2012-06-06June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 6,
2012, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan.
Agenda Item No. 1. 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.
Ms. Mallek stated that there are two additions to the agenda - Agenda Item No. 6b. Recognition:
Proclamation recognizing June 14, 2012 as Flag Day, and Agenda Item 8.10a, Resolution in Support of
Proposal to Subsidize Private Internet Provider.
It was the consensus of the Board to accept the final agenda, as amended.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Mr. Rooker mentioned an email Board members received from Mr. Lonnie Murray, dated April 24,
2012, regarding rural rustic roads and the Pave in Place Program. He thinks that Mr. Murray had made
some good ideas that should be considered. One suggestion was to change the County’s policy so that a
reasonable minority of landowners in opposition to paving a road is enough to remove it from the list.
Another suggestion was to proactively engage the Charlottesville Track Club, Charlottesville Area
Mountain Biking Club to make sure the County is not removing any resources that are highly used and
needed by the thousands of runners and cyclists that depend on them.
He asked if there was a consensus of the Board to take a look at some of the suggestions and
consider adopting parts of them into the County’s policy.
Ms. Mallek agreed especially with staff adding projects to the list from one person but it does not
necessarily get that wider view until much later on.
Mr. Foley suggested having Mr. David Benish take a look at the suggestions and follow-up with
VDOT, and then report back to the Board.
Mr. Dumler said during the recent Six Year Road Plan update Mr. Benish mentioned that as part
of the update of the Comprehensive Plan, staff would be looking at specific policy language pertaining to
the Pave in Place Program. He suggested rolling that into this process.
Mr. Foley said staff can report back on whether any parts of this can be part of the County’s policy
or if there are challenges.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with doing that but he does not necessarily agree with all items
mentioned in the list.
Mr. Rooker said he also does not necessarily agree with all of them. Another suggestion was to
ask VDOT to use funds to spot pave problem areas instead of paving the whole road.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that she attended PVCC’s recent graduation services and 47% of the students
are from Albemarle County and 100 of them plan to attend U.Va. She added that there have been more
than 10,000 graduates of PVCC in the 39 years it has been in business. PVCC is a wonderful neighbor
and important part of the community.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that in the Farm Bureau Monthly Magazine there is an announcement about a
bill passed to clear up “farm use vehicle confusion.” This is a concern of unlicensed, unregistered and
uninsured vehicles out on the roads with that little farm use tag that you can buy in the drug store. She
read from the legislation: “The provisions of this section allowing farm use vehicles shall only apply to
pick-up trucks, panel trucks, support utility vehicles, vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating greater
than 7,500 pounds, and trailers and semi-trailers.” She also said that the Police Department, when
enforcing the law, must be able to see that the work being done is related to agriculture. She said the tag
is designed for the heavy farm vehicles, not for the over-the-road going to the grocery store.
_____
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Thomas announced that both times he and the Zoning Department staff have gone to
Rockydale Quarry to do a sound reading with a decibel meter, the machines broke down. They are trying
to schedule another reading and take some residents down into the Quarry so they can see what is in the
pit. They are trying to create a relationship between the Quarry employees and the residents.
_____
Mr. Thomas reported that this past week residents of Rio Heights received a letter about Lochlyn
development going into the old sewage treatment plant, located on Penn Park Lane. Eleven acres of the
property is located in the County and is by-right. The portion that is located in the City of Charlottesville
has to be rezoned. He has a meeting scheduled with the residents of Rio Heights on Saturday, June 9th.
He added that the development will create a lot of traffic on that part of Rio Road.
Mr. Rooker said that the split with Meadow Creek Parkway would help greatly.
Mr. Thomas added that getting traffic off of Pantops would help the situation, but anything going
back onto Route 250 will quadruple the problem. It is a long term planning process to get an eastern
connector somewhere.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions: a: 2012 Business Appreciation Week.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation:
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK 2012
WHEREAS, Governor Robert F. McDonnell has recognized June 4 – 8, 2012 as BUSINESS
APPRECIATION WEEK in the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and called this
observance to the attention of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, economic vitality is a stated goal of Albemarle County’s Strategic Plan and an important
component of our Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County businesses play a pivotal role in strengthening our County by embracing
job creation, innovative technologies, and employing a diverse workforce to preserve the
economic well-being of all our citizens; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County applauds the success of local businesses that provide economic
opportunity while supporting the County’s goals and values of resource protection and an
attractive, vibrant, and livable community; and
WHEREAS, the theme for Business Appreciation Week 2012 is “The Year of the Entrepreneur”, and this
focus enables us to celebrate the many ways in which entrepreneurs positively impact our
economy and our community’s quality of life; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is very pleased to recognize the accomplishments of our many and varied
entrepreneurs, and to appreciate the many small businesses that have started up or
expanded here in the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize
June 4 – 8, 2012
as
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK
in the County of Albemarle, and express our appreciation to our local, regional and state
business partners for their valuable contributions to our community.
Signed and sealed this 5th day of June, 2012
*****
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
addressed the Board, stating that the theme for this year is “The Year of the Entrepreneur,” which is
particularly appropriate for the County because of the recognition that entrepreneurial energy and
innovation is the cornerstone of the County’s economy. Ms. Catlin reported that in 2008, the County had
153 new start-up firms, and in 2009 and 2010 there were about 130 new start-ups. In 2011 there were 145
start-ups. She stated that staff invited four Albemarle entrepreneurials to demonstrate the kind of job
growth, commitment to the local community, and innovation in a variety of industry clusters.
Ms. Catlin introduced Mikro Systems, a great example of leveraging intellectual capital to keep
industry local. From its founding in Albemarle County in 2001 with just a few employees, Mikro Systems
has been in a high growth mode, growing from 15 in 2009 to 40 employees in 2012, but the Company has
maintained its steadfast focus on keeping investment and jobs here in the County. Through the
development of cutting edge and highly desirable manufacturing processes that can be adapted to a
myriad of products and applications, Mikro has gained the attention of leading industry corporations and
successfully persuaded an international manufacturing partner to locate their operation here in the County
instead of moving from the community. In addition to the founders’ proven commitment to the region, their
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
story is also a success story for government partnerships. Initially started with angel investors funding,
Mikro went on to successfully win over $8 million in Federal Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
grants. She then introduced Mr. Mike Appleby, CEO, and thanked him for being present.
Mr. Appleby thanked Ms. Catlin for the introduction. He also thanked the County and the State for
the partnership that has existed since Mikro Systems was founded in 2000. They began their operations
in 2001; today they have 40 employees. They think the licensing and manufacturing business partnership
and deal with Siemens Energy could create another 50-100 jobs in the County over the next few years.
He thanked the Board for inviting them to come and be recognized. He also thanked Ms. Catlin and Ms.
Susan Stimart for doing great work with the company in finding good ways to help their business.
Mr. Appleby said when the company was founded, they wanted to have business wins, they
wanted to be successful entrepreneurs and successful business owners, but that success is not just
measured in how much wealth is created by the founders or what the shareholders get in return on their
investment, but also on the jobs that are created. He then introduced Mr. Jim Atkinson, who he formed
the company with on a handshake in his kitchen in 2000. One of their commitments to each other was to
give back to the community, and that is really a rewarding experience – seeing the job creation, and hiring
people that were laid off from other businesses in the County.
Mr. Appleby said they are a manufacturing company and want to help the County grow that base.
They are about making things, not just moving information around.
Ms. Catlin then introduced Lewis & Clark Pharmaceuticals, a great example of a continuing
commitment to the local biotech community. This pharmaceutical research and development team has
been together for over 10 years in various capacities and ventures. The group has stayed committed to
our community’s biotech industry through several reincarnations, most recently as a locally-based, newly
formed venture called Lewis & Clark Pharmaceuticals, which focuses on early stage pharmaceutical
development for addressing the areas of arthritis, diabetes, glaucoma, and atherosclerosis. In January
2012, Lewis and Clark entered into a five-year research agreement with UVA to conduct pharmacological
studies. The County’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is greatly enriched when highly desirable and skilled
talent like the Lewis & Clark Pharmaceuticals team stays an active and contributing part of the knowledge
economy. Ms. Catlin then introduced Mr. Robert Thompson with Lewis & Clark.
Mr. Thompson said he first came to Albemarle County in 2001 as a consultant and then his family
moved here with him in 2002. The company recently was purchased by Forest Laboratories, a large
pharmaceutical company from New York which kept products that were developed that are currently in
clinical trials and made a decision to shut down Albemarle facilities as well as those in Connecticut. He
explained that as he saw that starting to occur in this area, he became concerned about the lives of
people who have spent so much time with the company, and the loss of intellectual property and hard
work that has gone into new ideas – so through some effort he was able to strike up an arrangement by
which his company was able to keep all of the equipment and facilities along with eight full-time
employees. Mr. Thompson added that there are also two full-time technicians and three-part time
technicians. He said that the name of the company reflects the discovery encouraged by Lewis & Clark,
and since they began they have developed new technology and have made good progress – including a
pending agreement with Forest Labs for one of the compounds developed and new technology that will
enable further licensing to bigger companies to develop. Mr. Thompson added that they hope to maintain
a working relationship at U.Va. that will enable the company to use the University’s resources, noting that
a significant challenge in his industry is the inability to take ideas from a university and get them into
clinical trials.
Ms. Susan Stimart, Economic Development Facilitator, introduced Cellular Materials International,
a small, but growing entrepreneurial research and development company that has been engaged in
developing novel solutions for infrastructure protection using seed technology developed by the
engineering department at the University of Virginia. Currently, CMI is partnering with UVA’s School of
Architecture on a program to address and tackle a different and far-reaching problem – home destruction
caused by natural disaster. To advance UVA’s goal of creating low-cost modular housing capable of
being deployed quickly, CMI has invented an especially sturdy yet lightweight roofing product that
accompanies a UVA-designed modular home for addressing natural disaster remediation. CMI is looking
to take their product to the commercial market and fulfill its long-term aspiration of becoming an Albemarle
based manufacturer. She then introduced Mr. Bob Baskin.
Mr. Baskin said that the company is low key in part because of their security clearance. The
company is in a time of transition and until now has received most of its funding from SBIR and other
programs through the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.
He said that in the past the company designed armor, specifically intended for protection of vehicles from
underbelly IED blasts and protection of critical infrastructure such as bridges from high intensity close in-
blasts. Mr. Baskin stated that the market is changing, and recently they have been working with the
School of Architecture to develop modular, low cost, energy efficient, emergency housing that can be
shipped anywhere in the world to disaster zones. He said that the first prototype from this effort is being
delivered to Haiti. CMI has developed, designed and fabricated roof material with a very high R-value,
light weight, low cost, easy to install and able to span fairly large distances. They are still in the primary
stages of product development. Mr. Baskin said they expect some significant growth in this part of their
business.
Mr. Baskin said they are impressed with the County’s willingness to help grow small businesses
like CMI, as embodied by Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart’s work to create connections throughout the
community. He stated that their staff has grown from eight to 13 employees since 2008, with revenues
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
increasing from $1.2 million to $4.5 million. They look forward to working with County representatives as
the company continues to grow.
Ms. Stimart said that using just 4.5 acres in North Garden, The Farm at Red Hill using just 4.5
has maximized its output and value-added food with the use of green houses and on-site processing of
hummus and salsas. According to a “Locallectual” writer, the growth at The Farm at Red Hill’s market
share has been rapid: “In my realm of cognizance, the farm went from being present only at my
University’s meetings to being sold in practically every grocery store in town to speaking at food-related
events in Charlottesville.” The Farm at Red Hill sells as far north as New Jersey. Using profits from their
business sales in Whole Foods and elsewhere, The Farm at Red Hill is able to provide their salsas and
hummus in the local schools, at cost, bringing fresh and healthy food to the community’s children.
Ms. Stimart then introduced farm owners, Richard and Wendy Harrison.
Mr. Harrison said that their mission statement is to encourage other small farms. They currently
serve about 60 stores in the Mid-Atlantic. Their mission is to also introduce children to new foods so they
miniaturized their products and give them to the schools at the cost of the ingredients. Mr. Harrison said
that this year they had first grade classes come and do tours of their greenhouse. They also team with
U.Va. by allowing their garden club to use their greenhouses as well as manufacturing for Aramark , who
does food service for U.Va. He stated that they also sponsor the area’s women’s four-miler run. He said
that The Farm at Red Hill encourages the growth of other small area farms. This year they will take in
over $1 million in sales.
Ms. Harrison thanked the County for the acknowledgement. Ms. Harrison said that they have had
a really good time building the business up, starting with the City Market six years ago to where they are
now. She emphasized that the farmer’s market is a great incubator for small businesses and helped bring
them exposure to many consumers. Ms. Harrison thanked the County for its support of farming and Ms.
Stimart for her help.
_____
b. Proclamation recognizing June 14, 2012 as Flag Day.
Ms. Mallek read and presented the following proclamation to Mr. Robert Stroh, Co-Chair of the
Downtown Business Association, and to Sgt. Richard Lambert of the U.S. Army:
FLAG DAY
June 14, 2012
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, we will observe the 235th birthday of the flag of the United States of
America. This day of remembrance provides a time for our county to reflect on our flag's rich
history and its meaning to us and people around the country; and
WHEREAS, the Continental Congress adopted the Stars and Stripes as the official flag of the republic on
June 14, 1777. Describing the new flag, the Congress wrote, "White signifies Purity and
Innocence; Red, Hardiness and Valor; Blue signifies Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice;"
and
WHEREAS, Flag Day was first celebrated throughout our country in 1877 to mark the centennial of the
birth of our national symbol; and
WHEREAS, to commemorate the adoption of our flag, the Congress, by joint resolution approved August
3, 1949, designated June 14 of each year as "Flag Day" and requested the President to issue
an annual proclamation calling for a national observance and for the display of the flag of the
United States on all Federal Government buildings; and
WHEREAS, not only are we celebrating the flag itself as a symbol for this country, we also recognize it as
a sign of support and gratitude to members of our Armed Forces and their families for their
selfless service and sacrifice for our Country; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2012, our community will celebrate Flag Day and its meaning with a free concert
and festivities inside the Charlottesville Pavilion and along the Downtown Mall;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, I, Ann Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim June 14, 2012, as Flag Day and the week beginning June 10, 2012,
as National Flag Week. I encourage everyone to observe with pride Flag Day and Flag Week, as a time to
honor America, our Armed Forces and to celebrate our heritage.
*****
Mr. Stroh thanked the Board for its recognition of the efforts going on in the community to
celebrate Flag Day. He stated that this would be the third year of a community-based committee in
partnership with the U.S. Army to host an evening event honoring the day.
Sgt. Lambert said that Flag Day is for everybody of the community, the State of Virginia and the
United States. He stated that all branches of the military would be represented at the event beginning at
5:00 p.m., at the Pavilion. He added that they will provide pins to all veterans who show up. Sgt. Lambert
noted that Brigadier General Thomas Ayers will be the keynote speaker, and the company commander
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
from Lynchburg – Captain Byster – will be doing a reenlistment ceremony for all future soldiers, airmen,
and seamen who will soon be going to their basic training and technical schools.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Elizabeth Burdash, on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, spoke in
opposition to the proposed Route 29 Bypass. Ms. Burdash emphasized that ASAP is not opposed to
building a bypass around the community’s urban core, but see no justification for the route currently
designated. She said it would not significantly reduce congestion on Route 29, but would destroy existing
neighborhoods, have adverse effects on the children attending six adjacent schools, pose a threat to the
urban water supply, degrade the environment, reduce tax revenues, and forever change the character of
the community. As elected representatives, it is their duty to do what it can to advance the best interests
of this community. The Board can do so today by voicing its opposition to the bypass as presently
configured, and arguing instead for the truly effective and far less costly alternatives that have been
proposed. She added that approving this particular bypass would represent the triumph of outside political
pressure over responsible, local, evidence-based decision-making. ASAP urges the Board to do the right
thing for this community.
_____
Ms. Lorrie Delehanty, a resident of 645 Evergreen Avenue, said that she was present to speak
about chloramines. She said that she has a 35-year work history in medical research including the areas
of carcinogen-testing, genetic toxicology and pharm aceutical research. Ms. Delehanty said that in spite of
the RWSA’s assertion that chloramines are safe, there is brand new data emerging that shows exactly the
opposite – including evidence that chloramines form very highly toxic disinfection byproducts. One of the
new sources of iodoacetic acid which was presumed to be in the soil, and there is not much iodine in the
soil in this community, happens to be from hospital contrast medium. There are two hospitals in this area
that do use iodinated contrast media. She stated that chloramines also react with products found in many
households such as shampoos and dish soaps and form s highly carcinogenic nitrosamines when they
come in contact with chloraminated water. It has been proven that Suave shampoo and Dawn dish
detergents does this. She added that that makes chloramines a very poor choice for disinfection for the
community’s water supply.
_____
Mr. James Starr said that he and his wife live in the North Garden/Red Hill area. He is present to
urge the Board to consider revising the countywide dog leash ordinance. Mr. Starr said that he has an old
Basset hound who may occasionally visit his neighbor’s backyard – which is now illegal. He stated that
they were unaware of the change in the law until they saw the news about enforcement. Several of his
friends were also surprised at the change. He said that he does not believe that the attempt to publicize
the change was effective. He said that he does not believe that there are enough nuisance dogs to
warrant a law that restricts the rights of the vast majority of dog owners who are responsible. Addressing
nuisance dogs could be accomplished with a law based on complaints. Mr. Starr said that the wording of
the current ordinance affects almost all dog owners and is much too broad for the current staff to be able
to enforce. He added that he would hate to have a dog that would never know the freedom of running
free. He encouraged the Board to revise the ordinance to address nuisance dogs and return freedom to
responsible dog owners.
_____
Dr. Julia Whiting said that she is a City resident and is present to talk about chloramines. She
also stated that she is a physician with a professional interest in toxicology. She said that in 2004,
Washington D.C. switched to chloramines and lead levels dramatically increased in tap water, with
thousands of cases of lead toxicity occurring – mostly in children. Dr. Whiting stated that there was an
ethical, criminal and scientific misconduct on multiple levels. It has been said by numerous RWSA Board
members that the problem in D.C. was simply a matter of not using corrosion inhibitors in the water. She
said that was initially true, but even since their introduction there has been no independent testing of the
lead levels in D.C. water supply – and no one on the Rivanna Board was aware that there had been no
independent testing of the tap water. Dr. Whiting said there is evidence that it is an ongoing problem. Mr.
Mark Edwards will be attending the upcoming forum later in June to talk in part about his documentation of
a D.C. school’s level of 20,000 parts per billion – well over the EPA limit of 15 parts per billion. Dr. Whiting
emphasized that chloramines was ineffective against Ecoli, rotavirus, giardia, and polio in Pinellas County,
Florida – and over 50% of the biofins tested after they switched to chloramines were positive for Ecoli.
Microbacteria also increased shot and they had to increase the water flushing volumes from 5.7 million
gallons to 35 million gallons per month to combat the decline in water quality. She said that in
Poughkeepsie, New York when they switched to chloramines, they also had a severe lead problem and
documented severe corrosion and problems there.
_____
Mr. Kirk Bowers, on behalf of the Sierra Club, said they are opposed to the bypass for the
following reasons: 1) all studies indicate that the bypass diverts only 10% of the traffic from Route 29; 2) it
exposes 4,000-5,000 students to air pollution and increases the risk of reduced pulmonary lung functions;
3) the effects of environmental pollution; 4) the effect on the Colonnades; and 5) it is a major disruption to
the community when there is a much better choice – the Places 29 plan – which is a logical and well-
designed plan to alleviate congestion on Route 29. Mr. Bowers asked why the road was being built when
it is known not to relieve congestion. He added that there are a lot of studies on the effects of pollution on
children’s lung functioning.
_____
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Elly Tucker, a 36 year resident of the County, said that she was here to ask the Board to
make a statement and request that VDOT put aside its plans to build the proposed western bypass until
updated costs, supplemental impact statements on the environment, and studies about health effects on
children be done. Ms. Tucker said that an SEIS was completed in 2002, but there are major new
circumstances relative to the bypass proposal – and the study completed earlier covered only a small
subset of issues. She also stated that the EIS was completed 19 years ago. W hile VDOT reports the
project should come in under budget she find this hard to believe – especially considering that costs
continue to rise. Ms. Tucker said that in the financial plan that VDOT cites in their latest report removes
specific expenditures upon which VDOT was basing their claim. She said that VDOT was not releasing
their projected estimated to complete the acquisition of land for the right of way, and also removed
projected costs for landscaping and other unknown factors – such as the cost for VDOT to oversee the
project. Ms. Tucker stated that if VDOT cannot estimate how much it would cost them to oversee the
construction, how the citizens can believe that they have a handle on the figures that they are coming up
with on construction costs. She asked the Board to hold VDOT accountable to citizens by making a joint
statement requesting more complete financial projections before proceeding with the road construction.
_____
Mr. Dave Redding, a resident of 609 East Market Street in Charlottesville, said that he bikes
between 20 and 40 miles per week in the community. He is also concerned about the Route 29 bypass.
He said that he understands the Board’s commitment to Albemarle County residents and other members
of the community, but questions whether the bypass was in their best interest. He personally cannot call a
road that has 13 stoplights on the road before anyone gets to open driving while going north “a bypass.”
Mr. Redding said he was concerned about the issue with the six schools, and the fact that the State would
be doing things that are not in the community’s best interest in order to save money. There will be issues
with sound, schools, concern about pedestrian walkways, bicycles, etc. He asked the Board to reject the
approval of the road. He added that people will be quite unhappy when they realize there is a string of
stoplights.
_____
Ms. Sally Thomas said she was present to introduce Jon Cannon, an Earlysville resident, – who
served on the County Planning Commission and was an environmental law professor at the U.Va. Law
School. He serves as the Director of the Law School's Environmental and Land Use Law Program.
Professor Cannon joined the Law School faculty in 1998 from the Environmental Protection Agency,
where he served as general counsel and prior to that was in private practice. Although not a scientist,
Prof. Cannon sat on the National Academy of Sciences committee on America’s Climate Choices, which
included leading climate scientists. This committee’s work was requested by Congress. Ms. Thomas said
that the committee concluded, based on its review of the science, that “climate change is occurring; it is
very likely caused primarily by the emissions of greenhouse gasses from human activities and poses
significant risks for a range of human and natural systems.” She stated that the committee found that
“emissions would continue to increase, which would result in further change and greater risks.” Ms.
Thomas pointed out that the conclusion was echoed by other major scientific reviews, by the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and other national scientific
academies around the world. This is what the science, understood by experts in the field, is telling
everyone.
_____
Professor Cannon said he was present to talk about climate change planning in the County. Prof.
Cannon said that climate change is a global issue but local governments have important resources and
authorities that bear on greenhouse gas emissions, including responsibilities for transportation planning
and improvements, land use regulations, and overseeing of construction within the jurisdiction. He stated
that a lot of their decisions impact the level of greenhouse gas emissions that are attributable to activities
in Albemarle County, so the Board is in the business of making and implementing climate change policy.
He is present to ask the Board to do that in a comprehensive way.
Prof. Cannon said that last year the Board approved the Local Climate Action Planning Process
Report, which is an important and commendable step – but leadership from the Board is necessary in
order to make that planning process meaningful, and that leadership needs to be stronger. He stated that
the Board jettisoned the greenhouse gas emission reduction target that was in place and replaced it with a
target for reducing energy consumption, which are related but not the same. The Board has authorized
only the most modest program for encouraging reduction and energy consumption in the crucial
transportation and built environment sectors; so the Board needs to do better. He said that the County
has able staff to work on this issue, willing partners in the University and the City. He urged the Board to
adopt greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and to direct staff to develop a strong climate change
action plan that engages all resources and authority they have at their disposal in land use and
transportation to meet those goals.
_____
Ms. Cheri Kennedy Early, a resident of the Samuel Miller District, said that she has no fear of the
western bypass taking her land by eminent domain, but she is concerned about its potential impact on the
water supply for all generations of this community. She mentioned a court case requiring an
environmental study for any road that would be given federal monies. Ms. Early encouraged the Board to
stop right here and right now and think about what they love and cherish about Albemarle County, and
fight for the citizens. She asked Board members not to cave to pressure from outside political agendas.
She asked Board members to follow their hearts and take care of this community – for this generation and
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
the next. Ms. Early said this road is not right for this community. If this bypass proceeds, this Board will
be remembered for what the bypass will do to this community, not for what good the Board members have
done for the community.
_____
Ms. Linda Goodling, speaking for the League of Women Voters, said that one of their core values
on the national level is to encourage the informed and active participation of citizens in government.
Therefore, the LWV wants to comment on the fast-track review process for selected industrial land use
applications. Her comments relate only to the provision “Where applicable, the project may be scheduled
for a joint Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors public hearing if such hearings are needed”. Ms.
Goodling said this provision for streamlining the procedure is of great concern to the League, and they
urge the Board not to combine the two hearings into one.
The League supports active participation of citizens in governmental decisions. Two hearings
would allow more opportunities for citizens to attend a hearing and express opinions and make helpful
comments. She also said it would enable the Commission to tap into its members’ expertise and offer
thoughtful, independent recommendations to the Board, rather than simply deferring to Board members
who are present at the hearing. Ms. Goodling said that the two hearings would allow citizens to comment
on the Commission’s advice in addition to the staff report. In general, two hearings show respect for
citizens’ views and participation, as well as the Planning Commission’s ability to address citizens’
concerns before proposals reach the Board. She said that the League strongly objects to the provision for
streamlining, which will cut back on the best opportunities for citizens to have a chance to provide input
into land use decisions. She asked the Board to reject this aspect of the recommendation.
_____
Mr. Amory Fischer, a high school student in the County, said that he is concerned for his
generation about the bypass for its cost to the County’s budgets and citizen’s lungs. This road ignores the
development around Forest Lakes and Target, as well as jeopardizes funding for Places 29. Mr. Fischer
said that they have petitioned, called, and come to speak – both conservatives and liberals alike. He first
learned about the bypass when he and Mr. Thomas spoke at length at the Agnor Hurt polling station, at
which time Mr. Thomas told him that the decision to build the bypass came from the state, and not here.
Mr. Fischer said that decisions of this consequence should be made here, and those who are sitting on
this Board will not always be in charge. He stated that future leaders will be challenged to deal with
potential negative impacts on air quality and drinking water, and paying for the irresponsible spending of
today. Mr. Fischer added that every vote the Board make today will affect the future, and he hopes that it
will reconsider the bypass proposal.
_____
Ms. Emily Kuhn said she was present to talk about the western bypass. Ms. Kuhn said that she
just graduated from Albemarle High School and before that went to Greer Elementary and Jack Jouett
Middle School, and she had one of the best public school experiences she could have asked for. She
stated that all three schools are within 500 meters of the proposed bypass, and she could not imagine
going to school that close to the road. Ms. Kuhn reported that in 2007, a California study that followed
3,677 children for eight years found that children who live within 500 meters of a freeway had substantial
deficits in their lung development. She said that in 2010, an article by Mr. Rob McConnell concluded that
exposure to traffic-related air pollution could contribute to the development of asthma in children. Ms.
Kuhn said that these studies took place after the original plans for the bypass were made, but have now
been around for several years. Ms. Kuhn said it simply does not make sense to spend $250 million that
the County does not currently have on a bypass that will put local children’s health at risk. She urged the
Board to reconsider plans to build this environmentally unsound road.
_____
Mr. John Cruickshank said that he was disappointed that the Board failed to agree to send a letter
to VDOT and the FHWA asking for a public hearing in connection with the environmental assessment on
the Route bypass. He stated that two weeks ago he did write such a letter, requesting a formal hearing
and documenting the adverse effects of vehicle pollution on children since the completion of the SEIS in
2003. Mr. Cruickshank said that most of the research describes the effects of exposure to auto and truck
emissions on impaired lung development and increased cases of asthma. In April 2012 the Mount Sinai
Children’s Environmental Health Center published a list that included automotive exhaust as one of the
ten major causes of childhood autism. He stated that he became a teacher in 1972 and at that time, the
percentage of children with autism was small – and now the rate is 1 in 88. Mr. Cruickshank said that he
worked for eight years as Principal of Brownsville Elementary School, which is right by the Route 250
bypass, and there were so many children with asthma the school had to put their inhalers in alphabetical
order. He asked the Board to at least have a public hearing on this issue.
_____
Mr. George Larie addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking for CATCO. He said that
after the midnight coup of last June 8th, it is good that the Board is now reviewing what it will be getting in
this highly politically designed Route 29 bypass. The southern interchange of the bypass has been
changed from a three-level continuous flow road to a two-level intermittent flow road with stoplights at the
exits. Mr. Larie said that the 13 stoplights are now reduced to 11, and the northern interchange has also
been reduced in scope – terminating very close to the stoplight at Ashwood Boulevard. He stated that all
landscaping has been removed from the RFP, and the maximum grade has been increased from 4.5% to
6%, thereby increasing the noise level and safety concerns. Mr. Larie said that the median shoulder width
on bridges has been reduced from six feet to four feet, also raising safety concerns, and no Berkmar
Bridge seems to be forthcoming. He stated that most of the requests from the Advisory Committee have
been either revised or minimized in order to cut costs to meet the CTB authorization.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Larie said that CATCO’s traffic calculations, with no interchanges on the bypass, indicate that
about 14,000 vehicles per day would be taken off Route 29 in the year 2022. In contrast the parallel road
network approved by the Board of Supervisors in February 2011 would take more traffic off Route 29 than
the bypass and at less than one-half the cost. He stated that the level of service even after the bypass is
built would continue to be “F.” VDOT put this project on a fast track even though most people think it is a
disaster and a gross waste of taxpayer dollars.
_____
Ms. Stacey Norris said that she is founder and project coordinator of the House Project, which
shelters outside dogs in need in Charlottesville, Albemarle and surrounding counties – providing dog
houses and straw bedding, water and food bowls, etc. Ms. Norris said they often fill in for Animal Control
when they request assistance. She reported that from Fall 2011 through Winter 2012, they helped get
175 dogs spayed or neutered – with 84 of those being altered and 63 being “unknown.” Ms. Norris
reported that about one-third of the dogs were without water when they showed up to households that
knew House Project people were coming, and many of the animals were living in large amounts of their
own feces. The Board has done a great job at promoting and encouraging animal welfare improvements,
and she asks that it continue. Ms. Norris asked the Board to consider outlawing the plastic shell dog
houses as they are “about as protective as a barrel.”
_____
Mr. Robert Humphris, a County resident, said that VDOT and some members of this Board have
consistently minimized and falsely classified the opposition to this proposed bypass as NIMBY, or “not in
my back yard.” He said that in VDOT’s request in the mid-90s for federal demonstration funds, they
falsely stated that federal legislators had endorsed the request – and their application stated that “during
the location stage of the study there was a considerable amount of opposition to the project, but since the
selection of the corridor the opposition has been reduced to mainly those directly affected by the
alignment.” Mr. Humphris said that at the February 1997 design public hearing, VDOT experienced their
largest ever turnout for a hearing, with a count of 9,300 showing 8,079 comments in opposition and 1,224
comments in favor of the bypass. He stated that the count consisted of petition signatures, preprinted
sheets by VDOT, the NCBC and CATCO, oral comments, and individual letters. Mr. Humphris said that
an analysis of addresses of only the petition signers in opposition (about 5,000) indicated that only 7%
lived within one-quarter mile of the route, thus negating the NIMBY claim – with about 20% of the
opposition being from citizens of Charlottesville and about 7% from neighboring counties. He stated that
the official transcript was 19 volumes, 15 inches thick, and this public opinion showed that over 87%
opposed this particular bypass as compared to 69% responding in favor of “a bypass” in the March 2012
telephone survey by the Weldon Cooper Center.
Mr. Humphris said that there is quite a difference between “a bypass” and this bypass in any
comparison.
_____
Mr. Jack Marshall, President of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, said that he
was speaking about the faster review process for target industries. He said that industrial development
forever shapes the community’s environment and character – and as a result, decisions to approve new
industries should not be hasty and should not restrict opportunities for citizens to voice their opinions. Mr.
Marshall noted that ASAP’s chief concern is that the current formula for assessing the worth of industrial
projects is not sufficiently inclusive, rational or far-reaching. Before the Board thinks about whether
projects should be assessed more rapidly, ASAP hopes the Board will think more about the decision
making process that is used to approve or deny additional industries in the County, and the current review
process is simply not adequate.
W hile economic benefits to industrial development are factored into decision making, significant
economic costs are not – and there is no effort to determine objectively the extent to which new industries
would hire local unemployed or underemployed, or bring in new staff with families for which new schools
and other infrastructure and services must be provided using taxpayer money.
Mr. Marshall said that non-economic costs and benefits are ignored, in part because they cannot
easily be monetized. The environmental impacts of new industries are neglected, for example, as are the
impacts on traffic and community character. He stated that there is also no appraisal of the extent to
which the benefits of industrial development are distributed throughout the community. The focus on
individual approvals obscures the cumulative impact of industrial development.
Mr. Marshall said that until the system for reviewing requests is strengthened, efforts to fast track
the approval process should not be initiated.
_____
Mr. Morgan Butler, of the Southern Environmental Law Center, said that he wanted to address two
different agenda items. This first issue is the County’s position on the western bypass. Mr. Butler said
that the community has spent a lot of time and money developing a better way to solve Route 29’s traffic
problems. The solution involves extending roads that run parallel to Route 29 to give local drivers more
ways to get to and between the many different commercial areas along the highway. He said that it
essentially involves tackling the spots on Route 29 where traffic gets clogged by building overpasses or
adding lanes. These solutions provide greater benefits than the bypass while being less damaging than
carving a new road that would route highway traffic near six schools, a senior living facility, a major
reservoir, and other community resources. Mr. Butler said that taxpayers would be far better served by
investing that $250 million into those better solutions. SELC urges the Board to take that position today.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
He stated that the second item he wanted to address was the priority review for target industry
proposals. W hile the overall concept may have some positive potential, the proposal still raises a number
of concerns. Mr. Butler said that staff has pointed out there is no way to enforce or ensure that the
qualifying criteria would ever be met, so it could be hard to limit the number of proposals that request
special treatment thus creating an administrative burden. He stated that the essential point that the
project should have to demonstrate a positive fiscal impact in order to qualify has been watered down to
simply require an increase in property value, which ignores its infrastructure costs and could promote
green field development over redevelopment and infill.
Mr. Butler said that collapsing Planning Commission and Board public hearings into one could put
more of a burden on the Board to resolve citizen conflicts while stifling the input received from the
Commission. He said that the SELC urges the Board to focus first on broader process changes staff is
currently working on, that would apply to all projects, and to revisit the priority review concept after work on
those changes was complete, and their impact can be determined.
_____
Mr. Saunders Midyette, a 21 year resident of the County, asked the Board to vote against the
proposed construction of the western route 29 bypass. The bypass poses a significant pollution threat to
the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir – the primary source of water for the area’s 100,000 residents. Mr.
Midyette said that the negative effects on children and senior citizens, devastating impact on eight
established neighborhoods including the taking of 40 homes, its northern terminus issues, and its eclipse
of proper consideration of Places 29 are other reasons he urges the Board to vote against the western
bypass.
_____
Mr. Tom Olivier, on behalf of the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club, said he would be speaking
about the proposed priority review process for target industries. Mr. Olivier said that in recent decades the
County has enjoyed a relatively strong economy that coexists with unusual commitments by the County to
protect natural resources. The Piedmont Group believes that the resilience of the local economy is due in
part to the quality of life the community offers – which is derived in no small degree through protection of
environmental resources. He stated that the Piedmont Group views the proposed priority review process
as more evidence of retreat by the County from commitments to environmental protection. The staff
report repeats the usual assurance that the process would in no way lessen scrutiny of environmental
issues. Mr. Olivier said the staff report alludes to the unsupported claim in the Younger report that the
selected target industries would not have negative environmental impacts. Given the growing pressure on
natural resources from human population growth there needs to be more rather than less reviews of
environmental impacts of development proposals if the quality of life is to be preserved. He stated that the
Piedmont Group feels that the County’s Economic Development Policy should focus on better job
opportunities for current low-income residents, but the priority review process depends on estimated
abilities of applicants to generate high-paying jobs and outside revenue sources; it does not require
commitments to local hires and good jobs. Mr. Olivier encouraged the Board to reject the proposed
priority review process.
_____
Ms. Peggy Gilges, a resident of 701 Flordon Drive, said that she recently heard Dr. Kathryn
Laughlin speak about “placemaking,” or enhancing a community’s appeal and its stickiness so that it
thrives. Research has shown that having an engaged community results in a heartier local economy and
improved economic prospects for all. Ms. Gilges said that two of the things Dr. Laughlin said were most
important for achieving vibrant communities were aesthetics and inclusivity. In order to have a strong
community economically residents need to become attached to it and protect features that make it special
– while protecting the well-being and representation of all members of the community. She stated that the
Route 29 Bypass is a textbook example of what not to do to a community. The resurrection was a
process that was neither pretty nor inclusive. It allowed haste to get this project built, shutting out the
capacity for residents to have further design input.
Ms. Gilges said that the only thing the bypass circumvents well is local opinion on where it goes,
what it looks like, and how it effects the well being of those in its path. She stated that there has been too
little discussion of how it would impact school children on the west side of the County, and those children
had safe and attractive playgrounds and athletic fields up to now – but they would be directly impacted by
the noise and pollution of construction and their green buffer zones will be replaced by the noise and air
pollution of constant vehicle traffic. Ms. Gilges said the children would be breathing in more particulates
and ozone for vehicle emissions, which are known to harm young lungs and trigger asthma attacks. She
asked how the Board so easily dismisses the effects of vehicle emissions exposure on the children. She
added that the Board’s rushed endorsement of the Route 29 bypass clearly did not take those effects into
account, and said the design is based on outdated information while lacking the participation of local
residents and planning. Curtailing further public discussion about the bypass, including its health impacts
on children, is the opposite of helping to build a thriving community.
_____
Ms. Cynthia Neff said a number of Board members have made it clear that they are tired of the
citizens coming to Board meetings talking about the Route 29 bypass. She said she has asked time and
time again to see what it is the County has agreed to with the bypass. The reason she came today is
because of Mr. Thomas’ quote in the newspaper when he said that he “could not understand why there
was so much distrust.” Ms. Neff said she trusted the Board when it voted for Places 29, but also listened
to Board members say “you can’t trust government” when it comes to initiatives like ICLE and Cool
Counties. She said another breach in trust was the late night vote on the bypass when Mr. Dorrier was
“late” to the meeting, when there were numerous people from the North Charlottesville Business Council
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
present. She said she distrusts when she cannot see what it is they are paying for, what their taxpayer
dollars are being used for. She said she distrusts when the whole process lacks transparency and
honesty which is what people want. Ms. Neff stated that at the end of the day, everyone may agree that
the bypass is a good deal – but they have the right as citizens of this community to see what it is they are
doing here.
_____
Mr. Jack Renard, President of the Colonnades Resident Association, addressed the Board and
applauded the entrepreneurship recognitions earlier in the meeting. They are very concerned that have
seen a decrease in interest in the Colonnades; people come and want to know the facts, but no one can
help them. There are 190 employees at the Colonnades. He asked Board members to read this
morning’s Daily Progress where one of the residents of the Colonnades that totally expresses their
frustration in this process and in trying to get any response all the way up the chain of command for their
concerns.
_____
Mr. Mac Lafferty addressed the Board, stating that he witnessed this Board manipulate the MPO
to have a membership that would vote for a positive outcome on the western bypass. He thinks about this
past year when the Board turned down the Cool Counties resolution because it had some U.N.
sponsorship while that same night the Board “crawled into bed” with the CTB. Mr. Lafferty said he does
not understand why they were going to spend $250 million on a plan that is in conflict with Places 29, as
that money represents one-half the money the County is scheduled to get from now until year 2040. He
said if all those projects were built, Route 250 East at Free Bridge, Rio Road, Route 20, and Route 29 and
64 would all have a traffic level of an F-. Nothing is being done or corrected. Mr. Lafferty said the
extension to the western bypass would not have enough traffic on it to justify building it, yet it goes
forward. He asked if Board members are ignoring their fundamental charges as representatives in
protecting the health, the welfare, and the safety of this community. He also asked if the citizens are
witnessing the demise of their democratic republic.
_____
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said it would be great if all proposals could be
fast tracked with a substantive review but it is important to attract target industries, and what is being done
to attract those target industries – perhaps providing a fast track process is the way to go.
Mr. Williamson said that the Free Enterprise Forum is in favor of the western bypass. He does
not know whether they are a minority or majority in that support, but he is very concerned to hear words
like “manipulation.” As he sees it, both sides of this issue have been utilizing the form of government on
this issue for the last 20 years. He does not believe that anyone on the Board has anything but the best
interest of the County at heart and he stands in opposition to language that suggests they are going
against the democratic process when they vote their heart for their leadership.
_____
Mr. Bill Jones, a 27 year resident of the Samuel Miller District, said that they need to do both the
Route 29 bypass and the Places 29 projects. If people think there is gridlock now on Route 29 just wait
until Stonefield is developed. Everyone is concerned about emissions, but where do people think the
bypass should go. The cost and impacts could be even greater if the bypass was placed somewhere
else. He said that people had to go through the same thing with the Route 250 bypass and I-64, as it
wasn’t an easy decision back then either.
_____
Mr. Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, said PEC supports the allocation to the ACE
program – which the community has long supported because it benefits everyone. Mr. Werner said that
preserving Albemarle’s rural character is a critical element in natural resource protection and promotion of
the rural economy, as well as contributing to the quality of life that continues to place the County among
the best places to live in the nation.
Regarding the fast track process for development proposals, PEC cautions the County against
any process that limits public input – and with millions of square feet of already approved but unbuilt retail
space, the Board needs to ask what exactly needs to be fast-tracked. He also said the criteria for local
employment investment was unenforceable after zonings and other approvals, and asked what recourse
the County would have for things that are not met.
Mr. Werner said the bypass is really a “half bypass,” and it is troubling to the PEC how some on
the Board have mischaracterized their position. He stated that too often Board members have gotten
away with claiming that “bypass opponents are simply opposed to anything.” Mr. Werner said that is not
true yet Board members still say it and with the same breath you tell the community to trust you – and to
trust VDOT. The citizens do not have that kind of trust. He stated that the PEC has supported Places 29
improvements, the southern connector of Biscuit Run, and the Meadow Creek Parkway, yet some Board
members claim that the PEC does not want anything done. Such claims are shameful and it is time for
Board members to be honest with people about exactly why there is opposition to this bypass.
Mr. Werner said the Board could give the public a reason to trust them and VDOT by providing
the traffic analysis that compares the bypass to recently developed alternatives, by providing information
on what the cost and impacts will actually be, and by standing with the community – not against it – in
demanding an appropriate public hearing on VDOT’s environmental assessment. He asked the Board to
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
listen to the community, acknowledge their concerns, answer their questions, and then maybe the Board
will get that trust.
_____
Mr. Randy Salzman said that he studies and researches transportation. Most people believe that
building highways decrease congestion – actually it does the exact opposite. In 1998 the Commission for
the Future of Transportation in Virginia said it was “a futile exercise to try to build your way out of
congestion.” Mr. Salzman said that building expanding highways immediately causes a 4% increase in
congestion and within five years that congestion rises to 10%. Therefore, when a new highway is built, it
makes the problem worse. The Commission called it a “merry go round”. He stated that this would invite
18-wheel traffic from points south to use Route 29 to cut east in order to access to the northeast. This
bypass will encourage 18-wheelers to come through this community and drop pollutants. Mr. Salzman
said that building new highways does not decrease congestion - the data is very clear.
_____
Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said that he agrees with the assertion that the Route 29
bypass is an unnecessary, destructive and wasteful, bad road that would damage this community on a
whole number of levels.
Mr. Martin said there was an event in Richmond tomorrow – meeting of the Hampton Roads
Mayors & Chairs Caucus – representing about 40 localities in the Golden Crescent portion of the state.
He stated that the purpose of the caucus was to organize to lobby for transportation funding, which would
be scarce for their communities. Mr. Martin said it is his understanding these people know about the
bypass and the $250 million to be spent on it. The existence of this caucus is evidence that there would
be keen, keen competition for future funding. The fact that this community spends $250 million to build an
unnecessary bypass can only harm its ability to get additional funding in the future. Mr. Martin said it could
be 50 years before this community would be in a position to get a substantial amount of additional funding,
if this project is deemed as wasteful as it is.
_______________
Recess. At 10:45 a.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 10:54 a.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr.
Rooker, to approve Items 8.1 (as read) through 8.10a on the Consent Agenda and to accept the
remaining items as information. (Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that item.) Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: February 1, February 24(A), March 5(A), March 13(A), March
14(A), March 14(N), March 12(A), April 1(A), and April 13(A), 2012.
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of February 1, 2012, pages 1-28 (end #14), and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Boyd asked that his portion of the minutes of February 1, 2012 be pulled.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of February 24, 2012 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dumler had read the minutes of March 5, 2012 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read the minutes of March 13(A), 2012 and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek asked that her minutes of March 14(A), 2012 be pulled.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of March 14(N), 2012 and found them to be in order with the
exception of som e typographical errors.
Mr. Dumler had read the minutes of March 28(N), 2012 and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek asked that her minutes of April 11(A), 2012 be pulled.
Ms. Mallek asked that her minutes of April 13(A), 2012 be pulled.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read and the remaining
minutes were carried forward to the next meeting.
_____
Item No. 8.2. 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
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
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 $576,344.72. A budget
amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not
exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of nine (9) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
Three (3) appropriations (#2012076, #2012080, and #2012081) totaling $256,996.74
for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012077) totaling $22,323.00 for the Child Care Quality
Initiative;
One (1) appropriation (#2012078) totaling $91,005.98 to reappropriate funding for the
purchase of general government replacement vehicles;
One (1) appropriation (#2012079) totaling $90,019.00 for costs associated with
increased delinquency collection efforts and unanticipated legal expenses in the
Finance Department;
One (1) appropriation (#2012082) totaling $0.00 to distribute funding from the
budgeted Salary Reserve to departments impacted by the recently implemented
public safety reclassification study. This appropriation will reallocate funding and not
increase the total appropriated budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2012083) totaling $90,000.00 to fund increased overtime
expenses in the Department of Fire Rescue; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012084) totaling $26,000.00 for a supplemental grant
(School Technology grant) awarded from VPSA in the Capital Budget to support
technology related purchases.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012076, #2012077, #2012078, #2012079,
#2012080, #2012081, #2012082 #2012083, and #2012084.
*****
Appropriation #2012076 $52,897.74
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Non-Tax) $ 52,897.74
This request is to appropriate various School Division funds as approved by the School Board on April 12,
2012. This appropriation request of $52,897.74 includes the following:
Murray High School received donations totaling $750.03. The donors have requested that these
contributions be used to help with any educational expenses at Murray High School.
Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $1,500.00 from the Cale PTO. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used for any instructional supplies and needs at
Cale Elementary School.
Burley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $250.00 from the University of Virginia.
The donor has requested that this contribution be used to pay for the Diversity Today speakers at
Burley Middle School.
Cale Elementary School has received refunds from Scholastic, Inc. totaling $148.11 for
subscriptions.
Virginia L. Murray Elementary school is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of
$102.00 for field trip expenses. The fund to reimburse the School Division budget came from the
Activity Account at Murray Elementary School.
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of
$49,322.60 for items including athletic training, athletic uniforms, equipment rental, supplies,
contract services, and Honorariums. The funds to reimburse the School Division budget came
from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount
of $825.00 for judges at the VEMA Choir Festival. The funds to reimburse the School Division
budget came from the VEMA activity account at WAHS.
Appropriation #2012077 $22,323.00
Revenue Source: Federal revenue $ 12,563.50
State revenue 9,759.50
Transfer from General Fund 2,804.00*
This request is to appropriate $22,323.00 in federal and state revenue for the Child Care Quality Initiative
(CCQI). The CCQI is a partner between the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS)
and the Children, Youth & Family Services (CYFS) to address the consumer education and training
component of the initiatives. The intent is to increase awareness and access to information about quality
child care in the community. These funds will be used to contract for services with Children Youth and
Family Services (CYFS) for child care improvements.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
*This appropriation also includes a transfer of $2,804.00 from the General Fund that is included in the
current appropriated budget and therefore does not increase the total appropriated budget.
Appropriation #2012078 $91,005.98
Revenue Source: Vehicle Replacement Fund Balance $ 91,005.98
This request is to re-appropriate $91,005.98 in fund balance from the Vehicle Replacement Fund to
provide funding for five replacement vehicles that were approved in FY 10/11. Although this process was
initiated towards the end of FY 10/11, due to the timing of the purchase and receipt of these vehicles, this
expense was charged in FY 11/12.
Appropriation #2012079 $90,019.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 90,019.00
This request is to appropriate $90,019.00 to the Finance Department. During the current fiscal year (FY
12), the Department of Finance increased delinquent tax collection efforts, resulting in expenditures for
this expenditure above budget. This request is to appropriate $67,692.00 in additional funds for vendor
services related to preparing and mailing delinquent tax notices. Currently, delinquent taxes and related
fees are projected to exceed budget by approximately $2.0 million in FY 11/12.
In addition, the Finance Department was faced with unanticipated legal expenses totaling $22,327.00.
This funding was used to hire expert witnesses for the County’s legal defense in two major lawsuits
against the County.
The FY 12/13 budget includes funding for both increased delinquency collection efforts and potential legal
expenses.
Appropriation #2012080 $5,000.00
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Non-Tax) $ 5,000.00
This request is to appropriate a School Division request as approved by the School Board on February 23,
2012. Monticello High School was awarded a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 from the Battelle
Foundation. The funds will be used to help with expenses associated with the new Health and Medical
Sciences Academy that begins operating this fall at Monticello High School. The academy is open to all
public high school students in Albemarle County and designed to prepare students for success in post-
secondary education and workforce readiness in certified health and health-related professions. The
Academy will offer an integrated core curriculum throughout the program. Students will apply for
admission and be able to engage in case study work and participate in job shadowing, internship and
clinical opportunities.
Appropriation #2012081 $199,099.00
Revenue Source: School Fund Balance $ 199,099.00
This request is to appropriate a School Division request as approved by the School Board on April 26,
2012. Following completion of the FY 10/11 audit and evaluation of current year revenues, reappropriation
of school carryover funds takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. This
request reappropriates $145,643.00 of school carryover and $53,456.00 of building rental funds for a total
of $199,099.00 from fund balance. Those funds will be returned to various schools to be used for
educational and recreational supplies.
Appropriation #2012082 $0.00
This request is to distribute funding from the budgeted Salary Reserve to departments impacted by the
recently implemented public safety reclassification study. This appropriation will reallocate funding and not
increase the total appropriated budget.
This appropriation will allocate $83,871.00 to Fire Rescue and $10,209.00 to the Sheriff’s Office to fund
increased personnel costs related to the study’s implementation. While the Police Department was also
included in this study, no additional funding is being allocated in the current fiscal year. The Police
Department has sufficient expenditure savings to fund this reclassification cost due to lapse from existing
vacancies that have been challenging to fill in the current fiscal year.
Appropriation #2012083 $90,000.00
This request is to appropriate $90,000.00 from fund balance to fund expenditures in the Fire Rescue
department that are anticipated to exceed the current appropriated budget. These expenditures are
primarily for overtime costs, which are increasing significantly due to a higher than normal turnover in the
department’s Operations Division, as new hires require an additional person with them to meet minimum
staffing standards until they are released to operate independently. While some of these costs will be
offset by salary lapse, it is anticipated that the offset will not be sufficient to remain within budget in FY 12.
Appropriation #2012084 $26,000.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 26,000.00
This request is to appropriate $26,000.00 from a supplemental grant awarded by Virginia Public School
Authority (VPSA) to the School division. This is a supplemental grant to the VPSA school technology
grant in the Capital Budget. The monies from this supplemental grant support the online administration of
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
the Standard of Learning tests given by the division's Community Charter School. This is a reimburse-
ment grant that does not require any matching funds.
(Discussion: Referring to Appropriation #2012083, Mr. Rooker said there is $90,000 for overtime
expenses in the Department of Fire & Rescue, and the County needs to focus on reducing those
expenditures.
Mr. Foley responded that staff was working on a more thorough evaluation to help accomplish
that.
Fire Chief Dan Eggleston said the Department was also concerned about it and was working with
Human Resources and the County Executive’s office to reassess the process. They have already revised
their hiring processes to have an effect on the overtime. There are so many seats they have to fill on a
daily basis in order to keep fire and rescue stations open. He said that the staffing level was such that
when they have sickness and injuries, they have to hire people back or hold other people over to fill spots.
That combines with the Department having a spike in turnover in operations and some injuries. Chief
Eggleston stated they are evaluating their staffing levels to ensure the overtime was not excessive.
Ms. Mallek said she does not think this was an unforeseen amount of money. Chief Eggleston
said they forecasted this amount during last year’s budget. There was an agreement with OMB to wait
and see if there would be a turnaround in the overtime.
Mr. Rooker said when this was raised before, the Board wanted to wait and see if it could be
improved upon. He added that it is a significant expense.
Mr. Thomas asked if the extra slots for firefighters would help.
Chief Eggleston responded that the past budget session the Board approved hiring an additional
person, and that should help address this situation.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2012076, #2012077,
#2012078, #2012079, #2012080, #2012081, #2012082 #2012083, and #2012084:
APP #2012-076
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriations from the School Board meeting on April 12, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 50,397.71 Miscellaneous Revenue
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 2,500.03 Contributions
4 2000 62303 461101 601300 6303 750.03 Murray HS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62214 461101 601300 6114 1,500.00 Cale - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62251 461101 301210 6251 250.00 Burley - Contract Services
4 2000 62301 461105 580000 6301 34,315.01 AHS - Miscellaneous Expenses
4 2000 62302 461411 320610 6302 825.00 WAHS - Presenter/Guest
Speaker
4 2000 62301 461101 301210 6301 4,212.00 AHS - Contract Services
4 2000 62214 461101 601200 6114 148.11 Cale - Books & Subscriptions
4 2000 62215 461101 420100 6115 102.00 Murray ES - Field Trip Mileage
4 2000 62301 461101 540100 6301 1,317.68 AHS - Lease/Rent Equip.
4 2000 62301 461101 601200 6301 103.80 AHS - Books & Subscriptions
4 2000 62301 461101 601300 6301 1,253.95 AHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62301 461105 601100 6301 8,120.16 AHS - Uniforms/Apparel
TOTAL 105,795.48
APP #2012077
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: DSS - Child Care Quality Initiative
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1561 33000 333000 330001 1005 12,563.50 Federal revenue
3 1561 24000 324000 240118 1005 9,759.50 State revenue
3 1561 51000 351000 512004 1005 2,804.00 Transfer from GF
4 1561 53115 453010 301204 1005 25,127.00 CDC Services
TOTAL 50,254.00
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
APP #2012078
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriation - Vehicle Replacement Fund
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9200 51000 351000 510100 9999 91,005.98 App fund Balance
4 9200 31013 412560 800500 9999 25,605.98
4 9200 43006 412560 800500 9999 18,900.00
4 9200 53013 412560 800500 9999 46,500.00
TOTAL 182,011.96
APP #2012-079
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Delinquent tax collection efforts and legal expenses
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 12142 412140 390000 1001 23,127.00 Other Purchased Services
4 1000 12142 412140 520100 1001 44,565.00 Postal Services
4 1000 12144 412140 300203 1001 22,327.00 Special Litigation
3 1000 51000 351000 3510100 9999 90,019.00 Use of Fund Balance
TOTAL 180,038.00
APP #2012-080
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriation from the School Board meeting on February 23, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 3104 63104 318000 189900 6599 5,000.00 MISC REVENUES
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6304 5,000.00 EDUC. & RECREATION SUP.
TOTAL 10,000.00
APP #2012-081
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Appropriation from the School Board meeting on April 26, 2012
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 351000 510100 6599 199,099.00 Use of Fund Balance
4 2000 62206 461101 601300 6106 285.00 Meriwether Lewis - Ed/Rec
Supplies
4 2000 62216 461101 601300 6116 10,948.00 Agnor-Hurt - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62301 461101 601300 6301 41,826.00 AHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62217 461101 601300 6117 4,433.00 Baker-Butler - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62202 461101 601300 6102 2,932.00 Brownsville - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62251 461101 601300 6251 20,146.00 Burley - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62214 461101 601300 6114 6,261.00 Cale - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62280 461101 601300 6280 821.00 Com Public Charter School -
Ed/Rec
4 2000 62203 461101 601300 6103 810.00 Crozet - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62204 461101 601300 6104 1,300.00 Greer - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62252 461101 601300 6252 4,028.00 Henley - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62253 461101 601300 6253 3,509.00 Jouett - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62213 461101 601300 6113 6,993.00 Yancey - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62304 461101 601300 6304 11,184.00 MHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62215 461101 601300 6115 6,316.00 Murray ES - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62303 461101 601300 6303 7,424.00 Murray HS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62207 461101 601300 6107 8,488.00 Red Hill - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62209 461101 601300 6109 28.00 Scottsville - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62210 461101 601300 6110 8,241.00 Stone-Robinson - Ed/Rec
Supplies
4 2000 62211 461101 601300 6111 5,145.00 Stony Point - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62255 461101 601300 6255 23,959.00 Sutherland - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62254 461101 601300 6254 5,480.00 Walton - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62302 461101 601300 6302 5,332.00 WAHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62212 461101 601300 6112 7,551.00 Woodbrook - Ed/Rec Supplies
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
4 2000 62205 461101 601300 6105 5,659.00 Hollymead - Ed/Rec Supplies
TOTAL 398,198.00
APP #2012-082
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Disbribute funds to Fire/Rescue and Sheriff Department for the public safety reclassification
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 32011 432010 110000 1003 2,456.00 F/R Admin - Salaries
4 1000 32011 432010 210000 1003 188.00 F/R Admin - FICA
4 1000 32011 432010 221000 1003 372.00 F/R Admin - VRS
4 1000 32011 432010 241000 1003 7.00 F/R Admin - Group Life
4 1000 32013 432010 110000 1003 4,615.00 Fire Prevention - Salaries
4 1000 32013 432010 210000 1003 353.00 Fire Prevention - FICA
4 1000 32013 432010 221000 1003 699.00 Fire Prevention - VRS
4 1000 32013 432010 241000 1003 13.00 Fire Prevention - Group Life
4 1000 32015 432010 110000 1003 61,078.00 F/R Operations - Salaries
4 1000 32015 432010 210000 1003 4,672.00 F/R Operations - FICA
4 1000 32015 432010 221000 1003 9,247.00 F/R Operations - VRS
4 1000 32015 432010 241000 1003 171.00 F/R Operations - Group Life
4 1000 21070 421070 110000 1002 8,295.00 Sheriff - Salaries
4 1000 21070 421070 210000 1002 635.00 Sheriff - FICA
4 1000 21070 421070 221000 1002 1,256.00 Sheriff - VRS
4 1000 21070 421070 241000 1002 23.00 Sheriff - Group Life
4 1000 99900 499900 999908 9999 (94,080.00) Reclassification Contingency
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2012-083
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Disttribute funds to Fire/Rescue and Sheriff Department for the public safety reclassification
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 90,000.00 GF Fund Balance
4 1000 32015 432010 120000 1003 90,000.00 F/R Operations - OT
TOTAL 180,000.00
APP #2012-084
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Supplemental grant to the VSPA technology grant (Capital Budget)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9000 69000 324000 240265 6599 26,000.00 VPSA Tech Grant
4 9000 69990 468300 800707 6599 26,000.00 Sch Technology Grant
Equipment
TOTAL 52,000.00
_____
Item No. 8.3. FY 12/13 Resolution of Appropriations.
The executive summary states that the County’s FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets were
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 11, 2012, for a total projected amount of $311,438,139. On
May 10, 2012, the School Board officially adopted the School Fund and the School Self-Sustaining Fund
budgets.
In order for the School Division to enter into school capital project contracts in a timely manner the
Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution officially appropriating the FY 12/13 Capital Budgets on May 9,
2012. The Capital Budget Resolution of Appropriations authorized the School Division and Local
Government to spend capital funds as approved in the adopted Capital Budget, effective July 1, 2012.
The attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2013
authorizes the expenditure of all other funds, including the General Fund, School Fund, Special Revenue
funds, School Self-Sustaining funds, and Debt Service funds, effective July 1, 2012.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
The FY 12/13 total budget (which includes the Capital Budget appropriated on May 9)
recommended for appropriation is $2,560,869 more than the budget formally adopted by the Board on
April 11, 2012 due to changes in the School Fund and School Self-Sustaining Funds.
The proposed resolution appropriates funding for Schools into the Major Categories and School
Fund - Other (formerly classified as School Self-Sustaining Funds) as adopted by the School Board at its
May 10, 2012 meeting with one adjustment. Funds for school bus replacements are included in the Pupil
Transportation Services category rather than the Debt Service and Fund Transfers category pursuant to
Board of Supervisors direction and approval on April 11, 2012.
The School Division increase of $2,560,869 to the total FY 12/13 budget constitutes an
amendment to the budget formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April and is included in the
figures below:
This appropriation is made up of the following major funds:
General Fund $218,764,483
School Fund 151,249,906
School Fund - Other 19,293,330
Special Revenue Fund 14,157,289
Debt Service Fund 16,026,847
SUB-TOTAL $419,491,855
Less Inter-fund Transfers (127,117,328)
TOTAL (this resolution) $292,374,527
Capital Projects (previously appropriated) 21,624,481
GRAND TOTAL $313,999,008
With regard to the Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) appropriations, the Board, during
its FY2013 budget work sessions, authorized funding for the upcoming fiscal year in the amount of
$3,258,054; representing a 1.2% increase over FY2012 ($37,771). The Board further directed staff to
advise the JMRL Board that the increased level of funding being provided by the County should be
dedicated to providing a 1.0 % salary increase for JMRL employees and for increased employee benefit
costs provided all JMRL jurisdictions match this level of funding. The JMRL Board is scheduled to
consider adoption of its FY2013 Budget at its June 25, 2012 meeting. The budget to be considered by the
JMRL Board includes funding for a 2% salary increase for those employees earning greater than
$11.00/hour and a 3% increase for those earning less than this amount. This budget further addresses
increased costs associated with employee retirement and health insurance premiums and other
contractual increases, including rent adjustments for the Northside Library facility. In short, JMRL’s
proposal is a baseline operating plan that will provide salary increases for JMRL employees for the first
time since 2008. Although it is necessary for JMRL to reduce operating hours at the Northside Branch to
achieve these salary increases, County staff concurs with this approach and recommends that the Board
not condition its FY2013 appropriation on a 1.0 percent salary increase.
Staff recommends approval of the Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 12/13 (Attachment
A) that appropriates a total of $292,374,527 to various General Government and School Division operating
and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 12/13. This appropriation, combined with the
appropriation of capital projects made on May 9, 2012, result in a total County budget of $313,999,008.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker expressed concern about the reduced hours at the Northside Branch
Library along with underfunding of raises. One issue discussed by the Board was the study showing that
Library employees were significantly underpaid compared to their cohorts around the State, and that they
had not had raises in five years. The Board mentioned that it would have staff study this in an effort to
possibly offer a mid-year adjustment. He would like to make sure that is done.
Mr. Foley said he wasn’t aware of a mid-year adjustment but he has talked to Mr. John Halliday
about submitting background information in August so the staff could make sure it is fed into the County’s
five year planning process. If Board members want to consider a mid-year adjustment they will have it in a
timeframe to be able to do it. He noted that some localities are not giving any increases to the library this
year, the County gave a modest increase, and the City fully funded the JMRL request – and the library was
able to shift around some expenditures to do better than a 1% raise for some employees. The Library
Board is making some progress, although it is not going to solve the long-term issue of their salaries
falling behind market, but there is a plan to get that information to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said he understood their plan is to provide a larger increase to employees, but the
County is not paying its share of accomplishing that goal.
Ms. Mallek stated that they have brought forward the below-market discrepancy for several years,
so it is really up to this Board to decide if it is something they are going to take seriously and actually get it
to happen.
Mr. Foley said that he had informed Mr. Halliday that the best way for the Board to manage that is
through the five-year planning process.
Mr. Rooker said that beyond the five-year planning process, the Board just approved a $90,000
overtime payment for the Fire Department – and this amount is less than that.)
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the Annual Resolution of Appropriations
for FY 12/13 (Attachment A) that appropriates a total of $292,374,527 to various General
Government and School Division operating and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 12/13,
as set out below:
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
_____
Item No. 8.4. Establishment of Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Internal Service Fund.
The executive summary states that in 2005, the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) was
established to provide general oversight and execution of the County’s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), including school construction. When originally established, the entire operation was funded through
the General Fund with no specific accounting for Project Management (PM) services linked to the projects
being managed. In August 2009 the Board approved modifications to this program authorizing a flat 4.5%
project management fee for all approved CIP projects and, in this way, transferring the cost of direct PM
services from the General Fund to the Capital Fund. Administrative costs of OFD, i.e. salaries for the
Director and Management Analyst, are still funded in the General Fund.
Staff is proposing further refinements to the method of capturing PM costs by establishing an
Internal Service Fund (ISF) for the OFD. PM hours will be tracked and directly billed to the projects being
managed in order to capture true project costs. This improved model would allow the County to capitalize
direct PM costs within the project being managed and mirrors methodologies employed in private industry
and in many public entities for collecting and charging project costs. Hourly rates for the PM service will be
reviewed annually to ensure adequacy to cover the OFD operation while remaining competitive with
private market rates.
Transitioning to an ISF requires the establishment of a billable hourly rate for each fiscal year (FY)
to cover all estimated OFD expenditures (salary, benefits, operational costs). The method of estimating
and implementation includes developing a work plan for both new projects approved for the next FY as
well as future projects included in the CIP. During the annual CIP Project Submission and Review
process, OFD will evaluate each project and estimate the number of PM hours for that project, based on
hourly metrics collected on similar projects and overall complexity. It shall be the responsibility of the
Director of OFD, after consultation with the sponsoring department or agency, to determine which CIP
projects require OFD oversight and services, based on the complexity and scope of the project.
For FY13, a billable rate of $70/hour is being proposed to be charged on a monthly basis. For
comparison, Chesterfield County has been using an ISF for project management for approximately 15
years with a planned billable rate for FY13 of $73/hour based on a similar PM department operational
budget.
OFD is comprised of 9 full time employees (FTEs) including a Director, Management Analyst,
Transportation Engineer, 3 Senior Project Managers and 3 Project Manager/Inspectors (1 currently
vacant). The estimated man-hours of 7 FTEs (Transportation Engineer and all Senior Project Managers
and Project Manager/Inspectors) make up the net direct billable hours. Beginning in FY 13, OFD’s
operating budget would be budgeted as an ISF and charges for services would offset the total cost of the
Office budget. Those services would include PM services for capital projects (Capital Program Funds)
and internal services provided on behalf of the County not directly related to a capital project (General
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
Fund). OFD’s total operating budget of $882,895 would not increase. The proposed changes would result
in a decreased burden to the General Fund and a corresponding increased burden to the Capital Project
Funds of approximately $58,450. If an ISF is approved, an appropriation will be recommended at the next
Board meeting to create the OFD ISF, along with amendments to the operating and capital budgets.
Staff recommends that the Board:
Authorize staff to establish an OFD Internal Service Fund in FY13.
Approve the proposed $70/hour billable rate for FY13 and authorize staff to adjust FY13
project budgets accordingly.
Authorize the OFD Director to determine which CIP projects are subject to OFD oversight
and PM services for all Local Government, School and Agency projects after consultation
with the sponsoring department.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized staff to establish an OFD Internal
Service Fund in FY13; approved the proposed $70/hour billable rate for FY13 and authorized staff
to adjust FY13 project budgets accordingly; and authorized the OFD Director to determine which
CIP projects are subject to OFD oversight and PM services for all Local Government, School and
Agency projects after consultation with the sponsoring department.
_____
Item No. 8.5. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2011-12
Applicant Class.
The executive summary states that pursuant to sections A.1-110(G) and A.1-110(H) of the ACE
Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors reviews the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee
and identifies which conservation easements it desires to acquire. Each conservation easement identified
by the Board for purchase is appraised by an independent appraiser chosen by the County.
Four (4) applications were submitted for the Round 11 class (2011-12) at the October 31, 2011
deadline. Staff has evaluated each of the properties from Round 11 according to the ACE Ordinance
ranking evaluation criteria. These objective criteria include: open space resources; threat of conversion to
developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and County fund leveraging from outside sources.
Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined the eligibility of the properties and has placed
them in a ranking order (see Attachment A). These results were presented to the ACE Committee which
unanimously approved them at its April 9, 2012 meeting.
The evaluation of the four (4) applications from Round 11 has determined that three (3) properties
scored sufficient points to be eligible for ACE funding. With $587,584 of funding available for this class
(Attachment B), the ACE Committee believes the County can acquire ACE easements on one or two of
the highest ranked properties. Based on the final ranking order and eligibility status of these properties,
the ACE Committee recommends that the Board authorize staff to order appraisals on the Frankfurt,
Manning-Smith, and Davis properties. Although the total ACE budget for FY 2011-12 may be insufficient
for purchasing easements on all three properties, the ACE Committee believes it is prudent to obtain
appraisals on more properties than funding will allow in the event that additional funding becomes
available or higher ranking applicants already approved for acquisition withdraw their application from the
Program.
The acquisition of easements on these three highest ranked properties would eliminate 39
development rights and result in the protection of the following resources:
382 acres of farm and forest land, of which 137 acres are “prime” farm and forest land
12,858 feet of protected stream and river frontage (including 1,115 feet on the Moormans
River – a state scenic river)
12,676 feet of common boundary with other protected lands
4,338 feet of state road frontage
one property has significant tourism value
one property lies in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
two properties are productive, working farms
the Frankfurt and Manning-Smith properties are adjoining, creating a single large block of
protected land
After the acquisition of the Nash/Violette and pending Rushia/Fleckles easements, a total of
$587,584 will be available for acquiring new easements. This funding reflects a combination of re-
appropriated County funds ($476,632) and a grant from VDACS Office of Farmland Preservation
($110,952), previously awarded to the County. Funding for the purchase of this conservation easement
comes from the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item 9010-81010-580409).
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Approve the final ranking order for Round 11 (2011-12) as shown on Attachment A (on
file in Clerk’s office);
2) Identify the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties as those on which it
desires to purchase conservation easements; and
3) Authorize staff to order appraisals for the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis
properties.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the final ranking order for Round 11
(2011-12) as shown on Attachment A; identified the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis
properties as those on which it desires to purchase conservation easements; and authorized staff
to order appraisals for the Frankfurt, Manning-Smith, and Davis properties.
_____
Item No. 8.6. Appointment of Howard G. Lagomarsino Jr., as the Albemarle County Fire Marshal.
The executive summary states that Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the
Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-30. County Code § 6-111 provides that the Fire Marshal shall
be appointed by the Board, shall take an oath of office, and shall be authorized to exercise all of the
powers authorized by Title 27, Chapter 3 of the Virginia Code. County Code §§ 6-200 et seq. provides that
the Fire Marshal shall fulfill the duties of Albemarle County’s Fire Official as established in Title 27 of the
Virginia Code and the Virginia Statewide Fire Code.
The appointment of Howard G. Lagomarsino, Jr. as Fire Marshal is necessary in order for him to
fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s Office. He has satisfactorily completed all
required training for fire marshal designation as promulgated by the Virginia State Department of Fire
Programs. This training program has been approved by the Virginia Fire Services Board and is a
prerequisite for a fire marshal to exercise police powers pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1. The Board
has previously authorized the Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshals to exercise police powers. In
addition, Mr. Lagomarsino has completed the required training and attained the qualifications established
by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development that are necessary in order for him to
be designated as a fire official in Virginia.
This action will have no impact on the County budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution appointing Howard G.
Lagomarsino, Jr. as the Albemarle County Fire Marshal with full police powers as authorized in Virginia
Code §§ 27-34.2:1 and 27-36 and to fulfill the duties of Albemarle County’s Fire Official as established in
Title 27 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Statewide Fire Code and Albemarle County Code, Chapter 6.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution appointing
Howard G. Lagomarsino, Jr. as the Albemarle County Fire Marshal with full police powers as
authorized in Virginia Code §§ 27-34.2:1 and 27-36 and to fulfill the duties of Albemarle County’s
Fire Official as established in Title 27 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Statewide Fire Code and
Albemarle County Code, Chapter 6:
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT FIRE MARSHAL
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-30 provides that the governing body of a county may appoint a fire
marshal and Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code §§ 6-200 et seq. recognize the Fire Marshal as Albemarle
County’s Fire Official for the duties and responsibilities as established by Title 27 of the Virginia Code, the
Virginia Statewide Fire Code, and the Albemarle County Code; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that the governing body of a county may authorize the
fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or law-enforcement officers upon
completion of the training discussed in such section; and
WHEREAS, the appointment of Howard G. Lagomarsino, Jr. as the Fire Marshal with police powers
will promote the efficient and effective operation of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
appoints Howard G. Lagomarsino, Jr. as the Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-30; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that he shall be authorized to exercise the authorities of the fire official
as established by Title 27 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Statewide Fire Code, and the Albemarle County
Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that he shall have the same powers as a sheriff, police officer or law-
enforcement officer pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1.
_____
Item No. 8.7. Appointment of Elie Jones and Robert W. Gilmer as Assistant Fire Marshals.
The executive summary states that Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the
Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-30. County Code § 6-111 provides that the Fire Marshal shall
be authorized to exercise all of the powers authorized by Title 27, Chapter 3 of the Virginia Code. County
Code §§ 6-200 et seq. provides that the Fire Marshal shall fulfill the duties of the Albemarle County Fire
Official as established in Title 27 of the Virginia Code and the Virginia Statewide Fire Code.
Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the Board may appoint one or more assistants who, in the
absence of the Fire Marshal, shall have the powers and perform the duties of the Fire Marshal.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Elie Jones currently performs Fire Prevention Inspector and Investigator duties, and has
completed all of the training required by the Virginia State Department of Fire Programs for fire marshals
to exercise police powers. The appointment of Elie Jones as Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary in order
for him to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s Office. Adoption of the attached
Resolution (Attachment A) to appoint Elie Jones as an Assistant Fire Marshal would authorize him to fulfill
the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s Office and to exercise the same police powers as a
sheriff, police officer and other law enforcement officers.
Robert W. Gilmer also currently performs Fire Prevention Inspector and Investigator duties, and is
planning to take the training required to exercise police powers, which is offered one time each year, in the
spring of 2013. The appointment of Robert Gilmer as Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary in order for him
to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s Office. Adoption of the attached Resolution
(Attachment B) to appoint Robert Gilmer as an Assistant Fire Marshal would authorize him to fulfill the
duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal’s Office, but not to exercise police powers.
Upon Robert Gilmer’s successful completion of the police powers training, staff will request the Board
to adopt a Resolution authorizing Robert Gilmer to exercise police powers.
This action will have no impact on the County budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions appointing Elie Jones and
Robert W. Gilmer as Assistant Albemarle County Fire Marshals.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolutions appointing Elie
Jones and Robert W. Gilmer as Assistant Albemarle County Fire Marshals:
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ELIE JONES
AS AN ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-30 provides that the governing body of a county may appoint a fire
marshal and Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code §§ 6-200 recognize the Fire Marshal as Albemarle County’s Fire
Official for the duties and responsibilities as established by Title 27 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Statewide
Fire Code, and the Albemarle County Code; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that the governing body of a county may authorize the
fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or law-enforcement officers upon
completion of the training discussed in such section; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the governing body of a county may appoint one or
more assistants, who, in the absence of the fire marshal, shall have the powers and perform the duties of the
fire marshal; and
WHEREAS, the appointment of Elie Jones as an Assistant Fire Marshal will promote the efficient and
effective operation of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
appoints Elie Jones as an Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized in
Virginia Code §§ 27-34:2:1 and 27-36 and Albemarle County Code § 6-111.
RESOLUTION TO APPOINT ROBERT W. GILMER
AS AN ASSISTANT FIRE MARSHAL
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-30 provides that the governing body of a county may appoint a fire
marshal and Albemarle County Code § 6-111 establishes the Office of the Fire Marshal; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code §§ 6-200 recognize the Fire Marshal as Albemarle County’s Fire
Official for the duties and responsibilities as established by Title 27 of the Virginia Code, the Virginia Statewide
Fire Code, and the Albemarle County Code; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that the governing body of a county may authorize the
fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or law-enforcement officers upon
completion of the training discussed in such section; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the governing body of a county may appoint one or
more assistants, who, in the absence of the fire marshal, shall have the powers and perform the duties of the
fire marshal; and
WHEREAS, the appointment of Robert W. Gilmer as an Assistant Fire Marshal will promote the
efficient and effective operation of the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
appoints Robert W. Gilmer as an Assistant Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia Code §27-36 and Albemarle
County Code § 6-111; and
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, because he has not taken the training required to exercise police
powers, he therefore shall not have police powers authorized in Virginia Code § 27-34:2:1 until he has
completed such required training.
_____
Item No. 8.8. VRS Resolutions to Certify Employer Retirement Contribution; to Certify Member
Contribution and Corresponding Salary Increase and to Certify Concurrence with the School Division’s
Election.
The executive summary states that on May 9, the Board of Supervisors discussed the multiple
changes that were adopted by the 2012 General Assembly to reform the Virginia Retirement Plan.
One bill passed by the General Assembly requires local government and school division
employees to pay a 5% contribution to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016 and for local governments and
school divisions to provide current employees with a salary increase to offset the cost of the current
employees’ VRS contribution. Localities were provided an option to phase-in the contributions for existing
employees at the rate of 1% per year until July 1, 2016.
In addition, the General Assembly, through the adopted budget bill (HB 1301), provided local
governments with the following options regarding the Employer’s VRS contribution rate beginning July 1,
2012:
Pay the Certified Rate by the VRS Board of Trustees for the 2012-2014 biennium
announced in December 2011; or
Pay either the Certified Rate by the VRS Board of Trustees for FY 2011-2012 or 70% of
the VRS Board-certified rate for 2013-2014, whichever is higher (Alternate Rate). If the
County’s General Government chooses to pay the Alternate Rate, the combined
contribution rate for the General Government share would be the current VRS rate in FY
12, which is 10.14%, rather than the VRS Board rate of 13.99%.
The Virginia Retirement System requires that the Board of Supervisors adopt the following
Resolutions by July 1, 2012 and submit them to VRS by no later than July 10, 2012:
1) A resolution to certify the employer contribution rate that will be paid by the County to VRS
for the defined benefit retirement plan in the biennium beginning July 1,2012 (Attachment
A).
2) A resolution to approve the amount of the member retirement contribution that current
employees will pay beginning July 1, 2012 and the certification that employees will receive
a comparable offsetting salary increase effective July 1 of each year of the phase-in
period (Attachment B).
3) A resolution to certify that the Board of Supervisors concurs with the School Division’s
election to pay the VRS Board of Trustees’ Certified Rate of 9.45% for the 2012-2014
biennium for the School Division’s classified employees (Attachment C).
The School Board will be adopting similar resolutions regarding VRS member and employer
contributions for its classified employees at its June 14, 2012 meeting. The Certified Rate for the School
Division is 9.45% and the Alternate Rate is 6.62%.
On May 9, 2012, the Board reviewed these options and agreed to the following:
1) The County will certify to the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees that the
County elects to pay the certified VRS contribution rate of 13.99%, and
2) The County will certify to the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees that it shall
effect the implementation of the member contribution requirements of Chapter 822 of the
2012 Acts of Assembly (SB497) according to the following schedule:
Type of Employee Employer Paid Member
Contribution
Employee Paid Member
Contribution
Plan 1 0% 5%
Plan 2 0% 5%
New FY 2013 Employees 0% 5%
This approach regarding member contributions ensures commonality between the School Division
and General Government and will only apply to those employees who are members of VRS.
3) This is to be implemented under the following agreement:
a. All new revenues in FY 14 received by General Government and the School
Division will first be used to offset the cost of implementing this VRS mandate,
and/or
b. Operating expenses will be reduced in FY 14 if necessary to ensure on-going
funds for this recurring expense
The election of the13.99% Employer contribution rate will not impact the FY 13 General
Government budget, as it is already included in the FY 13 budget, which was approved by the Board in
April, 2012.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
The implementation of the change in VRS member contribution requirements (“the 5 and 5”)
impacts both the General Government and the School Division’s FY 13 budgets.
The General Government estimates that the cost of implementing “the 5 and 5” to its FY 13
budget will be approximately $380,000, which includes the associated increases to overtime pay. A portion
of this cost will be funded from savings in other areas of the FY 13 budget, and the remainder will be
provided by fund balance. The General Government’s FY 13 Budget will be adjusted accordingly and the
associated appropriations will be provided for the Board’s approval on July 2, 2012.
The School Division estimates that the impact of implementing “the 5 and 5” to its FY13 budget
will be $791,000, and it plans to use funds from the School Division fund balance to meet that obligation.
This proposed use of the School Division Fund Balance requires Board approval and is included in the
FY13 Resolution of Appropriations that is being presented to the Board on June 6, 2012.
Pursuant to the Board’s direction, all new revenues in FY 14 will first be used to offset the cost of
implementing this on-going VRS mandate, and/or operating expenses will be reduced by both the School
Division and General Government to ensure on-going funds for this recurring expense.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions:
1) To certify the County’s employer contribution rate for General Government
employees will be the VRS Board of Trustees’ rate of 13.99%, which is the
contribution Certified Rate by the VRS Board of Trustees for the 2012-2014
biennium (Attachment A);
2) To certify Member Contribution of 5% and a corresponding salary increase of 5%
for General Government employees (Attachment B); and
3) To certify that it concurs with the School Divisions election to pay the VRS Board of
Trustees’ Certified Rate of 9.45% for the 2012-2014 biennium for the School Division’s
classified employees (Attachment C).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted resolutions: to certify the County’s
employer contribution rate for General Government employees will be the VRS Board of Trustees’
rate of 13.99%, which is the contribution Certified Rate by the VRS Board of Trustees for the 2012 -
2014 biennium; to certify Member Contribution of 5% and a corresponding salary increase of 5%
for General Government employees; and to certify that it concurs with the School Divisions
election to pay the VRS Board of Trustees’ Certified Rate of 9.45% for the 2012-2014 biennium for
the School Division’s classified employees, as set out below:
Employer Contribution Rates for Counties, Cities,
Towns, School Divisions and Other Political Subdivisions
(In accordanc e with the 2012 Appropriation Act Item 468(H))
Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby acknowledge that its contribution
rates effective July 1, 2012 shall be based on the higher of a) the contribution rate in effect for FY 2012, or
b) seventy percent of the results of the June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation of assets and liabilities as
approved by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees for the 2012-14 biennium (the “Alternate
Rate”) provided that, at its option, the contribution rate may be based on the employer contribution rates
certified by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees pursuant to Virginia Code § 51.1-145(I)
resulting from the June 30, 2011 actuarial value of assets and liabilities (the “Certified Rate”); and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it elects to pay the following contribution rate effective July 1,
2012:
(Check only one box)
x The Certified Rate of 13.99% □ The Alternate Rate of 10.14%; and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it has reviewed and understands the information provided by
the Virginia Retirement System outlining the potential future fiscal implications of any election made under
the provisions of this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Albemarle County 55101 are hereby authorized and directed
in the name of Albemarle County to carry out the provisions of this resolution, and said officers of
Albemarle County are authorized and directed to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to time
such sums as are due to be paid by Albemarle County for this purpose.
*****
Member Contributions by Salary Reduction for Counties, Cities,
Towns, and Other Political Subdivisions
(In accordanc e with Chapter 822 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly (SB497))
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Resolution
WHEREAS, Albemarle County 55101 employees who are Virginia Retirement System members
who commence or recommence employment on or after July 1, 2012 (“FY2013 Employees” for purposes
of this resolution), shall be required to contribute five percent of their creditable compensation by salary
reduction pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 414(h) on a pre-tax basis upon commencing or
recommencing employment; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County 55101 employees who are Virginia Retirement System members
and in service on June 30, 2012, shall be required to contribute five percent of their creditable
compensation by salary reduction pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 414(h) on a pre-tax basis no later
than July 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, such employees in service on June 30, 2012, shall contribute a minimum of an
additional one percent of their creditable compensation beginning on each July 1 of 2012, 2013, 2014,
2015, and 2016, or until the employees’ contributions equal five percent of creditable compensation; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County 55101 may elect to require such employees in service on June 30,
2012, to contribute more than an additional one percent each year, in whole percentages, until the
employees’ contributions equal five percent of creditable compensation; and
WHEREAS, the second enactment clause of Chapter 822 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly (SB497)
requires an increase in total creditable compensation, effective July 1, 2012, to each such employee in
service on June 30, 2012, to offset the cost of the member contributions, such increase in total creditable
compensation to be equal to the difference between five percent of the employee's total creditable
compensation and the percentage of the member contribution paid by such employee on January 1, 2012.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it shall effect the implementation of the member contribution
requirements of Chapter 822 of the 2012 Acts of Assembly (SB497) according to the following schedule
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 (i.e., FY2013):
Type of
Employee
Employer Paid
Member Contribution
Employee Paid
Member Contribution
Plan 1 0 % 5 %
Plan 2 0% 5%
FY2013 Employees 0% 5%
(Note: Each row must add up to 5 percent.); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such contributions, although designated as member
contributions, are to be made by Albemarle County in lieu of member contributions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pick up member contributions shall be paid from the same
source of funds as used in paying the wages to affected employees; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that member contributions made by Albemarle County under the
pick up arrangement shall be treated for all purposes other than income taxation, including but not limited
to VRS benefits, in the same manner and to the same extent as member contributions made prior to the
pick up arrangement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing herein shall be construed so as to permit or extend an
option to VRS members to receive the pick up contributions made by Albemarle County directly instead of
having them paid to VRS; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notwithstanding any contractual or other provisions, the wages
of each member of VRS who is an employee of Albemarle County shall be reduced by the amount of
member contributions picked up by Albemarle County on behalf of such employee pursuant to the
foregoing resolutions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Albemarle County 55101 are hereby authorized and directed
in the name of Albemarle County to carry out the provisions of this resolution, and said officers of
Albemarle County are authorized and directed to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to time
such sums as are due to be paid by Albemarle County for this purpose.
*****
Local Governing Body Concurrence with School Division
Electing to Pay the VRS Board-Certified Rate
(In accordanc e wit h the 2012 Appropriation Act Item 468(H))
Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby acknowledge that Albemarle
County Schools has made the election for its contribution rate to be based on the employer contribution
rates certified by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees pursuant to Virginia Code § 51.1-
145(I) resulting from the June 30, 2011 actuarial value of assets and liabilities (the “Certified Rate”); and
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it concurs with the election of Albemarle County Schools to pay
the Certified Rate, as required by Item 468(H) of the 2012 Appropriation Act; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Albemarle County 55101 are hereby authorized and directed
in the name of Albemarle County to execute any required contract to carry out the provisions of this
resolution. In execution of any such contract which may be required, the seal of Albemarle County, as
appropriate, shall be affixed and attested by the Clerk.
_____
Item No. 8.9. Update to Constitutional Officers’ Budget.
The executive summary states that Albemarle County Constitutional Officers provide valuable
services on behalf of the citizens of the County. Constitutional Officers’ budgets are primarily supported
by the State’s Compensation Board and are supplemented by the County. Over the past several months,
the Constitutional Officers have approached County staff and have requested County assistance to help
them to address important unmet staffing and operational needs that they have identified within their
operations. Staff supports these requests as summarized below and more fully described in Attachment A.
This executive summary requests the Board’s consideration of the following:
Clerk of the Circuit Court: The HR Utilization Review Report and the Virginia Supreme Court’s
“Court’s Management Report” support the addition of a part-time Chief Deputy/Bookkeeper position to
support the Clerk’s operation. This position would be similar to that found in Clerk’s Offices in benchmark
localities. Staff has reviewed the Clerk’s budget and recommends this position be fully funded within the
Clerk’s current allocation in the FY 13 Budget. Staff also supports the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Clerk to bring the Clerk’s Office into conformity with the County’s personnel
policies and to authorize the Clerk’s Office to participate in the County’s merit and compensation Plan.
Office of the Sheriff: The Sheriff desires to provide finger printing services for the County and in
cooperation with Chief Sellers to relieve the Police Department of this task. Sheriff Harding states that this
can be done utilizing the volunteers in his office. He requests that funding be provided to the Sheriff’s
Office to support these volunteers, which would be used exclusively to purchase volunteer uniforms and
equipment that has previously be paid for out-of-pocket by the volunteers. Staff recommends that $11,600
be provided to the Sheriff’s Office for this purpose, of which $3,000 would be transferred from the Police
Department’s budget and $8,600 from savings in the County’s Public Safety departments due to a recently
identified reduction in the VRS group life insurance rate, which is lower than the estimated rate that was
planned for and included in the County’s FY 13 Budget. Staff further recommends that a MOU be
established with the Office of the Sheriff that outlines this agreement
Commonwealth’s Attorney: Rather than request an annual reallocation of the additional revenue
generated by the CAO’s collection of delinquent fines and costs, the Com monwealth’s Attorney requests
that the County retain the increased revenues and, in exchange, fund a part-time attorney position until
such time as the Compensation Board funds the additional position. The need for an additional attorney
position is reflected in a recommendation by the 2008/2009 Resources Management Review performed
by the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute in the Center for Public Policy at VCU. Additionally, the
Compensation Board’s staffing standards indicate that the CAO is due an additional attorney position. The
Commonwealth’s Attorney desires to utilize the $60,000 approved by the Board during the FY 13 budget
process to fund a part-time attorney position, including benefits and associated expenses.
Clerk of Circuit Court:
An additional part-time bookkeeper position in the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office would cost
approximately $25,500 annually. There would be no increase to the FY 13 Budget for this position, as staff
recommends that this be funded through a combination of reductions in other Clerk operating budget line
items. In July, 2012, after the salary determinations are finalized for the Clerk’s employees by HR staff
and in accordance with the proposed MOU, the HR Department estimates an additional $7,000 will be
needed in County funding for changes in the Clerk’s employees’ salary classifications and can be taken
from the reclassification pool established for this purpose. This action does not increase the FY 13
Budget.
Office of the Sheriff:
$11,600 would be transferred to the Office of Sheriff to fund the office’s finger printing services.
The funds would be used exclusively for volunteer uniforms and equipment. $3,000 would be transferred
from the Police Department’s budget and $8,600 from recently identified savings in the County’s Public
Safety departments. This action does not increase the FY 13 Budget.
Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office: $60,000 was included in the Board’s Adopted FY 13 Budget
for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. The Commonwealth’s Attorney desires to utilize these funds to
hire an additional part-time attorney; $53,600 for salary and benefits and $6,400 for expenses associated
with the position, such as equipment, supplies, dues, travel and training. This action does not increase the
FY 13 Budget.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the part-time positions in the Commonwealth’s
Attorney’s Office and the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office. These actions will not require appropriations, as the
adjustments will be made within their current FY 13 office budgets.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
In addition, staff recommends that the Board approve the transfer of $11,600 to the Sheriff’s
budget from the public safety departments’ budgets within the current FY 13 Budget and approve the
Appropriation #2013001 (Attachment A) that will be in addition to the appropriations approved in the FY 13
Budget Resolution of Appropriation scheduled for approval on the June 6, 2012 agenda.
Information regarding the funding required by the Clerk of Circuit Court for the salary adjustments
associated with the proposed MOU, as well as a related appropriation request, will be brought back to the
Board for its consideration in July.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the part-time positions in the Common-
wealth’s Attorney’s Office and the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office; and approved the transfer of
$11,600 to the Sheriff’s budget from the public safety departments’ budgets within the current FY
13 Budget and approved the Appropriation #2013001.
APP #2013001
DATE 06/06/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reallocate funding to Sheriff Office for providing fingerprinting services
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 21070 421070 301235 1002 11,600.00
4 1000 31013 431010 120000 1003 (3,000.00) Overtime
4 1000 21070 421070 241000 1002 (646.00) Group Life
4 1000 31013 431010 241000 1003 (4,991.00) Group Life
4 1000 32011 432010 241000 1003 (263.00) Group Life
4 1000 32012 432010 241000 1003 (31.00) Group Life
4 1000 32013 432010 241000 1003 (175.00) Group Life
4 1000 32015 432010 241000 1003 (2,494.00) Group Life
TOTAL 0.00
_____
Item No. 8.10. Safe Routes to School Travel Plan for the Greer Elementary and Jack Jouett
Middle Schools.
The executive summary states that the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program is a federally-
funded program created under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The purpose of the SRTS program is to:
“Enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and
bicycle to school; make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing
transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an
early age; and facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and
activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in
the vicinity of schools.”
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is responsible for administering this program
in Virginia. Albemarle High School is not included in this plan because the program is geared toward
elementary and middle school only, although the entire school complex, including the high school, would
benefit from some of the plan’s recommendations.
The Virginia SRTS Program is a phased program. Phase I requires the local development of a
SRTS School Travel Plan. A School Travel Plan is a written document that outlines a school community's
intentions for making bicycling and walking to school sustainable and safe. The Alliance for Community
Choice in Transportation (ACCT) is coordinating the development of the Plan for the County with
assistance from staff. ACCT has worked with School staff, PTO and County Planning and Facilities
Development staff in developing this plan. The plan assesses the schools’ travel environment, identifies
hazards and barriers to pedestrian and bicycle travel, identifies solutions and improvements to encourage
walking and biking, and establishes an action plan for implementing programs and improvements. A
Travel Plan, with an accompanying resolution of support, must be approved by VDOT in order for the
County to be eligible to apply for any Virginia SRTS Program grants.
Phase II of the program is the infrastructure application step. Once a school and community have
completed a School Travel Plan and received approval from VDOT, the Plan can be used to apply for
SRTS funding to implement identified strategies for implementing the Plan. Specific strategies/
recommendations can be found on pages 16-19 of the Travel Plan (Attachment A). The types of activities
and projects that can be funded through this Program and that are identified in this Plan include:
Bicycle and pedestrian safety education
Safe Routes to School workshops
Activities such as a special "walk to school day" event
Crossing guard training programs and equipment
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
Various sidewalk improvements on the school complex site and adjacent public roads
Improved intersections and crossings
Staff anticipates applying for a SRTS Infrastructure Grant in the future to implement some of the
recommended improvements. To date, VDOT has not established a schedule for the next round of SRTS
infrastructure grant applications. Any future grant applications will require a resolution from the Board
supporting that specific request.
There is no budget impact with this request. If VDOT approves the County’s Plan, staff will apply
for future SRTS infrastructure grants to fund pedestrian and bicycle related infrastructure improvements,
such as sidewalks, bike lanes, bike trails and crosswalks. No match is required from the County for those
grants.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) supporting the
Safe Routes to School Travel Plan for Greer Elementary and Jouett Middle School.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker said this is an exceptionally well done report and has a lot of great ideas
in it. As he understands, once this is completed, the County would apply for a grant. Mr. Rooker said that
there is some unspent Stonefield proffer money that could be allocated to accomplish some of the
objectives in this plan – especially those that are closest to the development. He suggested that some of
the proffer money be allocated to sidewalk projects contemplated in the plan.
Mr. Foley said when some response is received on the grant, staff would put that on the table for
consideration.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is a similar situation with Crozet’s grant match.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution supporting the
Safe Routes to School Travel Plan for Greer Elementary and Jouett Middle School:
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
TRAVEL PLAN FOR GREER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AND JOUETT MIDDDLE SCHOOL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the goals of the Safe Routes To School Program to
enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school, to make
bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a
healthy and active lifestyle from an early age, and to facilitate the planning, development, and implementation
of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the
vicinity of schools;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports
the Safe Routes to School Travel Plan for Greer Elementary School and Jouett Middle School.
_____
Item No. 8.10a. Resolution in Support of Proposal to Subsidize Private Internet Provider.
At the request of Mr. Dumler, the Board adopted the following resolution and requested
that same be forwarded to Mr. Tom Sullivan:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF
PROPOSAL TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE INTERNET PROVIDER
WHEREAS reliable and high-speed residential internet services are increasingly important for
educational and economic vitality purposes, yet reliable, high-speed internet capability is lacking for many
residences in much of rural Albemarle County;
WHEREAS pursuant to communications with the County of Albemarle dated February 2, 2012,
Murcielago, LLC entered into negotiations with CenturyLink to subsidize the cost of building a fiber based
broadband network along Jefferson Mill Road and Blenheim Road up to Secretarys Road, with all construction
to be paid for by CenturyLink and construction to be completed in one year;
WHEREAS communications with the County of Albemarle indicated that this project would proceed
along existing CenturyLink and potentially VDOT infrastructure and easements and CenturyLink had agreed to
facilitate obtaining their own permits;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
fully endorses and supports the proposal of Murcielago, LLC, to subsidize the cost of building a fiber based
broadband network along Jefferson Mill Road and Blenheim Road up to Secretarys Road;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, thanks
Murcielago, LLC, for their generous offer to fund this important service on behalf of not only their own
needs but also their neighbors and the residents of the aforementioned roads.
_____
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
Item No. 8.11. FY 2012 Third Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and Use of Proffer
Funds, was received for information.
The executive summary states that in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report
on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on
non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report February 1, 2012, which included
information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for October-December 2011.
The Board also received a report on March 7, 2012 with additional information on potential uses of
available cash proffers for CIP projects. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash
improvements) from the third quarter of fiscal year 2012 (January-March). The next quarterly proffer report
will be on the Board’s August 1, 2012 agenda
Cash Proffers Activity for Fiscal Year 2012 Third Quarter (January–March)
A. New Proffered Revenue: There were no rezoning requests approved this quarter that provided
new cash proffers.
B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $42,010,542 and reflects annual
adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which
annual adjustments were proffered.
C. 3rd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $469,540 from existing cash proffers
during this quarter from the following developments:
Development Amount Intended Purpose
Wickham Pond $61,290 CIP Projects serving Crozet
Belvedere $5,250 Affordable Housing
Westhall $20,000 Eastern Avenue and CIP
projects in Crozet
Albemarle Place (Stonefield) $375,000 CIP Projects
Old Trail $8,000 Schools and Parks in CIP
projects in Crozet
D. Expenditures: There were no expenditures of cash proffers during this quarter.
E. Current Available Funds: As of March 31, 2012, the available proffered cash on-hand is
$1,931,621 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were
proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP.
Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $488,729 is currently appropriated. (See Attachment A
for details) There were no additional appropriations of cash proffers during this quarter. The net
cash balance is $1,442,892. Attachment B provides information on how funds may be used for
future appropriations.
Non Cash Proffers-Proffered
There were two rezonings approved by the Board this quarter. ZMA 2010-09 Albemarle Health
and Rehabilitation Center was approved to rezone 5.38 acres from R-1 Zoning to PD-MC Planned
Development Mixed Commercial to allow a nursing/rehabilitation facility. Proffers approved with this
rezoning restrict uses of the property and provide for construction of an extension of the street adjacent to
the Monticello Fire Station from Mill Creek Drive to the facility. ZMA 2011-07 Albemarle Place/Stonefield
was approved to amend proffers related to road improvements.
Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address the impacts from development and
they supplement the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through
general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects can
supplement funding in the CIP, freeing up available funding for other uses. In addition, non-cash
proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue.
Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer
funds on an on-going basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and
to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines.
This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
_____
Item No. 8.12. County Grant Application Report, was received for information.
The executive summary states that pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated
procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
The attached Grant Report provides a brief description of one grant received and six applications
submitted by the County from February 2012 through May 15, 2012. Four of the applications are for
continuation grants which have been received the two previous years.
The report also notes the use of County Grant Matching Funds to support improved services at
the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport. The Board established a $100,000 fund to support applications for
grants requiring a local match. This match was approved by the Board on May 2, 2012.
All grant funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds
awarded to the County.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
This report is for information only.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY THROUGH MAY 31, 2012
The following grants were applied for since February 2012. Continuation grants are those that have
been funded in previous years but require annual applications.
SOURCE GRANT NAME AMOUNT MATCH DEPARTMENT PURPOSE
Dept. of Justice Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant
Federal Funds
$15,068 0 Police Community Policing –
overtime funding for
crime prevention &
problem solving
activities
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$40,723 $2,146
County Grant
Matching Funds
Police Evidence Collection-
purchase of
surveillance and
monitoring equip
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$71,250 $3,750
Department Budget
Commission on
Children and
Families
Wilton Farms After
School Program –
prevention and control
of crime; YMCA
provides teachers and
staff
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$71,200 $3,747 Community Criminal
Justice Board
Crisis Intervention
Team – Data collection
and evaluation
VA Department of
Criminal Justice
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant –
continuation grant
Federal Funds
$706,090 $130,705
Department Budget
& Fees
OAR Probation and Pretrial
Services
Dept. of
Conservation &
Recreation
Federal Highway
Administration
Federal Funds
$86,250 $40,000
County Grant
Matching Funds
Parks and
Recreation
Provide 7 miles of new
and restored trails and
work at Preddy Creek
Trail Park
The following grants were awarded
VA Dept of Housing
and Community
Development
Community
Development Block
Grant
Federal Funds
$185,200 $8,228
Albemarle Housing
Improvement
Program
Housing Replacement of two
substandard houses
The following appropriations were made for grants received
VA Dept. of Criminal
Justice
Byrne One-time
Equipment Grant
Federal Funds
$4,599 $511
OAR
OAR One-time purchase of
equipment to reduce
client wait times
U.S. Substance
Abuse and Mental
Health Services
VCU State Incentive
Grant
Federal Funds
$145,150 0 Commission on
Children and
Families
Reduce # of motor
vehicle crashes
involving alcohol-
impaired drivers
between 15 and 24
years of age
VA Dept. of Housing
and Community
Development
Community
Development Block
Grant Funds
Federal Funds
$30,000 0 Housing Planning Grant to
assess housing needs
in the Orchard Acres
subdivision, Crozet
VA Dept. of
Emergency
Management
SHSP CBRNE
State Funds
$16,990 0 Police One-time equipment
purchase of a throw
phone
Use of Grants Leveraging Funds:
The County established a $100,000 Grants Leveraging Fund to provide an available source of funds to
match/leverage grant funding On May 2, 2012, the Board approved $7,000 in matching funds be provided to
the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) as local support of air service improvements between
Charlottesville and Chicago utilizing the County’s Grants Leveraging Funds. 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 U.S. Department of Transportation will be providing $500,000.00. The total amount will be
used as cost abatement for the first year of commerc ial service for American Eagle/American Airlines.
The balance in the County’s Grants Leveraging Fund after this appropriation is $90,852.
_____
Item No. 8.13. 2012 First Quarter Building Report, was received for information.
The report states that during the first quarter of 2012, 95 building permits were issued for 95
dwelling units. There was one permit issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an
exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an
apartment to a condominium.
_____
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
Item No. 8.14. 2012 First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report, was received for
information.
The report states that during the first quarter of 2012, 77 certificates of occupancy were issued for
105 dwelling units. There were two certificates of occupancy issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at
an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
_____
Item No. 8.15. VDOT – Culpeper District, Monthly Report for Albemarle County, was received for
information.
The report provides the following information on special issues:
US 250 Shadwell Bridge Replacement over the Buckingham Branch Rail Road—Route
250 is closed to through traffic at the Shadwell Bridge. The bridge closed to traffic on May
1, 2012. The closure and associated detour have a scheduled duration of 70 days.
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 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 road will
be closed at the Rail Road Bridge on the southern end of the road beginning on June
18th. 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.
_____
Item No. 8.16. Capital Project Contingency, was received for information.
The executive summary states that on April 4, 2012, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the
Crozet Library bids and authorized staff to execute a contract with the lowest, responsive bidder and to
proceed with construction of the project. During the review, the Board requested additional information
related to project contingency and how it is planned and managed.
Contingency is an integral part of the total estimated costs of a project and financially prepares the
County to address unforeseen and unpredictable conditions that typically arise during the
design/construction phase. Contingency is included in the project budget to cover unpredictable changes
in the work or items of work. It serves three core purposes:
to account for errors and omissions in the construction documents;
to pay for unknown conditions such as excess rock beyond the allowance or price
escalation of a product (i.e. copper); and
to accommodate necessary construction changes that are realized on-site during
construction.
As an example, contingency funds were recently used for the Crozet Streetscape project when
unanticipated work arose as a result of negotiating the acquisition of an easement. In order to satisfy the
property owner, and ultimately obtain his signature, the property owner required a redesign of a section of
the sidewalk/landscape on the property that, while conforming with the original scope, required minor
modifications to accommodate the property owner.
As a general rule and practice, the County adds a project contingency of 5 to 10% of the expected
budget for the delivery of the work. This practice is consistent with guidelines found in the Virginia
Construction and Professional Services Manual and from the American Institute of Architects. It is
important to note that the contingency is not used to avoid making an accurate assessment of expected
costs.
If the project contingency is not sufficient to fund the required changes, Board approval of an
additional appropriation is required. As an example, an unsuitable soils condition was encountered at the
Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges project requiring extensions of two of the three bridges. The project
contingency was insufficient to fund the additional work required to extend the bridges; therefore, the
Board approved a transfer of funds from the Pantops Master Plan to the project budget to support that
change order.
Authorization for use of funds set aside for project contingencies is governed by the County’s
Purchasing Manual and change orders are approved in accordance with procedures instituted by the
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
County Executive. These practices and procedures are more restrictive than required by state law to
assure close scrutiny of construction projects.
Capital Projects include a 5 to 10% contingency cost, which is included in project costs presented
to the Board for review and approval and it is appropriated as part of the total project cost.
This report is provided for information only and no action is required at this time.
_____
Item No. 8.17. Board-to-Board, A Monthly Report from the Albemarle County School Board, was
received for information.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd said that he thought there would be more discussion on how busses
would be funded. He added that his understanding was the School’s fund balance issue would be
resolved before moving forward.
Mr. Foley responded that both of those matters are addressed in the County Executive’s monthly
report, and there are some dates targeted for the School Board to come back to the Board with
recommendations. He added that the school busses can be discussed when the Board talks about the
CIP later in the meeting. He added that the fund balance is tied to that to see degree.
Mr. Boyd asked if the full fund balance would be reappropriated to the School Division for FY
12/13. Mr. Foley said that decision would not happen until the audit is complete at the end of the year.
The Board has some time to make that decision.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Consideration of the County’s Position on the Route 29 Western Bypass as
currently proposed.
Ms. Mallek offered motion that the Board of Supervisors go on record in support of the
Charlottesville Route 29 Western Bypass as currently proposed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. Mr. Dumler seconded the motion.
Mr. Rooker said that before the Board votes on this motion he wanted to state that he has a
Conflict of Interest statement on file regarding this matter, as he and his wife own a one-fourteenth interest
in a lot that would be adjacent to the bypass, which was purchased by neighbors in the Roslyn Ridge
neighborhood to protect the neighborhood about 20 years ago.
Mr. Boyd said that if anybody is planning to vote against this motion, they should recognize to the
community the importance of Places 29 which several members of the public have mentioned goes along
with this whole proposal. He said that it has been put on the table to widen Route 29, to complete
Hillsdale, and the Belmont Bridge in the City. These are all promises that were made to the County by the
Secretary of Transportation and he is bringing them to fruition because he says he is going to take them to
the CTB. Mr. Boyd stated that a vote against the bypass is a vote against Places 29 too, because the
money will all go away. The money is not on the table to spend anywhere else. This is a proposal that
was made by the State to give the community money to finish the bypass. Thanks to the efforts of Mr.
Snow and Mr. Thomas, they were able to get these other roads thrown into it. Both the Commissioner
and the Secretary of Transportation said they will do their best to get those roads included – it looks to him
like they are going to do it. He has not seen the design of the new road, in fact, no one will see it until
after June 20, 2012. He does not think the Board should be voting on something before they see what it
looks like, particularly on the premise that it will not take care of the school situations, not build in proper
landscaping based on the RFP, etc.
Mr. Rooker said that the community spoke very eloquently as they have every time they have had
the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Boyd commented that it has been a segment of the community speaking.
Mr. Rooker said that is correct, along with the 10,000 people. The reason VDOT says they do not
need to hold a public hearing is because they said they have already had one – and at that event 8,000
people spoke against the project.
Mr. Boyd said he thought 5,000 of those were by petition; they did not come to the meeting and
speak.
Mr. Rooker said if someone signs a petition, they have expressed their viewpoint. Through the
hearing petitions were turned in. He said that the EPA commented on the project and noted that at the
one hearing before that, 3,212 people spoke against the project and 52 spoke in favor of it. On the basis
of those hearings, they are not now having another hearing. He stated that what is being considered here
is a “$250 million Band-Aid,” and when these measures have been used in other places in the State they
immediately end up creating traffic problems at the other end of the Band-Aid. Mr. Rooker said that the
Culpeper office concluded for a long time that this road did not make any sense and communicated that to
the Secretary of Transportation including that the limited transportation benefits did not outweigh the cost
of the road which does not have anything to do with the community impacts that people present today are
expressing. He added that this would be the biggest take of property rights in the history of the County –
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
$80-100 million – which would mean a significant loss in tax revenue for those properties. He said that he
has sat and watched Board members be squeamish about taking a yard off of somebody’s property for a
road.
Regarding the promise to accelerate funding for Hillsdale and other elements of Places 29, Mr.
Rooker said the community has been blackmailed. They are being told that if you will take this $250
million project that you do not want, we will throw in the widening, which was already in the plan. He said
that he still does not think the project makes sense given all the negatives that it brings nor by simply
accelerating a couple of other projects. It is a fact that administrations change. He added that the current
State administration would be gone before any of the other improvements are funded, and businesses like
the Colonnades may not be able to stay in business after this is built. If this project gets built, the
community will be left with it and all of the impacts. The Colonnades is a major employer in this
community. As he has in the past, he will continue to oppose this project, and he will not vote in support of
the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he feels he is representing the majority of people in the community as has been
evidenced by a number of different surveys, and he would vote in favor of the bypass.
Mr. Snow said he would also vote in favor of the bypass. For the people who do not understand
what is going on here, Ms. Mallek put forth a motion to support the bypass, Mr. Dumler seconded the
motion, and then they are going to turn around and vote against it. The reason for that is they are hoping
to tie the County’s hands going forward in making any future decisions because by a negative vote, they
hope to kill the bypass.
Ms. Mallek said she put this forth because the Board never voted, and that is the only reason.
Mr. Snow said the action taken clearly supported the bypass and everyone has moved forward
along those lines. Committees were formed, the different options were looked at, and what might be done
to enhance it – many of which will still be done. They have seen the cost go up from $244 million to one-
half billion, and statements about how they could spend all that money that they do not have. Now that the
estimates are ready to come out in the next couple of weeks, everyone’s comments have now narrowed
the cost back to the original projected estimate. He stated that the estimate for building the road is now
back to $250 million, and as they move forward in time all objections will be addressed with the fear
mongering and the manipulation, and the truth will finally be known. All of those things did not come to
fruition. He said this is going to be a huge asset to the community, as was the 250 Bypass when it
overcame the opposition back in the 50s. Mr. Snow said he believes this is just another attempt to stop
the bypass which is what has been going on for the last year.
Mr. Snow said he was given the option of either being Chair of this Board or giving up his seat on
the MPO which if he had made the decision to give up his seat on the MPO, someone would have jumped
in there and tried to kill it from that standpoint. This is just another attempt to manipulate the situation.
Mr. Thomas contended that there was a 4-2 vote last year from the Board.
Mr. Snow said that vote put this project back in the TIP and authorized the discussion.
Mr. Rooker said the June 8, 2011 resolution was passed without notice to the public and without
notice to all the Board members, and was taken after a previous vote had been attempted without notice
at the previous meeting. After someone had collared Mr. Dorrier and gotten him to go along with this, it
was brought back on June 8th; they thought they could get him to agree on this on June 1st, but that did not
happen. He said that he could read from the Daily Progress editorial which talks about real manipulation
and how certain Board members accomplished that, and the manipulation of this Board through the use of
the Secretary of Transportation.
Mr. Rooker said that comparing this to the Route 250 Bypass is ridiculous, as it bypassed Main
Street – a two-lane road that winds by the Corner – not an eight-lane highway – that was eight-laned at a
cost of more than $100 million so this community would have a good through to Route 29. That is
completely different. They continue to hear things that are not accurate comparisons, and are not apples
and oranges.
Mr. Snow said he would agree with that last statement.
Mr. Thomas said the distrust for VDOT has been overwhelming. VDOT does not have an axe to
grind; VDOT is there to help this community. He said that the FHWA controls all the rules, and VDOT is
abiding by them on this environmental study. They did not have to move forward and do a new
environmental study; it is called assessment, so they moved forward from where it ended the last time and
added all the different changes. They moved forward through that environmental study methodically and
will get to the end of it. If the FHWA decides something else needs to be done, it will be done. They will
not know a lot until after June 20th when the CTB allocates the money for all of the projects. He stated
that the motion of June 8 said, “Mr. Thomas moved to remove the word ‘opposition’ from the wording,
which is to change the County’s position of being in opposition to the construction of the western bypass to
the position that the Board of Supervisors does not oppose the bypass.”
Mr. Rooker said it says, “a bypass” not “the bypass.”
Mr. Boyd said it is splitting hairs as to what the Board was talking about. In reviewing those
minutes, he saw that there were seven times where Board members referenced the word “western
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
bypass” and there were only two times that “a bypass” was referenced. Everyone fully expected that to
mean the western bypass, as it is the only bypass that has been on the table, and the only one that was
opposed in the MPO TIP. He said that he would consider this almost a request to readdress a situation
that has already been voted on, which would require a majority vote.
Mr. Rooker said the previous vote was not a vote in support of or against this particular bypass
that has now been proposed by VDOT. It is clear that that was not voted on. He also stated that in the
minutes, Mr. Thomas said “we may be talking about an eastern bypass.” Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Dorrier
had wanted it “back on the table for discussion.” Mr. Rooker said he thinks the motion is clearly proper
and he calls for it to be voted on.
Mr. Boyd said the actual motion read, “Mr. Thomas moved to remove the word ‘opposition’ from
the wording, which is ‘to change the County’s position on being in opposition to the construction of the
western bypass to the position that the Board of Supervisors does not oppose a bypass.’”
Mr. Rooker said that even if that is taken under Mr. Boyd’s interpretation, it was not a vote as to
whether or not this Board was in favor of a particular project. That was not voted on and that is what is
being discussed to vote on today.
Ms. Mallek said the vote that was taken was to direct the County representatives to the MPO.
Mr. Rooker said the motion reads the way they read. He reiterated that Mr. Thomas’ motion does
not address the issue which is before the Board today. Simply saying you are not opposed to “a bypass”
is not a statement of whether or not you support a particular bypass.
Mr. Snow said it does say “a bypass” in one place, but in several other places it says “western
bypass”.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that that was not the motion.
Mr. Thomas said it says western bypass in the minutes.
Mr. Rooker said even if that were the motion, which it was not, it would not make any difference
because it was not a statement of support for a particular road. They are voting today on whether this
Board supports the project. Saying you are not in opposition to something is not the same as saying
whether you support it.
Mr. Snow asked for a legal opinion as to whether the Board is voting on something they have
actually voted on. He asked if there is enough ambiguity that they were not talking about the western
bypass at any time.
Mr. Davis said there is an assumption it was addressing the western bypass, but Mr. Rooker’s
point is that even given that the Board was removing opposition in the TIP for the western bypass – but a
specific project was not being voted on that night by this Board. The nuance of this motion is that it is
whether or not the Board supports this particular project as proposed at this time. He stated that it is a
different motion, as a motion for reconsideration technically is a reconsideration of the same motion that
was previously voted on. He said that he thinks there is enough difference between these two motions so
that it is not a reconsideration.
Mr. Rooker said he could bring forth minutes where Mr. Boyd has said repeatedly, “This Board
has not voted on this.” The Board is entitled to vote on it anytime it wants. He added that this Board as
presently constituted has never voted on whether or not it was in favor of this project. That is what is
before the Board.
Mr. Thomas asked for some clarification of this motion. In his mind, it is a lot of words being
moved around. All this discussion about “a bypass”; it is the western bypass. It has always been the
western bypass.
Mr. Rooker said that even if it were, it does not preclude the vote today.
Mr. Dumler said that Mr. Davis’ point was that the previous vote was just about the direction to the
MPO members.
Mr. Thomas noted that he has the MPO minutes available with him.
Mr. Rooker reiterated that the previous vote was a vote that said this Board, at that time, did not
oppose “a bypass”. It was not a statement of support for a bypass, nor was it a statement of support for a
particular project. Even if it were, it would not preclude this Board from voting today; this is not a
reconsideration. It would not preclude this vote or any future Board from voting on its position with respect
to this project or any transportation project. A current Board cannot bind a future Board and a past Board
cannot bind a future Board.
Mr. Thomas said Mr. Rooker bound him into the money for the YMCA by saying it was already
done by a previous Board, and that the money could not come back to the County.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Rooker said he did not say it could not legally come back; he said that the Board had
committed money to a charity and they had moved forward based upon that commitment, and that it would
not be good Board form to withdraw that commitment that it had made to provide money for a project.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had not made a commitment to VDOT and have they not moved
forward and spent money on this project. VDOT has spent taxpayer dollars on this project. He sees
some similarities in what Mr. Thomas is saying.
Ms. Mallek restated her motion: “I move that the Board of Supervisors go on record in support of
the Charlottesville Route 29 Western Bypass as currently proposed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation.”
Mr. Dumler reiterated his second. Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Board has a record of its position.
Mr. Boyd said, in the spirit of what was just done, he would move to direct the County’s
representatives on the MPO to not support the Route 29 Western Bypass currently being proposed or
being considered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Mr. Dumler asked if the Board could vote on that under its rules, and if it could be added to the
agenda.
Mr. Rooker said that was not on the agenda.
Mr. Boyd said it was the same topic.
Mr. Rooker said it is not the same topic because if it was they would not be voting on it.
Mr. Snow said it ends up where they were heading in the first place.
Mr. Rooker said the agenda item was to create a record for how the current Board and its
individual members state their belief concerning this project.
Mr. Boyd stated that the agenda item says, “The consideration of the County’s position on the
Route 29 Western Bypass as currently proposed,” and this is a position statement on that particular
bypass. It is perfectly within the Board rules.
Mr. Davis said it could be reasonably argued that it is the same topic, but it is a Board decision as
to whether or not they would take it up.
Mr. Rooker said he would not mind taking it up, but he would like to put it on the agenda like
today’s motion was put on the agenda.
Mr. Boyd said the original motion was not on the agenda, just the topic.
Mr. Rooker explained that the topic was on the agenda, and the proposed motion was circulated
in advance.
Mr. Boyd reiterated that this is the same topic.
Mr. Rooker said if Mr. Boyd wants to move to put it on the agenda, then that is fine.
Mr. Boyd said he does not want to move to put it on the agenda. He contends that it is already on
the agenda. This is part of the consideration of the western bypass. It is dealing with the same topic that
is on the agenda. In his opinion, it is perfectly within the Board’s rules.
Mr. Thomas said it is also within his interpretation.
Mr. Rooker said it is not within his interpretation.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Davis if it was not the same subject based on the agenda title.
Mr. Davis said that it is arguably the same matter that was on the agenda. He does not think the
Board’s rules limit consideration to one motion. If Board members are asking his opinion, he thinks it
would be proper.
Mr. Snow called for the vote.
Mr. Rooker said he would like the motion to be restated.
Mr. Boyd clarified, “The motion is that I move that we direct our representatives on the MPO to
not support the Route 29 Western Bypass currently proposed or being considered by the Virginia
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
Department of Transportation.” He clarified, “The Western Bypass.” He added that he does plan to vote
“no” on the motion.
Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker.
NAYS: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Snow.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2012-00005. Verizon Wireless “I-64 East” Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign #2).
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a three new flush-mounted antennas. This is an
amendment of SP 2000-31 #4a, which limits the structure to what is shown on the approved
plans.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 -preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 123 Dry Bridge Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07300-00-00-031D0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2012)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this was an existing facility approved through a prior special permit.
The applicant is now requesting an addition to their antenna array; it is a second flush-mounted antenna
and it would amend the condition of a prior approval. He said it also necessitated modification to the
zoning ordinance supplementary regulations regarding topography, height, caliper and tree species,
setbacks, parking and landscaping. Mr. Cilimberg reported that there is new ground equipment, noting
plans and photo simulations from the applicant. He said that staff does not believe the addition will cause
new impacts to adjacent properties; it meets most requirements of the applicable section of the ordinance,
and those it does not meet would be subject to the modification action. He stated that no unfavorable
factors have been identified, and staff along with the Commission recommends approval of the special
permit with one condition as presented; staff and the Commission also recommends approval of
modifications to sections 5.1.4.A, E, F and G.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller, of LeClaire Ryan, addressed the Board on behalf of Verizon Wireless, stating
that they are seeking an amendment to allow three additional flush-mounted antennae immediately below
the existing antennae on this site. Ms. Schweller said that the applicant reads the ordinance to say that
this type of request is a “Tier I” facility, and the current ordinance permits up to three sets of flush-mounted
antennae on existing personal wireless facility structures. She said they hoped the discussion with Mr.
Fritz the following day would lead to a zoning text amendment that would allow most co-locations to be
approved through an administrative process, as consistent with recent federal legislation and policy.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2012-00005 subject to the one condition as presented, and to
approve the modifications of Sections 5.1.40(a)(4)(e), (f) and (g) for reasons outlined in the staff report
and mentioned in the presentation. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site plans, entitled “I-64 East LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
4/13/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2012-00005. Verizon Wireless “I-64 East” Tier III Personal Wireless
Service Facility (Sign #2).
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a three new flush-mounted antennas. This is an
amendment of SP 2000-31 #4a, which limits the structure to what is shown on the approved
plans.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 -preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 123 Dry Bridge Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07300-00-00-031D0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2012)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this was an existing facility approved through a prior special permit.
The applicant is now requesting an addition to their antenna array; it is a second flush-mounted antenna
and it would amend the condition of a prior approval. He said it also necessitated modification to the
zoning ordinance supplementary regulations regarding topography, height, caliper and tree species,
setbacks, parking and landscaping. Mr. Cilimberg reported that there is new ground equipment, noting
plans and photo simulations from the applicant. He said that staff does not believe the addition will cause
new impacts to adjacent properties; it meets most requirements of the applicable section of the ordinance,
and those it does not meet would be subject to the modification action. He stated that no unfavorable
factors have been identified, and staff along with the Commission recommends approval of the special
permit with one condition as presented; staff and the Commission also recommend approval of
modifications to sections 5.1.4.A, E, F and G.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller, of LeClair Ryan, addressed the Board on behalf of Verizon Wireless, stating
that they are seeking an amendment to allow three additional flush-mounted antennas immediately below
the existing antennas on this site. Ms. Schweller said that the applicant reads the ordinance to say that
this type of request is a Tier I facility, and the current ordinance permits up to three sets of flush-mounted
antennas on existing personal wireless facility structures. She said they hoped the discussion with Mr.
Fritz the following day would lead to a zoning text amendment that would allow most co-locations to be
approved through an administrative process, as consistent with recent federal legislation and policy.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2012-00005 subject to the one condition as presented, and to
approve the modifications of Sections 5.1.40(a)(4)(e), (f) and (g) for reasons outlined in the staff report
and mentioned in the presentation. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site plans, entitled “I-64 East LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date of
4/13/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2012-00006. Verizon Wireless “Yancey Mills” Tier III Personal
Wireless Service Facility (Sign #3).
PROPOSED: Request for installation of a three new flush-mounted antennas. This is an
amendment of SP 2000-27 #4a, which limits the structure to what is shown on the approved
plans.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 -preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES.
LOCATION: 207 Patterson Mill Lane.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07100-00-00-037J0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2012)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a second flush-mounted antenna array, amending the condition
of a prior special use permit approval with the same modifications; there would be an enlarged fence area
and new ground equipment in addition to the array. He said that staff and the Commission found now
unfavorable factors and are recommending approval of the SP with one condition and approval of the
modifications.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lori Schweller addressed the Board and said her comments for this application were the
same as for the previous application, adding that the applicant has a zoning determination request
pending regarding collocation.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2012-00006 subject to one condition and to approve modification
of Sections 5.1.40(a)(4)(e), (f) and (g) for reasons outlined in the staff report and mentioned in the
presentation. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site plans, entitled “Yancey Mills LTE 4G Upgrade”, with a final zoning drawing submittal date
of 4/13/12 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
a. Height
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2011-00027. Panorama Events. (Signs #22,23,25&26).
PROPOSED: Special events in existing barn.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.50, which allows for Special events (reference 5.1.43)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: Reas Ford Lane (Route 661), approximately 0.5 miles south of its intersection with
Reas Ford Road (Route 660).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500-00-00-00100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2012)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is a request for special events in an existing barn at the Panorama
property and includes a modification of one of the zoning ordinance sections that would permit the
maximum attendance to be 200 people, a modification from the existing provisions allowing 150. He
reported that it is located on the back side of the Panorama property and is accessed from Reas Ford
Lane, involving the existing entrance on that road, utilization of a barn on the northwest side of the
property, and an area for parking. Mr. Cilimberg presented a few photos of the barn as viewed from the
farm, the parking area for events, the Reas Ford access and the entrance. He said the permit would allow
for up to 24 events per year, up to 200 attendees; there would be wedding ceremonies outdoors but a
condition would not permit outdoor amplified sound. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it’s a location that is 1,500
feet or more from any nearby dwelling and would not involve amplified sound; the applicant has stated this
would supplement their income and existing agricultural and land preservation uses of the property. He
noted that it is a narrow, unpaved rural road, but the nature of the traffic coming and going would be one
way coming and one way going – so no opposing traffic conflicts are expected. Based on the staff
findings, he said, both staff and the Commission recommend approval with seven conditions associated
with the permit and a modification to allow the maximum number of guests of 200.
Mr. Boyd said he thought there was a by-right ability to go up to 200 people.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that this was a special events category, not under farm winery, and that
would be addressed during work on the Comp Plan and follow-up adjustments in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rooker asked how event is defined in the ordinance.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
Mr. Davis responded that he isn’t sure it was specifically defined.
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant’s currently permitted events are cross-country events and
mountain biking, but this application was not specified for a particular event – with weddings being the
most likely.
Mr. Rooker said that he was trying to understand if the 24 events included mountain biking and
other things or if it was an entirely separate matter.
Mr. Davis clarified that it was in addition to a prior special permit that allows those activities.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was on a separate section of the property – it’s on the northwest side
so its access is different and it’s in an area separate from where the cross-country and mountain biking is
occurring.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a definition of a special event: typically conducted on a single day, but
may be conducted up to three consecutive days, to which attendance is permitted only by invitation or
reservation; includes but not limited to meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, weddings and private
parties.
Mr. Rooker said the Panorama Farms owners had been great stewards of their property, but as
he reads the definition they could have 24 banquets per year that could last up to three days.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that by definition, the special events use is in the ordinance now as one
of the supplementary regulations for this kind of use.
Mr. Rooker asked if this was bringing the County toward allowing every rural property to have
banquets and other large events, adding that while he has supported Panorama’s use of their property for
athletic purposes, this seems to be going way beyond that.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board has the discretion to decide in a particular case that the number of
events or size of events is more than what’s important in a particular location, so it doesn’t necessarily set
a precedent. He stated that with farm wineries, events with up to 200 people are allowed by right, and
there’s no special use permit for that until they exceed that number. Mr. Cilimberg said that uses in the
rural area that can have a gathering of traffic and people associated with the use need to be addressed
through the comp plan to set some guidance as to how they may be decided in the future. He said that he
thought that each individual case will be different based on what’s being requested, the numbers and the
location and the accessibility and such.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Margaret Murray Bloom addressed the Board, stating that she is the applicant for Panorama
Events and is part of the Murray family. Ms. Bloom said this would be a completely separate entity and
business and leaseholder with the farm as related to the cross-country events and mountain biking, which
is no longer in existence. She stated that she heard a different definition of special events at the Planning
Commission meeting that implied a single day, and their intention for all of the events is single day – with
90% being weddings. Ms. Bloom said they felt this is an appropriate use of the property since it is so
large, and as time goes on they have tried to find new uses for the farm with the wedding business thriving
in the County currently. She added that everything they use the property for is reversible, so they are not
creating any new paved parking areas nor do they have plans for major expansion or building.
Ms. Mallek asked if they intended to work with owners of properties located beyond the entrance
to let them know what’s going on.
Ms. Bloom said their plan is to send out announcements at the beginning of each busy season –
primarily the spring and the fall – with notification of event dates; additional information can be sent out
such as start times for events.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a plan for major redevelopment of the barn.
Ms. Bloom replied that they would put some doors on the facility, but any changes would be small
cosmetic things and perhaps a small storage shed to be placed behind the building. She said that the
square footage of the barn lends itself to events in the 100-125 people range, and they requested the
increase to 200 since the farm wineries are allowed to have that.
Mr. Boyd asked if the plan was to hold both ceremonies and receptions and things of the sort in
the same location.
Ms. Bloom responded that would be an option for the clients if that’s what they choose.
Mr. Thomas asked about the location of restroom facilities.
Ms. Bloom stated that she operates a luxury restroom trailer, which is similar to a port-a-john and
is portable, with heat, air conditioning and a sound system.
Mr. Rooker asked if they would be amenable to a condition that would preclude adding buildings
or paving, and that would limit events to no more than one day.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
Ms. Bloom replied that it would make them a bit nervous because they wouldn’t want the SP to be
restricted if they wanted to make changes later, but they would consider conditions allowing limited
expansion under approval.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. McCulley what kind of zoning capabilities the applicant would have by right to
change their property.
Ms. McCulley responded that with by-right residential use, there are very few limitations to
agricultural buildings except for things like water protection ordinance, buffers and setbacks.
Mr. Boyd clarified that in essence the applicant could tear down the barn and builds a big structure
for very large weddings if they could get approval.
Ms. McCulley said that tearing down the existing barn and replacing it would not be consistent with
the approval condition being proposed, as it requires use of the identified structure, but they could make
some minor expansion to it as the condition is worded.
Ms. Mallek clarified that the condition came from the applicants, not something from staff, in
keeping with their plans for use of the site.
Mr. Davis commented that it had to be in general accord.
Ms. Bloom asked if she would have to come back before them for building approval if they wanted
to add a storage addition.
Mr. Rooker said she would work with staff, but not come back before the Board.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis suggested that the reference to events in conditions one through four should reference
special events, as it is a defined term.
Mr. Rooker said he would like it to specify single-day special events so they don’t take place over
numerous days.
Mr. Davis explained that the general definition and the special conditions allow for events that can
be up to three days, but the Board could restrict it if they desired, but he didn’t think the applicant is
requesting that restriction.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant did say that they didn’t intend to have multiple day events, and
that made a big difference to him.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Board could leave it open if the applicant ever wanted to do three days.
Ms. Mallek commented that with events like weddings you might have a rehearsal dinner the night
before and a wedding the following day.
Mr. Thomas then moved for approval of S-P2011-00027 subject to seven conditions and to
approve modification of Section 5.1.43(e)(1) to permit 200 attendees rather than the maximum of 150 as
required with the conditions and modifications as presented, with the term “special events” to replace
“events.”
Mr. Rooker said he would support it because there is no objection from neighboring properties,
and in future situations with different circumstances he might well vote differently.
Ms. Mallek commented that this was the whole point of the special use permit process.
Mr. Thomas said that the Murrays have done a fantastic job on conserving that property, and it’s
not the will of the family to expand it into commercial use at all.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled “Concept
Plan” and labeled “Attachment A: Aerial View,” prepared by the applicant, and dated 10/17/2011
by staff. To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
• the structure used for the special events
• the location of the parking areas
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; and
2. The maximum number of special events per calendar year shall not exceed twenty-four (24); and
3. The maximum number of special event guests shall not exceed two hundred (200) persons; and
4. Hours of operation for the special events shall be no earlier than 11:30 a.m. and no later than
10:30 p.m.; and
5. No new permanent outdoor lighting shall be installed for this use; and
6. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound permitted for this use; and
7. The use shall not commence without approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation of
sight distance from the entrance to the property.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2012-00003. Congregation Beth Israel Cemetery in Ivy (Sign #9).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a cemetery on a rural area residential property which
allows a cemetery under Section 10.2.2 (32) of the Zoning Ordinance.
ZONING: RA- Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas- preserve and protect agricultural, forestall, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
LOCATION: 4460 Ivy Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 058000000064NN.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2012)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request is offsite from the actual church in the City, at a residential
property where the owners have given an area on the eastern side of the property to the church for the
opportunity to establish a cemetery. He said the entire property is about five acres, and about ¾ acres
would be devoted to the actual cemetery with the owners remaining in the existing residence on the
property. Mr. Cilimberg reported that there were no impacts identified on adjacent property and no
unfavorable factors identified, and staff, along with the Planning Commission has recommended approval
with conditions. He said that a fourth condition was added by the Commission to allow the applicant to
establish the use in 48 months rather than the ordinance requirement of 24 months.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brian Smith addressed the Board, stating that he was a local engineer representing
Congregation Beth Israel. Mr. Smith said this is a great opportunity for the congregation through a very
generous gift from the Mayos.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis suggested that they substitute the language for the fourth condition to say the use shall
commence on or before June 6, 2016, or the permit shall expire and be of no effect.
Mr. Snow moved to approve SP-2012-0003 subject to four conditions, with the fourth condition
amended as recommended by Mr. Davis. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Concept Plan for
Special Use Permit” prepared by Brian Smith and dated April 12, 2012 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements
within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual
Plan:
a. Location of proposed parking area
b. location of buildings and structures
c. location of proposed cemetery.
2. The maintenance and operation (digging of graves) of the cemetery shall be conducted during day
light hours only; and
3. No new buildings including maintenance buildings, mausoleums, columbarium or the like shall be
constructed on the property; and
4. The use shall commence on or before June 6, 2016 or the permit shall expire and be of no affect.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-2012-00005. Bed and Breakfast/Tourist Lodging. Amend Secs. 3.1,
Definitions, 4.12.6, Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses, 5.1.17, Tourist
lodging, and 10.2.1, By right, and add Sec. 5.1.48, Bed and breakfast, to Chapter 18, Zoning, of the
Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to transient lodging by
amending the definitions of “tourist lodging,” “boarding house” and “hotel,” and adding definitions of “bed
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
and breakfast” and “transient lodging” (3.1), clarifying that the minimum off-street parking requirements for
transient lodging and hotels is based on the number of “guest rooms” rather than “units” and adding such
regulations for the bed and breakfast use (4.12.6), amending the supplementary regulations for tourist
lodging (5.1.17) and adding supplementary regulations for the bed and breakfast use including, but not
limited to, requiring landowner or manager residency, limiting the number bed and breakfast uses
permitted on a parcel, and establishing minimum yard and parking requirements and minimum approval
requirements (5.1.48), and replacing “tourist lodging” with the “bed and breakfast” use classification in the
Rural Areas zoning district (10.2.1). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 2012)
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Board, presenting a comparison chart
of existing regulations and proposed regulations.
She reported that tourist lodging is permitted as a use by-right in every residential district, the
village residential district and the rural areas district, and is permitted as accessory to a single-family
dwelling. Ms. McCulley noted that there is a maximum of five guest rooms allowed to be associated with
each tourist lodging use, and the focus of this amendment is language that stipulates that tourist lodging
must be within a single-family dwelling in which someone resides – typically the owner or manager.
Ms. McCulley said the input from the public and Planning Commission contends that existing
regulations are overly restrictive, inflexible, and aren’t adequately serving the County’s goals of connecting
and supporting agribusiness and tourism in the rural areas. On April 24, she said, the Commission held
their public hearing and recommended approval of this ordinance amendment with three fairly minor
changes. She reported that two Commissioners did not support that vote because they were concerned
about further expansion of negative impacts on neighboring properties caused by farm winery activity, and
asked staff if they could differentiate between B&B use on a farm winery property and a B&B use on other
RA property, and the County Attorney’s office advised them that this type of differentiation is not legally
defensible because it does not constitute the uniform application of a zoning regulation.
She referenced the chart she had provided, highlighting the key difference, and emphasized that
staff’s opinion is that the ordinance amendment does not in any way intensify the use; there’s no increase
in the number of guest rooms allowed and traffic and impact from the use are typically based on the
number of guests – which are typically limited by numbers of guest rooms. Ms. McCulley said the
amendment did not allow any expanded uses to be associated with B&Bs, and that had been their
question. She stated that the amendment is focused entirely on allowing the use to occur in a structure, or
in several structures, that are not a single-family dwelling.
Ms. McCulley said that each B&B use must be associated with a legal dwelling unit, and each of
those units still had to comply with zoning regulations – regulations about development rights, lot area,
setbacks, etc. Additionally, she said, this ZTA establishes setback requirements for accessory structures
that would be used as guest rooms because otherwise they can be as close as six feet to property lines.
She stated that it also codifies and clarifies that any structure used for guest rooms must receive approval
from the fire official, the building official and the health department as applicable. She stated that staff
recommends the Board adopt Attachment D, the proposed ordinance for transient lodging, which is
establishing a new bed and breakfast use in the RA district.
Ms. Mallek asked if the structures allowed used provisions that include building code, fire code,
health code also requires sprinklers or if it’s smoke alarms/other improvements.
Ms. McCulley replied that when staff met with the fire marshal, building official, and health
department, the sprinkler requirement did not come up – and it’s her understanding that because no
building will have more than five guest rooms it will never tip the scale of requiring a sprinkler system.
Ms. Mallek asked if there needed to be an extra development right on the property in order for a
cottage bedroom to be used.
Ms. McCulley explained that a bed and breakfast use is an accessory to a dwelling, and that
dwelling must be legal and have its own development right.
Ms. Mallek said that what she wants to avoid is any possibility in the future of the cottage getting
subdivided some-how.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarity and stated that if he had a piece of property and a barn on it – and it
was not a dwelling unit and he wanted to convert it into a B&B or a room for someone, could you do that
under this ordinance or would you have to have a development right to go along with it.
Ms. McCulley replied yes you can make that conversion – it just has to be on property on which
there is located a single-family dwelling.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be technically possible to have 10 parcels with a series of cottages
that have 100 rooms.
Mr. Davis explained there would have to be two dwellings on each parcel, with one dwelling for
every five guest rooms and each guest room would have to be either within that dwelling or in a building
that’s accessory to that dwelling. He said if density requirements could be met and there could legally be
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
two dwellings on a parcel, that total could be doubled. Mr. Davis added that you could have two bed and
breakfasts on a parcel if you have two dwelling units on a parcel.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that you could do that now if each dwelling unit is occupied.
Ms. McCulley said that there is currently no maximum number of tourist lodging uses on any given
property, and if you have enough land there could be five.
Mr. Snow commented that nothing is really changing with exception of the provision that the
manager does not have to live in the same unit that the rooms are located, and they can be spread to
more than one building.
Mr. Rooker said it was a little bit complicated to go through the information.
Mr. Boyd said he’s still not certain he understands the room provisions of the proposal.
Ms. Mallek said that a residence can be used for a family, with the bed and breakfast done
separately.
Mr. Davis clarified that it limits the number of guest rooms.
Ms. McCulley said it gives the option – which is not under current regulations – of not using the
house in which you live as your commercial use.
Mr. Rooker said that he had received a letter from a constituent who operates a bed and breakfast
that states the occupancy rate for B&Bs in the County is not high – which is different from those within the
City limits that do not experience the same occupancy issues. He said that the letter indicates the
average rate for B&Bs with online availability calendars showed under 30% occupancy, and other B&Bs
this owner spoke with showed 50% or below. Mr. Rooker indicated that current demand isn’t even close
to the number of available rooms in B&Bs, adding that he doesn’t see this action as expanding the
intensity of the use – only allowing flexibility in how B&Bs might be organized.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that the Free Enterprise Forum is in favor of the
changes. Mr. Williamson said there is an opportunity here to quantify what is not a well- regulated back
door to rural area B&Bs that are not being represented in the online calendaring. He stated that for the
safety of the tourists, it’s important to increase the flexibility but also ascertain that those rooms available
are safe and habitable for tourists. He said that agro-tourism or agri-tainment is a growing sector in
Albemarle County and 95% of the County is rural areas or greater – it’s important that we provide those
opportunities. Mr. Williamson said he could envision a reasonable mis-factor in the idea that a residence
would have a significantly greater impact on the rural areas than a B&B operated on the same acreage.
Mr. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center addressed the Board, stating that
he had two questions about the proposal that Ms. McCulley answered, one of them being that there are
two bed and breakfast uses allowed per parcel, but each use would require a separate dwelling unit. Mr.
Butler said that this would mean units six through ten would require a separate dwelling unit on the
property.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if that was clear in the ordinance.
Mr. Davis replied that he thought it was clear, as the definition of bed and breakfast says that the
use is accessory to a single-family dwelling having not more than five guest rooms, and the applicable
ordinance says that any parcel may have up to two bed and breakfast uses provided that the permitted
density is maintained. He added that the permitted density is what kicks in the dwelling unit requirement.
Mr. Butler said he also wondered if one of the accessory structures created for a bed and
breakfast use was later converted into a dwelling unit with more permanent occupation would require a
dwelling unit, as that’s how he interpreted it.
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board, stating that there is a change with this proposal but there is
general agreement on the intent and purpose of making the changes. He said that the real hurdle was
ensuring there was no room later for misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what is intended. Mr.
Werner said that most concerns seem to focus on locating cottages all around a parcel, and how access
to those would occur. He said that he had questions as to what size or scale a room for dining and
meetings begins to function as a conference center, and how land and conservation easement would be
treated.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek said if it was an existing building, she can envision how this would work – but if there’s
a new construction, all of the steep slopes and other requirements would have to come into play under
separate rules.
Ms. McCulley explained that the steep slope requirement would still apply to new construction,
and the amendment made a few years prior regarding issuance of a building permit applies to building
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
permits for new dwellings. She said that wouldn’t automatically apply for a guest room, and the language
in 4.6.6 could be changed to accommodate that.
Mr. Davis pointed out that that ordinance was not before the Board today, and said that if site
development regulations were a concern, that should be considered rather than making a decision without
looking at that particular issue.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board would have to write something into what is before them, to make
sure that those other requirements that are associated with the current residential construction would
come into play, if new construction is going to happen for this use.
Ms. McCulley added that Mr. Davis point was that it wasn’t advertised and that is more restrictive
than what’s been advertised so staff may have to come back and do it later.
Mr. Boyd asked if that was a whole separate ordinance.
Mr. Davis explained that it may not be as simple as that. He said that he thought the Board would
need to be more careful if site development regulations were a concern, and that staff would need to look
at it, rather than make a decision without looking at the issue. He noted that his office had not looked at
the issue.
Ms. Mallek noted that all Board Members had been talking about existing structures in most of the
discussion. She stated that she didn’t want to say yes and ignore the possibility that the County will get all
of these structures sprinkled around and the fire trucks can’t get to them.
Mr. Rooker suggested holding a work session on this, as the issues being raised today had not
been discussed by the Board. He said that they had some complexities to them, and personally he was
not comfortable. He said that he thought the concept was fine, and that he probably ultimately would
support it. But there were some details here that he thought needed to be flushed out and understood. He
added that the definition of density that was read didn’t give him complete comfort that it applies exactly
the way said – it is not abundantly clear; seems to be somewhat ambiguous.
Mr. Davis said that as the ordinance is drafted today, it could be clarified further, but the issues
raised about the scale of eating areas and things of that nature are not addressed in the ordinance.
Unless the scale became so significant that it changed the use, it would be permitted under this draft –
and didn’t think that was addressed in the discussions by the Planning Commission. He added that the
development rules for how things would be developed would be the rules that would apply to any
accessory structure under zoning now. He explained that if an accessory structure required a site plan –
this would require a site plan and if it didn’t meet those requirements then it would not. He stated that
there were no special zoning rules for this use as far as site development.
Ms. Mallek said that the draft says a sketch plan.
Mr. Davis explained that it would be required in order for the Zoning Administrator to determine
the use under the circumstance. He said that he thought this was anticipating existing structures, but it
doesn’t limit it to that.
Mr. Rooker asked if this provision allowed for the building of a very large structure that has a huge
meeting room in the middle of it, dining facilities in the middle of it, with five guest rooms in it but provision
of service to other nearby B&Bs. He added that he wanted to understand if the Board was approving a
scale of something that goes beyond what they are imagining.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding was the eating facilities were for the people who stayed in
the five rooms.
Ms. McCulley confirmed that the dining and meeting facilities are for use of that particular bed and
breakfast, and she wasn’t sure how to come up with an appropriate scale.
Mr. Rooker clarified that when the ordinance says “the” bed and breakfast, it was referring to that
particular building, not something that serves six other buildings that are scattered around the site.
Mr. Snow stated that they were not talking about building a series of B&Bs across a ridge
because that would entail planning and site plans and everything that goes along with it – they’re strictly
talking about where the manager can live, but not building a new house.
Ms. McCulley responded that B&B owners could build a new house as they could today.
Mr. Snow clarified that they are not talking about putting a development in.
Ms. Mallek said that she needed clarity on if there was new construction whose rules would come
in. Is it the development rules that Mr. Davis was talking about or is all of that ignored because it is
coming in as a bed and breakfast room – because a building permit is a building permit.
Ms. McCulley said that she didn’t know what authority the fire marshal has under the fire code to
require access for public safety equipment, but building a dwelling unit would necessitate access
requirements – but if you’re not building a new structure that ordinance requirement doesn’t specifically
kick in unless a site plan is required.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that houses are in a different category than a cottage for guest
accommodations, and said staff would need to talk to the building official and fire official about what the
requirements for public safety are with a guest cottage that would be occupied.
Mr. Foley said staff could check on that during the lunch break today.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff could also clarify the density language.
Ms. Mallek said she had assumed conservation easements would come first, and hopefully it
wouldn’t require new advertising for letters of permission from easement holders as part of the application.
She said that she didn’t want the County to be in the middle of that – so owners would have to get
approval of TNC or VOF or whoever first.
Mr. Davis said that would put the County in the middle of it.
Mr. Rooker said it could be on a process checklist from staff.
Mr. Davis said having an interpretation that the use would be in conflict would put the County in
the middle of the issue, if that’s a requirement, and enforcement of a conservation easement is a separate
enforcement issue from enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rooker said it would have to be, because they are not County easements, and you could get
approval from the County to build a lot of things that may not be permitted under private agreements. The
County does not step in and enforce those things. It would be different if we were the easement holder.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the County already had a process of notifying easement holders of
building permits, so that could be verified.
Mr. Boyd suggested moving it onto the agenda for a decision later in the day, or defer it.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the clarifications the Board is looking for are to the definition as to
development rights and an understanding of what code provisions for fire safety would be applicable to
these additional units being used as guest rooms.
Mr. Davis added, the new construction, and mentioned that there may be an existing structure that
doesn’t have access. He said that an existing B&B would remain as a nonconforming use if they weren’t
in full compliance, unless they came in for a change that required a new approval – but any new one
would be subject to these rules.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Housing Choice Voucher Annual Plan and Administrative Plan.
Revisions related to the Project-based Voucher Program have been requested by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and a chapter has been added to the Administrative Plan regarding
procedures for the use of Project-based Vouchers. A chapter has also been added as required to comply
with regulations related to the Violence Against Women Act. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21
and May 28, 2012)
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing summarized the following executive summary:
“The Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Office”) is the designated local agency for the
administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program (“Program”), formerly known as the Section 8
Rental Assistance Program. The Office is considered a part of the executive branch of local government
and not a public housing authority. Although not a housing authority, the Office must comply with U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) requirements for Public Housing Agency (“PHA”)
activities, including the development and implementation of Annual and 5-Year PHA Plans. In 2010 the
Office prepared and the Board approved the 5-Year Plan submission which was subsequently approved
by HUD. Since the Office is considered a high-performing agency under HUD guidelines as revised in
2008, the Office is not required to submit Annual Plans after the initial 5-Year and Annual Plan Submission
unless significant changes are proposed. Significant changes include, but are not limited to, revised
policies either required by HUD or adopted by the Office when discretion is allowed. Annual Plans must
be available for a 45-day review period prior to holding a public hearing. The Plan must be submitted to
HUD, however, because the PHA has fewer than 550 vouchers and is not a troubled agency, the County’s
program does not require HUD approval. The Office is also required to maintain an Administrative Plan
updated to reflect changes in policy and procedures.
The Office is recommending the submission of an Annual Plan (Attachment A) to HUD for the
following program revision:
Revising policies for the approval of project-based vouchers (Chapter 20). The revisions
will allow the program to provide up to 20% of its vouchers or budget authority for project-
based assistance on new, rehabilitated, and existing housing units.
The Office has also taken the opportunity to reorganize its Administrative Plan (Attachment B)
which has not been revised in several years. There are some changes to the Plan, outlined in Attachment
C, in addition to reformatting.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
As required, a Resident Advisory Board consisting of current participants in the Program have
been made aware of the proposed changes and asked to provide comment. The Office also advertised
the availability of the proposed Annual Plan and the revised policy for project-based vouchers for a 45-day
review period which began on April 17, 2012.
Although the revisions to both Plans are necessary steps to continued operation of the Housing
Choice Voucher Program, they also address issues raised by HUD related to the issuance of project-
based vouchers for The Crossings. These issues were briefly addressed in an informational executive
summary for the May 9 Board meeting. In addition, responses were provided to questions from Board
member in an e-mail dated May 25, 2012 (Attachment G). As noted, HUD is requiring the submission of
the Annual Plan to address policies on the use of project-based vouchers and the submission of our
Administrative Plan, specifically the chapter on Project-based Vouchers. Board approval is necessary
prior to those submissions.
There is no budget impact anticipated. HUD provides annual budget authority for the voucher
program from which any project-based vouchers may be funded.
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board: 1) approve the Annual Plan; 2)
authorize the County Executive to execute the required PHA Certifications of Compliance, Civil Rights
Certification, and VAWA Certification (Attachments D, E and F); and 3) approve the revised Administrative
Plan.”
_____
Mr. W hite said the item before the Board today was a request to approve two items related to the
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program – including an annual plan submitted to HUD. He said that
Albemarle County is not required to submit an annual plan because it is a Section 8-only, “non-troubled
agency,” so it is required only to submit a five-year plan – which they did in 2010. Mr. White stated that
the only time they are required to submit an annual plan is if HUD deems changes are needed to the five-
year plan submission, and in discussions with them regarding approval and issuance of project-based
vouchers they felt the 2010 plan was not adequate to show they were using them. He said that in 2004,
HUD approved the plan for using project-based vouchers, but since that wasn’t carried over to the 2010
plan they apparently assumed the County wasn’t doing it anymore.
Mr. White stated that the main requirement for the annual plan submission is to put language in
there referencing the vouchers. He said that HUD also pointed out a number of items they felt were
deficient in the local administrative pan, which staff uses as a day-to-day tool to operate the program. Mr.
White said that the housing office had revised the administrative plan, and he has included a summary of
those revisions for the Board and a few additions. He stated that the main addition is the a chapter on
project-based vouchers, and as soon as the annual plan is approved by the Board and signed off on by
Mr. Foley it will go to HUD electronically. Mr. White said that HUD has assured a timely review, although
they have 75 days to complete it.
He said that the second recommendation is for the Board to approve the revised administrative
plan, and once they do the housing office can operate under those provisions; however, HUD does require
that they receive a copy of it for their review and comments.
Mr. Snow asked how long it would be before the office can issue vouchers.
Mr. White explained that the budgetary authority the office has with HUD is a secondary issue,
although it is not a part of this public hearing. He said that HUD is blaming it on Congress, which
apparently changed the rules by which they funded the program this year. Mr. White stated that his office
was notified in March of the final budget figures, and the year with the Section 8 program begins January 1
so they had already done three months of rent payments before the money was known. He stated that the
Housing Office was spending what they are getting in right now. He added that the housing office has
stopped issuing all vouchers until they got approval from HUD and budget authority from HUD to begin to
issue them again. He stated that he would take direction from the Board but his recommendation on that
is that the County has made a commitment for project-based vouchers, and that should be the first
commitment that they meet when they start reissuing vouchers with HUD’s approval.
Mr. Rooker said the date for review was 75 days although it might take place much more quickly
than that, and asked how long the budgetary issue might delay the issuance of vouchers.
Mr. White responded that his office had not received its notice from HUD telling them what would
be available July through September; all they know now is how much they have through June 30. He said
that as soon as they got word from HUD he would go back and look at the current fund balance and
monthly expenses, then determine if they can move forward. Mr. White stated that HUD has no authority
to fund the Crossings, and if a public housing agency spends $1 more than their budget authority that
dollar must come from somewhere else.
Ms. Mallek asked if future funds would be in jeopardy if outside funds were added to this account.
Mr. White explained that it would not jeopardize what they were likely to get based on current
usage, but if they use outside funds to provide assistance they would not go into next year’s calculation as
to how much they got next year.
Mr. Rooker said that he still didn’t understand what the likelihood would be to have the vouchers
to use for the Crossings anytime within the next four or five months.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. White responded that he couldn’t answer that today, and if anyone gave up their voucher it
could not be reissued to another person.
Ms. Mallek asked if the reason the Housing Office was not assigning freed-up vouchers to anyone
else is because of the retro-active budget cut they learned about in March.
Mr. White replied that housing was not assigning freed-up vouchers to anyone else because of
the outstanding commitment for the project-based vouchers. He said that once HUD approves their
annual plan, if they have budget authority or a freed-up voucher that would be possible – although not
every freed-up voucher has enough to cover a new voucher. Mr. White explained that the housing office
would be paying about $595 a month for each unit at the Crossings, and that some people may have
some limited income so their payments may be slightly less – if someone gives up a voucher and they are
only doing $200, housing would need three of those vouchers to be given up before they could fund one at
the Crossings.
Mr. Boyd said the important point today was to go ahead and approve the plan so the housing
office can send it out.
Mr. White agreed, stating that there are other issues such as the Crossings to be discussed
further at a later date. He said that he was focused on ‘how to fix this and move forward’ much more so
than looking back to how we got here right now.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Nancy Carpenter addressed the Board, stating that Pamela Dunn provided comments for her
to share – including that she was tired of sleeping under a magnolia tree while waiting for the issue to be
resolved. Ms. Carpenter said that there are nine County citizens who are shelter-less who have been
derailed in starting their new lives at the Crossings because of this paperwork snafu with HUD. She said
that the Board committed to providing nine project-based vouchers for the Crossings, and they should
follow through with this commitment and find the funding to get these people off the streets. She said that
she really thinks there needs to be a timeliness and effectiveness in their response; and thinks that
incremental delays in responding to this crisis will have a greater incremental impact on the outcomes for
the nine individuals. Ms. Carpenter said there needs to be a short-term solution that will have long-term
results, and there could be nine apartments that are vacant for an extended time period without a stream
of revenue for the nonprofit providing the service. She urged the Board to “Please don’t close your eyes to
these individuals”. She said that this is not about a pool cover, or a library building, or a road, this is
literally about people’s lives.
Ms. Sue Mueller addressed the Board, stating that she had lived in the County for 21 years and
was currently president of PACEM’s Board of Directors. Ms. Mueller said she was here to urge the Board
and the County to work with Virginia Supportive Housing and HUD to expedite the process of obtaining
housing vouchers for the nine future residents of the Crossings, and would also like to encourage the
Board to think holistically about affordable housing – specifically for the population that PACEM serves.
She emphasized that PACEM understands the importance of the both transitional support and affordable
housing, and said they are very interested in working with other partners in the TJAC coalition to realize
the community plan to end homelessness, which was adopted in 2009 by the TJPDC. Ms. Mueller stated
that PACEM urges the Board to work cooperatively and expeditiously to obtain vouchers for people in
need, and thanked them for their efforts.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Rooker moved that the Board adopt the Annual Plan (copy on file in Clerk’s office) as
presented and authorize the County Executive to execute the required PHA Certificate of Compliance,
Civil Rights Certification, and VAWA Certification; and to approve the revised Administrative Plan. Mr.
Dumler seconded the motion.
Mr. Rooker commented that it would be helpful to know from Mr. White if there was a point at
which nine people had been identified to receive vouchers, and whether they were told the vouchers would
be ready at a certain point in time.
Mr. White responded that the property owner had identified nine that were referred to the housing
office, and the property owner had given a date at which the property would be available – around March
10. He said that the housing office was working to meet that date and had done everything for them to
move in when they got the phone call from HUD.
Mr. Rooker clarified that there were nine clearly indentified people who thought they were going to
be moving in that have had those plans delayed substantially.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were still 14 at Treesdale.
Mr. White said there were 22 at Treesdale and 14 had moved in, but the other 8 had to be held off
until this issue was resolved.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 51)
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
PHA 5-Year and Annual
Plan
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Office of Public and Indian
Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
Expires 4/30/2011
1.0
PHA Information
PHA Name: ______County of Albemarle_________________________________________ PHA Code: __VA036________
PHA Type: Small High Performing Standard X HCV (Section 8)
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): _07/2012______
2.0
Inventory (based on ACC units at time of FY beginning in 1.0 above)
Number of PH units: _________________ Number of HCV units: __429________
3.0
Submission Type
5-Year and Annual Plan X Annual Plan Only 5-Year Plan Only
4.0
PHA Consortia PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a joint Plan and complete table below.)
Participating PHAs PHA
Code
Program(s) Included in
the Consortia
Programs Not in the
Consortia
No. of Units in
Each Program
PH HCV
PHA 1:
PHA 2:
PHA 3:
5.0
5-Year Plan. Complete items 5.1 and 5.2 only at 5-Year Plan update.
5.1 Mission. State the PHA’s Mission for serving the needs of low-income, very low-income, and extremely low income families
in the PHA’s jurisdiction for the next five years:
5.2
Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of
low-income and very low-income, and extremely low-income families for the next five years. Include a report on the progress
the PHA has made in meeting the goals and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.
6.0
PHA Plan Update
(a) Identify all PHA Plan elements that have been revised by the PHA since its last Annual Plan submission: Annual Plan
7.0 and addition of chapters in the Administrative Plan re. Project-based vouchers and Violence Against Women Act.
(b) Identify the specific location(s) where the public may obtain copies of the 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan. For a complete
list of PHA Plan elements, see Section 6.0 of the instructions. Albemarle County Office of Housing
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
7.0
Hope VI, Mixed Finance Modernization or Development, Demolition and/or Disposition, Conversion of Public
Housing, Homeownership Programs, and Project-based Vouchers. Albemarle County will continue to utilize project-
based vouchers in accordance with 24 CFR 983 to support developments that preserve existing affordable housing units
through rehabilitation, create new affordable housing units through new construction where a nonprofit ownership or
partnership exists and the project is required by any law or regulation to have rents restricted that are affordable to lower-
income households and such rent restrictions must be maintained for a minimum period of years. Project-based vouchers will
also be available to existing housing units which are funded through public resources including federal, state, or local. The
use of project-based vouchers is a necessary component to provide additional housing choices and address needs of
specific populations, particularly the elderly, disabled, and homeless.
8.0
Capital Improvements. Please complete Parts 8.1 through 8.3, as applicable.
8.1
Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report. As part of the PHA 5-Year and Annual
Plan, annually complete and submit the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report, form
HUD-50075.1, for each current and open CFP grant and CFFP financing.
8.2
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan. As part of the submission of the Annual Plan, PHAs must complete and
submit the Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan, form HUD-50075.2, and subsequent annual updates (on a rolling
basis, e.g., drop current year, and add latest year for a five year period). Large capital items must be included in the Five-
Year Action Plan.
8.3
Capital Fund Financing Program (CFFP).
Check if the PHA proposes to use any portion of its Capital Fund Program (CFP)/Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) to
repay debt incurred to finance capital improvements.
9.0
Housing Needs. Based on information provided by the applicable Consolidated Plan, information provided by HUD, and
other generally available data, make a reasonable effort to identify the housing needs of the low-income, very low-income,
and extremely low-income families who reside in the jurisdiction served by the PHA, including elderly families, families with
disabilities, and households of various races and ethnic groups, and other families who are on the public housing and
Section 8 tenant-based assistance waiting lists. The identification of housing needs must address issues of affordability,
supply, quality, accessibility, size of units, and location.
Not required with Annual Plan
9.1
Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs. Provide a brief description of the PHA’s strategy for addressing the housing
needs of families in the jurisdiction and on the waiting list in the upcoming year. Note: Small, Section 8 only, and High
Performing PHAs complete only for Annual Plan submission with the 5-Year Plan.
10.0
Additional Information. Describe the following, as well as any additional information HUD has requested.
(a) Progress in Meeting Mission and Goals. Provide a brief statement of the PHA’s progress in meeting the mission and
goals described in the 5-
Year Plan. Not Required for Annual Plan
(b) Significant Amendment and Substantial Deviation/Modification. Provide the PHA’s definition of “si gnificant amendment”
and “substantial deviation/modification”
Significant amendment is defined as any revision to policy governing the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Significant
amendments not requiring HUD’s prior approval will be addressed in the follo wing Annual Plan submission.
Substantial deviation/modification is defined as any change to previously approved 5-Year Plans or Annual Plans which
substantially revises goals or strategies.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 52)
11.0
Required Submission for HUD Field Office Review. In addition to the PHA Plan template (HUD-50075), PHAs must
submit the following documents. Items (a) through (g) may be submitted with signature by mail or electronically with
scanned signatures, but electronic submission is encouraged. Items (h) through (i) must be attached electronically with the
PHA Plan. Note: Faxed copies of these documents will not be accepted by the Field Office.
(a) Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations (which includes all
certifications relating to Civil Rights)
(b) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(c) Form HUD-50071, Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(d) Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(e) Form SF-LLL-A, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Continuation Sheet (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(f) Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments. Comments received from the RAB must be submitted by the PHA as an
attachment to the PHA
Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the recommendations and the decisions made on
these recommendations.
(g) Challenged Elements
(h) Form HUD-50075.1, Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report (PHAs receiving
CFP grants only)
(i) Form HUD-50075.2, Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
*****
PHA Certifications of
Compliance with PHA Plans
and Related Regulations
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its
Chairman or other authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners, I approve the submission
of the___ 5-Year and/or___ Annual PHA Plan for the PHA fiscal year beginning ________, hereinafter
referred to as” the Plan”, of which this document is a part and make the following certifications and
agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with the
submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
1. The Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any
plan incorporating such strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located.
2. The Plan contains a certification by the appropriate State or local officials that the Plan is
consistent with the applicable Consolidated Plan, which includes a certification that requires the
preparation of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, for the PHA's jurisdiction and a
description of the manner in which the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable Consolidated
Plan.
3. The PHA certifies that there has been no change, significant or otherwise, to the Capital Fund
Program (and Capital Fund Program/Replacement Housing Factor) Annual Statement(s), since
submission of its last approved Annual Plan. The Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Annual
Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report must be submitted annually even if there is no
change.
4. The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which
represents the residents assisted by the PHA, consulted with this Board or Boards in developing
the Plan, and considered the recommendations of the Board or Boards (24 CFR 903.13). The
PHA has included in the Plan submission a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident
Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the Plan addresses these
recommendations.
5. The PHA made the proposed Plan and all information relevant to the public hearing available for
public inspection at least 45 days before the hearing, published a notice that a hearing would be
held and conducted a hearing to discuss the Plan and invited public comment.
6. The PHA certifies that it will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
7. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed programs,
identify any impediments to fair housing choice within those programs, address those
impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the resources available and work with local
jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further fair housing that
require the PHA's involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
8. For PHA Plan that includes a policy for site based waiting lists:
• The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's 50058 PIC/IMS Module in an accurate,
complete and timely manner (as specified in PIH Notice 2006-24);
• The system of site-based waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the
selection of the development in which to reside, including basic information about
available sites; and an estimate of the period of time the applicant would likely have to
wait to be admitted to units of different sizes and types at each site;
• Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement
agreement or be inconsistent with a pending complaint brought by HUD;
• The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent
with affirmatively furthering fair housing;
• The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is
consistent with civil rights laws and certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903.7(c)(1).
9. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 53)
10. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and
Procedures for the Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the
Physically Handicapped.
11. The PHA will comply with the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1968, Employment Opportunities for Low-or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its
implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
12. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and implementing regulations at 49
CFR Part 24 as applicable.
13. The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and women's
business enterprises under 24 CFR 5.105(a).
14. The PHA will provide the responsible entity or HUD any documentation that the responsible entity
or HUD needs to carry out its review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other
related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58 or Part 50, respectively.
15. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD determined wage
rate requirements under Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
16. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective audit to
determine compliance with program requirements.
17. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and 24 CFR Part 35.
18. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87
(Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments), 2 CFR Part 225, and 24 CFR
Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and
Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments).
19. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a manner consistent
with its Plan and will utilize covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the
regulations and included in its Plan.
20. All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all
locations that the PHA Plan is available for public inspection. All required supporting documents
have been made available for public inspection along with the Plan and additional requirements at
the primary business office of the PHA and at all other times and locations identified by the PHA in
its PHA Plan and will continue to be made available at least at the primary business office of the
PHA.
21. The PHA provides assurance as part of this certification that:
(i) The Resident Advisory Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the changes to the
policies and programs before implementation by the PHA;
(ii) The changes were duly approved by the PHA Board of Directors (or similar governing body);
and
(iii) The revised policies and programs are available for review and inspection, at the principal
office of the PHA during normal business hours.
22. The PHA certifies that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory
requirements.
*****
Civil Rights Certification U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
Civil Rights Certification
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its
Chairman or other authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioner, I approve the submission
of the Plan for the PHA of which this document is a part and make the following certification and
agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with the
submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
The PHA certifies that it will carry out the public housing program of the agency in conformity with title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and will affirmatively further fair housing.
*****
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors as its County Executive, I approve the submission of
this annual certification for the County’s administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program making
the following certification to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with
the implementation of the Plan:
Albemarle County certifies that it carries out the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) in conformity
with the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA) and
further certifies that the County uses required language found in the amended HAP Contract and Tenancy
Addendum as described in PIH Notice 2007-5.
_______________
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 54)
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Meeting.
At 12:58 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Dumler, that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant
to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss and consider appointments
to specific boards, committees and commissions; and under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of
real property for a public safety facility because an open meeting discussion would adversely affect the
bargaining position of the County; and under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for
public parking and streetscape improvements because an open meeting discussion would adversely
affect the bargaining position of the County.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 2:09 p.m., 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. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
________________
Agenda Item No. 20. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Snow, seconded by Ms. Mallek, to make the following appointments/
reappointments:
appoint Mr. John Matthews to the Local Board of Building Code Appeals, with said term
to expire November 21, 2016.
reappoint Mr. Don Franco, Planning Commission Representative to the Fiscal Impact
Advisory Committee, with said term to expire July 8, 2014.
appoint Ms. Jane Kulow to the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board, with said term
to expire June 30, 2016.
appoint Mr. Robert Short to the Places29 Community Advisory Council, to fill the
unexpired term of Drew Lawrence, to expire January 31, 2013.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
_______________
(NonAgenda.
Ms. Mallek moved that the Board adopt the following resolution approving the acquisition of a
portion of Parcel 56-A2-01-00-02400 in Crozet. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACQUISITION OF
A PORTION OF PARCEL 056A2-01-00-02400
WHEREAS, Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 is adjacent to several commercial properties in downtown
Crozet, the area commonly known as “The Square;” and
WHEREAS, a predecessor of CSX Transportation, Inc. acquired Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 by deed
dated May 16, 1877; and
WHEREAS, for many years, neighboring businesses and the general public have used Parcel 056A2-
01-00-02400 for access and parking; and
WHEREAS, CSX Transportation, Inc. has offered to convey its interest in approximately 0.362 acres
of Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400; and
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 55)
WHEREAS, the County’s acquisition of approximately 0.362 acres of Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 will
promote the safe and orderly development of downtown Crozet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, all documents necessary
to acquire approximately 0.362 acres of Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 in the County of Albemarle.
_______________
(Note: The Chair then took up Agenda Item No. 22.)
Agenda Item No. 22. Update on Volunteer Recruitment Efforts for Ivy Fire/Rescue Station.
The following executive summary was received by Board members:
On July 1st, 2013, the Ivy Fire Rescue Station is planned to begin Fire and EMS service to
provide first-due response to the citizens in Neighborhood 6 and in the surrounding Ivy area. Service
will be provided from a single fire engine staffed with at least three personnel trained to handle all
hazards including fires, auto accidents, hazardous conditions, and advanced emergency medical
procedures (Advanced Life Support). It is planned that the personnel will be made up of a mix of
career and volunteer service providers similar to other fire and EMS stations throughout the County.
A total of eight career staff were programmed in the five year financial model and approved
during the FY13 budget process. The eight career staff for Ivy allows the County to staff the station in
the following manner: three career staff (one driver operator, one officer, and one fire fighter) -
Monday -Friday, 6:00 am – 6:00 pm and one career staff working nights and weekends to supplement
the force of at least 25 trained volunteers. The career staff assigned to evenings and weekends can
take on whatever role is necessary based on available volunteer staffing (driver, fire fighter, ALS
provider, officer, etc).
In terms of the volunteer recruitment efforts, staff worked in collaboration with the volunteers to
develop an “Ivy Volunteer Recruitment and Management Plan” (attached) which was approved by the Fire
and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS) Board in January 2012. Bob Larsen (volunteer with Crozet and
Monticello) agreed to lead the volunteer recruitment process, and a steering committee comprised of Mr.
Larsen (Chair), Chief Kostas Alibertis (Western Albemarle Rescue), Chief Bob Brown (ACFR), and Brodie
Downs (Albemarle County Human Resources) was formed to help guide the process.
The purpose of the plan was to unify the FEMS Board, as well as all Fire and EMS system
personnel, behind a broad strategy to achieve the following vision:
1. When the Ivy station opens on July 1st, 2013 there will be a minimum of 25 trained
volunteers available along with eight career personnel committed to providing 24/7
staffing of the Ivy Volunteer Fire Rescue Station, a 501(c)(3) organization.
2. Five volunteers will make up the Ivy Fire Rescue Board of Directors (one President, a
Secretary/Treasurer, and three members at large).
3. A volunteer chief will lead the combination staff at the station and provide operational
response/support as necessary with support from surrounding volunteer stations and
ACFR Chief Officers.
More specifically, the volunteer recruitment plan lays out the following main objectives:
1. Recruit 15 new personnel by August 1st 2012 to start basic training in the Fall Fire
Academy.
2. Recruit 15 existing system personnel with Driver Pump Operator and/or Officer training
willing to join the Ivy station as a full member for at least one year – meeting minimum
training and full member participation requirements at both stations (primary station and
Ivy station).
3. Recruit 15 existing system personnel willing to serve as associate members – meeting
minimum training and applicable participation requirements at both stations (primary
station and Ivy station).
4. Recruit five persons willing to serve in administrative roles as Board Members of the Ivy
Volunteer Fire Rescue Station.
Volunteer recruitment efforts have been on-going since the plan was approved in January 2012.
Staff and Mr. Larsen are providing an update to the Board on the results of volunteer recruitment efforts to
date.
Progress to date
To date, 14 individuals (10 firm and 4 tentative) are in the process of joining as Ivy volunteers - 10
are members of existing volunteer stations, 2 are trained, but not affiliated with an existing station, and 2
are new volunteers that will be enrolled in the fall fire academy. No one at this time has expressed a
strong interest in becoming a Board of Director member or the volunteer chief of the station.
Mr. Larsen has worked with a local marketing and advertising firm to create banners, ads,
displays, and public service announcements. Banners and small table top displays were placed in a
number of businesses and establishments in Ivy and the surrounding areas. In addition, the Ivy Volunteer
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 56)
Fire Rescue station is now prominent on the Albemarle County JOIN website (an interactive volunteer fire
and rescue recruitment website that was funded by a federal grant).
Mr. Larsen and staff have met with local homeowner associations to discuss the opportunities to
volunteer, and Mr. Larsen has met with the University’s admissions office and Madison house to identify
and channel volunteer experience and/or interest towards the station. The Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire
Department has agreed to establish a joint recruitment campaign and assist with the new volunteer
mentorship program. The Hollymead and Monticello stations will be used to provide ride-along
opportunities for interested volunteers.
In order to accommodate the new volunteers for Ivy as well as new volunteers for existing
stations, staff has realigned resources to offer at least two basic fire academies and two EMT courses
between August 1st 2012 and July 1st, 2013. Efforts will focus on recruiting as many new personnel as
possible in time for the start of these basic courses. The 220 hour fire training academy and 121 hour
EMT-Basic course will be offered on varied schedules, but generally require one to two nights a week and
a full day on the weekend.
Additional efforts planned
Mr. Larsen and staff are working to identify additional opportunities to meet with homeowner
associations and market the Ivy station at local venues. Volunteer chiefs are also involved in recruiting
volunteers for Ivy through their contacts within their local community.
By August 1, 2012 (first milestone in the plan), our goal is to recruit 15 new volunteers, process
and equip them, and enroll them in the fall fire academy. If we are unable to meet our goal of 15 new
members by August 1, we will need additional system volunteers to step up and offer to volunteer at Ivy to
help reach our goal of 25 volunteers by July 1, 2013. Staff will continue to communicate with the steering
committee and the FEMS Board to focus on our goals and explore alternatives if necessary.
Project updates
Staff will work with the County Executive’s office to provide the Board with periodic updates on the
Ivy volunteer recruitment progress through the monthly project report. In addition, the Ivy volunteer
recruitment progress is included as a standing agenda item for the FEMS Board.
No budget impact at this point.
This report is for information only.
_____
Fire Chief Dan Eggleston addressed the Board, stating that he would provide an update on the
first milestone related to Ivy Fire Station volunteer recruitment efforts, which have been ongoing for quite
some time. For background purposes, Chief Eggleston said the Board made a decision to open the
station July 2013 in coordination with the end of the City contract and the beginning of the Fontaine
Station. He stated that, at the time, there was a very strong commitment from the Board and staff to make
this a combination volunteer/career station, and received clear direction to work with the community and
the FEMS Board to recruit volunteers for the station. Chief Eggleston said their goals with the station are
to staff one fire engine with at least three trained personnel 24/7, and that engine would be responsible for
all hazard responses such as fires, automobile accidents, hazardous conditions, and advanced medical
procedures.
Chief Eggleston reported that, during the budget process, eight career staff were allocated for the
station, which leaves a balance of 25 trained volunteers that need to get through the recruitment process.
Chief Eggleston said staff’s first step in that effort was to talk with Bob Larsen because of his connections
and knowledge of the volunteer system.
Mr. Bob Larsen addressed the Board, stating that this had been a joint effort of the FEMS Board
and career staff, and all are in agreement as to how to approach recruitment. He said there was an
agreement reached in February, with active recruitment efforts underway since then, and approximately
17 people having expressed interest in volunteering with 14 of them being likely candidates. Mr. Larsen
said many of them are already certified. He reported that an alliance has been established with Seminole
Trail so recruiting is done together, not in competition, and many of the Ivy candidates are not from that
area. Mr. Larsen added that UVA students will add a new pool of possible recruits in the fall, and said
they are going to launch some public service announcements and television commercials featuring Mr.
Snow as part of the “Join” campaign.
Mr. Larsen reported that they would begin solicitation to establish a 501(c) 3 and a board of
directors, with the help of Chief Kostas Alibertis and Mike Phillips, a Kappa Sigma financial officer and
former Monticello station volunteer. He said they are working with homeowner associations to distribute
emails and flyers to help recruit volunteers, and said he is open to attending any town hall meeting as well.
Ms. Mallek said she was excited to see the plan for the structure of the board and other recruiting
initiatives, and also said it would help in the ads to mention there are many different opportunities
regardless of where a person lives.
Chief Eggleston mentioned that they are conducting at least two academies between now and the
opening of the station, and said Training Chief Lambert has revised the curriculum to include both online
and classroom work in an effort to eliminate any barriers.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 57)
Ms. Mallek asked if there was an optimum class size.
Chief Eggleston responded that they try to limit classes to 20-25 people.
Mr. Larsen said there are 2 to 4 of the 14 recruits identified that will need to go through firefighter
training, because the others have already been trained.
Chief Eggleston confirmed that the training involves 220 hours.
Mr. Dumler asked if any of the requirements have been lessened, or if the local training is still
above and beyond the state requirements.
Chief Eggleston replied that they are still slightly above, and the feedback from the volunteer
training committee is that they want to add a couple of extra classes to ensure they are safer on the fire
ground. He said staff is trying to find ways to deliver that information in a non-traditional way.
Mr. Larsen said that they are trying to emulate, in part, what the Forest Service does by having
some training online and then spend a week in the woods.
Ms. Mallek commented that having online information provides flexibility and helps prepare
trainees for the hands-on training.
The Board thanked Chief Eggleston and Mr. Larsen for their efforts.
_______________
(Note: The Chair then went back to Agenda Item No. 14.)
Ms. Mallek said they would now revisit the bed and breakfast matter raised earlier in the meeting,
to take advantage of the fire marshal’s presence at the meeting.
Ms. McCulley said that the Board had concerns about the lack of clarity with the statement “each
dwelling unit for which a tourist lodging or bed and breakfast use is associated requires a development
right,” and stated that the new language under 5.1.48C very clearly states that. She said that the new
language states, “Each single-family dwelling to which a bed and breakfast use is accessory shall comply
with the following: 1) on any parcel less than 21 acres in size, the single-family dwelling shall be
authorized by a development right as provided in Section 10.3; 2) on any parcel, regardless of size, a
single-family dwelling shall comply with the permitted density; 3) no single-family dwelling shall have more
than one bed and breakfast use accessory to it.”
Ms McCulley said that the Board’s second concern related to allowing conversion of existing
structures or new structures for guest rooms that do not have adequate access for fire apparatus, but the
fire code indicates that it is covered under the current provisions. She said it is not in the Zoning
Ordinance, but it’s in the fire code, and that is really good news.
Mr. Cilimberg said it’s covered under 5.1.48G that the fire official actually has to sign off on a
zoning clearance, so the process is built into this ordinance amendment and it would apply to either
existing buildings or new construction.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a process an applicant had to go through to establish it as a guest
house.
Ms. McCulley confirmed that it would require a zoning clearance process.
Mr. Howard Lagomarsino, County Fire Marshal, said that, under the current process, they would
have to submit a sketch and a plan that must be to scale and show access. He said, if it was on an
existing driveway, the current requirements of 10 feet wide, 14 feet high, and no more than 16% grade
with a turn-around provided at the end do not change. Mr. Lagomarsino stated that, if they are adding a
new structure or changing the use of an existing structure, the County can require a 20-foot access road
so they can go around the whole building 150 feet with hose. He said that the fire code gives the fire
official the authority to require access and establish that as a written guideline provided to the person
requesting the clearance prior to any building permit being issued. Mr. Lagomarsino said they rely on the
code rather than trying to make up their own.
Ms. Mallek asked if an existing house would still be required to have the driveway specs.
Mr. Lagomarsino confirmed they would have to have a zoning clearance, and the fire marshal
would have to sign off on that along with the health official and zoning official.
Mr. Boyd asked how they would approach the County, through the Zoning Department or
Business License Department.
Ms. McCulley responded that it could go either way, adding that Zoning works closely with
Business Licensing. Typically, she said, they would get approval from Zoning before a business license
could be issued.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Davis said the only other change in the ordinance was to the definition of “bed and breakfast,”
which was tweaked to clarify that the persons who can use the dining and meeting facilities have to be
transient lodging guests, not other guests.
Mr. Cilimberg also clarified that the dining room could be as big as the owner thinks they need it to
be for themselves and five guests.
Mr. Rooker moved for approval ZTA-2012-0005 as set out in ORDINANCE NO. 12-18(3), with the
changes as discussed. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Sec. 5.1.17 Tourist lodging
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.48 Bed and breakfast
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Bed and Breakfast: A use composed of transient lodging provided within a single family dwelling and/or one or
more structures that are accessory to the single family dwelling, having not more than five (5) guest rooms in
the aggregate, and which also may include rooms for dining and for meetings for use by transient lodging
guests of the bed and breakfast provided that the dining and meeting rooms are accessory to the bed and
breakfast use.
. . .
Boarding House: A use composed of a building arranged or used for lodging for thirty (30) consecutive days
or longer, with or without meals, for compensation.
. . .
Hotel: A use composed of transient lodging provided within one or more buildings having six (6) or more guest
rooms that provides transient lodging.
. . .
Tourist Lodging: A use composed of transient lodging provided within a single family dwelling having not more
than five (5) guest rooms, where the single family dwelling is actually used as such and the guest rooms are
secondary to the single-family use, whether or not the guest rooms are used in conjunction with other portions
of the dwelling.
. . .
Transient Lodging: Lodging in which guest rooms are occupied for less than thirty (30) consecutive days.
. . .
(§ 20-3.1, 12-10-80, 7-1-81, 12-16-81, 2-10-82, 6-2-82, 1-1-83, 7-6-83, 11-7-84, 7-17-85, 3-5-86, 1-1-87, 6-10-
87, 12-2-87, 7-20-88, 12-7-88, 11-1-89, 6-10-92, 7-8-92, 9-15-93, 8-10-94, 10-11-95, 11-15-95, 10-9-96, 12-
10-97; § 18-3.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 01-18(9), 10-17-01; Ord. 02-18(2), 2-6-02;
Ord. 02-18(5), 7-3-02; Ord. 02-18(7), 10-9-02; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 04-18(2),
10-13-04; 05-18(2), 2-2-05; Ord. 05-18(7), 6-8-05; Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06; Ord. 07-
18(1), 7-11-07; Ord. 07-18(2), 10-3-07; Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08; Ord. 08-18(4), 6-11-08; Ord. 08-18(6), 11-12-
08; Ord. 08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(3), 7-1-09; Ord. 09-18(5), 7-1-09; 09-18(8), 8-5-09; Ord. 09-18(9), 10-
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 59)
14-09; Ord. 09-18(10), 12-2-09; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord.
10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 11-18(5), 6-1-11; Ord. 11-18(6), 6-1-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12)
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of required parking spaces for scheduled uses
Except when alternative parking is approved as provided in section 4.12.8, the following schedule shall apply
to determine the number of required off -street parking spaces to be provided in a particular situation. If a
particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall apply.
. . .
Bed and breakfast: One (1) space per guest room in addition to the parking required for a single family
dwelling.
. . .
Hotel, motel: One (1) space per guest room; additional spaces shall be required for restaurants, assembly
rooms, and other separate uses identified herein. (Amended 2-5-03)
. . .
Tourist lodging: One (1) space per guest room in addition to the parking required for a single family dwelling.
(Amended 2-5-03)
. . .
(§ 4.12.6.6.2, 12-10-80; 3-18-81; 7-20-88; 12-5-90; 2-6-02; Ord. 03-18(1), 2-5-03; Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05; Ord.
12-18(3), 6-6-12)
Sec. 5.1.17 Tourist lodging
Before the zoning administrator approves a zoning clearance for a tourist lodging use under section 31.5, the
owner of the parcel shall obtain approvals of the use from the building official, the fire official and the Virginia
Department of Health, and shall satisfy all other applicable requirements of this chapter. (Amended 10-3-01)
(§ 5.1.17, 12-10-80; Ord. 01-18(6), 10-3-01; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12)
Sec. 5.1.48 Bed and breakfast
Each bed and breakfast shall be subject to the following:
a. Residency. The owner of the parcel or a manager of the bed and breakfast shall reside on the parcel.
b. Number of bed and breakfast uses. Any parcel may have up to two (2) bed and breakfast uses.
c. Required development rights, density and limitation, Each single family dwelling to which a bed and
breakfast use is accessory shall comply with the following: (i) on any parcel less than twenty-one (21)
acres in size, the single family dwelling shall be authorized by a development right as provided in
section 10.3; (ii) on any parcel, regardless of size, the single family dwelling shall comply with the
permitted density; and (iii) no single family dwelling shall have more than one bed and breakfast use
accessory to it.
d. Minimum yards. Any accessory structure used for a bed and breakfast use shall comply either with
the applicable minimum yard requirements for a primary structure or a lesser yard approved by the
zoning administrator that is not less than the minimum yard required for an accessory structure that
would otherwise be applicable, if the zoning administrator finds that: (i) the distance between the
accessory structure and the closest primary structure on the closest abutting parcel is greater than the
applicable minimum yard requirement for a primary structure; and (ii) written consent has been
provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the alternative minimum yard. The minimum
yard for any parking area shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
e. Parking. In addition to the parking required for a single family dwelling, the number of off -street
parking spaces required by section 4.12.6 shall be provided.
f. Information and sketch plan to be submitted with request for zoning clearance. The owner of the
parcel or a manager of the bed and breakfast shall submit the following to the zoning administrator
with each request for a zoning clearance under section 31.5:
1. Information. Information pertaining to the following: (i) the proposed use; (ii) the maximum
number of guest rooms; (iii) the provision of on-site parking; and (iv) the location, height and
lumens of outdoor lighting.
2. Sketch plan. A sketch plan, which shall be a schematic drawing of the premises with notes in
a form and of a scale approved by the zoning administrator depicting: (i) all structures that
would be used for the bed and breakfast; (ii) the locations of all guest rooms; and (iii) how
access, on-site parking, outdoor lighting, signage and minimum yards will be provided in
compliance with this chapter.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 60)
g. Building code, fire and health approvals. Before the zoning administrator approves a zoning clearance
under section 31.5, the owner of the parcel or a manager of the bed and breakfast shall obtain
approval of the use from the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of Health.
h. Uses prohibited. Restaurants are prohibited as a use accessory to a bed and breakfast use.
(Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.1 By right
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the RA district, subject to the applicable requirements of this
chapter:
. . .
14. Bed and breakfast (reference 5.1.48).
. . .
(§ 20-10.2.1, 12-10-80; 12-16-81; 7-6-83; 11-1-89; 11-8-89; 11-11-92; 5-12-93; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95; Ord.
98-A(1), § 18-10.2.1, 8-5-98; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord 04-18(2), 10-13-04; Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06; Ord.
08-18(7), 11-12-08; Ord. 09-18(11), 12-10-09; Ord. 10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-
12-11; Ord. 12-18(3), 6-6-12)
_________________
Agenda Item No. 21. FY12 General Fund Third Quarter Report and Revised FY12 Revenue
Projections Report.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
Staff has changed the Quarterly Financial Report format in order to report actual financial results
separately from budgetary projections. The FY12 Third Quarter Financial Report (QFR) (Attachment A)
provides information about the County’s FY12 General Fund financial performance as of March 31, 2012.
The FY12 General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (RFPR) (Attachment B) includes
estimated revenue through June, 2012 and provides updated estimates from the report provided to the
Board on February 1, 2012. Using the April 30, 2012 date, rather than the March 31, 2012 date, allows for
more realistic estimates of the County’s financial position at June 30, 2012.
In an effort to enhance the focus and readability of the QFRs, staff produced the current QFR
using a different format than what has been used in the past. This proposed new format is based on
staff’s examination of the best practices found in QFRs of other Virginia localities.
The QFR reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through March 31, 2012, the end of the third quarter of
FY12. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is consistent with Exhibit 12 of the
County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Line item titles in the QFR match the line item
titles in the CAFR. The columns in the QFR show FY12 Adopted Budget revenues and expenditures,
Revised Budget revenues and expenditures, as well as YTD actual revenues and expenditures. Each of
these YTD figures subsequently is expressed as a percentage of the amount in the relevant line item of
the FY12 Revised Budget.
Additionally, this QFR report includes corresponding data for FY11 so that the current fiscal year’s
financial data can be easily compared to that of the previous fiscal year. An important feature of this
report is that data is provided for a point-in-time in FY 12 (March 31, 2012) and is compared to data from
the same point-in-time for the prior fiscal year (March 31, 2011). Anomalies and similarities between fiscal
years become more apparent using this comparison method.
The RFPR contains a similar level of detailed explanations as provided in previous quarterly
reports, but with a streamlined presentation of the supporting data.
Highlights of the attached reports include:
Revenues – YTD Actual
YTD total revenues in the third quarter of FY12 totaled $117,964,103, compared to $115,761,576
in the third quarter of FY11. In percentage terms, FY12 YTD actual revenues, as a percentage of FY12
Revised Budget revenues, stood at 55.30% compared to 54.71% in FY11. This is a positive trend for
revenues.
Most revenue streams performed fairly consistently through the third quarter of FY12 compared to
the third quarter of FY11. For additional information about revenue variances, please see the analysis
page in the QFR.
Expenditures – YTD Actual
YTD total expenditures in the third quarter of FY12 totaled $146,771,703, compared to
$113,160,371 in the third quarter of FY11. In percentage terms, FY12 YTD actual expenditures, as a
percentage of FY12 Revised Budget expenditures, stood at 75.11% compared to 57.83% in FY11.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 61)
This significant variance resulted primarily from the fact that fiscal uncertainty in FY 11 resulted in
a delay in the Local Government’s transfer of funds to the School Division. An examination of all other
broad expenditure categories (Administration, Judicial, etc.) reveals that there is very little variance, in
terms of percentage, between FY12 and FY11. For information about significant expenditure variances,
please see the analysis page in the QFR.
Year-end Projections
The RFPR indicates that estimated revenues will exceed appropriated revenues by $3.039 million,
a $2.821 million increase to the estimates provided to the Board on February 1, 2012. Expenditures are
estimated to be $1.491 million less than appropriated. The net result is that projected revenues in excess
of expenditures will be $4.312 at June 30, 2012.
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflect the state of the County’s budget-
to-actual FY12 financial performance as of March 31, 2012. Year-end projections are subject to
change based on results of actual revenue collections and expenditures through June 30, 2012.
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the
proposed new financial reporting format. The desired outcome is to provide the Board with accurate,
useful, and timely financial information.
_____
Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, addressed the Board, stating that the purpose of presenting
the quarterly financial report and the projections report is to highlight the changes made to the customary
reports. She said that traditionally the reports have been part of the consent agenda and have not
required an actual presentation by staff, but today she felt it was important to talk about changes to be
made. Ms. Burrell said the major difference between these reports and what the Board has traditionally
received is that staff has broken apart actual financial results from projections, so the quarterly financial
has actual results through March 31, 2012 compared to results from March 31, 2011. She explained that
the point of doing that is to address anomalies between those two time periods.
Ms. Burrell explained that staff looked at peer jurisdictions, such as Henrico and Hanover, to
ensure that what they were considering fit in with best practices of AAA-rated jurisdictions. She said that
the quarterly financial report is in the same format they would see in their Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR), with the addition of the prior year results. Ms. Burrell said that Steve Allshouse
authored that report and was available to answer any questions. She stated that the revised projections
report is similar to what the Board usually receives, but staff has made it more streamlined and presented
it in a manner that focuses on numbers the Board might be interested in along with a narrative that
explains staff’s basis of thinking with respect to projections. Ms. Burrell said that Robert Walters authored
that report and is present to answer any questions about it, adding that staff would continue to refine the
report for improvements and would welcome any Board comments.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciated the highlighted summaries, and Mr. Rooker said he liked the format.
Mr. Foley commented that Ms. Burrell had a commitment to improvements, and said she had
been a valuable part of the staff along with other Finance staff.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Line of Duty (LODA) – Resolution to Opt Out of State’s Line of Duty Fund
and to select Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool (VACoRP) to provide the
County’s LODA Coverage for FY13.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
Virginia’s Line of Duty Act (LODA) (Attachment A) provides important benefits for state and local
public safety officers and public safety volunteers and/or their beneficiaries due to death or disability
resulting from performance of duties. LODA benefits include:
One-time death benefit payment of $100,000 to a covered employee’s beneficiary
Continued health insurance coverage for the surviving spouse and any dependents of a
covered employee deceased in the line of duty
Continued health insurance coverage for the covered employee, spouse and dependent
children for a covered employee who is disabled in the line of duty occurring after July 1,
2000
Covered employees for County purposes include:
o Law-enforcement officers of the County
o Sheriff, deputy sheriffs
o Police chaplains
o Members of fire companies or departments or rescue squads recognized by the County
as an integral part of an official safety program
LODA coverage applies to deaths or disabilities that are caused by hypertension or heart disease.
In addition, LODA benefits are made available for qualified volunteer or salaried fire fighters whose death
or disability is caused by respiratory diseases. For those with twelve years of continuous service who have
had contact with toxic substances encountered in the line of duty, LODA coverage applies to a multitude
of cancers, including prostate, ovarian and pancreatic.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 62)
LODA is an expensive unfunded State mandate that now has to be funded by localities. The
General Assembly established a Line of Duty Act (LODA) Fund administered by the Virginia Retirement
System (VRS) as the investment manager in 2010 to manage LODA claims. Beginning in FY 12, the state
mandated that localities make contributions to the Fund based on the number of eligible employees and
volunteers in their jurisdictions. In 2012, the County paid $95,191 to comply with this mandate. For FY
2013, if the County continues to participate in the State’s LODA Fund, the County’s cost is estimated to be
$280,624, which would be a 195% increase over the cost the County incurred in FY 12.
The State is providing localities with an option to opt out of the State’s LODA Fund; however,
localities are mandated to continue to provide for LODA coverage for their covered employees. According
to staff at the Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool (VACoRP), effective July 1,
2011, 131 localities opted out of the State’s LODA fund. Of those, 78 joined the VACoRP program. As of
May 21, an additional 19 entities have opted out to join VACoRP and 15 larger cities and counties have
opted out to self fund. VACoRP estimates that only 20-30% of the covered public safety personnel will
remain in the State Fund as of July 1, 2012.
Opting out of or remaining in the State’s LODA Fund is an irrevocable election and localities
cannot elect at a later date to opt out or return to the State’s LODA Fund. If the County does not pass a
Resolution to opt out of the State’s LODA Fund by July 1, 2012, the County will be billed annually by VRS
to cover eligible employees and volunteers at whatever rate the State establishes for this coverage each
year.
If the County decides to opt out of its participation in the State’s LODA Fund, the County will be
fully responsible for funding all State mandated benefits relating to its past and present covered
employees under the Line of Duty Act. Currently, the County has 9 active claims that are being paid by the
State’s LODA Fund and the County will be required to take over and continue managing and funding these
benefits after it leaves the State’s LODA Fund.
The County has the following options available for FY 13:
Remain in the State’s LODA Fund
Opt out of the State’s LODA Fund and either:
o Purchase LODA coverage from VACoRP, or
o Purchase LODA coverage from the Virginia Municipal League (VML), or
o Self-Insure LODA at the County level
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to opt out of the
State’s LODA Fund prior to July 1, 2012 and that the County purchase LODA coverage from VACoRP for
FY 13 based on the following:
The State has mandated that this decision is irrevocable. If the County does not opt out
by July 1, 2012, the County will not be able to leave the State’s LODA Fund in the future.
A substantial number of localities have opted out of the State’s LODA Fund in FY 12, and
it is anticipated that a large number of the remaining localities will elect to opt out this
year, leaving fewer participating localities to pay for the State’s LODA Fund’s existing and
growing list of claims.
Although some larger Virginia jurisdictions have chosen to self-fund their LODA Coverage
and to not join the VACoRP or VML pools, staff believes that the County is not prepared
to self-fund at this time. Staff recommends the County revisit this option at a later date if
it is determined this approach would be more beneficial than participating in the VACoRP
or VML insurance pools.
Cost savings:
o The cost for the County to continue to participate in the State’s LODA Fund is
estimated to be $280,624 for FY 13, a 195% increase over the County’s cost in
FY 12 and the cost is anticipated to increase substantially each year thereafter.
o The cost to participate in VACoRP would be considerably less at this time and
VACORP does not impose irrevocable decisions on localities regarding either
joining or leaving their pool.
o The cost to participate in VACoRP is less than the cost to receive LODA
coverage from VML.
As part of its comprehensive service, VACoRP will pay for and manage
the County’s active claims ($89,000 per year).
VACoRP will pay for the State’s determination and administrative fees in
FY 13 as part of its coverage.
VACoRP will reimburse the State for the County claims the State paid on
its behalf for the required period identified by the State. VML does not
offer this reimbursement benefit.
Although the County would be required to transfer its Workers
Compensation coverage to VACoRP (currently provided by VML) to
participate in VACoRP’s LODA Fund, VACoRP’s cost for the County’s
Workers Compensation coverage is currently less than what VML would
charge the County.
If the County desired to obtain LODA coverage from VML, the County
would be required to transfer its Property and Casualty coverage to VML.
Staff has determined that VACoRP’s coverage is currently a better value
(in both cost and scope) for the County than VML’s coverage.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 63)
Regardless of whether the County stays in the State’s LODA Fund or opts out, the costs
associated with LODA are expected to escalate in the future, primarily due to the requirement to provide
long-term health care insurance for eligible participants and/or their families. Therefore, it is essential that
the County manages this program in an effective way.
To effectively manage this unfunded mandate moving forward, VACoRP recommends localities
consider implementing the following procedures and practices:
1) Identify a County LODA Representative – this could be included in an existing employee’s
job description
2) Provide LODA employee training as part of its regular employee and volunteer training
program
3) Have designated county staff available who will compile and submit all LODA claims to
the State’s Department of Accounts (DOA) on behalf of the County’s employees and
volunteers
4) Adopt a definition for the term “member” and the term “active” for County volunteers. The
definitions should include:
a. Only firefighters and other emergency services personnel with duties entailing
fighting fires or participating in hazardous assignments
b. The start and end date of the volunteer period
5) Require volunteer Fire/EMS organizations to adopt bylaws, which includes the definitions
of “member” and “active” which are consistent with the definitions adopted by the locality
6) Establish an independent review board to monitor member lists
Staff acknowledges many of these changes VACoRP suggests will be difficult to achieve in a
short period of time, however, staff recommends that the County establish an effective LODA program as
soon as possible. This program should include the adoption of a County ordinance to establish what
volunteers are “covered employees” for purposes of LODA. In addition, staff recommends that the County
consider whether new volunteer recruits should receive County-paid physicals prior to their effective start
dates. Such baseline health information could be valuable to managing LODA liabilities.
The implementation costs associated with LODA is anticipated to be $175,574 to purchase LODA
coverage from VACoRP and an estimate of $35,000 for County-paid volunteer recruit physicals for a total
cost of $210,534 in FY 13. Currently the County’s FY 13 budget includes $200,080 for this expense.
As part of its coverage and services, VACoRP will pay for and manage the County’s active claims,
currently estimated at $89,000 per year and will pay any and all state-related administration costs
associated with the LODA program. VACORP will also reimburse the State on behalf of the County for the
one-time costs of those active claims that the State has paid on the County’s behalf that will be billed to
the County per the terms of the State’s opt-out provision.
To be eligible to obtain LODA coverage from VACORP, the County must purchase its Workers’
Compensation Coverage from VACoRP. VACoRP’s FY 13 proposal for Workers’ Compensation
coverage is $306,194, which is $189,279 less than what is currently budgeted for Workers Compensation
Coverage in the County’s FY 13 budget. Staff is reviewing the total potential savings associated with
selecting VACoRP for Property and Casualty, Workers Compensation, and LODA coverage, and what
resources are necessary to adequately establish and implement an effective LODA program for the
County moving forward, including analysis of a comprehensive Risk Management function that could
administer and manage the County’s LODA, the Workers’ Compensation program, and perform other
essential Risk Management duties on behalf of the County. HR staff are concerned that the management
of Workers Compensation claims by VACoRP will require more HR staff time than what has been required
by the VML coverage.
Staff recommends that the Board 1) adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to “opt out” of
the State LODA Fund; 2) authorize the County to purchase LODA coverage from VACoRP for FY 13 by
joining the VACoRP LODA Risk Pool; and 3) direct staff to identify the resources that may be required to
establish and adequately implement the County’s LODA program and bring back additional
recommendations to the Board for further discussion and action in July.
_____
Ms. Allshouse addressed the Board, stating that the Line of Duty Act (LODA) provides benefits for
public safety officers and volunteers, and/or their beneficiaries, due to death or disability. She said that
LODA provides a one-time death benefit, with continued health insurance coverage added in 2000 for
employees, spouses, and dependent children. Ms. Allshouse said the state has a LODA fund, but the
cost of LODA coverage has now been transferred to localities with 2012 being the first year localities
transferred money to the state for that fund. She stated that the state has provided an irrevocable time of
July 1 to either opt out of the state’s LODA fund or stay in and, if the County does not choose to opt out,
they are in the state’s fund forever.
Mr. Snow said that is scary.
Ms. Allshouse agreed that she didn’t like the term “irrevocable.”
Ms. Allshouse explained that the County has the option of remaining in the LODA fund and
continue to send the state money, based on any fee the state wanted to charge in the future; the County
could self-insure, which is being done by some larger counties; the County could purchase LODA
coverage from VML; or the County could purchase LODA from VACO, which they call “VACoRP,” or their
risk pool. Ms. Allshouse said that staff is recommending opting out of the state’s LODA fund by July 1
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 64)
although the County cannot opt out of doing LODA entirely. She mentioned that 165 localities have
already opted out or will by July 1, according to VACoRP, and most that are staying are those that have
active claims. Ms. Allshouse noted that Albemarle County has nine claims, but are still in a good position
to opt out even though those claims will stay with the County forever.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the cost to remain in the state’s LODA fund is anticipated to increase,
with no control over costs and no ability to get out. She said that, in FY 2012, the County budgeted
$95,000 for LODA coverage and paid that to the state. She said, in FY 2013 it would have cost the
County $280,000 to stay with the state and projections are that could increase to $400,000 or $500,000 or
$600,000 if a decision is made to stay with the state’s fund.
Ms. Allshouse stated that staff has done a lot of research on this issue and is recommending that
the best option would be going to VACO’s plan, noting that VACO does not provide any irrevocable
decisions, nor does VML. She said that this would be a one-year decision and make other choices in the
future, adding that the cost for this fiscal year would be less with VACO than VML or if they remainder
under the state’s plan. Ms. Allshouse stated that it is estimated to cost about $216,000 if the County goes
with VACO, including coverage for potential claims and picking up the nine active Albemarle County
claims currently paid for by the state. She emphasized the importance of that coverage, because those
health insurance claims might be with the County forever and VACO would make payments and minister
those accounts.
Mr. Rooker asked if this includes all CARS volunteers.
Ms. Allshouse confirmed that it did, adding that acknowledging them by ordinance as part of the
system meant the County is responsible for them.
Mr. Davis said that staff needed to do some more investigation on this because there seems to be
a flaw in the system because the City also recognizes them as part of their service providers. He stated
that currently it seems both the City and the County are going to have to cover CARS volunteers, and the
determination of responsibility seems to be whoever the volunteer was providing the service for at the time
of the accident. Mr. Davis said it seems to be double coverage, and staff is looking into how to address it
for the long term but, in order for the County to have coverage, they need to be listed in the VACoRP
policy for the time being.
Mr. Boyd commented that the City should pick this up, since they no longer contribute to CARS
outright.
Mr. Davis responded that the City had a different suggestion, but the County rejected it.
Ms. Allshouse said the cost for volunteers was less than that for employees, but there had to be
an amount paid for every volunteer.
Mr. Davis said it was not a tremendous number, and Ms. Allshouse said it was $57 per volunteer
with VACO.
Ms. Allshouse stated that if the County opts out of the state, it would take its active claims with it.
She noted that the state is also charging administrative fees, asking the County to pay for those fees,
however, the state would still be administering it and that includes determining eligibility and other
administrative LODA pieces. She said that, with VACoRP, they would pay for that, which is another added
benefit of going with VACO.
Ms. Mallek said that VML had some significant concerns about state agency investigation of
claims that they end up with, and asked how the County would be protected with VACO.
Ms. Allshouse explained that, at this point, VACO is of the same mindset, but the state still has
control of that and makes determinations with the state police and state controller so they decide who is
eligible for line of duty.
Mr. Davis confirmed that is the case, adding that the budget act provided for a study group made
by the state in conjunction with localities to study the efficiencies and operations of this. He said he
anticipated changes as to how it is managed in the future, but currently it stands as is.
Ms. Mallek suggested adding that to the legislative agenda in the fall.
Ms. Allshouse reiterated that VACoRP would reimburse the state for the County’s claims, and if
the County opts out, they not only have to assume those claims moving forward, they have to pay the
state back for two years of claims payments. She said that if they went with VML that would be a one-time
cost, but VACO is offering to pick up that cost.
Mr. Foley said if they get a big enough pool, that cost could be spread across a large group, and it
seems like they are getting most of this business.
Ms. Allshouse noted that VACO is also picking up the workman’s compensation, which had been
held by VML, and said that VACO would not do the LODA without taking workman’s comp along with
property and casualty insurance. She noted that the regional jail had recently changed from VML to
VACO and had concerns about service initially, but they now feel the services are equal.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 65)
Ms. Allshouse said that the $216,000 figure includes money for physicals for new volunteer
recruits, and that would be a change in culture and approach.
Mr. Foley said that rules and procedures would need to be set up, which would change the
relationship with volunteers in terms of what’s required of them and would no longer be an option for them.
He said the liability being taken on by the County is very significant, and some of the rules around this are
very important related to risk management, which staff will have to come back to the Board on as it relates
to managing this organizationally.
Ms. Mallek asked if this had been a requirement of the state LODA coverage in the past.
Ms. Allshouse explained that VACO and VML have told the County that how well the claims are
managed and how the County is seen as an organization and how the LODA program is managed will
help with claim costs. She said the County is charged different amounts; they are looking for
organizations that do a good job managing their claims.
Mr. Foley said this had existed for a while, but not everyone knew it existed, so if a volunteer got
hurt they might not have ever made a claim. He added that part of doing this is the County now has to
advertise that it has this coverage and it changes the whole ballgame on this.
Ms. Allshouse reported that VACoRP has some recommendations on ways that localities can
manage this program through best practices and cost-saving measures, and the first step they suggest is
to identify a LODA representative within the organization. She said that most entities would probably put a
risk management staff person in that particular duty, although Albemarle doesn’t have one, and the LODA
representative should gather information and submit the claims, and provide the mandated training to all
employees and volunteers. Ms. Allshouse stated that VACoRP also recommends that localities adopt
some terminology, and in the statute it says if you are a “member,” you get certain benefits from LODA but
there is no real definition of what ‘member’ means. She said that VACoRP recommends the locality
identify what that means to them, and have suggested only including firefighters and other emergency
service personnel with duties that really come into contact with hazardous environments.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a statutory requirement definition in the current statute.
Mr. Davis responded that there is a definition of who is covered which states “members of fire
companies and rescue squads recognized by the county as an integral part of an official safety program”
and part of the county’s recognition would be defining who those members are. He said the County has
not done that in the past.
Mr. Foley added that there have been different interpretations of who was an active member or
not, and if the benchmark for coverage means “every member of any volunteer organization,” the County
might be paying for coverage for people who are not actually going out on calls.
Ms. Mallek commented that it’s active duty versus auxiliary.
Mr. Foley said the County would have to define what an active volunteer is.
Mr. Davis noted that a number of localities have adopted ordinances to do this.
Ms. Allshouse added that the other thing recommended by VACoRP is requiring volunteer fire and
EMS organizations to adopt by-laws that are consistent with the definitions the locality sets for the terms
“member” and “active.” She said they recommend that localities establish volunteer membership lists that
include start and end dates for volunteers, which is important because of a statute of limitations. Ms.
Allshouse stated that they also recommend having an independent review board to monitor membership
lists to ensure they are current, and staff recommends, along with VACoRP, that the County consider the
physicals for new recruits.
Mr. Rooker asked if the premiums are experience-rated for each insured, or if they are being
allocated to each person in the pool.
Ms. Allshouse said she is not aware of them being delineated based on experience since the
system is so new.
Mr. Foley pointed out that, if the County doesn’t identify or define active members and other
terminology, the premium will be higher as it does depend on how localities manage their risk.
Mr. Davis explained that if it’s managed the same as the liability pool, it would be experience-
based along with a base cost.
Mr. Foley noted that staff would come back with this because there is a lot of information.
Mr. Boyd said his concerns are whether this information has been shared with the FEMS Board,
and whether there would be new physical requirements for qualification as a volunteer because of the
mandate of requiring physicals.
Mr. Foley responded that staff has not discussed this with the FEMS Board yet, but the real
decisions would need to be made by the Board in terms of managing risk for County taxpayers. He said
this will be a bit challenging because of the new rules required in order to manage the liability.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 66)
Ms. Mallek said there are many different responsibilities a volunteer could have based on their
physical abilities.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that this is a big change, as the healthcare costs could be
tremendous, but today she is just requesting authorization from the Board to opt out of the state’s LODA
fund and authorization to purchase LODA coverage from VACoRP in FY13. She said that staff is also
requesting direction in identifying resources that might be required to establish and adequately implement
the program, along with bringing back other ideas and recommendations to the Board for further
discussion in July.
Mr. Rooker moved to adopt the proposed resolution to opt out of the State’s LODA Fund by July
1. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
Irrevocable Election Not to Participate in Line of Duty Act Fund
WHEREAS, pursuant to Item 258 of the 2010 Appropriation Act, paragraph B, the Virginia General
Assembly has established the Line of Duty Act Fund (the “Fund”) for the payment of benefits prescribed by
and administered under the Line of Duty Act (Va. Code § 9.1-400 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, for purposes of administration of the Fund, a political subdivision with covered employees
(including volunteers pursuant to paragraph B2 of Item 258 of the 2010 Appropriation Act) may make an
irrevocable election on or before July 1, 2012, to be deemed a non-participating employer fully responsible for
self-funding all benefits relating to its past and present covered employees under the Line of Duty Act from its
own funds; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the County of Albemarle to make this irrevocable election to be a non-
participating employer with respect to the Fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors for the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, irrevocably elects to be deemed a non-participating employer fully responsible for self-
funding all benefits relating to its past and present covered employees under the Line of Duty Act from its own
funds;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the following entities:
(1) the County of Albemarle, (2) the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Office, (3) the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad, (4) the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, (5) the Earlysville Volunteer Fire
Company, (6) the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, (7) the North Garden Volunteer Fire
Company, (8) the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, (9) the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad,
(10) the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, (11) the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, and
(12) the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad
to the best of the knowledge of the County of Albemarle, constitute the population of its past and
present covered employees under the Line of Duty Act;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a non-participating employer, the County of Albemarle agrees
that it will be responsible for, and reimburse the State Comptroller for, all Line of Duty Act benefit payments
(relating to existing, pending or prospective claims) approved and made by the State Comptroller on behalf of
the County of Albemarle on or after July 1, 2010 except for benefits paid on your behalf for FY 2012;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a non-participating employer, the County of Albemarle agrees
that it will reimburse the State Comptroller an amount representing reasonable costs incurred and associated,
directly and indirectly, with the administration, management and investment of the Fund;
AND RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle shall reimburse the State Comptroller no more
frequently than on a monthly basis for amounts invoiced by the State Comptroller.
_____
Mr. Rooker then moved to authorize the County to purchase LODA coverage from VACoRP for
FY13. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Foley said that he isn’t sure this can make it in time for the FEMS Board’s July agenda, and
staff would need some direction from the Board as to how to proceed not excluding the volunteers, but
establishing some lines that can’t be crossed.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 67)
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful for the FEMS Board to see the same information presented at
this meeting, to ensure they understand that the whole situation is changing in terms of the assignment of
risk and who is going to have that risk.
Chief Eggleston said he raised the issue with the executive committee in May to let them know
this was coming down the pike and to let them know not all pieces of it have been resolved. He informed
them this would likely lead to physicals for volunteers, adding that two executive committee members
responded positively to this information.
Mr. Boyd added that it’s also important to point out the monetary costs of doing physicals versus
not doing them, active members versus non-active members, etc. He asked how VACoRP would be able
to determine the first year’s premium, and asked if the numbers provided by Ms. Allshouse were solid.
Mr. Davis responded that the numbers provided were estimated to staff based on the number of
people included and, going forward, it would be impacted by experience so the things put in place the first
year will impact FY14.
Mr. Foley noted that this also includes auxiliary deputies for the Sheriff’s Department and, beyond
those relationships, the County is not set up to organize and manage this risk.
Mr. Boyd asked if this could fall under the purview of the health insurance risk management
system within HR.
Mr. Foley said that’s what he was referring to, but that position in HR is already a full-time job and
this is another significant thing. He said typically this type of job would fall under the Finance Department,
but there are some components that are HR related as well.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Performance-Based Recognition Pool for General Government Employees.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
During the budget cycle this year, the Board approved $150,000 for a performance based
recognition program. The objective is to implement bonus awards at the end of FY12-13 to employees
based on demonstrated success in accordance with the General Government mission, values and the
recently approved FY13-17 Strategic Plan goals. This report provides information on the County’s current
performance-based recognition programs and outlines the implementation details of the Performance-
Based Recognition Pool.
To create this program, Human Resources (HR) staff researched organizational incentive
programs from several peer localities in Virginia and throughout the nation, including programs such as
Gainsharing and organizational recognition programs. Additionally, HR solicited feedback from School
and General Government leaders to effectively design the incentive pool program. Staff also reviewed the
performance of the County’s two existing programs (Employee Recognition Program and the Merit Pay for
Performance) that are designed to recognize and reward employee performance.
An overview and critical analysis of the existing two programs is as follows:
1-Employee Recognition Program (General Government only)
Overview
The current Employee Recognition Program was initiated for General Government employees in 2005 and
gives managers, supervisors, and employees the ability to formally recognize, acknowledge, and reward
exemplary performance within the organization. The objectives of the Employee Recognition Program are
to:
provide a set of standards for acknowledging, rewarding, and reinforcing exceptional
performance;
give managers the tools and means to reward exceptional perform ance on an ad-hoc
basis using monetary and non-monetary rewards; and
contribute to recruitment and retention efforts
The program gives autonomy at the departmental level to acknowledge employees. Each
department develops its own departmental standards as a basis of expectations. Types of rewards
include: letters of appreciation, web/newsletter recognition, custom certificates of recognition, time-off (up
to one day) and direct cash bonuses.
2-Merit Pay for Performance (General Government and School Classified)
Overview
The current performance management system is based on competencies created with cross -
functional team input in 2005. All employees are annually rated on eight competencies (functional
expertise, communication, customer service, innovation and initiative, results oriented, learning and
development, integrity and ethics, and teamwork), with supervisors evaluated on four additional
competencies (coaching, influence, strategic and visionary leadership, and tactical planning and
execution). The overall performance rating is rewarded based upon a merit matrix, allowing for
performance to be differentiated based on a five point rating scale.
Staff proposes linking the performance bonus to the current performance management system.
The performance bonus should be awarded to employees who:
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 68)
1) achieve an overall performance rating of “Successfully Meets High Expectations,” “Meets
and Often Exceeds High Expectations;” or “Consistently Exceeds High Expectations”
and
2) successfully achieve a performance goal that is aligned with the County’s FY13-17
strategic plan.
This will reinforce goal setting so that employees’ goals are explicitly aligned with organizational
goals, and will also reward employees who consistently demonstrate successful performance. Using
feedback from several employee focus groups, staff proposes that:
All merit-eligible employees will be eligible except for Department Heads and Directors;
Although the bonus amount for individuals cannot be determined until the distribution of
scores is finalized, the bonus will be structured as follows:
1) Successfully Meets High Expectations (1x)
2) Meets and Often Exceeds High Expectations (1.5x, or in other words, one and ½
the amount awarded for “Successfully Meets High Expectations”)
3) Consistently Exceeds High Expectations (2x, or two times the amount of
Successfully Meets High Expectations”)
HR has developed training, which will be required for all employees in June, 2012, to assist with
the development of SMAART (Specific, Measureable, Agreed-Upon, Attainable, Realistic, Time-Oriented)
goals.
The Board’s adopted strategy has been to maintain commonality in compensation with the School
Division. However, the School Division has opted not to implement the performance incentive program in
FY13. After the General Government pilot of this program, School Division leadership has indicated they
will consider implementing a similar program during the 2013–14 school year.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1508 provides that a county may authorize a payment of monetary bonuses
to its officers and employees if authorized by ordinance.
Funding of $150,000 is included in General Government FY13 budget to reward staff for
performance. Using last year’s distribution of performance evaluation ratings as a model (although
the achievement of a performance goal was not required), eligible employees would receive lump
sum amounts of $200, $300 or $400.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to implement the performance-based
recognition pool for General Government employees as proposed above, and to schedule Board
consideration of an ordinance to authorize the payment of such monetary bonuses.
_____
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, addressed the Board, stating that she wanted
to share specifics on the performance-based recognition pool and seek its approval to move forward. Ms.
Gerome reported that the County currently has an employee recognition program, which has been in place
since 2005 and is a General Government effort only which provides employees and managers the
opportunity to reward others for specific accomplishments. She said there is also a merit pay for
performance program, which is aligned with competencies and looks at employees’ performance
throughout the year with eight core competencies and additional leadership competencies. She said
these are the same competencies that the County uses to recruit against, select against, evaluate on, use
for succession management, and develop training opportunities. Ms. Gerome noted that the
competencies include teamwork, integrity, learning and development, innovation and initiative,
communication, results-oriented customer service, and functional expertise. She said managers and
supervisors have four additional competencies of coaching, influence, tactical planning and execution, and
strategic and visionary leadership.
Ms. Gerome stated that, on the performance evaluation system, an employee is evaluated on the
eight competencies with specific objectives to help clarify the expectations for different levels of a
performance area. She said there is a five-point rating scale, and it spells out in great detail what an
employee needs to do to consistently exceed high expectations, i.e., an employee must regularly engage
in ways to improve customer service through feedback mechanisms. Ms. Gerome said that the five-point
scale helps measure an employee’s performance better than the previous three-point system, and the way
the performance management system works is evaluating the employees on eight of the com petencies
and then given a score from the five-point scale on each of those. She stated that the overall rating is tied
to the merit matrix, which has not been funded since 2008. She explained that, when it was funded, it
worked by awarding a market increase to an employee who was below midpoint and got a “successfully
meets” score plus an additional 1%. Ms. Gerome said that an employee receiving a better overall rating
on their performance evaluation would get a market increase plus an additional 1.5%.
Ms. Gerome said that the second existing program for discussion is the Employee Recognition
Program, which is designed to reward specific accomplishments and is based on a framework but with a
lot of departmental flexibility on autonomy to use the program as departments saw fit. Ms. Gerome said
that some departments might put more emphasis on “excellence in safe work practices” than others and
some of the behaviors rewarded have included performing above and beyond expectations, providing
exceptional customer service, serving on a special team, innovation or cost savings ideas, etc. She
stated that the County used to give gift cards, but the IRS ruled recently that those were taxable income so
they have shifted to giving items such as logo items, days of leave, public recognition, etc. Ms. Gerome
noted that the budget amount is $15,000 per year but a lot of the awards are non-monetary.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Gerome said that, in looking at the two existing programs and getting a lot of feedback from
leadership and employees, staff is recommending implementing the bonus pool as follows: award a lump-
sum bonus to all employees with a successful overall performance rating who also achieve a goal that’s
aligned with the County’s strategic plan. She stated that the goal is currently in performance management
tools, but management has not put the emphasis or focus on it so this would be an opportunity to really
drive that and also align it with the strategic plan. Ms. Gerome said that the plan is to set “smart goals”
over the next few weeks that are aligned with the strategic plan, with every employee going through a
training and finally setting the goals with their supervisor.
Mr. Boyd asked if gain-sharing – ideas that save the County money – would be used as criteria for
this bonus money.
Mr. Foley responded that gain-sharing is already included in the Employee Recognition Program
and is typically taken out of savings that are gained from the idea, and the County should probably
formalize that as a program beyond how it is now.
Mr. Boyd said that the reason he is anxious about this is the new accounting process with Access
Albemarle, and the person with the best ability to recognize efficiencies is likely the line employee. He
added that he would like to be in a position to incentivize that first and, secondly, to take advantage of it
and let that employee recognize it. He said the new system has a lot of steps in the process.
Ms. Gerome agreed that was an important consideration and said that perhaps there needs to be
emphasis on the fact there is an existing gain-sharing program that could be available for that specific type
of cost savings or efficiencies.
Mr. Snow said it would also be a good idea to make that a part of the goal-setting process.
Mr. Foley noted that it could be tied to the seventh goal in the strategic plan which is “To promote
a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service.” He said that four
objectives have been identified under that goal and, in the context of that, some strategies could be
emphasized.
Ms. Gerome agreed, adding that it would be especially appropriate for those employees who are
in a position to identify those measures.
Mr. Foley said staff could also beef up emphasis on promoting the gain-sharing program, to
create two different ways to drive what the Board is advocating.
Mr. Boyd stated that he has been on the Access Albemarle oversight committee for some time
now, and there have been specific examples of highly inefficient systems that could be improved such as
the process by which an athletic director had to go through just to buy a basketball.
Mr. Rooker said that there are stand-alone gain-sharing programs that have their own
complexities, but that incentive could be worked into these existing programs.
Mr. Foley stated that a true gain-sharing program whereby an employee gets a percentage of the
savings could also be worked into this.
Ms. Mallek said she would like some feedback from staff as to whether it’s more successful as a
separate stand-alone or a program that’s blended in.
Mr. Foley said, for now, staff would blend it in, but would do some work on the gain-sharing
programs other localities do.
Mr. Rooker said he liked the blended approach because there are certain employees who are in a
position to make one kind of a recommendation, and a whole group of employees that may be doing a
fabulous job but aren’t in a position to make that kind of a recommendation.
Mr. Foley noted that the award amounts for recognition would be $200, $300 and $400 based on
what’s available, pursuant to a 3, 4 and 5 performance rating. He said it’s not huge, but it’s greatly
appreciated by employees.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Priority Review Process for Target Industries.
The following executive summary was received:
On March 7, 2012, staff presented preliminary information on a priority review process as a
strategy to encourage the start-up, expansion and relocation of target industries as recommended by the
Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development’s recently completed Target Industry Study.
The study was endorsed by the Board at its May 2, 2012 meeting.
To encourage the start up, expansion and relocation of target industries, many localities offer
priority plan review among the incentives available for qualified target industries. Used strategically, priority
review for projects that meet defined strategic criteria can be an effective tool for encouraging preferred
industry growth in a community. In researching priority review processes in Albemarle County’s
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 70)
benchmark localities, staff found that virtually all localities that use this tool offer it to qualified target
industry enterprises that meet certain criteria (e.g., minimum levels of job creation at certain salary levels).
In a discussion at its March 7, 2012 meeting, the Board of Supervisors expressed interest in
considering some type of formalized priority review process for projects that provide significant economic
benefits, including career-ladder jobs and capital investment, while still maintaining the high standards that
define this community and attract and retain quality employers. The Board determined that further
consideration of the issue should wait until after the County’s target industries were endorsed, which
occurred on May 2, 2012.
It is the County’s goal to provide timely and responsive review for all applicants. Continued work
on legislative and ministerial review processes will streamline and simplify both of those processes across
the board, and the Planning Commission will hold public hearings on those process improvements this
summer. Staff also recognizes that businesses that bring strong job creation and higher than average
wages, and that fit within desirable target industry categories, are particularly advantageous to the
community as a whole. Locating those types of companies as quickly as possible in Albemarle County is
beneficial to County residents and to the local economy.
The best opportunity to review projects quickly occurs when land is appropriately designated in the
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned to accommodate the desired use. The Board has had several recent
discussions regarding the Comprehensive Plan update currently underway, which will provide the
opportunity to appropriately designate lands for industrial and business development. The Board also has
heard about proposed zoning changes and a voluntary Countywide rezoning that will modernize uses in
industrial and commercial districts and add a new industrial zoning district to support evolving industrial
needs and provide additional property zoned for industrial uses.
These strategies are not project-specific, but would better enable industrial uses in general to find
a suitable location in the County. Details about a more project-specific priority review approach are
outlined below.
Qualifying Criteria
As noted, County staff already works to move all projects through review quickly and efficiently,
and in the past has used elements of priority review for major projects that have a strategic beneficial
impact for the community. In order to make a formalized priority review process effective, criteria must be
clear in order to identify projects that would bring significant economic benefits to the County and thus are
appropriate for special consideration. Staff has based its criteria either on specific outcomes measured in
the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan or on thresholds established for the Virginia Jobs Investment
program managed by the Virginia Department of Business Assistance. Selectivity in granting priority status
helps insure that qualifying projects would receive the necessary staff attention.
Staff recommends that a formal priority review process be reserved for qualified target industry
enterprises located within appropriately designated development areas that create an increase in property
value and also meet two or more of the following criteria:
Projects that provide a minimum of 25 net new jobs with at least 50% of the net new jobs
having higher wages than the prevailing County average within 12 months from the date
of the first hire (this job level is consistent with established thresholds for the Virginia Jobs
Investment Program)
Projects that bring in a minimum of $1 million capital investment (this investment level is
consistent with established thresholds for the Virginia Jobs Investment Program)
Projects that generate over 50% of their revenue from outside the TJPED region. (this
criterion is consistent with established thresholds for the Virginia Jobs Investment
Program)
Environmental Issues
A priority review process will not in any way lessen the careful scrutiny of environmental issues
that is a standard part of the County’s development review processes. The identified target industry
categories were evaluated during the consultant’s analysis to make sure they are compatible with the
County’s preferences and will not have significant negative impacts on air and water quality, noise, and
other environmental concerns, as well as traffic impacts. It is important to state clearly that priority review
projects will undergo the same rigorous environmental analysis called for by County ordinances as any
other proposed project. Any complications arising from that analysis will be thoroughly assessed and the
project will be required to take all necessary steps to address any issues that are identified.
Potential Guidelines for Priority Review Process
To be successful, a formalized priority process must recognize that each project has different
needs and circumstances and that a specific approach must be developed on a case-by-case basis. The
following guidelines provide a general approach with the understanding that a critical part of the initial
evaluation of the project review will include assessing and responding to the project’s specific individual
circumstances.
A company must make a request to the County’s Economic Development staff that its
project be designated for priority review. Requests that meet the priority review criteria will
then be forwarded to the Community Development Director who, in consultation with the
Economic Development staff, will make the final determination on eligibility for priority
designation.
Prior to submitting its development application, the company and the Community
Development Director and Economic Development staff shall meet to discuss the
County’s priority review process. This structured meeting will identify issues before the
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 71)
formal application is submitted for review. The applicant also would be advised to identify
a single point of contact (SPOC) for the application process as this has proven to
significantly reduce communication problems. The County will do the same as outlined
below. Success of the priority review will depend on the willingness of both parties to
commit to meeting established expectations.
Once the project is approved for priority review and the initial submission meeting has
occurred, the priority review application is submitted to the attention of the Community
Development Director.
Priority treatment of the application, or “top-of-the-list” status, will be provided for the
project throughout the entire development review. This priority treatment will include
flexibility in submittal deadlines and immediate processing for qualifying applications.
The Community Development Director will assign the project to a senior project manager
who will serve as a liaison during the application and permitting process. This senior
project manager will provide oversight throughout the process, and the project will remain
prioritized throughout developmental review. The senior project manager also will be
responsible for notifying the Community Development Director of any resource needs or
problems the applicant is unable to address. The senior project manager and the
applicant’s SPOC will coordinate throughout the development review process.
A review team comprised of experienced members from all reviewing departments will
work on the application’s review until the project is completed, based on timelines agreed
upon and established in order to ensure efficiency. These experienced team members will
be empowered to make administrative decisions and recommendations on behalf of their
respective departments and divisions during the review process.
Where applicable, the project may be scheduled for a joint Planning Commission/Board
of Supervisors public hearing if such hearings are needed.
Legally required Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors notices may be
published simultaneously.
The site plan process may run concurrently with the rezoning or special use permit
application if both are required.
Economic Development staff will be involved during the pre-submittal process and will act
as part of the review team throughout the process to identify possible federal, state and
local incentives and resources.
Again, these guidelines are general in nature due to the individual requirements of specific
projects. If a project is accepted for priority review, staff will tailor the most efficient approach while
maintaining established standards of quality and public input.
Measuring Program Success
Staff will make every effort to ensure that projects accepted into the priority review program are on
track to meet the established criteria. Because achieving the minimum criteria levels will not be possible
until after the necessary reviews are granted, and there is no form of financial incentive being provided,
staff has very limited ability to respond to non-performance. Staff recommends regular follow up with
priority review projects to track data and assess performance against the minimum criteria. Based on
these findings, staff may recommend adjustments to criteria and/or program guidelines if that becomes
necessary.
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item.
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the priority track qualifying criteria and general
approach.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin addressed the Board, stating that she would continue discussion on a potential
priority review process for qualifying target industry projects. Ms. Catlin said that to encourage the start
up, expansion, and relocation of target industries, many localities offer a priority plan review among the
incentives available for qualified target industries and find that, used strategically, priority review for
projects that meet defined strategic criteria can be an effective tool for encouraging preferred industry
growth in a community. She stated that it’s important to stress the two goals to be achieved with this
process which are: (1) m aking the County a more desirable location for qualified target industries that are
already here, want to expand, or that may be considering Albemarle as a location, and (2) protecting the
County’s image as an attractive location by maintaining the standards that have always reflected quality.
Ms. Catlin said that this is a “systems” kind of approach, and the best opportunity to review
projects quickly occurs when the land is appropriately designated in the Comp Plan and is appropriately
zoned to accommodate the desired use. She stated that there are projects currently underway with the
Planning Commission that will be coming later in the summer that pertain to zoning text amendments to
modernize uses in industrial and commercial districts, to support evolving needs followed by a voluntary
rezoning, and Comp Plan updates that will be looking at increasing land designated as site options for
industrial projects. She said it is important to emphasize that the County’s goal is to provide timely and
responsive review for all applicants and all projects, and continued work on the legislative and ministerial
review amendments is the most recent effort to do that which is now at the Commission level and coming
to the Board in the near future.
Ms. Catlin stated that, if there are businesses that bring particularly strong job creation, higher
than average wages, and fit within desirable target industry categories, those may be advantageous to the
community as a whole so locating those specific types of companies or helping them grow and expand
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 72)
may necessitate a process to help them move along more quickly. Ms. Catlin mentioned those were the
specific targets recommended for the County, based on a number of criteria as established by the
consultant’s study. She said that the Board unanimously endorsed these as the right target markets to be
considered for the County at this time.
Ms. Catlin stated that it is very important to have some criteria that establishes which projects do
and do not fall into this process, so there is no ambiguity, and staff has developed some criteria for the
Board’s consideration, tying it to what is already in place and has proven to be successful over time. She
said the criteria presented is based either on specific outcomes measured in the Economic Vitality Action
Plan, or on thresholds that have worked successfully for the Virginia Jobs Investment Grant Program
managed by the Virginia Department of Business Assistance. Ms. Catlin stated that staff believes an
element of selectivity in granting priority status really does help ensure that qualifying projects are going to
receive the necessary staff attention and resources that they need to move through the process as staff
envisions.
Ms. Catlin said staff recommends the process be reserved for target industry enterprises located
within the development areas, ones that increase property values and ones that also meet two or more of
these criteria: a minimum of 25 net new jobs with at least 50% of the net new jobs having higher wages
than the prevailing County average being created within 12 months from the date of the first higher and
are consistent with the established thresholds for the Virginia Job Investment Grant (VJIG) Program;
projects that bring in a minimum of $1 million in capital investment and are consistent with the VJIG
Program; and projects generating over 50% of their revenue from outside the TJPED region and are
consistent with the VJIG program.
Mr. Mark Graham addressed the Board and reported that the next issue is environmental
considerations, with some concerns expressed that these projects will receive the same scrutiny and that
criteria has been built into this process. Mr. Graham said staff looks at County preferences and potential
environmental impacts, as they want to make sure not to get uses that are inconsistent with County
policies with respect to protection of either water resources, critical slopes or any other important
elements.
Mr. Rooker said that the question he has is determining whether a project qualifies to get
accelerated treatment, and whether or not there should be some judgment about its impact on the
environment before it is fast tracked. He said there is a presumption in this write-up that anything identified
as a target industry would meet the environmental qualifications because it is on the target industry list
and that it automatically gets checked off. He stated that does not seem to be a valid presumption in
every case.
Mr. Graham responded that there may be industries that qualify as a target industry, but still have
other factors that need to be considered.
Mr. Boyd said he views this as a series of tests with target industries, environmental impact, etc.
and one is not less than the other; it’s just a series of steps to go through.
Ms. Catlin stated that, when staff talked as a group, it was important that the environmental
standards not be lessened, shortened or changed in any way and pointed out that an identified industry
would be expected to go through the exact same process.
Mr. Rooker said there isn’t any priority given to an industry that has a lesser environmental impact
and, if that’s not in the criteria, then any industry that satisfies the other requirements is automatically in
the program.
Mr. Foley stated that this would get a business in the front door as an identified target industry but
if there are significant environmental impacts raised by Mr. Graham, the process would be stopped there.
Mr. Rooker suggested putting that into the criteria.
Ms. Mallek said the list of criteria needed to be expanded; otherwise, applicants could say they
qualified but they were still denied.
Mr. Thomas added that approval is not a given.
Mr. Graham said that the projects would undergo a rigorous environmental analysis called for by
County ordinances and policies. He reported that the company would make a request to the economic
development staff, who would determine if it met the economic thresholds and, once a determination on
eligibility is made, staff would then look at developing a custom process for that particular application. Mr.
Graham stated that an example would be a company requiring a specialized air quality permit, which
would require a longer timeline, so staff would need to design a custom approach that fits to the
application. He said that there would need to be a senior project manager to make those kinds of
decisions and evaluations as to how to make a project like that work. Mr. Graham said that is why the
program needs to focus only on targeted industries, as there are not enough senior employees to do this
for every type of project. He stated that this program is different from those in other localities, which puts
an applicant at the top of the pile but doesn’t give an applicant any additional help or special treatment.
Ms. Catlin said that staff feels priority review can be effective for existing and new target industry
prospects with the criteria mentioned. She stated that the defined criteria are important to ensure
effectiveness, that each project would have different specifications, and this is a commitment to provide a
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 73)
specifically designed pathway and the commitment from project developers and applicants is equally
critical to ensuring that the priority review process is effective.
Ms. Mallek asked if the commitment from the applicant would be secured through written
agreement or contract.
Ms. Catlin responded that some communities do start off with a signed agreement, but the County
hasn’t nailed that down yet.
Mr. Graham said that this is more of an agreement between the parties as to how they will move
forward, and what the expectations are on both sides, so if things start bogging down, staff can go back to
the agreement.
Ms. Catlin stated that, at this point, staff is seeking input from the Board on the environmental
criteria, and a recommendation on the review criteria and guidelines.
Mr. Rooker said there was a point made earlier by a speaker about local jobs, and there is no
emphasis in the criteria on hiring local people so perhaps that could be blended into the first criteria.
Mr. Snow and Ms. Mallek agreed.
Mr. Thomas asked how local employers could be required to do that.
Mr. Rooker said they would have to demonstrate some expectation that they have a plan in place
to hire local people. He said the County could certainly require them to show how they intend to basically
recruit and hire local people.
Mr. Graham stated that they could at least demonstrate a business model that intends to hire local
people.
Mr. Rooker said the provision that states at least 50% of net jobs have a salary over the average
prevailing wage in the County presumes that 50% could be under, and most employers would meet the
criteria of a certain percentage above and a certain percentage below. He asked if it wouldn’t be better to
have some certainty that the jobs have an average salary that is a certain percentage above the average
salary in the County.
Ms. Catlin said that staff started there but, after conversation about lower skilled jobs, they wanted
to ensure the County wasn’t being too restrictive on jobs that might help people get a foothold in the
market and then move up.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t want that to be changed, as staff had given it some thought and had
studied other localities.
Ms. Mallek noted that, if 50% of positions were at a salary level higher than the median, there
would not be a company where 90% of employees were lower, and 10% were at the very top.
Mr. Rooker said he was OK with it, but he did want to talk about it, and said that some
communities have put a minimum average level of salary for any industry they are recruiting and some of
them have set very high targets.
Ms. Catlin stated that this could always be revisited if the criteria wasn’t working in the way it was
intended.
Mr. Boyd commented that it’s important to note these are just guidelines, and there would be
some common sense used on the part of staff. He said that the entrepreneurs honored this morning is
the perfect example of what is actually happening, and this is just another step in the right direction to
provide some guidelines. Mr. Boyd stated that it’s a good plan; no matter what applications would
ultimately come to the Board.
Mr. Rooker said that the fast-tracking would be decided by staff.
Mr. Graham explained that this approach says if an applicant meets the criteria, staff would put
them into the fast track process, and staff would certainly inform the Board of that but this is the baseline.
Mr. Foley said anytime a target industry approaches the County, the Board would be hearing
about it, but this allows staff not to have to delay an applicant based on the Board’s schedule.
Mr. Snow reiterated that it could always be tweaked in the future.
Mr. Thomas said it was a good plan.
Mr. Rooker said that the second bullet should also reflect the desire for projects to have a positive
fiscal impact on the County, and capital investment doesn’t necessarily ensure that. He suggested saying,
‘a minimum capital investment of $1 million, and be able to demonstrate that they will have a positive fiscal
impact on the County.’
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 74)
Ms. Catlin said staff had that conversation also, and decided they had to be qualified targeted
industry enterprises, and would have to create an increase in property value given the goal of the
Economic Vitality Action Plan. She stated that staff considered using the fiscal impact model but, in
talking about that with Mr. Allshouse, he indicated the fiscal impact model would have to be updated for
this specific purpose because of the proffer approach being used now.
Ms. Mallek stated that the word “net” should be reflected somewhere in the language and, even if
an extensive fiscal analysis isn’t done, there still should be an understanding from the application what
their needs are that the County does not currently meet.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the Board would still be looking at the impacts of any new project and
might not approve it in the end.
Mr. Boyd said that tweaking the language as Mr. Rooker had suggested would address that.
Mr. Rooker said the fast tracking says which companies qualify to get this automatically, based on
criteria, and then staff can administratively set it in motion. He stated that the language could perhaps
say ‘would be expected to have a positive fiscal impact on the County’ without requiring a detailed fiscal
impact analysis. He added that staff can at least make some common sense assessment of whether
there would be significant costs associated with a particular proposal.
Mr. Foley said that suggestion fits in well with the $1 million cap on investment.
Mr. Rooker stated that he is not in favor of combining Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors meetings partly because, during those joint meetings, the Commissioners don’t say anything
but instead defer to the Board. He said the Board really loses the whole element of a Planning
Commission that gives independent deliberation to a project or an application and then makes its
independent recommendations to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see a lessening in the application time, in addition to the
timeframe in between Planning Commission meetings and when the Board meets on a particular item.
Mr. Rooker noted that the last item in the fast tracking recommendations says, ‘Legally required
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors notices may be published simultaneously.’
Mr. Foley said that staff needed direction on whether the Board preferred two separate hearings,
given that staff will accelerate the meetings as much as possible.
Ms. Mallek said that, in rare circumstances, the hearings could be combined.
Ms. Catlin stated that it could be kept on the menu of possibilities, with the Board weighing in on
whether the hearings should be combined on a case by case basis.
Ms. Mallek said a joint work session would be more helpful, to include conversations with the
applicant.
Mr. Rooker said that, generally speaking, it is desirable to have the deliberative process of the
Planning Commission and its recommendations unless there is some strong reason not to do so.
Mr. Boyd said it could be left in to combine the meetings, with the caveat that it would only occur
‘under Board approval.’
Ms. Mallek stated that it’s already in there and would likely just cause more angst for the small
guys who are going to feel left out.
Mr. Thomas said it wasn’t mandatory, it just says ‘where applicable,’ and that is unclear.
Ms. Mallek suggested taking it out if it’s ambiguous.
Mr. Snow said there are several options and felt it should be kept open so, if a joint meeting is
needed, they can do that too.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a segment of the population that does not like the fact this is being
explicitly stated, and there is always the option for the Board to hold a joint meeting anytime. He said it
would be wise to take it out and thought it would achieve broader community support.
Mr. Foley said that it’s clear the Board is not opposed to it in certain circumstances.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to circulate the policy in advance in case anyone has any
questions.
Mr. Boyd said if it came on a consent agenda, the Board would see it ahead of time.
Mr. Foley said it would be included in the consent agenda and would be distributed separately
before then.
_______________
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 75)
Agenda Item No. 24. Potential Adjustments to the FY 13- FY 17 Capital Improvements Plan.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“At the March 14, 2012 Budget Work Session, the Board reviewed information regarding
additional funding that could be available for the FY 13- 17 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which
included potential additional fund balance monies anticipated to be available at the end of FY 12, recently
received cash proffers, and a Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond refund credit. On April 4,
2012, the Board asked whether additional CIP projects could be added to the FY 13 - 17 CIP because
additional monies may be available. The Board asked staff to bring back additional details about the CIP
projects and information about potential funding opportunities for consideration at a June Board meeting,
at which the Board would consider adding potential CIP projects. On April 11, 2012, the Board approved
the FY 13- 17 CIP (Attachment A) and adopted the FY 12/13 Operating and Capital Budgets, and on May
9, 2012, the Board adopted the Appropriation Resolution for the Capital Budget. The Appropriations were
authorized so that the School Division could enter into contracts to complete scheduled school projects
before students return for the 2012-13 school year. These actions were undertaken by the Board to meet
essential administrative deadlines, with the full understanding that it would consider potential amendments
to the FY 13- 17 CIP in June.
The purpose of this agenda item and staff presentation is to provide background information
related to the additional CIP projects discussed by the Board on April 4th (Attachments C, D and E);
demonstrate the impact of the additional funding and projects on the adopted CIP (Attachment F); and
seek direction/confirmation from the Board related to the addition of the three projects.
An additional $3.1 million dollars is anticipated to be available for the FY 13- 17 CIP. This includes
$2,566,762 in additional FY 12 General Fund end-of-year fund balance, a $75,284 VPSA Credit, and
$496,419 in cash proffers.
Proposed additional projects:
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Renovation/Addition (Attachment C):
$3,836,670.00; 10,500 sq. ft. addition to STVFD consisting of a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living
quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improved facilities to properly
support the highest call volume station in the County.
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (Attachment D): $178,000 to be provided in FY 13 to
leverage OFP grants to acquire conservation easements on 1 to 2 properties.
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program and information on sidewalk projects
(Attachment E): $1,000,000; to be provided as match; includes a list of candidate sidewalk/trail/bike/
pedestrian safety improvement projects.
For illustration, staff will present a draft FY 13 – 17 CIP Financial Summary Worksheet that
includes the additional revenues, incorporates the three new projects while adhering to the following
objectives: (a) to maintain a level of debt service that does not exceed the available revenue from the
general fund transfer, (b) to increase the capacity of debt opportunities for future watch list items, and (c)
to comply with County debt policies and best practices, and (d) to maintain adequate CIP reserves.
Adjustments included in this Draft Worksheet free up the County’s debt capacity by utilizing more
cash for items that were previously targeted to be funded with shorter-term debt and utilizes additional CIP
fund balance, while still maintaining the CIP goal to ensure there is a $2 million balance at the end of the
five year period. The Draft Financial Summary demonstrates an amended FY 13 Capital Budget that
would total $26.6 Million, and an amended FY 13 – 17 Capital Improvement Plan that would total $85.4
Million. The unbudgeted reserve would continue to total $2.9 Million over the five year period. The fund
balance at the end of the five year period would be $2.0 Million.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the Board can consider a number of options, including
acceptance of the revised CIP as presented in the Draft Worksheet, not funding one or more of the
proposed additional projects, and/or allocating part or all of the additional revenues to address future items
on the CIP “Watch List”.
If the Board were to approve the three additional projects and make the associated recommended
changes to the use of CIP fund balance, current revenues and debt structure, the total increase to the FY
13 Capital Budget would be $5.4 Million and the impact to the FY 13 – 17 CIP would be an increase of
$4.9 Million.
Staff supports the use of the additional revenues to fund the three proposed projects, which would
be consistent with the CIP Project Rankings; alternatively, should the Board elect otherwise, some or all of
the additional funds could be set aside to address future Watch List items. If the Board chooses to amend
the CIP, staff will bring forth an appropriation request to amend the Capital budget in July 2012.”
_____
Mr. Bill Letteri, Assistant County Executive, said that this item comes back to the Board from an
earlier CIP discussion in March at which time staff indicated there would likely be additional resources
available for capital beginning in FY 13 – due largely because of increased performance in collection of
delinquencies, additional proffers, and a VPSA credit. He said that based on those revenues, the Board
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 76)
had asked staff to consider inclusion of three additional projects: Seminole Trail Fire Station, ACE
Program funding, and Transportation Revenue Sharing Program.
Mr. Letteri stated that staff has gone back and reworked the capital plan adopted to include those
three projects and the additional revenue, which includes changes on how cash is applied, debt service
allocation, etc. He said that staff has come back with a balanced plan that meets all policy guidelines of
achieving reserve balances at the end of each of the five years. It preserves the contingency set aside in
the adopted plan for watch list items. Mr. Letteri stated that staff would share the details of that proposed
plan. Staff supports inclusion of the projects as they are consistent with the priorities set forth by the
technical review team and oversight committees. There was some good work done recently working in
collaboration with the volunteer groups to better define these projects. He said that the action required
from the Board today is formal inclusion of those projects in the CIP, with staff bringing back an
amendment and an appropriations request in July.
Ms. Allshouse stated that Mr. Letteri has covered the purpose of the discussion today. The Board
has considered amendments to the CIP for quite some time – and it was March 14, 2012 that staff came
to the Board to let them know there might be funding available. She said staff saw some opportunity for
an additional fund balance of $2.4 million in FY12, with budgeting done on an accrual basis. Ms.
Allshouse said that staff also talked about cash proffers totaling nearly $1 million. There is also the
$75,284 VPSA credit. She stated that on April 4, 2012 the Board discussed the budget further, and from
that meeting three potential CIP projects emerged from the Board. At that time staff indicated that it
wanted to bring this conversation back to the Board after it had time to look at everything comprehend-
sively. The three projects were Seminole Trail Fire Station, ACE funding, and Transportation Revenue
Sharing. Ms. Allshouse said that on April 11, 2012 the Board approved the budgets with the clear
understanding that this discussion would come back, and on May 9 the Board appropriated the CIP so
that schools could get their summer projects underway. Today, staff will review the three potential CIP
projects and funding impacts.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, said he would also summarize
the three projects. He also mentioned that Mr. L.F. Wood, representing the Seminole Trail Group, and
Chief Eggleston, representing the County’s career staff, were also present. Mr. Henry said that the
request is for an addition and existing building renovation, two-bay addition, expansion of living quarters,
and full renovation of existing facilities – at a cost of $3.8 million. He stated that the purpose of the project
is to allow that station to have quicker response times due to centralizing the apparatus bays in proximity
to the living quarters, protection of physical assets as some of the gear is stored outside, more
organization of the space, modernization the space, and bringing the facility up to Code.
Mr. Henry said that what was presented in the fall was a placeholder to get something on the
books, and since that time the Seminole Trail group financed a local architect – Mark Kestner – to put
more design and program into the effort. He stated that the addition grew from 8,400 to 10,500 square
feet, and as they worked through the operations of the station they realized that the original concept would
only require light renovations – but in order to realize operational efficiencies the buildings need to be tied
together. Mr. Henry said that a month ago, his staff in Facilities Development got involved with the
volunteer group and Chief Eggleston’s staff, and took a more thorough look at the project. They brought
in a consultant with vast experience in fire stations throughout the state, and they are hoping to tie all of
the pieces together. He noted that the cost estimate in front of the Board accounts for the change in the
size of the building and a much fuller renovation of the second floor, along with bringing it to code and
meeting OSHA requirements as well as some site work.
Mr. Henry said that the group has been very collaborative, with staff being supportive of the
project. This would create 18,000 square feet of a new fire station at a cost of $3.8 million. He added that
this station, given its location to the 29 North corridor, has the highest rate of calls and a very strong
volunteer group in place. Mr. Henry then presented some photos depicting the current conditions at the
station, with new bays intended to be taller so they can better accommodate the apparatus. He said that
the travelway was currently congested, with gear stored next to apparatus – which is not best practices.
Mr. Henry showed the difficult path that has to be navigated in order to get back to the bays, adding that
the volunteer group has done an admirable job dealing with those conditions to date.
Mr. Henry said that one big constraining factor has been the need to maintain operations
throughout construction, as it will take close coordination between the architect, general contractor and
staff. He added that the first floor of the existing building will be light renovation with much more extensive
renovation for the upper level. He stated that there would need to be a fire suppression system in the
existing building, as required now because of the addition. Mr. Henry said they would retain 42 parking
spaces and should be able to relocate the dirt within the site, which should reduce costs. He stated that
ideally they could get under contract with approval, in July, and there would be somewhere between four
to six months on building design and site plan approval, two to three months to advertise, and construction
would be determined by the phasing. Mr. Henry said that the total span should be no more than 18
months, and the project would not need ARB review as it is not in an Entrance Corridor. Mr. Henry said
that subject to the Board’s approval, they hope to begin the project as soon as possible.
Mr. Henry reported that with the ACE program allocations, staff is proposing $178,000, which ties
to the average match over the last four years. He said that the County has recently been getting matches
from the Office of Farmland and Preservation, and with this match it would allow staff to complete two
acquisitions currently being sought.
Mr. Dumler asked if the $178,000 has been limited because of State availability or because of
Board allocation.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 77)
Mr. Davis said that staff has maximized what was available to them in the last couple of years.
The amount available this year will depend on how many programs participate and how much is in the
State program.
Mr. Henry reported that the third item the Board wanted added to the CIP was matching for
transportation revenue sharing monies. Staff recommends $1 million for FY14 with the request made this
November or December. He said there are projects funded for what is anticipated in FY13, and this
funding would allow for prioritization of other projects this money could cover.
Mr. Boyd stated that he could not clearly identify improvements to crossing Route 29 North and
Route 250 on Pantops, as that is a real safety issue. He understands sidewalk projects, but that is a real
safety issue which seems to have been brushed aside for a long time.
Mr. Foley said that it may not be included but public safety measures needs to take precedence
over general sidewalks.
Mr. Benish said that there is about $100,000 funded in the neighborhood implementation plan
reserved for that. The issue is whether Mr. Jack Kelsey and the Office of Facilities Development can
queue that into their workplan. He added that his understanding is that OFD would begin working on it at
the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Henry confirmed that it was online for fall.
Mr. Boyd asked where the sidewalks would be located.
Mr. Benish said they would be at Route 20/250 and the Rolkin Road intersection, and there may
need to be mid-block possibilities because of the complexity of that area.
Ms. Mallek said that having the landing in the middle is what’s so important because the
intersections are so wide.
Mr. Foley stated that those would be the priorities if there isn’t enough money already set aside.
Mr. Rooker said that a $125,000 study was done several years ago on pedestrian use of Route
29, and they recommended that there be pedestrian overpasses because it is very difficult to work into a
sequence to cross a road that wide. He suggested pulling that report out and looking at what types of
improvements should be made in order to achieve the best bang for the buck.
Ms. Mallek commented on how dangerous the road is to cross. Mr. Boyd said there have been
fatalities from people trying to do it.
Mr. Dumler said that some of the factors taken into account cannot be expressed across the
County, such as priorities identified in master plans. All of the urban areas in the Scottsville District and
the Samuel Miller District are not master planned, and he wants to make sure that there is some way to
get some of those projects on the list.
Mr. Foley said the intent is pretty clear, and it is about pedestrian safety.
Mr. Benish stated that staff would try to provide that list in the next CIP review, but they do
consider safety issues in the case of accidents and areas which are major destinations or traction points in
transit. Hopefully by the time the Comp Plan is updated, staff will have some equivalent up-to-date
priorities for those areas that have not been master planned.
Mr. Dumler said that there was a fatality in the 5th Street area not too long ago, but that area has
not yet been master planned. He said it would be helpful just to get a handle on whether it would be two
years, five years, 10 years, etc.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff has drafted a financial summary for the Board. One reason staff
waited to bring this information back was because staff wanted to look at it comprehensively and look at
the entire CIP to see if there were other changes that could be made that could also help in other others.
If these changes are approved by the Board, it would have an $85.4 million CIP – an increase of $5 million
over their adopted CIP. It includes $2.56 million in projected FY12 fund balance, $690,220 in cash
proffers, and the VPSA credit as well as other loan adjustments. She stated that OMB staff has
readjusted some items in terms of debt versus cash in order to achieve a better end result, and adding
these projects would still leave an unbudgeted reserve of $585,000 each year of the program totaling $2.9
million over the five year period. Ms. Allshouse noted that this plan frees up some shorter term debt which
increases capacity of debt opportunities for future watch list items. It also maintains a level of debt service
that does not exceed the available revenue from the general fund transfer, which is a CIP goal. She said
it complies with the County’s debt policies and best practices, and does maintain the adequate CIP
reserves. It maintains the $2 million balance at the end of the five year period.
Ms. Allshouse emphasized that there are a lot of items on the watch list in the CIP that are not
funded: 1) the Pantops Fire Station, 2) McIntire Building window replacements, 3) School Division
pending projects because they were looking at population and growth patterns, 4) stormwater-related
TMDL mandate, 4) potential devolution of roads by VDOT, and 5) courts planning.
Mr. Thomas asked about the status of devolution.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 78)
Mr. Foley responded that the bottom line is $350,000 yearly from the state, with localities having to
match everything including maintenance. He noted that even if $1 million were matched it would not do
any roads.
Mr. Davis said that the devolution process is a slow one that the State seems to be working
towards, and unless there is a funding solution for VDOT, the money is just not going to be there for the
State to continue the program.
Mr. Rooker said that whether or not the General Assembly passes legislation, if they do not fund it
localities will have to pay for what they want done. He added that that is where localities are now basically.
He said that once the County runs out of the secondary road project money that it accrued over time, it will
have little or no money. He also asked if anything has been brought forward on the pending school
projects.
Mr. Foley responded that the news sounds like there is going to be a push on certain things
because of capacity changes, but no details are available yet. It is hard to know what will come forward.
Mr. Boyd asked what has happened with the school busses, as the Board did not fund all 15 that
the School Division wanted.
Ms. Allshouse said that the school bus purchases in FY13 are funded by the School Divisions
operations budget with the designated transfer from the Board and approximately $300,000 in funds from
the State – so it is really about $900,000. She said that the School Division is developing a fund balance
policy that could help support some further bus purchases in the CIP. Staff should be bringing some
additional information to the Board soon. Staff has also discussed further considerations to occur in the
upcoming CIP process.
Mr. Foley said that the policy issue here is whether or not the Board will support some of the
already dedicated capital money to be reallocated to make sure that a certain amount of busses are
replaced every year, regardless of whether the schools provide some of the revenues for that. He stated
that currently the Board has limited the amount to their transfer and have said the School Division needs
to live within the transfer – even giving them $684,000 more out of the equalized rate – rather than making
it an obligation of the CIP. Mr. Foley said the Board has sort of passed that back to the Schools’
operations, and he thinks they are going to come back and ask that it be put into capital. Mr. Foley said
that instead of a guarantee they will always provide the revenue to pay for busses, he thinks they are
going to say they’ll give this much revenue and this much fund balance money but if they ever need more
it would come from already dedicated capital revenues. He added that capital is already been significantly
underfunded, so that becomes an issue of not doing something else. No one is arguing that it is not a
capital expense, but capital expenses are paid out of School budgets all over the State. He stated that it is
a matter of revenue.
Mr. Boyd said the bottom line is that it’s unresolved at this point, as the Schools have been
allocated only two-thirds of what they would like to do in terms of ordering busses.
Ms. Allshouse noted that the School Division might have some fund balance remaining in their
school bus replacement fund, which they could use in FY13.
Mr. Foley commented that in the coming year, they have done most of what they had hoped with
school bus replacement, but it is not an ongoing way to replace the amount of busses they need to
replace.
Mr. Rooker said that needs to be tied to the decision on fund balance allocations.
Referring to Attachment B with the list of projects, Mr. Boyd stated that it would be helpful to have
some indication of which projects were funded and which were not.
Mr. Henry explained that the list represents the projects that were reviewed by the TRT as true
projects, with a break between project submissions and maintenance/replacement items. He said he
could quickly review what was funded – the firing range, the apparatus, the fire/rescue Pantops station is
not, transportation projects and revenue sharing is before the Board today, the Crozet library is funded,
Seminole Trail is in front of the Board today as is the ACE funding.
Mr. Boyd clarified that the only non-funded item is the Pantops fire station, and that was because
of cost.
Mr. Henry responded that cost and timing were factors, along with the interim solution of putting
an ambulance at Martha Jefferson Hospital.
Mr. Boyd commented that the list was very beneficial, but it would be helpful to put an “f” to identify
funded projects and “u” to identify unfunded projects. Mr. Henry responded that that could be done.
Ms. Allshouse said that there are several options before the Board today -- approve the revised
CIP as presented and discussed today, decline to fund one or more of the proposed additional projects, or
allocate part or all of additional revenues for future watch list items.
Mr. Dumler commented that this is a good balance of projects.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 79)
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that she would like to do the first option.
Mr. Rooker agreed, stating that this is what the Board had agreed to before, with the Seminole
station being the biggest component of this. It needs to be done, and he thinks that they have found a
financially prudent way to go forward with it.
Mr. Snow said he supports the three proposals.
Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boyd also agreed.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would bring back appropriations and budget amendments to the July
11th Board meeting for action.
Mr. Henry then shared a brief video of firefighters in action, responding to a call.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the following Resolution of Commendation for Matilda “Tillie”
Beauford, an employee of the Regional Jail, who would be retiring at the end of the month. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Ms. Matilda L. “Tillie” Beauford was hired as an Administrative Assistant with the Albemarle-
Charlottesville Joint Security Complex on January 7, 1980, and also served as the Secretary
of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board since January 1980; and
WHEREAS, Matilda L. “Tillie” Beauford has worked with Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority
Board members to oversee several expansion projects beginning in January 1998, which
ultimately increased the Jail’s rated capacity to 329; execution of the $18 million dollar-120
bed construction project which was completed in 2001; assisted in implementing a Pay and
Classification Study approved by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board
in 2005 for Jail employees, and;
WHEREAS, Matilda L. “Tillie” Beauford was chosen to serve on the Board of Directors of O ffender Aid
Restoration, Jefferson Area Community Correction in July 2006 and was selected to serve as
its’ Secretary, and was recognized for her commitment and dedication to the community; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, recognized Matilda L. “Tillie”
Beauford for 32 years of devoted and dedicated service to the citizens of the County of
Albemarle and the State of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Matilda L. “Tillie” Beauford was selected by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail as the
Supervisor of the Year for 2005 for her attention to detail and dedication to duty; and
WHEREAS, Matilda L. “Tillie” Beauford, in October 2005, was awarded the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail’s, Administrative Award of Merit for her accomplishments and distinguished
service;
NOW, THEREFORE, BET IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do
hereby commend Matilda L. “Tillie” Beauford for 32 years of loyal and devoted service to the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board, to the citizens of the County of
Albemarle, and to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Adopted unanimously by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia.
SIGNED AND SEALED this 6th day of June 2012.
_____
Mr. L.F. Wood addressed the Board and thanked them for their support of the Seminole Trail Fire
Station renovation and expansion. This has turned into a good team project after six years of trying to
work independently to move it forward. The results of this project will be a more efficient and real addition
to the entire County Fire Department.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she would like to hear more from the School Board about “beefing up central
staff,” with the migration of principals into the Central Office.
Mr. Boyd said he hopes they were just backfilling open positions, and not adding new positions.
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 80)
Ms. Mallek said they had talked about shrinking administration, but that seems to be over and she
would like to hear more.
_____
Ms. Mallek also mentioned that she would the Board to think about when they could get the
previously allocated tourism dollars back into the ACE Program specifically for properties that qualify for
scenic road access, therefore qualifying for conservation easements. She would hope that the extra funds
generated from the economy improving would go back to funding Parks and Recreation, and those
tourism funds that had been directed to Parks would be redirected back into ACE.
Mr. Foley said that would be tied to increased tourism.
Ms. Mallek said they are not currently getting any of tourism dollars into ACE, and she would like
to see the $350,000 put back into ACE.
Mr. Boyd asked if that was opposed to the funds going to Parks and Rec.
Ms. Mallek clarified that what she is hoping is that as the economy improves, the Board would go
back to what it did for nine years, which was to fund Parks and Rec out of the County operating budget,
and return to the allocation of ACE funding.
Mr. Boyd said he does not know that he could support cutting Parks and Rec operations.
Ms. Mallek said she does not want to do that either, but for nine years, Parks and Rec was funded
with County operations, but she does not want to lose track of the successes the County has had with
ACE and the huge long term benefits of the properties in the program.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that there was a big discussion last year about doing workman’s comp for the
volunteers, and it was not done because of cost. She asked if the LODA shift means the volunteers would
now qualify for workman’s comp and be included.
Mr. Foley said that is not part of LODA and would be a separate item.
Ms. Mallek said even if it is not currently happening, it could be done if the Board chose to do so.
Mr. Foley said “yes” if the Board chose to. He asked if the Board was interested in moving forward
with that.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to know what the cost of that is, as a volunteer injured on the
job would like to think their injury would be compensated. He stated that it would need to be clarified that
the benefit is not duplicative of something they already have.
Mr. Davis emphasized that it is a complicated issue which the County has looked at several times.
The volunteers have some insurance now that is a substitute in part for workman’s comp that provides
some different benefits. It depends on how the program is managed and how much it would cost. He
said that staff would have to bring back work from a few years ago and update those numbers.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she had asked VDOT to provide some information about overhanging branches
and lack of roadway maintenance. She said that she has received quite a few calls from people with big
equipment having problems navigating roads without damage to their vehicles.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Jordan to provide current contact information for VDOT officials. People
contact him and he does not know who to forward the requests to at VDOT.
Mr. Foley said staff would provide Board members with the information.
Mr. Davis said that is a maintenance item for VDOT.
Ms. Mallek added that they have no maintenance.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are situations with unsafe intersections, especially those at
corners and for people in smaller cars. The growth is getting to the point where they cannot see cars
coming down the road.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that when he was campaigning in Cedar Court trailer park, he and some
other residents went out with weed eaters and did their own trimming at the intersection.
Ms. Mallek said that in traveling to Nelson County, she noticed the difference in the roadway
conditions as she got to the Albemarle County line.
Mr. Dumler said when he was traveling from Scottsville to Orange he saw three or four crews out.
Ms. Mallek said that perhaps the contractors are just behind in their work, but it has been very
frustrating.
_____
June 6, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 81)
Mr. Dumler asked if staff has any documentation pertaining to LCAPP, as he would like to learn
more about it.
Mr. Foley said he would provide an update on the Board’s consent agenda as to what the County
was doing according to the plan that was revised last fall.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn to June 21, 2102, 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
Mr. Davis said his understanding is that the meeting on June 21st is not a participatory process so
the Board does not necessarily need to adjourn to it. If the Board anticipates participating, as a Board in
that discussion, then it does need to adjourn to the meeting. His understanding is that the format is not
that of a question and answer.
Mr. Foley said the current forum provides for the questions to be received in advance.
Mr. Boyd commented that the format of the forum is still being discussed.
At 4:43 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr. Rooker, for the Board to
adjourn until June 21, 2012, Lane Auditorium, to attend RWSA’s Safe Water Symposium. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/01/2012
Initials: EWJ