2012-05-02May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 2,
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,
Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 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.
Given the number of people present for the discussion on the proposed Route 29 Bypass, Mr.
Boyd suggested moving Agenda Item No. 13 up on the agenda.
Board members concurred.
The final agenda was accepted, as amended.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that tourism awards would be presented on May 8, 2012, at an event at
Pippin Hill Farm and Vineyard on Plank Road.
Ms. Mallek said that the Rivanna River Basin Commission has invited Board members to
participate in a storm water bus tour to be held on May 10, 2012, from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m.
_____
Mr. Rooker said that several times Mr. Snow and Ms. Mallek expressed an interest in expanding
broadband service into the rural areas. In the recent Governing magazine there was an article that
indicated the U.S. was in the middle of all countries in terms of access to broadband for its citizens. He
stated that the article also said that the FCC announced plans to redirect $4.5 billion per year from subsidy
programs originally intended to expand phone service into a new Connect America fund that would
support broadband projects in rural America. He suggested the County look into this to see if it can obtain
some of the money.
Mr. Snow commented that broadband service is a priority for him.
Ms. Mallek suggested that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District reactivate its efforts from two
years ago when it did a grant application.
Mr. Foley added that with the wireless consultant work commencing soon, staff would make sure
it incorporates what was out there in an effort to expand service.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing May, 2012 as National Tourism
Month.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Mr. Kurt Burkhart and Mr. George
Benford of the CACVB:
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
MAY 5 – 13, 2012
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry in Albemarle County continues to be vital to our economic
stability and growth; and it contributes significantly to our County’s cultural and social climate; and
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of the Albemarle County
community, contributing to our employment, economic prosperity, international travel and relations, peace and
understanding and goodwill; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau is funded through the
collection of the overnight hotel tax from County hotels, bed & break fasts, and campgrounds; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the CACVB is to enhance the economic prosperity of the County by
promoting, selling, and marketing the destination; and
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, the CACVB supports and promotes the Monticello Artisan Trail, a vibrant agricultural
scene and historic landmarks that attract out-of-area visitors who can enjoy the beautiful Albemarle County
landscape; and
WHEREAS, in its most recent report, the Virginia Tourism Corporation disclosed that for 2010, $274.4
million in direct visitor spending occurred in Albemarle County; and approximately 2,832 jobs in Albemarle
County are directly supported through the tourism and hospitality industry, which includes lodging, food
service, attractions, transportation, agritourism, and the arts; payroll for these individuals was $50.6 million;
and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Travel Association estimates that “1 out of every 9 jobs in the U.S. depends on
travel and tourism;” and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Travel Association further estimates that “each U.S. household would pay
$1,000 more in taxes without the tax revenue generated by the travel and tourism industry;” and
WHEREAS, every citizen in Albemarle County benefits from the positive economic impact of the
tourism industry; and, it is fitting that we recognize the importance of travel and tourism to the health and
vibrancy of our community;” and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED, that I, Ann Mallek, Chair of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of
May 5 - 13, 2012
as
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
in Albemarle County, and I call upon all citizens to recognize the value of the tourism industry in our
community and to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Signed and sealed this 2nd day of May, 2012
Mr. Burkhart thanked the Board for the recognition on behalf of the thousands of people who have
worked and are currently in workforce development, and for those who are aspiring for jobs in the tourism,
travel and hospitality industries.
Mr. Benford also thanked the Board for its continued support.
_____
Item No. 6b. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing May 25, 2012 as Senior Independence Day.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation and announced that she would be delivering it to Sue
Liberman at Branchlands:
SENIOR INDEPENDENCE DAY
WHEREAS, we are ever mindful that our nation is built on the wisdom, talents, and hard work of those
who were born before us; and
WHEREAS, we acknowledge with gratitude their contributions to those great gifts of peace and prosperity
which we now enjoy; and
WHEREAS, as a society fortified by independence, our aim is to nurture those who are younger and follow
the example of those whose years exceed ours; and
WHEREAS, our older citizens have worked long and hard to ensure that our lives are better, and our
community acknowledges and supports their right to live independently and actively into their
later years.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
hereby proclaim May 25, 2012, Senior Independence Day, and call upon all of our citizens
to serve one another and the common good by celebrating this day going forward.
_____
Item No. 6c. Recognition: Spring Hill Baptist Church.
Ms. Mallek presented the following recognition:
On behalf of the citizens and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, we would like to
recognize and commend
Spring Hill Baptist Church
for their collaborative work with the Albemarle County Social Services Family Support Program
and Agnor Hurt Elementary School. Spring Hill Baptist Church makes a significant contribution to the
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
community through a variety of programs. We honor Spring Hill Baptist Church today for two of those
programs – The Saturday Tutoring Program and The Summer Day Camp.
The Tutoring Program began October 1, 2005 with five children and serves twenty-five children
today. Some of these children are returning middle school students who also support the younger
children. The service is free to the children and provided every Saturday by church volunteers and the
Youth Minister. It includes transportation, lunch, educational games and outdoor activity. The church also
pays for use of the space at the school.
The Summer Day Camp began in 2008 serving twenty-two children for one week but grew to two
one week camps serving fifty elementary and returning middle school students in 2011. The camp, staffed
by church volunteers, provides academic tutoring, indoor and outdoor sports & games, fishing, swimming,
nature walks, arts & crafts, and woodworking. All campers also get breakfast, lunch and snacks. A bus
and driver are provided by the County Schools but the church pays for the entire camp including food,
materials, and all transportation costs.
We are strengthened and enriched as a community by the skills and dedication this church
contributes to the community. As a local government, we could not begin to fund all the many services we
receive for free from this church that help make us a nationally recognized place to live.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors congratulates Spring Hill Baptist Church for the
success of these two programs and expresses its thanks for the outstanding work they continue to do in
support of our community.
Signed and sealed this 2nd day of May 2012.
Ms. Mallek also stated that it is her understanding that the Family Support Worker at Agnor Hurt
had a large hand in helping to make all this happen. When Mr. John Neill received the original call from
the church, it was about providing school supplies, but he saw a greater need for tutoring children and
suggested it as an alternative. Fortunately Spring Hill was very responsive to this suggestion. Mr. Neill
has been the point person at the school, making sure that parents received the information, signed
pertinent permissions, followed up with reminders and even attended the Saturday sessions to make sure
all went well.
When the church decided to also run a summer camp, it was Mr. Neill that they called. Mr. Neill
works behind the scenes to identify children for the camp, obtain the permissions, send out reminders and
help to ensure that the transportation is managed well. This is a wonderful example of how the County’s
Family Support Program was designed to support families, bridge children’s needs with community
resources and support children’s educational growth.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board also expresses its appreciation to Mr. Neill for what he has done
on behalf of these children and families. It is also her understanding that Mr. Neill plans to retire at the
end of May. This is a legacy that he will be leaving for the children of this school district. She then asked
Mr. Neill and Ms. Christine Alley to come forward and receive the recognition.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Perry Sennewald addressed the Board, stating that he recently retired and moved into the
Colonnades. He also recognized the presence of 18 people who have the same concerns about the
bypass project. Mr. Sennewald said that he has reviewed everything he could find on the project and has
reached two conclusions. First, within the past three months, six letters have been written to the Federal
Highway Administration in Richmond – coming from the Bypass Advisory Committee, three Supervisors,
and residents of the Colonnades. They have not heard any responses from these letters which is
conspicuous by their absence. He stated that residents wonder why the FHWA is unresponsive to the
interests of the Colonnades, and feel that they are not being heard.
Mr. Sennewald said that he received an email from Ms. Mallek this morning informing them of
some of the happenings related to the project. The residents appreciate Ms. Mallek’s support. Secondly,
the residents do not understand why VDOT is moving forward in spite of the concerns with the
implementation plans. The residents are requesting a formal public hearing be held and an updated
environmental impact plan be reviewed that include their concerns. The bypass will come within 650 feet
of the Colonnade’s medical center and the Colonnades will be within 2,000 feet of the southern terminus.
Ms. Mallek clarified that her communication to Mr. Sennewald was she had heard from the FHWA
that when they had all their information they would let the County know, but they would not say anything in
the meantime.
_____
Mr. Don Gross, a resident at the Colonnades, said this community has been completely ignored
by VDOT regarding the impact of the southern terminus of the Route 29 Bypass. Mr. Gross said that
residents urge the Board to request that VDOT hold a public hearing on the bypass. It is inconceivable to
them that VDOT would not do this. Why are they rushing ahead on such a controversial project, with at
least a nine-year-old environmental impact statement? Could it be that VDOT is afraid this project will not
stand the light of day if properly studied? Perhaps it will, perhaps it won’t, but he asked that it not be
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
pushed through without adequate public input and a full supplemental environmental impact statement.
VDOT should at hear the residents’ arguments at a public hearing.
_____
Mr. George Goodrich addressed the Board, stating that he was a retired Superior Court Judge
from D.C. and an independent living resident at the Colonnades. He said that residents have been before
the Board numerous times to try to explain why the community and the bypass cannot coexist. Mr.
Goodrich said that there is a total incompatibility between the senior residential medical facility, offering
quiet, restful surroundings, and an elevated four-lane expressway with trucks and cars speeding past day
and night. He stated that the Colonnades, as a business, is also seriously threatened. Numerous letters
have been sent to State and local authorities and The Daily Progress, but there have been no answers
forthcoming to their many questions. Mr. Goodrich said that the residents have had no accepted input into
the design or a voice in the special protective measures that must be taken in the construction process to
assure the Colonnades future existence. He added that every request that would benefit the Colonnades
has been ignored or dismissed. The bypass issue is far too serious for them to play political games. The
prospect of it becoming a reality is far too grim for that. Mr. Goodrich said that the elected representatives
should resolve unanimously that VDOT be required to hold several formal public hearings on the design
and environmental issues involved, as an informal citizens information meeting would not do. The special
needs of the Colonnades must be heard by those making the decisions. He pleaded with the Board to ask
the FHWA to require a full, thorough and new supplemental environmental impact statement.
_____
Ms. Nancy Carpenter addressed the Board, stating that she appreciated the attendance of many
Colonnades residents here today. Ms. Carpenter said that she was to speak on behalf of getting nine
homeless individuals in the County into The Crossings at Fourth Street, a local supportive housing
initiative. She stated that she appreciates the due diligence of a large agency such as HUD to guide local
officials through a labyrinth of statutory and regulatory requirements. The Crossings program brings
together Governor McDonnell’s and President Obama’s efforts to combat homelessness. Governor
McDonnell’s initiative is 1000 homes for 1000 Virginians and President Obama has stated that he wants to
end chronic homelessness by 2014. She was told that the statutory and regulatory issues would not be
resolved until June 2012 at the earliest, which is almost three months from the time PACEM’s shelter
closed. If this is still the case, she asks why. She urged the Board to bring this matter to a swift close and
get these individuals off the streets and into supportive housing.
_____
Mr. Tim Hulbert, of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce, which is 99
years old, said that he is present to speak about three issues. He stated that the Board would hear about
the TJPED Target Industry Study this afternoon. It is an excellent focus to community’s approach to the
future and lays out a host of opportunities for the community to capture career ladder jobs. He thanked
the Board for its support and funding of the study.
Mr. Hulbert said that years ago he was a transportation official, and they went through
constructive meetings with engineers to help shape better roads, which he is hopeful will occur with the
proposed bypass.
He stated that he serves on the Visitors Bureau Board of Directors, and there is a structural
deficiency with the current structure; however, that needs to be addressed separately from the funding
issues. Mr. Hulbert emphasized that the monies accumulated at the CACVB are designated by statute
and the Board’s agreement for direct tourism marketing. He said that they have been slow in the process
because of a cumbersome City procurement process, but he believes they were on track and hopes the
Board would continue to support their efforts.
_____
Mr. Saunders Midyette, a resident of the County and President of the Colthurst Property Owners
Association, said that he was present to speak in support of the Board requesting VDOT to hold a public
hearing on the proposed 29 Bypass. He said that in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act, the outdated 25-year-old bypass proposal necessitates VDOT holding a public
hearing – not an informational meeting – to comment on the many bypass project changes and particularly
the new design. Mr. Midyette stated that he supports Mr. Rooker’s recommendation to hold a public
hearing that included the following: notification to the public at least 30 days in advance of the hearing; the
draft VDOT environmental assessment along with other VDOT project information should be made
available to the public at least 30 days in advance of the hearing; the public should be allowed to submit
written and oral comments at the hearing as well as written comments afterwards for a reasonable period
of at least two weeks; and the public hearing should not be scheduled during June, July or August as the
community’s participation may be limited due to vacations and community events.
Mr. Midyette said that in the name of transparent and good Albemarle County governance, he
asked Supervisors to support giving citizens the hearing opportunity to provide real and significant input on
this project, for which the CTB has approved thus far $244.5 million. He urged the Board to request
VDOT hold a public hearing on the proposed bypass
_____
Mr. Pete Borches addressed the Board, thanking them for their efforts in the last year regarding
the bypass. He said that there has been great progress made. Mr. Borches said that there have been
four public hearings that allowed for public input, along with two Board meetings, a CTB meeting and an
MPO meeting. He said that he thinks another delay at this point would be not in the best interest of the
project and would just simply run up costs and frustrations in the community. He said that people c an see
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
through the delay efforts, and regardless of the plan there will always be an objection. Mr. Borches said
that there is overwhelming support for this in the community through several independent surveys. He
said that he thinks it is time for everyone to get together behind the project, work together to make it a
better project and move forward.
_____
Mr. Randy Salzman said that he is a writer for transportation issues in a variety of national and
international magazines, including Thinking Highways. He said that he owns property in the County and
the City and is a taxpayer at the state, local and federal levels. As a fiscal conservative, he urged
Supervisors to demand, not request, VDOT do a full public hearing on this $40+ million dollar a mile
highway. Mr. Salzman stated that the design process is tailor made for cost overruns and expensive
change orders. He said that bidders literally do not know what they are bidding on. In January 2012, they
asked a list of questions – at least 30% of which were not answered. All VDOT told them was that the
successful contractor would be responsible for all costs and all issues, even ones upcoming with the
National Environmental Protection Review – which is not due out until fall. Mr. Salzman said there will be
hundreds of change orders and perhaps even a few dozen lawsuits. This fast track process does not
work.
He also stated that citizens are just now learning of new childhood health data developed since
2003. Since the last SEIS, there have been six research studies indicating that children’s lung capacity
decreases and asthma increases when located near highways. Mr. Salzman said that last year the EPA
set guidelines for siting schools and requested that every school within one-half mile of roads be checked
– yet this project would put six schools within one-quarter mile of the bypass, plus a senior living center,
plus the U.Va. Business School, and the Law School. He stated that a few months ago, the former editor
of Virginia Business called this “The Road to Wealth Destruction.” He asked the Board to demand a full
hearing.
_____
Mr. Mac Lafferty said the question before the Board is whether to ask VDOT for a full public
hearing on the Western Bypass. This was a one-quarter of a billion project using federal and state funds
– funds that would involve neighbors’ resources and that children would be paying long after VDOT and
the FHWA have left. This project uses one-half of the Culpeper District’s money allocations for the next
20 years. Mr. Lafferty said that if the Supervisors do not call for a full public hearing, Board members will
be abdicating their responsibilities to those who elected them and the citizens of Virginia. In the name of
transparency, it is time for the Board to step up and demand that the citizens have a chance to have a
meaningful input to this road. He asked that the Board demand a full public hearing.
_____
Mr. Davis Shreve, a County resident, said that he is pleased that a sixth highly qualified scientist
has volunteered to speak to the Board on their series of remarks on greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change. He introduced Dr. Deborah Lawrence, an Associate Professor of Environmental
Sciences at the University of Virginia. She was a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, earned her
Ph.D. in Botany at Duke University, and received a B.A. in Biological Anthropology from Harvard
University. Professor Lawrence’s research focuses on the ecological effects of deforestation – having
spent the last 25 years conducting inter-disciplinary field work in Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico and
Cameroon to understand how tropical forest vegetation responds to variability in soil nutrients, climate and
human land use. Mr. Shreve said that this work has gained Dr. Lawrence an array of awards and
scholarships. She has also served as the Science Sdvisor in the Office of Global Change at the U.S.
State Department. He stated that Dr. Lawrence participated in the international negotiations of the United
Nations Framework Convention on climate change, supported the U.S. delegation to the World Bank
Forest Carbon partnership facility, and was part of several inter-agency missions on reducing CO2
emissions from deforestation in Indonesia and Southeast Asia.
_____
Dr. Lawrence said that the indicators of warming at the global scale are unequivocal. Air
temperatures at the beginning of the century are 1.4 degrees warmer than at the onset of the last. The 20
hottest years on record had occurred since 1981 with the top 10 in the last 12 years. When they look at
the last few decades, the last century, or the last thousand years, the current climate is warmer.
She stated that it can be seen in the shrinking of Arctic sea ice and in the disappearance of
mountaintop glaciers. Other changes are less visible but tell the story of a warming planet a thousand
times. Plants in your gardens have been flowering and leafing out one to two days earlier with each
passing decade so that now spring arrives almost a week earlier than it did in the 1970s. She stated that
birds are migrating and breeding one to two weeks earlier. Species are moving northward and up
mountainsides to find a more suitable, cooler climate zone. For hundreds of grasshopper, butterfly, beetle
and spider species, the average shift northward 20-50 miles. Dr. Lawrence said that insects, plants and
birds are global thermometers – unbiased and unconcerned with the political implications of climate
change; they are thousands of independent measurements of a warming planet. People here may not
notice until one of the insects that pollinates the peaches, moves up north or moves up the mountain to
find a suitable climate.
Dr. Lawrence said they are moving out of the normal range for humanity. Going back a million
years, temperatures have never been more than a few degrees warmer than today. She said that the
entire history – the development of modern humans, of agriculture, and of great civilizations - has
occurred in a comfort zone provided by natural greenhouse gas effect with 300 parts per million CO2, and
has not been as high as today – 393 parts per million – in 15 million years. She said that at that time it
was 5-10 degrees warmer and the sea level was 75 feet higher. Dr. Lawrence encouraged the Board to
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
implement the five-part framework and the framework action strategies recently adopted with the LCAPP
process.
_____
Ms. Elly Tucker, a 36 year County resident, said that she was present to request that the Board
urge VDOT ensure that a public hearing – not merely a public hearing – be held to investigate whether a
new supplemental environmental impact statement is to be conducted for the proposed bypass. She said
that although an SEIS was completed in 2002, there are major new circumstances relative to the bypass
proposal – and the one completed earlier covered only a small subset of issues. Ms. Tucker added that
the original EIS was completed 19 years earlier, and the analysis of critical impacts and issues is quite
outdated – especially the traffic information comparing alternatives. She stated that a new SEIS is
needed, which should include a thorough traffic study that looks at alternatives from prior documents
along with new alternatives that combine grade-separated interchanges at the busiest intersections with
other improvements such as parallel roads – which was agreed upon with the passing of Places 29,
supported unanimously by the Board.
Ms. Tucker said that not evaluated in any of the previous studies is the result of many national
studies on the health impacts of highway emissions on people living nearby, especially children, with links
to reduced capacity and function, respiratory, allergies, cardiovascular disease, low birth weight, and
impaired development. She stated that the proposed bypass will travel close to six school properties on a
6.2-mile route, coming within a few hundred feet of several of them. Ms. Tucker said that it would also cut
through established neighborhoods and residential areas. Neither the FEIS nor the SEIS addressed the
health impacts of vehicle emissions from the bypass on the residential areas and schools. She thanked
the Board for its part in requesting that VDOT do the right thing and hold a public hearing, and not merely
a meeting, to determine the need of an updated environmental impact statement.
_____
Mr. George Larie addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking today on behalf of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition. He said that CATCO fully supports the motion before
the Board to request that VDOT hold a full public hearing on the environmental assessment for the Route
29 Bypass, and that such hearing not be held in the summer when many people are away or held before
the environmental assessment is widely available to the public since it could contain new relevant
information. Mr. Larie stated that they know that substantial changes to the design of the road are being
made, particularly to the northern and southern terminus and the grade through Stillhouse Mountain. To
those who may consider this to be a delay tactic, they need to remember that this is the largest road
project in this area in the last 40 years, and it deserves full input from the citizenry, particularly after the
midnight coup of last June 8 when this was sadly lacking. Mr. Larie said that it has been over 20 years
since the original FEIS was prepared and 10 years since the SEIS was done, and there have been
significant developm ent changes in the 29 corridor since then and new relevant information regarding
highway air pollution and its effect on children and the elderly.
Mr. Larie said this road to who knows where requires openness and full disclosure. The current
effort to speed up this project and shortcut citizen input is unacceptable. He asked Board members to
please pass the resolution before them.
_____
Ms. Jane Porter Fogelman addressed the Board, stating that she was a realtor and when a
person wants to sell their home they are subject to a huge number of environmental issues, with a great
emphasis on mold, mildew, radon gas, oil tanks, and dumps on farms. She said that the remediation of
these issues is a huge expense to homeowners, but they have to be done in order to get a loan. Ms.
Fogelman said that while these issues are important to people, the Supervisors have not taken up the
banner for the citizens. She added that the citizens elected the Board members and wants them to
represent them in the environmental world which is going to be created by this bypass. There is a
responsibility for the Board to demand an environmental impact study to replace the nearly 20-year-old
study that was done in 1993. Ms. Fogelman said they also requested that a public hearing be held, as the
bypass goes by eight established neighborhoods, seven schools and 3,000 students – as well as having a
substantial impact on people’s homes that are close to the bypass.
_____
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, referenced the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of
June 8, 2011 meeting which reflected certain events that occurred during the day and culminated at
midnight with a vote that revived the bypass project. He said that he thinks those minutes should be
required reading in every high school civics class in this community. Mr. Martin said that as a result of
what happened at that meeting, this Board is obligated to sign the letter requesting an opportunity for the
public to be heard at a public hearing on the bypass issues. He stated that the vote of the Board on that
action should be unanimous, and nothing else will suffice other than a unanimous vote. Mr. Martin also
said that a copy of the letter should be sent to the Secretary of Transportation, the Governor, and to each
member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
_____
Mr. Robert Humphris, a resident of the County, said that some members of the Board have
frequently used the words “move forward” when speaking about the Western Bypass – including last June
when they did not want to have any public input before voting to reopen the long, dormant bypass project.
Mr. Humphris said that Board members moved the bypass with “wholehearted trust in VDOT,” without
obtaining any written statements from VDOT as to other projects which were vaguely promised and then
dismissed – such as the Berkmar Bridge. He referenced a November internal VDOT email document,
which indicates their bias against any public comment. Mr. Humprhis said the subject is “Steps to speed
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
up the EA,” and it states: “Here are some things to consider, as well as a few options to move more
quickly. One option to save a substantial amount of time would be to talk FHWA out of requiring public
meetings. They are not required by law or regulation, but FHWA has insisted that we add extra steps to
the process. If someone could talk FHWA out of this, we could save two to three months.” Mr. Humphris
said that VDOT clearly does not want any input from the public. The citizens are before this Board again
asking and begging for a public hearing rather than a watered down public meeting before FHWA decides
whether or not it will require a full SEIS or allow a simple EA now being prepared by VDOT. He asked the
Board to vote to request a full public hearing rather than a simple public meeting so that people will get a
chance to be heard.
_____
Dr. Charles Battig presented a power point presentation entitled “Good News vs. Bad News”. He
said that Dr. James Lovelock said everyone would be dying off in a few years because it would be so hot.
in 2007 it was predicted that they would be “halfway to a frying world by now.” Last month Dr. Lovelock
reversed himself, stating that he was “an alarmist about climate change but the problem is that they do not
know what the climate is doing; they thought they knew 20 years ago.” Last month, Board members
heard a presentation from a U.Va. scientist about polar bears, but he has information from people who live
there. Dr. Battig presented information from the indigenous people of the Arctic area that indicated there
has been a decrease in one population of polar bears but not the others. The Globe and Mail (Canda),
reports that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believe” according to Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s
Director of Wildlife and Management – “there is no doom and gloom”. It further states that “the media in
southern Canada has led people to believe that polar bears are endangered. They are not; there are
about 15,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic, which is likely the highest population level there has
ever been. There are about 25,000 polar bears in the north circumpolar regional, of which about 15,000
are in the Canadian High Artic.”
Dr. Battig then referenced an article from Science Nation dated July 13, 2009, entitled Climate
Change Likely to Devastate Emperor Penguin Populations in Antarctica.” He then referenced another
article that appeared in Science Daily, April 2012 entitled Twice as Many Emperor Penguins as Thought in
Antarctica.” Dr. Battig said things are better, not worse.
_____
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that SELC is in strong support
of holding a public hearing – rather than a citizens' information meeting – on the draft environmental
assessment for the proposed Route 29 Bypass. Mr. Butler said that the difference is important, as public
hearings have clear legal requirements that help ensure the community will have a meaningful opportunity
to provide input. He stated that the pubic must be given notice of a hearing at least 30 days before it will
occur, and updated information about the project must be made available at that same point so that the
public has time to digest it and prepare thoughtful questions and comments. Mr. Butler said that the
review period is crucial, considering all the new information and the numerous changes that have occurred
since the project was last studied. There have been hearings in the past year, but all of these were based
on stale information on the project’s impacts, and an incomplete and different design. This is the citizen’s
chance to provide feedback on up-to-date, relevant information.
He stated that citizen information meetings are not well defined, and there were no firm
requirements on how much advanced notice must be given or how far in advance the public will be
provided with the updated information about the project. He added that it also is not clear that the public
will have multiple ways to provide on the record comments at an informational meeting, whereas oral and
written comments are taken on the record at public hearings – with written comments also accepted
afterward.
Mr. Butler said that considering that this project has been rushed forward based on very outdated
information, the Board should urge VDOT to take every step to ensure that the new information is
accessible, that the public has ample time to review it, and that citizens have multiple ways of comment.
A public hearing has these important protections built in. Mr. Butler said that the SELC also urges the
Board to request that the public hearing be held after VDOT has revealed the design of the road to the
public, or that a separate hearing be held at that point. The public’s input, and the actions VDOT takes in
response, will have much more value if the public actually knows the design of the road when they are
given an opportunity to comment.
_____
Ms. Cynthia Neff, a County resident, said that she finds it appalling that they are sitting here
talking about transparent government. There is more confusion and misunderstanding about the bypass,
as people have reacted to the word “bypass.” She said that everyone wants a “bypass for the
transportation problems,” but people do not know that it is only four miles. People do not know what this
is. Ms. Neff asked why VDOT and a handful of elected people are pushing it down the throats of local
citizens. This community wants to have a voice. Ms. Neff said that no one today can say how much the
road will cost and what the impact will be. Ms. Neff said it is not too much to ask to have people listened
to. She asked that she be allowed to see the design so that she can see what the traffic flow is going to
look like too, and have some input. The citizens just want to know what is going on have some input.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that large trucks have been using
Black Cat Road as a detour because of the work on the Route 250 bridge at Shadwell. He said that Black
Cat’s bridge has a weight limit, and there needs to be visible signs warning trucks not to turn on that road.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
He has shared that with VDOT and County staff, and asked Board members to make sure that it gets
attention.
Mr. Werner said that he would not be present for the Target Industry Study discussion, but PEC
urges the Board to respect the Crozet Master Plan relative to opposing a growth area expansion near the
I-64 interchange. He stated that PEC also opposes any efforts to further intensively develop the rural
parcels on Route 250 east of the I-64 interchange at Shadwell.
Mr. Werner said that PEC urges the Board to demand a proper public hearing on the
environmental assessment for the Western Bypass. He said that it is hard to believe that there would be
opposition to meaningful public input on any public project. He stated that people across the country are
angry that government has lost touch with “we the people,” and here it has been suggested that the
community’s job is simply to “get out of the way.” Mr. Werner said that whatever meeting VDOT holds will
only be the minimum necessary, and it will probably be in August when the JSL championships wrap up
and this town clears out. He stated that for 22 years at every bypass hearing, the project was
overwhelmingly opposed – but that didn’t stop it. Mr. Werner said that the urgency driving the project –
from backroom deals to late night votes to wildly conflicting cost estimates - might suggest that there is a
reason to worry.
Mr. Werner said this is a bypass to nowhere, a 1997 design that is now obsolete, 20-year old
traffic data, political shenanigans, and an effort to limit public input. He asked what is it that bypass
supporters do not want the public to know about and discuss.
_____
Ms. J. J. Towler, a County resident, said that in September 2011 VDOT spokesperson Lou Hatter
said, “A public hearing will be held before the reevaluation is completed in accordance with requirements.”
She said that she cannot help but ask, what are VDOT’s motives now that they do not feel a public hearing
is necessary?” Ms. Towler asked the Board to hold VDOT to what they stated – that there be a public
hearing, that information is provided and heard, and to do for the public what the public deserves.
_____
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that on July 24, 2008 the County praised
VDOT for their plan for the Advance Mills Bridge. The public input session for that bridge was held at the
Best Western in Ruckersville, was well attended, minutes were provided, and there were opportunities for
public comments. In addition 17 sets of written comments were received after the meeting. This Board
unanimously supported that process. Mr. Williamson said he was curious about the differences in that
process versus this one. He added that he was curious about the date the US 29 Bypass preferred route
was first determined and the building permit issuance date for the Colonnades.
_____
Ms. Mallek thanked everyone for their comments and then said the Board had moved Item 13 to
this part of the agenda.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Consideration of Request to VDOT for public
hearing.
Mr. Rooker said that he has a Conflict of Interest statement on file with respect to the Western
Bypass, as he and his wife own a 1/14th interest in an outparcel lot in common with other neighbors in the
Rosslyn Ridge neighborhood that would adjoin this project. Mr. Rooker said he does think that he can
participate fairly and objectively and represent the citizens of his district in the County.
Mr. Rooker stated that he asked for this item to be put on the agenda because the
correspondence he has between the Jack Jouett Advisory Committee and the Project Manager, Mr. Hal
Jones, led him to assume there would be a public hearing on the draft environmental analysis when it was
completed – especially in light of the statements that had been made in September by Mr. Lou Hatter, the
spokesperson for VDOT, that indicated there would be a public hearing. Mr. Rooker said that somehow
that got reduced to a public information meeting. Citizen information meetings are generally held in
conjunction with small projects, such as the bridge project mentioned beforehand, because those projects
are not controversial. When the Broomley Bridge project comes forward, it will also probably be an
informational meeting because very few people will oppose it – an informal setting capable of taking 15-20
comments from people is appropriate.
He stated that the bypass project is moving forward on a design-build basis. VDOT does not
generally apply the design build approach to large projects - in fact he thinks this is the largest design build
project done in Virginia. The Culpeper District has never had a project of this size. Mr. Rooker said that
one of the big differences between a design build project and the normal process is that with the normal
process there is a location hearing and a design hearing – sometimes with one or two alternatives – with
input from the public. He explained that they then finalize a design that is put out to bid so the input from
the public is taken into consideration in the final design that goes out to bid. Mr. Rooker said that in this
case, the public will not have an opportunity to see the proposed design of the bypass until VDOT awards
the contract. He added that the only opportunity the public will have to comment on the proposed design
of the bypass is if a public hearing is held with respect to the draft environmental analysis, as VDOT does
not intend to hold any other public hearings or meetings at this point.
Mr. Rooker also said that the prior hearings had comments that were 10 to 1 against the project.
This is not a hearing for people to weigh in on whether or not they support the project – but a hearing on
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
the draft environmental analysis, the design, and how that might be improved in order to reduce the
impacts of the project on the community. This Board has heard from a lot of people about the impacts on
their neighborhoods, the impacts on schools, et cetera. He asked when is the public going to be able to
have a public hearing to provide input on those impacts, if not now. VDOT does not intend to schedule
anything else. He said that the difference in what VDOT is proposing versus what his committee was
asking for was, they have to provide notice of the hearing at least 30 days in advance, they have to
provide project information and presumably the design at least 30 days in advance, and there is a clear
opportunity to submit both oral and written comments. None of those requirements are inherent in the
citizen meeting that VDOT is talking about. He stated that the only delay would be the notice, as the
hearing would only take one day.
Mr. Rooker said that some of the issues citizens have expressed interest in include what the
traffic plan is for construction vehicles coming to and leaving the site, and where the construction
entrances would be – how many would there be and how would construction traffic impact local traffic. He
said that he would assume that some of these items would be inherent in the bids that come out and in
the design and information that is provided. The only chance the people are going to have to comment on
that is if the Board provides that opportunity, or VDOT provides that opportunity. He added that the issues
of impacts on adjacent properties, churches, schools, blasting and how residents would prepare for those
have not been vetted. Mr. Rooker said that the Secretary of Transportation has said that he would not use
the 1997 design, but what the successful bidder would come up with – with the constraints being that it
operates at a certain level of service and be within the existing footprint of acquired property.
Mr. Rooker stated that the elevation of the road in the RFP changed from the original road. W hen
it originally cut through Stillhouse Mountain the design would have required for the elevation of the road
not to exceed four percent - but that has been changed to six percent, which substantially changes the
footprint of the cut-through and how it affects surrounding properties, as well as the truck noise that the
Colonnades and others would get. As trucks go up a steeper incline, they make more noise. He said that
the public might want to comment on that issue and encourage the elevation to remain at 4% from the
original design. Mr. Rooker said that the RFP versions one and two contain language that says the
existing access to Ashwood Boulevard would remain, but that has been eliminated in the third amendment
from the RFP; they may do it or they may not do it, but they are not required to do it now in the RFP.
Mr. Rooker said that it is not even known where the northern terminus is going to be – it has to be
somewhere between Polo Grounds Road and Ashwood Boulevard. He added that the impacts that might
arise from various potential locations and designs of that interchange could be multi-faceted. For all of
these kinds of reasons, he thinks it is imperative that the Board give its citizens one opportunity to
comment through a public hearing on the proposed design of this project that will only be disclosed after
the contract is awarded – and one opportunity to comment on the environmental analysis draft that will
only be finished sometime in the next couple months. Mr. Rooker stated that the letter also requests that
the public hearing not be held in the summer because school people are out, and a lot of people are out
on vacation. He said that he does not see how they would finish the environmental analysis before
summer anyway, so this would not mean some huge delay. He added that any discussion of delays here
are extremely exaggerated.
Mr. Rooker asked the Board to send a letter similar to the letter that was sent by the Jack Jouett
Committee supporting their request for a public hearing on the environmental analysis, and for a public
hearing date that is after the end of August.
Ms. Mallek said she would support that, and wanted to address the question about the Advance
Mills Bridge project. She clarified that it was a $1 million project, with a few choices as to bridge design
but no question about where the footprint would be, and there were no changes to the access. Ms. Mallek
said that this is a completely different ballgame in terms of this project relative to its size, impact and cost.
Mr. Dumler stated that he would hope the Board would unanimously be willing to take the small
and maybe in some ways symbolic step of requesting that VDOT actually hold a hearing like this. He said
that Mr. Hulbert’s comment said that when engineers get together with concerned citizens, sometimes you
get a better product out of it. He said he does not think it is too much to ask that the Board err on the side
of caution, on the side of transparency, and err on the side of requesting that VDOT listen to – rather than
talk at – the people who elected this Board.
Mr. Boyd said that he took Mr. Hulbert’s comments a little differently. He does not think the Board
disagrees on what it wants to accomplish, and that is public input and transparency, but it is a matter of
how they get there. He stated that he does not think a public hearing is required in order to get good input
from citizens on the design. An informal session whereby a person can walk around and talk to engineers
and look at the designs – as opposed to standing up for two minutes and stating a point – is better. Mr.
Boyd said that at a public information session the public can see the actual designs and ask engineers
about things like noise mitigation. He thinks that VDOT does take that information seriously; it is just in a
different format. He thinks the public information will be much more meaningful, and will give the
opportunity to have the public have a conversation about this, not just a simple statement of what they
think.
Mr. Rooker clarified that a public hearing would include that, with a room with all the pictures and
designs, and VDOT staff available to talk to people. The difference is that there are notice requirements,
that the information has to be made available in advance so people can get it and look at it so they can
form their comments. There are formal requirements for the notice and for the taking of information.
Mr. Boyd asked why he was assuming they would not give adequate notice.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Rooker asked why VDOT would oppose a public hearing, which includes the formal
requirements. He said they still have flexibility in the public hearing. Every reason Mr. Boyd gave would
be inherent and required in the public hearing approach. He said that they would have to provide the
information and provide opportunities for people to speak with VDOT representatives. The difference is
basically the notice requirements and the opportunity to be heard in a variety of forms and to submit
comments for a period of time after the meeting is held.
Mr. Boyd said that there are ongoing comments now, noting that there have been letters to the
Governor, the Senators, the Transportation Secretary, etc.
Mr. Rooker responded that that is not occurring with the design. He said that the comments Mr.
Boyd is talking about now are not comments with respect to the design and they are not formal comments
in the record of a public hearing. VDOT has to take those comments into consideration when they
complete the final environmental analysis. Mr. Rooker stated that if you want your comments taken into
consideration, you need to make comments on the draft and design that is available for a short window of
time. The public would have a much greater opportunity to do that if they are given notice, if they are
provided the information in advance – as they do with all big projects, by the way. He asked Mr. Boyd to
point to a single large project around the state where VDOT has not had a design public hearing on the
design. It does not happen. VDOT can ignore the Board’s request. He said that The Daily Progress had
an editorial stating that the public would be much better served by a public hearing on this. Mr. Rooker
also stated that there has only been about one person out of all of the emails to the Board who weighed in
against the public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to send a letter to VDOT requesting that they have a
public hearing on the draft environmental analysis and that that public hearing be held sometime after
August 31.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. She added that the most effective meeting in the early
iterations of the bypass was held at the Doubletree and over 1,000 people attended – with the afternoon
being a poster session for information sharing for those who did not have it ahead of time. She said that
she thinks it is very important for people to be able to have the opportunity to hear others’ comments to
help them frame their own. She added that having a decent process, even though it might take 30 days,
is still very worth it in the size and scope of this project.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not believe that would not happen with an informal meeting.
Mr. Rooker commented that it should not be an issue then.
Mr. Boyd added he disagrees that this is not a delay tactic. He mentioned an email he received
from CATCO that started off stating that the fight against the Western Bypass is not over. The email then
outlined the next steps of what they wanted to do. He said that he appreciates Mr. Rooker’s effort to
change the conversation to input, but he feels there could be adequate input with an informal hearing. He,
therefore, cannot support the letter.
Mr. Snow stated that he prefers the informal hearing to where people see the charts, the graphs,
and the information that they have available, where people can comment on it, talk to the engineers, and
have a more personal discussion rather than four hours of two-minute comments.
Ms. Mallek said that would happen in the afternoon portion of the public hearing. She added that
there will be no public record of comments made to engineers unless they have the opportunity to make
them in a public hearing.
Mr. Snow said VDOT does not have to have anything if they don’t want to. This is a great
opportunity for people to have a personal conversation rather than a one-sided presentation and four
hours of two-minute comments. He added that it is a lot better interchange of information.
Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Boyd and Mr. Snow seem to be rephrasing this in a way that it does not
actually exist. He stated that the public information meeting has no formal notice requirements, no
requirements for advance information, and no formal requirement to accept comments afterwards. That is
the difference. The difference isn’t this opportunity to speak informally – that exists under both formats.
To suggest somehow that what they are suggesting is a better format because it gives people an
opportunity to discuss things informally, to imply that that is not the case with the public hearing, is simply
not the case. Mr. Rooker read from The Daily Progress editorial, which said that” the design build process
now selected for the bypass is geared towards fast tracking the process and keeping costs down. That
may not necessarily accommodate the public’s interest in actually influencing the design and it should be
possible to allow this kind of comment without slowing down the process inordinately.”
Mr. Rooker added that people who understand that process do not agree with the contrast they
are making. The difference is not whether you have an opportunity to look at some boards with pictures
and talk to VDOT people – that exists under both formats. The question is are you going to allow people
to have notice, an opportunity to be heard in more than one form, and information before that takes place.
Mr. Snow said that there is a lot of misstatement of information and the Board listens to it
constantly. He stated that this part of the bypass is the first step. If you look at the Route 250 Bypass, it
had three segments – from Pantops to Route 29, from Route 29 to Route 250 and from Route 250 back
over to Route 29 - it was done in stages. This is the first stage of the Western Bypass with the opportunity
to later go past the Airport and then past Ruckersville. Mr. Snow said that none of these conversations
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
are stating the full picture. He stated that there is a core group of about 150 people who have showed up
at four public hearings, one MPO meeting, and one VDOT hearing in Richmond. They hear the same
comments over and over again. Polls have been taken that show that two-thirds of this County is for this
bypass.
Mr. Rooker responded that that is not true. That is a flat, false statement. He said that the survey
showed that a majority of people support “a” bypass, and when they were given the question about this
bypass it never got a majority.
Mr. Boyd said that was a push poll and he does not understand how that statement can be made.
Mr. Snow stated that you can get a poll for anything you want if you phrase it right. He said that
everywhere he goes people ask him if they are going to get this bypass that they need, and he keeps
saying that he hopes so. He added that he was not prepared to sit here and argue this all day; he is ready
for a vote.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there have been two major hearings on the bypass – a location
hearing and a design hearing on the old design – and at the first hearing 3,212 people opposed the
bypass and 51 supported it.
Mr. Boyd asked where that meeting took place.
Mr. Rooker responded that the meeting took place over two days at Charlottesville High School.
Mr. Boyd said that he has seen a conflicting story about the accuracy of reports on that event.
Mr. Rooker said that at the design hearing, 7,108 people opposed the bypass and 1,100
supported it. When a Board members says a few people that was more people than had ever shown up
for a VDOT hearing on any project to oppose it in the history of the state to that point. He also stated that
the emails received were from all over the County, not just 150 people as Mr. Snow claimed who showed
up. Mr. Rooker said that the people who showed up did so because they are directly impacted. When
people have an opportunity to comment at a public hearing, they came out in droves against this project
from all over the County and the emails are not from a few people in isolated locations.
Mr. Thomas said that this is not the first time VDOT has built a highway, and he still has faith in
VDOT that they will do it the proper way. He stated that the FHWA has total control over making the
decision about the public hearing on the SEIS, not VDOT. He will not support recommending a public
hearing at this point.
Mr. Rooker said that he knows that he is talking a lot, but this project affects the citizens of his
district more directly than anyone else. He mentioned an email from a citizen which stated that “VDOT
must select the design from the lowest bidder, as required. VDOT is not allowed to select the overall best
design or the most cost effective design or ‘cherry pick’ the most cost-effective components of each
design. VDOT will give Albemarle County the lowest priced road among the seven for-profit engineering
firms can create. Mr. Rooker read the email as stating that the cheapest design is already known to
include four-foot shoulders, steeper grades, thinner pavement, no landscaping budget, and will not be built
to interstate standards. What new cheapness will the creative private designers come up with to make a
profit for their company? There is absolutely no incentive to design anything for protecting the health, the
environment and the safety and expect to meet the legal requirements. VDOT is striving to escape legally
mandated federal protections by using out-of-date plans that won’t meet current standards.”
Mr. Rooker said that was one email, and the statements in it are true. The process they are in is
designed to give them the lowest cost road. He noted that VDOT has already reduced the shoulders, has
taken off the requirement for access to Ashwood Boulevard, etc. The incentive of the bidders here is to
give them the lowest priced road that meets the bare minimum requirements that have been put on the
table. He reiterated that they have taken out landscaping requirements. They had specific detailed
requirements for landscaping in the initial RFP which has been eliminated.
Mr. Thomas asked what the shoulder requirements are for Route 29 North or for interstate
highways which is the way the road was originally designed, and how the interchanges were designed.
They are trying to condense everything down so it is not a super-highway.
Ms. Mallek said that condensing it down when it is 35 mph is one thing, but condensing it down
with 55 mph is another matter.
Mr. Thomas added that that was interstate standards too.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not think that VDOT will build an unsafe road. He is willing to wait until
they come out with a design before he starts commenting. He reiterated that he will not make any
comments until he sees a design.
Mr. Rooker and Ms. Mallek said that citizens want to have the same opportunity to comment.
Mr. Boyd reiterated that he thinks the County will get that with the informal review process.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve Items 8.1
through 8.8, with the exception of Item 8.4, to pull as discussed, and to accept the remaining items for
information. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. (Note: Discussions on items are included with that
agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_____
Mr. Foley said that staff would like to understand the best way the Board wants to handle the
Consent Agenda. The Board’s Rules of Procedure currently state that the Board would make a motion on
items to approve with the items, for discussion, moved to the end of the meeting. He said that the hope is
that staff could find out in the morning what items the Board needed more information on, so they could
bring it back in the afternoon.
Ms. Mallek said that one consideration is whether to move Consent Agenda items that need
further discussion to the beginning of the agenda so that staff knows what is needed and they can go
early.
Mr. Foley stated that if the items in question on the Consent Agenda are moved to the end of the
day, staff could come then and answer them.
Ms. Mallek said she would be fine with staff just coming in the afternoon to respond to questions.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think the process is working too badly because some of the things can
be answered quickly and those other items can be moved to the end of the day. Board members
concurred.
_______________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: January 4, January 11, February 8(A), February (N), and
February 29, 2012.
Mr. Rooker asked that his portion of the minutes of January 4, 2012, pages 1-28 (end at
Item #15), be pulled and carried forward to the next meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked that his portion of the minutes of January 4, 2012, pages 28 (begin with
Item #15) – end, be pulled and carried forward to the next meeting
Mr. Dumler had read the minutes of January 11, 2012, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of February 8A, 2012, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek asked that the minutes of February 8N, 2012, be pulled and carried forward
to the next meeting.
Mr. Snow had read the minutes of February 29, 2012, and found them to be in order.
_______________
Item No. 8.2. Albemarle County’s FY12/13-FY16-17 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives.
The executive summary stated that 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 5-year planning period. At that meeting,
the Board approved the following goals and associated objectives:
1. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
2. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
3. Protect the County’s parks and it’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
At the Board’s March 7, 2012 meeting, the Board approved two additional goals and associated
objectives:
1. Ensure the health and safety of the community
2. Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
This executive summary provides a revised goal statement for the “Protect the County’s natural,
scenic and historic resources” goal based on feedback received from Board members on March 7, 2012.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Staff has finalized the proposed Strategic Plan identifying seven strategic goals and associated
objectives. (Attachment A) Board members expressed general consensus to amend the “Protect the
County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources” goal to include language reflecting the need
to follow established growth management principles. Based on this feedback, staff has proposed the
following amended goal:
Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the
County’s established growth management polices
As a result of the extensive feedback from both the Board and employees throughout the past
year, staff believes that this strategic plan has the strong support needed to achieve success over the next
five years. 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/perform ance
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.
Staff recommends approval of all goal and objective statements for the County’s FY12/13–
FY16/17 Strategic Plan. (Attachment A)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the goals and objective statements for
the County’s FY12/13-FY16/17 Strategic Plan:
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
_______________
Item No. 8.3. Resolution on the issuance by the Economic Development Authority of the City of
Norfolk of its revenue and refunding bonds in one or more series (the "Series 2012 Bonds") in an
aggregate principal amount of up to $300,000,000 to assist Sentara Healthcare (Martha Jefferson
Hospital).
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if the Board needed to take action on the fee assessment on bond
issues.
Mr. Foley explained that it already applies to this specific item and was already incorporated when
the EDA approved it. He noted that the jurisdictional aspect of it meant the County would be a partner in it
and would generate some revenue as a result.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County knows its share at this point.
Mr. Foley responded that it is approximately $40,000 and would go along with the financing for the
bond.
Mr. Boyd stated that the County has the capability to assess fees on existing bonds, and asked
staff to bring information back to the Board at some point. He would like to know who is assessing fees,
the impact, etc.
Mr. Foley responded that doing that is already planned.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the resolution authorizing the issuance
by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk of its revenue and refunding bonds
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
in one or more series (the "Series 2012 Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount of up to
$300,000,000 to assist Sentara Healthcare (Martha Jefferson Hospital).
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), has
considered the plans of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company"), a Virginia non-stock corporation that is the sole
corporate member of Martha Jefferson Hospital (the "Hospital"), for the issuance by the Economic
Development Authority of the City of Norfolk (the "Norfolk Authority") of its revenue and refunding bonds (the
"Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount of up to $300,000,000 to assist the Company and its affiliates in (a)
financing or refinancing the construction and equipping of a new Sentara Leigh Hospital bed tower to
substantially replace the existing Sentara Leigh Hospital, located at 830 Kempsville Road in Norfolk, Virginia,
including construction and equipping of the new bed tower, a replacement central utility plant, new structured
parking, a new main entrance, telephone communications / infrastructure for the bed tower, improved clinical
and support space, and renovations to public corridors; (b) advance refunding the entire principal amount of,
and the accrued interest on, the Authority's Hospital Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hospital), Series 2002
(the "2002 Authority Bonds"), which financed certain capital projects and equipment of the Hospital, now
located at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); (c) advance refunding the
entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of
Prince William Hospital Facility Revenue Bonds (Potomac Hospital Corporation of Prince William), Series
2003, which financed certain capital projects of Sentara Potomac Hospital, located at 2300 Opitz Boulevard in
Prince William County, Virginia; (d) funding any required reserve funds; and (e) financing costs of issuance
allocable to the Bonds;
WHEREAS, as referenced above, a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to advance
refund obligations of the Authority the proceeds of which were allocated to facilities of the Hospital located in the
County;
WHEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on April 10, 2012, with respect to the advance
refunding of the 2002 Authority Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code");
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code provides that the highest elected governmental officials of the
governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of a private
activity bond is located shall approve the issuance of such bond;
WHEREAS, the Hospital is located in the County and the members of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board"), constitute the highest elected governmental officials of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has adopted a resolution recommending that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution, a statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-
4907 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), and a reasonably detailed summary of
the comments expressed at the public hearing, as required by Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, have
been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Norfolk Authority to the extent
required by the Code.
2. That the approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the Code, does not constitute
an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Company, the Hospital
or any other person, and that the Bonds shall provide that the Authority and the County, among others, shall
not be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto, and neither the faith
or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the County shall be pledged thereto.
3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia on the 2nd day of May, 2012.
_______________
Item No. 8.4. 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 $1,552,366,79. 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.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
This request involves the approval of six (6) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012037) totaling $1,178,576.00 for a transfer from the FY11
General Fund balance to the FY12 Capital Improvement Program Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2012068) totaling $181,199.61 for proffer revenue offsetting
current capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012069) totaling $16,990.00 for a grant awarded to the Police
Department for a one-time equipment purchase;
One (1) appropriation (#2012070) totaling $121,404.02 for various school division
programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012071) totaling $54,197.16 to cover costs associated with the
March 6, 2012 presidential primary election;
One (1) appropriation (#2012072) reallocating $40,000.00 from the Pantops Master Plan
funding to the Rivanna Trail Bridge (Old Mill Trail Bridges) project; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012075) reallocating $7,000.00 from the Grants Leveraging
Fund to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012037, #2012068, #2012069, #2012070,
#2012071, #2012072, and #2012075.
*****
Appropriation #2012037 $1,178,576.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $1,178,576.00
This request is to reappropriate funding to the FY 12 General Government and School Capital
Program funds from the FY 11 General Fund Balance. Each year, funding is budgeted in the General
Fund for transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund (CIP) General Government Debt Service Fund and the
School Debt Service Fund to make interest and principal payments on funds borrowed by the County for
capital projects.
In FY 11, a total of $16,199,914.00 was budgeted for this purpose. As noted in the FY 11 End of
Year Financial Report that was provided to the Board in October, 2011, $1,178.576.00 of those funds
were not needed to pay for debt service in FY 11 as expected. Those funds were not expended in FY 11
due to the following: 1) the General Government did not issue any new debt in FY11, 2) the County
received a School debt-related bond premium, and 3) there were savings associated with reductions in
interest rates for prior year Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Issuances due to VPSA refinancing of
certain outstanding bonds for interest rate savings.
Since there is currently an adequate level of CIP debt service funding appropriated for the CIP in
FY 12, this funding will not be required to be moved forward specifically for CIP debt service in FY 12.
This request is to appropriate $1,178,576.00 from the FY 11 General Fund Balance to the CIP program as
follows:
$589,288.00 to the FY 12 General Government Capital Fund for “pay-as-you-go” capital projects, and
$589,288.00 to the FY 12 School Capital Fund for “pay-as-you-go” capital projects
Appropriation #2012068 $181,199.61
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenues $ 181,199.61
As indicated in the staff recommendations to the Board during the FY 13 Budget Work Sessions
and in the follow-up proffer report to the Board on March 7, 2012, available cash proffer funding can be
used for several capital projects. This request is to allocate various proffer fund revenues toward the cost
of the current capital projects as identified in the schedule below. (The schedule below identifies the
revenue source, the project to be funded, and the amount.) This will reduce the use of the School Capital
Fund balance by $24,016.44 and will reduce the use of fund balance in the General Government Capital
Fund by $157,183.17 for a total decrease in use of fund balance in the Capital Program Budget of
$181,199.61.
Proffer Revenue Source Project Amount($)
Old Trail Proffer Crozet Elementary School ADA Entrance Ramp $24,016.44
Old Trail Proffer Crozet Greenway Project 24,146.44
Hollymead C Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 62,264.79
Hollymead D Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 31,146.37
Hollymead Town Center A1 Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 31,056.42
North Pointe Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 8,451.43
UVA Research Park Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 117.72
TOTAL: $181,199.61
Appropriation #2012069 $16,990.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 16,990.00
This request is to appropriate a Virginia Department of Emergency Management state grant in the
amount of $16,990.00 (Grant 2011-SHSP CBRNE) to the Police Department. The purpose of this grant is
to assist localities by funding the maintenance and replacement of services and equipment provided
through previous flow-through U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants to Virginia. This particular
grant will fund a one-time equipment purchase for telecommunications equipment used in
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
hostage/barricade type critical incidents to assist bringing such situations to negotiated conclusions. No
local match is required.
Appropriation #2012070 $121,404.02
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 70,664.02
Use of Fund Balance (schools) $ 50,740.00
This request is to appropriate various School Division requests as approved by the School Board
on March 22, 2012. This appropriation request of $121,404.02 includes the following:
Burley Middle School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $250.00. These
local funds are to compensate the County for expenses from the Activity Accounts at Burley
Middle School.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $6,288.00 from Henley’s Parent and
Teacher Support Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to cover
the purchase of classroom projectors.
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of
$3,544.00 for field trip expenses, piano tuning, expenses associated with a jazz festival, dance
team coaching fees, photography activities, a Student Council Association activity, and an AHS
athletics expense. The funds to reimburse the School Division budget came from their Activity
Accounts at AHS.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $871.97 from Henley’s Parent and
Teacher Support Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help
fund the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of February at Henley Middle School.
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a grant in the amount of $19,710.00 from the
KOVAR Corporation. KOVAR is a charitable corporation established by the Virginia Knights of
Columbus in 1971, dedicated to assisting Virginians with intellectual disabilities. These are local
funds. These funds will be used to purchase electronic hardware, software and protective and
adaptive gear for students with intellectual disabilities. The equipment will increase their
independence and functional skills by developing receptive and expressive communication,
promoting technological literacy and training access to electronic resources.
On Thursday, January 12, 2012, the School Board approved the redistribution of $50,740.00 in
School Division fund balance funds to the three comprehensive high school athletic departments
to be distributed based upon student participation and used for programs proportionately divided
among genders.
Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a locally-funded grant in the amount of
$40,000.00 from State Farm Insurance Company. These funds will be used to support the M3 –
Men, Math, and Mission Program. This program is designed to provide African-American males
with a solid pathway for future success through increased opportunity for rigorous coursework,
consistent opportunities for mentoring and support, and service learning to develop their
understanding of giving back to their community. This program aims to engage African-American
males in their middle school years, which set the foundation for the high school coursework and
ultimately for career pathways in life. The M3 Program will continue to be focused directly on a
skill that is critical for increased academic success; algebraic concepts. This program has been
expanded to Charlottesville City and Fluvanna County students.
Appropriation #2012071 $54,197.16
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 54,197.16
This is a special appropriation request for the costs of the 2012 Presidential Primary Election, held
on March 6, 2012. The Department of Voter Registration and Elections expects that these costs, or the
majority of them, will be reimbursed by the state through the State Board of Elections. A reimbursement
request was submitted to the State Board of Elections on March 28, 2012 and is contingent on the
General Assembly’s passage of a budget bill. The costs of the March presidential primary cannot be paid
from the Department's $55,000.00 primary election reserve fund because those funds will be needed for a
June U.S. Senate primary election. (See, generally, Va. Code § 24.2-518 - county and city treasurers to
pay costs of primary elections)
A majority of the costs incurred for the 2012 Presidential Primary Election were for election
officers at the polling places and for programming and delivering voting machines.
Appropriation #2012072 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from Pantops Master Plan $ 40,000.00
This request reallocates $40,000.00 in CIP funding currently available in the Pantops Master Plan
to the Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges project. The Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges project is
currently identified as a high priority in the Pantops neighborhood plan. The Pantops Master Plan is
intended to implement high priority projects in the Pantops neighborhoods.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
A Notice to Proceed on the Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges project was issued to C & B
Construction Services LLC on March 28, 2012. The work involved the construction of three pedestrian
bridges. After the work had begun, it was found that the length of bridges #2 and #3 had to be increased
due to unsuitable footer soil directly adjacent to the steep and sloughing banks. Bridge #2 has to be
lengthened from 25' to 40' and bridge #3 had to be lengthened from 30' to 40'. A geotechnical
investigation for the new footer locations (40’ spans) has been conducted and approved by the engineer.
The contractor has submitted a change order for this additional work totaling $39,870.00. The original
contract amount was $79,100.00 and the new contract amount with the change order will be $118,970.00.
There is no net increase to the Capital budget since this is a transfer of already appropriated
funds.
Appropriation #2012075 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from Grants Leveraging Fund $ 7,000.00
In 2010 the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) formed a public-private partnership between
the airport and 18 local organizations of the Greater Charlottesville Region for the purpose of supporting
air service improvements and to secure new service between Charlottesville and Chicago-O’Hare (ORD).
This partnership was instrumental for CHO to apply for and be awarded a Small Community Air Service
Development Program (SCASDP) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for funding to
provide financial assistance and support to a potential carrier for this route. It was because of this effort
that we were able to celebrate the launch of American Airlines service to ORD on June 9, 2011. Chicago
is CHO’s second largest market without nonstop service, and American Eagle / American Airlines now
provides global access via their hub at ORD. Such a connection also provides quality commercial air
service to support the economy of the region through improved access for visitors and most importantly to
support area businesses, organizations and educational institutions. Those airports that contribute from
local sources other than just their own revenues are accorded priority consideration. With that in mind,
CHO requested financial support from the members of CHO’s public-private partnership including
Albemarle County. In support of this effort, which dates back almost two years, Albemarle and
Charlottesville anticipated being able to provide $7,000.00 each towards the partnership. In comparison,
CHO will be providing the largest amount of match at $50,000.00. The total amount raised by the public-
private partnership was $96,000.00. The DOT will be providing $500,000.00. The total amount will be used
as cost abatement for the first year of commercial service for American Eagle/American Airlines.
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $7,000.00 in one-time matching funds from the
grants matching fund in support of this effort. There is no net increase to the General Fund budget since
this is a transfer of already appropriated funds.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker referred to Appropriation #2012071, and said that some of the costs
associated with the Presidential primary would be reimbursed from the State, but there is also an
additional expenditure planned for another upcoming election. He asked if the County has budgeted an
expense for this, and if not, where the funds are coming from. He asked how this expense impacts the
current fund balances with respect to the current budget.
Mr. Foley suggested moving this item to the end of the agenda, and he will have someone from
staff present to respond to the question.
Mr. Rooker said that there has been an almost $40,000 increase in the cost of the Old Mills Trails
pedestrian bridges project based upon an engineering study that was done. He asked if there is a new
contract based on that higher number.
Mr. Bob Crickenberger, Director of Parks and Recreation, said that with the change order they will
proceed with the contract and the project. This appropriation is needed to reallocate the funds from
Community Development back into the project.
Mr. Rooker asked if he felt the project was worth $118,970. Mr. Crickenberger responded,
“absolutely.”
Mr. Boyd noted that the cost is actually below the original projections. He added that the Pantops
Advisory Council is working closely with this project.
Mr. Crickenberger added that there are issues with soil in terms of the concrete and footings
which caused the increase in cost.
Ms. Mallek asked what the “pay as you go” capital projects for $500,000 were.
Mr. Foley responded that staff would come back with that information.)
__________
Item No. 8.5. Revised Community Use of County Facilities Policy.
The executive summary stated that since first adopting a County facilities rental policy on
February 10, 1982, the Board has encouraged the use of County facilities by Local Government and the
School Division for their activities, as well as by outside organizations and groups when their activities do
not interfere with County business. There have been several administrative revisions to the reservation
application, with the last revision on April 22, 2010. The rental policy, including an increase in rental rates,
was last approved by the Board on September 3, 2008.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
A draft of the proposed revised rental policy is attached (Attachment A). The substantive changes
addressed in the proposed rental policy are:
limiting after-hours rental to no later than 10:00 p.m., reflecting current practice;
eliminating weekend rental, reflecting current practice;
including in the policy a provision addressing the use of the grounds that continues the
consistent, but unwritten policy for its use, applied for over the last 25 years (to assure the
grounds cannot be claimed to be an unrestricted open public forum);
and
adjusting the rental rates to enable the County to recoup operating expenses while still
offering access to County facilities below the local public and private market for similar
services.
Also attached is the reservation application to be used in conjunction with the revised rental policy
(Attachment B).
Annual revenue from facility rentals would likely increase based on the rental rate increase
and would offset direct costs associated with room rental activities.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the revised Community Use of County Facilities Policy.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the revised Community Use of County
Facilities Policy.
COMMUNITY USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES
A) Generally
1. The Board of Supervisors believes in the full and best possible utilization of the physical
facilities belonging to the citizens of the County. To achieve this end, the use of County
facilities for governmental, school and related activities, as well as by outside organizations
and groups, shall be encouraged when these activities will not interfere with the routine
business of the County.
2. Proper protection, safety and care of County property shall be primary considerations in the
use of County facilities.
B) Eligible Organizations
1. The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of priority and the
charging of fees.
1. Classification
I. County government and School-affiliated or related groups.
II. Youth agencies, educational, recreational, cultural, political, civic, charitable,
social, veterans’ or religious groups or organizations.
III. Profit making or Private groups, organizations, or businesses.
2. Membership
The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of County facilities must
be largely from the County of Albemarle. This restriction shall not exclude the use of
certain facilities, as determined by the County Executive, by state and national
organizations that have a local sponsoring division of such organization.
3. Commercial Activities
Commercial use of County property by any organization or individual is expressly
prohibited.
C) Applications and Approval
1. Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs, societies or
organizations that can be held responsible for the payment of charges, compensation for
damages to property and for use of the property in reasonable conformity with the regulations
on the application.
2. The Board authorizes the County Executive or his designee to approve all applications for the
use of County facilities that meet the requirements of the Board, that comply with
implementing regulations the County Executive deems necessary to protect County property
and that do not conflict with established business or commercial interests in the community.
The County Executive shall design such application forms as are required. The completed
and signed form shall be a binding agreement upon the applicant and the County.
3. No rental application will be considered more than six months prior to the desired rental date.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
4. The County Executive or his designee reserves the right to cancel a rental contract up to ten
calendar days prior to a scheduled rental.
5. The Lane Auditorium and COB – 5th Street Room A are available during business hours (8:00
a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) only if the applicant provides shuttle bus services or
off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site parking is not available for large
meetings during business hours.
6. All activities shall end, with County facilities vacated, no later than 10:00 p.m.
7. The Lane Auditorium is not available on any day during which a local government board,
commission, or other duly appointed entity is scheduled to use the facility due to the possibility
of these meetings running beyond the scheduled end time.
8. Meeting rooms and Auditorium are not available on holidays, scheduled or declared, when the
County Office Building is closed.
9. Reservations will automatically be cancelled when the County office buildings are closed due
to inclement weather or emergency conditions.
10. County Office Buildings’ Grounds and Parking Lots:
a. Unless otherwise specifically allowed in this policy, the Grounds of the County Office
Buildings are not open for public use. For purposes of this restriction, the Grounds do not
include parking lots that are open for public use or sidewalks, provided that ingress and
egress are not obstructed and that use of those parking lots or sidewalks does not
interfere with the conduct of County business.
b. Parking in County parking lots for purposes not related to business being conducted in or
on County facilities shall not be permitted during the County’s regular business hours, or
during meetings of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, or School Board. In
addition, there shall be no public parking in such lots between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m. At such other times, unrestricted spaces in parking lots are open to the public
for general parking purposes.
c. Veterans’ Memorials. The County Executive or his designee may consider requests for
the use of the area in proximity to the veterans’ memorials on the Grounds by veterans’
groups or organizations consistent with this policy. Such requests must be made and
approved no less than 5 business days before the proposed activity.
d. At no time shall vehicles be parked on the lawns or pedestrian walkways.
e. Unauthorized users of County facilities or Grounds are subject to removal and/or
prosecution for trespassing.
D) Fees (See Attachment)
1. The County Executive shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may make additional
adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional adjustments shall be based
upon the classification of the group or organization, the facilities to be used, the size of the
group, the objectives of the organization, the approximate cost to the County and the purpose
for which the facility will be used.
2. In general, the County Office Building Rental Charges schedule (attached below) will apply.
3. A full rental fee shall be charged to all groups (except Classification I) when County facilities
are to be used for fund raising and/or when an admission charge is levied.
4. All fees must be paid at least seven (7) calendar days in advance, and the sponsoring
organization whose name appears on the application shall be held responsible for any and all
damages to property and equipment.
E) Protection of County Property
1. An employee or agent of the County shall be on duty on the property at times when the
facilities are in use. No equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without the consent
of the employee in charge if such usage is not in conformity with the contracted agreement.
The employee in charge may expel any group if said group, after ample warnings, fails to
adhere to the provisions of their rental agreement.
2. The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for crowd control measures, including the
employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be arranged in advance
when deemed necessary by the County Executive or his designee.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
F) Safety
1. Organizations and individuals using the facility shall be responsible for familiarizing
themselves with the nearest exits in case of emergency evacuation. Each conference room
has a Fire Escape Plan posted at its entrance which shows the primary and secondary
escape routes.
G) Deposits
1. A cash bond or deposit may be required at the discretion of the County Executive or his
designee prior to use of the property.
Lane Auditorium and COB-5th Street Room A Rental Charges
Classification Weekday-Business Hours Weekday-Evening
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political, civic,
charitable, social, veteran’s or
religious groups or organizations
$18.00 flat fee $40.00 per hour
III. Profit Making or Private Groups,
Organizations or Businesses
$200.00 flat fee $200.00 flat fee
* Departments directly supervised or sponsored by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by
the local office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
The Lane Auditorium and COB – 5th Street Room A are available during business hours (8:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday) only if the Applicant provides shuttle bus services or off-site parking for
participants of the meeting. On-site parking is not available for large meetings during business hours.
County Office Building Meeting Rooms Rental Charges (Other than for Lane Auditorium and COB-5th
Street Room A)
Classification Weekday-Business Hours Weekday-Evening
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political, civic,
charitable, social, veteran’s or
religious groups or organizations
$18.00 flat fee $40.00 per hour
III. Profit Making or Private Groups,
Organizations or Businesses
$40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour
* Departments directly supervised or sponsored by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by
the local office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Additional Charges
1. Each additional room used shall incur an additional charge, pursuant to the above schedule.
2. Requests to set up additional chairs/tables shall incur a flat $18.00 charge.
3 Any portion of a meeting scheduled past 5:00 p.m. will be subject to the applicable weekday evening
rate.
4. For any event at which food is served, a $150.00 security deposit will be charged, to be returned upon
satisfactory inspection of facility.
*****
Application Number____________
APPLICATION FOR RESERVATION OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FACILITIES OR GROUNDS
I (we) __________________________________________________________, on behalf of
___________________________________________________________________ (organization) (the
“Applicant”), have read and understand the attached rules and regulations and in accordance with same, I
(we) hereby make application for the use of Room ____________ (space wanted) on
_________________ (date), between the hours of ___________ and ___________ under the conditions
indicated below:
1) The exact purposes, for which the space will be used, including the exact kind of equipment and
apparatus to be brought on the property and any special equipment desired to be used:
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2) The following person(s) (include contact information) will be in charge of the program:
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
3) The schedule of admission charges will be as follows:
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
4) The proceeds from such charges will be distributed and used as follows:
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
5) Number of anticipated people attending:_________________________________________
Number of anticipated parking spaces needed: ____________________________________
6) Will food be served during this event (YES/NO)? _________________________________
General Rules and Responsibilities of Individuals/Organizations Using County Facilities
On behalf of the Applicant, the undersigned acknowledges and hereby agrees to ensure
compliance with the following rules and responsibilities:
1. The rental fee shall be paid prior to the rental date.
2. A representative designated as the Applicant’s “responsible individual” shall remain on site
throughout the rental period.
3. The Applicant shall provide appropriate supervision of all the individuals using the facility (to
include the audience in case of performances).
4. The Applicant shall ensure all general and specific rules and regulations are adhered to, and
safeguard all County property entrusted into its care.
5. Only the room/facility specifically requested and paid for (and adjacent restrooms) shall be used.
6. Auditorium furniture shall not be moved or otherwise rearranged.
7. No food or drink shall be brought into the Lane Auditorium.
8. Other than guide dogs, hearing dogs, and service dogs for persons with disabilities, no animals
shall be allowed in County buildings, without the County’s prior consent.
9. No tobacco or alcohol shall be brought onto any County grounds or into any County facility.
10. Rental of the Lane Auditorium shall not include the use of its audio/visual/recording/ computer
equipment, except by Class 1 Departments (directly supervised by the County
Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the Virginia Cooperative Extension). Other groups
may bring their own equipment, if desired.
11. The Applicant shall be responsible for all damage to County property and shall either
(choose one):
______(a) Maintain commercial general liability insurance (of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate combined limit) that insures it, the County of Albemarle, its
officers, employees and agents against claims of personal injury, including death, as well as
against claims for property damage, which may arise from the operations of the Applicant, of any
agent, or of anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. The Applicant shall provide
Certificate(s) of such insurance; OR
______(b) Indemnify and hold harmless the County and any of its officers, employees and agents for any
and all claims of any kind asserted for any damage, loss, injury or death to persons or property
arising out of the above use of County property, including attorney’s fees.
Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the County.
Failure to adhere to these terms and conditions may be used as grounds to bar future use of
County facilities. Allowing a group/organization to use the County’s facilities does not constitute an
endorsement of the group/organization’s policies, beliefs or practices.
I hereby certify that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant. I assume full responsibility
for compliance with the above Rules.
Signed ________________________________________
(Applicant)
By ___________________________________________
Address _______________________________________
Phone Number __________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - ACTION TAKEN
1) ( ) Approved for use of Room ____________ on _____________________________
pending receipt of rental fee.
2) Total rental fee: $_________________ Due Date(s):_______________________
3) Classification:____________________________
4) ( ) Disapproved for reason described below:
______________________________________________________________________________
County of Albemarle (General Services)
By:_________________________________
Revised: 9/30/99, 7/3/02, 3/19/08, 4/7/2010, 4/22/10,01/27/2012
_______________
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Item No. 8.6. Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal Year 2013-2018
Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP).
The executive summary stated that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will be
conducting a series of public hearings in April and May (May 2nd in Culpeper) to give citizens and public
officials an opportunity to provide comments on projects in the Working Draft Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Six-
Year Improvements Program (SYIP). Projects can include interstate, primary road, rail, bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit improvement priorities. Comments can also be sent to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) by May 18, 2012.
This process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that specific amounts of funds are
set aside for secondary road projects in the County after a local public hearing, whereas funds for
interstate and primary road projects are allocated for each construction district after the scheduled
statewide public hearings. All interstate and primary road projects proposed within individual localities in
the district compete for those district funds. The Culpeper District includes Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
Attachment A is staff’s recommended priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2013-
2018 SYIP based on the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Constrained
Project List and prior Board priority lists. The list in Attachment A is essentially the same list adopted by
the Board in April 2011, but has been updated to note the latest status of projects (funding, design and/or
construction), as well as two new transit improvement projects and two new safety improvement projects.
The proposed new transit projects are:
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2):
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport.
Both of these projects are recommended in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, including the Places29
Master Plan. Both projects have also been identified in the Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Transit
Development Plan for possible implementation with the next 3-5 years.
The proposed new safety improvement projects are:
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2):
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways…:
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory Farms
subdivision area).
Residents in the area have recently requested these improvements to provide safe pedestrian access
along and across Route 250 in this area. A recent pedestrian-vehicle related fatality occurred in this
area.
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at … Route 240 (at the Mechums River
Bridge).
Traffic control and alignment improvem ents for this intersection have been identified in the County’s
Comprehensive Plan/Crozet Master Plan and in the TJPDC 2035 Rural Long Range Transportation
Plan.
In addition to the above changes, staff is proposing to add a new section to this document (after
the County Priorities) that notes major projects which have been fully funded in the State Six Year
Improvement Plan. This section is identified as: “OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN
THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN”.
Including this section enables anyone viewing the document to see both the projects
recommended for development as well as those currently programmed for construction.
With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to VDOT (and VDRPT) by May 18,
2012.
This is a state funding program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the County’s Priority List (Attachment A) as modified for
this year.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said that, under safety improvements, the Board had talked about filling
the gaps in the sidewalk along Hydraulic Road along with the building out of Stonefields. He does not see
that included.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that this includes projects associated with primary roads or interstates.
Hydraulic Road is a potential CIP project.
Mr. Rooker said there are other projects included that are not necessarily primary or interstate.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said that staff can add that in. He noted that he has
suggested for next year’s Secondary Plan upon that the CIP priority list for sidewalk improvements be
added and reference be made in the Six Year Plan. The County is applying for revenue sharing funds for
four projects this fiscal year, including the Hydraulic Road sidewalk project.
Mr. Boyd asked when this would come back to the Board as an agenda item. Mr. Benish
responded that it would come back to the Board on May 9th as part of the Secondary Six Plan discussion.
Based on Board comments the staff had not made a general recommendation as a priority to pursue
sidewalk projects. Staff will be asking for direction from the Board for next year’s update to make that
reference. He added that these are oriented to primary plans, although years ago the Board decided to
add some secondary projects that might relate to primary corridors.
Mr. Rooker noted that this list includes Fontaine Avenue and Southern Area B which are not
primary road projects.
Mr. Benish commented that they are near interchanges and intersections, which is why they were
included.
Mr. Rooker commented that this said there is no additional funding to design or construct the
Fontaine Avenue to Sunset project, and he had understood Mr. Thomas to say there were funds available
for that.
Mr. Thomas concurred.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that there were some proffer monies for that connector with the Biscuit
Run project, but of course those are no longer available. He said that if Granger moves forward as a
proposed subdivision, it would build part of that.
Mr. Thomas said that he was told that VDOT would help build a bridge for the railroad tracks
there.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see that looked into.
Mr. Benish said that it does not show up in the Secondary Six Year Plan.
Mr. Thomas then apologized for any misinformation about the Fontaine Bridge, stating that he
needed to get more clarification on it.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the County’s Priority List as modified:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2013-2018 SYIP
MAY 2, 2012
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations, most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the Hydraulic
Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp lane from
Route 29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West; Places 29 Priority
project; Primary/Proffer/City funds – Partial funding committed to design
and construct.
b. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive;
Places 29 Priority project; Urban funds/Private right of way donations –
Designed and being funded to construct.
c. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being
constructed in Hollymead Town Center; CIP funding – available for design
only (no funding to construct).
2. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops,
parallel roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from
the I-64 interchange to Village of Rivanna). [note: I-64 exit ramp improvements
completed] Portions of parallel roads constructed in private projects; no additional
funding to design or construct.
3. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan); CIP/Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds - Crozet Ave.
Streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds –
Jarman’s Gap Rd. under construction; Library Ave. partially built.
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a railroad
crossing; Portion constructed in private project; Location plan complete. No
funding to design or construct.
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top St.
CIP funds - Portion constructed; No additional funding to design or
construct.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
4. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding.
5. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset
Avenue connector road. Proffer for a portion of Fontaine Ave. to Sunset Ave.
Connector; No additional funding to design or construct.
6. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks.
No funding.
7. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection. No funding.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. No funding.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as
bus pull-outs, shelters, etc.). Limited funding in CIP for 2-4 bus stops/shelters.
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of
transit operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs.
Services provided in County by CAT are County funded.
4. Inter-City Rail – Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to
Charlottesville/Albemarle County in 2009. State funded through 2012.
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area. No funding.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport. No funding.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian
and/or bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet; Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds –
Crozet Ave. streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 North; No funding.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through
extension and connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations;
CIP funding – under construction.
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; No funding.
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended. No funding.
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory
Farms subdivision area). Limited funding available (County CIP).
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at: 1) Tilman Road; 2) Owensville Road;
3) Route 240 (at Mechums River Bridge). Improvements to address traffic control,
such as traffic light, round-about, or other such improvements. No funding.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231.
No funding.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151 (traffic
light, round-about, or other such improvements). No funding.
OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Rt. 250 Bypass, Construct Interchange with McIntire Road (Charlottesville)
McIntire Road Extended, Construct 2 Lanes (Charlottesville)
Route 29 Corridor Improvements, reconstruction with added capacity from
Ashwood Boulevard to Town Center Drive
Route 29 Western Bypass, New Construction
Bridge Replacement, Route 250 over Little Ivy Creek
Various spot and safety improvements--5 projects on Rt. 29, Rt. 53, Rt. 20, Rt. 250
(flashing lights, shoulder widening, signage and guardrail, turn lane improvements)
_______________
Item No. 8.7. SDP-2011-060. Colonial Nissan- Major Site Development Plan Amendment –
Zoning Ordinance Waivers.
The executive summary stated that the property is located on Myers Drive and Seminole Trail (US
29) (TMP45-94B). The Board of Supervisors has approved a Special Use Permit (SP-2011-18) for a
parking deck on this site. A site development plan amendment is now under review for this proposal. The
requested modifications would have previously been approved administratively as part of the site plan
review. Due to a recent State Supreme decision, these modifications must now be approved by the Board
of Supervisors. Staff is recommending approval of all three waiver requests.
1. Critical Slopes Waiver – This recommendation for approval is based on staff’s
determination that the waiver requests meets the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5 (b):
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this
chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel
not within the Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential
(VR) zoning districts in the following circumstances: (i) the critical slopes were created
during the development of the property pursuant to a site plan approved by the county; or
(ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the
critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to replace the
existing structure with a new structure whose footprint does not exceed the footprint of the
existing structure. The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected
resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or
critical features on the property identified for protection in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance
of critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program
authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area
disturbed is less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet; and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county
engineer of a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater
runoff, siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic
resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in
the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater
travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated through design, construction
techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best management
practices.
2. Waiver for the sight distance requirement within the parking garage – This approval
is based on staff’s determination that parking garages require this waiver because of the nature of the
design of a parking garage. Staff has consistently granted this waiver administratively for parking garages,
such as those at Martha Jefferson Hospital.
d. Sight distance. Minimum intersection sight distance for internal intersections of access
aisles, intersections of access aisles and pedestrian ways, and access aisles around
buildings shall not be less than one hundred (100) feet. The county engineer may
increase this minimum, if the travel speed is anticipated to exceed ten (10) miles per hour,
to a sight distance commensurate with the anticipated travel speed. If the county engineer
anticipates that travel speeds of twenty (20) miles per hour or greater may be reasonably
achieved along a primary travelway serving a development, he may require that the
travelway comply with the private road horizontal and vertical standards stated in Table A
of section 14-514 of the Code for the anticipated traffic volume. Sight distance shall be
measured as provided in Section 602 of the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
3. Waiver of the turning radii requirement within the parking garage – No truck traffic is
expected within the parking garage. It is for employee parking and excess vehicle inventory only.
Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this waiver for Colonial Nissan. Also, staff has consistently
granted approval of this waiver for parking garages, including for Martha Jefferson Hospital.
d. Turning radii. Turning radii shall be limited by the requirement to maintain one hundred
(100) foot sight distance. Turning movements for delivery vehicles or other expected
truck traffic shall be evaluated by the county engineer using AASHTO single unit truck
standards or other AASHTO standard vehicle as appropriate.
This request has no budget impact.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requests for the following waivers.
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
2. Section 4.12.15 (d) Sight Distance in Parking Areas
3. Section 4.12.17 (d) Turning Radii Design Requirement
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the applicant’s requests for the following
waivers:
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
2. Section 4.12.15 (d) Sight Distance in Parking Areas
3. Section 4.12.17 (d) Turning Radii Design Requirement
_______________
Item No. 8.8. SDP-2012-015. Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse Development Plan
Amendment – Zoning Ordinance Waiver.
The executive summary stated that the Ivy Fire Station is proposed to be located in the former
Kirtley Distributing Warehouse at 642 Kirtley Lane, off of Ivy Rd. (TMP 59-23B1). This is a request to allow
disturbance of critical slopes. The critical slopes to be disturbed have been determined to be man-made.
Due to a recent State Supreme Court decision, the waiver request must now be approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
The staff’s recommendation for approval is based on the finding that this critical slopes waiver
request has substantially met the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5 (b):
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this
chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not
within the Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR)
zoning districts in the following circumstances:
(i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant
to a site plan approved by the county; or
(ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the
critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to
replace the existing structure with a new structure whose footprint does not
exceed the footprint of the existing structure.
The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected
resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical
features on the property identified for protection in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of
critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority
of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet; and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of
a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of
natural and man-made bodies of water; the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the
open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a
treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will
be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater
management, and other best management practices.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a waiver of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the applicant’s request for a waiver of
Section 4.2, Critical Slopes.
_______________
Item No. 8.9. CCP-2012-0001. Law Enforcement Firing Range (Firearms Training Facility at
Keene Landfill Site), was received for information.
The following memorandum from Mr. Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner, was received:
“The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2012, by a vote of 5:2,
made a finding that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range
Facility (Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site) is in substantial accord with the County’s
adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors as outlined in the staff
report, as follows:
1. Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
2. Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
3. Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties;
4. Site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.”
(Discussion: Mr. Dumler commented that there were two votes against this at the Planning
Commission – which are “warning shots” to suggest that this Board should look at the project to ensure it
fits in the rural character of the area. He asked when the Board might have the opportunity to review
things going forward to make suggestions about noise remediation and pollution remediation measures.
Mr. Foley responded that he was not sure about the schedule for the project but would try to get it
on an agenda so the Board has an opportunity to review it. Staff can make sure the Board has that
opportunity as part of the consent agenda or some other way.)
_______________
Item No. 8.10. Copy Athletic Synthetic Turf Fields Annual Report, was received for information:
On December 9, 2008, the Board approved an appropriation of $225,000 from the Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvement Plan to be used for a School Board project to convert three (3) high
school stadium fields from natural grass to synthetic turf ($75,000 per high school). On April 6, 2009, a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the County Department of Parks and
Recreation and the School Division that assures the availability of the turf fields for community recreation
use (Attachment A).
The MOU guidelines provide that school division events take precedence over community use,
even in the event of cancellations and rescheduling. Community use is scheduled by Parks and
Recreation through the respective high school athletic directors. There is no charge for Parks and
Recreation-sponsored youth non-profit organization practices; however, there is a $50.00 per hour charge
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
for games, plus an additional $25.00 per hour for a school division employee to provide custodial services
and field supervision.
The purpose of this executive summary is to report on the completion and the community use of
the athletic synthetic turf fields.
The synthetic turf athletic fields were completed at Monticello High School in July 2009 and at
Albemarle and Western Albemarle High Schools in February 2011.
The following two charts provide information regarding the project costs, funding sources,
community recreation use and revenue for each high school athletic synthetic turf field as provided by the
high school athletic departments and the School Division Department of Fiscal Services.
Location
Project Cost Community Foundation
Donation
High School
Booster Fund
Raising
Parks &
Recreation
Albemarle High School $552,000 $418,528 $51,567 $75,000
Monticello High School $606,833 $325,000 $206,833 $75,000
Western Albemarle High
School
$552,000 $418,528 *$65,377 $75,000
TOTAL $1,710,833 $1,162,056 $323,777 $225,000
*Note: $6,905 from WAHS fundraising was used to fund the AHS field.
Since the completion of the athletic synthetic turf fields, a total of 130 community use practices
and 72 community use games by Parks and Recreation-sponsored youth organizations have occurred as
follows:
Location
Community Organizations
PRACTICES
Sponsored by Parks & Rec.
No Charge
Community Organizations
GAMES
Sponsored by Parks & Rec.
$50/hr field & $25/hr staff
Total
Amount
Collected
Albemarle High School 70 16 $6,000
Monticello High School 60 31 $8,305
Western Albemarle High *0 25 $6,800
TOTAL 130 72 $21,105
*Note: The Western Albemarle High School athletic director was not aware that Parks & Recreation-
sponsored community organizations are intended to use the field for practices. These groups were
scheduled on other fields for practices. The athletic director is now aware of the terms of the MOU.
The fees that are collected will be placed in an account reserved for funding the future
replacement of the turf fields.
The athletic directors have not seen an increase or decrease in the number of injuries or heat
related illnesses since the synthetic turf fields have been installed.
The cost benefit of maintaining a synthetic turf field versus a natural grass field is $45,000 per
year per field. The annual maintenance cost for a synthetic turf field is $5,000 versus $50,000 for a
natural grass field, which includes supplies, equipment, and labor costs. The estimated life expectancy of
a synthetic turf field is 10 to 12 years and, based on an estimate from the Brigham Young report prepared
in 2008, the replacement cost is $250,000 to $300,000.
Based on construction and maintenance costs over a 12-year field life, the cost of one turf field is
approximately $666,833 and of a natural field is $600,000 for 12 years. However, this higher turf field cost
is offset by the increased use of the field. There is no down time required between uses of a turf field like
there is with a natural field, practices and games do not have to be cancelled due to poor field conditions
when there has been earlier precipitation, and there is an additional savings of fees that have to be paid to
officials and other staff for games that are cancelled at the last minute and rescheduled, which doesn’t
happen as often with turf fields. In addition, the schools’ and community’s needs are being better met,
and there are savings in not having to build or maintain additional fields to otherwise meet those needs
that can be met by the additional use that can be scheduled on a turf field.
In addition, the projected cost comparison of the next 12-year period indicates that a turf field will
be less expensive than a natural field. If the replacement cost of a turf field is $250,000 to $300,000 as
projected in the 2008 Brigham Young report referenced above, and if there is still a $45,000 savings in the
annual maintenance cost of the fields, the net cost of the turf field over the next 12-year period would be
$150,000 to $200,000 less than that of a natural field over the 12-year period, not taking into account the
additional savings of not having to build additional fields.
This matter is presented for information purposes only.
_______________
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Item No. 8.11. VDOT – Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, May 2012, was
received for information.
The following information was provided on special issues:
US 250 Shadwell Bridge Replacement over the Buckingham Branch Rail Road—The project has
scheduled the bridge closure to begin on May 1, 2012. The closure and associated detour have a
scheduled duration of 70 days.
Bridge Replacement Project Rte 672, Blufton Road—The road will be closed to traffic on Tuesday,
May 8 from 12 midnight to 8:00 p.m. A shuttle service will be provided on May 8 for the residents.
Bridge Replacement Project on Route 783 over a Branch of Mechunk Creek. The road will be
closed to through traffic at the bridge for an approximate four week period beginning in late June
and will reopen in late July. This bridge will be replaced with Bridge Maintenance Funding and will
have no effect on the SSYP just like the recent replacement of Route 743 over Jacobs Run and
the upcoming replacement of Route 672 over the Doyles River. Work will be done with in house
personnel and consist of both the complete replacement of the superstructure as well as some
underlying substructure. Though there is a four week planned closure the hope is to complete it
and have it opened to traffic in a lesser time frame.
Bridges on Route 745, Arrowhead Valley Road—Norfolk Southern Corporation has awarded the
contract to the contractor for the southern bridge replacement. The anticipated completion date
quoted by the contractor is August 15, 2012. The bridge is currently owned and maintained by the
Rail Road. Once the construction is completed the maintenance will become the responsibility of
VDOT.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board will be conducting a public hearing to give citizens the
opportunity to review and provide comments on projects and programs to be included in the Fiscal
Year 2013-2018 Six-Year Improvement Program (FY13-18SYIP), including highway, rail and
public transportation initiatives.
These projects and programs represent important improvements to address safety, congestion
and preservation of Virginia’s transportation network. It is important that we hear from you and
your constituents about those projects you feel are the highest priority for the state’s limited
transportation funds.
The public hearing for citizens in our region will start at 6:00 p.m. on May 2, 2012 at the VDOT
Central Office Auditorium, 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said that he has not seen the results of the safety studies done at Polo
Grounds and Proffit Road but would like to see them . He said he has received a lot of emails about the
traffic light at Polo Grounds and Route 29 concerning the traffic backed up during soccer games, etc. He
asked for some feedback from VDOT on that issue.
Ms. Mallek stated that Mr. Jamie Glass emailed Board members about that and said VDOT
needed to have more discussion on it. She had previously asked VDOT why they could not fix the
problem when they have a long line of traffic.
Mr. Boyd said that VDOT is using a new technique at Pantops – intelligent lights – that allow
sensing of the queue and self-adjusting.
Mr. Boyd said he is also aware of a discussion about some other soccer fields on Polo Grounds
Road and he does not want to exacerbate the situation there too much.)
_______________
Item No. 8.12. 2011 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, was
received for information.
_______________
Item No. 8.13. Update on Wireless Policy and Regulations, was received for information:
On December 7, 2011 the Board of Supervisors authorized an appropriation of up to $12,000 for
the purpose of hiring a consultant to assist the County in updating the Wireless Policy/Regulations and to
investigate possible strategies to encourage deployment of broadband access throughout the County.
The Board also instructed staff to work with industry representatives to discuss possible ordinance
amendments to address process improvements. Staff has met with industry representatives to discuss
potential changes in the ordinance and the impact of recent rulings, interpretations and laws. A more
formal discussion with industry representatives is scheduled for June 7th to discuss specific changes to the
ordinance.
Finalization of the contract and the discussions with the industry have been complicated due to a
variety of external decisions including the FCC’s “Shot Clock” ruling, which requires expedited action on
certain wireless applications, the recent adoption of the “Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation
Act of 2012,” which includes a provision that affects a locality’s authority to deny certain wireless
applications that do not propose “substantial changes” to an existing facility’s physical dimensions, and the
Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Sinclair, which eliminated the Planning Commission’s authority to
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
approve Tier II applications. These changes to the regulatory environment have caused the project to be
delayed while staff identified the appropriate scope of work.
The Board expressed an interest in the consultant performing the following scope of work
(included as Option 2 in the presentation made to the Board on December 7, 2011):
Describe how technology is changing deployment.
Describe the court decisions that are influencing the regulating of deployment and why.
Describe the FCC rulings, programs and policy initiatives that may impact regulation of
deployment and why.
Describe how changes in wireless will impact the regulation of deployment.
Specifically, describe how Albemarle County’s policy should change and list those
sections in the County Code that need to be revised on the basis of technology, court
cases and the recent FCC rulings.
In addition to the above, the Board wanted to determine how the County could encourage
broadband deployment into portions of the County not currently served. Staff interpreted this deployment
to be wireless broadband which may be met by either licensed or unlicensed providers. Staff has defined
the scope of work and is in the process of procuring the consultant’s services.
The Board did not direct staff to work with the general public initially in any discussions regarding
changes in wireless regulations. The original discussions with the public regarding wireless planning
occurred over 12 years ago. Since that time, the way individuals use wireless has changed significantly.
It is possible that the general attitude toward wireless planning has also changed. Staff recommends that
as a part of the process of updating the policy, discussions occur with consultants and industry
representatives, as well as the public in general. Any work with the industry and public would occur after
the Board has had an opportunity to review and evaluate the work of the consultant.
The Board has authorized an appropriation of up to $12,000 for this project.
This report is provided as an informational item only and no Board action is required at this time.
Staff will proceed with finalizing a contract with the consultant and submit a schedule for this project to the
Board once a notice-to-proceed has been issued to this company.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: SP-2012-00001. Ivy Forum (Sign #90).
PROPOSAL: Special use Permit request for Indoor Athletic Facility on 0.9370 acres. No dwellings
proposed. ZONING: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting commercial and service;
residential uses by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. Section 23.2.2 (14) Indoor
Athletic Facility.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office Service – office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 7.
LOCATION: 2200 Old Ivy Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-00-00-046C0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 2012.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is for an existing office building between Old Ivy Road and
Ivy Road, and would allow an indoor athletic facility – technically a fitness studio – with some associated
apparel sales. He said that it was in an existing building and the applicant has asked for less than 2,000
square feet, with staff and the Planning Commission recommending approval with that cap and one
condition.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so the public hearing was
closed, and the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2012-00001 subject to the one condition as
presented. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the vote carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
(The condition is set out below:)
1. The indoor athletic facility use shall not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-2011-008. Three Notch'd Center (Sign #115).
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the application plan to include an automobile laundry use on
property zoned PD-SC- Planned Development Shopping Center which allows large-scale
commercial uses and residential by special use permit at 15 units/acre. No residential is
proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Light Industrial- manufacturing,
storage, distribution, with supporting office, retail, R&D, flex and commercial uses within the
Crozet Master Plan.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 5368, 5374, and 5382 Three Notch'd Road, located
on the north side of Three Notch'd Road approx 500 feet west of its intersection with Parkview
Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56A3 Parcel 9.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 2012.)
Mr. Cilimberg addressed the Board, stating that this ZMA should be fairly simple, having to do with
a modification to the application plan for the original rezoning of this property in 2007. He said that this
was in an area of existing buildings off of Three Notch Road near ConAgra, and was zoned for Planned
Development-Shopping Center use. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would be an addition on the plan of
the automobile laundry, which was not allowed use under the approved district, to be located on the rear
of the site. He said there would be retention of a couple buildings as well as the addition of a new building
on the front as part of the original plan, and would add the laundry to the rear of the site. Mr. Cilimberg
said that questions of circulation arose at the Planning Commission meeting, and those issues as well as
the parking arrangement would be addressed more specifically during the site plan review. He stated that
this was an amendment for by-right use, and there were no unfavorable factors identified; based on the
Board’s approval in 2007 and the nature of the request, the staff and Commission recommend approval
inclusive of the amended application plan and proffers dated January 26, 2012.
Ms. Mallek stated that during the 2007 hearing there were questions about critical slopes and
storm water that didn’t get resolved, and they didn’t seem to be resolved now either – with the stream to
Beaver Creek right at the bottom of their hill.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff was following the WPO in terms of doing any grading, and the
question was whether any additional measures should be implemented – but the Board decided not to
include that requirement.
Ms. Meghan Yaniglos addressed the Board, stating that the critical slopes were done with the
original site plan, which was done in 2007.
Ms. Mallek said that the site plan was being changed today.
Ms. Yaniglos responded that the applicant was only changing one area of the plan, as the parking
arrangement was the same.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the area of improvement would remain the same, but it would now
include an automobile laundry with circulation instead of all parking as originally planned. He said that it
was the same dimension of surfaced area, so the approval of the previous site plan would only be a minor
amendment.
At this time the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jo Higgins addressed the Board, stating that she was representing the applicant and
explaining that the property line was going through a triangle. She said that when the WPO was done, the
parcel was actually sharing the storm water retention basin with the adjacent property owner, and in the
corner there was a pipe that went into the basin. Ms. Higgins said that the perimeter of the site would not
change, just the arrangement of the parking and a minor decrease in the building square footage. She
noted that the Commission had unanimously approved the proposal, and the applicant had received a
certificate of appropriateness from the ARB – with materials and elevations approved with Three Notched
initially. Ms. Higgins said that the owner would build in phases, as there wasn’t the kind of demand for
mixed retail and office space as approved for this site. She stated that a minor site plan amendment was
all that would be required and the footprint and elevations would not change.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the applicant had to pay the full fee and go through the full process to
basically integrate a by-right use that was allowed by the previous rezoning. She said that because they
had an application plan, they had to modify it – and the burden to do so had been substantial, with some
attention perhaps needed to the process.
Mr. Boyd asked her to explain what auto laundry meant.
Ms. Higgins said that there would be two automatic bays that would be laser-washed, touchless,
that would spray, and in the center would be a manager room where equipment was kept. She stated that
the zoning ordinance didn’t have car wash in it, as they are called automobile laundries. Ms. Higgins also
confirmed that there would be a self-service option.
Mr. Thomas asked if that side of the road was in the growth area when the master plan was done
for Crozet.
Ms. Higgins responded that this particular site and the one to the east – Beaver Creek Hill Corp. –
was industrial property, owned by ConAgra. She said that when ConAgra owned the property, a
manager’s house was on the parcel, with a retail center next to it – but it was all labeled in 1980 as
industrial because it was part of a complex. Ms. Higgins said that this particular three acres didn’t have
industrial uses; it was a retail portion.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Mr. Thomas said that every time there was a proposal for something on that side of the road in
Crozet, the buffer for the creek came up as an issue.
Ms. Higgins explained that it was intermittent, and there was a 100-foot setback that was met –
and filters were designed into the site so the water would be treated onsite before it got to a basin, which
was on the mini-storage parcel. She said that they were getting away from doing infrastructure on every
parcel, as doing that cooperatively was a great result for both owners.
Ms. Mallek clarified for Mr. Thomas that the boundary for the growth area was to the east.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek to approve ZMA 2011-00008 inclusive of the amended
application plan and proffers dated January 26, 2012. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the vote carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 11. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County
Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the compensation
of the members of the Board of Supervisors by an inflation factor of 1% effective July 1, 2012 from
$14,687.00 per annum to $14,834.00 per annum. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April
23, 2012.)
Mr. Foley reported that the subject of this public hearing was amendment of Chapter Two of the
Albemarle County Code, Section 2-2.02, “Compensation of Board of Supervisors Members,” and the
consideration was for increasing compensation by an inflation factor of 1% effective July 1, 2012, from
$14,687 to $14,834 per year. He said that the change was consistent with past practice and mirrors the
raises planned for County employees in the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd commented that the County hadn’t done a survey of what Supervisors in comparably
sized communities were paid, and asked if there had been any interest in doing this.
Mr. Foley said that it had been done before and he had received some data from VaCo recently
that he would share with the Board.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he had a friend on the City of Alexandria City Council who made
$27,000 per year and had an assistant making $22,000 per year.
Mr. Rooker noted that Fairfax has a budget of $400,000 per Supervisor’s office, not including their
salaries.
Ms. Mallek said that the Supervisors there were paid over $100,000.
Mr. Boyd said that over the years a number of people had come before the Board and said that
board members should be paid a living wage so that more people would qualify for it – there are only a
certain number of us that could afford to run.
Ms. Mallek added that they also needed a schedule that could be manipulated to do day activities.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No public comment was invited, and the Chair closed the
public and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt the proposed ordinance approving the Board of
Supervisors’ compensation change of 1%. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Dumler.
ORDINANCE NO. 12-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, 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 2,
Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby
amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be fourteen thousand eight hundred thirty-four
($14,834.00) for each board member effective July 1, 2012. In addition to the regular salary, the vice -
chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the
chairman shall receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91; Ord. of 7-1-
92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No.
99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03;
Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05, Ord. 06-2(1), 6-7-06; Ord. 07-2(1), 6-6-07; Ord. 08-2(2), 6-4-08;
Ord. 11-2(1), 5-4-11; Ord. 12-2(1), 5-2-12)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2012.
_______________
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Agenda Item No. 12. An ordinance to amend Chapter 10, Offenses-Miscellaneous, of the
Albemarle County Code, by adding Section 10-120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass
Violations. The proposed ordinance (authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-1717.1) would allow the owner,
lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully in charge of a property to designate the Albemarle County
Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such property for the purpose of enforcing trespass
laws. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 2012.)
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
Over the past several years, there has been an increase in complaints regarding vagrancy and
loitering on business properties during non-business hours. This loitering and vagrancy often involves
individuals who are drunk in public and often disorderly and is especially prevalent in the urban areas of
the County during warm weather. As part of their efforts to remedy this problem, the Albemarle County
Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Chief of Police are requesting that the Board of Supervisors consider
the adoption of an ordinance to add a new section to the County Code, to be designated as Section 10-
120.1, which would allow the owner, lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully in charge of a property to
designate the Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such property for
the purpose of enforcing trespass laws. Designating the Police Department as a “person lawfully in
charge” of a property would allow police officers to order individuals found loitering on such property after
hours to leave the property and would further allow the officers to arrest for trespass anyone who refuses
the order to leave or returns to the property without permission. Authorizing the Police Department to act
in this capacity is needed because many commercial property owners work outside of the area and are
not available to appear in Court to testify when cases involving trespassing are heard. Many Virginia
jurisdictions have enacted similar Ordinances, including the City of Charlottesville.
A draft of the proposed ordinance is attached (Attachment A). This proposed ordinance is
authorized by Virginia Code Section 15.2-1717.1.
The proposed ordinance allows a property owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in
charge of a property to designate the Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in
charge” of such property for purposes of enforcing trespass laws. This designation would be in writing on
forms developed by the Chief of Police and the County Attorney. The proposed ordinance permits the
Chief of Police to accept or reject, in the Chief’s sole discretion, the designation of the Police Department
as a “person lawfully in charge” of a property. The Chief can rescind the acceptance of such a
designation at any time. Violation of the trespass ordinance is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor.
This new ordinance would allow Albemarle County police officers greater flexibility and authority in
dealing with repeat offenders and ongoing problems at various locations in the County. While the owners
or lessees of properties can currently issue no trespass notices against individuals and request that
violations of those notices be prosecuted, the trespasses usually occur after business hours by individuals
not personally known to the property owners or lessees. By allowing the owners to designate the Police
Department as a person lawfully in charge, officers would be allowed to order an individual to leave a
property and not return, and to arrest any such individual who violates the order.
The Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Chief of Police believe that the proposed ordinance will be
an effective and relatively simple additional remedy to combat the vagrancy and loitering issues facing
businesses in certain areas of the County. The ordinance authorizes the Chief of Police, with the
assistance of the County Attorney and the Commonwealth’s Attorney, to set out the rules and procedures
concerning the acceptance and rescission of designations in order to provide maximum flexibility to
effectively use this enforcement tool permitted by Virginia law.
If an ordinance permitting the designation of the Police Department as a person lawfully in charge
of property is adopted, the Chief of Police anticipates the initial impact will be a limited number of requests
for such a designation, which will temporarily involve a small increase in administrative time for the Police
Department. There may also be an increase in court time for officers to assist in trespass prosecutions.
However, no additional staff or officers are anticipated to be hired to handle these matters.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance to amend
County Code – Chapter 10, Offenses—Miscellaneous to add Section 10-120.1, Designation of Police to
Enforce Trespass Violation (Attachment A).
_____
Mr. Sean Hackney said that the Police Department believes the proposed ordinance and
executive summary are straightforward. The Department is in support of the proposed amendment. He
said that one example would be if a private business owner was unavailable in the middle of the night, the
police would have the authority to address a trespass situation – which would also include issuing a
barrment notice to someone notifying them they were not permitted on the property. Mr. Hackney said
that another situation might be a particular apartment community wanting to enlist police assistance in
using the trespass ordinance to improve their quality of life. He stated that local police has looked at other
communities throughout the state, and Charlottesville has this ordinance as well as Henrico. He said that
the Department would be selective as to who they worked with in this capacity and a plan would need to
be established for rolling out the procedures. Mr. Hackney added that the department believed it would
increase efficiency and improve customer service.
Mr. Thomas asked if apartment complexes or whomever would pay a fee to the County for
monitoring their property.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Hackney responded that there would be none.
Mr. Thomas asked if they would designate a person to take care of the complex.
Mr. Hackney explained that they would have someone within the department who would manage
the process and paperwork associated with it
Mr. Rooker said that this would increase efficiency because currently the police don’t have the
authority to ask a person loitering on private property to leave, because they hadn’t been designated with
that authority.
Mr. Dumler clarified that this was a designation to enforce the state code.
Mr. Davis responded that it was either the state code or the county parallel ordinance.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No public com ments were offered so the Chair closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Davis indicated that he had distributed a paper copy of the ordinance that corrected a
typographical error in the section number, but otherwise the copy was identical to what was in Board
packets.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker moved for approval of the proposed amendment to
Section 10-120.1 of the County Code. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 12-10(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10, OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS, 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 10,
Offenses-Miscellaneous, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 10-120.1 Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
Chapter 10. OFFENSES-MISCELLEANOUS
Sec. 10-120.1 Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
An owner, lessee, custodian, or person lawfully in charge of any real property may designate the
Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge of the property” for the purpose of
forbidding another to go or remain upon the lands, buildings, or premises as specified in the designation.
The decision whether to accept or rescind any such designation is solely within the discretion of the chief
of police or his designee, who may base his decision on factors including, but not limited to, resource
levels of the police department and the proper allocation of resources. Any such designation shall be in
writing on forms promulgated by the chief of police and the county attorney and shall be kept on file with
the police department. The chief of police, in consultation with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the
county attorney, shall promulgate rules, regulations, and/or procedure for the acceptance, use, and
rescission of such designation.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-1717.1
_______________
(The Board recessed their meeting at 11:07 a.m. and reconvened at 11:17 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board.
Mr. Steve Koleszar, Chairman of the School Board, addressed the Board, thanking the Board for
passing the almost equalized tax rate and noting it would have been a real challenge to schools not to
have that figure.
Mr. Koleszar reported that last year the County schools had an on-time graduation rate of 93%,
with overall graduation rate at 97% - compared to about 82% when he first joined the Board. He said that
there were “real pockets of poverty in this County,” with 27% free and reduced lunch students, and a lot of
people were able to overcome some deficits by receiving an education to be able to succeed. Mr.
Koleszar stated that this was also the time of year for high school musicals, with Fiddler on the Roof
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
showing later that week and weekend. He said that the Wedding Singer was also being done by
Monticello High School.
Mr. Koleszar reported that Dr. Worley, Principal at Monticello High School had resigned, but the
process of seeking a replacement was moving along well and they had a very good pool of applicants with
the School Board planning to make a decision at their May 10 meeting. He said that the position in
Human Resources for Assistant Director, focusing on educational quality, would also be filled at that time.
Mr. Koleszar reported that Agnor Hurt students had gone to the Pentagon and met with Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta, adding that Pentagon officials would like for the students to come back next year.
He also added that the program was the kind of creative work the schools wanted to do – to go beyond
the SOLs and have the students be “citizenship, workplace and college ready,” which was a much
different skill set than being able to fill in answers on a test.
Ms. Mallek said it was a perfect example of why robbing students of time by administering
countless tests was a problem, because there wasn’t time to do group work without giving up something
else.
Mr. Koleszar said that last year at their Board retreat they identified “poor quality of assessments
at the state level” as the number one challenge faced as a school system. He stated that they had been
trying to communicate with the Board of Education at the state level about these problems, but hadn’t
received much support at that level.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was no resolution of the waiver request submitted six months ago, and
Mr. Koleszar responded that it hadn’t been granted yet – so they still might be under the sanctions of No
Child Left Behind.
Mr. Koleszar reported that the School Board had held a work session on the implications of the
Governor’s recommendation on VRS, as new employees would have to have the 5% and that might mean
three different scales – so on May 10 there would be a work session on the issue. He said that staff was
recommending the 5% because of the complications and problems generated with HR, but the Board had
not decided on it yet. He added that the School Board intended to have their budget finalized by May 10,
which was the day after the Board would pass their budget.
Ms. Mallek asked if the schools had done a survey of competitive market for teachers.
Mr. Koleszar responded that Dr. Moran was well tied into other superintendents, and most schools
were going with 5% - which would put Albemarle at a competitive disadvantage for people new to the
system as their take home pay would be 4% less for other people at the same scale.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. SPCA Annual Report.
Ms. Suzanne Kogut, Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA Executive Director, said that the SPCA has
been partnering with the County for over 50 years as they had a contract by which the shelter performs the
pound services that are required by Virginia Law – primarily including housing of stray animals, bite
quarantine cases, animals held for court cases, and emergency veterinarian care. She said that the
relationship with the County started in their old facility, which was a renovated chicken coop, and in July
2004 they moved into a new building. Ms. Kogut stated that by the end of 2004 they were euthanizing
more cats than they were saving, and were adopting out animals that weren’t spayed or neutered – with
limited services available at the shelter. She said that in 2005 the SPCA adopted a no kill mission “a new
attitude” – which was about a relentless determination to succeed and a passion to save lives.
Ms. Kogut said that the SPCA got the right staff and volunteers in their fold, but also implemented
a lot of new programs, making sure that they were open at times when people would come. She stated
that to save animals immediately, it was essential to implement a foster care system, and asked the public
to help care for some of the animals temporarily until they could be placed up for adoption.
Ms. Kogut presented data on the number of cats and kittens coming into the shelter, stating that
some months there are as many as 400 – with a total animal intake for the SPCA at 4,000-5,000 animals
per year over the last five years. She said that with cats the intake was cyclical, meaning you’ll take more
during the summer months, you’ll take less in the winter months – with dogs it tends not to be cyclical, with
intake at about 170 dogs a month. She explained that in the summer months they knew they had a
problem - what was typically happening and what still happens in many SPCA’s around the country is
animals were being euthanized. She said that in the months December, January, and February where the
intake was not as high, they believed that they could get the cats and kittens adopted if they could find
them temporary care – despite having a big building 400 cats and kittens was still a lot – so they went out
to the community to ask for help. She stated that there was tremendous response, which allowed them to
greatly increase the number of animals put into foster care. She said that in 2004 they had put about 300
animals into foster care, and that number tripled in 2005 with 992, and since then about 1,500 to 1,800
had been put into foster care each year – or about 40% of intake.
She reported that the SPCA also held a number of different events and offered special discounts
at certain times of the year. Ms. Kogut said that the media had been incredibly supportive of the shelter’s
efforts, and had written many articles about the animals and how they make wonderful pets. She added
that social media has been very valuable in helping them get their word out, and that they had a retail
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
space at Pantops for pet adoption. Ms. Kogut said that the adoption percentage has gone up significantly,
with the euthanasia percentage going down.
Ms. Kogut stated that the SPCA had a medical clinic to provide care for animals in need, and were
able to make animals healthy again so they were able to be adopted. She said that they also provided
spay/neuter services, and ensured that all animals adopted from the shelter were spayed or neutered prior
to adoption – but they also provided subsidized spay/neuter services for members of the public who
otherwise couldn’t afford the service. She said that the SPCA also subsidized services, and were offering
a free spay service for cats for low or middle-income citizens. Ms. Kogut stated that they have been doing
free spay/neuter of pit bulls over the last five years. She said that during that timeframe they have
spayed/neutered a total of 35,000 animals and jumped from 5,000 to 7,000 surgeries – with 4,714 of those
for cats.
Ms. Mallek asked how big the team was.
Ms. Kogut responded that there was one veterinarian, a vet technician and some assistants.
Ms. Kogut reported that the SPCA provides humane education services, including a summer
camp program, birthday parties, and other presentations throughout the year. She said that during the
economic downturn, the SPCA had to cut back salaries for senior managers, froze raises, decreased
benefits on 401k contributions, and cut staff. Ms. Kogut stated that they discovered some wonderful
efficiencies in the process, and were now going back and implementing the salaries and benefits to prior
levels.
Ms. Kogut explained that their money went to animal care and the veterinary clinic, with the
rummage store income going primarily to rent. She said that they had a mortgage on the building, with the
cost of the building being about $6.5 million – with a $250,000 contribution from each the County and the
City – the mortgage was now down to $2.7 million from the original $3.5 million in 2005. She said that
most of their income came from donations and public support, with rummage store income and services
such as spay neuter, as well as their partnership with the City and County – which contributed 18% of their
revenue, with the County’s portion being 12%.
Ms. Kogut stated that they were able to save 93% of animals that came to the shelter, but they
would euthanize for medical reasons or aggression – compared to 60% of animals in Virginia saved. She
said that over the years, the SPCA had been recognized for its efforts – with staff speaking at regional and
national conferences to help people implement the same programs in their communities to save animals.
She stated the SPCA really created a sense of community pride in how we care for our animals in this
community. Ms. Kogut added that achieving a no-kill shelter was a community achievement that couldn’t
be done without fosters’, adopters, volunteers and supporters. She presented a short video of a dog that
had been rescued, and said that the SPCA had gone into Southwood Mobile Home Park last year and
offered to spay and neuter any animals for free.
Ms. Mallek asked Ms. Kogut to think about any ordinance, licensing or fee changes that were not
being done here to help reduce the number of unwanted animals. She noted the success of programs in
New England, and said she thought that we’re fooling ourselves by saying everybody should be allowed to
have as many litters as they want and have no homes for them and dump them on you, when we could be
thinking a little more proactively.
Ms. Kogut responded that at the State level, there was new puppy mill legislation – and Virginia
was highlighted for that measure. She said that on the dog side of things, the SPCA had addressed the
issue very well and were now helping surrounding localities.
Mr. Boyd asked if the SPCA has noticed any change in the number of animals being brought in
now that the ordinance change had been adopted.
Ms. Kogut replied that before it was adopted, they had actually noticed a bump – so to see it go
higher would be significant, and any decrease might just be a decline from the earlier peak.
Mr. Dumler commented that the SPCA was doing great work.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Update.
Mr. Gary O’Connell, ACSA Executive Director, summarized the following report which he had
provided to Board members:
1. FY 2013 Budget, and Water and Sewer Rates – The budget/rates for the next year were
proposed to the ACSA Board on April 19th. Our rates are effective with the start of the
next fiscal year, beginning July 1st. The past two years we have been able to operate
without any rate increases. This year we are proposing rates that will increase less than
4%. The average single-family residential customer will see a 3.3% increase. As I have
mentioned to the Board of Supervisors on a number of occasions, due to the significant
number of Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) projects ($201 million), this
upcoming budget year becomes the time we have to start paying the bill. Actually RWSA
wholesale rates are increasing almost 12%. Through good financial planning over several
years, the ACSA is able to hold down a rate increase that could have been double digit to
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
our customers. Two-thirds of our budget is based on the wholesale water and sewer
rates of the RWSA.
2. New Connection Fees – The “connection fees” are the financial way for new development
to pay the ACSA for growth related water and wastewater capital costs, which relates to
having the water and sewer capacity to serve new development in the future. Again, as
expressed above, much of the capacity increases relate to water and wastewater facility
improvements in the RWSA system. Next year we are proposing that connection fees
increase by 12% to reflect the large amounts that are being spent to increase capacity for
water and wastewater.
3. FY 2012-13 Capital Projects – As I have mentioned before, much of our work involves
maintenance of our water distribution lines, wastewater collection system and the
associated pump stations and tanks that serve those systems. We also have a number
of major maintenance and capital replacement projects that we have underway in the
ACSA service area. Our capital improvements program for next year totals $5.5 million. I
will briefly highlight those that are underway, and several new projects proposed for the
next budget year beginning in July.
4. Stormwater Management – As part of our environmental management initiatives, we have
a planned project to upgrade our fleet fueling station and vehicle wash area to address
stormwater runoff from our Pantops location.
5. Western Ridge-Foxchase Water Connection – As part of our efforts to create system
redundancy and water loop for secondary feeds in our system this connection is planned.
This helps with emergency water flow or a fire situation, and also improves water quality.
The connection will be from Fairwinds Lane to Carlyle Place.
6. Scottsville Streetscape Water Line Upgrades – As part of the Town’s streetscape project,
we will be performing water line replacements on the main street.
7. Key West Water Main Replacement – This project is to replace an undersized and old
water system serving the Key West subdivision. Currently under design for a late 2013
construction start.
8. Two Crozet Water Line Replacement Projects:
a. St. George Avenue/Buck Road Water Line Replacement – A Crozet project to
replace 70 year old water lines which are in poor condition and prone to breaks.
We are completing easement work for a construction start in the fall.
b. Tabor Street Area – Older water lines in need of replacement are in design for the
areas along High Street, Hilltop Street and St. George Avenue, east of Crozet
Avenue, over 6,000 linear feet of water line replacement is planned.
9. Ashcroft Water and Pump Station Improvements – The design for this replacement
project is about complete. A replacement water tank is one part of the project,
improvements to existing undersized pump stations is another, and the third part is
undersized water line replacement on North Pantops Drive.
10. Glenmore Tank – We continue the planning and easement acquisition for the future
construction of a new water tank and pump station to provide a redundant emergency
water supply for the Village of Rivanna. This project has been pushed back to a later date
to help make way for funding of some more pressing water line replacement projects
where we are seeing breaks in very old lines in other parts of the system.
11. Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – This project is to supply a redundant water supply
to the West Leigh area, for fire and emergency protection and to improve water quality.
This work is planned in conjunction with an upgrade to the Ednam Pump Station.
12. Hardware Street Water Main Extension – This is a new water line in Scottsville to connect
the existing water lines. This will provide a secondary emergency water feed into the
Town of Scottsville from the Stony Point Water Tank, and improve water quality. The
design is complete, and we will be going to bid for construction soon on this project.
13. Berwick Road Water Line Replacement – This water line replacement in the Ednam –
Boar’s Head area has been installed and is in service.
14. Buckingham Circle Water Line Replacement – The existing 60 year old water lines are
being replaced, they are older and undersized to serve this area. This project is out for
bid for construction.
15. Oak Hill Sewer – New public sewer and service laterals to serve 55 homes in the Oak Hill
subdivision have been completed. Some of the individual home connections are in the
process of being completed. This is a project in conjunction with funding from a
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) through Albemarle County.
16. Biscuit Run Sewer System Rehabilitation – As part of our continuing efforts to reduce wet
weather infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the sewer system, we will be conducting manhole
and some line rehabilitation in this area.
17. Sewer System Rehabilitation – We continue daily through our CCTV program (televise via
a robotic camera to visually inspect our sewer lines) to identify areas in our sewer system
that have I/I problems, and we are particularly focusing on the parts of our system that are
reaching the end of their useful life, and where mains consist of clay pipes. We anticipate
spending nearly $500,000 on these rehabilitation repairs next year. We also have a
thorough sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES) planned for the Woodbrook Drainage
Basin as our next sewer drainage basin study for planned system rehabilitation.
18. North Fork Regional Sewer Line and Pump Stations – The construction of the sewer line
has been completed, and we are nearing completion of Camelot Pump Station to replace
the old treatment plant, and the finishing of the construction of the new North Fork Pump
Station on Route 29, adjacent to the UVa Research Park. This new line and pump
stations will serve the North 29 area. This $10 million project is the largest project the
ACSA has undertaken.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
19. Hollymead Water Line Replacements – We are continuing our street by street
replacement of these small diameter water lines that are aging and in need of replacing.
This work is being done by an ACSA crew. Raven’s Place is the latest line to be
completed, and we will be moving in the next year to Redwing, Maiden and Derby Lane.
20. SCADA – We will soon be installing a SCADA system (computerized controls) on all our
50 facilities, so we can have on-line control and monitoring of all our pump stations, tank
and pressure reducing valves.
______
Mr. O’Connell said that the Authority serves almost 65,000 residents in the County – with systems
in Crozet and Scottsville also. He said that the biggest issue currently was the budget, rates, and capital
improvements program discussion that their board was having, with a few more meetings scheduled and
new rates going into effect July 1. Mr. O’Connell said they were planning to increase the residential rate
3.3%, with some of the other rates increasing more than that and all of them being under 4%. He noted
that this change follows two years in which they had no rate increase at all.
Mr. O’Connell explained that Rivanna was a wholesaler and the ACSA was a retailer, with the
RWSA having a tremendous amount of capital projects. He said that the ACSA had fewer projects, and
they tried to plan for them so they didn’t have as much of an impact on monthly rates as those being levied
at the wholesale rate. He stated that it is almost a double-digit wholesale rate increase that Rivanna is
charging them, so they’ve been able to try to help offset that a little bit with the monthly rates. Mr.
O’Connell said that the ACSA also charges new connection fees, noting that they charge a developer by
the number of equivalent residential units a fee to connect to the system – and in a sense customers are
advancing projects and work to be able to have the capacity in the system to handle any new development
in the future. He said that essentially these connection fees would help pay back customers for any of the
new capacity projects – whether they were Rivanna or ACSA projects. Mr. O’Connell indicated that next
year, the increase would be about 12% due to the number and level of the projects with both entities.
Mr. O’Connell reported that there were a number of projects in the sewer system to reduce
infiltration and inflow, to tighten the system up through line replacement, manhole rehabilitation, and other
measures. He said that they have just done a new project to serve 55 residents in Oak Hill that was part
of a Community Development Block Grant program with the County, and just finished a rehabilitation
project in the Biscuit Run area. Mr. O’Connell explained that there were two crews that went out with TV
cameras to televise lines with a robot that goes through them, and they have scheduled about $500,000 in
repairs – with this being an ongoing program to make improvements to lines and manholes that were
identified as having problems. He said there was a sewer study that would take place in Woodbrook, and
a computerized control project being done at 50 facilities – pump stations, tanks, and pressure-reducing
valves.
Ms. Mallek asked if the ACSA has identified the “offending sink” for the fat and grease coming out
into Crozet Avenue.
Mr. O’Connell responded that they have identified where the line was – it was connected to an
older line that was not in service and was making its way up to the street.
Mr. Boyd asked if he has any idea of what percentage of capital projects were done as “pay as
you go” versus financing.
Mr. O’Connell said that most of the projects the ACSA did were “pay as you go”, although they
issued bonds for the North Fork Regional Pump Station – which was almost completed. He stated that as
they got into bigger projects over time, they would look at different financing mechanisms.
Mr. Boyd asked if the ACSA were self-sustaining themselves with connection fees and with a
prudent accrual process of reserves that they were setting aside. Mr. O’Connell responded “so far” - and
he said that he thinks that has been the attitude of the board.
Mr. Rooker asked if the 12% increase was spread across the board for different kinds of hookups.
Mr. O’Connell said that it was, with that being the average. He said that the ACSA has tried to be
in line with other comparable localities, and the high-growth communities that have to put a lot of capacity
and expansion in their system tended to have much higher connection fees than those that were fairly
stable and don’t have to add a lot capacity.
Mr. Rooker said that if there is not growth, then you do not have hook-up fees.
Mr. O’Connell stated the ACSA has talked with the development community and that was part of
the issue. He said that it was kind of like a rock in a hard place – the last thing they want to hear is not
being about to have the capacity to handle future growth and development, so the ACSA had to go a step
ahead to be ready for that.
Ms. Mallek commented that from the citizens’ perspective, the “pay as you go” approach has been
a huge step forward, as the resentment for decades of the old existing residents having to pay everything
for new people moving in under the illusion it was keeping prices down was gone now.
Mr. O’Connell said that parts of the system are nearing 50 years old, especially parts that were
adopted from private systems, and those were starting to have to be replaced – costing millions of dollars.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Rooker noted that those projects were being paid for through water rates, not hookup fees.
Mr. O’Connell clarified that the connection fees were basically to pay back for projects that were
happening and were generally expansion projects, with those separated from maintenance items.
Mr. Rooker asked how they went about budgeting for the number of hookups expected in a given
year.
Mr. O’Connell said that they took the conservative approach and used what they had the current
year, then looked at it year to year. He stated that it had leveled out to about 300 residential equivalent
units.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Update.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of RWSA, stated that the Board has wanted to talk about
the disinfectant byproduct issue, so he has prepared a statement on that. He said that he also would
present information on solid waste issues and capital improvement program/financing.
Mr. Frederick reported that some of their large projects were now in operation, including the
upgrade of the Moore’s Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant – which included enhanced nutrient removal
and replacement of old equipment, as well as a co-generation facility that produced green energy. In the
summer months, he said, the plant would produce 25%-30% of electrical needs for the treatment facility,
which was a great carbon footprint reduction story. He said that they were planning to have a dedication
of that work this summer, with the contractor still planting grass, paving roads, and doing other
improvements. Mr. Frederick also noted that they were producing outstanding quality effluent to their
stream, which was another environmental success story. He said that the Meadow Creek Interceptor
replacement was complete and in operation, with the contractor making some corrective work where
inspectors had found problems. Mr. Frederick stated that the Rivanna Pump Station design was in
progress, and they were looking at one alternative alignment with their board expected to make a decision
on it shortly. He said that within the coming months, they would need a cost share agreement between
the ACSA Board and the City Council for the Rivanna Pump Station.
Mr. Frederick reported that the RWSA board has just approved an issuance through pooled loans
twice per year that VRA offers to localities, to refinance some old bonds to a lower interest rate and get
some new money for wastewater projects. He said that there was a separate bond issue to be issued
later this year to cover the Ragged Mountain Dam, as well as the mitigation projects at Buck Mountain
Creek and Franklin Street that were associated with the project.
Mr. Snow asked if the dam was proceeding despite the lawsuits.
Mr. Frederick said that was correct, and confirmed that no temporary injunction has been issued.
Mr. Davis stated that he could provide the Board with an update on litigation in their closed
session later that day.
Mr. Frederick reported that the EPA was pushing more stringent regulations on byproducts of
disinfection, and the station was required by federal law to disinfect its water. He said that there was a
primary disinfection at water plants that occurred first, then a secondary disinfection – with primary killing
anything in the water that would be harmful to human health, such as viruses and bacteria. He said that
the secondary disinfectant was what was carried in the water as it moved out of the treatment plant into
the pipelines so those lines stayed clean and disinfected. Mr. Frederick stated that any time a new
pipeline was put into service, it was first disinfected so it was clean – and by passing water through that
had a secondary disinfectant in it at a trace level it kept the pipe clean.
He said that the EPA looked at what could come about as a result of disinfecting the water, and
the drinking water was not distilled but was very clean and pure and met all federal drinking water
requirements. Mr. Frederick said that there was some trace organic matter that did not get captured by
the treatment plant process, and it wasn’t necessarily harmful – but when combined with a disinfectant it
could create some byproducts that the EPA wanted to ensure were regulated to ensure safe levels. He
commented that the EPA was under federal mandate to make the water as clean as possible, and
recognized that requiring a disinfectant and regulating the byproducts were competing objectives – so they
had been cautious about regulating them. Mr. Frederick explained that as the EPA had pushed that
envelope, more and more utilities across the country had said they couldn’t meet the tighter limits with
chlorine as the disinfectant. He said that Hazen & Sawyer had estimated that between 30%-40% of the
population today on public water systems were drinking chloraminated water – a secondary disinfectant
that took chlorine and combined it with traces of ammonia to produce a compound that reacted more
slowly with organic matter, thereby allowing facilities with free chlorine to meet tightening standards.
Mr. Frederick reported that the RWSA had taken this issue very seriously and hired a consultant
to implement stage two rules, asking them to consider a variety of things – auditing the processes now
being used to see if there were better ways to optimize the capital now in treatment plants. He said that
the consultants audited the RWSA’s process and generally made favorable comments, looking at some
alternative chemicals for coagulating the material in water needing to be removed prior to filtration. Mr.
Frederick stated that those steps were not sufficient to ensure that stage two requirements could be met,
and the goals for Hazen & Sawyer were to comply all of the time. He said that the firm made
recommendations that would offer sufficient treatment to provide and meet the goal on a consistent basis,
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
including the conversion of secondary disinfectant to chloramines. Mr. Frederick stated that they also
studied some other alternatives that were reliable, but they were more costly – granular activated carbon,
magnetic ion exchange, and nano-filtration.
He reported that the RWSA had held workshops and included ACSA staff, with Ms. Mueller
delegating to Ms. Hildebrand and her staff. Mr. Frederick said that the RWSA included their customers
because that’s who they serve and that’s who they’re responsible to. He stated that after discussing all
options thoroughly, a mutual decision was reached by the staffs – with significant comments from Mr.
O’Connell and Ms. Hildebrand – that the higher costs of implementing one of the other three alternatives
was not justified by the benefits. Mr. Frederick said that was the origin of the recommendation to convert
to chloramines, and it was presented to the Rivanna board in March 2011; in May 2011, the board m ade
the decision to authorize chloramination. He stated that in the two months the board was deliberating their
decision there were no comments raised to the Rivanna board or staff that questioned the
recommendation during that timeframe.
Ms. Mallek said that there was no presentation about the issue to the Board. She stated that she
knew City Council heard it a couple of months ago and that’s why she wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Frederick stated that he didn’t recall any requests for a presentation.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board wouldn’t have known to request it if they didn’t know it was
happening, which was why some citizens felt they were late to the party.
Mr. Frederick responded that the RWSA wanted to be responsive to the public when they
requested information, and the board wanted to hold a public forum within the coming weeks that would
include all four boards to provide better information – and that’s what they intended to organize and
perform.
Mr. Rooker asked if the issue of using chloram ines was publicly noticed on an agenda for
discussion or vote.
Mr. Frederick responded that it was for the RWSA Board, introduced in March and again in May
when the decision was made. He confirmed that there were no comments from the public about
chloramines at those times.
Mr. Boyd said that everybody was fixated on the dam at the time, they weren’t really paying
attention. He also stated that there was an area in the executive summaries in County staff reports called
favorable conditions and unfavorable conditions, and that would help at the RWSA Board also – as he
didn’t realize there were opposing viewpoints on the safety of using chloramines – that was never really in
any of the reports that they got.
Ms. Mallek commented that that’s the trouble when you only have one consultant giving you the
information – you don’t get necessarily all of it.
Mr. Frederick said that their consultant had represented that if it’s operated properly, it is a safe
and effective solution. EPA and the Virginia Department of Health have represented the same. He also
stated that they needed to address people who believe that all three of those parties perhaps are wrong,
and they needed to address those issues in a public forum.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dumler asked Mr. Frederick to relay what led to this at the federal level.
Mr. Frederick explained that the EPA held public comments when they published new rules in
draft form – in the Federal Register – and asked for public comment, considering it when preparing their
final rules. He said that they did have a habit of making deadlines very stringent for utilities, which put
them at a catch-22 if they wanted to have an extended period for public comment. Mr. Frederick stated
that when this was introduced to the Rivanna Board in March 2011, the 60-day period was allowed but it
couldn’t be dragged on five or six months without risk of not meeting the deadline.
Mr. Snow said that the hearing with the four boards should reveal some of the information about
the chloramines so both sides could be discussed.
Mr. Frederick stated that as the RWSA received information from citizens with questions or
concerns, they were passing it onto their consultant so they could be prepared to address them. He said
he would encourage those questions to come out ahead of time to make the process work.
Ms. Mallek said that Mark Edwards, an engineer from Virginia Tech, would be a good person to
have high on the list to be available because then there wouldn’t be a consultant promoting their own idea
– but would instead provide alternative information directly.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Frederick was going to address the issue that had been raised in
Washington, D.C. that there was excessive lead getting into the water as a result of the use of
chloramines.
Mr. Frederick responded that Dr. Ben Stanford of Hazen Sawyer has been to City Council and to
the ACSA and had addressed the question, stating that the D.C. case was unfortunate. Mr. Frederick said
that the RWSA and most other utilities across the country provided an additive to the water called a
corrosion inhibitor – a phosphate compound that pacified water and made it resistant to leeching material
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
it might come in contact with. He said that water was a solvent and had the affinity to take on other things,
noting that the corrosion inhibitor was added today in an effort to keep lead, copper, and other things out
of the water. Mr. Frederick said that the solution that Hazen Sawyer had proposed to RWSA – had
worked successfully across the country with other utilities – was to make sure that any major change to
water treatment like using chloramines instead of chlorine as a secondary disinfectant is to make sure you
understand through laboratory studies and bench scale studies what the chemistry of the water is as its
changes and what the right corrosion inhibitor and dosage is so you get continued water that does not
leech materials like lead and copper. He stated that the RWSA takes the issue very seriously and has
asked many questions of the consultant because they wanted to make sure the problem was addressed.
He said that the RWSA put work in the consultant’s scope in the implementation phases to produce pipe
loops and run long-term testing to determine what the right corrosion inhibitor procedures were if the
conversion had been made. Mr. Frederick said that the District of Columbia was not using a corrosion
inhibitor at all, they were not using it with chlorine, and they were not using it when they converted to
chloramines – today D. C. water is on chloramines for their secondary disinfectant with a corrosion
inhibitor and they’ve solved their lead problem.
Ms. Mallek asked how frequently the RWSA intended to test and notify customers on what the
constituents were, noting that the spikes they had in D.C. were huge. She said that there was a very big
trust issue as a result of that locality’s limited disclosure, and the RWSA’s plan would be impacted by that.
Mr. Rooker asked how much lead was in the pipe system now.
Mr. Frederick responded that he wasn’t aware of lead in any of the Rivanna pipes except for raw
water pipes such as the Sugar Hollow pipeline, and fortunately as pipes age the tendency to leech
becomes less and less. He said that most of the older pipes in distribution were in the City, and lead was
not typically used in public systems as solder material after 1980 when the EPA began to discover issues
with it, especially in children. Most pipes you would find that’s been installed in the last 30 years, you
could say no, even in the 80s – some plumbers still used lead solder. He added that that was one reason
it was important to ensure that water resisted the affinity to attract leeching those materials.
Mr. Dumler asked what chlorinated organic byproducts were subject to the phase two regulations,
and asked if there was a list.
Mr. Frederick responded that he could provide the two classes of compounds ; trihalomethanes
and a total of nine halo acetic acids that are known, with five of them regulated. He noted that there were
a few other regulated compounds that were not byproducts of chlorine and chloramines, such as
bromated – and water systems treated with ozone were required to test for that.
Mr. Boyd said that people were hearing it would cost thousands of dollars to filter out the
chloramines, but Mr. Frederick had mentioned two products that were in the $40 range.
Ms. Mallek stated that that was for one sink, but to do the whole house would be $1,000.
Mr. Boyd said that the RWSA was recommending not do the whole house.
Mr. Frederick responded that the RWSA would not recommend doing the whole house, because
the disinfectant would be removed from the pipe and the plumbing would be subject to bacteria growth.
Ms. Mallek said that people with wells are told to chlorinate every 10 years or so, then flush out
the system to get rid of the chlorine – but she hadn’t done it in 10 or 15 years and tests her water often,
and not a thing had grown in it. She stated that the problems on a municipal scale were different than
those of individual households.
Mr. Thomas said that he had received two emails from constituents in the Melbourne/Rio Road
vicinity where the connector was crossing Meadow Creek asking if he had heard of a breach in installing
the pipe going into the creek.
Mr. Frederick explained that the old pipe did not have the capacity to carry wet weather flows in
the system, which was a big reason for the project, and there was a time in the construction where the
contractor had some of the new larger pipe in but not all of it – and this is a nightmare for us – because it
changes where the constraint is in the pipe as the project progresses, and a wet weather flow occurred
and that was the relief point.
Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Frederick could provide some verbiage to him so he could answer their
questions, and Mr. Frederick said that he would.
Mr. Thomas said there was a two or four-unit duplex across the street on the other side on
Cottonwood where there were also leakage problems.
Mr. Frederick responded that he wasn’t aware of it, and Mr. Thomas said he would forward the
emails to him so he could respond to them.
Mr. Frederick stated that there was a need to define what the County’s long term interests were
regarding solid waste disposal, and said there was money in the Rivanna capital account for equipment
replacement – but the question was whether to replace it if it would only run for six months and then be
shut down.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Ms. Mallek asked if the RFP discussed a year ago to find out what private companies could do
never happened.
Mr. Frederick responded that some of the big names in the solid waste business looked at the
proposal, as well as one group that was a hedge fund type of group that looks at reorganizing this; and Mr.
Van der Linde also looked at the proposal, and the feedback received was that the combination of what
was being asked to perform indicated that the RSWA was running very efficiently. He said that they were
being asked to do things that most in the private sector wouldn’t consider profitable, there were also
services that were valued to prevent dumping and other public nuisance issues – such a HHW disposal
days. Mr. Frederick commented that most companies would have to charge something to cover their
costs, make a profit, and meet all EPA requirements – so most people would say for that, I’ll just dump it
in the trash. He added that sometimes when trying to achieve the public purpose, it’s hard to accomplish
that and be profitable. Mr. Frederick said that Nelson County participated in HHW day, and they were
charged on the basis of how many citizens used it – $40 per car, a lot of which covered the costs of
having a licensed company come in and receive the material because it was EPA mandated. He said that
some of it could be neutralized in a lab, but some of it had to be hauled with the closest hazardous waste
landfill being in South Carolina.
Mr. Rooker said that at $40 per car, the lines might get shorter.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. Frederick and asked him to inform her when the four-boards meeting date
was set.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Meeting.
At 12:35 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler that the Board go into a Closed Meeting
pursuant to Section 2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to
boards, committees and commissions; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding pending litigation that challenges the legality of the approval of the Ragged Mountain Dam
project because a public discussion would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:38 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler moved that the Board certify by recorded vote
that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from
the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow and Mr. Dumler.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow to make the following appointments/reappointments:
reappoint Mr. Naresh Naran to the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors
Bureau Management Board, with said term to expire June 30, 2014.
appoint Mr. Jason Burch to the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau
Management Board, to fill the unexpired term of Barbara Hutchinson, to expire June 30,
2013.
appoint Ms. Kim Guenther to the Crozet Community Advisory Council, with said term to
expire March 31, 2014.
appoint Ms. Susan Bressack to the Community Policy and Management Team, with said
term to expire May 31, 2015.
appoint Mr. James Barber to the Fire Prevention Board of Appeals, with said term to
expire November 21, 2016.
reappoint Mr. Sean Dougherty, Mr. K. Edward Lay, and Ms. Christine Devine to the
Historic Preservation Committee, with said terms to expire June 4, 2015.
appoint Mr. Jim McGrath to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, to fill the unexpired term
of Wallace McKeel., to expire on October 20, 2012.
reappoint Mr. Jason Dugas and Ms. Casey Beeghly to the Pantops Community Advisory
Council, with said terms to expire June 30, 2015.
reappoint Ms. Debbi Goodman to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board, with
said term to expire June 30, 2016.
appoint Mr. Sean Moynihan and Mr. Stephen Davis to the Piedmont Virginia Community
College Board, with said terms to expire June 30, 2016.
appoint Mr. Daniel Krasnegor to the Region Ten Community Services Board, with said
term to expire June 30, 2015.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
reappoint Mr. Rod Gentry and Ms. Barbara Kessler to the Workforce Investment Board,
with said terms to expire June 30, 2013.
reappoint Mr. Ernest Allen to the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board, with
said term to expire June 30, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Presentation: Jefferson Area CHIP.
Ms. Judy Smith, Executive Director of CHIP, addressed the Board and introduced Development
Director Katie Cowen.
Ms. Smith reported that for a long time, the County provided funds through the Health Department
and MACAA – but CHIP became an independent nonprofit about three and one-half years ago. She
explained that their mission was to partner with families to create a nurturing home environment and
promote the health and well-being of children in the community. Ms. Smith said that CHIP offered a
comprehensive home-visiting approach working with families, with children 0-6 and pregnant women from
low-income households, and served Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna and Louisa. She stated that
each family served had a team approach including a community health nurse that provided nursing
assessments, health information and health education; family support workers who provided parenting
education and guidance, and coordination to connect families with community resources.
Ms. Smith said that the families’ insights about themselves were incredibly important, and CHIP
helped them connect to healthcare – both sick and well care – and families learned more about health and
development, including taking care of an infant, proper nutrition, and meeting a child’s needs. She stated
that mothers learned how to access prenatal care and how to have healthier pregnancy outcomes, and
nurses assist in managing chronic health problems. Ms. Smith stated that they empowered families by
providing access to community resources that helped families become more stable, adding that there
were a lot of services available in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community – but if they didn’t know how to
make it work for them, it wasn’t very effective. She stated that they encouraged family stability by
promoting healthcare, helping with job training opportunities and educational opportunities, and other
services – helping clients set goals for themselves and learn how they can meet the goals. Ms. Smith said
that they also teach parents that they are their child’s best teacher, and the activities CHIP does with
families in the home start before the baby is born through the fifth year of life.
She reported that CHIP also coached families on household management, problem solving, and
all the things that helped make families successful. Ms. Smith said that when there were low income
families that were self sufficient and able to care for themselves and their families, a healthier community
is created. She stated that CHIP made sure all children were ready to start kindergarten and helped them
to be successful in school, encouraging participation in preschool programs and offering assistance with
the applications.
Ms. Smith said that by working with low-income women at the beginning of their pregnancies, the
community saved approximately $2,300 from birth through the first year of their life by ensuring that the
parent got good prenatal care, understood what was expected of her, and had the education and support
to move forward. She stated that with preventative health care, developmental issues that were picked up
before the child was 2 to 3 to 4, there was a cost savings to the system by giving parents information to
help them work with their children. Ms. Smith reported that they also reduced emergency room visits, and
had a contract to do a project with U.Va.’s emergency room to look at how they work with low-income
families and how low-income families use the emergency room.
She reported that after one year in CHIP, 98% of children were up to date on immunizations, 95%
received the well-child care they needed, 93% met all developmental milestones and the 5% who needed
further assessments received them along with some help. Ms. Smith said that 88% of pregnant women,
including teens, kept all of their prenatal appointments – which was a huge measure of success. She
stated that 90% of children were enrolled in preschool or childcare center compared to 40% when they
enrolled in CHIP, and 44% of parents were employed after one year with CHIP – compared to 20% when
enrolled.
Ms. Smith said that the average grade completed for a CHIP parent was 10th grade; 81% of
mothers were single-parent families; less than 60% were able to state developmental expectations for
their children.
Mr. Snow asked how families became enrolled in CHIP.
Ms. Smith responded that they got a lot of referrals from University Hospital, but also from the
Department of Social Services, preschool programs, other community agencies, and self-referrals that
might be generated through their contact with other CHIP clients. She said that in a given year, they work
with about 550 children and 235 families. Ms. Smith stated that they had six teams – one in Louisa, one in
Fluvanna, and four in Charlottesville/Albemarle.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Rooker asked if she was familiar with the PACE program through JABA, which provided
medical care and other services for older people on Medicaid – to be paid on a per-capita basis through
Medicaid. He suggested that CHIP talk with JABA about the program.
Ms. Smith responded that she would talk to JABA and had met with them before regarding the
child care center they had opened, and said she had also met with two physicians at U.Va. about home
visiting.
Mr. Rooker said that he wondered if they might contract with CHIP to help perform some of the
home-based services.
Ms. Mallek asked if they had an outreach to neighborhood associations to spread the word about
their services, and Ms. Smith said it would be helpful to have that.
_______________
Agenda Item No.22. Natural Heritage Committee Report.
Mr. Lonnie Murray, Natural Heritage Committee Chairman, addressed the Board, stating that the
paper birch forest was a remnant from the Ice Age, which dated it at about 10,000 to 12,000 years old. He
said that they were skeptical at first as to whether it was really paper birch but knew that other boreal
species would need to be present – so he listed some out and when they got to the site, they were all
there. Mr. Murray stated that they had made a lot of progress in helping to revalidate the work done by the
biodiversity workgroup – revisiting sites, talking to landowners and letting them know about existing
conservation programs, and building comm unity partners such as Peter Hatch at Monticello. He said that
other notable achievements included heavy involvement with the Biscuit Run State Park master planning
process and the Comprehensive Plan process, having a table at Charlottesville Earth Week, creating
some educational articles that tied local research together. Mr. Murray said that one of the committee
members, Devin Floyd, discovered a national champion tree – a Black Hall Viburnum.
He reported that out of the five primary tasks assigned to them by the Board, they continued to
make good progress – but the Biodiversity Action Plan development and implementation depended on the
assistance of staff for the landscape analysis portion. Mr. Murray said that the committee felt that an
allocation of eight hours of staff time per month would help reach that goal, as they didn’t currently have
the staff time to do the GIS work.
Mr. Rooker said that the County had a mapping department, and asked if there was someone on
staff who could devote some time to move the GIS work forward.
Mr. Foley responded that there were staff members who had worked on it in the past, but he
wasn’t certain if the people who had done the analysis on those needs were present today.
Mr. Dumler commented that they were discussing the Community Development work plan later in
the day.
Mr. Cilimberg said that when he was managing GIS for the County, they were really taxed with a
lot of different projects and requests, and he hadn’t been in touch as much with them lately – so it would
probably be best to ask Mr. Graham about it during the work plan discussion.
Ms. Mallek stated that several years ago they were still trying to get the markers in for every
structure in the County – and at least that was now up to date.
Mr. Dumler said that there was at least one person on the committee who was familiar with GIS,
but because of the lack of staff resources that person got frustrated and resigned. He stated that this was
something that has been part of the Comprehensive Plan now for 10 years, longer than 10 years, and it’s
something that keeps getting pushed farther and farther down the pole.
Mr. Foley stated that without an analysis of resources it would be hard to respond, and this was
like a lot of needs versus resources issues over the last few years.
Mr. Murray said that another reason some committee members were leaving was they didn’t feel
they were being proactively engaged enough, such as being consulted after the fact instead of being
asked to provide input ahead of time. He stated that members had been of great help with initiatives such
as the rural economic vitality plan, and being involved with things like the ACE scoring system would also
be very valuable. Mr. Murray added that if Board members knew people who were interested in
participating on the committee, they should refer them to the committee.
Mr. Rooker said that the County had been running ads about available positions on the
committee, but also wanted to know what the committee members might be able to do in that regard given
their circle of contacts. He stated that the Board needed some help getting the word out about positions.
He stated that when the committee was initially created, there were far more applicants than positions,
and they increased the size of the committee to try to accommodate more people.
Mr. Murray stated that they had some prospective candidates for the open positions, but because
of a perception that the committee was not as actively used by the Board as they could be, a lot of people
had become frustrated and didn’t want to apply because of the perception that it’s not time well spent. He
said that it would be helpful to have clarification from the Board as to what kind of work was most valuable
to the Board, and would help bring in representation. Mr. Murray stated that there was nothing in the
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
mission that mentioned local food or agriculture and other rural economic vitality initiatives, but there were
a lot of people who were passionate about those issues.
Ms. Mallek said that she would appreciate some suggestions from the committee on additions to
the charge that would incorporate sustainable agriculture, and asked for some examples of ways to notify
the committee of upcoming projects.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Board would want to look at the charge they had given the
committee, as that was explicitly one thing you did not include in the charge, was review of project
proposals, and that was a deliberate decision on your part. He said that what is listed here was more
policy-level type projects.
Mr. Boyd stated that he researched the item when he knew it was coming up for consideration,
and found in the minutes that where the Board interjected the committee was a big point of contention. He
said that he had voted against it because he feared it would create another step in the development
process, and his understanding was that the charge was to create an inventory of the bio-diverse areas of
the County.
Ms. Mallek said that now that the inventory was at a fairly good stage, this was the time for
someone’s efforts to be focused on educating the landowners on what they might have on their land.
Mr. Boyd stated that he had no issue with that at all, but interjecting them into policy decision is
where he drew the line. He mentioned that one of the most sensitive sites was Indian Ridge directly
across from him in Key West, and said that to his knowledge no one went and spoke to those landowners.
Mr. Murray responded that the committee’s charge was not on a parcel by parcel, site by site
level, but instead they worked directly with property owners to discuss with them what was on their
properties. He said that there were a lot of sites, and getting access to them was very difficult – and
because there were just a few committee members who could do this kind of work it was taking a while to
get through the list. Mr. Murray said that the committee had been working closely with water resources
staff on the native plants list and on a policy around native plants, but it was not for a specific
neighborhood – just general measures that could be done as a county to incentivize doing the right things.
Mr. Rooker said that the Board had adopted a strategic plan that included an emphasis on
volunteerism, and this committee volunteered their time – and was chock full of expertise. He said that he
would like to have their expertise – which far exceeded his own – when considering things like the rural
area land use policy. He stated that he’d certainly like to hear what they had to say – they’re not making
the decision – what is volunteerism if we’re not going to make use of people that have volunteered?”
Mr. Boyd stated that the concern was with mission creep and the possibility of adding another step
in a process they were trying to refine now.
Mr. Rooker said they were talking about applications, for specific things like rezonings.
Mr. Boyd stated that he felt there was a slippery slope, and the Board had to be very careful to
respect personal property rights.
Ms. Mallek commented that there was always a need for balance, and once places were gone
they were gone forever.
Mr. Rooker said when they were making Comprehensive Plan changes they were making
decisions that affected people, and it was wise to have the best information possible when making those
decisions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that during that process, they worked on development of policy-type measures
as well as regulations – and involved many different committees, as the Planning Commission also liked
to have that input. He stated that they saw this committee and the historic resources committee at the
same level in the process.
Mr. Murray stated that staff had been very good about gradually increasing the amount of items
sent to the committee, so progress is being made in bringing more things to their attention. He added that
they felt it was very important for the Board to identify the priorities most important to them, and individual
Board members could certainly bring forward initiatives to seek the committee’s expertise.
Ms. Mallek said that they had tree conservation plans as part of their site plans, and perhaps that
might be an opportunity for their input. She said that she was not envisioning a whole separate process or
anything, but she sees no reason why other peoples’ information couldn’t be invited in to be shared with
the decision makers.
Mr. Thomas said that the approach taken with the historic preservation ordinance was to educate
landowners as to the resources on their property.
Mr. Rooker responded that the list the committee had provided covered the areas where they felt
their expertise would be helpful.
Mr. Murray commented that often the kinds of policies they were involved in were the exact
opposite of making ordinances, but were instead finding ordinances that were too restrictive that actually
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
prohibited actions by citizens that would be more sustainable or more protective of natural resources. He
noted that their work with the rural economic vitality plan involved loosening of restrictions to make it
easier for people to use their lands, and also said that the County should make room in its policies for
nutrient trading as one way of meeting objectives for storm water – as this would provide more flexibility
for property owners and those submitting development proposals.
Ms. Mallek said that the more site-specific information the committee could provide on ACE sites
would give the ACE Committee evaluation much more sensitivity, and would help the Board make better
choices.
Mr. Dumler asked if some of these items would be incorporated into the biodiversity action plan.
Mr. Murray responded that they would, with the committees work structured as identifying the
most important places to protect and categorizing that data in a way that staff can use it.
Mr. Boyd confirmed that Mr. Murray’s request was to use the County’s GIS staff to integrate
information into the mapping.
Mr. Dumler said that would give the County a natural heritage overlay.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t have a problem with that, and asked if it could be done with
volunteers.
Mr. Murray responded that because it involves integrating that data with County resources, they
can only do half the work with volunteers – and that was causing frustration among them, because it
couldn’t be integrated into the County’s information.
_______________
Agenda Item No.23. CACVB Marketing Plan Update.
Mr. Foley said that Kurt Burkhart and Payne, Ross & Associates would be presenting, and
reviewed the background of the item. He stated that the Board had expressed concern about the fund
balance that had built up in the Visitors Bureau budget over the last few years, so the CACVB board
responded by putting some effort into demonstrating how that could be spent to make a difference. Mr.
Foley said that it was focused on development of a marketing plan, and they had been through a
procurement process – with the first step of that completed and a marketing plan expected to be
completed in July for the Board’s decision.
Mr. Burkhart addressed the Board, stating that when he appeared before them on January 6 he
presented an overview of what they wanted to accomplish with the addition of professional services
working in concert with the CACVB to achieve a number of key items. He said that the centerpiece of that
was a discussion of a marketing plan that would identify the best approach for reaching key markets,
raising the awareness of the area, and converting the number of prospective visitors to actual visitors. Mr.
Burkhart said that he shared with the Board their plan to work through the City, their fiscal agent, through a
procurement process that would give the CACVB the best opportunity for identifying qualified entities to
assist with creating a marketing plan and more. He stated that the fiscal agent had deemed that issuing
an RFP, providing individuals and agencies the opportunity to submit proposals for a marketing plan and
consulting services, branding services, advertising services and public relations services would be the way
the CACVB would proceed. Mr. Burkhart said that there had been significant bureaucracy involved, but
assured the Board that the process was working and they were fully engaged in the charge outlined earlier
in the year.
Mr. Burkhart reported that on January 5, 2012, the RFP was issued for marketing and associated
services, and the first of the contracts to be issued – which dealt specifically with the marketing plan – was
awarded to Payne, Ross & Associates on April 3, 2012. He said that they were fortunate to have selected
a highly qualified local agency, whose principle was an avid supporter of tourism, and they were extremely
excited with what they had seen so far as well as the quick responsiveness on the part of the team
dedicated to the account. Mr. Burkhart stated that through the leadership and direction of Susan Payne –
who also oversaw the marketing committee for the Virginia Tourism Corporation and served this year as
chair – the CACVB had found with Payne, Ross & Associates our creative partner moving forward.
He said that the Payne, Ross & Associates was also awarded the contract to perform branding
services for the CACVB, and everyone at the Visitors Bureau was pleased to get the process underway –
as the current brand needed revisiting, and with a critical eye on how to bring the full visibility of the County
forward in a way that was clearly prominent and presented its unique character and rich assets. Mr.
Burkhart said what remained were the advertising and public relations portions, and more announcements
would be made in the next several weeks. He stated that while the RFP process was underway, the
CACVB had already been working on increasing the visibility of the County’s tourism assets. Mr. Burkhart
said that recently the CACVB had joined with Monticello, Montpelier, and the Virginia Tourism Corporation
to create the Presidents Passport program that promoted this area in conjunction with the Smithsonian
Exhibit Slavery at Jefferson’s Monticello: Paradox in Liberty. Mr. Burkhart said that there were currently
over 2,000 registered passport holders, and they continued to provide visitors information they needed to
fully experience the many offerings within Albemarle County that were solicited for participation by the
CACVB.
He stated that another item of top priority was continued support for the Monticello Artisan Trail,
and since the official launch of the trail last fall, the CACVB organized the first of two charter bus
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
familiarization tours that gave many in the hospitality and visitors services industries a chance to see
firsthand the many and diverse artisans, orchards, vineyards and other partners. He said that plans were
in the works to do a third tour in June, with more to follow. Mr. Burkhart stated that the CACVB had run a
series of radio spots promoting the trail last fall and planned to do the same leading into the summer
months to support this year’s Backyard Vacation: Play Local, Stay Local program, another Bureau
initiative. He said that the CACVB continued to support the trail in other ways, such as funding to pay for
the 20,000 rack cards and maps that were just reprinted.
Mr. Burkhart said that the Shenandoah National Park welcomed about one million visitors to the
park annually and with 14,000 acres of the park within Albemarle County, local support of the priceless
natural treasure was strong. He stated that the CACVB homepage prominently displayed a banner for the
Shenandoah National Park Trust, and they continued to supply visitors with park brochures, trail maps,
and other information at visitors’ centers. Mr. Burkhart said they were working closely with Susan
Sherman there to ensure strong future support for the park. He stated that heritage areas were promoted
jointly through their active participation with the “Journey Through Hallowed Ground”, and the CACVB
Board had approved a recent request to fund way-finding signage that would soon be found in the County.
Mr. Burkhart said that they had participated in three major trade shows since January – the
American Bus Association Marketplace, the U.S. Travel Association’s International Pow Wow, and the
Auto & Travel Vacation Show, where they partnered with Tourism Corporation. He stated that they had
pitched the Monticello Artisan Trail as the main angle for tour operators and leisure travelers who said they
were interested in wineries and desired an authentic experience. In March, he said, the Bureau
participated with the Virginia Tourism Corporation on its annual New York City media blitz, which allowed
the Bureau’s director of sales and marketing to actively pitch one on one the numerous assets of the area.
Mr. Burkhart reported that last year the CACVB’s earned media value was $677,000, and this year it tops
$3 million.
He also said that this year the Bureau would also fund a number of festivals that had previously
received funding from the City and the County, stepping up for a supporting sponsor for the Taste of
Monticello Wine Trail and the Tom Tom Festival, and would be reviewing additional requests from
promoters who had targeted out of area visitors for their events. Mr. Burkhart stated that customer
service was the cornerstone for how a community was perceived by its visitors, so this past March the
CACVB – together with the County, the VTC, and other partners – sponsored Customer Service Comes
from the Heart – with approximately 110 participants, including 22 from County administration. He said
that their packaging seminar held earlier this year helped stimulate interest in innovative offerings in
extending added value to visitors for vacations and getaways, and nearly 30 package offerings could now
be found on the CACVB website. Mr. Burkhart noted that their mobile website had now been launched
and was in beta testing; they had met with organizers of the Jefferson Heritage Trail in collaboration with
CHO management on creating a physical presence at the airport for traveler assistance.
Mr. Burkhart noted that Ms. Catlin was on the CACVB Board, and he asked Susan Payne and her
team to address the Board.
Ms. Susan Payne addressed the Board, stating that her firm had been on the job about 2.5 weeks
and would provide a brief glimpse of what they would be doing. She introduced Megan Gadient, the firm’s
art director; Susan Kalergis, account executive; Jamie Howard, creative director; and Lisa Ross, co-
partner. Ms. Payne explained that the first aspect of the marketing plan was to create a written plan, the
second was to identify opportunities where through collaboration and partnerships they might be able to
use their money more wisely, and developing a strategy for various execution of the elements. Ms. Susan
Kalergis addressed the Board, stating that they were just finishing up with the information and research
gathering and were in the initial stages of content writing. She said they had finished a detailed outline
and were currently working on objectives, with draft copy provided to the CACVB for review on May 17
with a book developed by June 4 that covered the plan in detail.
Ms. Payne said that the job of the agency was to tell the story, and stated that what seemed to be
lacking in the City and the County were good marketing and creative materials. She stated that the first
step would be to come up with materials that could be presented around the state to put the area in the
best possible light. Ms. Payne said that the first step would be to create 12-14 90-second to 3 minute
videos about Charlottesville and Albemarle, with one created per month with a focus on the tourism assets
of the community; at the end of 12 months they will take the videos and create one 30-minute film. She
stated that those could be used on websites, through e-blasts, at the CHO airport, at Dulles Airport, and at
visitors and welcome centers throughout Virginia. She stated that they had been working with a group that
had had great success in placing their film with public television, with the Vintage film having over two
million hits on the VTC website.
Ms. Payne said that they had come up with a number of ideas they hoped the County would
provide feedback on: the Monticello Wine Trail, with the message reflecting drinking wine here, weddings,
music, nature, exploring the outdoors, eating world class food, history, sports, family, arts, romance,
festivals, books, photographs, films, orchards, foliage, holidays, shopping, etc. She stated that some
Washington, D.C. television stations would like to partner with this initiative and on the History Channel
and Food Network take our vignettes. Ms. Payne said that they hope to incorporate people and
personalities and what makes us special. She asked the Board to share with them any ideas about
unique aspects of the community.
Ms. Payne stated that she was glad they were doing the half hour film at the end and developing
other materials because this would help provide something for Mr. Burkhart to use when he went to trade
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
shows. She said that right now we’re lacking in being able to show our area, so without the creative
materials and the creative energy behind this – tourism we believe is in trouble. She concluded by
emphasizing to the Board that tourism was an instant revenue generator, and for every $1 spent on
marketing $75 was spent by the tourist and $5 was returned in local taxes – which provided a 5:1 return.
Ms. Payne said that in order for Albemarle County to remain competitive and provide jobs and instant
revenue, it was essential that their tourism assets were marketed frequently, broadly and effectively with a
competitive budget.
Ms. Mallek asked what the budget was for the marketing plan.
Ms. Payne responded that she didn’t know yet, but hoped to have it soon.
Ms. Mallek asked how you build a plan if you don’t know how much you have to spend.
Mr. Thomas stated that it couldn’t be pinpointed right now, as this was the planning part.
Ms. Payne explained that in order to do the video well and get it on TV, it would be an expensive
initiative, so they would need to know how the County chose to spend some of its tourism assets that had
not been spent.
Mr. Rooker clarified that there were two parts: the creation of a mark eting plan, which Payne
Ross was working on now; and the execution of the plan, in terms of a rollout – some of which would cost
money to do.
Mr. Burkhart said that they were paying for a marketing plan, but the execution of it would require
that dollar signs be pegged in.
Mr. Foley said the marketing plan would be a multi-year plan with options, depending on how far
the County wants to go in promoting the area.
Ms. Payne stated that the plan would include a detailed, step-by-step specific plan for year one
that would show every ad, every placement, every event, and every situation – along with a dollar number
showing what would need to be spent to accomplish the objectives. She said that years two and three
would be less specific, because it was unknown now what the opportunities around the state would be.
Ms. Payne stated that they were also hoping to collaborate with U.Va., as they had expressed an interest
in collaboration. She said that they were just starting; they’re just starting to get the key stakeholders in
the room. She said that the budget depended largely on what the Board decided to do, along with the City
and that it could be anywhere from $300,000 to $700,000.
Mr. Rooker suggested targeting alumni, who likely have fond memories of the area but don’t know
what goes on here anymore.
Ms. Payne said that each year 800,000 people came to the football games, and the goal in
tourism was to get more people here to stay longer. She added that they needed to be reaching out to
different audiences, especially in Northern Virginia, and the current sweet spot for tourism were people
between the ages of 35-60. Ms. Payne also said that they needed to promote the area’s regionalism,
because it would lead to them staying one more night. She said that the community was looking at three
more hotels coming online, and the University of Virginia alone was contemplating three new hotels.
Mr. Rooker asked if the idea was to take the infomercials and show them in the hotels.
Ms. Payne confirmed that they would take the video and show it in in-room television, but the list
of where it could be shown was endless. She added that 85% of tourism travel was now booked online.
Ms. Mallek said that to make the connection, it has to be an appealing, inviting website, with lots
of pictures.
Ms. Payne commented that what had helped the wine industry in the state was the film done by
local filmmakers here, adding that the Governor takes it wherever he travels and shows a 10-minute piece
of it, with the Secretary of Agriculture Todd Haymore having it divided six different ways and taking a piece
of it when he travels. She said what they wanted to do was create the footage, and create the image so
that everybody will want to take it with them.
Mr. Thomas asked if they had thought about the Lewis & Clark Exploratory, as Lewis & Clark were
big in other parts of the country.
Ms. Payne said they had not, but they would certainly add it to the list. She stated that the County
has a great tourism product.
She stated that they were first doing a tourism asset analysis, to determine what we have and how
we can bundle it together. She said that when she wrote the grant for Monticello and Montpelier, there
were assets in bundling those with Ash Lawn and marketing them to the D.C. area. Ms. Payne said that
the assets here were clearly history, music, local food, wine. She added that the First Lady of Virginia had
focused her energy on wine because it was such a huge revenue producer, and she went around the state
and country to promote Virginia wine.
Mr. Foley asked her to summarize what would happen with the branding efforts.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Ms. Payne explained that the branding would include meeting with key stakeholders and other
people in the community, to get a real sense and a tone of voice for the area. She said that they were
going to work on fixing the website immediately to give Albemarle more of a presence on the website, not
just Charlottesville.
She stated that the first step was awareness the next would be to drive people to the website and
make it easy for them to book a package and find out more information about what we have, and the third
step is to make a choice to come here – with a welcoming environment when they do come here. Ms.
Payne added that tourism content should be shown at public facilities such as libraries also.
Mr. Snow said that having everything available in one place would encourage people to book an
extra day.
Ms. Payne said that the County’s one message is to try to get people to stay one more day and if
they could figure out what the hook might be, that will help – and the Smithsonian Exhibit in D.C. had
received two million hits from Monticello, Montpelier, and the Virginia Tourism Corporation – but that was
because they brought people to D.C. and asked them to look at Charlottesville, then to come here to see
the real thing. She stated that she thought we had to market outside of this area to get the people to
come here.
Mr. Rooker asked if they planned on using something that would integrate with Facebook.
Ms. Payne said that the vignettes would be put on Facebook. She also said that they were
looking into public-private partnerships on a statewide level for VTC, as well as collaboration with entities
such as the Wine Board. Ms. Payne added that one thing she had worked on in terms of branding Virginia
was how to ensure that transportation, agriculture, and tourism were all talking to each other and branding
the same way. She mentioned that the idea was to have the touch points welcome people with the same
idea, which would translate to more tax dollars for the County – noting that last year there was $40 million
in room nights spent in the County, which is a really big number.
Mr. Boyd suggested that the slogan Virginia is for Lovers, could be followed with Albemarle is for
Fun.
Ms. Payne said that the idea was definitely collaboration, and mentioned that surprisingly,
Monticello, Montpelier and Ash Lawn had never collaborated.
Ms. Mallek asked if they had inherited some of the other marketing studies that had been done
recently.
Ms. Payne stated that the way they priced their proposal was to use the existing studies done by
the University of Virginia and the Virginia Tourism Corporation, although there weren’t as many local
statistics available as there could be. Ms. Payne added that it would be fun to get a lot of local people
included in the videos, to show the personalities in the area. She said that the hope was that the
awareness of the area would lead to people who wanted to write about the area, noting the success of the
Crooked Road initiative in the southern part of the state.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the Virginia is for Lovers motto could be adapted to
Charlottesville/Albemarle is for Lovers of Music, Art History, etc. given that the slogan was one of the best
known tourist brands in the world.
Ms. Payne mentioned that she thought they would like Fall in love with Albemarle, and said the
video would be shot over several seasons to show different assets during different times of the year. She
said that these were just a few ideas, and there isn’t any reason that we can’t add to them.
Mr. Boyd said that he wasn’t sure what the timeframe was in making a decision on use of the
surplus funds, but he was ready to make that decision today based on what he had heard.
Mr. Rooker said that he wanted to see the proposed budget for what they’re going to do.
Ms. Mallek commented that that’s what the Board was promised in November.
Mr. Boyd said that what they were talking about was the $250,000 allocation they were going to
get anyway, and he was ready to take it off the table. He said that he’d just heard an excellent marketing
plan, and that they had a great group of people and they needed to know what they’re working with.
Ms. Mallek said that she thought we were almost there – this is a wonderful start.
Mr. Snow said that they weren’t taking it off the table, nor were they committing it either.
Mr. Boyd commented that it could be July until they made the decision.
Ms. Mallek said it might be June if they brought more information.
Mr. Rooker said that it was like any other spending decision – the Board had all agreed they were
not going take the money down, and were going to let them come forward with a plan as to how it would
be used. What we’ve seen is the outline of a beginning of a plan, but we haven’t seen a proposed budget
for how the money is going to be spent.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Mr. Boyd stated that it would be easier for Payne Ross to develop a marketing plan if they knew
what budget they were working with.
Ms. Payne said they would develop a list of all the costs, aiming for the high number – and then
the Board could subtract from that – for us to get quality materials in place is probably where a lot of the
fund balance, the one-time expense, will occur. She stated that there wasn’t a tourism guide, for example,
for visitors.
Ms. Ross stated that the challenge of the RFP situation was that they actually did a lot of the
creative thinking up front, but until they knew how the rest of that played out it was hard to give them as a
group what the total package – marketing plan, branding, advertising, and public relations should look like
for you to be successful. It’s just very hard to do that until we know how those other pieces play out.
Ms. Mallek commented that the other pieces would affect the success of what they would create.
Ms. Ross said that when they did a marketing plan and knew what items were needed, they could
give the Board an overall strategy with all the bells and whistles, but ways to cut back if they needed to,
but always with that end objective in mind, which is important.
Mr. Boyd asked if companies normally came to them with an amount they have to spend, so they
can build a plan around it.
Ms. Ross confirmed that typically there was a budget range, because that could definitely drive
how everything was approached.
Mr. Rooker said they could develop a budget based on what was available in the fund.
Mr. Foley said that the Visitors Board had $500,000.
Ms. Payne said they didn’t have the final number, but they were working how they would move
forward with the Virginia Tourism Corporation and what their buy-down rates could be. She said that the
VTC then went out and talked to all the major publications and the major ways to market, then bought
down their rates by as much as 50%-60% - so rather than having the tourism office buy at market rates,
they would buy on their behalf at reduced rates. She said they could write a rough plan for three years,
but you really would not get the best product if they didn’t know all the opportunities. Ms. Payne added
that she saw a lot of great partnership opportunities with Nelson and Orange counties.
Mr. Snow asked her what a partnership with the University of Virginia might look like.
Ms. Payne responded that it was a three-legged stool, with the City, the County and U.Va. She
said that the plan was to reach out to the people who were coming in for events like football games,
symposiums, Darden events, etc. – we should have a prominent spot on the website. She mentioned that
last year Monticello began offering dinner in front of the estate the night before graduation, and they sold it
out.
Ms. Payne said that they needed to get some visual pieces out, and people would cooperate. She
stated that the food here had become very popular, and people in D.C. were coming here for food and
music.
Ms. Mallek suggested that people could come here and visit the farms where the food came from.
Ms. Payne said that could be done, and it was important to find things like that, that aren’t
ordinary, and that would be part of creating the brand.
Ms. Catlin stated that her understanding based on this conversation was to have staff come back
with the plan as discussed by Payne Ross and the assumption of the $500,000 fund balance, with the
options presented as to how to spend that.
Board members agreed, and Ms. Mallek said that would come forward in July at the latest.
Mr. Thomas commented that he had worked with Payne, Ross for many years and they had the
talent to do what Albemarle County needs to have done.
Mr. Boyd said that the DIA and NGIC brought thousands of people here every year, so they would
be another target partner.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Target Study Recommendations for Albemarle County.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) directed consultant work on a Target Industry Study for
its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County, which was completed in early April. This study
identifies types of industries that have the strongest potential to succeed and offer the best prospects for
"good jobs," meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life (security, higher wages, opportunities for
advancement, training, flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in Albemarle County. The
consultant, Younger Associates, presented the completed Target Industry Study to regional stakeholders
on April 11. The Board also held a work session during which the consultant, Board members and staff
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
focused specifically on the study’s results and recommendations for the County. Board members
requested a follow up discussion to include the opportunity for the public to comment on the study’s
results.
Optimal Targets
Target industry groups have been identified for the County and screened to select sectors that
have the strongest local rationale and best global industry outlook. New and emerging industry, technology
assets, workforce and locational strengths were considered in screening for select target sectors. The list
of target sectors is a list of optimal targets and should not be considered to exclude related sectors.
Optimal targets should provide solid business rationale for firms looking to relocate or expand in the
County and provide County residents with a strong reason to support their presence in the County. It is
critical to emphasize that the Target Industry Study supports the cultivation and nurturing of start-up
companies and existing businesses, and considers employment of current residents as its most important
outcome.
Screening criteria for optimal targets included:
• High relative wages
• Support or strengthen existing industry groups/clusters
• Make use of the location’s unique attributes, including technology assets
• Leverage local/national/global trends
• High relative jobs multiplier
• Utilize incumbent occupational skill-sets
• Match the area’s educational infrastructure and postsecondary completions
• Match the area’s capacity and desire for growth and development
• Potential to employ underemployed and unemployed
For each target area matching the screening criteria, the final selected targeted industries had to
meet two additional conditions: positive projected employment growth over the next five years, and
industry-specific earnings greater than the overall local or state average. Based on the screening criteria,
optimal targets for the County fall into four major categories. A set of complementary targets that build
upon local competitive advantages has been identified as well.
Recommended target industries:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness and Food Processing
Complementary targets:
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & Media
Site Inventory
During the work session there was discussion regarding the availability of sites to accommodate
the recommended targets. Staff understands the importance of ensuring an adequate level of suitable
land to support desired target industry enterprises, and several strategies are underway to address this
issue in both the more immediate and the longer term. Because the targets have yet to be formally
endorsed by the Board, staff is still working through the detailed analysis required by these strategies,
which are described below.
Current Availability
The Planning Commission Staff Report for March 20: Industrial Land Inventory, Rural Interchanges, and
Locations for Industrial Uses and Target Industries, provided at the April 11 work session on the
Comprehensive Plan Update, provides a detailed analysis of industrial land inventory. The Report gives
an idea of both what is currently available and what may be needed in the future to support general
industrial needs. The high level conclusions of the Report are as follows:
Many of the target enterprises can be accommodated on commercially zoned land of which there
appears to be a sufficient amount.
Target industries that involve a manufacturing component would likely require industrially zoned
land. (Research and Development are currently allowed in the Commercial Office district by
special use permit.)
Industrially zoned land is needed for basic support industries in addition to target industries.
If existing trends continue, there will be a need for additional industrial land for uses that cannot
be accommodated in commercially zoned land. This need can be met by rezoning existing
Comprehensive Plan designated land to industrial (zoning process) and designating new industrial
land (Comprehensive Plan Update) and then rezoning that land. More specific requirements
depend on further analysis of endorsed targets. The initial analysis identifies potential options for
re-designating land to industrial to match preliminary target industry needs and discusses the
possibility of combining smaller parcels under the same ownership to form larger parcels required
for some targets.
Specific locational preferences and infrastructure requirements of the targeted industries impacts
where designated land needs to be available. An exact “acres available to acres needed” match
is not always sufficient.
Once the targets are formally endorsed by the Board, staff will review and finalize this analysis, and these
findings will inform both the zoning changes and the Comprehensive Plan Update process described in
the Developing New Options section below.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Developing New Options
As directed by the Economic Vitality Action Plan, staff is approaching the development of new light
industrial options through several strategies.
Zoning Changes – Appropriately zoned land with flexibility in uses to accommodate evolving
industrial practices provides the best possibility for successfully locating desired target industries.
Staff is developing zoning text amendments that recognize the changing nature of industrial uses.
These changes, which would impact both the industrial and commercial districts, provide greater
flexibility in uses and allow a greater mix of complementary commercial and industrial uses
without undermining the purpose of industrial districts to provide land and buildings for future
industrial use.
Following adoption of the zoning text amendments, staff will initiate a County-wide rezoning to an
appropriate industrial district for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the development areas that are
designated as industrial use on the County’s Land Use Plan. Only properties where the property
owner has agreed to accept this zoning change will be included in this rezoning. This County-
initiated rezoning will be similar to what was done for the downtown district rezoning in Crozet.
Outcome: Liberalization of uses in industrial and commercial districts to support evolving industrial
needs, and additional property zoned for industrial uses
Timeline: Work session on zoning text amendments with the Planning Commission in late May, with
Board consideration by August, 2012
Comprehensive Plan Update – Additional industrially designated land provides future options to
meet the location, size and infrastructure/proximity needs of target industries.
Staff is proposing options to add additional industrially designated land to create more inventory
that meets requirements of endorsed target industries as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes are being carefully
considered. The County could consider another round of County-initiated rezoning after adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan changes to align zoning to land use designation for newly designated
areas.
Outcome: Increase in land designated as site options for industrial projects
Timeline: Consideration by Board in early 2013
Next Steps
As mentioned at the work session, there is immediate work to be done in implementing the Target
Industry Study, along with whatever longer term regional strategies might emerge from working in
partnership with the TJPED. The following actions are either underway or will begin immediately upon
endorsement of the County’s selected target industries:
Further analysis and clarification of target requirements for sites and buildings
Developing and making available a detailed sites and buildings inventory
Continued progress on the zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes outlined above
Analysis of NAICS codes for existing businesses to better understand and support our current
target enterprises
Regional work with TJPED and sub-regional work with the City and UVA
No budget impact is anticipated at this time.
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the target industries and complementary targets
recommended by the Target Industry Study for Albemarle County.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin addressed the Board, stating that staff would review some of the highlights of the
target industry presentation and then allow the Board an opportunity for discussion and public comment.
She said the purpose of this work session is to obtain the Board’s endorsement regarding the appropriate
target industries for Albemarle County adding that the Board has a number of decisions to make regarding
how to implement the target industry study because each of the targets may need different strategies.
Ms. Catlin said that the first important step is having the Board come to agreement on what it
considers to be the appropriate targets, and then continue on with other issues. She stated that the
consultant made a recommendation on several targets for the whole region which included the business
and financial services and information technology sectors and specific targets for each of the different
jurisdictions in the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED). Ms. Catlin
emphasized that the study strongly focuses on supporting existing business, noting that the study pointed
out that 80% of economic growth is typically generated by innovative existing industry. She said another
important factor was that the study referenced repeatedly the community’s strategic focus on balancing
growth with maintaining an outstanding quality of life which was central to their analysis and subsequent
recommendations were mindful of the environmental impact, scope and scale that were strong
preferences for the County. Ms. Catlin stated that it was also important to remember that the study’s
primary outcome is providing employment opportunities for current residents, and the labor supply survey
yielded statistically valid results which the consultants conducted in person through in-field surveys. She
said that it helped reveal some information that was beyond the unemployment rate, which has always
been low for the County and finding that, at a regional level, there is a hidden regional labor supply
including people who are unemployed, those who are underemployed and part-time workers who are
looking for full-time work as well as post-secondary graduates.
Ms. Catlin reported that the consultant went through the optimal target market criteria, and the
issues of supporting and strengthening existing industry groups, making use of the location’s unique
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
attributes, using incumbent occupational skill sets, considering the area’s capacity and desire for growth
and development, ensuring those are not detrimental to the environment and are compatible with natural
surroundings, all of which are very important in the evaluation.
Ms. Catlin said that the report revealed the County had strong competitive advantages in the
bioscience and medical devices category and the potential for growth was generated by the number of
start-ups and related commercialization opportunities emerging from research activity at the University of
Virginia, which is moving forward at a more accelerated pace.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he had seen a report earlier that day on the news that had mentioned
how hot the growth in that field was in the area.
Ms. Catlin reported that the report included opportunities for the kinds of manufacturing that has
the scale and impact that is compatible with the County such as MicroAire, Micro, Afton Scientifics,
Arregio, etc. all of which are producing products that are small, easy to ship, and not creating traffic
impacts or the need for huge, sprawling manufacturing facilities. She said the occupations required for
these types of companies include everything from management and executive positions to life and
physical scientists to production workers and office workers.
Mr. Boyd said there are five different references to manufacturing in the report, however, there is
also a comment which states that Albemarle is not a place for light manufacturing. He said that he
understood what the consultant was saying, but that might be confusing to others.
Ms. Catlin stated the consultant explained that light manufacturing was considered to be the
larger, automated kinds of plants that take up millions of square feet with, i.e., 350 workers but that is not
the kind of light manufacturing the County is well suited for; but the advanced type of manufacturing is
where the consultant saw opportunities.
Ms. Catlin reported that, with business and financial services, the County has some strong
competitive advantages and has exhibited specialization and growth momentum in this industry with firms
such as State Farm, Southern Health, Music Today, and Blue Ridge Internet Works. She said these types
of target businesses could frequently be accommodated in commercially zoned areas of the County.
Ms. Catlin said that, with information technology and defense security, there are three sector
breakouts put forward as being ones most suited to the County, with DIA and NGIC here along with the
federal contractors that come along with them, the University research centers, and large employers like
GE and Northrop Grumman that provide strength and specialization in the existing workforce. Ms. Catlin
said that Nitek has 75 employees and is the world leader in the design, development and production of
ground-penetrating radar; and Isotemp has 20 employees producing high-quality frequency control
products for the communication and test equipment industry. She added that these are companies that
are not necessarily at the larger end of the scale, but ones that are tied to research and development and
high skills that can provide a spectrum of jobs that are very positive for this community.
Ms. Catlin stated that the last target industry indentified in the study for the County was
agribusiness and food processing, which had not originally been brought forward but, through discussion
with stakeholders, was an area that staff felt should be included in the study. She said that economic
growth in agribusiness uses is really important for balancing the local economy and for furthering rural
area goals, with a lot of important things accomplished by having a flourishing agribusiness sector. Ms.
Catlin stated that the County’s quality of life and tourism appeal is conducive to supporting the wineries,
micro-breweries, and specialty food operations in addition to providing an important opportunity for
expansion and for small business start-up in a lot of areas. She said that this market could go toward
value-added food producers, expansion for companies like the Local Food Hub and Relay Foods, etc.
Ms. Catlin said that the study mentioned some complimentary targets that would help to
emphasize possibilities with the aging population, relocating retirees, and popularity as a tourism
destination.
Ms. Mallek said that a comment was made recently that people in the 25-40 age range were
moving to an area first and then seeking a job once they got there.
Ms. Catlin stated that there has been a lot of discussion about the creative class and the
knowledge economy, which is where the strength of this area appeals to people.
Ms. Catlin reported that there was some discussion at the last work session on site availability and
site inventory, so staff wanted to clarify some of the strategies moving forward. Ms. Catlin said that, at its
work session last month, the Board received a copy of the industrial land inventory that went to the
Planning Commission, which went into exhaustive detail on the current availability and situation of LI land
options. She stated that the Board has not formally endorsed the targets yet because the targets are still
at a preliminary stage of that analysis; however, staff is able to have confidence in some of the highest
level conclusions, including one that many of the target enterprises can be accommodated on
commercially zoned land. Ms. Catlin said that the targets she had mentioned with a manufacturing
component will very likely require industrially zoned land, and that must be anticipated.
Beyond the target industries, Ms. Catlin said there are still basic support industries which Mr. Boyd
had mentioned as being important to sustain a community and those will need industrial land also.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. Rooker mentioned a full-page ad that came out a few weeks ago that was trying to find
occupants to occupy an industrially zoned building on Route 29, with all utilities included, at $5 per square
foot. He said that they had trouble finding people to occupy the building, and they were willing to break it
up into pieces. He said these things keep coming up, but then he sees case and case again of industrially
zoned property that people want to take out of [it] because they can’t seem to find occupants.
Ms. Catlin said that staff will get to next steps shortly, and that will include getting a sense of the
County’s sites and buildings and the idea that not all sites and buildings are created equal, that some of
the available locations don’t necessarily match as well as they need to for some target industries. She
stated that, once the targets are endorsed by the Board, staff could break down what is required in terms
of land features, infrastructure, etc., and then develop an inventory of what is available and how that
matches up.
Mr. Rooker said he was suggesting that there is another step, and that would be determining
whether the people who owned those likely properties really want it to be zoned industrial.
Mr. Boyd mentioned a company that wanted to relocate here a few years ago, and although the
County threw out a number of options to them, none of them fit exactly what they were looking for. He
added that it doesn’t hurt to have a little bit of inventory out there, so that there are different kinds of
options, different kinds of sites.
Ms. Catlin said that if the County looks at existing trends and they continue the way they have
been going, there will be a need for some existing industrial land for uses that can’t be accommodated in
commercially zoned land. She said there are a couple of ways to meet that need, i.e., rezoning existing
Comp Plan designated land to industrial or by designating new industrial land and then rezoning that land.
She said both of these paths are already moving forward. Ms. Catlin explained that one area is moving in
that direction through the zoning change process, with the goal being getting appropriately zoned land with
flexibility in uses to accommodate evolving industrial practices. She stated that staff is working to develop
zoning text amendments that recognize the changing nature of industrial uses. Ms. Catlin said that the
changes will provide a greater flexibility in uses, a greater mix of complimentary, commercial and industrial
uses without undermining the purpose of the industrial districts to house these types of businesses.
Following the adoption of the ZTAs, Ms. Catlin said staff would initiate the countywide rezoning
that would allow people to voluntarily take their RA and R1 zoned properties to LI, and the outcomes
expected from this effort would include additional property for LI uses with a Planning Commission work
session scheduled for late May and Board consideration in August. Ms. Catlin said that the
Comprehensive Plan updating process also provides some opportunity, with possible designation of
additional industrial land to provide future options to meet the location, size, and infrastructure needs of
the target industries. She stated that staff has been working and looking through land use plans, looking
for options to add some additional industrial designated land to create more inventories that meet
requirements. She said the environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes, along with
property owner inclination, is being discussed very thoroughly as part of the Comp Plan update and then
to the Board. Ms. Catlin said that after that, the Board could consider another round of county-initiated
rezoning to help the zoning match the designation, with the timeline being for Board consideration in early
2013.
Mr. Rooker said that, if the County is going to consider re-designating property because it is
determined that more industrial property is needed, he would ask the Board to think about a new kind of
designation that makes it clear that some of the things allowed in those zones now would not be permitted
such as office buildings. He said it doesn’t do the County any good if there is a large amount of approved
commercial space, a lot of which can be used for office, to designate new land for industrial and then have
somebody come in with a plan to build office buildings there.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that, in the Comp Plan work, there is the designation of “mixed-use,
employment-oriented designation, flex, research and development, industrial use,” and that is being used
now in other areas as the land use plan is being looked at as well as the work being done on the industrial
zoning amendments. He said staff is addressing the question of office use and how it is allowed now
versus how it might be allowed.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is basically codifying what is happening with the Comdial building.
Mr. Cilimberg said that a lot of the Route 29 corridor and Places 29 below the South Fork/Rivanna
River was also given that type of designation. He added that the Neighborhood Model district that the
Board just reviewed for Sue Albrecht on Greenbrier Drive required a convoluted process, and staff is
trying to make that more directly available through zoning changes.
Mr. Thomas said the Neighborhood Model district is more versatile than a lot of others.
Mr. Rooker said that he supported that rezoning, but it took away Light Industrial property. He
said that the flex idea is a very good idea, but the County has to be careful if the goal is to preserve or
increase the availability of LI property.
Ms. Mallek stated that her understanding of flex property is that Light Industrial needed a little
more retail, or a little more than 5% of its area being used for another phase but she wasn’t anticipating
that it be turned over for universal commercial.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Cilimberg said that some of this would be about how there could be a primarily commercial
use with some industrial component or vice versa, primarily industrial use with some retain component.
Mr. Rooker stated that he wasn’t opposed to that concept, but that doesn’t necessarily ensure that
space used by LI users would be created.
Mr. Thomas said that it would provide an option though.
Mr. Rooker said that, in the past, property owners have found that other uses were the highest
and best use.
Ms. Catlin stated that there are decisions that need to be made about implementing the target
industry study once the targets are endorsed but, in the meantime, there are some measures already
being taken including looking at target requirements for sites and buildings and taking that to the next level
of analysis; a detailed sites and buildings inventory to make available what is already here for businesses;
continued work to the zoning and Comp Plan changes; support for existing target enterprises and industry
clusters; and ensuring that any regional work necessary was being done with TJPED, along with the City
and UVA.
Ms. Catlin said that the question before the Board today is whether they agreed with the target
industries recommended by the consultant for Albemarle County, and if not, what changes to the targets
would the Board recommend.
Ms. Mallek asked what TJPED would be taking the lead on, as they should be given as much
responsibility as possible to work on this.
Ms. Catlin said that the first few items need to be done by staff such as the site and building
inventory and zoning changes but most other items would involve TJPED.
Mr. Boyd stated that one of the things he has noticed from the casual observer is that this seems
to be an elitist plan, with a desire to have all rocket scientists and computer analysts and engineers and
people like that, and not everybody’s going to be that. He said that somewhere in the plan it needs to be
better explained that the plan would include accommodations for blue-collar type jobs, or job multipliers.
Ms. Mallek said that some more explanation would be helpful.
Mr. Rooker said that these industries have jobs at all levels.
Ms. Catlin said that staff has not done a good job of helping people understand that is included in
the study.
Ms. Catlin mentioned that she and Ms. Stimart attended the grand opening of the National College
near the airport, and they have five associate degree programs, all of which are aligned really amazingly
well with our targets. She said there are a lot of levels whereby this plan is addressed; however, staff
needs to ensure this is explained to people in a good way.
Mr. Thomas commented that a top priority was taking care of what we have here now, and asked
what kind of communications and contact are kept up with companies like GE, Sperry and State Farm.
Ms. Catlin responded that the County has a program called Albemarle Business First, which took
businesses in the County and divided them into the first hundred, second hundred, etc. Ms. Stimart calls
on them, discusses their needs, what is going on with them, their future plans, what kinds of support they
need, etc.
Mr. Thomas commented that a large company like Sperry could pull up stakes and relocate at any
moment.
Ms. Mallek said that those kinds of things are out of the County’s control, unfortunately.
Mr. Rooker agreed that lines of communication should be kept open, adding that Sperry has
looked at alternate sites but didn’t take them. He agreed that some of this is not subject to the County’s
control.
Ms. Mallek stated that one thing that is subject to their control is the fact that the County wants to
keep this as a place where the CEOs of those branches of these international companies want to live.
She said that is what kept them here when they were threatening to move.
Mr. Thomas agreed that that was the bottom line.
Ms. Catlin said that another strong avenue of communication is staying in close contact with the
Chamber of Commerce, because often they hear things and can be an early warning system for the
County.
Mr. Thomas said it is a plus for the County to have a strong relationship with the Chamber.
Ms. Mallek opened up the public comment period.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking on behalf of the Piedmont
Group of the Sierra Club and said that County economic programs should be judged by the extent to
which they support a vision for a sustainable community in which every resident has an opportunity to live
a good life. Mr. Olivier said that searching for the words “vision” and “goal” in the Younger report finds
none, and the bases for the criteria used to identify target industries are unexplained and it shouldn’t be
assumed they are good for us. He stated that, last June, the Sierra Club released a vision statement that
outlines what they think is good for the community, and one item in that vision is an economy that provides
meaningful and rewarding jobs for all workers. He said the Piedmont Group believes fostering of better
jobs for local residents should be an explicit, primary goal of County economic programs. Mr. Olivier said,
the group does not see that in the target industries report, adding that the Piedmont Group believes the
County should work to provide better jobs for the working poor which was a need described by Mike
Harvey, previous TJPED director. He stated that vision item 3b is maintenance of stable or near-stable
human population size, as human population growth harms the environment, and the consultant’s
recommendation that retaining UVA graduates in high-tech disciplines promotes detrimental growth of our
population. Mr. Olivier said that vision item 3a is active protection of essential natural resources, including
air, water and natural areas, and the consultant claimed that none of the optimal targets would have an
impact on the environment but that statement is fanciful. He added that there needs to be a rigorous
system for assessing the inevitable environmental impacts of economic development proposals and
rezonings if many of the Comp Plan goals are ever to be realized. Mr. Olivier stated that the Piedmont
Group believes that Albemarle County needs to go back to the drawing board in thinking about target
industries.
Ms. Elizabeth Birdash addressed the Board, inviting them and attendees for a free film showing
on May 16; a feature-length documentary entitled, “Growth Busters: Hooked on Growth,” which is very
relevant to the efforts to promote local growth. Ms. Birdash said that criticism of our consumption-
dependent, environmentally degrading, and stress-generating economic system is heresy, but heresies
have had a useful function throughout history. She stated that “Growth Busters” is being hosted by ASAP
and the local Sierra Club, and a number of Charlottesville/Albemarle residents appear in the film including
an Albemarle Supervisor and a few members of City Council. Ms. Birdash said that the film is a mixture of
droll comedy and the horrors that result from our culture’s addiction to consumption and growth and
concludes with a hopeful ending that explored alternative and better ways for living. Ms. Birdash said that
a link to the film’s trailer could be found on ASAP’s website, and the film is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m.
in the McIntire Room of Central Library to be followed by audience discussion.
Mr. Morgan Butler addressed the Board, stating that he was impressed with the great deal of
valuable information contained in the Younger Associates target markets report. He said the report did
help provide a helpful analysis of the types of industries that match the strengths of the County and the
Central Virginia region. Mr. Butler said that, although page 65 of the report contained one paragraph that
stated protection of natural resources and quality of life were considered, that impacts such as traffic,
noise and aesthetics were taken into account, he did not find any further explanation of how those
important items were considered and that is critical information to any discussion of the County’s assets.
Mr. Butler stated that, after hearing from the public today, the Board will be asked to endorse the
recommended target industries, and the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) asked that the
Board make clear that any endorsement of these industries as optimal targets is not an endorsement of
any particular strategy or action for cultivating them and that the Board is committed to evaluating any
proposed policy change or ordinance amendment on its merits after weighing the impacts against its
potential benefits. He emphasized that the target industry report correctly notes that the area’s beautiful
natural environment and desirable quality of life are among its most valuable assets, and whatever is done
to target other assets must protect the irreplaceable ones already here. Mr. Butler also said that the staff
report indicated that one of the apparent needs for industrial land is the manufacturing component that
many of the target industries have and, in addition to considering how to expand the industrial zoning
designation, another solution would be to look at commercial zoning designations and figure out how to
accommodate manufacturing. He added that, if there is a shortage of industrial land for manufacturing but
an abundance of commercial land, the County should figure out how to open up the commercial zoning
category to allow for that shortfall.
TJPED President, Ms. Helen Cauthen, addressed the Board, stating that the report was a
cooperative effort of localities in the Central Virginia region, an eight-county plus City of Charlottesville
regional study. Ms. Cauthen said it is an excellent example of the work that can be done at the regional
level, which is much more efficient and effective than any one jurisdiction or organization trying to do it
solitarily. She stated that the report recommends targets for the region, and TJPED will take the lead in
developing implementation plans for that; however, it will be up to the Board to look at the County’s
chapter and decide how to proceed. Ms. Cauthen emphasized that TJPED’s role is to support the County
in those efforts.
Mr. Jack Marshall addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking on behalf of Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP). Mr. Marshall reported that, last month ASAP pointed out to the
Board that the target industry study failed to provide a vision for the community that would explain why
they would want to market the County to new industries. He said that, while more and bigger businesses
in the County would benefit a few, for most people, the new firms would not improve their lives. Mr.
Marshall stated that, because of a serious flaw in the study, the public is misled about the benefits of
attracting new firms. He said the alleged fiscal benefits for the County are based on the presumption that
the new and expanded industries will recruit the County’s un and under-employed. He said that, if this
were true, it would have fiscal benefits and social benefits, but there is no evidence to support that
premise despite claims of some hidden labor force. Mr. Marshall stated that, what is more likely is a
situation whereby the County’s already low unemployment rate and a lack of fit between the skills needed
for new jobs and the skill sets of residents currently seeking jobs, new industries would hire workers from
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
outside the County or poach from existing businesses which, in turn, would need to hire from outside. He
said that the additional workers and their families would need schools and other expensive infrastructure
and services which are what happened when GE Fanuc came here 15 years ago. He said it is evident
from studies around the country over the past 20 years, confirmed in the ASAP analysis, that tax revenues
from the new workers would not completely pay for the local government services needed. He stated
that, as population grows here, it’s very probable that local taxes will rise, or services will decline, or both.
Mr. Marshall urged the Board not to endorse the study until there is reliable evidence that employees of
the new industries would be the County’s un and under-employed and, if it couldn’t be confirmed, the
target industry should be rejected.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that he is most concerned because the Board
has come a long way in identifying what it wanted to see in terms of businesses and, although the study
has some flaws, the focus that has been placed on sustainable economic development beyond just this
study is critically important. He said that he has heard numerous arguments that new people are going to
ruin the community, and he completely disagrees with that statement adding that people should have the
right to choose to live here. He said that if the County provides the opportunity for people that aren’t
retiring but actually are contributing, he believes that the economic vitality of this region is dependent upon
open doors, and not a moat around Albemarle County. Mr. Williams urged the Board to consider the
TJPED report, as there is a great task being done in economic development in the County and believes
the Board has struck a balance in its Economic Vitality Action Plan. He said that he hoped the Board will
move forward with this.
Mr. John Lowery, Chair of the Economic Development Authority, addressed the Board and
endorsed the Board’s actions and thanked them for the Economic Vitality Action Plan. Mr. Lowery said
that he had recently joined the Virginia Economic Developers Association and attended a conference last
month in Williamsburg at which time he expressed to other attendees that there was a renaissance
happening with Albemarle and business, with the plan making a big difference. He stated that the target
industry study provides a lot of benefit, and the Board will now need to determine how the plan would be
worked. He wished the Board continued success and resolve to take it forward.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek said that several Board members have mentioned the un and underemployed over the
last few months, and said that it should be mentioned on page one if that wording is a priority. She said
that net improvement makes all the difference in the world to the County’s efforts and success.
Mr. Rooker stated that he views this as a multi-stage process, and agreed with speakers
regarding the quality of life, protecting the environment, etc. He said that the potential to employ
unemployed and underemployed is a specific target goal and, as long as that is not detrimental to the
environment and is compatible with natural surroundings, he would look carefully at any prospective future
actions taken in implementing the plan to ensure that those goals are being pursued as part of the
strategy. Mr. Rooker said the Board needed to focus on facts such as “existing business generates 80%
of new jobs,” and look at the possibility of changing designations for existing zonings to accommodate
what the County is trying to do. He said that today the Board is endorsing whether the industries identified
by the study are those that should generally be considered in terms of helping them expand or locate here.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there are a number of financial managers in this area, but that isn’t mentioned
in the study, only transaction processing. He emphasized that there are already several money managers
here, and they bring with them the ability to raise venture capital and put it into start-up companies. Mr.
Rooker added that he felt the target industries groups identified looked pretty good to him.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Rooker, and said in response to the ASAP question of “why is the
County doing this,” the answer is “jobs.” He added that the County wants to increase the quality of living
for those people that don’t have the opportunity that many of us do, with adequate jobs. He pointed out
that this is all about jobs adding that it is the right approach and he supported this, felt strongly that the
Board needs to move forward with it in order to begin implementing the actions that will make it happen.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that what’s happening in the economy is small incubator companies and
entrepreneurs starting businesses, not big companies locating and hiring hundreds of people.
Ms. Mallek said that she would also support the study, as the County will be very careful going
forward about how it will be implemented, and this is extending the quality of life considered from a
theoretical point of view to the people who need better career jobs and improvements in their lives also.
Mr. Thomas and Mr. Snow agreed with what other Supervisors had said.
Mr. Dumler commented that he agreed completely and is eager to see the implementation plan
coming out of TJPED, particularly with result to how this study can be turned into something that focuses
on the un- and underemployed in the community.
Ms. Mallek said that, in the past, there have been changes in industry that had to be overcome
gradually, and said that, with very high performance standards, they can implement the study without
throwing the environment under the bus.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to endorse the target industries, complementary targets,
and business and financial services component, as recommended by the Target Industry Study for
Albemarle County. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(At 4:11 p.m., the Board recessed their meeting, and reconvened it at 4:24 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Community Development 2012 Work Program .
The executive summary forwarded to Board members stated that each year, the Community
Development Department provides the Board and public a summary of major projects, progress on
initiatives, achievements as well as an overview of workload measures and a synopsis of proposed
projects to be undertaken by the Department during the course of the next 12-18 months. The purpose of
this report is to review the Community Development Department’s activities for 2011 and obtain Board
concurrence on priorities for the rem ainder of 2012.
2011 Review
The 2011 Community Development work program was established following Board discussions in
February and April, 2011. While there was agreement with most of the initial staff recommendations, the
Board modified the work program to prioritize amending the critical slopes regulations ahead of Zoning
Ordinance changes for Rural Area Churches. Since the 2011 work program was established, the Board
has identified several new initiatives in 2011 and 2012 that should be included in the 2012 work program.
These include updating the wireless policy and ordinance, as well as ordinances pertaining to noise,
inoperative motor vehicles, transient lodging in the Rural Areas zoning district, and most recently, stream
buffer regulations on intermittent streams in the Development Areas within water supply protection areas.
Attachment B provides a five year history of department resources and workload for Community
Development’s primary functions. As illustrated by the graphs, the number of 2011 plan reviews and
inspections continued to rise with the economic recovery that started in 2009. While the workload is still
less than the long-term average levels for many programs, staffing levels were adjusted downward in
2007-2009 and have not increased since then. As shown in the bottom graphs for each program, starting
on the second page of Attachment B, the applications per staff member are now exceeding that seen
during the height of the building boom for many programs. Process improvements and internal efficiency
efforts have made this possible, but the quality of reviews and staff morale requires careful monitoring if
this trend continues. Meanwhile, the data demonstrates that Community Development maintains a limited
capacity for additional policy-related work program initiatives.
With respect to the 2011 work program as shown in Attachment A, staff notes completion of the
following major projects:
- Places 29 Master Plan
- Phases 1 and 2 of the light industrial zoning ordinance changes
- Agricultural roundtables (for both the Economic Vitality Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan
update)
- Updates to Home Occupation Regulations and associated Zoning Ordinance fees
- Establishment of simplified ARB administrative processes
- Streamlining of the County’s farm winery regulations
- Redistricting of magisterial districts pursuant to the 2010 U.S. Census
- Sign ordinance changes that were adopted by the Board in March, 2012.
The ministerial and legislative process changes have been delayed due to workload issues;
however, this has proven somewhat fortunate. The recent Sinclair Court decision limited the role of staff
and the Planning Commission for waivers and modifications, requiring staff to modify the Zoning
Ordinance to match the proposed process changes to the recent court decision. It is possible that Sinclair
holds the potential to address some of the Board’s intended streamlining goals. A draft of the Zoning
Ordinance changes is now being completed and staff has scheduled a work session on ministerial
changes with the Planning Commission for May 15th and anticipates this reaching the Board for public
hearing in July. The legislative changes are following a month later. Work on the critical slopes has
progressed to the point that staff is now preparing for roundtables to share the concepts and anticipates
this to be before the Planning Commission in May and the Board by August.
Finally, Community Development completed an internal restructuring in 2011. This was done
because the department has lost 26 positions in the last 4 years and staff believed that the department
could improve service delivery by flattening the department. This restructuring was completed several
months ago and appears to have been accomplished rather seamlessly, as evidenced by the fact that no
customer complaints have been received regarding the structure changes. The resulting organization
structure is provided in Attachment C. For the Board’s purposes, the same people continue to function as
the Director, Building Official, County Engineer, Planning Director, and Zoning Administrator, and the
contacts for issues remain unchanged.
2012 Work Program
Community Development’s work program for policy-related matters is typically driven by two
factors. First, priority is given to allocating available staff resources to address the plan reviews, which is
the department’s core function. Once mandated plan review needs are met, all policy-related work
program initiatives are staffed/addressed based on available slack resources and priority. Second, the
amount of public participation affects resource demands and capacity to undertake projects/initiatives.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Public participation is essential for quality products and public trust, but it is also time consuming and
resource intensive. Staff attempts to designate the amount of public participation based on the nature of
the initiative. For example, the recent ZTA for auto body shops on Highways Commercial zoned property
is a successful example of an abbreviated process, requiring only three months from start to finish. On the
other hand, the recent ZTA for farm sales is an example of a process requiring considerable public
involvement, extensive staff time, and eight months to complete. From experience, staff has learned that
attempts to shortcut the process for controversial issues is usually counterproductive, often resulting in
multiple public hearings, increased resource demands, increased public distrust, and delays to other
initiatives.
Staff’s recommended 2012 Work Program is provided as Attachment D. In drafting the proposed
work program, staff has prioritized initiatives based on: 1) mandates, 2) existing County policy, 3) ongoing
efforts, and 4) Board direction on new initiatives. For example, the Economic Vitality Action Plan is an
existing policy (#2), while a review of the Comprehensive Plan is mandated by Virginia law (#1), and
changes to the wireless policy are a new initiative (#4). Staff’s prioritization reflects previous Board input
and ongoing priorities that it had previously established and is more fully described below:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update – recognizes the recent Board work sessions directed staff
to maintain the original work plan. Staff anticipates this will be presented to the Board in
the first quarter of 2013.
2. Stormwater Management – Placeholder for anticipated mandates required as a result of
the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Staff anticipates this will be
presented to the Board in the second quarter of 2013.
3. Economic Vitality Action Plan –
a. Industrial Uses Phase 3 – Broaden allowed uses. Staff anticipates this will be
presented to the Board in the fourth quarter of 2012.
b. Industrial Uses Phase 4 - Land use changes based on updated Comprehensive
Plan. This is expected to be undertaken once the Board adopts its updated
Comprehensive Plan.
c. Ministerial Process Changes – site plans/subdivisions. Staff anticipates this will
be presented to the Board in the third quarter of 2012.
d. Legislative Process Changes – rezonings/special use permits. Staff anticipates
this will be presented to the Board in the third quarter of 2012.
4. Critical Slopes Modifications – Completion of ongoing efforts. Staff anticipates this will be
presented to the Board in the third quarter of 2012.
5. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – The proposed contract with the consultant has
been established and the notice to proceed is in the process of being issued. The final
schedule is currently being finalized by the consultant.
6. Transient Lodging/B&B’s in the Rural Areas – Staff anticipates this will be presented to
the Board in June 2012,
7. Inoperative Motor Vehicles – Defer to 2013. Legislative priority to provide same authority
as some other counties.
8. Noise Regulations – Scheduled for a Planning Commission work session in June. The
schedule for Board action is not yet established.
9. Rural Areas Churches – remove special use permit requirement for most situations. No
schedule is established.
10. Zoning Ordinance Recodification - Simplify zoning ordinance. Major task recommended
for 2013. Work not yet fully scoped; however, is expected to be finalized in 4th quarter of
2012.
The work program is intended to rely on available staff resources. No additional budget impact is
anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed 2012 Work Program (Attachment D) and
concur with its program phasing and prioritization.
_____
Mr. Mark Graham, Executive Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, stating
that he would review the progress with the current program, look at staff availability for next year’s
program, set priorities, and get the work program established by balancing the resources against the
priorities. He reported that the work program fits in with other initiatives, with the first priority being
mandated items including all ordinance enforcement and that typically consumes 85%-95% of time, with
the remainder dedicated to the work program. Mr. Graham said that, over the last several years,
Community Development, has had an almost 1/3 staff reduction, and the reduction in applications is
smaller than the reductions in staff so there has actually been increased workload on a per-staff member
basis. He stated that the department is back up to about 85% of volume in the heyday of the building
boom in 2006-07 and, in looking at applications in terms of inspectors or zoning inspectors, the workload
is getting a little on the high side, but efficiencies and process improvements have addressed a lot of that.
Mr. Rooker asked how many of those applications are new construction as opposed to renovation.
Mr. Graham responded that the quarterly reports include that information in terms of both
numbers and dollar value of construction.
Mr. Graham reported that there had been a drop off in ARB applications when the economic
slowdown hit but, when adjusting on staffing levels, staff is performing at a higher workload than they were
during the building boom. Mr. Graham stated that Margaret Maliszewski lost support in her division, and
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
now does everything that had once been covered by a number of staff members. He said she does have
one support person now to back her up in handling applications; however, he is also dedicated to other
tasks. He said it gets kind of thin at times.
Mr. Graham stated that there has been a significant drop-off with family subdivisions and other
small rural subdivisions, and the actual number of site plans is in line with 2007. He said that, in looking at
the level in terms of applications by planner or engineer, the workload is actually up but there is always the
qualitative question as to whether the applications are as big or as complicated, which cannot be
answered at this level of review.
Mr. Graham reported that the legislative applications which include rezonings and special use
permits are down, with the peak happening in 2010. He said applications per planner are down this year
which has provided some resources to do some of the work program initiatives.
Ms. Mallek asked if staff has seen any improvement in the quality of applications since instituting
the high bar to get in the door, with applicants providing better information up front.
Mr. Graham replied that there has been an improvement, but his assessment was anecdotal. He
said that one of the big changes was how zoning fees were implemented so that the submission and one
additional resubmission only are covered by the initial fee, with a separate fee for each additional
resubmission after that. He said that has kind of driven up the quality of the applications and there is a lot
less arguing about things back and forth through application submittals. He added that he thought it was
saving some staff time.
Mr. Graham reported that water ordinance protection applications, such as erosion and sediment
control permits or storm water permits or stream buffer mitigations, are actually back up to what was seen
pre-recession, and the workload per inspector or reviewer is higher than during the building boom. He
said that the zoning workload has experienced a slight decrease, but the zoning violations – which are
always the most time-intensive – are still fairly high per inspector, although the efficiencies developed
have made staff a lot more effective with the process. Mr. Graham confirmed for Mr. Boyd that this area
is complaint driven, but said that sometimes the complaints can come from staff during erosion and
sediment control inspections and other responsibilities.
Mr. Graham reported that the key performance indicators for Community Development were done
before the County started reporting on them and, in the past quarter and for the first time, the department
met all of its targets. He said he attributes this to staff stability now. He said staffing has been very
stable for about six months now which makes all the difference in the world when there is stability in staff.
Mr. Rooker congratulated Mr. Graham and the department.
Mr. Graham reported that, in looking at last year’s workload and resources, he said that
development activity is slowly trending up with slight increases in the number of applications although no
signs of a boom. He said that workload and staff capacity are fairly well matched, with the department
meeting key performance indicators. Mr. Graham emphasized that he is planning to maintain current
programs and is not looking to reintroduce any of the enhanced services such as drought groundwater
monitoring and stream buffer assistance, all of which were ended when the downturn began.
Ms. Mallek said that, if that is data staff would like to have, perhaps volunteers such as the master
naturalists could provide some assistance in this area.
Mr. Graham responded that they had considered that but were very nervous about that because
of calibration of equipment and other checking that would have to be done. He said it is a fairly extensive
program in that regard. He added that, with volunteers, there was a lot of turnover and trying to maintain
data integrity became very difficult. Mr. Graham added that the USGS has some real-time data for certain
groundwater wells, one in Orange County and another in Buckingham County, and that has helped
Albemarle establish a bracket for groundwater capacity in this area. He said staff tries to do workarounds
on these things wherever possible.
Mr. Graham reported that the first priorities in the 2012 work program are, as always, legal
mandates, which means ordinance enforcement. He said that the conservation easement monitoring
program is something that staff is always trying to keep up with, along with the Comp Plan updates and
implementation of the second phase of the TMDL legislation going from the state to the EPA, with state
storm water regulations going into effect in 2013. Mr. Graham said that, regarding County initiatives, a lot
of those items are working with the Economic Vitality Action Plan, with ministerial process changes going
to the Planning Commission next month and legislative process changes following on the heels of that.
He stated that staff is looking at additional work beyond what was originally planned with industrial uses,
currently considering expansion of industrial uses into other districts to provide flexibility for landowners.
He said that the critical slopes effort is moving forward, noting that there is a very interesting recent
Supreme Court case that might impact how this might be handled and that may throw the timeline off. Mr.
Graham stated that the wireless policy and process changes are moving forward, and staff will be sitting
down in early June with the industry to try to review the process changes in light of any policy changes.
Regarding critical slopes, Ms. Mallek stated that she wasn’t sure the Board should be in a rush to
approve a lot of waivers now that might be found to be out of compliance in the near future.
Mr. Graham noted that there is ongoing committee support through advisory councils, PACC, and
the MPO.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Mr. Graham reported that plans for future years include attention to the RA churches, trying to find
circumstances in which they could eliminate special use permits and rely on supplemental regulations for
dealing with those. Mr. Graham said that the coming year would include the implementation of Comp Plan
strategies, Zoning Ordinance re-codification, revisiting the water protection ordinance to include TMDL
and review of the report entitled ‘Before the Storm’ which the Board had asked staff to look at, and also
ARB guideline updates to make that process easier for applicants.
Mr. Boyd asked where interstate interchanges fall into this work plan.
Mr. Graham responded that it would fall under the Comprehensive Plan implementation, which is
slated for next year, due to the fact that the Board had requested staff not break that item out from the rest
of the Comprehensive Plan process. That item is scheduled to come before the Board early in 2013
followed by the implementation of the strategies that come out of the Comp Plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if there were enough Board members to move that item up to a higher priority
over the rest of the Comp Plan changes.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Board had voted a few meetings ago to leave it where it was, and Mr.
Graham confirmed that staff had taken direction from the Board to leave the process the way it was and
move forward.
Ms. Mallek asked if the church item covers usual, customary church activity, and not necessarily
everything a church wants to do.
Mr. Graham responded that it was not for every activity a church would want to do, and not
necessarily all churches, i.e., with size of the church and additional uses being considerations.
Mr. Dumler asked where the full master planning for neighborhoods 4, 5, 6 and 7 would fall.
Mr. Graham stated he would expect that to come out of the Comp Plan update with some
direction on that, and a detailed master planning would be part of the implementation. He said it will be
very important for the Board to prioritize and provide direction because there will be a lot of challenges to
that.
Mr. Graham said, regarding the work program chart, staff is asking the Board to review the
program and concur with the prioritization.
Mr. Rooker asked about the organizational chart Mr. Graham presented, specifically the positions
of Management Analyst and Assistant to Director under the Director of Community Development, and
asked if people are reporting to those positions or directly to the Director.
Mr. Graham responded that he has seven direct reports, with the Management Analyst and
Assistant to Director having no reports. He noted that all of the development review will fall into Mr.
Cilimberg and Mr. Benish’s department.
Mr. Boyd said that it would be helpful to have a time motion study either for a short period of time
or longer, because the meaningful information to him would be how many man hours are put in per
project.
Ms. Mallek asked if that would be the starting point by which staff generated the information for
development fees, such as the staff investment of time, how much it would cost, and 50% return.
Mr. Graham responded that staff did a fairly detailed analysis when they were doing the original
fee study, but it is not an ongoing collection of data.
Mr. Rooker clarified that Mr. Boyd wasn’t seeking an ongoing program, he was looking for a
snapshot. He said it might be helpful to get that report.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to look at what was generated before.
Mr. Graham said he had all of that information from a historical perspective, although the data
was about six years old, and they had staff keep track of time.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Graham was present for the Natural Heritage Committee’s report.
Mr. Graham responded that they seemed to be looking for GIS assistance, but pointed out that
GIS staff is down two people and the workload really hasn’t decreased much. He said that GIS staff have
some other efforts they could prioritize against that, such as helping police with their routes and crime
reporting.
Ms. Mallek said that the Planning District Commission has the GIS function, and perhaps they
could do this for the County as part of what is already being paid to them. She said that they had good
environmental people on staff, and it would be great to have an answer from them on that before
considering other options.
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Graham responded that staff could take that to the Planning District to see if they had any
resources available to help with this.
Mr. Rooker said that the Natural Heritage Committee is asking for a way to create a GIS overlay
of information that they have generated, in order to incorporate it into the County’s system.
Mr. Graham stated that staff had worked with them on that in the past and have tried for a while to
use interns, but found that, with turnover, there wasn’t enough staff stability to provide a good product for
the committee.
Mr. Snow said that his impression from Mr. Graham’s report is that his staff is pretty well slammed
and, in order to add anything else to this, something would have to come off the list.
Mr. Graham said that people are still smiling as they’re coming in the door in the mornings but
they are working pretty much at capacity.
Mr. Foley said staff would like to keep the work plan steady for a while in order to get some things
off the plate, and are thus recommending staff go with this plan and start making some progress and
knocking things off the list.
Mr. Graham stated that they are anxious to get some of these items off the list, especially the
ministerial and legislative process improvements.
Mr. Foley commented that a lot of things will start coming off of the list, and that will make a
difference.
Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to accept the proposed 2012 Work Program and to concur
with its prioritization. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Mr. Snow thanked Mr. Graham and the staff for doing such a great job to turn all these things out
that the Board is constantly asking for.
Mr. Boyd said that he was going to vote against the work plan, not because of staff’s efforts, but
because of the prioritization by some of the Board members.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
_______________
(Note: At this time the Board returned to Item 8.4 from the consent agenda.)
Regarding a question from Mr. Rooker, Ms. Allshouse reported that there is funding for the
Presidential Primary through FY12, with $55,000 in a contingency account for the June primary and an
anticipation of reimbursement from the state for $54,000.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the $1.178 million in the CIP was from FY11, and had been set aside
for some debt service payment that wasn’t needed in FY11 and, in FY12, the debt service was covered
which then freed that money up for pay-as-you-go. Ms. Allshouse said that there was no specific
allocation, so the funds supported pay-as-you-go projects in whole, which are generally maintenance and
replacement projects where cash is more desirable.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Snow, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to approve appropriations
#2012037, #2012068, #2012069, #2012070, #2012071, #2012072, and #2012075. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
APP #2012037
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: FY11 General Fund Allocation Transfer to Debt and Capital Reconciliation
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 93010 493010 930010 9999 589,288.00 Transfer to Gen Govt Capital Fund
4 1000 93010 493010 930004 9999 589,288.00 Transfer to Sch Capital Fund
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 1,178,576.00 Approp Fund Balance
3 9010 51000 351000 512004 9999 589,288.00 General Fund Transfer to Gen Govt CIP
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 6599 (589,288.00) Fund Balance
3 9000 69000 351000 512004 6599 589,288.00 General Fund Transfer to Sch CIP
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
3 9000 69000 351000 510100 6599 (589,288.00) Fund Balance
TOTAL 2,357,152.00
APP #2012068
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Proffer Appropriations:
Old Trail Proffer: (a) Crozet Greenway Projects and (b) Crozet Elementary School ADA Entrance Ramp
Hollymead C Proffer, Hollymead D Proffer, Hollymead Town Center A1 Proffer, North Pointe Proffer, & UVA Research
Park Proffer: Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AM OUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9000 69000 351000 510100 6599 (24,016.44) Approp Fund Balance
3 9000 51000 351000 512054 9999 24,016.44 Proffer, Old Trail
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 (157,183.17) Approp Fund Balance
3 9010 51000 351000 512054 9999 24,146.44 Proffer, Old Trail
3 9010 51000 351000 512046 9999 62,264.79 Proffer, Hollymead C
3 9010 51000 351000 512053 9999 31,146.37 Proffer, Hollymead D
3 9010 51000 351000 512066 9999 31,056.42 Proffer, Hollymead Town Center A1
3 9010 51000 351000 512069 9999 8,451.43 Proffer, North Pointe
3 9010 51000 351000 512037 9999 117.72 Proffer, UVA Research Park
4 8537 93010 493010 930004 9999 24,016.44 Old Trail-Trsf to Sch CIP
4 8537 93010 493010 930010 9999 24,016.44 Old Trail-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8537 15000 315000 150101 9999 4.35 Old Trail Interest
3 8537 18937 318000 189924 9999 13,000.00 Old Trail Proffer
3 8537 51000 451000 510100 9999 35,028.53 Old Trail Fund Balance
4 8527 93010 493010 930010 9999 62,264.79 Hollymead C-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8527 15000 315000 150101 9999 9.15 Hollymead C Interest
3 8527 18917 318000 189911 9999 4,761.90 Hollymead C Proffer
3 8527 51000 451000 510100 9999 57,493.74 Hollymead C Fund Balance
4 8528 93010 493010 930010 9999 31,146.37 Hollymead D-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8528 15000 315000 150101 9999 4.86 Hollymead D Interest
3 8528 51000 451000 510100 9999 31,141.51 Hollymead D Fund Balance
4 8545 93010 493010 930010 9999 31,056.42 Hollymead A1-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8545 15000 315000 150101 9999 11.89 Hollymead A1 Interest
3 8545 51000 451000 510100 9999 31,044.53 Hollymead A1 Fund Balance
4 8538 93010 493010 930010 9999 8,451.43 North Pointe-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8538 51000 451000 510100 9999 8,451.43 North Pointe Fund Balance
4 8525 93010 493010 930010 9999 117.72 UVA Research Park-Trsf to Gen. Govt.
CIP
3 8525 51000 451000 510100 9999 117.72 UVA Research Park Fund Balance
TOTAL 362,139.21
APP #2012069
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Police Grant (Grant 2011-SHSP CBRNE)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1239 24000 324000 240056 1003 $16,990.00 State VDEM revenue
4 1239 31013 431030 800100 1003 $16,990.00 Machinery and Equipment
TOTAL 33,980.00
APP #2012-070
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from the School Board meeting on March 22, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 871.97 Contributions
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
3 2000 62000 351000 510100 6599 50,740.00 Appropriation - Fund Balance
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 250.00 Misc Revenues
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 3,544.05 Misc Revenues
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 6,288.00 Contributions
4 2000 62251 461101 301210 6251 250.00 Burley - Contract Services
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 810.00 Henley - Stipends - Staff/Cur. Dev.
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 61.97 Henley - FICA
4 2000 62252 461101 800100 6252 6,288.00 Henley - Machinery & Equip.
4 2000 62301 461101 301210 6301 2,045.00 AHS - Contract Services
4 2000 62301 461101 550100 6301 838.47 AHS - Travel-Mileage
4 2000 62301 461101 601300 6301 406.79 AHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62301 461101 800100 6301 225.81 AHS - Machinery & Equip.
4 2000 62301 461105 420100 6301 18,576.94 AHS - Field Trip Mileage
4 2000 62301 461411 600100 6301 27.98 AHS - Office Supplies
4 2000 62302 461105 420100 6302 16,616.26 WAHS - Field Trip Mileage
4 2000 62304 461105 420100 6304 15,546.80 MHS - Field Trip Mileage
3 3104 63104 318000 189900 6599 40,000.00 Misc Revenues
4 3104 63104 461101 132100 6599 1,087.50 PT/Wages - Teacher
4 3104 63104 461101 210000 6599 83.50 FICA
4 3104 63104 461101 312500 6599 18,425.00 Prof. Serv. Instructional
4 3104 63104 461101 600220 6599 5,600.00 Student Snacks/Meals
4 3104 63104 461101 600260 6599 500.00 Food Meals for Meetings
4 3104 63104 461101 601300 6599 14,304.00 Ed/Rec Supplies
3 3159 63159 318120 189913 6599 19,710.00 Misc Revenues
4 3159 63159 461102 800700 6599 19,710.00 ADP Equipment
TOTAL 242,808.04
APP #2012-071
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriate funds for March 2012 Presidential Primary
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 24000 324000 240810 1001 54,197.16 State Reimbursement
4 1000 13020 413020 120000 1001 2,831.17 Overtime
4 1000 13020 413020 312510 1001 27,361.00 Election Officials
4 1000 13020 413020 331607 1001 17,842.58 R&M - Voting Machines
4 1000 13020 413020 360000 1001 1,982.88 Advertising
4 1000 13020 413020 390000 1001 2,803.65 Other Purchased Services
4 1000 13020 413020 520300 1001 39.00 Telecommunications
4 1000 13020 413020 540200 1001 250.00 Lease/Rent Buildings
4 1000 13020 413020 550100 1001 294.75 Travel/Training/Education
4 1000 13020 413020 600100 1001 493.59 Office Supplies
4 1000 13020 413020 601700 1001 298.54 Copy Expense
TOTAL 108,394.32
APP #2012-072
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reallocating $40,000.00 to the Rivanna Trail Bridge (Old Mill Trail Bridges) project from the Pantops Master Plan
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9010 81110 481020 950560 1240 (40,000.00) Pantops Master Plan
4 9010 71020 471020 950263 7100 40,000.00 Rivanna Trail Bridges (Old Mill Trail)
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2012075
DATE 05/02/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Allocate funds from Grant Leveraging Fund to USDOT Airport grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 99900 499000 999974 9999 (7,000.00) Grants Leveraging Fund
4 1000 89000 489000 568100 1008 7,000.00 CA Airport - USDOT Airport
TOTAL 0.00
_______________
May 2, 2012 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
Agenda Item No. 26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Thomas said that he would like to commemorate the late Charles Martin in some way, as he
was the first African American to serve as Chair to the School Board and as Chair on the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Rooker said that a plaque would definitely be appropriate in addition to a resolution, and Board
members discussed the possibility of naming a street for him in the future.
_____
Mr. Dumler mentioned that the following day before the TJPDC meeting there would be a
presentation, movie and snacks provided by UVA students on local food heritage from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at
the Water Street Center.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn to May 9, 2012, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
At 5:03 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn the meeting
until May 9, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in Room 241 of the County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/01
Initials: EWJ