administrative mechanisms by which selective projects could be more quickly assessed, it should revisit
the decision-making process itself that is used to encourage additional industries in Albemarle County.
Mr. Marshall stated that the current formula for assessing the worth of industrial growth is not sufficiently
inclusive, rational or far-reaching, and is flawed in a number of ways. He said that the economic benefits
of industrial development are factored into decision making but significant economic costs are
disregarded. Mr. Marshall stated that there is no mention of new industries hiring local unemployed and
underemployed, rather than encourage businesses that would bring in new workers – with families for
which new schools and other expensive infrastructure must be provided. He said that non-economic
costs and benefits are ignored because they can’t easily be monetized, such as environmental impacts of
new industries. Third, there is no appraisal of the extent to which the benefits of industrial development
are distributed throughout the community. Fourth, the focus of individual approvals obscures the
cumulative impact of industrial development. Mr. Marshall said that until the system for reviewing
requests is strengthened, efforts to fast track the approval process should not be initiated.
__________
Mr. Tom Olivier, on behalf of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said that the Board will hold
a work session today on the Comp Plan update, and the Sierra Club plans to closely follow the process
over the next year. The Sierra Club will not accept any retreats from the commitments to environmental
protection that have characterized the plans in recent versions. Mr. Olivier said that the Piedmont Group
believes that the Comp Plan should include as a goal the statement that they “manage growth in order to
provide for the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.” He stated that the Piedmont Group believes that reviews of development proposals should
include broader analyses of their economic and environmental consequences, and consideration of fast-
track reviews should be held until the public has had an opportunity to comment on the idea and broader
economic and environmental review processes are established.
Mr. Olivier also said they believe the ACE Program is important in the protection of critical
environmental resources, and urged the Board to provide substantial support for it. He stated that
generally increasing funding for the CIP will help make this possible.
__________
Mr. Robert Humphris, a County resident, said that he attended the MPO meeting on February 22,
2012 at which Mr. Thomas made the following seriously erroneously remark during a discussion
concerning the voting authority of their roles as members of the MPO Board: “Our traffic is getting so
horrendous, I drive 29, it is quadrupling monthly every six months.” Mr. Humphris said this statement is
factually inaccurate. Mr. Humphris said that the actual traffic counts over the past ten years, according to
VDOT’s average annual daily traffic reports, indicate that the largest traffic count on Route 29 is
consistently at the Hydraulic Road intersection – and this count has actually decreased from 58,000
vehicles per day in 2000 to 57,000 in 2010. He stated that MPO and Board of Supervisors members
should be more knowledgeable and accurate about local transportation matters when they are making
major decisions that involve millions of dollars, and which will greatly impact the community long into the
future.
__________
Mr. Morgan Butler, on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that he would
comment on the idea of a fast-track review process for industrial proposals that are deemed to be
valuable for the County. He said that the SELC supports eliminating unnecessary steps in the review
process, but have also found that a thorough project review is essential to good decision making and to
catching mistakes before something gets built rather than after. Mr. Butler also said that giving preference
to some applications led to questions about fairness and creates the classic slippery slope. The SELC
urges the Board to be cautious in considering such an approach, and added that there are several things
that need to be thought through before even deciding this is a workable idea. He asked how it would be
verified up front that a proposal would meet the qualifying criteria, as they would want to require more than
an applicant’s mere assurances. Mr. Butler asked if there should be disqualifying criteria to take a
proposal’s negative impacts on the community into account, such as those that are likely to generate
significant traffic or cause environmental problems should not qualify for a fast track review. The SELC
urges the Board to think this concept through before it decides whether it’s even something that makes
sense to pursue. He also said the SELC encourages the Board not to make a decision on this until the
public has been given a better chance to provide input and until the Board has discussed the results of the
target industry study.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Butler said that the SELC continues to be very concerned by the pace at which VDOT is
pushing the 29 Bypass proposal forward even though key details are still lacking and even though there
have been serious changes in circumstances that prior studies could not have taken into account.
Requiring a new SEIS is the best way to ensure those things are fully considered – and this Board owes it
to residents to request the most thorough and detailed review before any final decisions are made.
__________
Mr. George Larie, on behalf of CATCO, said that a month ago he sent the Board a detailed memo
requesting that it require VDOT to do a SEIS on the Route 29 bypass. Mr. Larie said that there has been
very substantial development in the 29 North corridor since the original environmental documents were
prepared. The traffic studies performed over 20 years ago are wrong as they were based on interchanges
on the bypass itself and interchanges at three locations on Route 29 – none of which are funded or
planned at this time. He also stated that this Board approved the Places 29 plan a year ago, which would
take more traffic off of Route 29 than the bypass and would cost less than half the amount. Building this
bypass makes absolutely no sense. He urged the Board to request the FHWA to insist on an SEIS for the
project.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that for today’s discussion on the
Route 29 Western Bypass, he has no revealing arguments to make nor is it necessary for him to remind
Board members of the project’s long history. Mr. Werner said that 15 years ago, Carter Myers and the
CTB leapfrogged the bypass ahead of VDOT’s recommended improvements, and while some Board
members try to characterize opponents as “opposing any development or opposing any road
improvements,” that’s simply not true. It’s a myth that helps certain Board members sell this bypass. It’s
a myth like Mr. Myers’ Berkmar Bridge. He said that Board members know that there have been
significant traffic changes since the 1990 traffic study, and the 2003 findings did not reevaluate traffic
impacts – with Mr. Boyd acknowledging in a July 13, 2011 meeting last year that the numbers from the
1990 study were “outdated.” Mr. Werner stated that the Board members know the community’s concerns
and know the cost could exceed $1/4 billion of taxpayer money, and for no other reason than fiscal
responsibility the Board must insist that VDOT prove the merits of this project with a new SEIS.
Mr. Werner said that PEC also urges the Board to focus first on defining the criteria for desirability
with the fast track process, and then begin the discussion of an expedited process. Both steps must
involve public input. Mr. Werner suggested a rough outline for Board members to work with in
establishing “desirability,” and consider the potential benefits and impacts on these four categories: 1)
natural and historic resources, open space in the rural area; 2) on the private sector economy; 3) on the
County’s fiscal responsibilities; and 4) on the community’s overall quality of life.
He also emphasized his support for Mr. Bowman’s points about the Comp Plan goals.
__________
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said that he would speak about the solid waste options
consultant services (Agenda Item No. 12), even though it is only $32,000. He said that in 1990 the City
and the County joined to form the Solid Waste Authority, and since that time the City has determined that
the Authority does not meet its needs and is thus backing away from its commitment. Mr. Martin
suggested that it would be appropriate for the City to share in the cost of reorganizing the RSWA,
especially in light of the fact that the ACSA would be paying the City over $750,000 for the water
agreement.
__________
Ms. Laney Kaminer addressed the Board, stating that she was here to ask the Board to
unanimously ask the FHWA for a new SEIS for the Route 29 Western Bypass, as the community has
changed greatly over the last 20 years. Ms. Kaminer said that new medical findings indicate a link
between vehicle exhaust with brain cell damage and higher rates of autism. Children in areas affected by
high levels of emissions on average scored poorly on intelligence tests and were more prone to
depression, anxiety and depression problems. She stated that older men and women exposed to traffic -
related particles and ozone had memory and reasoning problems that effectively added five years to their
mental age, university researchers in Boston reported earlier this year. Ms. Kaminer said that emissions
may also heighten the risk of Alzheimer’s Disease and speed the effects of Parkinson’s disease, and the
evidence is growing that air pollution could affect the brain and impacts are suspected to be broader than
once realized, as reported by Medical Epidemiologist, Heather Volk, of USC Keck School of Medicine.
The proposed bypass passes closely to seven schools and two retirement communities, where breathing
car and truck emissions could do real damage. Ms. Kaminer implored the Board to ask the FHWA to look
at the medical ramifications to this beautiful community. Ms. Kaminer said that she has been sick for two
years with a pulmonary disease that is very hard to cure, due to breathing unhealthy air. She asked the
Board to protect its citizens and the environment.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he is appreciative of the
Colonnades residents coming out to speak. A quick search indicated that the Colonnades medical center
opened in 1991 – and VDOT began acquiring parcels for the bypass in 1991. The bypass is a difficult
issue, but the idea that the Board asserts itself and demand that the FHWA must go forward with an
expanded EIS is beyond the scope of this Board. He stated that the Board has voted and made the
decision. The FHWA is not going to consider the increasing data regarding location of highways as it has
not been medically conclusive as of yet. Mr. Williamson encouraged the Board to move forward with the
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
bypass as is and with the EIS as a suitable way to get the community moving forward and addressing
other issues that it must face.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker for approval of the
Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. (Note: Discussions on individual items
are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: October 5, November 2, November 9(A), November 10(A),
December 14(A) and (N), and December 15(A), 2011.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of October 5, 2011, pages 1-45 (end Item #13), and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of October 5, 2011, pages 45 (begin Item #13) – end, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of November 2, 2011, pages 1-29, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of November 2, 2011, pages 30-end, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of November 9(A), 2011, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of November 10(A), 2011, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek had read the minutes of December 14, 2011, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of December 15(A), 2011, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
_______________
Item No. 8.2. ACSA-2012-01. Charlottesville Volvo. Request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area map to designate Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B2 for sewer service.
(Continue public hearing to March 14, 2012 for proper advertisement.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved scheduling the public hearing for ACSA-
2012-01 to March 14, 2012.
_______________
Item No. 8.3. Resolution for the abandonment and addition of roads as a result of the John W .
Warner Parkway construction.
At the request of the County Engineer, and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on the 7th day of
March, 2012, adopted the following:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated October 28, 2011, depicting the additions, discontinuances
and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways; and
WHEREAS, the portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified to be discontinued is deemed to no longer
serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be
abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of the
secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road), identified as from 0.44 miles
southeast of Route 650 (Seg G) to 0.58 miles south of Route 650 (Seg L), for a distance of 0.14 miles; those
portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) from 0.17 miles southeast to Route 650 (Seg E) to 0.44 miles southeast of
Route 650 (Seg G), for a distance of 0.27 miles; and those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road), identified as
from 0.44 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg G) to 0.05 miles east, for a distance of 0.05 miles, pursuant to
Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department
of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road)
identified as from 0.17 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg E) to 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) for
a distance of 0.15 miles, with a right-of-way width of 80.5 feet; those portions of Route 885 (Dunlora Drive)
identified as from 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) to 0.36 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg J) for
a distance of 0.04 miles, with no right-of-way width; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from
0.39 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg C) to 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) for a distance of 0.07
miles, with a right-of-way width of 80.5 feet; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from 0.05
miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) to 0.08 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg L) for a distance of 0.03
miles, with a variable right-of-way width of 67 feet; those portions of Route 1177 (Dunlora Drive) identified as
from 0.05 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) to 0.11 miles east of Seg (J) for a distance of 0.11 m iles,
with no right-of-way width; those portions of Route 1177 (Dunlora Drive) identified as from 0.07 miles west of
Route 1239 (Seg J) to 0.03 miles west of Route 1239 (Seg H) for a distance of 0.04 miles, with no right-of-way
width; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from Route 2500, a distance of 1.01 miles north of
Route 3412 (Seg C) to 0.05 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) for a distance of 0.05 miles, with a variable
right-of-way width of 67 feet; and those portions of Route 2500 (John W. Warner Parkway) from A-Melbourne
Road (City street) to 0.70 miles north of Melbourne Route (B-Bridge Structure 6402), a distance of 0.70 miles,
with a variable right-of-way width of 41 feet, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and
RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
_______________
Item No. 8.4. Moores Creek Floodplain Changes – Authorize County Engineer to sign application
for conditional letter of map revision to FEMA maps.
The executive summary stated that the developer of Belmont Cottages, a residential development
in the City of Charlottesville, has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to change the area subject to inundation during a 100-year
flood depicted on the Flood Insurance Study maps prepared by FEMA. These maps also serve as the
source for the boundaries of the County’s flood hazard overlay district.
The proposed map changes show a change in elevation resulting from the deposit of fill dirt the
developer is planning to place in the floodplain on the City side of Moores Creek. FEMA is requiring
County signature on the developer’s application because some of the proposed changes to the floodplain
will occur on the County side of Moores Creek. The developer’s obtaining a CLOMR before placing fill dirt
in the Moores Creek floodplain is a FEMA requirement which, if met, will enable affected property owners
to continue to purchase federal flood insurance.
County Code section 30.3.07 allows the Board of Supervisors to modify the flood hazard overlay
district as follows:
“30.3.07 AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The delineation of the flood hazard overlay district may be revised, amended and modified
by the board of supervisors in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program when any of the
following conditions are met: (…)
3. There are changes indicated by FEMA issuance of letters of map amendment
(LOMA) or letters of map revision (LOMR). (Added 2-5-05)
4. There are changes indicated by future detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies.”
The developer’s application includes a plan and analysis that shows slight expansions of the
floodplain and floodway on the County side. The fill on the City side will effectively push floodwaters
toward the County. This will affect one parcel, Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 2, on which is located a self storage
facility. The effects will be limited to undeveloped portions of the parcel that are in the buffer area and
greenway. The floodplain encroaches into the parcel approximately 25 feet more, while the floodway
encroaches approximately 35 feet more. Graphical depictions of the proposal are shown in Attachment A.
The applicant has worked with the owner of the self storage facility and obtained the facility-
owner’s permission for the proposed changes. The facility-owner’s letter expressing his permission is
attached (Attachment B). The County Engineer has no objections to this proposed change to the FEMA
map.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Engineer to sign the FEMA application.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Engineer to sign the FEMA
application.
_______________
Item No. 8.5. EMS Cost Recovery Program Update; Resolution to establish new schedule of
fees; consideration of billing policy change.
The executive summary stated that on September 9, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance
authorizing the County to establish an emergency medical service (EMS) cost recovery program which
would charge fees for EMS vehicle transports provided by the Department of Fire and Rescue or by any
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
volunteer rescue squad issued a perm it by the County to charge fees. The Board directed staff to begin
billing by February 1, 2010.
The County procured the services of Diversified Ambulance Billing (now known as Fidelis Billing)
to act as the billing agent for the County. The Board adopted a Resolution to establish fees for EMS
transports on December 2, 2009 and directed that fees be periodically reviewed to assure that such fees
stay within the industry average and to keep pace with Medicare and Medicaid rates, which typically
increase annually.
In January of 2010, the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad (“SVRS”) applied for and was issued
a permit to charge fees. Staff and members of SVRS worked together to develop and implement an
extensive public information plan to inform the public about the EMS Cost Recovery Program. On
February 1, 2010, ambulances stationed at Monticello, Hollymead, and SVRS began billing for EMS
transports.
On August 4th, 2010, staff provided an update to the Board on the EMS Cost Recovery program
for the five months of billing in FY10. Staff’s report addressed citizen feedback, administrative workload for
SVRS and County staff, FY10 actual revenue, and FY11 revenue projections.
On April 6, 2011, staff provided an update of the first year of billing (February 1, 2010 – January
31, 2011) as well as an updated revenue projection for FY11.
At the Board’s request, staff is providing its annual review of the Revenue Recovery Program, a
report of FY11 expenditures and revenues, an updated revenue projection for FY12.
Customer Feedback:
Staff continues to monitor customer feedback to ensure that the program is operating properly.
Since the April 6, 2011 report to the Board, there have been only three billing inquiries reported to the Fire
Rescue office; two were hospital bill issues(not related to the ambulance transport bill), and were
redirected to the appropriate hospital(s). The third was a verbal confirmation that a hardship waiver
request was accepted and that there would be no billing of the patient for the balance of the fee after the
insurance had been paid.
Fidelis began conducting on-line and telephone customer satisfaction surveys earlier this year. As
of this date, Fidelis informs us there have been no reported complaints regarding Albemarle County’s
EMS Cost Recovery Program.
Administrative Workload:
The administrative workload remains low enough that no additional staff is required for processing
the necessary information. There has been a smooth transition from paper Patient Care Reports (PCR’s)
to electronic reporting of PCR’s to the State Office of EMS. Electronic reporting enables Fidelis to obtain
their information directly from the State Office of EMS databases.
Report Data on First Full Year of Billing:
In September 2011, Fidelis provided staff with reports outlining performance of the County’s billing
system for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Some of the highlights include:
1. Billing Rates: The initial billing rates set by the Board on December 2, 2009 were based
primarily on rates no lower than the usual and customary costs allowed by private insurers and on rates
set by surrounding localities. The current rates are:
$350 – Basic Life Support
$450 – Advanced Life Support 1
$550 - Advanced Life Support 2
$8.50/mile
Fidelis recommends raising our billing rates at this time based on changes to the Medicare
Allowable Rates (2.5% inflationary rate increase) and the current “Usual & Customary Charges” paid by
the private insurance companies. Medicare has approved an inflation increase that began Jan 1, 2012.
Fidelis recommends raising our rates to:
$450 – Basic Life Support
$550 – Advanced Life Support 1
$750 - Advanced Life Support 2
$13.00/mile
Fidelis has made this recommendation to all its central Virginia clients. The recommendation
would establish the fees appropriately 25% above the “Allowable” rates set by Medicare. Most private
insurance companies pay at a higher rate than Medicare. If the fees are established based on the lower
Medicare rate, the insurance companies would pay less than their own rates would allow. As of this date,
Augusta, Caroline, Green, Rockbridge, Orange, Spotsylvania, Warren, Madison, Mecklenburg,
Appomattox and Henry counties have already raised their rates and Nelson County is in the process of
doing so.
2. Patient Payer Mix (the type of monies received): Fidelis advised staff that the County
patient payer mix is very good and has improved since last year. Receipts are as follows: approximately
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
39% Medicare; 3%Medicaid; 30% Private Insurance; 25% Private pay (no insurance); and 3% Military or
Auto Insurance. The Private Pay (no insurance) percent improved (from 31% down to 25%) primarily due
to the new electronic billing, process improvements (such as efforts on the part of ACFR staff to help
Fidelis obtain patient data from UVA), and a new address verification system utilized by Fidelis.
3. Bad Debt Write Off Rate: Fidelis advised staff that the County has a bad debt write-off
average of 22%. The national average is between 23-28%. Our low number reflects the low percent of
Private Pay (no insurance.)
4. Cash Collections as a Percent of Net Billable: (amount of money collected after
deducting the mandatory contractual adjustments from the insurance companies). As of June 30th, the
County collected approximately 63% of net billable, up from 57% last year. With nine months left to collect
FY11 bills, Fidelis expects this percentage to increase.
5. Average Collections per Transport: Our average collection per transport for FY11 is
$278.32, up from $270.88 for FY10. The State average is $260. Fidelis anticipates this will continue to
increase and attributes it to the high quality of documentation staff is submitting, the help we have
provided in obtaining information from UVA, and new systems and processes implemented by Fidelis over
the last year.
6. Other data:
Fidelis provided reports on several other aspects of the County’s ambulance transports for FY11:
Number of transports: 2050 (71% ACFR; 29% SVRS); roughly the same as FY10
BLS/ALS: 51% of our transports were BLS; 49% were ALS; the same as FY10
Hospital: 61% went to UVA; 39% went to MJH; slight increase in UVA
Pick up location: 70% transported from a residence; 30% transported from a
non-residence; the same as FY10.
Top three reasons for transport:
10.5% Dyspnea, Abnormal Respiration
8.6% Multiple Injuries
5.7% Weakness, Debility
Hardship Waivers: 27 hardship waivers were requested and approved for $13,039.82. None
were denied.
Electronic Patient Care Reporting System
The Electronic Patient Care Reporting System continues to evolve. Staff and volunteers at
Hollymead, Monticello and SVRS are using laptops to capture patient care information. The information is
transmitted electronically to the State Office of EMS and is assessable by Fidelis for patient billing. The
next phase of the project includes incorporating hospital data along with patient care data.
Proposed Billing Policy Change:
The County currently has a compassionate billing policy that provides that no person is required to
pay any portion of a bill that they determine they cannot afford. Although this policy has worked well and
no such request has been denied, staff recommends that the Board consider implementing an additional
policy not to bill County residents for more than the amount covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private
insurance. This policy can be implemented if the Department of Health & Human Services, Office of
Inspector General provides an advisory opinion letter that the County’s Revenue Recovery Program meets
federal requirements to treat revenue received from taxes as payment of otherwise applicable cost-
sharing amounts owed by bona fide County residents for EMS transportation to hospitals. This opinion
letter is necessary to assure that the County remains in compliance with billing requirements mandated by
the Social Security Act. Under this policy, the County would not bill County residents for co-pays,
deductibles, or any balance due that was not paid by an insurance company. The County would be
required to continue to bill non-County residents the full amount of the fees. Staff estimates that the
financial impact of implementing this policy would be small (a reduction in roughly 5-8% of net revenue)
and could encourage additional community support for the Revenue Recovery Program. Other localities
that have implemented this policy include: Orange, Madison, Page, King & Queen, King George, Warren
and Caroline counties.
As of July 31 (for 13 months of collection: 7/1/10 – 7/31/11 per County Finance accrual policy),
revenue for FY11 was $638,564.89. Revenue for 12 months (7/1/10 – 6/30/11) was $584,838.92. Going
forward, revenue will be reported for the time frame of August 1 through July 31.
FY11 Revenue: $584,839. (Budgeted Revenue $444,000)
FY11 Expenditures: $ 37,861
Net Revenue: $546,978
If no rate change is implemented:
FY12 budgeted Revenue: $585,000
FY12 budgeted Expenditures: $ 42,315
Anticipated Net Revenue: $542,685 Not billing County residents for fees not covered
by insurance reduces revenue by ~ $43,415
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
With recommended rate change:
FY12 anticipated Revenue: $668,253
FY12 anticipated Expenditures: $ 47,315
Potential Net Revenue: $620,938 Not billing County residents for fees not covered
by insurance reduces revenue by ~ $49,675
FY13 anticipated Revenue* $740,000
*includes billing anticipated by ACFR from programmed Pantops rescue squad operation
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed Resolution to Establish a New Schedule of
Fees for Emergency Medical Services Vehicle Transport Services to increase EMS Cost Recovery billing
rates. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to take the necessary steps necessary to
implement a policy change that would provide that County residents would not be billed for fees not
covered in insurance.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd stated that it was a little disconcerting to him to read that there were 25%
private pay individuals, as he thought it was going to be an insurance-only program.
Ms. Wendy Roberman, of Fire and Rescue Division, clarified that in this community, roughly 25%
of people who are billed do not have insurance – and it was agreed upon that everyone would be billed, so
most of those are written off. Of the 25% percent approximately 22% are written off.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution and directed staff
to take the necessary steps to implement a policy change that would provide that County
residents would not be billed for fees not covered in insurance:
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A NEW SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRANSPORT SERVICES
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the Board enacted Chapter 6, Article V of the Albemarle County
Code, which authorizes the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer rescue
squad that obtains a permit from the County to charge fees for emergency medical services (EMS) vehicle
transports; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2009, the Board established a schedule of fees for EMS vehicle
transport services; and
WHEREAS, based on a market review of the current fees for EMS vehicle transport services, the
Board has determined that an increase in fees is reasonable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following EMS vehicle transport service fees are
hereby increased and a new schedule of fees is established, effective April 1, 2012, for all EMS vehicle
transport services provided in accordance with Chapter 6, Article V of the County Code:
1. For Basic Life Support (BLS) transport services: $450. BLS is defined as the emergency
response and transport of a patient that requires assessment and treatment by a BLS
Technician and no Advanced Life Support procedures.
2. For Advanced Life Support Level 1 (ALS1): $550. ALS1 is defined as the emergency
response and transport of a patient that requires assessment and treatment by an ALS
Technician and one or more Advanced Life Support procedures.
3. For Advanced Life Support Level 2 (ALS2): $750. ALS2 is defined as the transport of a
patient that requires defibrillation, pacing, intubation, or the administration of 3 or more
Schedule IV medications.
4. For Ground Transport Miles (GTM): $13.00/mile. GTM is defined as the charge per patient
transport mile.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT no person shall be denied transport services due to his or her
inability to pay.
_______________
Item No. 8.6. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary stated 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 $1,615,383.47. 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.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
This request involves the approval of seven (7) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012051) totaling $29,540.00 for Scottsville Library Roof
Maintenance;
One (1) appropriation (#2012054) totaling $13,300.00 to install security windows at
Albemarle County Police Department;
Three (3) appropriations (#2012055, #2012056, and #2012057) totaling $1,397,393.47 for
various school division programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012058) totaling $145,150.00 for a grant awarded to the
Commission on Children and Families from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP);
and
One (1) appropriation (#2012059) totaling $30,000 for a Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Planning Grant awarded to the County.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012051, #2012054, #2012055, #2012056,
#2010057, #2012058 and #2012059.
Appropriation #2012051 $29,540.00
Revenue Source: Use of Gen. Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 29,540.00
This request is to appropriate $29,540.00 to paint the Scottsville Library roof and replace the gutters and
downspouts. An inspection revealed that the paint on the roof is peeling and missing in many locations
throughout the surface of the roof and the gutters are in a state of failure and beyond repair. To insure the
building stays in good condition, it is recommended that the roof be painted and the gutters be replaced in
the Spring of 2012.
Appropriation #2012054 $13,300.00
Revenue Source: Use of Gen. Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $ 13,300.00
This request is to appropriate $13,300 to install security windows at the Albemarle County Police
Department. This is recommended by the Police Department and the Department of General Services in
response to safety concerns identified during a security evaluation. This is determined to be a cost
effective alternative to bring the facility up to minimum safety standard established for public safety
facilities.
Appropriation #2012055 $832,714.70
Revenue Source: Use of School Bus Repl. Fund Balance $ 832,714.70
This request is to re-appropriate $832,714.70 from the FY 10/11 School Bus Replacement Fund balance
to fund school bus replacements as approved by the School Board on December 8, 2011. Along with
funds already appropriated in the FY 11/12 operating budget, these funds will be used by the School
Division to purchase the annual schedule of at least 15 school buses during FY 11-12. Any unexpended
funds at the end of FY 11/12 will support future school bus purchases. This re-appropriation is needed in
March to place orders for buses to be delivered in FY 11/12.
Appropriation #2012056 $530,728.77
Revenue Source: Contributions $ 12,454.39
Miscellaneous Local Revenue $ 6,477.76
State Revenue $ 37,500.00
Use of Comp. Repl. Fund Balance $ 474,296.62
This request is to appropriate various School Division requests as approved by the School Board on
January 12, 2012. This appropriation request of $530,728.77 includes the following:
Contributions:
o Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) received $3,089.05 in donations to reimburse
WAHS Athletic Budget for the cost of athletic tee shirts. These tee shirts were purchased
by donations from local businesses to help promote school spirit. The tee shirts were
purchased in compliance with Albemarle County purchasing policies, and were given
away at a home football game to the first 800+ fans.
o Broadus Wood Elementary School received donations in the amount of $1,050.00 from
local community members. These funds will be used for educational needs at the school.
o Murray High School received donations in the amount of $811.00 from local community
members. These funds will be used for educational needs at the school.
o Brownsville Elementary School received donations totaling $3,500.00 from the Robert E.
McConnell Foundation. The foundation asked that this donation be used to purchase
snacks for the students at Brownsville Elementary School.
o Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,325.00 from the Cale
Elementary PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help with the
“Tuesday Clubs” expenses incurred at Cale Elementary. “Tuesday Clubs” are various
clubs offered to Cale students after school.
o Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,679.34 from Henley’s
Parent and Teacher Support Organization. These funds will be used to help fund the
“Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of November at Henley Middle School.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Miscellaneous Local Revenue:
o Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) desires to reimburse its School Division’s
County budget an amount of $1,076.50 with funds that were generated from its Activity
Accounts at WAHS to pay for athletic personnel. Most stipends for athletics at WAHS are
paid through the County rather than by either their activity funds or their booster clubs.
o Albemarle High School (AHS) desires to reimburse its School Division’s County budget in
the amount of $1,160.00 with funding from its Activity Accounts at AHS to pay for athletic
personnel. Most stipends for athletics at AHS are paid through the County s rather than by
either their activity funds or their booster clubs.
o Albemarle High School received reimbursement for field trip expenses in the amount of
$1,542.32. These local funds are collected from fees assessed for these field trips and
are currently included in the Activity Accounts at AHS.
o The Albemarle Resource Center (ARC) requested that Follett Education Services submit
payment for credits that were accrued by the ARC for returned textbooks. The total
amount of credit due to the Albemarle County Public Schools ARC is $2,698.84. This
request is to appropriate the payment submitted by Follett Education Services to
reimburse the ARC for their accrued credits in November 2011.
State Revenue:
o This request is to appropriate $37,500.00 in annual awards from the Department of
Education for teacher bonuses associated with the National Board Certification Program.
The National Board Certification is an extensive yearlong assessment of actual teaching
practice based upon high and rigorous standards established by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards. Through the process, teachers document their subject
matter knowledge, provide evidence that they know how to teach their subjects to
students most effectively, and demonstrate their ability to manage and measure student
learning. There are 15 ACPS teachers that meet these standards. In recognition of this
achievement, the Department of Education issues the National Board Incentive Bonus
Payments to these teachers. An initial award is set at $5,000 (pre-tax) with a subsequent
annual award of $2,500 (pre-tax) for the life of the certificate (10 year). This appropriation
request is for the $37,500.00 provided for the annual awards.
Use of Computer Replacement Fund Balance:
o This request is to re-appropriate $474,296.62 from the FY 10/11 Computer Equipment
Replacement Fund fund balance for use in FY 11/12. The purpose of the Computer
Equipment Replacement Fund is to provide students and staff reliable access to
technology and support its use in meaningful ways.
Appropriation #2012057 $33,950.00
Revenue Source: Contributions $ 350.00
CACF Grants $ 33,600.00
This request is to appropriate funding for the School Division as approved by the School Board on January
26, 2012. This appropriation request of $33,950.00 is as follows:
Crozet Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $100.00 from a local community
member and will be used for instructional needs at Crozet Elementary School.
Community Public Charter School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from a local
community member and will be used for instructional needs at the Albemarle Community Public
Charter School.
The Charlottesville Area Community Foundation (CACF) is a permanent endowment dedicated to
improving the quality of life for the people of the City of Charlottesville and the counties of
Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange. Albemarle County
schools received grants from CACF totaling $33,600.00, which are to be distributed as follows:
o Walton Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the
CACF’s Community Endowment Fund. The Community Endowment Fund is the CACF’s
unrestricted grant-making program that provides support to nonprofit organizations
working to improve the quality of life in the CACF service area. These funds will be used
to purchase LEGO NXT Mindstorm Kits and will be used to encourage young women to
participate in the male-dominated field of robotics.
o Henley Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $15,800.00 from the
CACF’s Prana Fund. The Prana Fund was established for CACF in 2006 by Albemarle
County residents Tom and Karyn Dingledine. Each year, the Dingledines, together with
their adult children and members of CACF’s professional staff and Governing Board,
review proposals from eligible nonprofit agencies. This year’s Prana Fund Award was
directed toward organizations working in Charlottesville and Albemarle County that
provide programs specifically directed to lower and middle income children and integrates
the environment, animals and/or the fine arts.
o Three Albemarle County Schools have been awarded grants from CACF’s Bama Works
Fund of the Dave Matthews Band. This fund supports disadvantaged youth, needs of the
disabled, protection of the environment and the arts and humanities.
Stony Point Elementary School received a grant in the amount of $1,800.00. The
funds will be used to pay the stipend for a Music Therapist. The Music Therapist
will work with “at risk” students to facilitate song writing and performing using
empathy as the central theme.
Henley Middle School received a grant in the amount of $5,000.00. The funds will
be used to implement Phase I: The Edible Garden of the Henley Hornets’
N.E.S.T. (Nature, Environment, Studio, Teaching). Phase I requires the purchase
of materials to build six raised beds, the purchase of four picnic tables, storage
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
and shelving, garden equipment and tools, seeds and starter plants, and the
purchase of art supplies for murals and posters.
Burley Middle School received a grant in the amount of $10,000.00. These funds
will be used to support the Burley Middle School Young Women’s Chorus
participation in the 2012 World Choir Games being held in Cincinnati, Ohio on
July 4-14, 2012.
Appropriation #2012058 $145,150.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 145,150.00
This request is to appropriate a $145,150.00 grant from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) through its
subcontractor, Virginia Commonwealth University for Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive
Grant (SPF-SIG), which was awarded to the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) with the County
acting as fiscal agent. The purpose of this grant is to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes
involving alcohol-impaired drivers who are between the ages of 15 and 24 years by completing a
comprehensive needs assessment, developing a strategic plan, and implementing evidence-based
strategies.
Appropriation #2012059 $30,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 30,000.00
This request is to appropriate a $30,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Grant
that will cover the costs of preliminary work necessary to submit an application to the Department of
Housing and Community Development for a housing rehabilitation project in the Orchard Acres
Subdivision. The preliminary work will be performed by both the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
and the Office of Housing. Once the grant monies are appropriated, the County Executive will sign the
necessary grant award documents and they will be submitted to the funding agency.
APP #2012051
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Scottsville Library Roof Maintenance
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 29,540.00 CIP General Govt Fund Balance
4 9010 73025 473010 800949 7144 29,540.00 Scottsville Library Maint
TOTAL 59,080.00
*****
APP #2012054
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Install security windows at Albemarle County Police Department
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 13,300.00 CIP General Govt Fund Balance
4 9010 43100 443200 800666 9999 13,300.00 ACPD Security Windows
TOTAL 26,600.00
*****
APP # 2012-055
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriation from School Board meeting on December 8, 2011
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 3905 63905 351000 510100 6599 832,714.70 Fund Balance
4 3905 63905 462320 800506 6599 832,714.70 School Buses-Replacement
TOTAL 1,665,429.40
*****
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
APP #2012-056
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriation from School Board meeting on January 12, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 324000 240218 6599 37,500.00 National Board Certification Bonuses
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 12,454.39 Contribution
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 3,778.82 Miscellaneous Revenue
4 2000 62117 461311 160300 6502 37,500.00 Stipends - Staff/Curr. Dev.
4 2000 62201 461101 601300 6101 1,050.00 Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62202 461101 600220 6102 3,500.00 Student Snacks/Meals
4 2000 62214 461140 112100 6114 2,159.78 Salaries-Teacher
4 2000 62214 461140 210000 6114 165.22 FICA
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 119.34 FICA
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 1,560.00 Stipends-Instructional
4 2000 62301 461101 137100 6301 514.15 PT Bus Driver - Field Trips
4 2000 62301 461101 210000 6301 121.70 FICA
4 2000 62301 461101 301210 6301 1,077.57 Stipends-Non-Instructional
4 2000 62301 461101 420100 6301 988.90 Field Trips
4 2000 62302 461101 152100 6302 1,000.00 Stipends-Non-Instructional
4 2000 62302 461101 210000 6302 76.50 FICA
4 2000 62302 461105 580000 6302 3,089.05 Miscellaneous Expenses
4 2000 62303 461101 601300 6303 811.00 Ed/Rec Supplies
3 3907 63907 351000 510100 6599 474,296.62 Fund Balance
4 3907 63907 461101 800700 6599 474,296.62 ADP Equipment
3 3909 63909 318000 189900 6599 2,698.94 Miscellaneous Revenue
4 3909 63909 461101 602000 6599 2,698.94 Textbook Fund
TOTAL 1,061,457.54
*****
APP #2012-057
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriation from School Board meeting on January 26, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 350.00 Contribution
4 2000 62203 461101 601300 6103 100.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 2000 62280 461101 601300 6280 250.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
3 3104 63104 318000 181240 6599 33,600.00 CACF Grants
4 3104 63104 460700 312500 6111 1,800.00 Professional Services-Instructional
4 3104 63104 460700 420100 6251 10,000.00 Field Trips
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6252 20,800.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6254 1,000.00 Ed & Rec Supplies
TOTAL 67,900.00
*****
APP #2012-058
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: CCF Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUN
D
DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1591 33000 333000 330001 1005 145,150.00
4 1591 53163 454101 110000 1005 107,450.00
4 1591 53163 454101 210000 1005 7,399.00
4 1591 53163 454101 350000 1005 1,630.00
4 1591 53163 454101 390030 1005 4,220.00
4 1591 53163 454101 520100 1005 250.00
4 1591 53163 454101 520300 1005 1,638.00
4 1591 53163 454101 540200 1005 15,000.00
4 1591 53163 454101 550100 1005 777.00
4 1591 53163 454101 550600 1005 4,272.00
4 1591 53163 454101 600100 1005 725.00
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
4 1591 53163 454101 601305 1005 989.00
4 1591 53163 454101 601600 1005 800.00
TOTAL 290,300.00
*****
APP #2012-059
DATE 03/07/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Housing CDBG Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUN
D
DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1224 33000 333000 330039 1008 30,000.00 CDBG Planning Grant 12 PG 02
4 1224 81032 481030 563100 1008 18,000.00 AHIP
4 1224 81032 481030 300205 1008 12,000.00 Administrative Services
TOTAL 60,000.00
_______________
Item No. 8.7. Polo Grounds Road Floodplain Changes – Authorize County Engineer to sign
application for letter of map revision to FEMA maps.
The executive summary stated that Monticello United Soccer Club (“MUSC”) is seeking to
establish an automobile parking area to serve its soccer fields located on Polo Grounds Road using an
existing entrance on Polo Grounds Road (Tax Map 46, Section A, Parcel 18C) (See Attachment A). This
entrance area is located in the floodplain and floodway. MUSC has applied to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (“FEMA”) for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to have this area removed from the
area subject to inundation during a 100-year flood depicted on the Floor Insurance Study maps prepared
by FEMA. These maps also serve as the source for the boundaries of the County’s flood hazard overlay
district. The proposed m ap changes show a change in elevation to the entrance area of the Polo Grounds
Road soccer fields based on a recent topographic survey. FEMA is requiring County signature on
MUSC’s application.
County Code section 30.3.07 allows the Board of Supervisors to modify the flood hazard overlay
district as follows:
“30.3.07 AMENDMENT OF THE FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The delineation of the flood hazard overlay district may be revised, amended and modified by the
board of supervisors in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program when any of the
following conditions are met: (…)
3. There are changes indicated by FEMA issuance of letters of map amendment (LOMA) or letters of
map revision (LOMR). (Added 2-5-05)
MUSC’s application includes a plan that shows the entrance area as being higher than FEMA’s
computed elevations. It is not clear if the entrance area was always at the elevation shown on MUSC’s
plan and there was simply an error in the FEMA map, or if it was built up over the years. In any case, staff
believes that FEMA is likely to approve this change as an insignificant change due to its location at the
edge of a large floodplain. The County Engineer has no objections to this proposed change to the FEMA
map.
There is no budget impact.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Engineer to sign the FEMA application.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked for clarification of this item stating that he has received some calls
from neighbors in that area.
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, responded that there is a special use permit to follow later
requesting permission to put the fields in the floodplain. He added that this is strictly a correction to the
FEMA maps where the topography had been incorrect.
Mr. Boyd commented that this was similar to what the Badger-Powhatan building owners had
wanted to do.
Mr. Rooker said that particular application was a request to build in the floodplain.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that they were proposing to move dirt, and this current application does
not.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Rooker noted that this is just a factual determination based upon where the floodplain should
be given current topography, and the applicant is stating here that the line was in the wrong place. He
asked if the County has made that factual determ ination that the line is in the wrong place and that it
should be adjusted before signing off. He added that it should not be adjusted just because someone
asks for it. It should only be adjusted based on the facts that there has been an error. He said that the
same applies for Agenda Item No. 8.4. Mr. Rooker repeated his question and asked if the County has
made the factual determination that in both of those cases there was an error in where the line was drawn.
Mr. Brooks said that in the Monticello United case that was the fact, where the line was drawn
incorrectly on the federal map. In the City project case it is not as clear; they are actually filling in on the
City side. Some of the change is due to an older map and model used from the 1960s, and some of the
changes are due to an update of the model, update of topography and the City fill in.
Mr. Rooker said that from the County’s perspective, it should be an entirely factual determination
on whether or not there is an error on the map. If it is not a factual determination, the County should not
support a change in the floodplain just because someone is pushing to get it done.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was not a GIS determination.
Mr. Brooks stated that the applicant has argued that the changes due to the fill being placed in the
City are extremely small. He noted that Mr. Don Franco, representing Habitat for Humanity, was present
and could respond to questions.
In terms of Polo Grounds, Mr. Boyd asked if the lines were changed and it was determined not to
be in the floodplain, if the applicant could by-right build a facility there.
Mr. Brooks explained that it would not need a special use permit for fill in the floodplain because
they were not proposing any fill. The athletic fields in the rural area is be a zoning determination and it
was determined that they would need a special use permit requiring Board action.
Mr. Boyd said the neighbors are extremely concerned about the traffic; they are not opposed to
the soccer fields. He wants the neighbors to have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Engineer to sign the FEMA
application.
_______________
Item No. 8.8. Amendments to Permanent Part-Time Employee Pension Plan; Authorization to
submit amended Plan to IRS; and Adoption of Resolution to amend Personnel Policy P-63, Retirement.
The executive summary stated that in 1985 the Board of Supervisors adopted a Policy to establish
a Pension Plan for Permanent Part-Time Employees (the Plan) to provide a retirement benefit for
Albemarle County’s eligible part-time employees. The Policy is found in Albemarle County Personnel
Policy P-63, II (Attachment A). Eligible permanent part-time employees of the Albemarle County School
Board also participate in the Plan. As of January 1, 2012, nine local government employees and 253
school division employees participated in the Plan. The contributions to the Plan for the month of January,
2012 totaled $27,200. The Plan needs to be updated in order to comply with applicable tax law and IRS
regulations and to make several recommended substantive changes. The Human Resources Department
has retained outside legal counsel specializing in local government benefits plans to assist in updating the
Plan Document and securing the Plan’s approval by the IRS. Human Resources also has secured a new
plan administrator to maintain the Plan in the future.
Under the terms of the Plan, the County deposits a contribution each payroll reflecting a
percentage of pay of each eligible part-time County employee. The School Board makes such a
contribution for each eligible part-time School Board employee. The percentage contributed for each
employee is based on the employee’s years of service with the County or the School Board. Part-time
employees become eligible for contributions into the Plan once they have completed five years of
continuing service. The percentage of pay contributed starts at 5% and increases 2% every 5 years,
capping at 11% for employees with 20 or more years of service. The amount deposited into the
employee’s account is considered taxable income, and the applicable tax is withheld from the employee’s
income. The deposits are included in the employee’s taxable income for W -2 reporting purposes for the
year of the deposit. Investment earnings on the Plan accounts are not reported as taxable income for the
year of accrual in the employee’s account. When an employee terminates employment with the County or
School Board, the account balance is distributable at the request of the employee, with investment
earnings reported as taxable income to the employee at that time.
The Plan is intended to be a “tax qualified” retirement plan, meaning that the investment earnings
on the accounts are not taxable to the participants until distributed from the Plan.
Retirement plans intended to be tax qualified are required to be amended from time to time to
reflect changes in federal tax law and IRS regulations. Failure to timely amend the Plan could result in the
IRS’s disqualification of the Plan, and require the immediate taxation of accrued investment earnings in
participants’ accounts and penalties against the County as the Plan Sponsor.
Staff has worked with outside counsel and the new plan administrator to update the Plan to reflect
all necessary changes. A final version of the amended Plan is being prepared. The County’s outside
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
counsel recommends that the County submit the amended Plan after adoption to the IRS in order to
receive a determination letter from the IRS ruling that the Plan is tax qualified.
In addition to the technical amendments necessary to ensure that the Plan complies with federal
tax law and IRS regulations, staff recommends three substantive changes to the Plan:
1. Any participating employee who terminates employment for any reason but is reemployed
must complete an additional 5 years of continuous employment in order to again become
qualified for participation in the Plan;
2. Contributions to an employee’s account would become taxable upon distribution to the
employee instead of in the year contributed. This amendment would bring the Plan more
into line with traditional tax deferred plans, give the County more investment options,
allow the employee to rollover distributions to other tax deferred investment options, and
lower administrative costs for the County; and
3. A change from part time to full time employment will not be a qualifying event entitling an
employee to distribution of funds from the Plan.
Finally, the County’s outside counsel and third party administrator recommend that the County’s
Director of Finance and Director of Human Resources be named as trustees in the Plan Document for
convenience and continuity.
Under the Amended Plan, Albemarle County will remain the Plan’s sponsor, but the School Board
has approved the amended Plan as a participating employer. The School Board approved the Plan
amendments and the submission of the Plan to the IRS at the School Board’s meeting on February 23,
2012.
A Resolution to approve a proposed amendment to Personnel Policy §P-63, Retirement, to
require that eligible, permanent, part-time employees who terminate employment for any reason must
complete an additional 5 years of continuous employment in order to again become qualified for the
receipt of annuity benefits as set forth above, is attached (Attachment B).
The filing fee for the IRS review is $5,000. The fee for obtaining a determination letter from the
IRS ruling that the amended Plan Document is “tax qualified” is $2,500. Attorney’s fees for the filing and
related services will be approximately $1,800. The filing fees and attorney’s fees will be paid through the
Human Resources Department, effectively resulting in a division of the fees between the County and
School Board. The third party administrator advises that the amended Plan should lower administrative
costs in a yet to be determined amount.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) approve the amended Plan and its submission to the IRS for review in order to receive a
determination that the Plan is tax qualified. The final amended Plan will be subject to the
review and approval of the County Executive and County Attorney to insure that the
amended Plan materially conforms to the provisions set forth above;
2) appoint Betty Burrell and Lorna Gerome as the initial Plan Trustees; and
3) adopt the attached Resolution to approve the proposed amendment to Personnel Policy
§P-63 (Attachment B).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the amended Plan and its submission to
the IRS for review in order to receive a determination that the Plan is tax qualified (the final
amended Plan will be subject to the review and approval of the County Executive and County
Attorney to insure that the amended Plan materially conforms to the provisions set forth above);
appoint Betty Burrell and Lorna Gerome as the initial Plan trustees; and adopt the following
resolution approving the proposed amendment to Personnel Policy §P-63:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors;
and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the requirements for eligible, permanent, part-time
employees’ receipt of annuity benefits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby amends Section P-63, Retirement, of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy, as follows:
Section P-63 RETIREMENT
I. REGULAR RETIREMENT
A. General
Retirement shall be at the discretion of the employee. Full-time regular employees of
Albemarle County who qualify are eligible for the benefits of the Virginia Retirement System
(“VRS”). Additional information describing VRS benefits is available on-line at varetire.org.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
B. Continuing Participation in the County’s Medical and Dental Insurance Plans
1. All employees retiring under VRS and/or the County’s VERIP policy are eligible for
continuous participation in the group medical and dental insurance plans until they
are eligible for Medicare coverage if they participated in the County’s group medical
and dental insurance plans on the day prior to separation from the County. The age
and service criteria for VRS are as follows: 50 years of age with 10 or more years of
continuous regular employment by a VRS-participating employer; or 55 years of age
with 5 or more years of continuous regular employment by a VRS-participating
employer.
2. Individuals eligible to participate in the County’s group medical and dental insurance
plan shall pay the full cost of health insurance coverage, including any applicable
administrative expenses.
3. Any retirees or Board members who participated in the County’s group medical
and/or dental insurance plans as of December 1, 2009 shall continue to be eligible to
participate, at their own cost, until they are eligible for Medicare coverage.
II. LONGEVITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM
The County values the service of all of its employees, both full-time and part-time. Since part-time
employees are not covered by VRS, the County has elected to establish a Longevity Incentive
Program (the “Program”) and thereby provide eligible part-time employees with certain benefits as
more fully explained in this section.
A. Scope of Program
All regular, part-time employees of the County will be covered by the Program provided that
they work the minimum number of hours necessary to establish eligibility for County benefits.
Salaried Board Members are not eligible for participation in this program.
B. Benefits
The following benefits will be provided to eligible part-time employees under the Program:
1. Life Insurance: A term life insurance policy will be provided equal to twice the
employee’s annual salary with double indemnity for accidental death and
dismemberment payments for the accidental loss of one or m ore limbs or of
eyesight.
2. Annuity Program: Based on length of service in the County, part-time employees will
be provided with an annuity program. The Board will contribute an annual amount
according to the following formula:
a. 5 - 9 continuous years of County service - five percent of annual salary.
b. 10 - 14 continuous years of County service - seven percent of annual salary
c. 15 - 19 continuous years of County service - nine percent of annual salary.
d. 20+ continuous years of County service - eleven percent of annual salary.
Any participating employee who terminates employment for any reason but is reemployed
must complete an additional five (5) years of continuous employment in order to again
become qualified for participation under this subsection.
III. RETIREMENT PAY/PAYMENT UPON DEATH
In recognition of employee service to Albemarle County, regular full-time and part-time employees
who meet the age and service criteria for retirement under VRS and have been employed a minimum
of five (5) years with Albemarle County shall be paid upon their retirement or death in service $200
per year for each year of service to the County as a regular employee up to a maximum payment for
25 years of service, less any years previously paid for under this policy. Years of s ervice do not have
to be continuous.
IV. VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PLAN (VERIP)
A. Eligibility
1. Participants in the Albemarle County VERIP must be regular full-time or regular part-
time employees eligible for benefits as defined in P-02, Definition of Employee
Status and meet the following additional requirements:
a. Full-time employees must be eligible for early or full retirement under the
provisions of VRS. Part-time employees must meet the same age and
service criteria as if they were full-time employees covered under VRS.
b. Have been employed by the County government and/or school division for
10 of the last 13 years prior to retirement.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
2. Employees retiring under the disability provisions of VRS and/or Social Security shall
not be eligible for the VERIP.
3. VERIP benefits will cease if the retiree returns to work in a regular full-time or regular
part-time position with the County government and/or school division.
4. VERIP benefits will continue if the retiree returns to work in a temporary part-time or
temporary full-time position with the County government and/or school division.
B. Benefits
1. VERIP benefits shall be paid monthly for a period of five years after retirement or
until age 65, whichever comes first. The VERIP benefits consist of a stipend
calculated in accordance with Section B.2 (“stipend”) and an annual monetary
contribution in the amount of the Board’s current contribution to Board employees for
health insurance (“medical contribution”).
2. Stipends under VERIP will be calculated as follows:
a. Compute the annual VRS benefit. This computation shall include any
reductions for early VRS retirement if appropriate.
b. Recompute the annual VRS benefit with the addition of five more years of
service or the number of additional years needed to reach age 65,
whichever is lesser.
c. The difference between these two calculations is the annual VERIP stipend
(“Stipend Value”) to be paid on a monthly basis.
d. Stipends for part-time employees who are eligible to participate in VERIP
shall be determined as if the part-time employees are eligible for an annual
VRS benefit and the amount shall be calculated in the same manner as
benefits for VRS-eligible employees under subsections (a) – (c) above.
3. The County Executive will recommend to the Board an annual adjustment to the
VERIP stipend after having been apprised of the VRS adjustment for retirees.
4. The Board will pay to the employee an amount equal to the Board’s annual
contribution toward an employee’s health insurance as long as the employee
remains eligible to receive VERIP benefits.
5. Effective December 2, 2009, the VERIP stipend shall continue to be calculated in the
manner provided in Section B.2, but the stipend amount shall be modified in
accordance with the following schedule:
a. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2012 but before July 1, 2013: 80%
of the Stipend Value.
b. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2013 but before July 1, 2014: 60%
of the Stipend Value.
c. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2014 but before July 1, 2015: 40%
of the Stipend Value.
d. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2015 but before July 1, 2016: 20%
of the Stipend Value.
e. Retirements effective on or after July 1, 2016: No VERIP Stipend.
C. Application
Applications for VERIP must be made to the Human Resources Department prior to
December 1st of the year preceding the fiscal year the employee’s participation in VERIP
takes effect. Applications after December 1 may be approved based on the needs of the
County.
D. Approval
All VERIP applications are subject to approval by the County Executive or designee.
E. Duration
The Board of Supervisors reserves the right to modify this policy in its discretion, and all
benefits described in this policy shall be subject to future modifications and annual
appropriations by the Board of Supervisors.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
F. Additional Benefits
1. Current employees who apply for VERIP by February 27, 2009 and who meet the
eligibility standards identified below shall be entitled to receive, at their election, one
of the following:
a. Two additional years of Board contributions toward health insurance beyond
the duration established by Section IV.B, paid on a monthly basis.
Employees who retire at 65 years of age or older shall receive two years of
contributions toward health insurance.
b. The cash equivalent of two additional years of Board contributions
toward health insurance, calculated at the FY 2009-10 annual rate and paid
in one or more installments.
2. To be eligible for the additional benefits in this section, employees must:
a. Submit VERIP applications by February 27, 2009;
b. Submit a letter by April 1, 2009 establishing a retirement date no later than
June 30, 2009; and
c. Retire after the effective adoption date of this subsection (F) but no later
than June 30, 2009.
G. Targeted Retirement Incentives
1. Current employees holding positions in pay grades 16 and higher whose retirement
is determined by the County to not impair the essential functions of the department,
who apply for VERIP by March 15, 2010, and who meet the eligibility standards
identified below shall be entitled to receive, at their election, one of the following:
a. A lump sum payment equivalent to 20% of the employee’s current salary.
“Salary,” for non-exempt employees receiving benefits pursuant to this
section, shall mean the employee’s current annualized pay based on his
regular hourly rate and regularly scheduled work hours.
b. Monthly payments, the total of which is equivalent to one week of pay for
every full year of service with the County for up to 20% of the employee’s
salary. The number of monthly payments will be determined by the County,
however, it shall not exceed sixty (60) monthly payments.
c. Continued full Board contributions toward the employee’s health insurance
for an additional 3 years beyond the contributions specified in Section B of
this policy, or until the age of 65, whichever comes first.
2. To be eligible for the additional benefits in this section, employees must:
a. Submit VERIP applications by March 15, 2010;
b. Submit a letter by April 1, 2010 establishing a retirement date no later than
June 30, 2010; and
c. Retire after the effective date of this subsection G but no later than June 30,
2010.
3. The County Executive or his designee may extend for up to 6 months the June 30,
2010 retirement date required by G.2.b and G.2.c for an employee who is otherwise
eligible for the benefits in this subsection G upon a finding that such employee’s
retirement serves the interest of the County.
Amended: August 4, 1993; April 19, 1995; June 2, 2004; January 7, 2009; December 2, 2009;
March 3, 2010; March 6, 2012.
_______________
Item No. 8.9. Summary of grant applications submitted and grants received in February 2012
was received for information.
First Book
Applicant Department/Agency – ACDSS
Local Program – Bright Stars
Amount Requested – No dollar amount (990 books)
Local Match – None
Planned Use
of Grant
Requesting 6 books per child for monthly distribution through the end of the school year. Books will be requested
for 165 Bright Stars preschoolers to take home after introduction in their preschool classroom. In addition, we will
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Funds: request 48 copies of each book in Spanish to be provided to families identified with Limited English Prof iciency so
that they are afforded the best opportunity to engage in a meaningful home-reading experience with their
preschooler.
Receipt of this grant does not require future commitment from the County or any funding from the County.
USDA
Applicant Department/Agency – Community Development
Local Program – Acquisition of Conservation Easements
Amount Requested - $81,410
Local Match - This program has a 1:1 match requirement. Local match will come from the current
department budget.
Planned Use of Grant
Funds Purchase of one or more conservation easements under the ACE Program.
Receipt of funds does not require any future commitment from the County once easements are acquired.
Department of Homeland Security
Applicant Department/Agency – Police Department
Local Program – CBRNE Replacement of Throw Phone
Amount Requested - $16,900
Local Match - None
Planned Use of Grant
Funds Purchase of a replacement throw phone with video cameras imbedded.
Receipt of funds does not require any future commitment from the County other than normal maintenance
and repairs on the device.
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
Applicant Department/Agency – Police Department
Local Program – Internet Crimes Against Children Fund
Amount Requested - $23,000
Local Match – None
Planned Use
of Grant
Funds:
Overtime for undercover operations, computer forensics, and assisting other agencies
with ICAC enforcement activities; and various equipment upgrades and improvements
to better perform undercover activities and collect evidence.
Post-grant monthly cost of a private digital subscriber line (DSL) if initiative is continued.
GRANTS AWARDED
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
Applicant Department/Agency – Housing
Local Program – Orchard Acres Housing Rehabilitation Planning Grant
Amount AWARDED - $30,000
Local Matching - None
Planned Use: To complete a housing and community needs assessment in the Orchard Acres
Subdivision in Crozet in partnership with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
DHCD offered the County an opportunity to apply for the grant after the submission of a
letter of interest and preliminary assessment data. The completing assessment could
lead to a grant application being submitted in March 2012 for project funding.
Virginia Commonwealth University
Applicant Department/Agency – Commission on Children and Families
Local Program – Alcohol-related crashes, ages 15-24
Amount AWARDED - $145,150
Local Match – None
Grant's Purpose (short
summary) The intent and purpose of this RFP is to provide SPF-SIG funding to
communities with highest need, coupled with highest contributor, regarding
motor vehicle crashes with alcohol involved drivers who are 15-24 years of
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
age, so that those communities can in turn, complete all five SPF steps at
the community level. In completing all five steps outcomes will result in
decreasing the MVC rate involving alcohol-impaired drivers who are 15-24
years old by 5%
_______________
Item No. 8.10. VDOT, Culpeper District – Albemarle County Monthly Report, March 2012 was
received for information.
Special Issues
Superstructure Replacement Project Rte 743—bridge over Jacobs Run. The road will be closed to
through traffic at the bridge for a two week period beginning Monday, March 26, 2012. The project has an
estimated completion date of April 6th, 2012.
Preliminary meetings are being held with the County Community Development Staff to discuss the
upcoming Secondary Six-Year Plan. A workshop will then be scheduled with members of the Board of
Supervisors to discuss the priorities and desired modifications.
US 250 Shadwell Bridge Replacement over the Buckingham Branch Rail Road—Contractor
started construction on the underside of the bridge in December and utilities are being relocated. VDOT
Public Affairs Office is in contact with County Public Affairs Personnel to coordinate the expected May
bridge closure. A stakeholders meeting is scheduled for March 2 at 2:00pm at Albemarle County’s 5th
Street Office Building to discuss the Action Plan for the traffic impacts.
_______________
Item No. 8.11. Cash Proffer Funding – Appropriations and Future Spending plan--Follow up on
February 1, 2012: FY 2012 2nd Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report – potential uses of available
cash proffers for CIP projects was received for information.
The executive summary stated that on February 1, 2012, the Board received the FY 12 Second
Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report, which included information on cash proffer revenue and
expenditures and non-cash proffers for October-December 2011. The report provided information on the
status of cash proffers and updates on non-cash proffers that benefit the County and mitigate the impacts
from development. The report included proffer activity (both cash and non-cash improvements) for the
months of October through December 2011 (FY 12 second quarter).
During discussion of this matter, the Board requested staff to provide additional information on
the available cash proffer funding, cash proffers that are currently appropriated, and recommendations for
planned spending of the remaining proffer balance.
The total amount of cash proffers identified in Community Development’s Cash and Non-Cash
Proffer Summary Spreadsheet, which was provided to the Board of Supervisors on February 1 and
updated on February 15, 2012 (Attachment 1), is $1,488,607.77, of which $488,728.77 has been
appropriated as follows:
Proffer
Currently
Appropriated Project
Avon Park $ 64,596.33 Avon Street Sidewalks
Belvedere Station 58,009.66 Affordable Housing
Grayrock 74,880.00 Crozet Regional Stormwater Management
Liberty Hall 16,098.27 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
North Pointe 20,359.50 Affordable Housing
Poplar Glenn II 33,016.05 Affordable Housing
Stillfried Lane 83,379.07 Ivy Road Sidewalk
Westhall (1.1) 53,728.70 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
Westhall (1.2) 10,896.30 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
Wickham Pond 73,764.89 Crozet Streetscapes Phase II
TOTAL $488,728.77 TOTAL PROFFER FUNDS APPROPRIATED
Community Development Department staff monitor proffer funds on an on-going basis to ensure
that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is appropriated
to projects before any proffer deadlines. During the CIP budget process, Community Development and
the Office of Management and Budget staff compared the FY 13 CIP project requests to the proffer funds
to determine if any projects were eligible for funding from cash proffers.
Upon completion of the FY 12 second quarterly proffer report, a more detailed review was
undertaken to determine whether any cash proffer balances could be used for either currently-funded CIP
projects or projects included in the County’s Recommended FY 13 - FY 17 CIP. Staff has determined that
a total of $491,676.67 in proffer funding may be applied to those projects. While a more in-depth review is
required before specific appropriations can be presented to the Board for approval, staff preliminarily
recommends the following use of cash proffer balances based on the terms of the proffers:
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Proffer Fund Planned Use
Available
Cash Proffer Recommendation:
CIP Village of Rivanna $ 6,563.41 Burley-Lane Field Poles Lighting
CIP Crozet 167,490.72 Crozet Library or any CIP project in Crozet
CIP Hollymead 183,030.35 Sidewalk program in Hollymead or Revenue Sharing
Parks in Crozet 22,016.44 Park or Greenways in Crozet
Schools in Crozet 22,016.44 School CIP project in Crozet
CIP Non-Specific 90,559.31 Any CIP Project
TOTAL $ 491,676.67 RECOMMENDED USE
The remaining $508,202.33 in cash proffers are required to be expended on specific projects or
programs identified in those proffers as follows:
Proffer
Available
Cash Proffer Required Use of Funds:
Belvedere $ 32,316.79 Affordable Housing
Poplar Glenn II 33,107.00 Affordable Housing
Martha Jefferson Hospital 429,470.00 I-64/250 Improvements and Transit
Westhall (Proffer 3.3) 3,166.21 Greenway Bridge in Westhall
Glenmore 10,027.01 Rt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange
Avon Park 116.32 Pedestrian Improvements Neighborhood 4 (interest
balance)
TOTAL $508,202.33 NO SPECIFIC PROJECTS IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and
they supplement the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through
general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY 13 – FY 17 CIP projects
can supplement funding in the CIP, freeing up available funding that may currently be appropriated or
planned for in the CIP for these projects for other uses.
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time. Available
cash proffer funding will be included in future appropriation requests for the CIP projects. The next
quarterly proffer report will be on the Board’s May 2, 2012 agenda.
_______________
Item No. 8.12. National Association of Counties Prescription Drug Discount Program Status was
received for information.
The executive summary stated that in January 2011, Albemarle County launched a discount card
program to help consumers reduce the price paid for prescriptions. The County is making free prescription
drug discount cards available under a program sponsored by the National Association of Counties (NACo)
that offers an average savings of 24 percent off the retail price of commonly prescribed drugs. The cards
may be used by all County residents, regardless of age, income, or existing health coverage for
prescriptions that are not otherwise covered by insurance, and are accepted at 23 County pharmacies. A
national network of more than 60,000 participating retail pharmacies honors the NACo prescription
discount card. This executive summary provides results for the first year of the program. The pr ogram has
now saved $448 million on 35.8 million prescriptions in more than 1,400 counties nationwide.
County residents can visit www.caremark.com/naco to print an ID card and use it immediately at
any participating pharmacy. Cards are also available at the Albemarle County Department of Social
Services (ACDSS) at the County Office Building on 5th Street, the Thomas Jefferson Health District on
Rose Hill Drive and Martha Jefferson Hospital.
The following highlights reflect activity in Albemarle County related to the discount drug cards from
January 2011 through December, 2011:
920 residents have taken advantage of this program since January 2011 by filling one or
more prescriptions. January 2011 was the lowest month at 42 and August/November
were the highest months at 88.
The average price savings per prescription for this period was $14.08, or 20.30%.
The total price savings for the past year for all prescriptions filled using the card was
$26,163.90.
For 62.06% of the prescriptions filled, the discount drug card produced a lower price than
any other discount available, including special purchase arrangements offered by
individual pharmacies.
Since implementation of the NACo card, two other similar programs have been identified: ProAct,
a pharmacy benefit management company and The Virginia Drug Card sponsored through Restat, a
privately held benefits manager. Additionally, the United Way continues to offer the FamilyWize card for
residents of Planning District Ten. FamilyWize and NACo provide the same kind of benefits with some
variations in the number of participating pharmacies and savings. ProAct provides reductions for vision,
dental and hearing medical services in addition to prescribed medications. NACo anticipates adding
vision, dental and other medical services soon. Staff will continue to assess other options and will
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
recommend any other appropriate discount programs to the Board as these options are researched and
evaluated.
Because the program has benefits for County residents, the County will continue to actively
promote and support the NACO discount drug program.
There is no budget impact related to this program.
This item is for information only. No action is required by the Board.
_______________
Item No. 8.13. Revised application and review schedule for Personal Wireless Service Facilities
was received for information.
The executive summary stated that the FCC has established timelines for the processing of
personal wireless service facilities. In order to insure that the County meets these timelines and to
generally improve the review of personal wireless service facilities a revised application and review
schedule has been created.
At the February 1, 2012 Board meeting, staff notified the Board of Supervisors that changes to the
application and review schedule for locating a personal wireless service facility could be done
administratively. Following Board direction, staff has completed the application changes, modified the
review schedule, and shared this information with representatives of the wireless industry. The application
has been revised to clarify the information necessary to process the application. The review schedule has
been revised to reduce the review time for a Tier III application by approximately 30 days.
There is no budget impact.
This summary is provided for information on administrative action that has taken place, and no
Board action is required.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: To consider granting water and sewer line easements
to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority across
property owned by Albemarle County adjacent to Hollymead Towne Center, situated on the south side of
and adjoining U.S. Route 29 (Parcel ID 04600-00-00-005A0). These water and sewer line easements are
requested to provide water and sewer service to County properties, including portions of Hollymead
Towne Center. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27, 2012.)
Mr. Foley summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) have each requested that the County grant easements for the installation of water and sewer lines
upon and across County-owned property designated as Parcel ID 04600-00-00-005A0, located on U.S.
Route 29 adjacent to the southern end of the Hollymead Towne Center.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires that the Board hold a public hearing prior to conveyance of
any interest in County-owned real property. This property was conveyed to the County by the developers
of the Hollymead Towne Center for use as open space and a greenway trail. The water and sewer lines
will be buried within the easement and there will be no above ground facilities. These easements will not
interfere with the use of the greenway property or any activity at the Hollymead Towne Center shopping
center. Agreeable terms are being negotiated for the proposed deeds of easement by the County
Attorney’s Office and the attorneys for the Authorities. Staff has reviewed and approved the proposed
Plat.
There is no budget impact.
Mr. Foley said that after the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board approve the
proposed water and sewer line easements and authorize the County Executive to sign deeds of easement
on behalf of the County once the deeds have been approved for content and form by the County Attorney.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve the proposed water and sewer line easements and
to authorize the County Executive to sign the deeds on behalf of the County once they had been approved
for content by the County Attorney. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this __ day of __________________, 2012 by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Grantor (“Property Owner”) and RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER
AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the Virginia. Water and Waste Authorities Act,
whose address is 695 Moores Creek Lane, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, Grantee (the “Authority”).
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested and Property Owner has agreed to grant the Authority
various easements shown on the plat attached hereto and recorded herewith entitled “Plat Showing Two
Variable Width RWSA Permanent Easements, 10’ Temporary RWSA Easement, Variable Width Temporary
RWSA Easement, and Two 20’ Permanent ACSA Easements Across Property of County of Albemarle,”
prepared by Draper Aden Associates, dated October 27, 2011; and
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property conveyed
to Property Owner by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in
Deed Book 3704, page 460, corrected at Deed Book 3997, page 637; and Property Owner is the fee simple
owner of the said property as of the date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property Owner does hereby
GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Authority a perpetual right of way and
easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend water lines consisting of
pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the real property
of Property Owner located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent easement
held by the Authority or the Albemarle County Service Authority, the location and width of the easement hereby
granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plat as
“Proposed Variable Width Permanent RWSA Easement” (the “Waterline Easement”). The perpetual right of
way and easement shall also allow RWSA to install, operate, maintain, repair and remove a temporary
portable pumping system, including temporary aboveground pipeline and appurtenances, as necessary to
adequately maintain water supply to the Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority service areas.
Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimensions of the Waterline Easement hereby
granted and the property over which the same crosses.
Further, Property Owner does hereby GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY of TITLE
unto the Authority two temporary construction easements each for a term so long as necessary to construct
and install those certain water lines comprising the Rte. 29 Water main Abandonment Project, of which the
water lines to be constructed in the Waterline Easement are a part, and to do all things reasonably necessary
and incident to such construction, the location and size of the temporary construction easements hereby
granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on the Plat as
“Proposed Variable Width Temporary RWSA Easement” and “Proposed 10’ Temporary RWSA Easement”
(the “Temporary RWSA Easements”). Reference is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimensions of
the Temporary RWSA Easements hereby granted and the property over which the same crosses. The
Temporary RWSA Easements shall automatically terminate upon the expiration of the above described term.
Easement Obstructions
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or
other improvements or obstructions, except for any Greenway trail improvements, shall not be located within
the Waterline Easement. The Waterline Easement and the Temporary RWSA Easements shall include the
right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and shrubbery, remove obstructions, including any Greenway trail
improvements, and take other similar action reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water line
installation, operation and maintenance. Following the removal of any Greenway trail improvements, the
Property Owner may restore said improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility
to Property Owner, its successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or
other obstructions, including any Greenway trail improvements, located in the Waterline Easement or the
Temporary RWSA Easements if cut or removed or otherwise damaged.
Easement Access and Maintenance
As part of the Waterline Easement and the Temporary RWSA Easements, the Authority shall have the
right to enter upon the above-described property within the Waterline Easement and the Temporary RWSA
Easements for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, relocating
and extending the above-described water lines and appurtenances thereto, including installing, operating,
maintaining, repairing and removing a temporary portable pumping system with aboveground pipeline and
appurtenances, within the Waterline Easement; and in addition, the Authority shall have the right of ingress
and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate
and extend such water lines and temporary portable pumping systems. If the Authority is unable to reasonably
exercise the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and
egress over the property of Property Owner adjacent to the right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions
of such property adjacent to the right-of-way as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the
Authority’s exercise of such right, notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled “Easement
Obstructions” above.
Excavation
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Waterline Easement or the Temporary RWSA
Easements, the Authority agrees to backfill such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to
restore surface conditions as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including
restoration of such paved surfaces as may be damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation,
notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled “Easement Obstructions” above.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ownership of Facilities
The facilities constructed within the Waterline Easement shall be the property of the Authority, its
successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such
changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the Waterline
Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
PROPERTY OWNER:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By: ,(SEAL)
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
*****
This DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of , 2012 by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA Grantor (“Property Owner”) and ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE
AUTHORITY, a body politic and corporate created pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act,
whose address is 168 Spotnap Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911, Grantee (the “Authority”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested and Property Owner has agreed to grant the Authority
various easements shown on the plat attached hereto and recorded herewith entitled “Plat Showing Two
Variable Width RWSA Permanent Easements, 10’ Temporary RWSA Easement, Variable Width Temporary
RWSA Easement, and Two 20’ Permanent ACSA Easements Across Property of County of Albemarle,”
prepared by Draper Aden Associates, dated October 27, 2011; and
WHEREAS, as shown on the Plat, the proposed easements cross a portion of the property conveyed
to Property Owner by deed recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in
Deed Book 3704, page 460, corrected at Deed Book 3997, page 637; and Property Owner is the fee simple
owner of the said property as of the date hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Property Owner does hereby
GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY of TITLE unto the Authority a perpetual right of way and
easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend sewer and water line
consisting of pipes, equipment, and appurtenances to such pipes and equipment, over, under and across the
real property of Property Owner located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and to access any other adjacent
easement held by the Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the location and width of the
easement hereby granted and the boundaries of the property being more particularly described and shown on
the Plat as “Proposed 20’ Permanent ACSA Utility Easement, 5,319 Sq. Ft.” and “Proposed Permanent
20’ACSA Utility Easement, 2,281 Sq. Ft.” (collectively, the “Utility Easement”). The perpetual right of way and
easement shall also allow ACSA to install, operate, maintain, repair and remove a temporary portable
pumping system, including temporary aboveground pipeline and appurtenances, as necessary to adequately
maintain water supply to the Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority service areas. Reference is
made to the Plat for the exact location and dimensions of the Utility easement hereby granted and the property
over which the same crosses.
Easement Obstructions
Property Owner, its successors or assigns, agree that trees, shrubs, fences, buildings, overhangs or
other improvements or obstructions, except for any Greenway trail improvements, shall not be located within
the Utility Easement. The Utility Easement shall include the right of the Authority to cut any trees, brush and
shrubbery, remove obstructions, including any Greenway trail improvements, and take other similar action
reasonably necessary to provide economical and safe water and sewer line installation, operation and
maintenance. Following the removal of any Greenway trail improvements, the Property Owner may restore
said improvements at its expense, and the Authority shall have no responsibility to Property Owner, its
successors or assigns, to replace or reimburse the cost of trees, brush, shrubbery, or other obstructions,
including any Greenway trail improvements, located in the Utility Easement if cut or removed or otherwise
damaged.
Easement Access and Maintenance
As part of the Utility Easement, the Authority shall have the right to enter upon the above-described
property within the Utility Easement for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining,
repairing, replacing, relocating and extending the above-described water and sewer lines and appurtenances
thereto, including installing, operating, maintaining, repairing and removing a temporary portable pumping
system with aboveground pipeline and appurtenances, within the Utility Easement; and in addition, the
Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress thereto as reasonably necessary to construct, install,
operate, maintain, repair, replace, relocate and extend such water and sewer lines and temporary portable
pumping systems. If the Authority is unable to reasonably exercise the right of ingress and egress over the
right-of-way, the Authority shall have the right of ingress and egress over the property of Property Owner
adjacent to the right-of-way, and shall restore surface conditions of such property adjacent to the right-of-way
as nearly as practical to the same condition as prior to the Authority’s exercise of such right, notwithstanding
the provisions of the section entitled “Easement Obstructions” above.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Excavation
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within the Utility Easement, the Authority agrees to backfill
such excavation in a proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore surface conditions as nearly as
practical to the same condition as prior to excavation, including restoration of such paved surfaces as may be
damaged or disturbed as part of such excavation, notwithstanding the provisions of the section entitled
“Easement Obstruction” above.
Ownership of Facilities
The facilities constructed within the Utility Easement shall be the property of the Authority, its
successors and assigns, which shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, remove, repair, improve and make such
changes, alterations and connections to or extensions of its facilities within the boundaries of the Utility
Easement as are consistent with the purposes expressed herein.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
PROPERTY OWNER:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By: ,(SEAL)
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 5, Building
Regulations, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 5-100, Purpose and Intent, Section 5-
101, Building inspection office established; powers and duties, Section 5-102, Board of appeals
established; powers and duties, and Section 5-103, Appeals of decisions of the building official. The
ordinance would codify that two alternative members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to the
local board of building code appeals, and would update the local building regulations to conform to current
provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code and Virginia Code §§ 36-97 et seq. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 27, 2012.)
Mr. Jay Schlothauer, Building Official, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
Chapter 5 of the Albemarle County Code codifies that building construction in the County is
regulated by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC). Under state law, the USBC is
uniformly applicable in all jurisdictions in Virginia. Updated every three years, the latest edition of the
USBC became effective on March 1, 2011.
After recently reviewing Chapter 5 of the County Code to assure accuracy and conformity with the
USBC, staff determined that certain housekeeping updates are in order. The proposed ordinance
amendment (Attachment A) includes the four sections of Chapter 5 (5-100, 5-101, 5-102 and 5-103) in
which the need for amendments was identified.
Sec. 5-100 (A): Delete the word “maintenance” in the first sentence. Although the USBC includes
optional provisions for regulating building maintenance, in order to be locally enforceable, such
provisions must be specifically adopted by the locality. The County has not adopted the
maintenance provisions of the USBC.
Sec. 5-101 (B): In the second sentence, replace “code official” with “building official.” By
definition in the USBC, the “building official” is in charge of administering the construction
provisions of the USBC. Also, delete the last sentence in its entirety, as it is no longer necessary.
Sec. 5-102 (A): Add “and two (2) alternates.” The USBC allows localities to designate alternate
members of the local board of building code appeals, but does not require it. This amendment
would codify the County’s existing practice of appointing alternate members on its board of
building code appeals.
Sec. 5-102 (C): Delete the phrase “section 121 of.” In the latest update of the USBC, Section 121
has been renumbered and no longer pertains to appeals boards.
Sec. 5-102 (E): Delete the phrase “section 121 of” for the same reason noted above.
Sec. 5-103 (A): Delete the wording “pertaining to the manner of construction or materials to be
used in the erection, alteration or repair of a building or structure.” Virginia Code § 36-105 no
longer limits the local board of building code appeals’ review to these subjects.
Sec. 5-103 (B): Delete the phrase “section 121 of” for the same reason noted above.
No budget impact is anticipated.
Mr. Schlothauer said that this proposal is intended to bring the wording of the County Code into
line with the Statewide Building Code, and there is nothing substantive to it. After the public hearing, staff
recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A).
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the ordinance as presented. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 12-5(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 5, BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE I,
ADMINISTRATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 5, Building
Regulations, Article I, Administration, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and
re-ordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 5-100 Purpose and intent
Sec. 5-101 Building inspection office established; powers and duties
Sec. 5-102 Board of appeals established; powers and duties
Sec. 5-103 Appeals of decisions of the building official
Chapter 5. Building Regulations
Article I. Administration
Sec. 5-100 Purpose and intent.
A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to promote and to protect the public health, safety
and welfare by making the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code applicable to all matters affecting or
relating to structures, including the construction, alteration, repair, addition, demolition and removal of all
structures, and to the equipment in such structures. The purpose and intent of this chapter is also to establish
a procedure by which unsafe buildings and structures are repaired, removed, or demolished.
B. The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code shall be referred to in this chapter as the
“building code” and shall include the building code in its current form and as amended in the future.
C. A copy of the building code shall be kept on file in the department of community development.
(§ 5-1; 10-18-73, § 6-1; 4-20-88; § 5-2; 10-18-73, § 6-2; Code 1988, § 5-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-5(1),
8-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-97 et seq.; 36-105.
Sec. 5-101 Building inspection office established; powers and duties.
A building inspection office is hereby established in the department of community development, as
provided herein:
A. The building inspection office shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of the
building code and this chapter, the review and approval of plans, the inspection of buildings and structures and
the issuance of permits or certificates pertaining thereto. For purposes of this chapter, the term “building
inspection office” means the “local building department” as that term is used in the building code.
B. The building inspection office shall be directed by a building official appointed by the county
executive. The building official shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and
the building code and, as such, shall have the duties and powers of a building official set forth in the building
code. The building official also shall be responsible for the supervision of the other employees of the building
inspection office.
(§ 5-1; 10-18-73, § 6-1; 4-20-88; § 5-2; 10-18-73, § 6-2; Code 1988, § 5-2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 08-5(1),
8-6-08)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 36-97 et seq.; 36-105.
Sec. 5-102 Board of appeals established; powers and duties.
A board of appeals is hereby established as provided herein:
A. The board shall consist of five (5) members and two (2) alternates appointed by the board of
supervisors.
B. Each member of the board shall serve a five (5) year term, which shall extend beyond such
term until a successor is appointed.
C. To the extent that such persons may be available, the board shall consist of individuals who
meet the qualifications for board membership set forth in the building code.
D. The members of the board shall be compensated as provided in section 2-1105 of the Code.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
E. The organization and duties of the board shall be as set forth in the building code and such
duties shall include considering appeals as provided in section 5-103.
(§ 5-4; 10-18-73, § 6-5; Code 1988, § 5-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 36-105.
Sec. 5-103 Appeals of decisions of the building official.
The board of appeals shall consider and act upon appeals from decisions of the building official as
provided herein:
A. The board shall consider appeals concerning the application of the building code or the
refusal to grant a modification of the provisions of the building code.
B. The right of appeal, the parties to an appeal, the scope of an appeal, the procedure for an
appeal, and the conduct of the appeal, shall be as set forth in the building code.
(§ 5-4; 10-18-73, § 6-5; Code 1988, § 5-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98)
State law reference--Va. Code § 36-105.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to Consider SEIS for Proposed Route 29 North Bypass.
Mr. Rooker said he circulated the following proposed letter that included some of the reasoning
why the Board should ask for the SEIS. Mr. Rooker said that the principle reason for the request is that
this is a project that would have significant and substantial community impact, and the primary
environmental work for the project was done in 1990.
“Irene Rico, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
400 North 8th Street, Suite 750
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Ms. Rico:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Federal Highway
Administration require VDOT to prepare a new Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for this project. The Board is aware of many new issues that are not adequately
addressed by the 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the 2003 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). These issues include:
1. Major new development has occurred in the Route 29 North Corridor, north of the
northern terminus of the proposed Bypass. This development includes the UVA Research
Park, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Ground Intelligence Center,
Hollymead Town Center (a major shopping and residential community), and the
neighborhoods of Forest Lakes and Forest Lakes South. These developments did not
exist or had not been built at the time of the FEIS or the SEIS; therefore, neither
document considered them.
2. Places29 Master Plan, unanimously adopted by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors on February 2, 2011, is a detailed plan for the integration of land use and
transportation in the Route 29 North Corridor of Albemarle County from Hydraulic Road to
Airport Road. Since this plan was approved last year, it obviously was not contemplated
or considered in the FEIS or the SEIS. The Places29 plan should be compared to the
proposed Route 29 Bypass in terms of traffic analysis and cost. A new SEIS should
include a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Route 29 Bypass in comparison with the
Places29 Master Plan.
3. Recent medical research completed subsequent to the previous FEIS and SEIS has
proven correlations between human health and exposure to highway and vehicular
exhaust emissions. Since there are 7 schools, 2 retirement communities (The
Colonnades and University Village), both of which have health care facilities adjacent to
them, and 8 neighborhoods which the proposed Bypass either goes through or beside,
these emissions could affect the health of several thousand residents of Albemarle
County, including at least 3000 school children. These newly described health risks were
not considered by the FEIS or the SEIS.
4. Recent research has better defined noise impacts, and, as a result, regulations are now in
place that did not exist at the time of the FEIS or the SEIS. Since the proposed Bypass
will pass through or adjacent to several neighborhoods, 2 retirement communities and
health care facilities, and 7 schools, noise will have a huge impact on residents of our
community. New noise studies should be performed, and a new SEIS should include
mandatory compliance with new noise regulations.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
5. New traffic modeling should be performed that does not include interchanges on the
Bypass or interchanges on Route 29 at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road.
These interchanges were included in earlier traffic studies cited in the FEIS and SEIS.
None of these interchanges are in the current transportation plan and are expressly
excluded from the proposed Bypass. Therefore, the previous traffic analysis was flawed
and is invalid today.
6. Archaeological studies at the site of the northern terminus have not been adequately
performed since the location of the northern terminus was not decided at the time of the
FEIS or SEIS. A Phase II archaeological study was performed in the general area of the
northern terminus in the mid-1990’s and found sites that were “considered to possess
integrity and to contain information useful for the study of regional prehistory…[and] thus
eligible for the National Register.” New, complete research at the precise sites that will be
impacted by the northern terminus should be included in a new SEIS.
7. Since the FEIS and the SEIS were released, the status of the federal and state
endangered James Spinymussel species has been elevated to “critically endangered,” the
highest category for threatened species (International Union for Conservation of Nature –
Red list). The James Spinymussel’s habitat is located in Ivy Creek which has 9 tributaries
draining into it that are crossed by the proposed Bypass. A new SEIS should study the
impact of the Bypass on this critically endangered species and its habitat.
8. Since the FEIS and the SEIS were released, several segments of the South Fork of the
Rivanna River have been listed as “impaired,” including portions that the proposed
Bypass would cross. This river is the primary water supply source for Albemarle County
and the City of Charlottesville. A new SEIS should research and mandate the maximum
enhanced erosion and sedimentation control measures for this part of the Bypass. Ivy
Creek, a major tributary into the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir (SFRR), is also
impaired. A new SEIS should include an assessment of the Bypass’ many crossings of
tributaries to Ivy Creek and the effect this will have on the SFRR.
9. On October 12, 2011 this Board passed a resolution requesting that VDOT amend its
RFP to contractors to better take into consideration community concerns about the
Project, a copy of which is enclosed. Many of the requests in this resolution have not
been adequately dealt with.
Substantial additional information supporting this request was included in a package of
information sent by the County to Chris Collins of VDOT on February 29, 2012. You were copied
on that package.
Further, the Board requests that FHWA mandate that VDOT convene several formal public
meetings followed by officially recorded oral and written comment periods to allow members of
our community to comment on the preparation of any environmental documents as well as all
design issues.
We appreciate your consideration of the issues we have raised and look forward to your
response. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann Mallek, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Attachments
Cc: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
Jim Rich, Culpeper District representative, Commonwealth Transportation Board
James Utterback”
_____
Mr. Boyd commented that the project was updated in 2003.
Mr. Rooker explained that the 2003 update covered specific things pertaining primarily to the
reservoir that were raised in a lawsuit, but was not a complete update of the EIS. He said that VDOT has
requested a list of changes that have occurred, and there are a long list from the County – such as NGIC,
the University Research Park, and Forest Lakes South.
Mr. Boyd commented that those facilities do not impact the route of the bypass.
Mr. Rooker said that they affect the traffic in the 29 Corridor in that area, adding that Hollymead
Town Center and Northpointe were not there at the time either. He also stated that the Colonnades staff
and residents have expressed concern about the project. A full SEIS would ensure that all of the issues
get looked at in reasonable depth – with public comment.
Mr. Boyd said that the entire purpose of the update was for VDOT to look at what has been done
thus far, including changes that have happened, and then decide whether they would move forward with a
full EIS.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Snow said that VDOT also stated that if they found anything in their review that required
additional study, they would do it. What VDOT is doing now will let them know if there are any additional
problems.
Mr. Rooker said that the emails indicated that VDOT did not even want to do an environmental
assessment, and had to be talked into that. VDOT does not want to do this stuff; he suggested looking at
the internal memos. He emphasized that they would design any environmental assessment, whereas an
SEIS was more of a formal process that requires them to perform studies and provide the results. Mr.
Rooker stated that many who would be impacted by the bypass are confident that what VDOT has
planned would accomplish that. He also said that the MPO along with other agencies have sent letters
outlining all of the changes that have occurred in the area.
Mr. Snow said that VDOT has requested letters to be sent, and they are currently determining
whether future studies needed to be done. He said that he does not want to circumvent what VDOT is
already doing.
Mr. Rooker responded that this wasn’t circumventing the process.
Mr. Snow stated that an additional study would take two years and would cost an additional $2
million, and he will not support that.
Mr. Thomas said that VDOT is following the normal process that Federal Highway requires,
adding that he trusts VDOT. He stated that VDOT is not going to do this incorrectly; they have to do it
correctly. If the FHWA determines that there are more needs they will require it of VDOT, then that is
when the decision will be made. Mr. Thomas said that VDOT is currently going through the update.
Mr. Rooker said that a constituent had sent an email to Mr. Thomas asking for an SEIS, and Mr.
Thomas responded that one was being done because he didn’t know the difference between what was
being done and an SEIS.
Mr. Thomas agreed; he now knows what it means.
Mr. Dumler asked if this was just a request that provide some basic guidelines, adding that this
just outlines concerns of the Board. He has no problem with supporting the request; it is not a demand.
Mr. Snow responded that it is a little more than supporting a request.
Mr. Boyd said that it would “require” the FHWA to do the SEIS as requested by VDOT. He thinks
that this is really just about delaying the project for a few years.
Ms. Mallek stated that Secretary Connaughton said that he didn’t want to do the studies from the
inception of the project’s revival.
Mr. Rooker said that he could also provide emails from VDOT in which they indicated a reluctance
to do more studies.
Mr. Snow said he would like to see those emails.
Mr. Boyd stated that VDOT has been following a process with the FHWA for thirty or forty years
that called for public input and then an assessment by VDOT as to whether a full SEIS was needed.
Mr. Rooker said that the letter would be addressed to VDOT.
Mr. Snow said that he thought it would be wise to wait for the current study to be completed prior
to requesting an additional one.
Mr. Rooker said that would drag it out longer, adding about a year to the process if it was decided
a SEIS was needed.
Mr. Boyd said that was true, but it would be their decision not the County’s. He also said that
VDOT officials have asked for input, which they have received, and then evaluate it and decide if changes
warranted a full SEIS. That is their process that they are going through right now. This request is not
allowing VDOT to work through their process and see the results, but instead trying to circumvent it. He
added that he is not willing to go along with that.
Mr. Rooker said he can see where this discussion is going and do not see the need to talk about it
anymore.
Mr. Snow said that part of the argument for the need for this SEIS is that a lot has changed north
of Charlottesville. Once the first phase of the bypass is done the second phase that takes it past the
Airport would address a lot of those concerns that Mr. Rooker mentioned.
Mr. Rooker asked him if he was suggesting the two projects were linked.
Mr. Snow replied, “no.” He explained that he has lived in the area his entire life. W hen the Route
250 Bypass was proposed the reaction was similar, and therefore it was only built from Pantops to Route
29, and later everyone came back and said they loved it once it was built. Mr. Snow said that when it was
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
built it went in phases. He believes that once the first phase of this bypass is installed people will want to
continue with future phases.
Mr. Rooker said that Taxpayers for Common Sense – a well-known conservative budget
watchdog organization based in Washington, D.C. – has named this road one of the biggest wastes of
taxpayer money in the nation. He added that the idea that if the bypass is built it may be extended does
not bother him in the abstract. It bothers him that these things are talked about without regard to costs
and the alternatives that will not get done because all the money is being put into one project.
Mr. Snow asked since when is cost the problem. Millions of dollars have already been spent on
studies, and Mr. Rooker is proposing another study that will cost $2 million, and still nothing would be built.
Mr. Rooker commented that this is about having a study that is somewhat more complete than the
other study.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that a full blown SEIS will cost between $3 million to $4 million.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Boyd was confident VDOT would be willing to do the study if it was
necessary.
Mr. Boyd stated that his understanding was that all of the information VDOT was doing in their
update would be turned over to the FHWA, which in turn would determine whether a full-blown
supplemental EIS would be needed. It is not going to be VDOT’s decision; it is going to be the Federal
Highway Administration’s decision.
Mr. Rooker responded that that’s why the letter was addressed to the FHWA, and it simply
suggested that it might make sense to have a SEIS done given changes in the area. There have been a
lot of people asking for this because they are not confident that what VDOT is proposing is going to
protect the community’s interest.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have that lack of confidence.
Mr. Rooker asked if he had read the RFP.
Mr. Boyd confirmed that he had not read the RFP or the addendum.
Mr. Rooker said this Board asked for changes to the RFP. Mr. Boyd responded that the Board
received a response from Mr. Utterback.
Mr. Rooker explained that VDOT had a long list of things they were going to do to landscape the
bypass, and they took those out in the RFP. There is no longer any commitment to landscaping on the
bypass in the RFP. VDOT is doing everything possible to drive down the cost of the project, including
taking out bridge treatments.
Mr. Thomas said that will be done, as he has already talked to VDOT about it. They plan to have
it fixed up similar to the Meadow Creek Parkway. He also said that VDOT has told him they never heard
of the bridge treatment Mr. Rooker requested.
Mr. Rooker stated that the thing the Board asked for was a standard being used around the
country, and was suggested by Mr. Jack Kelsey as well as discussed with VDOT in a meeting.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to send the letter to the FHWA as presented. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion.
Mr. Thomas reiterated that he does trust VDOT. He said that he does not support the SEIS as it
is a delay tactic. He added that he is concerned about the environmental impact of the bypass and its
residents that will be affected, but he does trust VDOT to have it done properly.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Solid Waste Options – Consultant Services.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that in November 2011, staff
presented the Board with a summary outlining long-term options for solid waste services. (Attachment A)
Staff recognized it lacked some of the expertise to accurately analyze these options, especially an
evaluation of costs and potential permitting obstacles. Therefore, staff recommended retaining a
consultant with experience in Virginia solid waste programs and estimated that services would cost
between $30,000 and $40,000. The Board directed staff to finalize a scope of services and cost with a
consultant, and to bring it back to the Board for approval. A proposed scope of services and cost estimate
is attached (Attachment B) for the Board’s consideration.
Staff has selected Draper Aden Associates for this project for several reasons. First, Draper
Aden has a local presence and has already been pre-selected by the County for providing professional
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
services through an open list of consultants. Staff considers this important because it reduces the cost of
travel time for the consultant and the County avoids additional costs in procuring services. Second,
Draper Aden has worked for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) and, more particularly, has
worked at the RSWA’s Ivy facility (Ivy MUC). Draper Aden already understands RSWA’s current
operations and challenges. This helps the County avoid the cost of educating a new consultant.
Additionally, Draper Aden was a technical support consultant for RSWA’s strategic planning process,
giving the firm an understanding of local preferences. Third, in staff’s interviews, Lynn Klappich, Draper
Aden’s Program Manager for this project, was found to be both knowledgeable of the issues and insightful
about the difficulties in balancing objectives. When staff considered all of these factors together, Draper
Aden was rated the best choice for this project.
Staff has kept the proposed services focused on the outlined options, but includes some flexibility
should additional questions or issues arise. For this reason, staff is recommending the contract be based
on an “hourly, not to exceed” basis rather than as a fixed sum contract. Should the scope of work
adequately address the questions without the need to study additional issues, the County can limit the cost
of the work. Should additional questions or concerns arise, this form of contract allows the scope to be
easily amended to include that work.
Staff recognizes there is some appeal to skipping this analysis of options and proceeding to bid
for solid waste services as quickly as possible. Staff believes the County’s interest is best served by first
exploring all three options and verifying the best direction. This will help assure County citizens are being
served in the best way possible and for the lowest cost. Through fees charged by service providers or
through County support of programs, it appears each of the options could result in a total cost of several
million dollars over the next decade. Additionally, even if the decision is ultimately made to privatize
services, this study will help craft that bid to better serve the County’s interest and hopefully improve the
chances of a successful contract.
As shown in Attachment B, the proposal is capped at a not to exceed fee of $32,000 and is
within the originally anticipated cost. The FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for environmental
services has been evaluated as a possible funding source. Based on past expenditures and
anticipated services in the year ahead, staff believes that a portion of this amount could be shifted to a
consultant contract while still meeting all obligations under the RSWA Environmental Support
Agreement. If approved, staff will request an appropriation at a future Board meeting.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) authorize the use of $32,000 from the FY12 CIP appropriation to the RSWA for
environmental services to fund a contract to evaluate solid waste service options;
2) authorize the County Executive to sign a contract with Draper Aden Associates for
services as proposed in Attachment B, subject to the County Attorney’s approval of the
contract as to form; and
3) direct staff to present the study to the Board as quickly as possible. Staff anticipates this will
be in two or three months.
_____
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that this is a follow up to the Board’s
November discussion pertaining to options for solid waste services – and one of the directions was to
consider getting consulting services to assist in the process. Staff recognizes that these were fairly
complex issues, and the County lacked the expertise to address them. Mr. Graham stated that staff is
recommending a contract with Draper Aden, a firm with a local office that is already on the County’s list of
preselected professional service contractors. He said that the firm is very experienced with the RSWA
and the Ivy operation, so the County wouldn’t be paying for a consultant to come up to speed. Mr.
Graham commented that Draper Aden’s staff is very knowledgeable and seems to have a good handle on
the issues before the County.
He said that the proposal is on an “hourly not to exceed basis.” Staff recognizes that there was a
question about the scope of services so there may be an opportunity to keep costs lower than the
estimated maximum of $32,000. Mr. Graham noted that staff feels it is important to fully consider the
options and regardless of the direction chosen, either through tipping fees or payment to private service
providers, this will cost County residents millions of dollars over the next decade. Staff believes it is
important to have the most cost-effective solution.
Mr. Graham said that staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to enter into the
contract, following review by the County Attorney as to the form of the contract.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Graham to briefly review the categories.
Mr. Boyd asked if this was the same consulting firm that did the last Rivanna study.
Mr. Graham responded that they were a sub-consultant for the firm that did that study. This firm
did a lot of the cost analysis for the Ivy facility but had nothing to do with the recommendations. He said
that what they would be looking at would be the County assuming some operations at Ivy or looking at
replacement facilities in another location, and this would assess the issues and cost of services
anticipated.
Ms. Mallek said that the third category was having someone come in and run Ivy to a limited
extent through an RFP process. Mr. Graham commented that that could be a part of a number of these
options.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Foley stated that there are issues about the conditions of the transfer station and the capital
investment made.
Mr. Rooker said that none of the three options presented are really options.
Mr. Snow agreed, stating that there really wasn’t an option given.
Mr. Rooker stated that each option had comments that seemed to disqualify them.
Mr. Boyd said that his understanding was they had already made the decision to get the County
out of the solid waste business, and the next step was deciding what services were necessary to be
provided to the community.
Mr. Foley commented that the County cannot get out of the solid waste business one way or the
other, and the remediation must continue to maintain the Ivy landfill through a regional agreement. He
said that the question is how to manage the solid waste in the County, and the simplest approach is to
look at Draper Aden’s proposal. Mr. Foley said that the County is going to either pay singly through a
regional organization to manage the County’s waste, or manage a transfer station, or contract with
someone to manage it.
Mr. Snow said that taking solid waste and recycling it is a far superior way to handle waste rather
than to take it to a landfill, and he is not interested in building a transfer station to have waste put into the
ground.
Mr. Foley clarified that the issue is the transfer of waste, not about putting it in the ground or
recycling it.
Ms. Mallek said she thought they were in a totally different place six weeks ago, and is frustrated
when she read this report and everything about a consultant.
Mr. Boyd said that Option #2 is the only one he thought the Board was interested in – negotiating
a contract with a private sector person to take over operation of the transfer station.
Mr. Rooker said that if the County plans to hire a firm, he would be interested in having them
recommend how to go out with an RFP in order to get a private party to bid to take it over rather than
spending money to examine all of the options. He added that the Board knows it is not going to do Option
#3.
Mr. Foley responded that that was helpful direction, and it was fine to eliminate Option #3 – with
the other two items being taking over the transfer station or leasing with Rivanna. There are costs
involved with those two alternatives that the Board needs to be informed about because of the capital
investments needed. He said that the private involvement could also be evaluated.
Mr. Snow said he didn’t understand the need for capital investment, other than maintaining the
grounds, if this was subcontracted out.
Mr. Foley explained that the vendor would charge the County for the facility being used for transfer
because it would have to be upgraded.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board does not know that is true at this point.
Mr. Snow said he thought the firm would take over the transfer station as is and run it.
Mr. Graham stated that assuming Ivy would be maintained with the services provided there, there
will need to be capital investment to bring that facility up to current standards. He said that the question is
how the transfer is going to happen, such as the loading facility for the municipal solid waste – and new
DEQ permits will not allow open-air facilities such as what is in place now. They are currently spending a
little over $30,000 to upgrade one of the slabs on the open air facility which will buy them a few years. Mr.
Graham said that at some point, there will be a requirement by DEQ to bring the facility up to the current
standards. He said that one of the questions is whether it needed to continue as a transfer station or
whether it could be downsized and operated as a “convenience center,” which will not allow commercial
haulers.
Mr. Boyd said one person who was interested in taking over the facility wanted to downgrade it to
a convenience center and not take the commercial waste. It seems to him that the current situation is that
the County has to accommodate solid waste in the community, and wants to do it for the least possible
cost. He stated that his position at this point is to evaluate what services are currently provided, and what
services the Board wants to provide in the future – then issue an RFP for a firm to accomplish them.
Mr. Graham stated that staff discussed this with the Board in 2010 where it discussed what
services the County considered important to continue going on into the future. Staff came out of
discussion with the direction that the Board was interested in maintaining the level of services currently
being offered in Ivy.
Ms. Mallek suggested surveying all of the licensed haulers to see if they are still going to Ivy.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Mr. Boyd commented that the only hauler he is aware of that takes household waste to the Ivy
transfer station is Waste Management.
Mr. Rooker said that his sense was that the Board was unanimously in favor of trying to privatize
these functions and reduce the costs to the County, while ensuring that a certain level of services was
provided in that approach. Given that, he said, the question was whether they would be in a better
position by hiring a consultant to understand what would be put out for bid or negotiation and get that in
line to go forward.
Mr. Davis said that it would be Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, as the County currently has no
legal role with this other than the agreement with the RSWA to provide the service.
Mr. Snow commented that the City has already pulled out.
Mr. Rooker asked why the County would need to pay for a consultant, if this was a RSWA matter.
Mr. Foley responded that the first option listed under the Scope of Work with Draper Aden reads:
“maintenance of a support agreement with Rivanna,” and the second option reads: “negotiate with
Rivanna to lease or purchase portions of the transfer station.” He clarified that the question was whether
the County wanted to contract through the RSWA or lease and purchase the site and do it independently.
Mr. Foley said there was a cost to both options. Staff does not disagree with privatizing the service – but
the County is in a support agreement for a regional authority that is no longer regional yet still determines
what is done with the solid waste.
Mr. Rooker commented that the County will be the driving force behind this, as the facility is
located in the County and serves County users proportionately at 90%+. The City does not see much of
an interest in spending additional money here because it is doing other things. The County needs to
decide what other things it is going to do.
Mr. Foley said that three representatives from the City will need to negotiate the contract on behalf
of the County, and there was a recent dispute about how much City residents are charged. He added that
he thinks they will have to deal with the organizational issues at some point.
Mr. Boyd stated that the first step needs to be clarifying what the County could do legally to get the
City out of the Solid W aste Authority because they obviously want no participation and are contributing no
money. The second step is defining the services to be provided to the community. He said that rather
than a form al RFP process, the County could simply invite people to come in and make an offer on how
they would provide the service. Mr. Boyd stated that Rivanna put out an RFP several years ago, but it was
very specific as to what was required – and this approach would be to invite companies in who would
make an offer on what they could provide.
Mr. Davis said that the Procurement Act requires that this go to a formal bid.
Mr. Boyd asked if a PPEA could be done. Mr. Davis said he does not think that would be
applicable to this type process.
Ms. Mallek stated that a work session to develop ideas might be helpful, noting that other counties
are taking advantage of other solid waste approaches that the County isn’t. She also said that if there
were more distributed disposal places there would be less random dumping.
Mr. Foley said that this is a great conversation but the issue is not that simple. He said that it is a
great decision to eliminate option #3. There are operational agreement issues to be addressed also – and
the Draper Aden study would help define the scope of services to be provided to the community. He
emphasized that staff is not opposed to privatizing the service, but there are some complicated questions
regarding the agreement, the level of service to be provided, and how the lease agreement with Rivanna
would be handled. Mr. Foley said that Rivanna will look for some payment if the County were to purchase
or lease the transfer station.
Mr. Rooker stated that the idea is for the private provider to lease the facility and offer a list of
services to go along with that, adding that what is needed for RSWA’s RFP is the scope of services so
that the County is prepared to move forward. He emphasized that what they decide now should help
move the project closer to a “turnkey” decision once the options are considered.
Mr. Foley said that would definitely be an outcome of the study.
Mr. Snow said that from his conversation with Van der Linde, they seemed better able to do the
job and get the County out of the business altogether, adding that they are recycling over 90% of
construction waste and are doing an excellent job on household waste.
Mr. Foley suggested that staff go back and revise what is before the Board. Staff’s
recommendation is get a consultant to help them do what the Board wants to do which is the development
of scope of work. Staff is also probably going to need to come back to the Board and ask what it wants to
do about the relationship with Rivanna.
Mr. Rooker said that his preference would be to have the RSWA issue the RFP and have a
private company come in and run it. He added that he thinks it is fairly clear that none of the Board
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
members want to continue to be in the waste business, and if there is a way to reasonably privatize that
function, everyone on the Board has expressed an interest in going to that.
Mr. Foley emphasized that the transfer operation station is the key, as there still needs to be a
location for that.
Mr. Davis clarified that there is no requirement that the County be in the waste business. Rivanna
could simply shut down the Ivy and McIntire facilities without legal repercussions – but the question is how
to best provide the service, either through the County, Rivanna, or privatization. He said that Mr.
Graham’s proposal was to have an expert look at the options and provide confirmation that privatization
was the way to go along with a road map as to how to make that happen. He said that staff’s suggestion
was to do that and then come back to the Board with a recommendation as to what would best serve the
County.
Mr. Boyd said that in his option the only option to consider is whether the service could be
privatized for a reasonable amount of money without degrading the level of service to the com munity.
Mr. Snow said that his conversation with Van der Linde indicated that they would privatize it at no
cost to the County, and a starting point would be talking to someone in the private sector to see what is
offered.
Mr. Foley said that staff will come back after this input and narrow this down. He added that there
are some questions that staff is not qualified to answer related to defining services – but it will likely be
much less than $32,000.
Mr. Boyd said that one of the main issues is whether the transfer station could operate just as a
convenience station.
Mr. Foley responded that that is probably a regulatory question, which is one thing the consultant
could help determine.
Mr. Foley said staff has received a lot of good input. He reiterated that staff will take into
consideration the Board’s comments, revise the scope of work, and bring this item back to the Board for
further discussion.
_______________
(Note: The Board recessed at 11:03 a.m., and reconvened their meeting at 11:15 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. County’s FY12/13 - FY16/17 Strategic Plan - Review and approve Plan’s
Goals and Objectives.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On February 1, 2012, staff presented to the Board of Supervisors an overview of strategic
planning efforts that have occurred since the Board’s June 2011 Strategic Planning Retreat. These efforts
include finalizing the County’s Vision Statement and the development of seven goals for implementation
for the upcoming five (5) year planning period. During its briefing to the Board on this matter, staff
presented draft objective statements for the following goals:
1. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
2. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
3. Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources
4. Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges
5. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent
customer service
Staff further indicated that during the Board’s March 7, 2012 meeting, objective statements for the
following goals would be presented for consideration:
1. Ensure the health and safety of the community
2. Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
This executive summary provides an overview of the proposed objectives for these goals as well
as revised statements for the “Protect the County’s natural, scenic and historic resources” objective based
on feedback received from Board members on February 1, 2012.
Board members expressed general consensus to amend the “Protect the County’s natural,
scenic and historic resources” to also include the County’s parklands and broaden the focus of the
objective statements from primary focus on the Clean Water Act’s Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”)
requirements to protect the Chesapeake Bay to the protection of all local waterways and other critical
natural resources. Based on this feedback, staff proposes the following amended goal and objectives
statement:
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources
a. Work in conjunction with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local waterways
and other critical natural resources.
b. Preserve and maintain the quality of the County’s investment in its parks and its
recreational trail and greenway/blueway system.
c. Maintain and preserve County-owned historic resources and facilities and work in
conjunction with key stakeholders to enhance awareness of the rich historic assets of this
region.
TMDL compliance will become the focus of one of the action plan items for this goal.
It was the consensus of the Board to also amend the draft objective statements for the “Promote
individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges” as well. The following
revised objective statements reflect staff’s understanding of the Board’s direction:
a. Increase County’s volunteer management capability
b. Increase opportunities for citizen self reliance and responsibility for addressing com munity
issues
Regarding the remaining two (2) strategic plan goals, staff proposes the following objective
statements for Board consideration:
Ensure the health and safety of the community
a. Work in conjunction with key community partners to establish multi-disciplinary teams to
address specific public health and/or safety issues, emerging trends and or vulnerable
groups.
b. Enhance the safety of the County by improving emergency response times and increasing
prevention activities and services.
Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
a. Increase the availability and quality of pre-kindergarten learning opportunities and adult
workforce development opportunities.
b. Improve coordination to support goals shared between the School Division’s Strategic
Plan for K-12 Education and the County’s overall Strategic Plan.
Upon the Board’s acceptance of all goal and objective statements, staff will develop action plans
for each goal. Implementation of the Plan will begin on July 1, 2012, and the Board of Supervisors will
receive regular updates on the progress of the Plan through a variety of methods:
Twice a year updates, in July and January, to be presented at Board of Supervisors
meetings.
Regular updating of key performance indicators, or KPIs, that can be viewed by Board
members and the public at any time on the County’s website at the following link:
www.albemarle.org/performance.
References in executive summaries and budget materials that will connect Board agenda
items and funding to the Strategic Plan goal/objective they support.
Annual Report to Citizens published in February of each year that gives a summary of
annual progress.
The FY12/13 – FY16/17 Strategic Action Plan will provide direction for the County’s Five-Year
Financial Plan and annual budget processes.
After any changes the Board feels are important, staff recommends approval of all objective
statements for the County’s FY12/13 – FY16/17 Strategic Plan goals.
_____
Mr. Foley reported that this was the second review of the total seven goals and objectives that the
Board gave direction on at its strategic planning retreat, and have come back today with the final two goals
that were not clarified at their last meeting on the first five goals. He said that the goal of “protecting the
County’s natural, scenic and historic resources” has been revised, with the statement changed to “protect
the County’s parks…” and a broad statement included about protecting water quality: “work in conjunction
with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local waterways and other critical natural resources.” Mr.
Foley said that under that, in the action plan, the TMDL issue would be addressed. He asked if these
changes meet the Board’s thoughts.
Ms. Mallek said Item “a” under this section is excellent and allows for collaboration with other local
agencies.
Mr. Boyd said it seems that staff has done what the Board asked.
Mr. Dumler said that his concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would like see language included that stated, “assures that the
County’s growth management goals are achieved.” He said that the Comp Plan references growth
management throughout, and every citizens’ surveys put “growth management and protection of natural
resources” far above job creation. He would suggest changing the language to read: “Protect the
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources, and assures that the County’s growth
management goals are realized.”
Mr. Boyd asked what the growth management goals were.
Mr. Rooker responded that they include the division between the rural area and the growth area,
the neighborhood model, and various things included in policies and plans over the years to assure that as
growth occurs, it occurs in a way that minimizes negative impacts that can result from growth on the
community.
Ms. Mallek said that the phrase that was taken out pertained to protection of current residents as
well as those coming in the future, because for many years there was the perception that the current
residents were paying a lot for people who weren’t even here yet. Ms. Mallek said that statement could be
added as “d” or be a part of the heading.
Mr. Boyd stated that a certain amount of that has to happen, and there were people long before
the current residents that started the County off in the right direction. He added that he does not know
how you quantify that statement of saying they need to not have current people paying for future people’s
needs.
Ms. Mallek said that everybody needs to pay in which is the reason for hook-up fees and other
fees, so that new people would buy into the investment previously made.
Mr. Boyd commented that it doesn’t bother him to include a general statement about growth
management, as the specifics are in the Comp Plan – but not everything can be included in the strategic
plan goals.
Mr. Foley said that growth management policies are a way to protect historic, natural and scenic
resources – so perhaps a separate objective would be appropriate.
Mr. Rooker suggested including it as “protecting the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and
historic resources and assure that its growth management policies are followed.”
Mr. Snow said that he would agree to include that.
Mr. Rooker stated that they have always included something about education in the strategic plan,
but that is no longer included.
Mr. Foley said that there is an entire goal on education that would be discussed momentarily.
Mr. Foley added that staff would add the statement recommended by Mr. Rooker to the goal
statement. He stated that staff has reworded the objective regarding “individual responsibility and citizen
ownership of community challenges,” stating that it now says “increase opportunities for citizen self-
reliance and responsibility for addressing community issues.”
Board members concurred with that change.
Mr. Foley said Mr. Elliott would now review the goal statement: “Ensure the health and safety of
the community” and then he would review the last statement: “Provide excellent educational opportunities
to all Albemarle County residents.”
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, stated that the Board reviewed this proposed goal
statement in October. Following that, a team including Ms. Kathy Ralston, Mr. Dan Eggleston, Mr. Steve
Sellers, Mr. Amelia McCulley, Mr. Tom Hanson, and himself formed to review what had been in the 2007-
10 strategic plan as well as current issues facing the County. Mr. Elliott said that the team is proposing
two objectives: “work in conjunction with key community partners to establish multidisciplinary teams to
address specific public health and/or safety issues, emerging trends, and/or vulnerable groups.” The
second goal statement is a carryover from the previous strategic plan which is to “enhance the safety of
the County by improving emergency response times and increasing prevention activities and services”.
He stated that the performance standards related to emergency response times are critical to the safety of
citizens, and the team felt strongly that they should be carried forward. Mr. Elliott added that there are
additional opportunities for prevention activities and services throughout a number of communities
throughout the County, and those should be emphasized as well.
Ms. Mallek commented that there may be a point that response times simply cannot get any
better, and perhaps the wording for the objective should be “reach for our goals of emergency response
times” rather than saying there should always be improvement.
Mr. Elliott said that with the enhanced police staffing and improvement in staffing levels, it is
assumed that they could likely get closer to their response time goals reflected in the Comp Plan – five
minutes, 80% of the time in the urban area. He said that transitioning away from the City contract and with
construction of the Ivy station, as well as establishing EMS services on Pantops, the average response
time goal should be more attainable.
Mr. Elliott stated that with the Board’s endorsement of objectives today, staff can then move
toward the formation of teams and the development of action plans. He added that if there was a way to
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
bring a team together to improve response and level of service to those at risk in the community – such as
the elderly and youth – they could look at metrics that provide a measurement of success.
Mr. Foley stated that every objective would have key performance indicators with it to monitor its
success.
Mr. Boyd commented that the new review process for nonprofits didn’t seem to be working well,
as the Board was already “picking that apart.”
Ms. Mallek said that those were just recommendations.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has to hold itself accountable to those.
Mr. Foley said that one of the charges to the action teams was to develop the key performance
indicators so that the Board could better evaluate accomplishments.
Mr. Rooker stated that the ABRT process has been excellent. The Board ends up taking 90% of
recommendations – and what the Board does not follows, it at least has the background to make an
informed decision.
Mr. Foley said that regarding the final goal statement – “provide excellent educational
opportunities for all Albemarle County residents” – reflects an ongoing focus on education, which citizens
has identified in surveys as being very important. He stated that local government and the school system
had developed a very collaborative partnership, with joint human resources services, legal services,
capital and finance services. Mr. Foley said that the Board has made progress in working with the School
Board and getting them involved in the five-year planning process, and the question now is what the
strategic challenges are in going forward in order to achieve this goal. He stated that a team consisting of
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Ms. Lee Catlin, Mr. Bryan Elliott, and Mr. Bill Letteri (from General Government), Mr.
Josh Davis, Mr. Matt Haas, Ms. Melissa Anderson and Mr. Adam Hastings (from School Division), along
with Ms. Cathy Train, bringing the community perspective, were all involved in developing the statements
presented.
Mr. Foley reported that some of the challenges identified were lack of availability and access to
quality preschools, the opportunity to more fully utilize CATEC, opportunities to spread the word more
about adult education at CATEC, and opportunities for Schools and General Government to support one
another’s shared goals in strategic planning. He said that the objectives before the Board included
increasing the availability and quality of pre-K learning opportunities and adult workforce development
opportunities. Mr. Foley noted that the workforce development opportunities action plan will be done in
coordination with the Economic Vitality Action Plan, along with support for the workforce network. He said
that the second objective focuses on improved coordination to support goals shared between the School
Division’s strategic plan for K-12 education and the County’s overall strategic plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff could also focus on efficiency measures such as having a consolidated IT
Department, and accounting/budget preparation for Schools and General Government.
Mr. Foley responded that they certainly could focus on that, and said that it was worthy of a
separate objective “C” such as “continuing to look for efficiency in operations between the two
organizations”.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve all the objective statements for the County’s
FY12/13-FY16/17 Strategic Plan goals as amended in this discussion. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Foley explained that staff would now form action teams under each goal and objective, and
would bring the final plan back to the Board in June for adoption.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Update on Animal care issues/barking dogs/running-at-large County-wide.
Mr. Elliott summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board members:
On June 11, 2008, the Board amended Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle County
Code by adopting an ordinance regulating animal noises, which prohibits animal owners from keeping an
animal which howls, barks or makes other such animal noises for thirty consecutive minutes or more. The
ordinance restrictions do not apply to property zoned Rural Areas District of five acres or more, or to any
animal in a pound or an animal shelter or commercial kennel as defined in Chapter 18 of the County’s
Zoning Ordinance, or to sounds caused by livestock or poultry.
On July 8, 2009, the Board adopted a comprehensive amendment to Chapter 4, Animals and
Fowl, of the County Code to update the Code and to bring the County’s animal laws into conformance with
State law. During the comprehensive amendment, the Board adopted regulations consistent with State
law regarding the care of companion animals, and prohibited running at large in all areas of the County not
zoned Rural Areas District, and in any Rural Areas District that was previously identified as a no running at
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
large area and is specifically identified in the ordinance. The running at large ordinance provides an
exemption for dogs running at large that are deemed to be on a bona fide hunt during hunting season
accompanied by a licensed hunter or during field trials or training periods when accompanied by its owner.
On February 2, 2011, the Board adopted amendments to Section 4-100, Definitions, of Chapter 4
of the County Code, to amend the definitions of “adequate shelter”, “adequate space”, and
“treatment/adequate treatment” in order to provide the Animal Control Officers (ACO’s) additional tools
when responding to animal welfare calls, and to provide higher care standards and greater clarity to
animal owners and concerned citizens.
This report is intended to provide the Board an update on animal welfare matters, running at large,
and noise from animals, in order to assist the Board in its discussion of animal issues in the County.
Animal Welfare—As reported earlier this year in Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report
(Attachment A), the animal welfare ordinance and definitions continue to work very well. There is no
recommendation for additional changes or “tools” at this time. Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report
provides information on the different types of animal welfare issues received by the ACO’s from April 1,
2011 to January 2012. The current animal welfare ordinance and corresponding definitions have proven
to be sufficient tools for the ACO’s to respond and address welfare concerns in the County.
Running at Large—Based on data gathered from April 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012, 43% of dog-
related calls-for-service are regarding dogs running at large (See Attachment A). Approximately 49.8% of
those reports were determined to be dogs at large in the rural areas where running at large is not
prohibited. The ACO’s have identified the following pros and cons if the Board amends the running at
large ordinance to prohibit running at large County wide.
Pros:
Potential reduction in the number of calls related to dog bites, dog versus companion
animal complaints, and dog versus livestock incidents
Potential reduction in the number of stray dog reports received in the rural areas
Potential decrease in the number of hazard calls received for dogs being in the roadway,
and dogs being struck by vehicles in the rural areas
Elimination of “invisible” boundary lines between areas where dogs can and cannot run at
large currently defined by the zoning designation of the property
Cons:
Potential resistance from dog owners in rural areas is expected, as many residing in the
rural areas are accustomed to the lack of restrictions for their dogs
Potential increase in the number of dogs taken to the SPCA due to lack of compliance
immediately after a County-wide prohibition
Expected increase in the number of dogs being tethered, and increase in calls of
concerns from citizens regarding the welfare of tethered dogs
Expected increase in the number of calls regarding running at large complaints, with no
additional staff to handle the volume of calls
Potential confusion and difficulty identifying hunting dogs which may be at large as part of
a bona fide hunt, as allowed under the ordinance. Often times dogs used for hunting are
not retrieved for several days following a hunt and there is the potential for an increase in
calls to report dogs running at large during or after a hunt.
If an ordinance prohibiting dogs running at large County wide is adopted, ACO’s anticipate the
initial impact will be an increase in calls for dogs at large, and welfare and tethering issues. However, no
additional ACO’s are anticipated to be hired to handle the increased phone calls, and response times may
be slowed by the number of calls. Should any change to the running at large ordinance be considered
and adopted, the ACO’s recommend an education outreach to inform citizens.
Barking Dogs/Noise from Animals—On June 3, 2009, an update was provided to the Board
after the ordinance had been in effect for one year (Attachment B). From June 2009 to April 2011,
complaints specific to barking dogs were not tracked by the ACO’s. ACO’s began tracking the number of
calls related to animal noises after implementation of the specific tracking codes as discussed in Colonel
Seller’s report (Attachment A). Based on data from April 2011 to December 13, 2011, there were a total
of 51 complaints related to barking dogs. Eleven of the 51 complaints arose from the Peavine Hollow
area of the County. From April 2011 to December 13, 2011, one charge was obtained by a citizen from
the Magistrate, and that charge resulted in a conviction.
ACO’s have found this ordinance to be a useful tool in addressing barking dog complaints, as well
as a useful tool for citizens to use in addressing barking dog issues. However, ACO’s have received
complaints from citizens questioning why the ordinance does not apply to property of five acres or more,
assuming that the ordinance should apply regardless of property size or zoning. Additionally, ACO’s have
received citizen complaints regarding the 30-minute threshold because it is burdensome for complainants.
The County has also received a request by a person convicted of violating the ordinance to make the
ordinance less restrictive and to require corroboration of the noise by a third party. Staff believes the
current standard for a violation balances the interests of the complainant and the animal owner and does
not recommend any change.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
There is no budget impact related to this update; however, should the Board decide to adopt more
extensive animal ordinance regulations a significant increase in calls for enforcement is expected resulting
in increased costs and need for additional ACOs. The Police Department currently has four ACOs that are
responsible for a very heavy call volume. The estimated annual and one-time cost per ACO is as follows:
Total salary and benefits for ACO ($43,246.57) + Operating and Capital Costs ($47,600) + Overtime
($3,000) = $93,846.57
Animal Welfare – As reported earlier this year in Colonel Sellers’ Animal Welfare Report
(Attachment A), the animal welfare ordinance and definitions continue to work very well. Staff is not
recommending additional changes at this time.
Barking Dogs/Noise from Animals -- Staff believes the current standard for a violation balances
the interests of the complainant and the animal owner and does not recommend any change to this
ordinance at this time.
Running at Large -- Although extending the running at large ordinance to the rural areas of the
County is acceptable to ACPD, limited current staffing levels in both the Patrol and Animal Control Officer
Divisions limits the ability of the Department to effectively enforce any added requirements at this time. As
such, extension of this ordinance to the entire County is likely to result in a gap in citizen expectations for
enforcement and the sheer capacity of ACPD to respond in a timely manner. Because of limited available
staffing to enforce this ordinance in the rural areas it is not recommended that the Board proceed with
changes at this time.
_____
Mr. Elliott said that the matter before the Board is in response to its request of staff earlier in the
year to provide an update on the status of animal welfare matters, dogs running at large, and noise from
animals in the County. He said that the executive summary provided contains an historical overview of
three ordinance amendments and enactments related to animals that the Board have taken since 2008,
and includes background information and data on calls and service for animal-related matters. Mr. Elliott
stated that Police Chief Steve Sellers' 2011 annual report on animal matters is also attached and has
been sent to the Board, as well as distributed to key stakeholders.
Mr. Elliott said that Mr. Sellers report states that 16% of overall calls – or roughly 200 – relate to
the animal welfare; 36 were reported as tethering issues, but only seven were verified and two criminal
charges were processed for tethering. Mr. Elliott stated that one of the main roles of ACOs is to provide
educational opportunities for citizens to understand proper care for animals, and perhaps the officers
come back at a later point and check in – so the tools were not meant as a “hammer,” but to provide tools
to the owner. In that regard, staff believes that the changes have been very effective.
He said that with dogs running at large, there are categories of “hazard,” “stray,” and “running at
large,” which represent 540 total calls for service between April 2011 and December 2011.
Mr. Rooker asked if a dog bite would be counted as a bite incident as well as running at large, if
the dog was running at large when it made the bite.
Ms. Kimberly Maddox, ACO, said that they only clear with one code, so they would choose which
one to file it under. She explained that the running at large descriptor is used in the leash law areas, with
the term “strays” used in the rural areas.
Mr. Elliott said that approximately 270 of the calls were for running at large in the rural area. He
stated that in the executive summary, staff lists pros and cons associated with amendment of the
ordinance to make it effective countywide. W hile the extension of the ordinance is laudable – the primary
downside to proceeding with expansion at this is related to staffing levels and workload. Mr. Elliott said
that they have four ACOs for the entire County, who are on service during daylight hours, weekdays, and
Saturdays – so evenings and Sundays calls are dispatched and routed to the Patrol Division and/or held
over to the next day when an Animal Control Officer is available.
Mr. Rooker commented that a lot of barking dog complaints come in at night and asked if most of
them were handled by officers on patrol.
Mr. Sellers confirmed that a large sum of the calls is handled by patrol officers because of the
time of day they occurred.
Mr. Elliott mentioned that there is also under-reporting because of calls coming directly to ACO’s
cell phones that are not routed through ECC. He said that if the ordinance were to be amended to go
countywide, there would be a gap in the expectations of citizens for response to calls in the County’s ability
to get to them in a timely basis.
Between April and December 2011, he said, there were 51 complaints for barking dogs received –
with 11 from one property in the rural area – and one charge was obtained by a citizen from the Magistrate
that resulted in a conviction. Mr. Elliott stated that based on Mr. Sellers’ review and the data provided in
this report, staff is recommending no further ordinance amendments at this time – based upon the staffing
levels, the workload, and the positive outcomes achieved to date by the Code changes the Board has
enacted over the last few years.
Mr. Rooker asked why barking dogs were not one of the categories on the report.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Sellers responded that there is not a clearance call for dog barking; it is a police call for
service and it would be under nuisance.
Mr. Rooker asked if the 153 nuisance calls are mostly barking dogs.
Ms. Maddox said that not all of the nuisance calls are barking dogs. It could include a range of
incidents such as dogs coming into neighbors’ yards. She stated that there were 51 barking dog calls in
the nine-month timeframe mentioned.
Mr. Rooker asked how much police time is taken up with a barking dog call.
Mr. Sellers said that if the police responded to a scene and the dog is still barking, they go in and
try to mitigate. If the complainant is insistent on prosecution, then they have to go through that process.
He stated that 90% of the calls result in the situation being worked out, but often people are frustrated
because the police don’t always witness the dog barking on the scene.
Ms. Mallek also mentioned that many complainants don’t qualify under the law because they are
on five acres or greater, and often topography can be a factor. She said that when the Board discussed
this before they concluded that there would be huge increases in staff demand that could not be afforded,
but that is one opinion. One of the reasons ACOs have to go back repeatedly is that the County does not
have any rules that the ACOs can enforce. Ms. Mallek stated that there have been numerous calls from
people who have been harassed or attacked by dogs running at large, and the County does not need to
wait until somebody gets killed. She said that there is no difference between urban or rural responsibilities
regarding care for an animal. She asked her fellow Board members for their support of uniform
application of running at large measures. Ms. Mallek commented that the Board needs to give the ACOs
the tools they needed to do the job.
Mr. Snow said that the ACOs probably get tired of going out and saying they can’t do much about
the problem.
Ms. Maddox responded that they do, and added that she try not to indicate to people that she
couldn’t help – but instead offers solutions to citizens who in turn often contact the Board.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that these issues are something the Board needs to take more seriously.
It is not a lot of fun when a neighbor’s animal goes over the tolerance level.
Mr. Boyd agreed, but asked how much the Board could legislate and how much the ACOs could
be expected to do in following up. He expressed concern that a stricter ordinance would generate more
calls for service, and the ACOs would have to deal with the increase.
Ms. Mallek said that the only proposal for barking dogs would be to remove the five-acre limit, and
the running at large would need to be dealt with differently.
Mr. Snow asked how many calls were taken for Peavine Hollow.
Ms. Maddox responded that she had only taken one call, and she told the caller that since the law
didn’t pertain to him he could deal with it through civil process.
Mr. Boyd said he forwarded a suggestion to Mr. Foley from an individual who was convicted of a
charge. In the individual’s situation her dog was being aggravated which in turn caused it to bark for long
periods of time. The individual suggested that the ordinance also include language to require a
collaborating witness.
Ms. Maddox said that when she goes out on a call she normally asks other neighbors if they had
problems with dogs barking. She added that sometimes she wonders if it could just be a neighborhood
dispute of some other matter.
Mr. Davis commented that generally the court sorts through those issues very well. He said that
he does not think a court would convict someone if the evidence presented that the complaining person
was baiting the dog to bark.
Mr. Boyd said that the courts would rather not deal with these issues.
Mr. Davis said that there are lots of issues the courts would rather not deal with. He also stated
that the goal when the ordinance was discussed previously was to make sure the animal wasn’t barking
because of the conditions of the animal, that a neighborhood dispute would result in mediation, and that
there would be a standard in place that established a real problem before the courts were required to
intervene. Mr. Davis said he thinks this ordinance has accomplished that based on the evidence that staff
has seen. It’s not perfect, but staff knew going into it and that there may be neighbor versus neighbor
issues that staff gets involved in because of this ordinance. But all in all, he thinks it has been a success
to date.
Ms. Mallek stated that what this has done is pit neighbor against neighbor, adding that there are
people out in Peavine who feel intimidated. She emphasized that there are people’s lives who have been
significantly impacted because the County chose to impose rules only to those properties under five acres.
It doesn’t really have any meaning as far as distance of sound being traveled or anything else – it is just a
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
number that the County pulled out of the air to use. She said that she does not think it is appropriate that
they have that five-acre minimum in the barking dog category.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board went through an extensive public hearing on this and had a lot of
people come out to address the issue.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board decided on the five-acre limit because there are many
subdivisions with lots that size, and the Board felt this was something more appropriate and easier to
enforce within a subdivision setting rather than a completely rural setting or for people on farms. He said
that he does not see how changing the running at large provision would impose a greater burden on
officers, and most people do not understand the five-acre difference anyway.
Mr. Boyd said that he lives in the rural areas and he always tries to get dogs back to their owners
if he sees them running loose.
Ms. Mallek agreed that she also does that, but if it is an aggressive dog, Mr. Boyd would not do
the same. She added that there are problems on all of the boundaries between rural areas and growth
areas – and reiterated her preference in having the running at large ordinance applied universally
throughout the County. She said that the Board should consider the greater good of having this rule.
Mr. Rooker commented that every year Mr. Robert Hogue comes to the Board to and ask that it
reduce taxes. A year ago he also complained about his wife being harassed by a neighbor’s dog. Mr.
Rooker said that he would support expansion of the running at large ordinance as he does not see a
difference in whether the dog is in an urban or rural area. He thinks that this is an area where the County
has had enough people talk about being terrorized by dogs running loose and the Board needs to consider
doing something.
Mr. Davis clarified that under the current ordinance, running at large is prohibited everywhere in
the County except the rural area – and in the RA there were certain neighborhoods previously designated
as “not running at large areas,” which continue to be specified in the ordinance. He said that staff
probably agrees having the ordinance applicable countywide is an easier enforcement mechanism, and
the only concern is staffing. That is the issue; whether or not there is adequate staffing to enforce the
ordinance in the rural area if the Board goes countywide.
Mr. Rooker asked if the police did not get those calls anyway.
Ms. Mallek said if the troublemakers were addressed, then they would not be repeating the
problem every single week.
Mr. Sellers pointed out that they don’t always get those calls, as it depends on the dispatcher and
their knowledge of the rules as well s the location. He emphasized that Mr. Davis was correct about
staffing concerns, because that is his concern. He added that this is the hardest working group of four
people that he has on the Police Department. Mr. Sellers added that it is also about expectations. He
said that if the Board extends the running at large ordinance countywide, the Police Department has an
obligation to let expectations be known to citizens that they might not get there today, nor might not get
there within a couple hours.
Mr. Rooker said the police have to prioritize their work.
Ms. Mallek agreed, adding that there would have to be a whole lot more involved if someone got
bitten by a dog.
Mr. Rooker stated that he would support broadening the ordinance to make it countywide, noting
that the Board has historically automatically approved petitions from specific neighborhoods related to the
leash law.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with most of what is being said, but he does not really want to drag the
community through another public hearing on this, as there would be hundreds of people coming out on
both sides of the issue.
Ms. Mallek said that the County needs to do a better job of education before the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd stated that with only 166 calls, it does not seem to be a big problem to him. He is aware
that this is a problem to the neighbor who has to deal with a dog running loose.
Ms. Mallek said that she has heard from people in all six magisterial districts about this, and she
has advertised this as a topic to be addressed in her upcoming town hall meetings. She stated that if the
County does a good job in educating the public about the difficulties and the goals for prevention, they
would come to understand the issue.
Mr. Snow said that he would support it also.
Mr. Thomas asked what percentage of the dogs was considered dangerous.
Mr. Snow said that there were 115 under “aggressive.”
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Ms. Maddox confirmed this, adding that any dogs that were aggressive were placed in this
category, and if there was an owner it wouldn’t be listed as a stray.
Mr. Rooker commented that the ACOs have very difficult jobs and he appreciates their work.
Ms. Mallek checked with Board members to ensure they were getting Stacy Norris’ emails on the
House Project. She added that the County has not solved the sheltering issue yet.
Mr. Boyd said that this gets back to their previous discussion on self-reliance, adding that the
County cannot solve all of the social problems in the community.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is no consequence for people not following the guidelines in place.
Mr. Rooker commented that in this instance there is no self-reliance unless there is an ordinance
to rely upon, if you are the victim. What does the victim of a barking dog do if there is no ordinance that
can be enforced? What do you do if dogs are perpetually running in your yard that are stray dogs or
somebody else’s dogs?”
Mr. Boyd suggested using pepper spray or a BB gun.
Ms. Mallek said that the only recourse in that regard was for farmers and the dog was attacking
their livestock.
Ms. Maddox explained that if a dog was coming at you to attack you, you have the right to “use
what you have at means to protect yourself” but you cannot go in your house and come back out or you
would be charged with animal cruelty.
Mr. Boyd stated that he has been bitten by a group of dogs a few years ago, and now he carries
pepper spray to defend himself.
Ms. Mallek commented that she also was bitten once and it is a very harrowing feeling, and the
stories from the perspectives of victims are very scary.
Mr. Rooker said the Board should move forward with some action here, and asked if there was a
majority to support coming back with a public hearing for potentially amending the ordinance.
Mr. Dumler stated that he would support expansion of running at large, noting that he has
received some emails from small business owners who have indicated that dogs running at large in
Scottsville were impacting their businesses.
Mr. Foley clarified that it would just address the one component, and Mr. Davis confirmed that it
would be the running at large restriction.
Ms. Mallek asked if any other Board members were interested in looking at the five acres for the
barking.
Mr. Davis pointed out that currently the barking ordinance is not applicable in rural areas except in
areas where there are lots of five acres or less. He said that when the ordinance was discussed before,
everyone recognized that it was not a perfect ordinance – but the reason it moved forward was that part of
living in the rural area was dealing with animal noises, and because of the enforcement issue with ACOs
responding to 700+ square miles of rural area. Mr. Davis said there is no magical boundary line, and that
is the reality of resource allocations and recognition of rural character.
Mr. Boyd said there are issues with choosing to live in the rural areas that people have to deal
with.
Ms. Mallek said she does not buy that as an excuse.
Mr. Snow mentioned that in the rural area, cows and tractors are not making noise all night, but
having a dog at your property line that is constantly barking and keeping you awake all night is above and
beyond what he considers to be noise in the rural area.
Mr. Boyd asked how many of those cases there actually were.
Ms. Mallek said that it does not matter to her how many cases there were.
Mr. Snow said it would be different if the dog was on Mr. Boyd’s property line, keeping him awake
at night.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would talk to his neighbor about it, not call the police. He said that he
would not be here saying the Board has to solve this problem he is having with his neighbor. He would not
ask for some kind of legislation to solve this problem he is having with his neighbor; he would find a way to
deal with it.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board thoroughly evaluated this before, and the number of incidents
does not seem to rise to the level of changing the ordinance.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Foley added that it was the consensus of the Board to set for public hearing to amend the
running at large ordinance to prohibit dogs running at large countywide.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Meeting.
At 12:21 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler for the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:47 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler that the Board certify by recorded vote that to the
best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing
the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17a. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appoints/reappointments:
appoint Mr. Jean Lorber to the ACE Appraisal Review Committee, with said term to
expire December 31, 2012.
appoint Mr. Phillip Best to the Crozet Community Advisory Committee, with said term to
expire March 31, 2014.
appoint Mr. Rick Randolph, as the Planning Commission representative, on the Historic
Preservation Committee, with said term to expire June 4, 2014.
appoint Mr. Bruce Dotson, as the Planning Commission representative, to the MPO
Technical Committee.
appoint Ms. Bonnie Brewer to the Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee, with
said term to expire March 5, 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.
appoint Ms. Nancy Gill, as the Scottsville District representative, on the Social Services
Board, with said term to expire December 31, 2015.
appoint Mr. Rick Randolph, as the Planning Commission representative, on the CIP
Oversight Committee.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Presentation: Region Ten.
Mr. Robert Johnson, Executive Director, addressed the Board, stating that Albert LaFave, Jr.
would be presenting to the Board.
Mr. LaFave addressed the Board, stating that he is a member of the Region Ten Board of
Directors and has also been the sentencing advocate in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Public Defender’s
Office since it opened in 1998. He said, prior to joining Region Ten, he spent 20 years as a probation
officer in the Charlottesville Probation Office. He said that Virginia jails and prisons end up being a
resource for people with a mental illness, and jails end up as treatment programs for mental illness which
is, at best, a blunt and relatively expensive treatment instrument. Mr. LaFave stated that current statistics
indicate it costs $25,717 annually to incarcerate one person in local jails in Virginia, and nearly 1/3 of those
individuals have some form of mental illness. He said that treatment and support for persons with mental
illness or disabilities is key not only to the individuals but to the community, as release from incarceration
ends up being one of the most stressful times for individuals with days lost that they will never get back
and high expectations for their return, such as probation obligations, child support obligations, court cost
obligations, and treatment obligations. Mr. LaFave stated that persons with mental illness are more likely
to become overwhelmed, increasing the possibility of re-offending if they do not receive support and
services during this critical time. He said individuals with mental illnesses often have co-occurring
disorders such as substance addiction, homelessness, poverty, etc., causing potential instability in their
lives.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. LaFave said throughout his 33-year career Region Ten has always been the primary resource
in this community for this population and what has consistently impressed him is the compassion and
dedication of Region Ten staff. He said, in the past, Region Ten has offered these services with a more
relaxed concern about reimbursement. He stated that the recent Healthy Transitions Program has
provided psychiatric medication and case management services to persons newly released from
incarceration who did not have resources or active funding sources to obtain mental health stabilization
services in the community such as co-payments. Mr. LaFave said that this program has filled a very
important and significant gap in services and, without this program, these individuals risk re-incarceration
which costs far more than mental health stabilization services. He stated that specific dollar costs do not
include collateral costs such as loss of benefits, housing, community support, and connection to the
community. Without on-going funding for the Healthy Transitions Program, he said the program cannot
continue.
Mr. Rooker said that, last year, he had requested letters from Region Ten and the regional jail
asking for an opinion on the Healthy Transitions Program, and the jail’s letter came just the other day in
support of the program. He asked if that was something the organization supported.
Mr. Johnson responded that Healthy Transitions was started by Region Ten with a grant and they
want to continue it because it has been very successful, with approximately 40+ individuals served thus far
with medications available to them that they couldn’t have accessed otherwise. He said that he was
unaware of a request for a letter, and apologized for not submitting one.
Mr. Rooker said that he had made the request to Sarah Tarbell of IMPACT, and she had indicated
that the program was supported by Region Ten and the regional jail.
Mr. Johnson stated that Region Ten is hoping to get sustained funding from the County and the
City in order to continue the program .
Mr. Boyd said that he had also asked for some statistics on the performance of program
participants.
Mr. Johnson stated that the program also represents a cooperative effort with District Nine
probation and parole, with the probation officer co-located at Region Ten, which is fairly unique. He said
this probation officer has fulfilled the role of case manager.
Mr. Boyd said that he had received a report on the program, but not on its results.
Mr. Johnson said that it would be difficult to provide that with less than a year underway, but not
as difficult as an ongoing report.
Mr. Boyd stated that a very good argument had been made about the lesser cost of this program
versus incarceration, so some statistics supporting that statement would be helpful.
Mr. Johnson reported that he has been at Region Ten almost five years and, last year when he
addressed the Board, he was very concerned about care coordination. He said that, through a new
General Assembly mandate for the Community Service Boards (CSB) to assess children needing rehab
services, the Commonwealth has saved approximately $18 million at the end of this fiscal year by doing
more thorough assessments which placed children and their families in the least restrictive services as
opposed to placing them in services that were far more expensive and far more than what was necessary.
Mr. Johnson reported that, this year, the agency is facing a Virginia Retirement Services (VRS)
increase of $522,000, which came as a sudden surprise. He said this issue changes the equation quite a
bit for Region Ten because they were planning for this year to be the year they would pursue employment
for its consumers, however, they have a really good program that is starting up despite the increase in
VRS. He also said that Region Ten is focusing on housing, with a new house coming up in Charlottesville
for individuals who are released from Western State Hospital and are transitioning into the community.
He said, if this housing was not available, there would be a delay in those people being released back into
the community. Mr. Johnson stated that Region Ten is trying to meet the demands of the community and
see approximately 6,000 individuals a year through about 65 programs throughout the City and the five
counties, and it becomes increasingly complex to provide the services under the present economy. He
emphasized that the agency continues to give localities a really good return on investment, with about $22
for every $1 spent locally, which is well above the $8 national average.
Mr. Johnson emphasized that Region Ten does everything possible to ensure that people coming
to the agency get the best care, but it is still a mixed bag because many individuals still fall between the
cracks as they are not seriously mentally ill, which is their target population and the most vulnerable. He
said that Healthy Transitions has helped reach individuals with moderate mental health disorders who
need medications, often only for the short term until they become stabilized. He said there are a lot of
those people in the community and Region Ten does not have the funding to support all of them. Mr.
Johnson stated that he is part of a mental health coalition and, for the first time as a community, Region
Ten is pursuing grants to create the same type of outpatient treatment provided through Healthy
Transitions, with the addition of a counselor and a case manager. He added that the decisions being
made at the state level will have a really telling effect on whether there will be success in the employment,
housing, and moderate mental health disorder services.
Ms. Beth Gager addressed the Board, stating that she has been with Region Ten for over five
years and in the position of Coordinator of Consumer Empowerment for the last year. Ms. Gager said that
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
she has worked with the Leadership Team at Region Ten as well as with the Consumer Advisory Council
(CAC), which is a group of people from all over the agency that work to ensure that consumer advocacy
needs are being met. She stated that so many people’s lives in the community are affected by the work of
Region Ten in a positive way, and the leadership works really hard to ensure that those services continue.
Mr. Jeffrey Bogart addressed the Board, stating that he was Vice-Chair of the CAC and has been
with Region Ten since 1991. Mr. Bogart said that he has been growing as a person because of the help
Region Ten provides, and said that he is confident to speak in front of the Board because of the help he
has received there.
Mr. Johnson also mentioned the START program, which provides respite care for people with
intellectual disabilities who are in crises and said that Region Ten was chosen as the lead agency out of
eight CSBs, with a $1 million grant secured which will go, in part, toward renovation of a facility to be used
for respite. He stated that the center could house up to six individuals, and these would be people who
traditionally would have had trouble getting into psychiatric hospitals. He said Region Ten feels very
fortunate to secure the grant, and pleased to have made the decision to be the lead agency. Mr. Johnson
said the grant is for operating costs as well as capital renovations, and they are working with the state on
some final details in order to get the house up and running by June.
Ms. Mallek asked if the services would be provided by outside vendors instead of Region Ten
staff.
Mr. Johnson responded that Region Ten has strongly pushed for public/private partnerships. He
said that the guidelines and thresholds for the program have been set by the state, and there is a model
already being used in North Carolina that could be followed. Mr. Johnson added that they are also trying
to get funding to implement programs for intellectually disabled individuals who would be coming out of the
training facilities under the state’s closure policy going into effect next year.
Mr. Johnson said Region Ten does not want to see any of those individuals going into nursing
homes. He said that they couldn’t go into group homes because of physical limitations, but Region Ten is
trying to find dollars to help build ICFs that would allow them to re-enter the community.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a way for the County to pay into the Healthy Transitions Program
based on the population served.
Mr. Johnson responded that he would think about that possibility and report back to the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Fast Track Review Process.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development is overseeing consultant work on a Target Industry Study for its
member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County. The target industry analysis matches locality
economic characteristics, resources and advantages with general location and work force requirements
for desired industry segments. Once the study is finalized, it will serve as the basis for strategic economic
development and will help Albemarle County leverage its unique assets to provide economic vitality and
diversification and to develop a place-specific strategy that supports the County’s long-term quality of life.
To encourage the expansion and new location of priority industries, many localities offer expedited
plan review among the incentives available for qualified target industries. Used strategically, expedited
review for projects that meet defined strategic criteria can be an effective tool for encouraging preferred
industry growth in a community. In researching fast track review processes in Albemarle’s benchmark
communities, staff found that virtually all counties who use this option offer it to qualified target industry
enterprises that meet certain criteria (e.g., minimum levels of job creation at certain salary levels).
The Board of Supervisors has expressed interest in considering some type of formalized fast
track review process for projects that provide significant economic benefits, including career -ladder jobs
and capital investment, while still maintaining the high standards that define our community and attract
and retain quality employers. The Board’s desire, as staff understands it, is to consider a formalized fast
track review process that works within existing ordinance requirements and Comprehensive Plan
guidance to provide a quicker outcome for desirable applicants.
It is the County’s goal to provide timely and responsive review for all applicants. Continued work
on legislative and ministerial review processes will streamline and simplify both of those processes across
the board. Staff also recognizes that businesses that bring strong job creation and higher than average
wages, and that fit within desirable target industry categories, are particularly advantageous to the
community as a whole. Locating those types of companies as quickly as possible in Albemarle County is
beneficial to County residents and to the local economy.
The best opportunity to fast track projects occurs when land is appropriately designated in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned to accommodate the desired use. The Comprehensive Plan review and
update currently underway provides the opportunity to appropriately designate lands for industrial and
business development, thus eliminating the need for businesses that locate to those areas to go through
an additional Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Once the updated Comprehensive Plan is
adopted, all lands planned for industrial and business uses but currently zoned Rural Areas and R-1 would
be considered for a County-initiated rezoning to a proposed new industrial zoning district. This approach
would be similar to what occurred with the Downtown Crozet Zoning District rezoning initiated by the
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
County. Staff proposes that it would contact the owners of all of the eligible parcels and inform them of the
proposed rezoning and allow them to opt out of the rezoning if they so choose. Like the Downtown Crozet
rezoning, the impacts resulting from a County-initiated rezoning, including those impacts on transportation
and other public facilities and services, and specific impacts to abutting parcels, could not be addressed
by proffers. Instead, any impacts would have to be addressed by existing regulations, including
performance standards, or through new demands for County funded capital improvements.
These types of strategies are not project-specific, but would streamline the process for general
industrial uses that are valuable to the County. Details about a more project-specific fast track approach
are outlined below.
Qualifying Criteria
As noted, County staff already works to move all projects through review quickly and efficiently,
and in the past has used elements of a fast track review for major projects that have a strategic beneficial
impact for the community. In order to make a formalized fast track process effective. criteria must be
clear in order to identify projects that would bring significant economic benefits to the County and thus are
appropriate for special consideration. Selectivity in granting fast track status would help insure that
qualifying projects would receive the significant staff attention required to expedite processing. Because
this is the first conversation with the Board about this process, specific details need to be further
researched and developed based on the Board’s reaction to the initial concepts.
Staff recommends that a formal fast track review process be reserved for qualified target industry
enterprises located within appropriately designated development areas that also meet two or more of the
following criteria:
Projects that provide a minimum (amount to be determined) number of jobs with
higher wages than the prevailing County average;
Projects that bring in a minimum (amount to be determined) capital investment;
Projects that are anticipated to result in a minimum (amount to be determined)
positive fiscal impact to the County; and
Projects that generate over 50% of their revenue from outside the TJPED region.
Potential Guidelines for Fast Track Review Process
To be successful, a formalized fast track process must recognize that each project has different
needs and circumstances and that a specific approach must be developed on a case-by-case basis. The
following guidelines provide a general approach with the understanding that a critical part of the initial
evaluation of the project review will include assessing and responding to the project’s specific individual
circumstances.
A company must make a request to the County’s Economic Development staff that its
project be designated for fast track. Requests that meet the fast track criteria will then be
forwarded to the Community Development Director who, in consultation with the
Economic Development staff, will make the final determination on eligibility for fast track
designation.
Prior to submitting its development application, the company and the Community
Development Director and Economic Development staff shall meet to discuss the
County’s fast track process. This structured meeting will identify issues before the formal
application is submitted for review. The applicant also would be advised to identify a
single point of contact (SPOC) for the application process as this has proven to
significantly reduce communication problems. The County will do the same as outlined
below.
Once the project is approved for fast tracking and the initial submission meeting has
occurred, the fast track application is submitted to the attention of the Community
Development Director.
Priority treatment of the application, or “top-of-the-list” status, will be provided for the
project throughout the entire development review. This priority treatment will include
flexibility in submittal deadlines and immediate processing for qualifying applications.
The Community Development Director will assign the project to a senior project manager
who will serve as a liaison during the application and permitting process. This project
manager will provide oversight throughout the process, and the project will remain
prioritized throughout developmental review. The senior project manager also will be
responsible for notifying the Community Development Director of any resource needs or
problems the applicant is unable to address. The senior project manager and the
applicant’s SPOC will form the team leadership throughout the development review
process.
A review team comprised of experienced members from all reviewing departments will
work on the application’s review until the project is completed, based on timelines agreed
upon and established in order to ensure efficiency. Normal review processes are
replaced by team decisions with authority to act broadly in various areas of review.
Where applicable, the project may be scheduled for a joint Planning Commission/Board
of Supervisors public hearing if required.
Legally required Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors advertisements can be
run simultaneously.
The site plan process may run concurrently with the rezoning or special use permit
application if both are required.
Economic Development staff will be involved during the pre-submittal process and will act
as part of the review team throughout the process to identify possible federal, state and
local incentives and resources.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Again, these guidelines are general in nature due to the individual requirements of specific
projects. If a project is accepted for fast tracking, staff will tailor the most efficient expedited approach
while maintaining established standards of quality and public input. Board members will be kept informed
of the progress of any fast tracked projects in their respective magisterial districts.
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item.
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the fast track qualifying criteria and general approach.
Details on minimum levels of jobs, investment and fiscal impact will be developed by staff and brought
back to the Board for final approval, along with the entire fast track process, including defined criteria.
Other strategies discussed in this Executive Summary will be brought to the Board for its consideration at
an appropriate time.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
addressed the Board, stating that today’s conversation would revolve around a potential fast track process
concept for qualified target industries in the County. She stated that there are still some details to be
worked out and, at this stage, staff would like to get some reaction from the Board on some of the material
and concepts presented. Ms. Catlin said staff would provide some background on the process, a
refresher on preliminary targets already identified in the Target Industry Study, a discussion of potential
criteria, general guidelines that might be considered, and then the Board would be asked to provide
comments and guidance to staff.
Ms. Catlin stated that, as the County reaches the final stages of the Target Industry Study, there
has been interest expressed in considering the possibility of an expedited review process that could serve
as an incentive to encourage the types of industries desired for the County. She said staff held a work
session with the Planning Commission recently and established that there are a lot of efforts already
underway to improve the County’s processes across the board such as the ministerial process review and
legislative review. She said data is suggesting that the County’s standard reviews do compare favorably
with peer communities. Beyond that, she said there are some projects that have strong advantages to the
community such as quality job creation, capital investment, and a positive overall fiscal impact which all fit
within the target industry categories and are very advantageous to the community as a whole and the
economy, and locating them here as quickly as possible is to the County’s benefit. She said that is where
the fast track concept really starts to come into play.
Ms. Catlin said that the guiding principles before the Board include making sure the County is as
desirable a location as possible for qualified target industries by making the approval process as quick and
easy as possible, and also protecting the County’s image as an attractive location by maintaining quality
standards. As mentioned in the executive summary, she said the best opportunity to fast track projects
occurs when the land is appropriately designated and zoned to accommodate the desired use because
that eliminates barriers and hurdles. She stated that staff wanted to look at specific projects that might
merit consideration under fast tracking.
Ms. Catlin said staff began their work by doing some research into peer communities and looked
at processes that were underway in seven or eight counties that are often used for comparison, and came
up with some common themes as to what those communities were doing. She explained that every peer
community that was considered reserved the expedited process for target industries that met certain
criteria and usually had to do with job and investment levels, with a focus on identifying who they want and
then using the expedited process as a strategic tool selectively to make a real difference for those who
would be considered desirable candidates. Ms. Catlin noted that it included expansion and relocation of
existing businesses in the County as well as new businesses that might locate here.
Ms. Catlin reviewed the preliminary targets that have been identified for Albemarle County, noting
that, on April 11th, there will be a regional session in the morning regarding the target industry work in
addition to a work session planned during the afternoon with the consultant spending time specifically on
Albemarle’s targets. Ms. Catlin said that, once the targets are finalized, those would define the highest
level of criteria for projects that the County would consider to be appropriate for fast tracking. She stated
that having defined, objective criteria will be really important in making the fast track process effective.
Ms. Catlin emphasized that the criteria has to be clear so that the County can appropriately identify
projects that produce the kind of benefits expected, and the idea of selectivity was a theme heard often
from peer localities.
Ms. Catlin reported that staff looked at criteria already in place in other areas and considered
Albemarle County’s preferences and priorities, as well as identified new areas that would meet the
recommended criteria.
Mr. Rooker asked how many other counties in the state have some kind of fast track system.
Ms. Catlin replied that staff did not look at every county but, gathered data from Loudoun, Prince
William, Stafford, Chesterfield, Spotsylvania, Culpeper and Hanover Counties. She said that staff would
recommend going back and seeing what other communities were doing as well in an effort to determine
what has been effective.
Mr. Graham said, anecdotally, it has been his impression that more than half have some kind of
fast track process in place.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Ms. Catlin stated that areas where some criteria were important to establish include some minimal
level of jobs with higher than prevailing average wages, and these would be for identified target industry
enterprises locating within the designated development area. She said that is consistent with what the
GOF already requires. Ms. Catlin said that another area of priority is a minimum level of capital
investment which would contribute to the industrial tax base. She stated that industries with a net gain in
terms of fiscal impact would also be looked at more favorably. Ms. Catlin said that the last criteria is a
business that has over 50% of revenue generated from outside the region, which means that desirable
companies would bring new money and new investment into the community instead of circulating money
that is already here. She explained that, what a lot of peer communities are doing, once they have a
defined target industry within the appropriate location, evaluate it on the basis of having at least two of the
criteria in order to provide enough breadth in terms of what they offer.
Mr. Rooker said that he felt minimal environmental impacts should be somewhere in the
evaluation process.
Ms. Mallek asked if the positive fiscal impact takes into effect the cost to the County in terms of
infrastructure, and Ms. Catlin said that would be considered part of the positive fiscal impact.
Mr. Rooker commented that satisfying just two criteria wouldn’t be enough in his mind, and
perhaps there could be a sliding scale. He said the criteria could perhaps be based on how much a
business goes over the minimum in a given category.
Mr. Boyd stated that he felt having one or more would be acceptable, noting that one of the most
desired things he had heard anecdotally is getting an Olive Garden to move into Charlottesville. He said
that particular business may not bring in a lot of jobs or a lot of capital investment, but it would certainly
bring in a lot of meals tax revenue.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board shouldn’t choose specific businesses to be fast tracked because it
likes them.
Mr. Boyd said he perhaps has a different vision for this.
Mr. Rooker stated that a restaurant was not a target industry.
Mr. Boyd claimed that Mr. Rooker hadn’t voted for the Economic Vitality Action Plan, and Mr.
Rooker pointed out that he did, indeed, vote for the Plan once it was modified somewhat.
Mr. Boyd said bringing tax revenues into this community is a highly desirable thing for the County,
adding that he was not implying that the County do away with its regulations.
Mr. Rooker stated that there are many locations existing today where an Olive Garden could
locate immediately, and asked Mr. Boyd if that restaurant was his idea of a target industry.
Mr. Boyd said that his idea of an Economic Vitality Action Plan was that the Board and staff get
out of the way.
Mr. Foley emphasized that Mr. Rooker is correct in terms of what is in front of the Board. He said
the idea was that this is limited to target industries which staff has identified, and that’s the kind of
direction staff is looking for from the Board. He said staff’s recommendation at this point is that it be
limited to those targeted industries that do meet these criteria. He said that, under this proposal, Olive
Garden would not qualify for fast track.
Mr. Boyd stated that he didn’t feel it should be limited to just a high-tech computer industry.
Mr. Rooker said Mr. Boyd’s criteria seem to be completely flexible and based on who wanted to
jump in behind a particular applicant because they know him. He said there is no criterion for the kind of
approach Mr. Boyd is talking about.
Mr. Boyd said tax revenue is what he was talking about.
Mr. Rooker stated that every business would generate some tax revenue, and asked if Mr. Boyd’s
idea was to fast track every business because they would ultimately bring in some tax revenue.
Mr. Boyd said that he would be in favor of that.
Mr. Rooker responded that there would be no need to do this fast track plan then, and noted that
the County’s standard review time compared favorably with other communities in addition to a list of things
that are in the works.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that other polled communities do fast tracking as a strategic tool, adding
that there will also be ongoing work related to other businesses besides targeted industries. She said that
fast tracking takes it to a higher level, and the selectivity is important only because of the workload
impacts and some of those kinds of things.
Mr. Snow emphasized that one of the most important factors for him is businesses which would
hire local people, rather than bringing people in from outside the area.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Graham stated that one of the most commonly used measurements other localities consider
in an expedited process is site plan review time and, in looking at peer counties, Albemarle County’s
current site review plan time was better than most other localities. He said this is not just about site plan
review times, it’s about approval times and looking at the reasons why it takes multiple reviews for a plan
to get through the process. In the multiple case studies that he has done, Mr. Graham said that Albemarle
County is not unique, and communication between the applicant and the County is a big factor in addition
to inexperienced applicants who are not familiar with the processes or development as a whole. Mr.
Graham stated also that an applicant or developer must have a similar commitment to get through the
process as quickly as staff does, and this was an issue that has emerged repeatedly.
Mr. Graham said that the legislative process of rezoning land and creating special use permits is a
complicated process and takes a lot of time, so one of the best strategies, which is already in place, is
establishing that there is a good inventory of land.
Mr. Boyd asked how the County compared in terms of pre-approved zoning relative to other
localities.
Mr. Graham replied that it would be a lot to expect from other counties to provide that list, and it
may not even exist, but he said that if he could find that information he would provide that to the Board.
He said there is a large inventory of commercially zoned property sitting out there, ready to develop.
Some of those have approved site plans and are just waiting for the right people to come along.
Mr. Boyd asked if that has been impacted by the Neighborhood Model, stating that the Shops at
Stonefield have gone away from that.
Mr. Graham said that the County has very little land that requires applicants to develop with
residential above commercial but, if a developer were interested in doing a mixed use development that
could certainly happen.
Mr. Rooker stated that there were currently about five or six locations around the County where an
Olive Garden could locate today.
Mr. Boyd said that type of business should be fast tracked, and Mr. Rooker commented that he
may have a different view.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the biggest time taken up is if an applicant needs a Comprehensive
Plan change, and then has to rezone property, which is a long process. He added that there is a lot of
retail property that is presently zoned for it.
Mr. Boyd said that, for example, there is no pad-ready site or infrastructure currently at North
Pointe for a restaurant, such as an Olive Garden, to locate.
Mr. Rooker responded that there are lots of other pad sites where that business could locate.
Mr. Graham said that an Olive Garden couldn’t go into North Pointe tomorrow, however, there is
nothing stopping North Pointe from getting a site plan approved for it. He emphasized that there are a
number of developments that have approved site plans which have not developed, and that is property
owners making the decision to make an investment.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wasn’t dwelling on Olive Garden specifically, but referencing businesses
with a net positive tax revenue from the commercial sector for Albemarle County, whether that’s in meals
taxes or machinery and tools tax.
Mr. Rooker said that every business would have a positive fiscal impact; the question is what
merits special treatment and he thought that target industries were ultimately intended for fast tracking.
Mr. Graham responded that staff is talking about that particular issue, and the second part of the
discussion is ensuring there would be a senior person who would be the point of contact for the applicant.
He said staff can handle this if there are one or two or three applications a year; however, staff is not
equipped to handle this level of service if there are 20 or 30 applications a year. He said that the idea is to
have a staff person who knows the processes well and knows what to look out for, and can advise
[applicants] on how to get through the processes quickly to ensure there are no roadblocks. Mr. Graham
stated that the other side of the issue is to ensure that the developer is committed to doing this, adding
that other localities had ‘kick-outs’ whereby if a developer had not addressed comments by the third
submission, they would be kicked out of the fast track process and put back into the normal process.
Ms. Catlin commented that there would have to be a fairly individual approach to each project, and
staff has provided some guidelines in the executive summary. She said it would really be about tailoring
the process to each project that was accepted to meet the needs that they had. She said staff has
provided the Board approaches and suggestions which could be considered.
Mr. Graham reiterated that there would be a senior staff person assigned to a particular project, to
ensure there was someone who knew the best ways to get a developer an answer quickly.
Mr. Graham said that the reasons the fast tracking would be limited to only target industries
included the fact that the process is resource intensive, and the County’s cost would be significantly higher
than for a normal application.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Boyd asked why the costs would be higher.
Mr. Graham explained that the County would be providing a senior staff member who would be
looking at the application, working with the applicant, and advising them on what might be best for their
project. He said the County has done this with projects in the past, i.e., Martha Jefferson Hospital, Shops
at Stonefield, where staff had senior people assisting developers. He said county staff can provide that
level of service and it can actually be a very effective process, but it is a time-consuming process. He said
every hour that staff spends on that is an hour they can’t spend on other applications. He added that, if
10% of projects are fast tracked, without additional staff, the other 90% of projects would be slowed down.
Mr. Graham stated that fast tracking could be a very effective and attractive incentive, adding that
the senior project manager concept was not often offered in other localities and could be very attractive for
Albemarle. He said that the County would need to define criteria to ensure effectiveness and make sure
things stay on target, would also need to ensure that each project had a designated pathway customized
to fit the project, and would need to get assurance that developers are equally committed to their project.
Ms. Mallek asked if a project that was not quite on a fast track process would, zoning-wise, fall
into this category also.
Mr. Graham responded that it could, stating that there could easily be something that required a
special use permit, and the County could use tools such as shortening the times between the Commission
and Board reviews while simultaneously reviewing their site plans. He said that is the kind of custom
approach that could be used on these types of projects.
Mr. Thomas commented that he liked the idea of having a senior planner guide the process, even
if it might require some investment on the County’s part.
Ms. Catlin said that the ideal world is when the Comp Plan, the zoning, and everything else is
synched up and ready to go because staff knows the process takes a very long time to get to the end
result with a lot of ‘messiness’ in between.
Mr. Boyd stated that one of the strongest points here is that every single project is different, and
said he is concerned that this might be a cookie cutter approach. He said that he was thinking more of a
“swat team” that would work on a highly visible project such as a well-known grocery store as an example
and sit down as a staff and Board to make that determination, then discuss what items need to happen to
move a project along quickly. Mr. Boyd commented that he didn’t see Board involvement included here,
acknowledging that there are certainly some confidentiality issues.
Ms. Catlin stated that staff was concerned about the confidentiality piece of this, but the Board
member in the magisterial district for the project would be brought in early on in the process. She said
that the process would start there and was not intended to be a cookie cutter approach, although it was
important to have defined criteria so that it wasn’t ambiguous.
Mr. Dumler said that he liked the idea of objective criteria because he didn’t want to be in the
position of being accused of playing favorites by choosing to fast track one and not another, adding that he
liked the idea of getting a project in the system and then deciding.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was envisioning having the majority of the Board involved not just
individual members.
Mr. Foley said that the term ‘cookie cutter’ seemed to narrow down what was being suggested, as
staff was simply trying to define some parameters. He said that was the reason the target industry item
was put on the table. He said that if a business fit that, staff would notify the Board in order to get them
involved in the process but the big issue here was whether this was focused on target industries, or
whether the Board felt it should be looked at in broader terms. He added that criteria related to jobs and
investments will also be important input for staff moving forward.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Board needs to work very hard to combat the perception that there
would be different rules for different individuals with the same category, because that was the case 20
years ago and it was completely crippling to the community as a whole. She added that the process is
what staff and the Board rely on to keep that perception of fairness out there, adding that she has already
received two emails from designers and engineers of small projects asking that larger projects not be put
ahead of them because they had been working for months already and were almost at the end of the
process. Ms. Mallek emphasized that focusing on target industries only was a really good place to start,
adding that the speed at which things happen is most directly related to the commitment that people have
to follow the rules and not always trying to be finding a cheaper or other way to circumvent the rules.
Mr. Thomas commented that staff has done a really good job with this, adding that the senior
planners could take care of the bigger projects with the other planners focusing on the smaller
applications.
Mr. Graham said that the senior project manager was intended to be the coordinator or point of
contact, but would also have a team working with them. He stated that the County could accomplish this
without adversely impacting the rest of applicants if it could remain focused on target industries, as there
would not be a lot of those applications, however, if it were expanded, other projects would be slowed
down significantly.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Rooker said, basically, it would be prejudicial to everyone else, and he was curious as to who
decides which project gets first class treatment and which one gets second class treatment.
Ms. Catlin reiterated that other communities felt tying it to their target industries helped them avoid
playing favorites. Rather than playing winners and losers, she said it became a strategic implementation
tool for fast tracking.
Mr. Boyd said that, in his eight years on the Board, he had seen very few applications that would
have fallen into this category, adding that he felt common sense wasn’t being used in this. He added that
he didn’t think it was realistic to assume that a smaller business would be shelved in favor of the County
pursuing something along the scale of a DIA or a NGIC.
Ms. Catlin responded that the target industry discussion scheduled for April 11 will be a good part
of what this will be about, as it would help flesh out the types of businesses in question.
Mr. Boyd said that he would put existing businesses that wanted to expand way ahead of firms
that were thinking about relocating here.
Ms. Catlin confirmed that this plan would consider existing businesses as fast track candidates.
Mr. Dumler commented that he would be hesitant to support combining public hearings for the
Planning Commission and Board, citing concerns that had been reflected by the League of Women Voters
and others.
Mr. Rooker said that he was not a big fan of combining public hearings, as he likes to see what
took place at a Planning Commission hearing and Commissioners also tend to be more reserved in their
opinions when Board members are present. He stated that the he wants that input adding that a lot of
time gets saved by the things that the Commission does at their level before it comes to Board. He added
that combining work sessions makes a lot of sense so that the public hearing process is maintained. Mr.
Rooker commented that there aren’t usually separate plans for individual retail establishments because
the zoning is already approved.
Ms. Mallek stated that one situation in which it was particularly appropriate to look at this is when
there is a project that has already gone through the review process and rezoning, but one that needed
some significant changes such as phasing.
Mr. Rooker said that it would be interesting to find out the success rate of the peer communities
who have a fast tracking approach in place, adding that the raw information presented regarding things
like site plan approval indicated that Albemarle was actually doing better than counties that had a special
process. He asked if, because of limited staff, the County is better off spending time on this or better off
making certain that county processes are generally what they should be. He said the focus should be on
doing things administratively with good criteria that protect the community, which has been done in some
areas but not done others.
Ms. Catlin stated that some of this is already being done in some cases, and this step is about
formalizing it, making a commitment to it, and establishing some objectivity to it so that when there is a
really attractive candidate – existing or from outside of the area – who falls into this criteria, staff is able to
tell them with confidence that the County is going to do everything it can as quickly and effectively to get
them into Albemarle County within its standards.
Mr. Snow said he sees it as establishing the process in case the opportunity arises; it is not
something that the County would be doing every week, adding that he thought it was the appropriate step
to take. He said if a company wants to move here and they’re going to hire 1,000 citizens who are already
here, they ought to be fast tracked.
Ms. Catlin stated that the next step would be for the Board to determine whether the criteria
presented to them was the right kind of things to be assessed in qualifying someone to be a fast track
candidate.
Mr. Dumler said that he would also like to see a list of disqualifying criteria, noting his desire not to
monetize environmental resources.
Mr. Rooker said that disqualifying criteria could be addressed by stating ‘minimal environmental
and infrastructure impacts’ unless an applicant was willing to mitigate those.
Mr. Boyd stated that those things are already being done today.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to see some mention of minimal environmental impacts.
Mr. Dumler commented that he wouldn’t want to bend over backwards for someone who wouldn’t
be addressing those.
Ms. Mallek said that perhaps to qualify for an expedited process an applicant would need to
provide an upper level of mitigation. She said an applicant would be expecting a lot of the Board and, in
turn, the Board would need to expect a lot of them also. She added that they would need to be coming to
the Board with the understanding that it would want them to do it right.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Rooker stated that very few target industries would have major negative environmental
impacts, but it should be included as a criterion.
Ms. Catlin said that they needed to be careful how much to put in the front of the process, in
balance with what would come as the process proceeds.
Mr. Rooker commented that he wouldn’t want to fast track an industry that was going to put 600
tractor trailers on the road per day.
Mr. Foley said that a minimal threshold for that impact could be defined and reflected in the fast-
track criteria.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be important for businesses that want to locate here to be
transparent in what their impacts would be.
Mr. Foley said it should be understood that if a company wanted to be fast tracked, and that
business had a lot of complicated environmental issues, it will not work.
Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Rooker’s example would preclude location of something like a Target
distribution center, even if it was located off of I-64.
Mr. Rooker responded that he wouldn’t want to fast track that type of business, and if he was the
sole vote on the fast tracking he wouldn’t vote for it right now. He read from the staff report that the
Comprehensive Plan review and update currently underway provides for the opportunity to appropriately
designate lands for industrial and business development, thus eliminating the need for businesses to
locate in those areas that go through an additional Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
Mr. Boyd commented that it didn’t have to be an either/or situation.
Mr. Rooker said that staff is limited and, every time they come before the Board, they indicate that
they would have to shuffle projects in order to adopt new initiatives and, as Mr. Graham said, expanding
the process significantly would increase the cost by either adding staff or taking away existing
applications.
Mr. Foley stated that, if there is general support from the Board to move forward, staff could take
that direction and go to the next step to include consideration of adding environmental impacts as a
disqualifier. He said he heard that the Board is not in favor of joint public hearings but a suggestion that
advertising could possibly take place at the same time. He said staff will refine the document and bring it
back to the Board for further discussion.
Mr. Snow said that he agreed.
Mr. Rooker said that he agreed also, suggesting to Mr. Foley that a chart from other communities
showing what they were doing related to land use processes would be helpful. He suggested Mr. Graham
also inquire about how successful the fast track program has been.
Mr. Graham stated that he has had some of those conversations, but that was a very subjective
thing to evaluate as it often depended upon who you asked in a specific locality.
Mr. Thomas asked what control, if any, the County would have over infrastructure.
Mr. Graham said that, once the land is zoned, the County has very little control over roads that are
offsite.
Mr. Rooker said that it does factor into projects that require rezoning, asking the Board if they
would really consider approving an industry that would put 2,000 vehicle trips per day on a road that’s
already over capacity. He said those are the kinds of decisions that should be considered when the
County rezones property and whether or not something should be fast tracked.
Mr. Foley stated that if there were complicated infrastructure issues that would take years to
resolve, putting those projects in the fast track probably wouldn’t make a lot of sense.
Ms. Catlin said that her contact in Culpeper had said that their rate of success was highest when a
project was consistent with the Comp Plan, so the work being done now does build the foundation for a
more successful process.
Mr. Rooker commented that he viewed this as window dressing, something that could be told to
an applicant to help lure them into the community but most people would not make a location decision
based solely on that criterion.
Mr. Boyd said that a business would make their decision if they were told it would be two or three
years before they could open a business.
Mr. Foley stated that those impacts pertained only to applications that needed a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and a rezoning.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t want to disclose confidential conversations, but there were companies
who had decided not to locate here for that reason.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to talk to Mr. Boyd about it, and to see a list of those firms.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the Comp Plan changes and the Land Use Map are moving forward
also, which will make more land available without needing a Comp Plan amendment.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that on July 26, 2011, the Planning
Commission began the Comprehensive Plan update process with a general review of the County’s Vision,
Goals, and Objectives. The staff report can be found at:
http://albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/PC_Ag
endas/PC_2011_07_26_Agenda.pdf.
On October 11, 2011, the Commission reviewed existing demographic information, future
residential needs based on population projections, and the nine expansion area requests. The staff report
can be found at:
http://albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/PC_Ag
endas/PC_2011_10_11_Agenda.pdf.
On November 29, 2011, the Commission discussed rural area commercial uses. The staff report
can be found at:
http://albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/PC_Ag
endas/PC_2011_11_29_Agenda.pdf. The Commission discussed the ways in which the Rural Areas
might be more supportive of tourist-related uses and provide for other agricultural support. Prior to that
meeting, staff held a roundtable for input on possible commercial uses in the Rural Areas to support
agriculture and tourism. Notes from that meeting are provided as Attachment I.
On February 14, 2012, the Commission received additional information on the status of existing
housing units in the County as well as future units in the pipeline. In addition, the Commission received
the Board’s Vision and Goals for the Strategic Plan as well as a proposed format and standard land use
categories. The staff report can be found at:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/P
C_Agendas/PC_2012_02_14_Agenda.pdf.
Conclusions and direction to staff for Vision, Goals, and Format: The Commission
concluded that the vision and relevant goals adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the County’s
Strategic Plan should be used for the Comprehensive Plan. Staff was directed to proceed with the
Comprehensive Plan update using the format provided to the Commission at its February 14, 2012
meeting.
Conclusions and direction to staff on Expansion Areas: The Commission accepted the
Virginia Employment Commission population projections and the Regional Water Demand Forecast
population projections as the range of projections to use for planning purposes. Based on a comparison
of these projections with the existing residential capacity, which was calculated by taking into
consideration the rezonings approved over the last 10 years and the residential land designations in the
current Comprehensive Plan, the Commission concluded that there was no need to expand the
development areas for additional residential development, as the existing capacity could support expected
residential needs for the next 20 years. The Commission further noted that expansion and designation of
lands for residential use was not appropriate considering that existing infrastructure would not fully support
currently approved but unbuilt projects. The Commission directed that the south side of the Shadwell
interchange be studied for potential business and industrial development. Attachment II contains a portion
of the October 11 staff report, which provides the residential capacity analysis, locations of the expansion
area requests and the accompanying expansion areas staff report.
On February 14, 2012, after receiving additional information on housing, the Commission
discussed whether the market would be able to respond to needs for single family detached housing in the
Development Areas and concluded that it should be able to accommodate those needs because of the
flexibility in the approved residential zoning to-date.
Conclusions and direction to staff for Rural Areas changes for Agri-business and Agri-
tourism: The Commission concluded that changes to the Rural Areas part of the Comprehensive Plan
are needed to better support agri-business and agri-tourism and existing zoning regulations for the RA
should be less restrictive. Staff is analyzing which of these changes are so significant as to require
additional policy statements and guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and which could be more
immediately addressed through minor zoning text amendments or are permissible under existing zoning
regulations.
Current Comprehensive Plan Update activities: Staff and the Commission have a full
schedule of activities this spring in anticipation of staff’s work on the Comprehensive Plan. Outreach to
Neighborhoods four, five, six and seven is expected to occur in March. The Commission will also discuss
information on light industrial uses and employment locations. In April, the Commission will look at
recommendations for a “mini” Master Plan for Neighborhoods four, five, six and seven. In May, the
Commission will look at recommendations on service standards for County service providers.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
There is no budget impact expected beyond the budgeted staff costs anticipated in the
Community Development Department work program. It should be noted that this staff time is being used
as an in-kind contribution leveraging staff assistance and public participation services under the Regional
Livability Grant project.
This report is provided for the Board’s information. If the Board would like more information on
any specific topic, staff can provide this during the work session or at a subsequent Board meeting.
_____
Ms. Elaine Echols addressed the Board, stating that the Planning Commission had also been
talking about these issues. Ms. Echols said that they had focused on three items to accomplish: specific
focus areas with input to go into the Comp Plan update; making the Comp Plan more current; and trying to
reduce the bulk and standardize the format. She stated that to date, they have worked on the
development capacity in the development areas, addressed the expansion area request that took place in
October, discussed agri-tourism in November, and will address industrial needs on March 20, i.e., what is
the County’s acreage like, how many parcels are available, what are the sizes, what will they get from a
rezoning, should more land be designated. Ms. Echols said that they were getting into the process of
neighborhoods 4 and 5, stating that they would be getting input from those neighborhoods on the existing
Comp Plan and any suggested changes. She said a future master planning opportunity is slated for the
future, but an initial assessment is to determine if existing goals are sufficient or need changes. She
stated that in May they would discuss community facilities standards, and staff would be in the writing
phase.
Ms. Echols reported that the livability workshop on March 29 will focus on historic resources,
entrance corridors, and natural heritage and those workshops have been quite successful in looking at the
distinctions between what the City does and what the County does, and what the community sees from
the outside when viewing the whole community. She stated that, on April 17, there will be a joint City-
County Planning Commission meeting, and on April 24 neighborhoods 4 and 5 will be going back to the
Commission. Ms. Echols said that, in May, they would be making some decisions about what should go
into the draft of the Comp Plan, with staff doing some writing over the summer to take back to the
Commission in the fall. She stated that staff is hopeful the Commission will hold their public hearings in
the fall and make a recommendation to the Board by the end of the year with adoption in early 2013.
Ms. Mallek asked where the agri-business rules changes fit in here.
Ms. Echols responded that those rules would go into the Comp Plan as big picture issues, and
any of that could be translated into zoning text amendments which pertain to staff’s work program.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed, stating that he, Ms. Echols and Ms. McCulley were meeting next week to
address the quicker fixes and the possibilities under the current ordinance.
Ms. Mallek asked which category is bed and breakfast in the accessory unit. She asked if that
would be a Comp Plan issue that would not occur until January.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know that that would be a Comp Plan issue.
Ms. Mallek asked about possible food service at a Health Department kitchen on a farm.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that they may be a bigger issue because of the question of numbers,
water consumption, traffic, etc. These are issues they will discuss next week in terms of dividing lines.
Mr. Rooker said having an accessory unit for a mother or grandmother is one thing, but it is
another issue to immediately double the number of units allowed in the rural areas.
Ms. Mallek said she was talking about changing the bed and breakfast regulations which currently
does not allow an accessory unit which is a limited focus. In her opinion, the food service issue is the
same thing.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff wants to be sure to identify the things in the ordinance to be changed
that could be accommodated in the work program that Mr. Graham would be bringing back to the Board in
April.
Ms. McCulley reported that staff is also working with some of the relevant state agencies related
to the food service issue, and would be holding a meeting later in March with all of the Albemarle farm
wineries to address that issue – as it is more of a Health Department requirement than a zoning limitation.
Ms. Mallek commented that that is not what people have been told for the last five years.
Mr. Boyd commented that it concerns him that the Planning Commission has been working on this
Plan for a year and a half, and the Board would only have a few months to review it all and essentially
rubber stamp it. There are some issues he would like to see moved up on the schedule and dealt with.
Ms. Echols said the Board can spend as much time as it wants on the Plan.
Mr. Rooker said that there are links to all of these reports and all of the information.
Mr. Boyd said that that is not the same as participating.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Rooker asked if he wanted a work session on this.
Mr. Boyd said that he would be amenable to that.
Mr. Rooker stated that the only way to move forward without bogging the process down would be
a joint meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to do that because if the Commission is headed off in a direction that
this Board does not agree with, it would be better to catch it early than sit and wait until it comes to the
Board as a huge Comprehensive Plan change.
Mr. Foley said that if the Board could fit into the Commission’s schedule that would keep it on
track, but setting up a separate work session would add another meeting to the process.
Mr. Boyd said that he wasn’t suggesting another meeting.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is an opportunity now to read through what has been discussed and
written, and then provide comments.
Ms. Mallek said the Board could do its homework and come back with comments.
Mr. Foley stated that if the Board disagrees with what the Commission has said regarding growth
area boundaries, this would be the time to raise those issues.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not have a problem with sending those issues to staff, but it would not
do much good without some discussion of those ideas.
Mr. Foley stated that today was designed for the Board to discuss issues that they had concerns
with, and it might be helpful for them to have a Board discussion on this first – rather than jumping into the
Planning Commission process.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that there seemed to be two different things discussed here – more
general guidelines for the bigger issues that are in the Comp Plan, such as the interstate interchange
policy, larger use possibilities in the rural areas; versus those things that might be related to how people
have interpreted ordinance provisions, or thought that things were different than how they really are – that
might be tweaked through quick fixes.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that under Virginia law, the Planning Commission has a very unique
role regarding Comprehensive Plans. Their role is actually to independently bring to the Board a
recommended Comprehensive Plan. Certainly the Board needs to know what they are doing and the
Board may want to talk to its Planning Commissioners about things that they have seen, because the
Commissioners are not in a decision point now. He thinks that any guidance Commissioners might need
in decisions could individually and collectively be good for them. He said that the Board didn’t tell the
Commissioners to do anything different with Places 29, but did ask them to include certain things in their
process and their hearing that they had decided not to include – such as expansion areas.
Mr. Davis added that the Board could ask the Commission to study things and provide
recommendations, but cannot direct them as to what to recommend. It is an independently statutory
process that the Planning Commission considers and proposes comprehensive plan amendments, and
the Board has the ability at that point to accept it or not accept it.
Mr. Rooker asked about the status of the proposal for the expansion of Redfields.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the expansion area was inclusive of the rezoning area that the Board
had seen. After their work session the Commission decided not to review the expansion request as the
applicant had requested – but that is something Board members could ask them to consider. He added
that the existing boundary is not recommended to be changed, and that lies in the growth area.
Ms. Mallek asked where things stood with the “purple flex areas” which is the mix areas – some
commercial, industrial, small manufacturing, small business zone created for the Downtown Crozet zone -
in the Comp Plan process.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that a large area of Places 29 got the multi-use designation for business
development. There were more residential/commercial/business mixed use areas which is part of what
the staff would be working with the Commission in the land use plan. Staff is now working on the
percentages in the industrial uses ZTA, which the Commission recently held a work session on. He said
that they would have another work session soon, but have already provided staff with some further
direction on how to deal with those mixes in industrial districts.
Mr. Boyd asked how much direction was provided from actual landowners.
Ms. Echols replied that staff contacted property owners as part of potential re-designation, stating
that they had spoken with a number of different property owners and have shared that information with the
Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned an upcoming rezoning for a property on Greenbrier Drive that has been
industrially zoned and has vacant space that they have not been able to lease for industrial purposes. He
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
said that there had been concern about no leasable space for industrial and the possibility that the space
could be lost for that designation if it changed to commercial, but staff also realized that the flexibility
needed to be there. Mr. Cilimberg said that because there wasn’t a mixed use possibility in that building,
staff recommended to the applicant that they process it through the neighborhood model district – and the
Commission made a recommendation for some of that space to be made available for commercial use
under that district. He stated that staff is trying to find ways to address it before the industrial ZTAs
occurred, but the foundation for allowing that to happen was that Places 29 has been adopted – as it
established flex uses as appropriate for a large area, including that building.
Mr. Rooker said that is an example for someone who had an industrial property on the market for
a very long time but not able to lease it, so they converted it to commercial to allow retail-type uses.
Mr. Rooker suggested the Board move through the budget process and then schedules a work
session on this. Mr. Snow concurred.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would coordinate the next opportunity to discuss this further. He added
that the Comp Plan is actually moving pretty fast. Staff is working hard with the Planning Commission
getting through this, along with responding to important things like the fast track. There is a lot of effort
going on to keep this schedule and move it faster. He added that the schedule is significant to keep
rolling, adding that Chesterfield County is in its fourth year of doing a comprehensive Comp Plan update.
Ms. Mallek asked about the inclusion of “growth management policies” as mentioned by citizens
earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would be one of many goals in the Comp Plan, and the concern
was that it was not a goal included in the strategic plan that was getting repeated in the Comp Plan. He
said that at the Commission’s request, staff tried to categorize the goals of the Comp Plan within the goal
categories of the Board’s strategic plan so the Commission could see how they linked together. Mr.
Cilimberg said that the strategic plan goals where applicable are being used as “categories” under which
they are putting the more specific goals of the Comp Plan – and growth management wis one of those.
Mr. Foley commented that Mr. Rooker’s suggestion to incorporate the language into the strategic
plan strengthens that alignment.
Board members commended staff for all of their work.
Mr. Cilimberg said that his expectation is that the Comp Plan will take about half as long as the
first one he had worked on, in the late 1980s.
Ms. Mallek thanked him and staff.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Snow said that at the last MPO meeting they received an update from Mr. Jim Utterback, of
VDOT, indicating that VDOT was putting money into the budget for the widening of Route 29 beginning
this summer.
Ms. Mallek asked about other comments she heard that the area would get no further funding for
roads after the bypass was done.
Mr. Snow responded that VDOT also stated that they were proceeding with the Hillsdale Drive
Extension and the Belmont Bridge replacement.
Mr. Rooker asked about the status of the Best Buy ramp.
Mr. Thomas replied that it is on the design board currently and they are trying to determine if they
need any additional right of way.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek encouraged Mr. Thomas to keep pushing on that, as that area needs
to get fixed regardless of any other projects. They have money for the project but it seems to have gotten
caught in the bureaucracy and is not going anywhere. In fact VDOT took over the project about a year ago
with the intent of accelerating the process, but that has not happened.
__________
Mr. Boyd reported that County representatives on RWSA voted against RWSA’s CIP because the
pump station drove the cost up by $13 million. It has been the Board’s position that it is a City issue that
the County should not have to pay the additional money that makes it more attractive to their
neighborhoods. He also stated that a little over 70% of the CIP is for mandated projects or sewer
projects, including a $10-million retrofit to the water treatment plants to add chloramines.
Ms. Mallek said it could kill you if you did it in your kitchen.
Mr. Rooker asked if anyone has looked at the health effects of adding ammonia.
March 7, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Boyd commented that those mandates came down from the EPA. He also said that when
they have an approved project without an agreement, it defaults to the City paying for it.
Mr. Foley explained that it is based on flow, which is not how it would work out in cost-sharing, so
it would be to the County’s detriment.
Ms. Mallek asked how this handles the consent order.
Mr. Foley said that it did accommodate the consent order, as the majority of the RWSA Board did
approve it. Mr. Foley emphasized that the cost-share allocation agreement needs to be put in place
before the project is underway.
__________
Ms. Mallek said that one of the bills before Congress pertains to having the Department of
Defense able to add money as a matching grant to a community’s application before the USDA for
preservation easement money. The County has used USDA farmland and ranch protection money
occasionally in the past for ACE easements. She stated that the idea is protection of land around their
military facilities as increased buffer, which was spawned by concerns at Oceania and other locations
around the country. The military is aggressively trying to invest in these communities to get conservation
easements on these properties to give value to the landowners but also protect them. This is something
that the Board also discussed last year about not putting fences of development around Rivanna Station to
allow them to grow as they need to. Ms. Mallek said that the number one criteria BRAC uses in closing is
expansion possibility, which the County should consider in its protection of Rivanna Station.
Mr. Davis noted that it would require the areas around those facilities to be designated in the
Comp Plan as appropriate for conservation easements. If the Board is serious about that, it is a
significant issue that the planners need to look at.
Ms. Mallek said that she has already expressed concern about this in their discussion of that
area’s future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn.
At 3:55 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Snow to adjourn the meeting until March 12, 2012 at
9:00 a.m. in Room 241. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 07/11/2012
Initials: EWJ