2012-07-11July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 11,
2012, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher J. Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 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 she had three changes to the final agenda, all of which are listed on the
consent agenda: cancel the August 8, 2012 Board meeting due to lack of matters coming forward through
the Planning Commission; request for Letter of Support for Rivanna Watershed Planning Technical
Assistance Grant; and Resolution to Approve an Alternate to Act for the County Executive on the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board.
_____
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to add a discussion on Board mileage reimbursement. He is
struggling with the mileage report and the Board’s policy since in prior years he has never added any
additional meetings to his report.
_____
Mr. Snow said he would like to add a discussion on decals to mark bike lanes in the 35 mph zone
from Farmington into Charlottesville.
_____
Mr. Foley asked that the Board remove the Memorandum of Understanding for the
Commonwealth Attorney’s office from Item 8.3 on the Consent Agenda. The Memorandum of
Understanding for the Sheriff and Clerk of Court would remain for the Board’s consideration.
Mr. Boyd said he had that as an item to pull for discussion, and is curious as to what the problem
is. He asked if it would be appropriate to discuss the issue today or wait until it comes back to the Board.
Mr. Foley responded that staff needs to bring the MOU back with additional information and suggested that
the discussion wait until that time. Mr. Boyd concurred.
It was then the consensus of the Board to accept the agenda as am ended.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek said she provided Board members with information from The Journey Through
Hallowed Ground that came out in Piedmont Magazine, which is bringing a lot of attention to the area from
tourists. The Board will be hearing more from Kate Wyatt in an upcoming meeting with an update on their
various projects.
She added that this information came from a meeting she was able to attend in Waterford a few
weeks ago. The Journey Through Hallowed Ground is proceeding with fundraising for the tree planting
project. In addition, the gateway signage project is funded. She added that she hopes the Board will
consider having the project included in its discussions of hotel tax investment – as most of the jurisdictions
present at the board meeting reported that they used their tourist tax as a source of revenue to fund it.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions. (Removed from agenda.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Lorrie Delehanty, a resident of Evergreen Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, said she was
present to talk about chloramines and their corrosive nature. She stated that at the last RWSA public
forum, which was held June 21, the public heard from Mr. Jerry Higgins – head of the W ater Authority in
Blacksburg. Ms. Delehanty said that Mr. Higgins “gleefully informed the audience” that after Blacksburg
switched to chloramines in 2005 there were “no adverse effects” in Blacksburg and “nobody has
complained about it.” She stated that she has done some research that showed the first report about
chloramines going into the water there was June 29, 2005 – which was after the fact that chloramines
were put into the system – and there have only been three articles about it since then. She said that she
doubts if anybody really knows that there is chloramine in the system there. Ms. Delehanty stated that
they also did a school-tap check for lead, and 19 school taps in the Blacksburg area came up with high
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
lead levels after the conversion – with one having 3,810 parts per billion of lead, more than 250 times the
set EPA limit. She said that even though this is not a large percentage of schools, Mr. Higgins did not
mention it in the forum so she wanted to call attention to it.
__________
Ms. May Liao, a County resident, addressed the Board with a quote: “It is the commonest of
mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.”
She said that she wanted to modify the quote to say: “It is the commonest of mistakes to consider that the
limit of EPA-regulated disinfection byproducts is also the limit of all the byproducts there are to be worried
about.” She stated that despite chloramines’ long history of use, 83% of chloramines DBPs have yet to be
identified much less regulated. Ms. Liao said that what was described as the most toxic family of DBPs –
iodo-acids – was found in Corpus Christi, Texas, only eight years ago. She asked if it was not very
probable that in the coming years more toxic DBPs are going to be discovered and regulated. She asked
if those unknown substances are still potentially harming people even though science has not figured it out
yet. She said that the EPA admits, “There are few studies on how mono-chloramine affects human
health, and on DBPs that form when mono-chloramine reacts with organic matter.” Ms. Liao commented
that that statement alone should knock chloramines out of the running. She said that she also questions
whether Hazen & Sawyer’s predictions that “corrosion and known DBPs won’t happen here” takes into
account how each person is using the water once it leaves the treatment plants. She said that tri-
chloramines form at low pH, hydrazines at high pH, and there are known reactions with certain
medications, shampoos and soaps. Ms. Liao said that if she were to go on vacation for a few weeks the
water in her tank could risk nitrification. She said that water should not have a giant warning on it and just
because Charlottesville and Albemarle qualifies for the cheapest solution, unlike Scottsville and Crozet
does not mean it has to be accepted. She emphasized that even water companies realize that
chloramines are not the answer. Cabot Corporation recently purchased the largest supplier of activated
carbon for $1.1 billion. The Board can make Charlottesville and Albemarle County an oasis of clean water
with GAC. She asked why it did not do that or promote that, and boast how the community has clean
water, as there are supposed 70% of Virginians who do not have it.
__________
Ms. Liz Olmstead, a County resident, said that she has a daughter who has an auto-immune
disease and any toxins are extremely dangerous to her and cause significant pain. She said that she is
concerned because chloramines would be one more very damaging toxin to enter her blood stream. Ms.
Olmstead stated that her other concern is potential pipe damage. Most business owners would agree that
they should not have to incur the cost of putting in safe filtration systems.
__________
Mr. Tim Hulbert, a member of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce and
member of the Board of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau, said he was
present to urge the Board to continue to support the Visitors Bureau. Last fall the CACVB Board and staff
acknowledged that they were not moving at the pace that they should have been moving at, but they did
take corrective action. He noted that they brought on Payne, Ross & Associates, who have put together
an action plan to take advantage of the fund balance available to pump the tourism economy. The
Chamber’s job report showed that last year approximately 12,000 people work in hospitality and leisure in
greater Charlottesville, most of which is in Charlottesville and Albemarle. Mr. Hulbert stated that this is a
very important industry, and they now have the opportunity to really boost it. He urged the Board to
support the CACVB request coming before them later in the meeting.
__________
Mr. Gary Grant, a resident of the Earlysville area, addressed the Board. Mr. Grant said he also
serves on the Library Board and coordinates Neighborhood Watch, as well as volunteering for the
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company – but today he is speaking as an individual. Mr. Grant commended
the Albemarle County Fire and Rescue career personnel for the work they have done to clean up from the
June 29th storm, as well as commending the various volunteer squads who helped out. He said there
were some glitches in the system. In Earlysville, they were able to get their local cooling center and water
distribution center set up within 15 hours. Government came on board in 43 hours with non-potable water
for livestock and gardens. The drinking water that was promised on Sunday of that weekend did not arrive
until 11:00 a.m., on Monday, July 2nd which means that that aspect of the government’s response came in
46 hours. He said that he sent an email to Mr. Thomas and Ms. Mallek earlier this week with some points
and observations that he made while working at the cooling center. He hopes that the Board will take
those observations into consideration of which he will provide a copy to the Clerk.
Mr. Grant stated that as a Neighborhood Watch coordinator he was more than a bit dismayed not
to have heard anything from Albemarle County Police to help disseminate information during the aftermath
of the storm.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. Grant for his hard work. Mr. Thomas added Mr. Grant was a direct
reporter and did a great job.
__________
Mr. George Benford, a member of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau,
thanked the Board for its guidance and dedication to tourism in the area. Mr. Benford said that Ms. Susan
Payne would be presenting the CACVB’s future marketing plan later in the Board meeting. The CACVB
Board unanimously adopted the resolution supporting the plan. He stated that the Board will probably
want to add things to the plan, but they are dedicated to moving the plan forward under the direction of its
new Chairman, Lee Catlin. He asked for the Board of Supervisors’ support.
__________
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Julia Whiting addressed the Board, stating that she is a City resident but works in the County.
Ms. Whiting said that as a physician she is interested in the medical aspects of chloramine, and has a
number of papers she can provide to the Board of Supervisors. She said that she found eight references
to hemaletic anemia on PubMed. She stated that the condition causes red blood cells to explode, which
happens in dialysis with kidney patients. Ms. Whiting said that two patients have died, but were
inappropriately diagnosed at first. She said that she also has three reports about respiratory disease and
chloramines. She stated that chloramine has also been associated with swimmers asthma and is one of
the main causes, with cases going back to 1934. Ms. Whiting said that during the RWSA safe water
symposium, Ms. Susan Pickford of the Chloramines Information Center referred to a study with mouse
fatalities: “We were originally going to have the mice swimming in the water. We had to put a collar
around them so their head was held way out of the water because they died if they were exposed to
chloramine. Chlorine had no problem.”
__________
Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that localities in Alabama and Arkansas have now
joined the list of “ICLE dropouts.” Mr. Battig said that ICLE has now adopted a new campaign slogan,
“Green Climate Cities,” and real measurements show that there is actually less heat. He stated that the
recent big storm was not unique, as there was a similar large storm on July 4, 1977 and other like events
tracked since 1877. Mr. Battig showed a map from NOAA that indicated a frequency of similar storms of
one every four years. He said that the melting of Antarctic ice is overstated, and when it was measured in
the real world instead of with models everything was exactly opposite. Mr. Battig added that models lie.
He also noted that the U.N. definition of “climate change” from 1992 is, “Climate change means a change
of climate.” He said that the IPCC definition from 2007 said, “Climate change refers to any change in
climate.”
Ms. Mallek pointed out that Mr. Battig had neglected to include the second part of the sentence in
that definition.
Mr. Battig responded that the important part is that they never defined what it is.
__________
Mr. Bob Putnam, a resident of the southern part of the County, said he was present to speak
about trash burning. He said that there are no real laws or penalties for trash burning. He has witnessed
the burning of used motor oil, plastics, sofas, television sets, etc. – and he would like a total ban on
burning of household trash with an associated fine. The County needs to do more than simply sending
out a letter because that does not stop the burning.
__________
Ms. Christine Putnam, a resident of the southern part of the County, said she was also opposed to
burning of household trash. She said that within one mile of her home there are three or four people who
consistently burn trash. Burning trash, especially plastics, at low temperatures, poses a severe health
risk; it produces dioxins. She said that she spends money to have her trash disposed of properly so why
shouldn’t other people. Ms. Putnam asked the Board to take action toward a ban to protect people’s
health, so that everybody pays their fair share and deals with the problem responsibly.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Mr.
Snow, to approve Items 8.1 (as read) through 8.10b, to pull Items 8.2 and 8.6 (for further discussion), and
to accept the remaining items as information on the consent agenda. (Note: Discussions on individual
items are included with that item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: February 1, March 7, March 12(A), March 14(A), April 4, April
11(A), April 11(N), April 13(A), and May 10, 2012.
Mr. Boyd had read his portion of the minutes of February 1, 2012, pages 28 (beginning
with Item #14) – end, and April 4, 2012, pages 1-29 (end at Item #14), and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Snow had read his portion of the minutes of March 7, 2012, pages 1-30 (end at Item
#11), and found them to be in order.
Mr. Thomas had read his portion of the minutes of March 7, 2012, pages 30 (beginning
with Item #11) – end, and found them to be in order.
Ms. Mallek asked that her minutes of March 12(A), March 14(A), April 11(A), April 13(A),
and May 10, 2012, be pulled and moved to the next agenda.
Mr. Rooker had read his portion of the minutes of April 4, 2012, pages 29 (beginning with
Item #14) – end, and found them to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors.
Mr. Dumler had read his portion of the minutes of April 11(N), 2012, and found them to
be in order, with the exception of a typographical error.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read, and moved the
unread minutes to the next agenda.
_____
Item No. 8.2. Solid Waste Options Evaluation.
The executive summary states that at the conclusion of the May 9, 2012 Board work session on
solid waste, staff was directed to proceed with the process to contract with a consultant to provide
assistance in the evaluation of the cost and other operational considerations for the following two options:
(1) The continuation of a contract between the County and the RSWA to operate the Ivy
Materials Utilization Center (IVY) as either (a) a transfer station or (b) a convenience
center. This option will result in RSWA Board oversight of the County’s solid waste
services through a contract that will need to be negotiated between the RSWA Board and
the County; and
(2) The establishment of a lease between the County and the RSWA so that the County
can oversee the operation of IVY as either (a) a transfer station or (b) a convenience
center. This option will result in Board of Supervisors oversight of the County’s solid
waste services, though a lease for use of the property will have to be negotiated between
the RSWA Board and the County.
Under both options, the long term capital and operational costs and permit requirements of a
transfer station will be compared with converting this site to a convenience center. As was discussed at
the last meeting, conversion to a convenience center will likely not permit small commercial haulers to
continue using IVY and therefore, result in a reduction in the current level of service to a small number of
small commercial haulers. This impact will be clarified as a part of the evaluation. Also, under both
options, contracting out the operation of the transfer station or convenience center is anticipated and the
development of an RFP by the consultant will be a part of the services provided.
Finally, the consultants will also evaluate the cost and operational considerations for different
levels of recycling services at IVY and at other potential locations in the County so that the Board can
ultimately decide what level of recycling services it wants to provide.
This executive summary requests the Board to authorize the use of CIP funds appropriated for the
RSWA environmental mitigation to fund this contract.
As discussed with the Board at its March 7, 2012 work session (Attachment A), staff
recommended Draper Aden as the best qualified consultant to provide assistance to the County. Staff
has worked with Draper Aden to revise the scope of services to match the Board’s expectations based on
discussion at the May 9th work session and outlined above. In developing the proposed scope of services,
staff has also focused on two critical dates: 1) RSWA must notify Waste Management no later than
December 31, 2012 whether it is exercising a contract extension for waste hauling, and 2) the current
County contract with the RSW A for solid waste services will expire on July 1, 2013 unless it is extended in
some form. In order to move this effort forward, staff believes the schedule below is realistic, but does
not provide any contingent time for unexpected delays. The milestones for this work are as follows:
July 2012: Authorize contract for consultant
October 2012: Discuss consultant’s findings with Board
October/November 2012: Develop framework for RSWA lease or operational agreement
(possible approval later, but need agreement on framework for RFP by this date)
November/December, 2012: Issue RFP for services at Ivy and/or any recycling centers
December/January 2013: Proposals due
December 31, 2012: RSWA notifies Waste Management regarding contract extension
February 2013: Board of Supervisors or RSWA Board approves contract for services
(assumes contractor needs 4 months to be ready to assume operation on July 1, 2013)
June 30, 2013: RSWA transfers control to County if lease option is selected
July 1, 2013: Start of new services
Recognizing the time constraints and that the work may require some modifications along the
way, the project order for this work is based on a time and materials approach with a not to exceed
amount of $31,200. Staff does not anticipate the full amount will be needed to complete the work, but has
allowed some contingency in the contract to avoid time delays in case any additional analysis is needed
based on the Board’s review.
The proposed contract calls for a not to exceed cost of $31,200. Staff notes that the CIP account
proposed as a funding source has a surplus of approximately $600,000 in excess of anticipated FY 13
expenses. The County has kept this balance as a contingency in case new environmental problems arise
at IVY, recognizing that the County and the City have a funding agreement with RSWA for those
environmental costs. Staff believes that this source of funding is appropriate for this work and would not
affect the County’s ability to respond to a RSWA environmental issue, if one should occur at IVY.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the transfer of $31,200 from the currently appropriated
funds in the RSWA environmental account to a new account for this project work (Code #: 4-9010-42050-
442050-999) by approving Appropriation #2013023, included in the FY 13 Budget Amendment and
Appropriations, after its public hearing scheduled on July 11, 2012, and authorize staff to proceed with a
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
contract with Draper Aden to assist in the development of the proposed solid waste options upon approval
by the County Attorney of the project order as to substance and form.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd asked that this item be pulled for further discussion at the
end of the meeting.)
_____
Item No. 8.3. Memoranda of Understanding between the County and the Sheriff, the Common-
wealth’s Attorney, and the Circuit Court Clerk.
The executive summary states that pursuant to direction of the Board of Supervisors a number of
years ago, the County offered Constitutional Officers the opportunity to include their employees in the
County’s pay and classification system, resulting in market based pay and benefits as well as pay raises
comparable to other County employees. In addition to assuring that Constitutional Officer em ployees
were paid at a comparable level to other County employees, it assured these employees that they would
receive County approved pay raises on an annual basis rather than the minimal State raises that are
typically offered to already underpaid employees under the State system. One condition of this significant
commitment by the County beyond what the State would otherwise provide was an agreement to follow
certain County policies. One of the primary reasons for requiring this commitment to County policy was to
assure that employees of Constitutional Officers are evaluated for annual performance and other raises
under the same conditions that all other employees of the County are. This creates a clear link between
County funded raises and the County’s compensation system.
The Department of Human Resources, the County Executive’s Office, and the County Attorney’s
Office have been working with the Sheriff, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, and the Circuit Court Clerk to
develop and/or update Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). The Sheriff has operated under a MOU
with the County for a number of years, but that agreement has recently expired. The Clerk of the Court
has recently spent considerable time working with County staff to address challenges in her operations
and has approved a MOU with the County for the first time which will result in improved pay and benefits
for employees of her office. Both of these MOUs are complete and ready for Board approval. As of the
time of the writing of this executive summary, staff has been unable to come to agreement with the
Commonwealth’s Attorney regarding the MOU.
Staff has attempted to develop MOUs which are as similar as possible so that the employees of
each of these Officers are treated consistently with County employees. These memoranda clarify which
County personnel and administrative policies apply to these Constitutional Officers and their employees.
Under Virginia law, constitutional officers are legally independent from their local governments. Based on
previous Board direction, absent a MOU, Constitutional Officers have not formally agreed to follow
Albemarle County policies and their employees are not entitled to benefits enjoyed by other County
employees.
Staff has prepared the attached MOUs between the County and the Sheriff (Attachment A), the
Commonwealth’s Attorney (Attachment B), and the Circuit Court Clerk (Attachment C) which include
provisions that the employees of those Constitutional Officers will be covered under the County’s
Classification and Pay Plan and will be subject to all of the County’s personnel policies except for the
Grievance Policy, several policies related to hiring, discipline and the termination of employment, and any
policies or provision that are superseded by State law. The policies that will apply to the Constitutional
Officers and their employees include those related to salary administration, leave, benefits, merit pay
evaluations, and course reimbursement, among others. Benefits will not accrue to the Constitutional
officers themselves, only their employees.
Constitutional Officers and their operations are legally separate and independent from localities,
except that localities are required by state law to provide office space and certain limited benefits. State
law requires that a locality provide constitutional officer employees two weeks of paid leave, seven days of
sick leave, and health insurance. In Albemarle County, the operations of the constitutional officers receive
substantial subsidies and benefits beyond those required by State law. If a constitutional officer employee
is on the County pay plan, they receive a substantial salary supplement beyond the maximum salary
provided by the Compensation Board to assure they are paid at a market rate and comparable to other
County employees in similar positions. To establish and clarify what employment rules, procedures, and
benefits apply to constitutional officer employees, common practice is for constitutional officers to enter
into an MOU with the local government.
Staff has proposed to execute MOUs with each of the three constitutional officers, and two
officers have agreed to this approach. Because the Commonwealth’s Attorney believes that her office
must be independent and autonomous, she has not agreed to sign a MOU. While the former
Commonwealth’s Attorney agreed to this arrangement a number of years ago and significant pay and
benefit changes were implemented for employees of that office, a final MOU was not signed. The current
Commonwealth’s Attorney has not agreed to signing a MOU for her office, although her employees are
currently treated the same as all other County employees and they have operated under the County’s
system since she has been in office. While staff believes a MOU is the most effec tive way to document
this understanding and would be consistent with the other offices, if this Office continues to operate
according to County policies, the County could continue to provide the pay and benefits currently enjoyed
by this office. However, if these policies are not followed, according to the Board’s previous direction,
market adjustments, pay raises, higher levels of leave accrual and other benefits would no longer be
processed by the Human Resources Department. Instead, while not affecting current pay, the raises and
benefits going forward would fall back to the State levels.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Staff believes the previous commitment by the County and expected adherence to certain County
policy is appropriate, of significant benefit to those employees and is reasonable. In the absence of an
agreement with the Commonwealth’s Attorney, staff recommends the establishment of a formal policy to
authorize and establish the employment rules, procedures, and benefits applicable to constitutional officer
employees, while still allowing the development of a MOU to address certain exceptions that may be
appropriate. In essence, this would put the current MOU in the form of a policy and clarify that the
significant benefits of being on the County system require that certain County policies be followed to
maintain those benefits. Staff does not recommend providing pay and benefits for employees of
Constitutional Officers that far exceed that funded by the State Compensation Board without either a MOU
or formal policy. The County Executive’s Office will continue to work with the Commonwealth’s Attorney to
identify any additional exceptions to standard policies that may be appropriate for her office.
Employees of the Sheriff and Commonwealth’s Attorney are currently participating in the County’s
Classification and Pay Plan and merit program and have previously seen significant improvements to their
pay and benefits; therefore, no additional cost for pay or benefits is required. However, the additional
cost of pay and benefits for the Clerk’s Office to be appropriately classified and placed on the County
Classified Pay Plan is approximately $24,000. The County maintains a pool of funds for these type
reclassifications and funding can be taken from the reclassification pool. This action does not increase
the FY 13 Budget. The increase for future fiscal years will be included during the budget process.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the MOUs between the County and the Sheriff, the
Commonwealth’s Attorney, and the Circuit Court Clerk, and authorize the County Executive to execute
those MOUs. If any Constitutional Officers is unwilling to sign the proposed MOU, then staff recommends
that the Board adopt a policy to authorize and establish the employment rules, procedures, and benefits
applicable to the constitutional officer’s employees, while still allowing the development of a MOU to
address certain exceptions that may be appropriate.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following MOUs between the County
and the Sheriff and the Circuit Court Clerk, and to authorize the County Executive to execute the
MOUs. The Board also supported staff’s recommendation that if any Constitutional Officers is
unwilling to sign the proposed MOU, to adopt a policy to authorize and establish the employment
rules, procedures, and benefits applicable to the constitutional officer’s employees, while still
allowing the development of a MOU to address certain exceptions that may be appropriate .
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA AND
THE SHERIFF OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
This Memorandum of Understanding (the “Agreement”) made and entered into on the ____ day of
July, 2012, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”) and the Sheriff of Albemarle
County (the “Sheriff”);
WHEREAS, the County and the Sheriff desire to enter into an agreement setting forth their
understanding with respect to compensation, benefits and personnel policies applicable to the Sheriff;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Employee Status. Individuals employed by the Sheriff are, and shall remain, appointees of the
Sheriff rather than employees of the County. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter or diminish th e Sheriff’s
duties and rights with respect to his employees under the Virginia Code, Title 15.2, Chapter 16, Article 5. The
Sheriff’s employees shall not be covered by the County’s grievance procedures.
2. Compensation. The County and the Sheriff agree that employees of the Sheriff shall participate
and be included in the County’s pay plan and merit evaluation system. The Sheriff understands that future
compensation increases offered by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Compensation Board will not be
passed automatically to the staff of the Sheriff since his staff will be covered by the County’s pay plan and
merit evaluation system. Notwithstanding the above, compensation for the staff of the Sheriff will be no less
than the compensation approved by the Compensation Board.
3. Benefits. All benefits of employment, including but not limited to health insurance, annual and sick
leave (except as limited by state law, including Va. Code Section 15.2-1605), insurance protection, retirement
program, participation in deferred compensation programs, and other benefits available to Albemarle County
employees shall be available to the employees of the Sheriff and governed by the personnel policies and
procedures of Albemarle County.
4. County Personnel System. Without diminishing the Sheriff’s authority to appoint, hire or discharge
his employees, he agrees to follow the County’s personnel policies in force during the period of this Agreement
except as otherwise required by law (such as the six-week vacation leave accrual limit imposed by Va. Code §
15.2-1605) and except as specifically excluded by this section. A list of the County’s personnel policies in
effect as of the date of this Agreement is attached. (Attachment A) The Sheriff agrees to fol low all such
policies except the following:
1. Assignment and Transfer (Policy P-38)
2. Employee Reduction in Force Procedures (Policy P-30)
3. Employee Discipline (Policy P-22)
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
4. Employee Grievance Procedure (Policy P-03)
5. Employee Relations Principles (Policy P-01)
6. Termination of Employment (Policy P-26)
The Sheriff further agrees to comply with all Albemarle County Administrative Policies except AP-1
(Grants Process) and AP-5 (Media Relations) and all applicable state and Federal laws regarding FLSA,
FMLA, and other such applicable statutes as applied to appointees of elected officials.
The County agrees to provide assistance and services to the Sheriff concerning the personnel matters
referenced in this Agreement through its Department of Human Resources and its Finance Department. The
Parties agree that the Department of Human Resources shall maintain all documents related to the
employment of the employees of the Sheriff except for documents related to payroll, which shall be maintained
by the County’s Finance Department. The Sheriff agrees to forward any such documentation to the
appropriate County department in a timely fashion.
5. Limitations on Benefits to Sheriff. The Parties agree that only the Sheriff’s employees shall receive
the compensation and benefits as set forth herein. Such compensation and benefits shall be available to the
Sheriff only to the extent required by applicable State law, such as Va. Code § 15.2-1517(B) regarding group
life, accident and health insurance.
6. Additional Insurance Benefits. In addition to the insurance coverage that the County currently
provides to the Sheriff’s employees, the County agrees to provide accident and health insurance coverage to
auxiliary deputies of the Sheriff’s Office to protect them in the event of their injury, illness or death in the
course of performing auxiliary services, subject to the following conditions:
a) The Sheriff shall include the cost of insurance coverage in his operating budget
request to the County.
b) Subject to appropriations by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the County
shall pay for the cost of insurance coverage throughout the term of this Agreement,
provided the Sheriff: (i) does not increase the number of auxiliary deputy sheriffs
above the current number (50) except upon mutual agreement by the County and
the Sheriff; (ii) exercises reasonable control and supervision over the auxiliary
deputies; and (iii) complies with all applicable legal and Department of Criminal
Justice Services requirements concerning auxiliary deputies.
c) In the event the Board of Supervisors fails to appropriate funds for the insurance
coverage or the Sheriff fails to adhere to the requirements of this paragraph, the
County shall be entitled to terminate the insurance coverage upon providing thirty
(30) days prior written notice to the Sheriff.
7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect upon the full execution of this Agreement by
the Sheriff and the County and shall remain in force for the duration of the Sheriff’s term in office (including
term for which he is reelected), unless terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice.
This Agreement may be amended only upon the written agreement of both the Sheriff and the County.
SHERIFF OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
By: _______________________________ Date: __________________________
J. E. “Chip” Harding, Sheriff
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _______________________________ Date: __________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Approved as to Form:
____________________
County Attorney
_____
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA AND
THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY
This Memorandum of Understanding (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into on the ____ day of
July, 2012, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”) and the Clerk of the Circuit Court
for Albemarle County (the “Clerk”);
WHEREAS, the County and the Clerk desire to enter into an agreement setting forth their
understanding with respect to compensation, benefits and personnel policies applicable to the employees of
the Clerk;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:
1. Employee Status. Individuals employed by the Clerk are, and shall remain, appointees of the Clerk
rather than employees of the County. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter or diminish the Clerk’s duties and
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
rights with respect to her employees under the Virginia Code, Title 15.2, Chapter 16, Article 5. The Clerk’s
employees shall not be covered by the County’s grievance procedures.
2. Compensation. The County and the Clerk agree that employees of the Clerk shall participate and
be included in the County’s pay plan and merit evaluation system. The Clerk understands that future
compensation increases offered by the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Compensation Board will not be
passed automatically to the staff of the Clerk since her staff will be covered by the County’s pay plan and merit
evaluation system. Notwithstanding the above, compensation for the staff of the Clerk will be no less than the
compensation approved by the Compensation Board.
3. Benefits. All benefits of employment, including but not limited to health insurance, annual and sick
leave (except as limited by state law, including Va. Code Section 15.2-1605), insurance protection, retirement
program, participation in deferred compensation programs, and other benefits available to Albemarle County
employees shall be available to the employees of the Clerk and governed by the personnel policies and
procedures of Albemarle County.
4. County Personnel System. Without diminishing the Clerk’s authority to appoint, hire or discharge
her employees, she agrees to follow the County’s personnel policies in force during the period of this
Agreement except as otherwise required by law (such as the six-week vacation leave accrual limit imposed by
Va. Code § 15.2-1605) and except as specifically excluded by this section. A list of the County’s personnel
policies in effect as of the date of this Agreement is attached. (Attachment A) The Clerk agrees to follow all
such policies except the following:
1. Assignment and Transfer (Policy P-38)
2. Employee Reduction in Force Procedures (Policy P-30)
3. Employee Discipline (Policy P-22)
4. Employee Grievance Procedure (Policy P-03)
5. Employee Relations Principles (Policy P-01)
6. Termination of Employment (Policy P-26)
The Clerk further agrees to comply with all Albemarle County Administrative Policies except AP-1
(Grants Process) and AP-5 (Media Relations) and all applicable state and Federal laws regarding FLSA,
FMLA, and other such applicable statutes as applied to appointees of elected officials.
The County agrees to provide assistance and services to the Clerk concerning the personnel matters
referenced in this Agreement through its Department of Human Resources and its Finance Department. The
Parties agree that the Department of Human Resources shall maintain all documents related to the
employment of the employees of the Clerk except for documents related to payroll, which shall be maintained
by the County’s Finance Department. The Clerk agrees to forward any such documentation to the appropriate
County department in a timely fashion.
5. Limitations on Benefits to Clerk. The Parties agree that only the Clerk’s employees shall receive
the compensation and benefits as set forth herein. Such compensation and benefits shall be available to the
Clerk only to the extent required by applicable State law, such as Va. Code § 15.2-1517(B) regarding group
life, accident and health insurance.
6. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect upon the full execution of this Agreement by
the Clerk and the County and shall remain in force for the duration of the Clerk’s term in office (including terms
for which she is re-elected), unless terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. This
Agreement may be amended only upon the written agreement of both the Clerk and the County.
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY
By: _______________________________ Date: __________________________
Debra Shipp, Clerk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _______________________________ Date: __________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Approved as to Form:
____________________
County Attorney
_____
Item No. 8.4. Resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$41,000,000 for Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge.
The following letter dated June 12, 2012, was received from Mr. Blake Hurt, Secretary of the
Economic Development Authority:
“The Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") has
received a request from the Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, a Virginia non-profit, non-stock
corporation (the "Borrower") requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds (the "Bonds") to assist
the Borrower in (i) financing the construction and equipping of certain capital improvements at the
Borrower's existing residential care retirement community located at 250 Pantops Mountain Road in
Albemarle County, Virginia, including, but not limited to, (a) the construction of an eight story building,
which will include two underground levels for approximately 75 parking spaces and six above ground
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
levels that will include approximately 36 independent living residential units, a 16,000 square foot fitness
center, including an indoor swimming pool and an approximately 50 seat entertainment theater, (b) the
expansion of the Borrower's memory support area to include approximately 10 memory support beds, and
(c) the construction of an outside garden and patio area, (ii) financing capitalized interest on the Bonds,
(iii) financing a debt service reserve fund and (iv) paying the costs related to the issuance of the Bonds
(collectively, the "Plan of Finance").
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto (the "Resolution"), the Authority has
agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public hearing on the proposed
Plan of Finance and has recommended that you approve the issuance of the Bonds as required by
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the action
taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia Code Section l5.2-
4907 and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your approval.”
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker commented that this item includes a fiscal impact statement. He noted
that the statement shows the estimated taxable value of the facility’s real property to be constructed in the
locality as $30,000,000. The statement indicates that the estimated real property tax per year using
present tax rates is $105,000. Mr. Rooker said if someone takes the County’s tax rate and multiple that by
$30,000,000, the result is $250,000, not $105,000. The report shows estimated personal property tax per
year using present tax rates as $900,000. To get to this figure, there would have to be very substantial
personal property. Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to know how they arrived at these figures do not
seem to be correct.
Ms. Mallek asked if Westminster is receiving a property tax waiver. Mr. Foley responded that he
does not have specific information as to how the they calculate their fiscal impact statements and he is not
sure who creates the computations.
Mr. Davis explained that the figures are submitted by the applicant and the bond counsel. He
noted that Mr. John Lowry, Chairman of the County’s EDA, was present at the meeting. He suggested
that staff bring the information back to the Board. He added that it was not information that should
preclude the Board from acting on the resolution.
Mr. Rooker said he has no problem with acting on the resolution, but would like to know how the
calculations were done.
Mr. John Lowry addressed the Board, stating that the information was prepared by McGuire
Woods, bond counsel for Westminster. He added that last year Westminster Canterbury’s property tax
was $830,000 – so the firm did an estimate of $900,000. He said that the $30,000,000 for the building
would perhaps have less than that as taxable. Westminster does not receive a waiver; it does pay
property taxes.
Mr. Rooker said it appears that this information was mislabeled as “personal property tax,” instead
of real property tax. He reiterated his request for a clarification.
Mr. Rooker said he has a similar question regarding Kappa Sigma (Item #8.5). It does not
preclude the Board from acting on the resolution, but the fiscal impact statement does not seem to be
correct.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that it needed to be corrected for the record. She asked if these two
requests would be affected if the Board made a change in its fees for the EDA. Mr. Foley responded that
they would not be affected. He added that any action at this meeting would affect future financings.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") has
received a request from the Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, a Virginia non-profit, non-stock
corporation (the "Borrower") requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$41,000,000 (the "Bonds") to assist the Borrower in (i) financing the construction and equipping of certain
capital improvements at the Borrower's existing residential care retirement community located at 250 Pantops
Mountain Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, including, but not limited to, (a) the construction of an eight story
building, which will include two underground levels for approximately 75 parking spaces and six above ground
levels that will include approximately 36 independent living residential units, a 16,000 square foot fitness
center, including an indoor swimming pool and an approximately 50 seat entertainment theater, (b) the
expansion of the Borrower's memory support area to include approximately 10 memory support beds, and (c)
the construction of an outside garden and patio area (collectively, the "Project"), (ii) financing capitalized
interest on the Bonds, (iii) financing a debt service reserve fund and (iv) paying the costs related to the
issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the "Plan of Finance");
WHEREAS, the Authority has held a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds for purposes of
undertaking the Plan of Finance on June 12, 2012;
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides
that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in
which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of
the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the
"County") and the Project is located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the
terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with
the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the
Borrower, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section l5.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, to permit the Authority to assist the Borrower in undertaking the Plan of Finance.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Borrower.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia this 11th day of July, 2012.
_____
Item No. 8.5. Resolution approving the issuance of revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed
$6,000,000 for Kappa Sigma Endowment Fund.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Appomattox County, Virginia (the “Appomattox
Authority”) has considered, at a public hearing held on May 22, 2012, the application of Kappa Sigma
Endowment Fund (the “Endowment”), a Section 501(c)(3) entity formed as an Illinois Trust and Scottsville
Road Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (the “Company”, together with the Endowment,
the “Borrower”), both exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the “Code”), both based in Albemarle County, Virginia and each having its principal place of
business at P.O. Box 5643, 1610 Scottsville Road, Charlottesville, Virginia in Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested that the Appomattox Authority issue its qualified non-profit
revenue bond in an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 (the “Bond”) pursuant to the Industrial Development
and Revenue Bond Act, Title 15.2, Chapter 49 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the “Act”) the
proceeds from which Bond will be used to assist the Borrower in the re-financing of the acquisition,
construction, equipping and furnishing of the Endowment’s new National Headquarters and Museum facility of
approximately 22,000 square feet and 3 stories located on approximately 8.356 acres, more or less (the
“Facility”) in Albemarle County, Virginia ("Albemarle County") known as 1610 Scottsville Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, fronting on the West Side of State Route 20 approximately 2 miles from the
intersection with I-64 and Route 20 across the highway from Carter’s Mountain, in Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Albemarle
Authority”) has, after a public hearing held on June 12, 2012, considered the request of the Borrower for the
Albemarle Authority to recommend to the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Board of
Supervisors”) its approval of and concurrence with the issuance of the Bonds by the Appomattox Authority
under the Act, in such amounts as may be necessary to finance the cost of the Facility; and
WHEREAS, the Facility will also benefit Albemarle County, Virginia (“Albemarle County”) and the
Borrower has described the benefits to Albemarle County at such public hearing and the Albemarle Authority
has recommended that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County approve of and concur with the
issuance of the Bonds by the Appomattox Authority under the Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code provides that both the governmental unit having jurisdiction
over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located and the
governmental unit on behalf of which such bonds are issued must approve the issuance of the bonds after
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-4905 of the Act provides that if a locality has created an industrial
development authority, no industrial development authority created by a second locality may finance a facility
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
located in the first locality unless the governing body of such first locality concurs with the inducement
resolution adopted by the industrial development authority created by the second locality; and
WHEREAS, the Facility to be re-financed through the issuance of the Bond is located in Albemarle
County and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albem arle County has created the Albemarle Authority
pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County, Virginia (“Appomattox County”)
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of Appomattox County;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County has created the Appomattox Authority
pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County approved on June 18, 2012, the plan of
financing for the Facility and the issuance of the Bond for the benefit of the Borrower and has designated the
Bond as a “qualified tax-exempt obligation” under Section 265(b) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the approving resolutions of the Board of Supervisors of Appomattox County and the
Appomattox Authority are each contingent upon the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County approval of,
and concurrence with, the issuance of the Bond by the Appomattox Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby approves and concurs with the financing of the
Facility and the issuance of the Bond by the Appomattox Authority for the benefit of the Borrower, as
required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-4906 of the Act, to permit the
Appomattox Authority to assist in the financing of the Facility.
2. The approval of and concurrence with the issuance of the Bond, as required by said Section 147(f) of the
Code and Sections 15.2-4905 and 15.2-4906 of the Act, do not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or
the creditworthiness of the Borrower or otherwise indicate that the Facility possesses any economic
viability. As required by the Act, the issuance of the Bond as requested by the Borrower will not constitute
a debt or pledge of the faith and credit of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Appomattox County or Albemarle
County. Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political subdivision thereof, including the
Appomattox Authority, Appomattox County or Albemarle County shall be obligated to pay the Bond, or the
interest thereon, or other costs incident thereto, except from the revenues and monies pledged therefore,
and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any political
subdivision thereof, including the Appomattox Authority, Appomattox County and Albemarle County, will
be pledged to payment of principal of such Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incidental thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED this 11th day of July, 2012.
_____
Item No. 8.6. Priority Review Process for Target Industries.
The executive summary stated that on March 7, 2012, staff presented preliminary information to
the Board regarding 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. The Board had a follow up discussion about the priority review process at its June
6, 2012 meeting and provided feedback to staff on several elements of the proposed process. The Board
requested that the process be amended to incorporate the Board’s comments and be placed on the July
11th consent agenda for final approval. Feedback focused on adding environmental impact to the
selection criteria, encouraging a focus on local hiring, including language regarding net positive fiscal
impact, and eliminating the mention of joint Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings
from the potential guidelines list with the understanding that that option is a possibility that the Board can
consider. Suggested changes are indicated in bold below.
It is the County’s goal to provide timely and responsive review for all applicants. However, 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.
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 to
insure that qualifying projects receive the necessary staff attention.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
Staff recommends that a formal priority review process be reserved for qualified target industry
enterprises located within appropriately designated development areas that are not expected to have a
significant negative environmental impact, that create an increase in property value and that 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
and that show a plan to recruit and hire local residents. (this job level is consistent with
established thresholds for the Virginia Jobs Investment Program)
Projects that are expected to bring in a minimum of $1 million capital investment and have a
positive impact on County revenues. (this investment level is consistent with established
thresholds for the Virginia Jobs Investment Program)
Projects that are expected to 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. 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 form al 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.
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,
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
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. Following Board approval, staff will develop an application and program guidelines to be
implemented this fall.
No budget impact is anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the priority review process qualifying criteria and
general approach set forth herein.
(Discussion: Mr. Rooker and Mr. Boyd asked that this item be pulled for further discussion.)
_____
Item No. 8.7. 2011 Local Emergency Management Performance Grant Resolution.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM)
has awarded a 2011 Emergency Management Performance Grant in the amount of $10,232 through the
National Preparedness Directorate, US Department of Homeland Security to the regional Charlottesville –
UVA – Albemarle County Emergency Management Office of the Emergency Communications Center
(ECC). This grant will be used to partially fund the local emergency management program.
The Charlottesville – UVA – Albemarle County Office of Emergency Management is the grant
administrator for this Emergency Management Performance Grant. Because the County of Albemarle
serves as the fiscal agent for the ECC, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to adopt the attached
resolution authorizing the County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC
Executive Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents required for implementation of this program in
order for the Emergency Management Office of the ECC to administer the grant.
The County of Albemarle is the fiscal agent for this Emergency Management Performance Grant.
Funds from the local emergency management budget, which is funded by Charlottesville, UVA and
Albemarle County, will provide the match for this grant. No further funds are requested.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2011 Emergency Management
Performance Grant.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked the amount of the “matched funds.” Mr. Foley said he would
provide that information.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution authorizing the
County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC Executive Director to
execute all VDEM Grant documents necessary for receipt of the 2011 Emergency Management
Performance Grant:
_____
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
Item No. 8.8. Martha Jefferson Hospital Lease Agreement.
The executive summary states that fire and rescue service response times and coverage for the
Pantops area remain a concern for the County. The continued growth of the Pantops area, combined with
a significant elderly population, increases the need for fire and rescue services. A daytime ambulance
service located at Pantops would help reduce response times in the immediate area and would provide an
additional resource for the County’s fire rescue system as a whole. During the FY13 budget process, the
Board approved three fire fighter/ALS positions and directed County staff to inquire about possible space
at the new Martha Jefferson Hospital (MJH) facility for the County to temporarily locate an ambulance
service until a County facility could be funded and constructed in the Pantops growth area.
Staff has negotiated a three-year renewable lease with MJH for 151 sq. ft. of office space at its
new hospital facility (500 Martha Jefferson Drive, Parcel 78-20M0) along with four standard lockers in an
employee locker room and one reserved parking stall with electric capabilities. This space can adequately
serve as an interim emergency medical facilities station that will provide space for one ambulance and its
crew.
The attached proposed Lease Agreement (Attachment A) addresses all issues identified by the
County in discussions with MJH. The County Attorney’s office has reviewed and approved this proposed
Lease Agreement as to form. Significant provisions of the proposed lease include:
1. A term of three years beginning September 1, 2012, with the option to renew upon the
same terms for two additional one-year terms.
2. Fair market rent (required by federal law), determined to be $477.50 per month.
3. MJH to provide all utility services, including heat, water, electric (including electrical outlet
installation) , local telephone, cable television, internet services, and janitorial services,
the cost of which is reflected and included in the rent.
4. Terminable by either party upon 120 days advance written notice to the other party
following the end of the initial three-year term.
The direct cost to the County of the lease is approximately $5,730 annually or $17,190 over a
three-year term.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approve the
proposed Lease Agreement for the Martha Jefferson Hospital space and to authorize the County
Executive to sign the lease and any associated documents after approval of both form and substance by
the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to approve the
proposed Lease Agreement for the Martha Jefferson Hospital space and t o authorize the County
Executive to sign the lease and any associated documents after approval of both form and
substance by the County Attorney:
RESOLUTION APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND
MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE STATION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has acquired land in Peter Jefferson Place for a new emergency
response station; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to improve emergency response times in the Pantops area while the
proposed emergency response station is in the planning and construction phases; and
WHEREAS, Martha Jefferson Hospital has offered a three to five year lease for space in its new
Pantops facility at which the County can locate an interim emergency response station.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the Lease Agreement and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the
County Attorney, the Lease Agreement and any associated documents between the County of Albemarle and
Martha Jefferson Hospital for an interim emergency response station at the Martha Jefferson Hospital facility
located at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911.
*****
LEASE AGREEMENT
This Lease Agreement (“Lease”) is made this 11th day of July, 2012, by and between MARTHA
JEFFERSON HOSPITAL, hereinafter referred to as “Lessor,” whose address for purposes hereof is 500
Martha Jefferson Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia 22911; and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
hereinafter referred to as “Lessee” whose address for purposes hereof is 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22902.
WITNESSETH
1. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Subject to and upon the terms, provisions and conditions herein set forth, Lessor does hereby lease,
and demise to the Lessee and the Lessee does hereby lease, and demise from the Lessor (i) one office
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
having approximately 151 rentable square feet, (ii) four (4) standard lockers in an employee locker room, and
(iii) one reserved parking stall with electric capabilities in a mutually agreeable location convenient and
accessible to the office space leased hereunder, for Lessee’s emergency response vehicle(s), each for
Lessee’s exclusive use, located at the Martha Jefferson Hospital facility at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive,
Charlottesville, Virginia, and as more specifically shown on the attached Exhibit A (the “Leased Premises”).
2. ACCEPTANCE OF PREMISES
Lessor or Lessor’s agents have made no representations or promises with respect to the said Leased
Premises or this Lease except as herein expressly set forth. Lessee’s taking possession of the Leased
Premises shall be conclusive evidence, as against Lessee, that Lessee accepts the Leased Premises “as is”
and that said Leased Premises and the building of which the same form a part are suited for the use intended
by Lessee and were in good and satisfactory condition at the time such possession was so taken.
3. TERM
The initial term of this Lease Agreement shall begin on the 1st day of September, 2012 (the “Effective
Date”), and end on the third (3rd) anniversary of the Effective Date (the “Initial Term”), unless sooner
terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. Following the Initial Term, this Lease shall be automatically
extended and renewed upon the same terms and conditions set forth herein for two (2) additional one-year
terms (each a “Renewal Term”), unless the Lessee elects, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Lease, and
gives written notice to Lessor of such election to terminate at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the
Initial Term or any Renewal Term, as applicable. The foregoing notwithstanding, either party may terminate
this Lease upon one hundred twenty (120) days advance written notice to the other party following the end of
the Initial Term.
Further, in the event that Lessee shall complete construction of a new emergency response station in
closer proximity to Martha Jefferson Hospital than Lessee’s current emergency response station, Lessee shall
give written notice to Lessor within five (5) days of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such station, and
this Lease shall automatically terminate on the last day of the month in which such notice was given, unless
continued by written agreement of the parties.
This Lease is subject to annual funding by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia. In the event the Board of Supervisors fails to appropriate funds necessary to perform the obligations
specified hereunder, this Lease shall be deemed cancelled, with no penalty to the County, and of no effect.
Notice of such cancellation must be given to the Lessor within thirty (30) days of the Board of Supervisors’ final
approval of the annual County budget. However, the failure of the County to provide such notice shall not
invalidate any non-appropriation decision by the County. In the event that this Lease is cancelled for the
reasons set forth in this paragraph, the Lessor will be paid for any amounts due and owing as of the date of
cancellation in accordance with the Lease, excluding any prospective amounts.
4. RENT
Lessee shall pay to Lessor annual rent and utility charges in the amount of $5,730.00 ($30.00 per
square foot plus $100 per month for the reserved parking space), without offset, in monthly installments of
$477.50, due in advance on the first day of each month during the Lease term, beginning on the Effective
Date. Rent payments shall be mailed to “Martha Jefferson Hospital” at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive,
Charlottesville, VA 22911, or to such other address as Lessor may designate in writing from time to time.
The parties further acknowledge and agree that this Lease is the result of an arms-length negotiation
and that the rent payable hereunder represents fair market value for the space and services provided
hereunder and is not intended as, nor shall it serve as, an inducement for the referral of patients. Nothing in
this Lease shall be construed to prohibit Lessor or Lessee from using professional judgment in referring or
admitting patients to or for any needed facility or service.
5. SURRENDER OF LEASED PREMISES
Upon the expiration or other termination of this Lease, Lessee shall quit and surrender to Lessor the
Leased Premises, in the same condition as at the commencement of the term, normal wear and tear only
excepted. Lessee shall promptly remove all of its property. Lessee’s obligation to observe or perform this
covenant shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Lease. If the last day of the term of this Lease
or any renewal thereof falls on Sunday, this Lease shall expire on the business day immediately preceding.
6. REPAIRS BY LESSOR
Lessor shall make any structural repairs necessary for safety and tenantability. Lessee agrees to
report immediately in writing to Lessor any known defective condition in or about the Leased Premises.
7. USE OF PREMISES
The Leased Premises shall be used and occupied by Lessee as an emergency medical services
(EMS) station, for Lessee’s employees to perform administrative work and await emergency response calls.
The Leased Premises shall neither be used for any illegal purpose, nor in violation of any valid regulation of
any governmental body, nor in any manner to create any nuisance or trespass. Lessee agrees to abide by the
reasonable rules and regulations, which may be established from time to time by the Lessor concerning the
use of the Leased Premises that may be promulgated by Lessor. The initial rules and regulations, if any, are
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
Lessee shall not use the Leased Premises in any manner that will increase risks covered by
insurance on the Leased Premises and result in any increase in the rate of insurance or a cancellation of any
insurance policy. Lessee shall not allow on the Leased Premises anything prohibited by any policy for fire
insurance covering the Leased Premises, and Lessee shall comply with all requirements of insurance policies
applicable to the Leased Premises.
To the extent permitted by law, Lessee agrees to indemnify and save Lessor harmless against and
from any and all claims, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from or
related to (i) Lessee’s use of the Leased Premises; (ii) any breach or default on the part of Lessee in the
performance of any of its covenants or agreements hereunder; or (iii) any acts of Lessee, its agents,
contractors, employees, representatives, invitees, or licensees. Lessor shall not be liable for loss or damage
to Lessee’s personal property of any type for any reason or cause whatsoever, except when due to Lessor’s
gross negligence.
8. QUIET ENJOYMENT
If Lessee shall faithfully keep, perform and observe all of the covenants, agreements and conditions
herein stipulated, Lessee shall at all times during the term of this Lease have the peaceable and quiet
enjoyment of said Leased Premises without hindrance of Lessor or any person lawfully claiming under Lessor,
subject however, to the terms of this Lease.
9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING
Lessee may not assign this Lease or any interest thereunder, or sublet the Leased Premises or any
part thereof or permit the use of the Leased Premises by any party other than the Lessee.
10. REPAIRS BY LESSEE
Lessee shall, at its own expense, keep and maintain the said Leased Premises and appurtenances
and every other part thereof in good order and repair except portions of the Leased Premises to be repaired
by Lessor as provided herein. The Lessee shall make no alteration in, or additions to, the Leased Premises
without first obtaining the Lessor’s written consent, which alterations (if approved and made) shall be at the
sole cost of the Lessee unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. Any such alterations, additions or
improvements, which shall be made by either Lessor or Lessee and attached to the Premis es, including
carpet, shall be and become the property of Lessor and shall remain upon and be surrendered with the
Leased Premises as a part thereof at the termination of this Lease without disturbance, molestation or injury,
unless Lessor shall, upon advance written notice to Lessee, require that Lessee remove such alterations and
repair any damage caused by such removal, at Lessee’s sole expense, prior to expiration or termination of this
Lease.
11. SERVICE OF NOTICE
All dispossessory or distraint proceedings, legal notices and notices required under this Lease,
shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested to the Lessee at:
Robert A. Brown, Assistant Chief
Albemarle County Fire Rescue
460 Stagecoach Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Notices required to be sent to Lessor shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested as follows:
Martha Jefferson Hospital
Attn: Ronald J. Cottrell, Vice President
500 Martha Jefferson Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
12. SEVERABILITY
If any clause or provision of this Lease is invalid or unenforceable under present or future laws
effective during the term of this Lease, then and in the event, it is the intention of the parties hereto that the
remainder of this Lease shall not be affected thereby and it is also the intention of the parties to this Lease that
in lieu of each clause or provision of this Lease that is invalid or unenforceable, there be added as a part of
this Lease a clause or provision as similar in terms to such invalid or unenforceable clause or provision as
may be possible and be legal, valid and enforceable. If such invalidity is, in the reasonable determination of
Lessor or Lessee, essential to its rights, then Lessor or Lessee has the right to terminate this Lease on written
notice to the other.
13. CUMULATIVE RIGHTS
All rights, powers and privileges conferred hereunder upon the parties hereto shall be cumulative, but
not restrictive to those given by law.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
14. NO ESTATE IN LAND
This Lease shall create the relationship of Landlord and Tenant between Lessor and Lessee; no
estate shall pass out of Lessor. Lessee has only a usufruct, not subject to levy and sale and not assignable by
Lessee except by Lessor’s consent.
15. PARTIES
“Lessor” as used in this Lease shall include the Lessor, its successors and assigns entitled to the
Leased Premises. “Lessee” shall include the Lessee, its, successors and assigns, and if this Lease shall be
validly assigned or sublet, shall include also Lessee’s assignees or subleases of this Lease, as to the Leased
Premises covered by such assignment of sublease.
16. UTILITIES
Lessor will, at its own expense, pay for the installation of an electrical conduit from Lessor’s existing
facilities to Lessee’s reserved parking stall and a cable connection to Lessee’s exclusive office . Lessor will
provide all utility services, including heat, water, electric, local telephone, cable television, Internet services,
and janitorial services for the Leased Premises, the cost of which is reflected in the fair market value rent, as
set forth in Section 4 above, to be paid by Lessee. If the cost of Lessee’s utility usage exceeds Lessee’s
expected reasonable use, in Lessor’s sole discretion, Lessor shall be entitled, upon advance written notice to
Lessee, to charge additional rent to cover excess utility usage.
17. DEFAULTS BY LESSEE
The following shall constitute defaults in this Lease: (i) the Leased Premises shall be deserted or
vacated, or (ii) the Lessee shall fail to comply with any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Lease,
including the payment of rent, or any of the rules and regulations now or hereafter established for the
management of this building within ten (10) days of receiving written notice from Lessor.
18. LESSOR’S REMEDIES
Upon the occurrence of any one or more of the foregoing events of default, Lessor shall have the
option of any one or more of the following courses of action:
a) Terminate this Lease, in which event Lessee shall immediately surrender the Leased
Premises to Lessor; and/or
b) Lessor, as Lessee’s agent, without terminating this Lease upon Lessee’s breaching this
Lease, inclusive of abandonment, may at Lessor’s option re-let the Premises at the best price obtainable by
reasonable effort, without advertisement and by private negotiations and for any term Lessor deems proper;
and/or
c) As agent of the Lessee, do whatever the Lessee is obligated to do by the provisions of this
Lease.
d) Pursuit by Lessor of any of the foregoing remedies shall not preclude the pursuit of any of the
other remedies provided or any other remedies provided by law or statute.
19. PARKING
Lessor will provide Lessee up to four (4) unassigned parking spaces for the personal vehicles of
Lessee’s personnel. Lessor reserves the right to revise the number of parking spaces at any time during the
term of this Lease, subject to zoning regulations. Lessor shall have the right to designate an “Employee
Parking Area” and Lessee shall cause all employees to park in said area. In addition, Lessor shall provide a
dedicated parking space, in a mutually agreeable location convenient and accessible to the office space
leased hereunder, for Lessee’s emergency response vehicle(s), as provided for in Section 1.
20. SIGNS
Lessee shall not paint or place signs upon the Leased Premises except with the written consent
of the Lessor and in accordance with the signage criteria established by Lessor.
21. ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES
Lessee agrees not to abandon or vacate the Leased Premises during the period of this Lease without
prior written notice to Lessor.
22. EMINENT DOMAIN
If the whole of the Leased Premises or such portion thereof as will make the Leased Premises totally
unusable for the purpose herein leased, be condemned by any legally constituted authority for any public use
or purpose, then in either of said events, the term hereby granted shall cease from the time when possession
thereof is taken by public authorities.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
23. DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE TO PREMISES
If the Leased Premises are totally destroyed (or so substantially damaged as to be untenantable) by
storm, fire, earthquake or other casualty, at the option of Lessor, this Lease shall terminate as of the date of
such destruction or damage. The Lessor, within twenty (20) days, shall give Lessee notice as to intent to
reconstruct. Failure to do so shall give Lessee the option to cancel this Lease. If Lessor elects to reconstruct,
the construction term shall not exceed ninety (90) days or Lessee may, at its option, cancel this Lease.
Nothing contained herein shall require Lessor to make such restoration if not deemed advisable in its
judgment. If Lessor fails to provide notice of the option to reconstruct within twenty (20) days of the
occurrence, Lessee may, at its option, terminate this Lease. If the Leased Premises are not restored within
ninety (90) days of the occurrence, Lessee may, at its option, terminate this Lease.
24. CASUALTY INSURANCE
Lessor shall at all times during the term of this Lease maintain a policy or policies insuring the
building(s) against loss or damage by fire, explosion or other hazards. Lessor shall not be required to insure
any furniture, equipment, machinery, goods or supplies which Lessee may bring upon the Leased Premises.
Lessor shall not be required to insure any additional improvements Lessee may make to the Leased
Premises.
25. RENOVATION BY LESSOR
If Lessor shall deem it necessary to effect renovations or redecoration of the building in which the
Leased Premises are located, such action shall be made at Lessor’s expense and shall not in any way affect
Lessee’s obligation under this Lease; provided, however, if such action by Lessor shall render the Leased
Premises untenantable and Lessor cannot complete such acts within sixty (60) days, either Lessor or Lessee
may terminate this Lease. If renovation is required of the Lessor due to government order of authority not
occasioned by Lessee’s tenancy, the above provisions shall apply except that Lessor shall have ninety (90)
days to comply with same.
26. ENTRY BY LESSOR
Lessor may enter the Leased Premises at reasonable times to exhibit the same to prospec tive
purchasers or tenant, to inspect the Leased Premises to see that the Lessee is complying with all its
obligations hereunder and to make repairs required of Lessor under the terms hereof or repairs of Lessor’s
adjoining property.
27. PATIENT INFORMATION
During the term of the Lease, Lessee, its agents, contractors, employees, representatives, invitees, or
licensees, may have access to patient healthcare, billing, or other confidential patient information (“Patient
Information”). Patient Information, as the term is used herein, includes all “Protected Health Information,” as
that term is defined in 45 CFR § 164.501. With respect to Patient Information observed or obtained from
Lessor or in the building in which the Leased Premises are located, Lessee shall comply with all laws, rules
and regulations relating to the confidentiality of such Patient Information, including the applicable provisions of
state law and the privacy regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health
Act (“HITECH”), to the extent such laws, rules and regulations are applicable to Lessee. Lessee understands
and acknowledges that Lessee is fully responsible for ensuring compliance with these obligations by its
agents, contractors, employees, representatives, invitees and licensees.
28. CAPTIONS
The captions of each paragraph and heading hereof are added as a matter of convenience only and
shall be considered to be of no effect in the construction of any provision or provisions of this Lease.
29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Lease contains the entire agreement of the parties and no representations, inducements,
promises or agreements, oral or otherwise, between the parties not embodied herein shall be of any force or
effect. No failure of the Lessor to exercise any power given the Lessor hereunder or to insist upon strict
compliance by the Lessee of any obligation hereunder and no custom or practice of the parties at variance
with the terms hereof shall constitute a waiver of the Lessor’s right to demand exact compliance with the terms
hereof.
30. APPLICABLE LAW
This Lease shall be governed and interpreted according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Lease has been executed by these duly authorized officers as of
the date first written above.
LESSOR:
MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL
Title:_______________________
Witness
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
LESSEE:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
______________________ By:________________________________
Witness Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Approved as to form:
By:___________________
County Attorney
_____
Item No. 8.9. SDP-2012-00023. Whitewood Road Day Care Center—Zoning Ordinance Waiver.
The executive summary states that the Whitewood Road Day Care Facility is proposed to be
located on TMP 61-26A, which is at the corner of Whitewood Road and Oak Forest Drive adjacent to the
Virginia Law Foundation at 105 Whitewood Rd. The proposal is to construct a two story building (16,768
square foot) to be used as a day care facility on a 1.53 acre site. The proposal also includes associated
parking and access drives.
The critical slopes being disturbed on the western portion of the property, closest to the Virginia
Law Foundation building, have been determined to be man-made; however, the grading and construction
of the slopes do not appear on a “valid approved” site plan. County site plan file: SDP2000-007 –
Whitewood Office Park (Phase I & II) shows the slopes as not existing prior to the construction of Phase I
of Whitewood Office Park (which constructed the Virginia Law Foundation building); however, these
slopes later appear on SDP2007-00120 - Global Country for World Peace (which is the same property as
Phase II of Whitewood Office Park and the subject of this Whitewood Road Day Care Center site plan).
During SDP2007-00120 the slopes were previously avoided, thus a waiver was not required, nor granted.
The current site plan, SDP2012-00023 Whitewood Road (Day Care Center), which proposes to
disturb these slopes (and requires a critical slope waiver) would have previously been approved
administratively; however, due to a recent State Supreme Court decision, the waiver must now be
approved by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Section 31.8. Staff is
recommending approval of this waiver request.
Critical Slopes Waiver – This recommendation for approval is based on staff recommendation that the
critical slopes being disturbed have substantially met the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5(b):
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this
chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not
within the Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR)
zoning districts in the following circumstances:
(i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant
to a site plan approved by the county; or
(ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the
critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to
replace the existing structure with a new structure whose footprint does not
exceed the footprint of the existing structure.
The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected
resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical
features on the property identified for protection in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of
critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority
of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet; and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of
a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of
natural and man-made bodies of water; the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the
open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a
treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will
be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater
management, and other best management practices.
31.8 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the authority to consider and act upon special exceptions as
follows:
a. Matters requiring a special exception. Notwithstanding any other section of this chapter:
1. Any request for a waiver, modification, variation or substitution permitted by this
chapter shall be considered and acted upon by the board.
2. Any requirement for a decision by the planning commission required by this
chapter shall be considered and acted upon by the board. For the purposes of
this section, a decision by the planning commission does not include the
consideration and action by the commission on a preliminary or final site plan
under section 32 of this chapter or any action provided in section 32 enabled
under Virginia Code § 15.2-2242(1).
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
b. Consideration and action. In acting upon a special exception, the board shall consider the
factors, standards, criteria, and findings, however denominated, in the applicable sections
of this chapter, provided that the board shall not be required to make specific findings in
support of its decision.
c. Conditions. In approving a special exception, the board may impose reasonable
conditions to address any possible impacts of the special exception.
d. Time for action. A request for a special exception shall be acted on by the board within
ninety (90) days after the date of the request, or concurrently with a zoning map
amendment, special use permit, or site plan appeal, whichever is longer.
e. Request. Each request for a special exception shall be made as provided under the
applicable section of this chapter.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a critical slopes waiver. This waiver
would have been granted administratively prior to the State Supreme Court decision.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the applicant’s request for a critical
slopes waiver.
_____
Item No. 8.10. Cancel July 18, 2012 Board meeting and August 8, 2012 Board meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board cancelled its night meetings of July 18 and
August 8, 2012.
_____
Item No. 8.10a. Request for Letter of Support for Rivanna Watershed Planning Technical
Assistance Grant.
The following memorandum dated July 10, 2012 was received from Ms. Leslie Middleton,
Executive Director, Rivanna River Basin Commission:
At the request of the Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC), I am writing to seek a letter of
support for a technical assistance grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to assist
the RRBC in working with its member localities to complete the Rivanna Snapshot and commence the
development of the Rivanna Watershed Management Plan.
The technical assistance would be provided by the Center for Watershed Protection’s
Charlottesville staff, with whom RRBC and Albemarle County worked over the last two years in stormwater
related projects.
The Rivanna Snapshot, already underway, will describe existing conditions in the Rivanna
watershed, and serve as a baseline for charting progress in water quality and ecological health of Rivanna
rivers and landscapes. The Rivanna watershed management plan will be holistic and comprehensive and
serve the following purposes:
• identify priority healthy streams, landscapes, and sub--‐watersheds and outline strategies
for protecting these valued resources.
• provide localities a watershed context for and coordinating document for the 2012
submissions to the Virginia Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan
• provide and define mechanisms for evaluating proposed stormwater offsets in/out of or
around the watershed as specified in the Virginia stormwater regulations that will take
effect in 2014
• provide and define mechanisms for evaluating proposed nutrient (and eventually
sediment) trading in/out of or around the watershed
• provide language and context for comprehensive updates in the Rivanna watershed
(current conditions, land use, natural resources, environment, and economic development
chapters)
• provide a context for evaluating expenditures for infrastructure upgrades in the watershed
(CIP development and implementation)
• include the necessary elements of EPA’s watershed implementation plans to help
localities and partners obtain Section 319 and other funding for implementation of BMPs
for all sectors
• combine existing plans and studies into one document (e.g., locality WIP II submissions,
four local comprehensive plans, StreamWatch’s Land Use Effects Study, TNC’s
Conservation Area Plan for the Rivanna, etc.)
• clarify roles and responsibilities in watershed protection across state and federal
agencies, regional agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
• establish the watershed context for seeking DEQ and EPA approval of combining and
nesting TMDLs in the Rivanna watershed to simplify planning and clarify remediation
costs
• serve as an update to all the activities and recommendations of the 1998 State of the
Basin report produced by TJPDC.
The monies available for the technical assistance grant from NFWF must be requested by July
18, 2012. RRBC staff will work with your staff to craft the letter of support with your approval.
Albemarle County will not be asked for a cash or in--‐kind match to support this grant request.
The commitment on the part of the County will be to continue to participate as an active member
of the Rivanna River Basin Commission and its Technical Advisory Committee. RRBC meetings during
the remainder of 2012 and 2013 will be focused on developing this plan, so your representatives to the
process will have ample opportunity to ensure that the plan meets the needs and long--‐range goals of the
County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following letter in support of the
Rivanna River Basin Commission’s technical assistance grant:
“Mr. Brendan McIntyre
Chesapeake Program Coordinator
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1133 15th Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Rivanna River Basin Commission’s Request for Technical Assistance for the Rivanna Snapshot
and Rivanna Watershed Management Plan
Dear Mr. McIntyre:
Albemarle County would like to express its support for the Rivanna River Basin Commission’s request
for technical assistance to help complete the Rivanna Snapshot and to develop the Rivanna Watershed
Management Plan.
Together, these two projects will provide a baseline description of the Rivanna watershed and help the
County determine the most-effective means of ensuring that it is able to protect its water resources locally and
contribute to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts.
Albemarle County has benefited from the work of the Rivanna River Basin Commission under two
previous National Fish and Wildlife sponsored projects that have included helping the County prioritize
stormwater retrofits, contributing towards a large regional stormwater wetland in the County, and providing
numerous outreach and educational activities for its elected bodies and citizens. In addition, RRBC provided
technical support to the County that helped it prepare for and submit information to Virginia Department of
Conservation & Recreation for the Phase II watershed implementation planning process.
Albemarle County will be participating in these projects as an active member of the Rivanna River
Basin Commission and through its participation on RRBC’s Technical Advisory Committee. We are committed
in Albemarle County as a partner to the RRBC in efforts to provide cleaner rivers locally and contribute to the
cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
We hope that the National Fish and Wildlife looks favorably upon this request. Please let me know if
you have any questions.”
_____
Item No. 8.10b. Resolution to Approve an Alternate to Act for the County Executive on the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board.
At the request of the County Executive and by the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN ALTERNATE
TO ACT FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ON THE
ALBEMARLE-CHARLOTTESVILLE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY BOARD
WHERAS, the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle and Nelson (“Member
Jurisdictions”) have established the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority (“Jail Authority”), and
adopted an Agreement (the “Service Agreement”) that established their respective rights and obligations
for the Jail Authority; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 of the Service Agreement established the Jail Authority Board that
exercises the powers of the Jail Authority; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Service Agreement, one Jail Authority Board member
from each Member Jurisdiction is its current county executive, city manager or other chief executive
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
officer, provided that such officer may designate another staff member to act as his alternate, who, if
approved by the respective governing body, may attend and vote in place of that chief executive at Jail
Authority Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, the County Executive wishes to designate the Assistant County Executive for
Community Services to act as the alternate for the County Executive to attend Jail Authority Board
meetings and vote in place of the County Executive in his absence; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that approval of an alternate for the County Executive will improve
and facilitate the efficient operations of the County Executive’s Office and the Jail Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby approves the designation of the Assistant County Executive for Community Services as the
alternate to attend and vote in place of the County Executive at Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail
Authority Board meetings when the County Executive is absent from such meetings.
_____
Item No. 8.11. Personal Wireless Service Facilities Update, was received for information.
The executive summary states that on December 7, 2011 the Board appropriated $12,000 for the
purpose of hiring a consultant to assist the County in updating the Wireless Policy/Regulations and to
investigate mechanisms to encourage deployment of broadband access throughout the County. The
Board also instructed staff to work with industry representatives to discuss possible ordinance
amendments.
The County has entered into an agreement with CityScape Consultants, Inc. (“CityScape”) to
provide consulting services. CityScape will provide a report to address the following issues identified by
the Board:
Describe how technology is changing deployment.
Describe the court decisions that are influencing the regulating of deployment and why the
cases are influential.
Describe the FCC notices, programs and policy initiatives that may impact regulation of
deployment and why they would do so.
Describe how changes in wireless will impact regulation of deployment.
Specifically, describe how Albemarle County’s policy should change and list those
sections the County Code that need to be revised on the basis of technology, court cases
and the recent FCC rulings.
CityScape is scheduled to complete its work by July 31, 2012 and staff will make a presentation of
the findings of the report to the Board in September 2012.
Staff also has met with industry representatives to discuss their concerns and possible ordinance
amendments. Attached is a summary of the comments provided at a June 7, 2012 Roundtable.
Staff also has continued to identify ways to accelerate the review process for wireless facilities.
Staff is beginning to send applications for Tier II facilities directly to the Board for action on its consent
agenda if staff recommends approval. This is consistent with the Board’s policy for processing other
applications requiring a special exception for which staff recommends approval.
The Board has appropriated $12,000 for this project.
This report is for information only.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked about the list of questions raised in the roundtable workshop, as
there had been no response listed from staff. He asked if responses would be forthcoming.
Mr. Dumler said that he was present at that meeting, and the meeting proceeded as an “open-
ended conversation” with the floor opened up for discussion. This is just a summary of those comments.
Mr. Boyd asked what the County would do with the list. He asked if there would be a response
from staff.
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, stated that the plan is to bring a response to the roundtable
summary in September, along with the information from the consultant. He added that staff has not had
time to react to the comments.
Mr. Rooker noted that these were just minutes of the feedback provided by one group.
_____
Item No. 8.12. Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan (ACESSP) Report -
Update for the Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP), was received for information.
The executive summary states that at the September 7, 2011 Board meeting staff presented the
Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP) Steering Committee Report with recommendations. The
Board approved the recommendations and directed staff to develop a plan with targets and goals based
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
on the LCAPP Report. At the November 2, 2011 Board meeting staff submitted and received Board
approval for the Albemarle County Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan (ACESSP) (Attachment A).
The ACESSP is based on LCAPP principals and recommendations to reduce energy and carbon
consumption.
The County’s Environmental Stewardship Strategic Plan sets forth three principal goals to 1)
reduce energy demand in county facilities; 2) improve travel efficiencies; and 3) reduce waste to landfills.
To date, staff has made significant progress on goals 1 and 2 as follows:
In 2007, General Services established a goal of 30% energy reduction by 2012 at the 3 main
County Office Buildings (McIntire, 5th St. and Court Square). To date, a 28% reduction in energy has been
achieved. The ACESSP adds an additional 10% reduction to the initial goal to be measured through
2017. General Services will continue to implement energy conservation measures as outlined in energy
audits for all facilities to advance efforts to meet this goal. Staff has utilized funds from the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) to complete projects such as replacement of parking
lot and wall mounted exterior lights at COB McIntire with high efficiency LED lights which use 60% less
energy, including one solar powered light near the visitor entrance. The County is also using EECBG
Grant funds to support the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) to promote energy efficiency to
residents throughout Albemarle County.
As regards goal 2, our Local Government Division has reduced non-public safety fleet vehicles by
20 vehicles in the last 2 fiscal years. Staff is also working with key-stakeholders and community groups to
identify and promote additional transportation efficiencies.
Finally, while only modest progress has been made in the area of waste reduction, staff continues
efforts through the Better Business Challenge to promote energy efficiencies and conservation in
buildings, transportation and water usage reductions, and waste management practices in Charlottesville
and Albemarle County businesses.
Funding for this initiative comes from the General Services operating budget and from the
EECBG Grant awarded by the United States Department of Energy.
Staff shall continue to provide annual updates to the Board of Supervisors.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd stated that he was particularly taken aback by the fact that the County is
using EECBG grant money to fund LEAP, because that was supposed to be a self-sustaining
organization.
Mr. Foley explained that this was a separate federal grant received to implement some things that
were viewed by the Board and prioritized. Most of the money is being spent on marketing of the LEAP
program and energy efficiency efforts that residents can take advantage of. He said that the County did
limit expenditures of those funds from some things the Board had concerns about, so it is going primarily
to energy efficiency studies for residents. Mr. Foley stated that the total grant amount is about $60,000
and the item went through two or three reviews with the Board as to how those funds would be spent.
Mr. Boyd said that LEAP was sold to the County as a self-sustaining operation based on a
$500,000 grant issued by a philanthropic organization, but it never has been self-sustaining and is not
market driven. He stated that it continues to be a huge expense to the area.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of that statement. She asked who is putting in money.
Mr. Boyd said somebody is putting in money because they are going in the hole about a million
dollars a year and are not covering their expenses. He stated that Ms. Mallek gave him the financial
report several days prior to the meeting.
Ms. Mallek explained that there was grant money coming in and going out.
Mr. Boyd said that is why he was curious as to what County money is going into the program.
Mr. Foley said there is no County money going into this other than some marketing money going
to LEAP to help in their efforts related to the energy audits. He stated that some of the EECB Grant
funding is going to projects in the County, i.e., use of more efficient lighting, etc.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with money being used in the County but he does have a
problem with money being allocated to LEAP because there was not supposed to be any County dollars
going to them.
Ms. Mallek commented that the Board is going to need to have that discussion again.
Mr. Rooker said there has to be some consistency in the action of this Board. Mr. Boyd was on
the Board when it approved this funding. LEAP is now actually getting around to making the allocation of
the grant. He added that it is not County tax money; it is grant money that was received from the federal
government.
Mr. Boyd said his question is what lost opportunity they have.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
Ms. Mallek explained that over 650 houses have received retrofits as part of the program and that
is a huge accomplishment.
Mr. George Shadman, Director of General Services, said that the allocation of money from the
$406,000 from the Department of Energy was outlined specifically and the Board approved $60,000 for
LEAP to offset energy audits in County facilities and residences, and to help in the advertising for the
audits. The $60,000 allocation has not changed. The funds are all from a Department of Energy grant.
Mr. Shadman said no money from General Services’ operating or CIP budget has gone to LEAP.
Mr. Rooker commented that at the time the grant application was made, it was disclosed that
$60,000 would be going for that purpose. In addition, none of the money can be used for other purposes.
Mr. Shadman commented that that is true.)
_____
Item No. 8.13. Board-to-Board, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2010-00046. New Hope Community Church (Signs #12&15).
PROPOSED: 400-seat church with offices and classrooms.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor - Overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access; AIA Airport Impact Area - Overlay to minimize
adverse impacts to both the airport and the surrounding land.
SECTION: SP201000046: 10.2.2.35, Church building and adjunct cemetery SP201000047:
10.2.2.4, Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Northwest side of intersection of Dickerson Road (Route 606) and Dickerson Lane
(Route 763).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 021000000012C1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2012.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, reported that the applicant is proposing to build a church with
seating for 400 persons, offices, classrooms and 150 parking spaces onsite. He said the plan indicates
that the church facility may be built in phases, but this request is for the entire 400-seat church.
Mr. Benish stated that the site is located at the northwest side of the intersection of Dickerson
Road and Dickerson Lane, and is just north of the power substation in the area of the GE Fanuc site. He
said the property is located in the rural area, north of the designated Piney Mountain development area
and the Briarwood development. The immediate surrounding uses consist of rural residential homes,
wooded areas, and two existing churches.
Mr. Benish reported that the original proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission included this
church’s SP and an SP for a soccer field for athletic events. At the May 8, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission requested that the applicant defer the soccer field proposal in order to address
concerns from adjacent property owners – and he agreed to that. Mr. Benish said the applicant has
provided a revised conceptual plan that shows only the church facility. He said there is a critical slope
waiver associated with the church request, covering less than 3/100 of an acre. He indicated the area on
a map before the Board and said that it falls outside of the stream buffer.
Ms. Mallek asked why the applicant would need a critical slopes waiver if the wooded area noted
on the applicant’s plan is marked as not to be disturbed. She added that there does not seem to be a
need to cut down trees there, and she is trying to prevent an unnecessary disturbance towards Piney
Mountain Road that is going to invite people to leave the property on that side.
Mr. Benish explained that there is a very small area affected, and the Board could ask the
applicant about it. He said that the applicant has labeled the areas that would potentially be impacted
where the critical slope waiver is being requested, and it is likely they may not need the one in question.
Mr. Benish reported that favorable factors include: the church use fits into the area’s established
pattern of development, which includes churches, residences, and light industrial; VDOT and the Health
Department have found that the proposal meets the standards for public health and safety; the stream
buffer areas are protected; and 50-foot buffer areas are shown, along with tree protection provided on a
large portion of the site. Mr. Benish stated that unfavorable factors include: proposed design would bring
people close enough to the Piney Mountain Road that unauthorized access could become a problem, an
issue related primarily to the soccer field, but still a concern with at least one neighbor.
Mr. Benish said staff recommends approval subject to six conditions. He added that condition #1
regarding the conceptual plan has been updated to refer to the one that excludes the soccer field. He
noted that the Planning Commission has also recommended approval of the proposal.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Mallek asked if she understood correctly that the official entrance, the driveway, has been
moved much further to the north than the boundary corner.
Mr. Benish noted the entrance location recommended by VDOT, on Dickerson Road, 100-150
feet from the intersection with Dickerson Lane.
Ms. Mallek asked if the trees near the 520 elevation line would provide adequate screening for the
parking area.
Mr. Benish explained that the buffer area included a fairly significant stand of trees along Piney
Mountain Road that contain a minimum 50-foot buffer and/or the additional area to remain.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Benish said that Mr. Scott Clark, Planner, for the project, explained to him that when the
soccer field was eliminated the applicant was able to shift the road further into the site, so that changed
the need for the critical slope because it is not as close to the wooded area – and apparently that was not
caught in the staff’s review.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Benish to clarify the location of the critical slopes for the waiver.
Mr. Benish pointed out on the conceptual plan the location of the critical slopes, noting the area
labeled on the plan that is now unnecessary.
Ms. Mallek said that whatever action is taken, it will not include the slope to the west.
Mr. Benish stated that the Board’s motion could reference to the “west side of the site.”
Mr. Davis asked what the total acreage of that would be. Mr. Benish responded that staff did not
recalculate because the total area is very small – 3/100 of an acre – and he estimated that the change
took about 1/100 off. He said it would be good to reference the critical slope waiver as not necessary on
the western side of the site.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board make two motions - one motion on the SP and a separate motion
for the modification.
Ms. Mallek then offered motion to approve SP-2010-00046 subject to the six recommended
conditions. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Conceptual Plan
– Soccer Field Removed: New Hope Community Church,” prepared by Blackwell Engineering
PLC, revision number 4 (dated 5-17-12), (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 element within the development
essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
location of buildings and structures, which may be built in phases;
location and maximum number of parking spaces, which may be built in phases
location of the entrance;
location of the “wooded area to remain,” within which land clearing and development shall
not occur, with the exception that the designated “Proposed Reserve Drainfield” site may
be cleared and used only for that purpose.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum four hundred (400)-seat sanctuary.
3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
4. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit.
5. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation
before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
6. Written approval of water-supply and septic facilities must be submitted before this use may
commence.
_____
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Ms. Mallek offered motion to approve the critical slopes waiver under Section 4.2.5(a) for the
area on the east side of the project outside of the stream buffer. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2010-00057. Pine Knot Historical Center (Sign #57).
PROPOSED: Historical center at Pine Knot with tours, related special events (up to 12 per year,
not to exceed 200 persons), restroom facility, and museum and educational building (not to
exceed 1,700 square feet).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.49, Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No.
LOCATION: 711 Coles Rolling Road (Route 712), approximately 0.6 miles east of the intersection
with Glendower Road (Route 713).
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 12200000001100.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that this is a proposal to bring the use of the historic center with special
events into compliance with the County’s Zoning Ordinance. He noted that this facility was the retreat for
President Roosevelt. He said that activities include daily visitation by appointment and up to 12 events per
year with a maximum of 200 people per event. Mr. Benish stated that the proposed development activities
on the site include the construction of new restroom facilities, the construction of a new historical center of
approximately 1,500 square feet, and the addition of overflow parking. There are no changes proposed to
the Pine Knot cottage or existing parking area. He explained that the site is located on Route 712, Cole’s
Rolling Road, approximately .6 miles from its intersection with Route 713, Glendower Road – about three
miles southeast of Keene.
Mr. Benish stated that the improvements are proposed closer to Route 712 and away from the
cottage. He presented the proposed conceptual plan as included in the staff report. He noted the design
planned for the new historic structure as having a first floor with 1,000 square feet and a future addition
planned for 1,500 square feet. Mr. Benish said that the applicant is proposing something much fancier
than the existing composting facility, and is awaiting approval from the Health Department. The ability to
provide restroom facilities is not an issue affecting this review.
Mr. Benish said the Planning Commission held its public hearing on May 22, 2012 and
recommended approval, subject to four conditions. He noted that the conditions include: improvements
as identified in the conceptual plan for development of the site; a transportation plan for activities on the
site; Health Department approval; and a six-year approval period in order to allow time for funding and
construction. He stated that there are three modifications to the application: a waiver of the site plan
requirement, which staff supports; modification of supplementary regulations to allow for a slightly larger
area than the 1,500 square foot limit within the Ordinance; and special events maximum capacity
increased to 200, as suggested by the Planning Commission, to be consistent with prior approvals and
winery activities.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant was expanding the parking area, as the staff report indicates
that “additional structures and site activity do not require additional parking over what is already provided
and proposed.”
Mr. Benish confirmed that there is an additional parking area they are proposing to add, and the
overflow parking is adjacent to the existing parking area. He said that the reference to the waiver is
because it is not a requirement, and staff does not feel that the extent of the improvements warrants a site
plan.
Mr. Rooker clarified that they could do it anyway without the expansion.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be a grass parking lot, not to include paving. Mr. Benish said that
was his understanding.
Mr. Dumler asked if VDH did not give permission for the installation of the toilet facility, if the
applicant would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Benish responded that a condition of approval is
that the Health Department must approve some kind of septic system.
Mr. Davis said the only way it would not be approved is if it could no longer be in general accord,
such as moving a structure to accommodate it. Otherwise, it would not have to come back to the Board.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ms. Paula Pierce-Beasley, President and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Edith and
Theodore Roosevelt Pine Knot Foundation – which owns and operates the property, that Pine Knot is a
rustic cabin nestled deep in the middle of southern Albemarle. The spot was selected by Edith Roosevelt
as a perfect wilderness retreat for her husband, Theodore Roosevelt. Ms. Pierce-Beasley said it was
within a day’s trip of Washington, yet remote enough and deep within the woods so as to leave his
presidential cares behind.
She stated that her organization is seeking to codify the existing visitation use of the Pine Knot
cottage as a house museum, with walking and educational trails and periodic special events open to
educational, historical, and architectural groups by appointment as permitted by its historic landmarks
easement by requesting formal recognition of Pine Knot as a historical site. She said they also seek
approval for accessory amenities consistent with the existing restrictions and easement to safely
accommodate the public, which are incidental to management of the historic site. Ms. Pierce-Beasley
stated that the proposed Clivus composting restroom is approximately 105 square feet. The educational
center would be no larger than 1,500 square feet, but staff felt the total size of all buildings should be a
maximum of 1,500 square feet. She said that the restroom makes the total 1,605, which is why they are
seeking the additional amount. Ms. Pierce-Beasley said all of the structures are located near the front of
the property in order to isolate areas of traffic away from the cottage and well outside of the original 15
acres. Pine Knot cottage is located on 15 acres that were originally purchased in 1905. She stated that
Edith Roosevelt also bought an additional 75 acres. The foundation has an easement on all the land
although the original 15 acres were not allowed to have any buildings. All of the activity is located at the
top end of Route 712, to respect the easement and the wilderness aspects of the property.
Ms. Pierce-Beasley said they are seeking to include a Clivus Multrum restroom, which was
selected by Pine Knot because the company was founded in 1962 by Swedish Engineer, Rikard Lindstrom
– who developed the first composting toilet in 1939 to prevent pollution in the Baltic Sea near his home.
She stated that Clivus has installations throughout the National Park Service, US Army Corps of
Engineers, City of New York, and other m ultiple sites throughout the U.S., as well as seven sites in
Virginia. She added that the facility will have solar energy for venting, and there will be no water or
electricity – just as Pine Knot never had any facilities. Ms. Pierce-Beasley stated that the composting
system allows for solid and liquid to be separated, and well exceeds EPA regulations – with fecal
chloroform required to be under 235 milliliters for swimming pools, beaches and recreational areas.
These Clivus consistently test between 2-4 ml. Their intent is not to have people swim in this water; they
are creating a nutrient recycling area. She also said that they would exclude the public from the site when
they are spraying the plants. Ms. Pierce-Beasley stated that they do not anticipate the need for the
overflow parking but they are trying to meet what would be required if 200 people are there.
Mr. Snow asked how long the Roosevelts used the cabin. Ms. Pierce-Beasley responded that
they used it during the period when he was President by election. She said that Mrs. Roosevelt purchased
the property in 1905 and used it actively form 1905-1909. Mrs. Roosevelt purchased the additional 75
acres in 1911 in anticipation of another term for her husband – which did not materialize. Ms. Pierce-
Beasley stated that Mrs. Roosevelt held onto the property until 1941, when she was 80, but they did not
visit – although other family members may have used it.
Mr. Jerome Beasley, also a Pine Knot Board of Directors member, addressed the Board and
encouraged the Board to vote in favor of the facility as a historical center and in favor of the composting
toilet.
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 proposed condition #4 be simplified to state: “The use shall
commence on or before July 11, 2018.” He said the last line of the sentence should not contain the word
“be” but instead should read “…shall thereupon terminate.” Mr. Davis also noted that condition #1 should
be clarified to include “Development and use shall be in general accord…”
Mr. Dumler then offered motion to approve SP-2010-00057 subject to the conditions as
recommended by staff and modified by the County Attorney, and to approve modifications to Section
5.1.42(d) to waive the submittal of a site plan; Section 5.1.42(a) to permit an increase from 1,500 square
feet to 1,700 square feet (in aggregate) from the Pine Knot Historical Center; and Section 5.1.42(i) to allow
an increase from 150 to 200 persons in the maximum number of attendees. Mr. Snow seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Ex. Conditions
and Site Plan Special Use Permit – SP#201000057” prepared by Water Street Studio and dated
(last revised) March 22, 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:
limits of disturbance;
location of buildings and structures; and
location of parking area and associated BMPs for storm water management
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Minor modifications to the plan, which do not conflict with the elements above, may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Transportation to and from the Pine Knot property for attendees of all special events shall be subject
to a transportation management plan approved by the Planning Director.
3. Approval from the Health Department for the composting restroom facility shall be required prior
to issuance of a building permit for this use.
4. Construction of the new building, as identified on the conceptual site plan (Attachment C-copy on
file), shall commence on or before July 11, 2018, or this special use permit shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall thereupon terminate.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2012-00004. Community Christian Academy (Signs #38&39).
PROPOSED: Request a special use permit for a private school in a church on 3.14 acres under
Section 14.2.2(5) private school of zoning ordinance. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: R-2 which allows residential uses at a density of 2 units/acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density Residential – residential (3 – 6 units/acre)
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools and other small-scale non-residential uses
– Places 29 corridor.
LOCATION: 1410 Old Brook Road in Neighborhood 2.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100000012700.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that this is a special use permit to allow a private school in an existing church,
which is located on the corner of Rio Road and Old Brook Road. There is a site plan available. There are
no proposed improvements to the site as the school would be located within existing structures. Mr.
Benish said that the elementary day school was proposed to have an enrollment of up to 85 students and
eight staff members, with the hours of operation being 7:40 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and some after-school
activities. He stated that favorable factors include: the use is consistent with the land use plan and
provides for educational opportunities in the area. There are no unfavorable factors with the proposal.
Mr. Benish said that the landscaping issue identified in the Planning Commission’s staff report has
been addressed. The Commission reviewed the request on June 19, 2012 and recommended approval
subject to four conditions.
Mr. Snow asked if there was a school there now, or a daycare. Mr. Benish responded that there
had been a daycare there before, but he does not think it is still operational.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Kimberly Moore, Executive Director of Community Christian Academy, said there was a
preschool at the site since the facility was built in 1986. In fact, the facility was built with that use in mind.
She stated that the church quit operating the preschool six years ago and are allowing the Academy to
come in and use the facility.
Mr. Thomas asked if they were planning to accommodate students from other schools for after -
school programs. Ms. Moore responded that they are not planning to have outside children in the after
school program. There are other regulations they would have to deal with if they opened it up for public
use.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Thomas offered motion to approve SP-2012-0004 subject to the four recommended
conditions. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The existing building and use shall be in general accord with the site plan titled Alliance Bible
Church “Community Christian Academy” prepared by Roudabush, Greene, & Gale and date
approved 4 -14-87 (hereafter “Site Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Site Plan, the existing building and
use shall reflect the following major elements within the site essential to the design of the
site, as shown on the Site Plan:
• Location of buildings, uses, and structures
• Location of parking areas
• Location of outdoor play area
• Relation of buildings and parking to the street; and Site access
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
Minor modifications to the plan which do no conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Maximum enrollment shall be eighty-five (85) children.
3. All students shall be over the age of two and one -half (2 1/2) years old.
4. Hours of operation for the school shall be between 7:40 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except that
occasional school -related events may occur after 6:00 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. 12-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Ordinance to amend
Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to certain districts as specified below:
a. AFD 2012-4. Chalk Mountain AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-211, Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 97-21B,
97-21C and 97-21D to the district.
b. AFD 2012-2; 2012-3. Hardware AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 72-51C and 88-
3T to the district.
c. AFD 2012-1; 2012-5. Keswick AFD – Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-219, Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 81-69, 81-72 and
81-73 to the district.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 2012.)
Mr. Benish reported that the three additions before the Board are Chalk Mountain, the Hardware
District, and the Keswick District. The Code of Virginia permitting additions of land to the existing
Ag/Forestal Districts upon application pursuant to the Ag/Forestal District Act.
Mr. Benish stated that Chalk Mountain was formed in 1989 with 1,082 acres, and it now includes
13 parcels and about 1,000 acres. The proposed addition is a 552-acre parcel. He said that for the
Hardware District, two additions are being proposed – the Vlasis and Eudy properties, both 21 acres.
This district now has 30 parcels and totals 2,400 acres. Mr. Benish stated that the Planning Commission
recommended approval for both the Chalk Mountain and Hardware District, as has the Ag/Forestal
Committee.
He said the third addition was to the Keswick District, with one property being 22.4 acres and the
other 68.2 acres. Both the Commission and the Ag/Forestal Committee recommended those additions
also. Mr. Benish said that the Keswick District consists of 67 parcels and about 6,800 acres.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Davis noted that the ordinance to approve these additions is found in Attachment A to the
executive summary.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to adopt the proposed ordinance. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-03(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS, 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 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-211 Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District
3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-211 Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Chalk Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 97, parcels 2, 21A1, 21B, 21B1, 21C, 21D, 22, 22A, 22B, 27; tax map 98,
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
parcels 1G (part), 11, 12, 13, 14; tax map 99, parcel 30. This district, created on September 6, 1989 for not
more than 10 years and last reviewed on December 2, 2009, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2,
2019.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(r); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(5), 10-6-99; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 09-3(4),
12-2-09)
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 72, parcel 51C; tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43,
44; tax map 74, parcels 6N, 26, 28, 28B; tax map 75, parcels 4A, 5; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16, 16A, 16C,
16D, 16E, 16F, 16H, 27, 27A; tax map 87, parcels 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres), 16A; tax
map 88, parcels 2A, 3T, 3V, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B, 26B, 29, 40, 42; tax
map 99, parcels 10(part), 29, 52, 52B. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than 10 years
and last reviewed on September 12, 2007, shall next be reviewed prior to September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-3(4),
12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(2), 7-7-10; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10)
Sec. 3-219 Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 48, parcels 30, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E; tax map 63, parcels 39, 39A, 40,
42A; tax map 64, parcels 5, 7, 7A, 8A, 9, 10 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 11 12, 13, 13A, 14; tax map 65, parcels 13,
31C1, 31C3, 31D, 32; tax map 79, parcel 46; tax map 80, parcels 1, 2, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3A1, 3G, 3H, 3I, 4, 61D,
88, 114A, 115, 164, 169, 169A, 169C, 169C1, 174, 176, 176A, 182, 182A, 183, 183A, 190, 192, 194; tax map
81, parcels 1, 8A, 15A6, 15B, 63, 69, 72, 73, 74, 79. This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more
than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(10-12-94; 4-12-95; 8-13-97; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(e); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04; Ord. 09-3(4),
12-2-09; Ord. 10-3(3), 12-1-10; Ord. 11-3(4), 12-7-11)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. The Square in Crozet: To consider granting an easement to Virginia
Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power, across property owned by the County
located on Tax Map Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 along The Square in Crozet, for the installation and
maintenance of underground conduits and cables, a pole line, and related facilities. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on July 2, 2012.)
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Transportation Engineer, summarized the following executive summary which
was forwarded to Board members:
“The Downtown Crozet Streetscape Project is part of the “Destination Downtown Crozet” project
previously approved by the Board and included in the Capital Improvements Plan. One of the vital
elements of this project is the relocation of the overhead utilities along Crozet Avenue. The easement
being requested is the last easement needed for the Dominion Virginia Power relocation. It is located
within Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 along The Square in Crozet, which the County acquired in June of 2012.
The proposed easement is necessary to implement the County’s goals for the Downtown Crozet
Streetscape Project. A copy of the proposed Right of Way Agreement and Plat is included as Attachment
A. This easement would allow Dominion Virginia Power to install guy wires necessary to stabilize the pole
for an existing overhead cable crossing of the railroad tracks prior to the removal of the overhead cables
along Crozet Avenue. The easement would also allow Dominion Virginia Power to place its cable
underground within the existing VDOT right of way easement for “The Square” (Rte 1217) and then
continue underground within the easement granted by the adjacent Barnes Lumber property.
Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 requires a public hearing prior to conveyance of any interest in County-
owned real property.
There is no budget impact associated with granting this easement.
Staff recommends that, after receiving public comment, the Board adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment B) to, approve the proposed Right of Way Agreement and to authorize the County Executive
to sign the Right of way Agreement on behalf of the County after it has been approved in substance and
as to form by the County Attorney.
_____
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. Davis and Mr. Kelsey for facilitating this to finally happen.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Davis stated that the resolution to approve this action is found in Attachment B.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
Ms. Mallek offered motion to adopt the following resolution to approve the proposed Right of Way
Agreement and to authorize the County Executive to sign the Right of Way Agreement on behalf of the
County after it has been approved in substance and as to form by the County Attorney. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION APPROVING RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE AND DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has acquired Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 adjacent to The
Square in Crozet; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to relocate overhead utilities along Crozet Avenue as part of the
Downtown Crozet Streetscape Project; and
WHEREAS, this Right of Way Agreement is necessary for Dominion Virginia Power to relocate the
overhead utilities as requested by the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the Right of Way Agreement and authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the
County Attorney, the Right of Way Agreement between the County of Albemarle and Dominion Virginia Power
for an easement over Parcel 056A2-01-00-02400 in order to provide for the relocation of overhead utilities
along Crozet Avenue.
*****
Right of Way Agreement
THIS RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of this 14th day of May, 2012, by and
between
the County of Albemarle
("GRANTOR") and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, a Virginia public service corporation,
doing business in Virginia as Dominion Virginia Power, with its principal office in Richmond, Virginia
("GRANTEE").
WITNESSETH:
1. That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, GRANTOR
grants and conveys unto GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and non-
exclusive easement over, under, through, upon and across the property described herein, for the purpose
of transmitting and distributing electric power by one or more circuits; for its own internal telephone and
other internal communication purposes directly related to or incidental to the generation, distribution, and
transmission of electricity, including the wires and facilities of any other public service company in aid of or
to effectuate such internal telephone or other internal communication purposes; and for lighting purposes;
including but not limited to the right:
1.1 to lay, construct, operate and maintain one or more lines of underground conduits and cables
including, without limitation, one or more lighting supports and lighting fixtures as GRANTEE may from
time to time determine, and all wires, conduits, cables, transformers, transformer enclosures, concrete
pads, manholes, hand holes, connection boxes, accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection
therewith; the width of said non-exclusive easement shall extend of variable (----) feet in width across the
lands of GRANTOR; and
1.2 to construct, operate and maintain a pole line including, without limitation, all wires, poles,
attachments, ground connections one or more lighting supports and lighting fixtures as GRANTEE may
from time to time deem advisable, equipment, accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection
therewith, including the right to increase or decrease the number of wires; the width of said non-exclusive
easement shall extend of variable (----) feet in width across the lands of GRANTOR.
2. The easement granted herein shall extend across the lands of GRANTOR situated in the Town of
Crozet, Albemarle County, Virginia, as more fully described on Plat(s) Numbered 80-12-0028, attached to
and made a part of this Right of Way Agreement; the location of the boundaries of said easement being
shown in broken lines on said Plat(s), reference being made thereto for a more particular description
thereof.
3. All facilities constructed hereunder shall remain the property of GRANTEE. GRANTEE shall have
the right to inspect, reconstruct, remove, repair, improve, relocate on the easement, and make such
changes, alterations, substitutions, additions to or extensions of its facilities as GRANTEE may from time
to time deem advisable.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
4. GRANTEE shall have the right to keep the easement clear of all buildings, structures, trees, roots,
undergrowth and other obstructions which would interfere with its exercise of the rights granted hereunder,
including, without limitation, the right to trim, top, retrim, retop, cut and keep clear any trees or brush inside
and outside the boundaries of the easement that may endanger the safe and proper operation of its
facilities. All trees and limbs cut by GRANTEE shall remain the property of GRANTOR.
5. For the purpose of exercising the right granted herein, GRANTEE shall have the right of ingress to
and egress from this easement over such private roads as may now or hereafter exist on the property of
GRANTOR. The right, however, is reserved to GRANTOR to shift, relocate, close or abandon such private
roads at any time. If there are no public or private roads reasonably convenient to the easem ent,
GRANTEE shall have such right of ingress and egress over the lands of GRANTOR adjacent to the
easement. GRANTEE shall exercise such rights in such manner as shall occasion the least practicable
damage and inconvenience to GRANTOR.
6. GRANTEE shall repair damage to roads, fences, or other improvements (a) inside the boundaries
of the easement (subject, however, to GRANTEE's rights set forth in Paragraph 4 of this Right of Way
Agreement) and (b) outside the boundaries of the easement and shall repair or pay GRANTOR, at
GRANTEE's option, for other damage done to GRANTOR's property inside the boundaries of the
easement (subject, however, to GRANTEE's rights set forth in Paragraph 4 of this Right of Way
Agreement) and outside the boundaries of the easement caused by GRANTEE in the process of the
construction, inspection, and maintenance of GRANTEE's facilities, or in the exercise of its right of ingress
and egress; provided GRANTOR gives written notice thereof to GRANTEE within sixty (60) days after
such damage occurs.
7. GRANTOR, its successors and assigns, may use the easement for any reasonable purpose not
inconsistent with the rights hereby granted, provided such use does not interfere with GRANTEE's
exercise of any of its rights hereunder. GRANTOR shall not have the right to construct any building,
structure, or other above ground obstruction on the easement; provided, however, GRANTOR may
construct on the easement fences, landscaping (subject, however, to GRANTEE's rights in Paragraph 4
of this Right of Way Agreement), paving, sidewalks, curbing, gutters, street signs, and below ground
obstructions as long as said fences, landscaping, paving, sidewalks, curbing, gutters, street signs, and
below ground obstructions do not interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights granted
hereunder. In the event such use does interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights granted
hereunder, GRANTEE may, in its reasonable discretion, relocate such of its facilities as may be
practicable to a new site designated by GRANTOR and acceptable to GRANTEE. In the event any such
facilities are so relocated, GRANTOR shall reimburse GRANTEE for the cost thereof and convey to
GRANTEE an equivalent easement at the new site.
8. GRANTEE'S right to assign or transfer its rights, privileges and easements, as granted herein,
shall be strictly limited to the assignment or transfer of such rights, privileges and easements to any
business which lawfully assumes any or all of GRANTEE'S obligations as a public service company or
such other obligations as may be related to or incidental to GRANTEE'S stated business purpose as a
public service company; and any such business to which such rights, privileges and easements may be
assigned shall be bound by all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein.
9. If there is an Exhibit A attached hereto, then the easement granted hereby shall additionally be
subject to all terms and conditions contained therein provided said Exhibit A is executed by GRANTOR
contemporaneously herewith and is recorded with and as a part of this Right of Way Agreement.
10. Whenever the context of this Right of Way Agreement so requires, the singular number shall
mean the plural and the plural the singular.
11. GRANTOR covenants that it is seised of and has the right to convey this easement and the rights
and privileges granted hereunder; that GRANTEE shall have quiet and peaceable possession, use and
enjoyment of the aforesaid easement, rights and privileges; and that GRANTOR shall execute such
further assurances thereof as may be reasonably required.
12. The individual executing this Right of Way Agreement on behalf of GRANTOR warrants that they
have been duly authorized to execute this easement on behalf of said County.
NOTICE TO LANDOWNER: You are conveying rights to a public service corporation. A public service
corporation may have the right to obtain some or all these rights through exercise of eminent domain. To
the extent that any of the rights being conveyed are not subject to eminent domain, you have the right to
choose not to convey those rights and you could not be compelled to do so. You have the right to
negotiate compensation for any rights that you are voluntarily conveying.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has caused its name to be hereto by authorized officer or agent,
described below, on the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
__________________________ By: ___________________
(Name)
__________________________ Title: __________________
(Title)
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
_______________
(At 10:27 a.m., the Board took a recess and then reconvened at 10:38 a.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on July 1, 2012.)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, summarized the following
executive summary:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate
amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided,
however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the
currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General
Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2012 appropriations, itemized below, is $22,041,532.20.
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted
budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2012 Budget Amendment totals $22,041,532.20. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 234,216.16
Special Revenue Funds $ 19,826,776.77
School Fund $ 362,249.57
School Programs $ 112,142.70
Capital Improvements Funds $ 1,444,527.00
ECC $ 61,620.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 22,041,532.20
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue (Non-Tax)* $ 179,505.13
State Revenue $ 347,416.56
Federal Revenue $ 96,287.18
Loan Proceeds $ 18,674,708.50
Proffer Revenues $ 181,199.61
General Fund Balance $ 1,358,595.00
Other Fund Balances $ 1,203,820.22
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 22,041,532.20
*The local revenue in this amendment includes $30,469.13 in donations, $80,644.24 in reimbursements,
$66,884.56 in grants, and $1,507.20 in miscellaneous local revenue.
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-two (22) separate appropriations as follows, all
but four of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
Approved May 2, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012037) totaling $1,178,576.00 for a transfer from the FY11 General
Fund balance to the FY12 Capital Improvement Program Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2012068) totaling $181,199.61 for proffer revenue offsetting current
capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012069) totaling $16,990.00 for a grant awarded to the Police
Department for a one-time equipment purchase;
One (1) appropriation (#2012070) totaling $121,404.02 for various school division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012071) totaling $54,197.16 to cover costs associated with the March 6,
2012 presidential primary election;
One (1) appropriation (#2012072) reallocating $40,000.00 from the Pantops Master Plan funding
to the Rivanna Trail Bridge (Old Mill Trail Bridge) project; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012075) reallocating $7,000.00 from the Grants Leveraging Fund to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport.
Approved May 9, 2012:
One (1) appropriation (#2012073) totaling $61,620.00 for various Emergency Communications
Center (ECC) projects; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012074) reallocating $12,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to
Wireless Planning.
Approved June 6, 2012:
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 reallocated funding and did 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.
The four (4) appropriations requested for Board approval on July 11, 2012 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012085) totaling $239,951.00 for various capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012086) totaling $19,696,457.79 for various debt service issuances and
to reallocate the resulting net general fund balance transfer to capital; and
Two (2) appropriations (#2012087 and #2012088) totaling $95,991.51 for various school division
programs.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2012 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $22,041,532.20 and approval of appropriations #2012085, #2012086, #2012087, and
#2012088 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and programs as described
in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2012085 $239,951.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 239,951.00
This request is to appropriate funding to two projects with offsetting revenues:
This request is to appropriate "de-allocated" Revenue Sharing Program funds received from the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) totaling $239,951 to support the Crozet Avenue
North Sidewalk Project, specifically construction of the sidewalk from St. George Avenue to
Ballard Drive. This will increase the project budget from $313,999.50 to $553,950.50.
These funds received have been "de-allocated" by VDoT from the Revenue Sharing Program,
specifically from the Meadow Creek Parkway project, and returned to the County. On November
2, 2011, the Board adopted a resolution to participate in VDoT's Revenue Sharing Program for FY
13 to implement the County Sidewalk Construction Program by constructing sidewalks in up to
four locations (Crozet Avenue North, South Pantops/State Farm Boulevard, Barracks Road,
Hydraulic Road). These de-allocated funds were identified to be used as part of the local match.
At this time, the County has not been notified if its Revenue Sharing Program application has
been approved; however, if the application is not approved, staff will request that the additional
funds required to construct the Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk Project be funded from any
available proffers and the balance transferred from the Transportation Local account so the
construction can be fully funded.
This request is to reallocate a total of $64,000.00 to help fund the emergency replacement of
CARS 139, which is a supervisor’s response vehicle. These funds are available from the funding
balance of CARS Ambulances #1 and #2 ($32,000.00 each). Pursuant to mutual agreement
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
between CARS and county staff, the two ambulances would receive chassis replacement and
refurbishing only, rather than full replacement as originally budgeted.
Appropriation #2012086 $19,696,457.79
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 39,194.44
Loan Proceeds $ 18,674,708.50
Gen. Govt. Debt Fund Bal. $ 1,376,920.00
Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 197,182.58)
Sch. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 197,182.57)
This request is to appropriate various unexpended debt service funds and to reallocate the resulting
balance to capital.
School Debt Service increase totals $684,068.44:
This appropriation request is to amend the debt service fund for the VPSA bond series 2001,
2002 and 2003 by (a) increasing the general fund transfer by $644,874.00 and (b) reallocating the
unexpended appropriated balance for bond administration professional services. VPSA bond
series savings totaling $1.2M was originally planned to be received by way of a reduction in
principle payments for VPSA bond series 2001, 2002, and 2003 over two fiscal years (FY 11 and
FY 12). Instead, VPSA bond series savings were received in full in FY 11 and the unanticipated
savings in FY 11 resulted in less funding being required from the General Fund in FY 11.
This appropriation request is to appropriate the refund of $39,194.44 of federal qualified school
construction bonds (QSCB) interest to offset the QSCB interest cost. The $2,000,000 QSCB was
issued in fall of 2012 and is related to the Greer Elementary School Renovation/Addition Phase II.
Under provisions of the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (ARRA), any interest
paid by the County on QSCB is refundable by the federal government. The result is that the
$2,000,000 borrowing has an effective 0% interest rate.
General Government Debt Service increase totals $19,012,389.35:
This appropriation request is to (a) appropriate $18,674,708.50 in bond proceeds from the 2011
EDA debt issuance and $1,376,920.00 in general government debt fund balance, (b) reduce the
general fund transfer by $1,039,920.00, and (c) reallocate various balances to (i) refund series
2003 and 2009, (ii) EDA 2011 bond issuance costs, (iii) EDA 2011 principle and interest payment,
and (iv) VRA interest payment.
General Fund Transfer Adjustment to Capital Funds: The general fund transfer net balance from the debt
service adjustments totals $394,365.15:
This appropriation request is to reallocate $197,182.57 in general fund transfer and decrease the
use of School CIP Fund balance in the amount of $197,182.57.
This appropriation request is to is to reallocate $197,182.58 in general fund transfer and decrease
the use of General Government CIP Fund balance in the amount of $197,182.58.
Appropriation #2012087 $1,743.98
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 1,743.98
This request is to appropriate various School Division funds as approved by the School Board on May 10,
2012. This appropriation request of $1,743.98 includes the following:
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,485.57 from Henley’s Parent and
Teacher Support Organization. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to help fund
the “Enrichment Time before 9” program at Henley Middle School.
The Department of Assessment, Research and Technology (DART) has received payments totaling
$210.00 to partially recoup costs associated with the destruction of a school laptop computer.
The Albemarle Resource Center has received funds totaling $48.41 for various materials and
supplies.
Appropriation #2012088 $94,247.53
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 49,199.39
State Revenue $ 518.90
Federal Revenue $ 44,529.24
This request is to appropriate various School Division funds as approved by the School Board on May 24,
2012. This appropriation request of $94,247.53 includes the following:
Hollymead Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,000.00 from the Osen
Hunter Foundation. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to assist in funding the
“Total Literacy Approach for 21st Century Emergent Learners” at Hollymead Elementary School.
Sutherland Middle School received a donation in the am ount of $9,481.26 from the Sutherland
PTO. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to purchase various classroom
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
supplies for Science, Language Arts, the student run TV station, the Orchestra, the Video Club,
and for nature trail signs at Sutherland Middle School.
Walton Middle School received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from an anonymous donor.
The donor has requested that this contribution be used for the Destination Imagination Team at
Walton Middle School.
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of
$25,102.66 for expenses incurred by student activities and athletics. The funds to reimburse the
School Division budget came from the Activity Accounts at AHS.
Jack Jouett Middle School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $1,223.58.
This reimbursement is to cover the expenses for field trips. The funds to reimburse the School
Division budget came from the Activity Accounts at Jack Jouett Middle School.
Burley Middle School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $275.00 to cover
the expenses for a panel presentation on School Desegregation given by Alex Zan. The funds to
reimburse the School Division budget came from the Activity Accounts at Burley Middle School.
Stone Robinson Elementary School received $1,100.00 from parents for mainstream students in
the preschool classroom. These funds are for purchasing educational and recreational supplies.
The mission of the Title III Grant is to increase the English proficiency of Limited English Proficient
(LEP) students by providing high-quality language instructional programs that demonstrate
effectiveness in student academic achievement in core content subject areas, and through
parent/guardian outreach programs that assist in the attainment of English language proficiency in
support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Title III Grant fund is responsible for the following
major programs and/or services: Parent Involvement Program, Intake Center, ESOL Specialist,
ESOL family workers and Database system for assessment tracking.
The Department of Education increased Title III funding for FY 11/12 by $44,529.24 over the
original budget amount of $126,000.00. These federal funds will be used to purchase 54 iPads, 54
iPad covers, 3 Dell Laptop Computers and various apps. Albemarle County Schools will use the
iPads in ESOL classrooms to 1) plan and conduct research using multiple apps and the internet,
which will include the processes of gathering, organizing and analyzing data; 2) build Reading
Comprehension skills through the support of audio books that students can listen to while they
read along with the electronic print version; 3) improve student writing by using apps that allow
students to record themselves as they plan their writing by talking about it before using the audio
version of their planning to write down their ideas; 4) build Academic Vocabulary using the
Flashcards and other apps; and 5) strengthen student Math skills through the use of interactive
Math apps.
The mission of the Mentor Teacher Program Grant is to support beginning and experienced
teachers new to Albemarle County by appointing mentors, conducting mentor workshops, and
offering professional development in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Mentor Teacher
Program is responsible for the provision of mentor support, workshops and materials for new
teachers.
The Department of Education increased state funding for FY 11/12 by $518.90 over the original
budget amount of $11,865.00. The state funds will be used for teacher staff development and
must be encumbered by June 30, 2012.
Red Hill Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $225.06 from the Virginia
Education Association. These funds will be used to implement teacher Marie White’s project titled
“Balance Balls as Classroom Seating for Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and
Other Disabilities.” These funds will be used to purchase balance balls and an air pump. The
balance balls will be offered as a seating option to students with high energy levels. According to
studies balance balls used as classroom seating may facilitate engagement, in-seat, and time-on-
task behaviors, especially for students with ADHD or Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $499.50 from
the Virginia Education Association. These funds will be used to implement teacher Karla Kirtley’s
project titled “The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind, Soakin’ up the Sun, and Whirlin’ in the Water”.
Students will research and study three naturally occurring sources of energy; sunlight, moving
water, and wind.
Baker Butler Elementary School has been awarded a Target Field Trip Grant in the amount of
$500.00. These funds will be used to fund a trip to the Paramount Theater for 1st grade students.
Greer Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $250.00 from the Nest
Realty Group. These funds will be used to overhaul an existing garden by building 11 raised wood
beds with weed liners and 50/50 topsoil. Greer’s 2nd grade class will participate in the creation
and maintenance of the garden. The crops raised will provide healthy snacks for the 2nd graders,
and hopefully some will be donated to the IRC and Food Bank.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School has been awarded a Target Field Trip Grant in the amount
of $700.00. These funds will be used to fund a guided tour of historical downtown Charlottesville,
Virginia for 3rd grade students.
Henley Middle School received donations totaling $4,842.33 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the
“Enrichment Time before 9” program and to purchase projectors for classrooms at Henley Middle
School.
_____
The Chair opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to approve the FY 2012 budget amendment in the amount of
$22,042,532.20 and to approve Appropriations #2012085, #2012086, #2012087, and #2012088 to provide
funds for various local government and school projects and programs. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
APP #2012-085
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Capital Projects: -ECC CAD; -Crozet Ave North Sidewalk
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9010 41350 441200 950514 9999 239,951.00 Crozet Ave North Sidewalk
3 9010 24000 324000 240231 1004 239,951.00 Va Dept of Transportation
4 9010 32030 432030 950350 3140 (32,000.00) CARS - AMBULANCE #1
4 9010 32030 432030 950351 3140 (32,000.00) CARS - AMBULANCE #2
4 9010 32030 432030 950361 3140 64,000.00 CARS - 139
TOTAL 479,902.00
APP #2012-086
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Debt Service and Capital Adjustments: -School Debt Service Update: Budget Correction, QSCB Interest; -
General Government Debt Service: 2011 Debt Issuance, VRA; -General Fund Transfer Adjustment to Debt and Capital Funds
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9900 51000 351000 512004 9999 644,874.00 TRS. FR.-GENERAL FUND
3 9900 33900 333900 330063 1006 39,194.44 QSCB Interest Refund
4 9900 95000 495000 910043 9999 327,912.00 VPSA 2000C-20,330,000
4 9900 95000 495000 910044 9999 232,934.00 VPSA 2002A-8,365,000
4 9900 95000 495000 910045 9999 94,154.00 VPSA 2003C-6,760,000
4 9900 95000 495000 920079 9999 39,194.44 INT VPSA 2011-2 QSCB
4 9900 95000 495000 310000 9999 (10,126.00) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3 9910 41400 341000 410530 9999 18,674,708.50 Bond Proceeds
3 9910 51000 351000 512004 9999 (1,039,239.15) TRS. FR.-GENERAL FUND
3 9910 51000 351000 510100 9999 1,376,920.00 Fund Balance
4 9910 95000 495000 312807 9999 675,721.31 BOND ISSUANCE COST
4 9910 95000 495000 900105 9999 (13,792.00) BOND ISSUANCE COSTS
4 9910 95000 495000 910070 9999 (835,000.00) IDA-SE 2003 $18,535,000
4 9910 95000 495000 910075 9999 (426,003.00) EDA FY 2009 DEBT ISSUANC
4 9910 95000 495000 910076 9999 (877,464.00) BOND ISSUE - 2011
4 9910 95000 495000 910078 9999 1,255,000.00 EDA 2011 $34,315,000
4 9910 95000 495000 920070 9999 (268,805.75) INTEREST IDA-SE 2003
4 9910 95000 495000 920075 9999 (162,801.18) INTEREST EDA 2009
4 9910 95000 495000 920076 9999 (398,033.00) BOND INTEREST - 2011
4 9910 95000 495000 920078 9999 801,022.41 INTEREST - EDA 2011
4 9910 96000 496000 941010 9999 7,286,812.00 REFUNDING-2009 EDA BONDS
4 9910 96000 496000 941020 9999 11,973,577.65 REFUNDING-2003 EDA BONDS
4 9910 95000 495000 920077 9999 2,154.91 INTEREST - VRA FY 2011 DEBT
4 1000 93010 493010 930003 9999 644,874.00 Trans-School Debt Service
4 1000 93010 493010 930004 9999 197,182.57 Trans-School CIP Fund
4 1000 93010 493010 930010 9999 197,182.58 Trans-Gen Government CIP
4 1000 93010 493010 930011 9999 (1,039,239.15) Trans-Gen Gov Debt Service
3 9010 51000 351000 512004 9999 197,182.58 TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 (197,182.58) Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
3 9000 69000 351000 512001 6599 197,182.57 TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
3 9000 69000 351000 510100 6599 (197,182.57) Sch CIP Fund Bal.
APP #2012-087
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION:
School Division appropriations from the May 10, 2012 School Board meeting
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 1,485.57 Contributions
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 48.41 Misc. Revenue
4 2000 62114 461320 520100 6502 8.41 ARC - Postal Service
4 2000 62114 461320 601700 6502 40.00 ARC - Copy Supplies
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 105.57 Henley - FICA
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 1,380.00 Henley - Stipends - Cur. Dev.
4 3907 63907 461101 800700 6599 210.00 Additional Equipment
3 3907 62000 318000 189900 6599 210.00 Misc. Revenue
APP #2012-088
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: School Division appropriations from the May 24, 2012 School Board meeting
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 2000 62000 318000 189900 6599 27,701.24 Misc. Revenue
3 2000 62000 318100 181109 6599 19,323.59 Contributions
4 2000 62205 461101 601200 6105 4,000.00 Hollymead - Books/Subscriptions
4 2000 62210 461102 601300 6110 1,100.00 Stone Rob - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62251 461101 301210 6251 275.00 Burley - Contract Services
4 2000 62252 461101 160300 6252 1,050.00 Henley - Stipends/ Cur Dev
4 2000 62252 461101 210000 6252 80.33 Henley - FICA
4 2000 62252 461101 800100 6252 3,712.00 Henley - Machinery/Equipment
4 2000 62253 461101 137100 6253 764.71 Jouett - PT Wages Bus Driver
4 2000 62253 461101 210000 6253 58.47 Jouett - FICA
4 2000 62253 461101 420100 6253 400.40 Jouett - Field Trip Mileage
4 2000 62254 461101 601300 6254 1,000.00 Walton - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62255 461342 580000 6255 9,481.26 Sutherland - Misc. Exp.
4 2000 62301 461101 137100 6301 448.31 AHS - PT Wages Bus Driver
4 2000 62301 461101 210000 6301 34.28 AHS - FICA
4 2000 62301 461101 350000 6301 796.50 AHS - Printing & Binding
4 2000 62301 461101 420100 6301 684.20 AHS - Field Trip Mileage
4 2000 62301 461101 601300 6301 267.19 AHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62301 461105 601300 6301 22,672.18 AHS - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 2000 62301 461411 520100 6301 200.00 AHS - Postal Services
3 3104 63104 318000 189000 6599 499.50
3 3104 63104 318000 181324 6599 700.00 Target Grant
3 3104 63104 318000 189000 6599 250.00
3 3104 63104 318000 181324 6599 500.00 Target Grant
3 3104 63104 318000 189900 6599 225.06 Misc. Revenues
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6107 225.06 Red Hill - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 3104 63104 460700 420100 6117 500.00 Baker-Butler - Field Trip Mileage
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6104 250.00 Greer - Ed/Rec Supplies
4 3104 63104 460700 420100 6106 700.00 Meriwether Lewis - Field Trip
Mileage
4 3104 63104 460700 601300 6106 499.50 Meriwether Lewis - Ed/Rec
Supplies
3 3151 63151 324000 240291 6599 518.90 Teacher Mentor Program
4 3151 63151 461311 580500 6599 518.90 Staff Development
3 3215 63215 333000 384365 6599 44,529.24 Title III
4 3215 63215 461101 800700 6599 40,350.00 ADP Equipment
4 3215 63215 461101 601300 6599 4,179.24 Ed/Rec Supplies
_______________
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
Agenda Item No. 15. Budget/Finance Operational Improvements.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Finance, and the School
Division’s Fiscal Services staff have been working together to improve the County’s comprehensive fiscal
and budgeting operations. For example, they have joined efforts to work on the Access Albemarle project,
Five Year Financial planning, and annual budgeting, and they coordinate regularly to discover additional
ways to improve joint processes and the efficiency of their day-to-day financial transactions, and to reduce
any unnecessary duplication of efforts. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to seek the Board’s
consensus and approval for certain process changes that will aid and reinforce process improvements
among and between these Departments/Divisions.
After carefully reviewing the County’s current budget appropriation processes and those of
benchmark jurisdictions, staff has three recommendations to improve the County’s future appropriation
processes for the Board’s consideration.
1) Implement Carry-over CIP Re-appropriations beginning in FY 14:
Currently, County policy requires annual re-appropriations of all unspent and
unencumbered appropriations for Capital Improvement Plan projects that are active but
incomplete at year end. Often, re-appropriations for the same capital projects are
required both in July (to ensure the project work can continue into the new fiscal year),
and again in October after prior fiscal year purchase orders and final year-end
adjustments have been completed. For example, in FY12, OMB staff, in close
coordination with staff throughout the County and the School Division, developed and
submitted 132 specific capital project re-appropriation requests to the Board of
Supervisors to accommodate this annual fiscal year timing issue.
It is not uncommon for capital project expenditures to cross fiscal years because major
projects generally do not start and completely finish exactly between July 1 and June 30
of any given year. As such, many Virginia jurisdictions have obtained approval from their
Boards or Councils to address this issue and allow for previously appropriated but
unexpended and unencumbered capital project fund appropriations to be available for
expenditure on July 1 of the new year by including re-appropriation language in the
budget adoption and appropriation process. At no time would staff be authorized to
expend more than the amount of any project’s residual appropriation authority (that is, the
aggregate of prior years’ appropriations plus current year’s appropriation less all Project
related expenditures).
To minimize the duplication of efforts associated with the County’s current methodology
for re-appropriating capital funding, staff recommends that the Board add the following re-
appropriation provision to the annual appropriation resolution beginning in FY 14:
“All unspent and unencumbered appropriations allocated for capital projects shall be re-
appropriated for completion of the projects. Upon completion of a capital project, the
County Executive is hereby authorized to close out the project and transfer the
unencumbered unexpended residual funds to the Capital Improvement Fund balance.”
2) Streamline appropriation process by increasing the School Division’s budget associated
with anticipated grants, donations and fund raising activities for School Division’s Activity
Funds
Each year, the School Division routinely receives a large number of donations and grants,
as well as activity account monies that result from community fund-raising activities. The
receipt of these funds are approved by the School Board on a monthly basis and after the
School Board’s approval, they are submitted by OMB to the Board of Supervisors for
appropriation on an item-by-item basis. In FY 12, there were 56 separate appropriation
requests submitted to the Board of Supervisors for these items. In some cases, specific
donations received and approved by the School Board and later submitted and
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors have been in amounts as little as $40. Rather
than to request that the Board of Supervisors appropriate each of these donations, grants
and results of fund raising activities on a monthly basis throughout the year, County and
School Division staff recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an appropriation
and adjust the School Division’s budget in FY 13 to anticipate that this funding will be
received and expended by the School Division.
The initial request would be to appropriate $17,500 in anticipated School Division
donations, $50,000 in anticipated School Division Grants, and $12,500 in anticipated
increases to the School Division Activity Funds in FY 13.
The School Board will continue to approve the receipt of specific grants, donations and
increases to School activity funds. If funding received by the School Division exceeds the
amount initially appropriated by the Board of Supervisors, an additional appropriation will
be submitted for Board approval generally on a quarterly basis. Under no circumstances
should these funds be expended by the School Division until the revenue is actually
received by the School Division and fully accounted for by the Finance Department.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
3) Authorize County Executive approval of budget transfers under $50,000 within the same
fund
In FY 12, there were multiple instances in which appropriation requests were presented to
the Board for approval to adjust departmental budgets to accommodate unanticipated
needs. These requested adjustments were administrative in nature, and did not result in
an increase to the overall County budget. Many of the County’s benchmark jurisdictions’
governing bodies have authorized their County Administrator or City Manager to approve
transfers of unencumbered balances or portions thereof from one classification of
expenditure to another within the same fund necessary for the efficient operation of
government. For example, in Chesterfield County, the County Administrator is authorized
to amend appropriations by transferring unencumbered amounts within appropriation
categories and can transfer up to $50,000 between expenditure categories. In Hanover
County, the County Administrator can transfer up to $50,000 per month between
departmental budgets and in Roanoke County, the County Administrator may authorize or
delegate the authorization of the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof
from one department to another without limits. These adjustments would have zero effect
on the overall budget.
To further improve the efficiency of the Finance and OMB operations, staff recommends
that the Board adopt a resolution to authorize the County Executive to approve
expenditure transfers of up to $50,000 per classification or department of any
unencumbered balances or portions thereof from one classification of expenditure or
department to another within the same fund necessary for the efficient operation of
County government. Any such transfers approved by the County Executive will be
reported to the Board as part of the quarterly finance report.
Ensuring Transparency: The change to carry-over CIP budgeting and re-appropriations will better
inform the Board during the CIP budget development process regarding the total cost of CIP projects. In
addition, to increase efficiency and ensure transparency, a summary list of CIP projects that remain
underway at the beginning of a fiscal year and a summary of any fund transfer transactions that are
approved by the County Executive each quarter will be provided to the Board of Supervisors as part of the
Finance Department’s quarterly financial reports. Details regarding school-related donations, grants, and
fund-raising activities will continue to be provided to the School Board and will be available to the Board of
Supervisors and the public on the School Division’s website within the School Board’s electronic agenda
system. A summary or highlights of school donations, school-related grants, and increases to the school
division activity funds received from fund raising activities could also be reported to the Board directly by
the School Division during their Board to Board updates.
These changes are anticipated to significantly reduce staff overtime, improve the efficiency of the
County and School Division’s budgetary and financial processes, and free up staff to provide greater
oversight of the County’s overall budget. Furthermore, changes to the CIP re-appropriation process to
better accommodate CIP projects that require multi-year funding will improve transparency regarding the
total overall costs of CIP projects.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Direct staff to implement the proposed carry-over CIP re-appropriation process beginning
in FY 14;
2) Direct staff to streamline the appropriation process for anticipated FY 13 School Fund
revenue for grants, donations and School activity funds by bringing forward a budget
amendment and appropriation for the anticipated funding for the Board’s approval; and
3) Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the County Executive to
approve expenditure transfers of up to $50,000 per classification or department of any
unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure or
department to another within the same fund necessary for the efficient operation of
government. Any such transfers approved by the County Executive will be reported to the
Board as part of the quarterly financial report.
_____
Ms. Allshouse stated that she and Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, would be presenting
three budget and financial process improvements for Board consideration, with the purpose being
continuous evaluation and improvement of the County’s budgetary and financial process in an effort to
become more efficient and make better use of limited staff time. She said they want to ensure staff is
adequately available to remain focused on the high-level budgetary and financial management and
analysis, while striving to ensure and improve transparency – as well as assuring there are appropriate
budgetary controls in place for a AAA-rated county like Albemarle.
Ms. Allshouse said that Mr. Josh Davis, of the School Division, worked closely with them on this
proposal. She also recognized OMB staff and Neil Branch, a UVA summer intern working in her office.
She also thanked the County Attorney’s office, County Executive’s office, and the Finance Department.
Ms. Allshouse added that OMB and Finance have been working closely with the School Division on the
Access Albemarle project, five-year financial planning, annual budget development, and process
improvements. She said that a specific strategy recommended in this process is having the three factions
continue to work very closely together to improve budgetary and financial practices.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
Ms. Allshouse reported that there are three recommendations before the Board today, and Ms.
Burrell would begin with multi-year, CIP budgeting.
Ms. Burrell stated that the first recommendation is to implement improvements to the CIP
reappropriation process, beginning with FY14. She explained that the current process is that
reappropriation requests are submitted to the Board for ongoing capital projects. In FY12, OMB submitted
132 individual capital reappropriations for the Board’s consideration and approval. Ms. Burrell noted that
frequently the Board reappropriates funding to the same project twice within a few months. The
recommended improvements would be for the Board to direct staff to create a multi-year budget for CIP
projects beginning in FY14 – and there would be a carry-forward until the funds were expended or de-
obligated.
She said this would be reflected in the budget resolution and it would be clearly defined that the
Annual Appropriation include all unspent and unencumbered appropriations allocated for the future
expenditures related to the capital projects as approved by the Board. Ms. Burrell said that in reviewing
generally accepting accounting principles, there are a few things in GAP (General Accepted Accounting
Principles) that state that budget for capital project funds differ from budgets for other funds because they
generally span more than one year. Therefore, governments are likely to adopt budgets on a multi-year
basis, rather than having annual appropriations for all capital projects. These multi-year project budgets
may or may not be subject to approval by the legislative body but staff is recommending that the Board
does so as part of the annual budget adoption. She added that GAP also talks about the difference
between the basis of accounting for financial reporting versus budgetary controls and adoption.
Ms. Burrell said that the benefit of multi-year budgeting for capital projects is that it improves
transparency. The annual incremental adjustments can be confusing and do not reflect the total
expenditures related to specific projects. She stated that the CIP projects with clearly identified sources
and uses are more easily outlined in a way that clarifies what is being requested in terms of funding, and
how they expect to pay for the projects – on a year by year basis. There would be no starts and stops of
actual capital project construction or work based solely on a fiscal year, because projects do not generally
start in July and end on June 30. Ms. Burrell added that staff would continue to closely monitor and
manage the CIP, and the ultimate control of financing and funding would continue to be held by the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that the use of the word “unencumbered” is bothering him. He asked how the
proposed system would address a delayed project - such as the Crozet Library. He said the Board
decided to postpone it, and under this process it seems the project would not come back to the Board for
discussion. He said that it bothers him that the Board seems to be taken out of the decision-making
process on CIP projects during mid-year. He asked if this proposal would take that authority away from
this Board.
Ms. Burrell responded that that would not be her recommendation. The Board would, at least on
an annual basis, de-obligate any projects that it no longer wished to fund, and that de-obligation frees
those dollars up for other projects.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there is a difference between projects for which the Board has
appropriated money and projects for which it has not. He does not think the Board appropriated money
for the Crozet Library until it voted to fund it.
Mr. Boyd said that the project was in the CIP, and now they are talking about doing away with the
appropriation because it would be a multi-year appropriation.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a difference between the budget and the appropriation, and that
distinction needs to be drawn.
Ms. Mallek said there is the five-year plan money, and then there is money to pay a signed
contract.
Mr. Boyd responded that that is why the word “unencumbered” was causing him some concern.
Ms. Allshouse pointed out that each year the Board would be appropriating new money toward the
CIP. At that point the Board would see the whole project planned out – including previous appropriations,
what it is adding to the project, etc. – which is much more complete.
Mr. Boyd said that could be accomplished by clarifying the language in the appropriation in the
existing process. Some of the language being used in the current appropriations that come before the
Board is very vague. The clarification could be through better explanation in the Board reports. In his
opinion that would be much more transparent for the Board and for the public.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board would operate no differently than it does now in terms of oversight
of capital projects. The single difference will be that at the end of every fiscal year and going into the next
fiscal year, it would not have this huge, big appropriation to reappropriate money it previously appropriated
for projects it already approved.
Mr. Boyd said the reappropriation step is an opportunity for the Board to be reminded of what is
out there. The Board would not see that under this new process.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
Ms. Mallek said the Board would see it because there would be a chart that shows all the projects,
how much was spent last year and how much it is spending this year, but the Board would not have to
adopt it again.
Mr. Foley said that the Board sees all the proposed projects in the CIP process in December, and
in April it appropriates what it wants to fund. He said that staff can certainly provide a report at the
beginning of the fiscal year on the status of projects without getting it mixed up in the appropriation
process.
Mr. Boyd said up until this year, the Board never readdressed all the pre-appropriations. As an
example, the Board did not have an opportunity to re-discuss the $2 million for the YMCA. It was not up
for discussion again in the CIP because it was a pre-appropriated amount of money.
Mr. Davis said that is a good example, because the Board has always reappropriated that amount
of money. That is always a decision for the Board and it does not change under what is being proposed.
The Board still has to appropriate the money. The process is changing, instead of identifying item by item
in the appropriation resolution, there would be a provision that says all unexpended appropriations that
have been previously appropriated would carry forward until the project is completed. It is an
administrative accommodation, but if the Board decided that any specific project [should be defunded] in a
fiscal year, it could do that. Mr. Davis explained that as a matter of course that would not be presented to
the Board on the item by item list. As an example, the FY13 budget amendment on today’s agenda has
numerous pages and multiple projects. This new process would allow the Board to advance the
appropriation for all the projects as a category of unexpended projects. It does not take away any of the
Board’s authority on any specific project.
Mr. Rooker said that allocating any additional funding would have to come forward as a new
appropriation. He said that he thinks this would financially align the County with what are best practices in
this area, save staff time, and save Board time. He added that he does not ever remember one of these
not being reappropriated. The Board has already appropriated the money and it is just at the expenditure
[step].
Mr. Davis stated that Crozet Library is a good example, as it was in the CIP but money had not
been appropriated until recently. If the Crozet Library is not completed by June 30, 2013, the current
process would require the Board to reappropriate funding for the library with a specific line item. Mr. Davis
explained that under the proposed process, for projects not completed by June 30th, the Board would
reappropriate the unexpended amount of money in the appropriation resolution for FY14.
Mr. Boyd said that the language in the staff report says “unencumbered.” He would consider
those as “encumbered” dollars because the project has already started.
Mr. Davis responded that the language may need to be tweaked to say “unexpended,” as there
could be some money encumbered by a construction contract but also contingency money or separate
money for a project that is not contracted yet outside of the major construction contract. He said that this
allows for staff to account for that money to the Board and at the conclusion of the project, the County
Executive would report to the Board how much money was unspent – and that would be allocated back to
the appropriate fund, which would require Board action.
Mr. Foley noted that this resolution indicates that the money would automatically go to the CIP
fund balance. He added that staff has improved the transparency on projects previously approved
through the CIP process by providing a separate list of all projects. That is a reporting issue rather than
an official reappropriation of money the Board has already appropriated.
Mr. Boyd said he has no problem with streamlining the process by not having to go through the
appropriation process, but if the Board could somehow get a report, that would be better than information
provided at the time of the appropriation process.
Mr. Foley asked if that would be a report beyond the report provided to the CIP Oversight
Committee that goes to the Board annually in December.
Mr. Boyd said he would rather see an email or something to the Board that indicates a list of
reappropriated items, on a timelier basis than having to wait until the end of the quarter report.
Mr. Foley explained that the Board would get a full review twice: during the CIP development and
during the joint meeting with the School Board in December; and during the budget work session in March
on the CIP. He said that staff would beef the latter point up so that the Board would have a complete
report on projects, including their current status, unexpended funds, etc., as part of the budget review.
Mr. Boyd asked if there would be a list of multi-year appropriated funds that would not be coming
back for reappropriation as a separate category.
Mr. Foley replied that more could be done and sent to the Board in advance, so they know where
the County is with current projects, how much has been appropriated, how much has been expended, and
what is left. He added that that will be a good picture of what is going to automatically carry over into the
next year.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Rooker commented that that’s the best time to get the information because the Board would
be focusing on the Capital Improvement Plan. He said that what is being proposed makes a lot of sense;
this does not allow any new appropriated dollars without coming to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said he does not want to drift back into the case where “money sort of dropped off of the
horizon” because it was approved in prior years but the project had not been done yet.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the YMCA funding has been in the reappropriation category with a
pending legal action, and the County has been waiting to see if the money might be required.
Mr. Foley pointed out that staff made an improvement two years ago based on that, and the
current proposal is an improvement in the whole process for appropriations, and it also drives staff to go
the extra mile during the budget work session in March to give a clearer picture on the CIP. He added that
he thinks it is actually another step forward, both in appropriations but also in transparency because staff
will make that a better report at the budget work session in March for you as well.
Ms. Allshouse added that the management of the CIP projects would not change, and the work
staff does in OMB and OFD, as well as Finance, would stay the same. The staff will still be watching
everything very closely.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that the Crozet swimming pool money had to be found in eight different
appropriation categories, and asked if this would condense that.
Ms. Allshouse replied that that is the part of transparency that she believes the Board will see.
Staff will continue to work through a lot of these processes to make sure that they do it in a way that will
work well for the County, but they envision providing the Board with what has been appropriated on a
project from the very beginning. She added that this will provide the Board with the full scope of projects,
instead of just incremental allocations.
Mr. Boyd stated that he does not like the term “unencumbered,” and replace it with “unexpended
dollars”.
Mr. Rooker agreed and said that “all unspent” could be left in without it.
Mr. Foley asked Ms. Burrell to respond from the official finance terminology perspective.
Ms. Burrell explained that they refer to “encumbrances” as those items where a purchase order
has been issued but the good or service has not been received, and the item hasn’t been paid for. She
said that in order to track what they have appropriation authority for, what they have spent, what is
encumbered – then what is left. Ms. Burrell said that unencumbered means it is neither spent, nor is there
an active purchase order or contract sitting out there to be expended. This refers to not just cash, but
what they have promised to pay, what they expect to buy, as well as what they have already spent – and
the difference is your unexpended, unencumbered balance. She added that if a purchase order has been
issued to the vendor who will be doing the work, then that is encumbered.
Mr. Boyd said that is why he does not like the term “unencumbered,” and removing it would make
it more user-friendly.
Mr. Davis emphasized that the issue with the projects is the County may have encumbered the
money, but then staff has to come back to the Board and get it appropriated in order to pay the bill. In this
system, if it is unspent it would be reappropriated as part of the budget process as part of the next fiscal
year so there would not be this running to the Board to get money appropriated to pay a bill for a project
that the Board has already approved and previously appropriated the appropriate amount of money for.
Mr. Rooker said that putting “unencumbered” implies that “encumbered” funds would not be
included, and that would put the staff in a position of having a commitment that is not covered by this
policy.
Mr. Davis explained that the “unspent” is trying to get at the encumbered money that hasn’t been
spent yet, and the unencumbered money that hasn’t been encumbered would also be covered. He said
that to laymen it is confusing, but to budget people it makes sense. Mr. Davis explained that funds would
be appropriated as part of their annual appropriation process, but not in a special set of appropriations like
the ones before the Board today.
Mr. Snow said in other words, all the contracts do not go out at one time. There are a series of
contracts coming up during the life of the project. He said that those have already gone out are spent and
encumbered, and those that have not gone out are unencumbered but will in the life of the contract be
done.
Ms. Mallek said she is okay with this language.
Mr. Rooker asked if this should be limited to “active” capital projects so the things that have not
been started at all and for which there is no commitment, such as the YMCA project, would be identified
every year separately.
Mr. Boyd said that what he would like is a separate category of the projects that fall into this in the
quarterly reporting and annual CIP reporting.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
Mr. Foley stated that if a project has not started by the end of the fiscal year, it would be brought
back to the Board for appropriation.
Mr. Rooker said it makes sense because the County is not at a point of signing a contract or
starting a project, the Board would have the opportunity to judge those projects like it judges the other
projects that might be on a list, to give them scrutiny and relative wane.
Mr. Boyd agreed, noting the Crozet Library example.
Mr. Foley said that in that circumstance, under Mr. Boyd’s suggestion, staff would not bring that
item to the Board because money had been spent all along for design, site work, a parking lot, etc.
Mr. Boyd said those were all separate appropriations to do that.
Mr. Foley stated that it was all part of the approval of the library project. The main thing staff is
trying to get away from is continuing to come back to the Board for appropriations – but if the project has
not started, there would not be that same issue and it does give the Board an extra opportunity to consider
it.
Mr. Rooker said that he thinks the projects that have not been started should be viewed in a
different way, because the Board can make a judgment not to go forward with those projects based upon
financial conditions, circumstances, and other projects that may have come in during the interim.
Ms. Allshouse asked for some clarification as to what the Board wanted, based on the fact they
had just been through the CIP budget process and relevant projects.
Mr. Rooker said the staff would bring back projects for which nothing has been spent yet, and the
County has no contractual obligations.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Seminole Trail Fire Station would be one example.
Mr. Rooker responded that that was an unusual one because of the late date it was approved, but
there are not many projects approved and going forward for which no money has been spent. He clarified
that the criteria would be no money yet appropriated.
Mr. Snow asked if this meant a project the Board had approved would have to come back before
it to get reapproved for funding.
Mr. Rooker explained that it would only pertain to items carried over from the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Davis said that Mr. Foley had suggested having “a very transparent report about the status of
projects” during the budget process. In the February/March/April timeframe, the Board would see what
projects have not been started yet, and if it has concerns at that time it could reconsider them. He added
that that might be the more appropriate time to have that discussion, rather than in July.
Mr. Rooker and other Board members agreed to that suggestion.
Mr. Foley said that staff would make sure that was part of the report.
Mr. Boyd asked where projects that are further out and not scheduled to start in the current year
would fall in this system.
Mr. Foley said they would not be appropriated, and explained that out-year projects are not
appropriated until the year it starts anyway.
At the request of the Chair, Board members reached consensus on the approach as suggested by
Mr. Foley and Mr. Davis.
Ms. Allshouse said the second recommendation is to streamline the appropriation process for the
School Division of donations, grants, and fundraising results. She stated that the current process is the
School Board approves the receipt of individual donations, grants, and fundraising results on a monthly
basis throughout the year – such as PTO funds – and the Board gets an appropriation each month with
specific donations, item by item.
Mr. Rooker asked, in the interest of time, if any Board members had an objection to the
recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with it, but with the stimulus funding that was thrown
into a bigger pot. He does not trust the accounting of the School system and he is not willing to give them
any latitude that does not have to go through this Board for approval. This is an ongoing problem he has
had with the School system of which they are aware. He said he is not worried about a $48 contribution
from a PTO, but he is not willing to give them a m ulti-million dollar authority.
Ms. Allshouse explained that this does not do that; it sets up a “catcher’s mitt” for small donations
– which total about $90,000 a year – that would come in and be monitored by Access Albemarle. She
said when the “catcher’s mitt” fills up, staff would then get authority from the Board to receive the next
“batch” of donations.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Snow said this functions almost like a petty cash fund in businesses. He asked if when the
schools reapply for the $17,000 additional dollars, would the Board receive an accounting of where the
previous amount. Ms. Allshouse responded, “yes”.
Mr. Rooker said it would be cumulative until the Board reappropriates it, so the school system
cannot put a million dollar grant in there.
Mr. Foley said it is only appropriating that money, so anything beyond that the staff would have to
come back to the Board for authority.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is not transferring the amounts into the school system’s account, it is
creating a space in which to put their money.
Mr. Davis stated that there are lots of revenues that the Board appropriates that it anticipates it will
receive, but they are not in the bank, and this process anticipates those amounts to be received in
donations, grants, or from school activity funds. He said it is legal for them to expend it, but this is a safe
amount that staff feels is going to be received so it has no negative financial impact on the County. The
Board is just appropriating this money in anticipation, rather than after the fact.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to get this reported on a more frequent basis.
Mr. Foley said that staff could provide the Board with the School Board’s approval of all those
donations, as there is a record of that anyway.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Board wants to encourage schools to apply for grants, and have
parents contribute to their children’s schools, and for the Board to be dealing with these small amounts
they have raised does not make any sense.
Ms. Mallek noted that it would be respectful to the contributors to have the donations reported, as
she has never seen it coming from the School Board in the newspaper.
Mr. Rooker said the school system does thank people who make donations, the Board is just not
seeing it.
Mr. Foley commented that the records are available to the public.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the third recommended process improvement is to authorize the
County Executive to do small budget transfers within the same fund. In the current process for transfers –
regardless of amount – requires Board of Supervisors approval. For example, the Sheriff’s Department is
now doing some fingerprinting services. The Police Department use to do those services, and wishes to
transfer $3,000 to help support the Sheriff’s office. This authority would allow the County Executive to
move a small amount such as that from one department to another department. Currently, that authority
cannot happen until it comes to the Board in a report.
Mr. Snow commented that a small move of $3,000 is different than a small move of $50,000.
Ms. Allshouse clarified that the $50,000 is the maximum for the fund for the whole year, adding
that the Board would give the County Executive the authority to transfer up to $50,000 per fund for the
entire year. The whole authority for a fund would be .02% of the entire budget.
Mr. Rooker said the language was a bit unclear that the fund maximum is $50,000, because it
says “up to $50,000 per classification or department on any unencumbered balance or portions thereof.”
Ms. Allshouse said the Board would give the authorization each year to the County Executive so
that would be his annual authorization.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would want to make that clear.
Mr. Snow said he would like a recap at some point.
Mr. Foley said it would be in the financial report every quarter, so any changes would reflect
adjustments.
Mr. Davis commented that proposed resolution deals with the current fiscal year because it is
anticipated that annually in the appropriations resolution, the Board would reauthorize this action or if it is
not working, stop it.
Ms. Allshouse noted that, in terms of benefits of this recommendation, staff did a best practices
review of other jurisdictions and it is fairly common that some authorization is provided with some having
more leniency and some being more restrictive to a line item within a budget. Staff thinks it will improve
efficiency and reallocation of staff time to higher value-added work; will allow for greater flexibility during
potential emergencies; and transparency will continue to be assured through quarterly financial reports.
Mr. Snow said he thinks it is a good idea.
Mr. Foley said the recommendation is to adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the County
Executive to administratively approve FY 13 budget expenditure transfers of unencumbered funds of up to
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
$50,000.00 per classification or department from one classification of expenditure or department to
another within the same fund
Mr. Rooker said it would be better if the words “per classification or department” were removed,
with “$50,000 in total” being clarified.
Mr. Davis explained that the proposed resolution would allow up to a $50,000 change in any
department’s budget and not a cumulative $50,000 among all budgets. For example, there could be a
$50,000 change in the Police Department, a $50,000 change in the Park s and Recreation budget, etc.
Ms. Mallek commented that that is totally opposite from what the Board has been discussing.
Mr. Foley said that staff has received consensus from the Board. He suggested that staff bring
this back to the Board next month on the Consent Agenda and incorporate some language into the
finance policy. He emphasized that all three measures would save staff an enormous amount of time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. FY 2013 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 1, 2012.)
Ms. Allshouse summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
“Virginia Code §15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate
amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided,
however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the
currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a
public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General
Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2013 appropriations, itemized below, is $24,979,457.81.
Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted
budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required.
The proposed increase of this FY 2013 Budget Amendment totals $24,979,457.81. The estimated
expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ (263,348.99)
Special Revenue Funds $ 4,528,926.17
School Fund $ 1,692,267.00
School Programs $ 868,602.00
Capital Improvements Funds $ 17,213,741.98
Stormwater $ 165,492.65
ECC $ 773,777.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 24,979,457.81
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue (Non-Tax)* $ 864,164.00
State Revenue $ 903,561.13
Federal Revenue $ 1,219,106.56
Loan Proceeds $ 4,713,326.80
VPSA Refunding $ 75,284.00
General Fund Balance $ 3,095,377.65
Proffers $ 677,199.33
Other Fund Balances $ 13,431,438.34
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 24,979,457.81
*The local revenue in this amendment includes $874,430.00 in local non-tax revenue for the
School Division amendment in the FY 12/13 resolution of the appropriations and -$10,266.00 in General
Government CIP project partner shares.
The budget amendment is comprised of twenty-one (21) separate appropriations as follows, two
of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below:
Approved June 6, 2012:
One (1) appropriation totaling $2,560,869.00 amending the School Division Budget to reflect the
budget adopted by the School Board at its May 10, 2012 meeting with one adjustment as approved
in the FY 12/13 Resolution of Appropriations;
One (1) appropriation (#2013001) totaling $0.00 to reallocate funding to the Sheriff’s Office for
providing fingerprinting services.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
The twenty-one (21) appropriations requested for Board approval on July 11, 2012 are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2013002) allocating $18,000.00 from the reserve for contingencies to the
General District Court for court appointed attorney fees;
One (1) appropriation (#2013003) totaling $39,793.00 to increase salaries for the Constitutional
Officers based on the latest Weldon Cooper Center population estimates;
One (1) appropriation (#2013005) totaling $168,679.20 to re-appropriate funding for various General
Fund projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013006) totaling $11,706,539.58 to re-appropriate funding for various
General Government CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013007) totaling $655,094.40 to re-appropriate funding for various School
CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013008) totaling $165,492.65 to re-appropriate funding for various
Stormwater CIP projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013009) allocating $96,217.00 from Organizational Development to the
County Executive’s Office;
One (1) appropriation (#2013010) totaling $342,888.00 to implement the changes in the Virginia
Retirement System (VRS) approved by the Virginia General Assembly;
One (1) appropriation (#2013011) totaling $9,865.81 to re-appropriate contributions to the Sheriff
Department’s volunteer reserves programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2013012) reallocating $889,238.00 to implement the creation of the OFD
Internal Service Fund and amend capital projects accordingly;
One (1) appropriation (#2013013) totaling $4,852,109.00 for various capital projects approved by
the Board on June 6, 2012;
One (1) appropriation (#2013014) totaling $17,408.48 for various debt service adjustments;
One (1) appropriation (#2013015) totaling $3,427,710.69 to re-appropriate funding for various
special revenue projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2013016) totaling $0.00 to reallocate $4,775.00 in funding from the Reserve
for Contingencies to the Fire Rescue Department for rent costs associated with Pantops EMS
service;
One (1) appropriation (#2013017) totaling $0.00 to reallocate $3,900.00 in funding from the Blue
Ridge Medical Center to the Thomas Jefferson Health District to administer the Latino Lay Health
Promoter program;
One (1) appropriation (#2013018) totaling $74,032.00 for temporary staffing for the Department of
Fire Rescue;
One (1) appropriation (#2013019) totaling $185,200.00 for a recently awarded Community
Development Block Grant through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development's Scattered Site Demonstration Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2013021) totaling $773,777.00 to reappropriate funding for various ECC
projects; and
One (1) appropriation (#2013023) reallocating $32,000.00 from the Ivy Landfill Remediation project
to the County’s Solid Waste Services project.
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2013 Budget Amendment in the
amount of $24,979,457.81 and approval of appropriations #2013002, #2013003, #2013005, #2013006,
#2013007, #2013008, #2013009 #2013010, #2013011, #2013012, #2013013, #2013014, #2013015,
#2013016, #2013017, #2013018, #2013019, #2013021, and #2013023 to provide funds for various local
government and school projects and programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2013002 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 18,000.00
This request is to appropriate $18,000.00 for Court-appointed attorney’s fees. Many offenses, especially
traffic offenses, can be cited as violations of either the Virginia or the County Code. When this option
exists, citing violators under the County Code allows the County to collect any resulting fines. However,
under this arrangement, the County is also responsible for paying the defendants’ Court-appointed
attorneys’ fees, which may or may not be later reimbursed to the County by the State. The revenues
collected in fines far outweigh the unreimbursed attorneys’ fees. In recent years, revenues from County
fines have increased significantly, but as a result, Court-appointed attorneys’ fees have also exceeded
budget. This appropriation request of $18,000.00 is to pay Court-appointed attorneys’ fees expected to be
incurred and unreimbursed in FY 13. The FY 13 Budget includes an increase in anticipated revenue from
these fines, however, the associated attorneys’ fees incurred were not included during the FY 13 budget
process. This request will be funded by use of the Reserve for Contingencies and will not result in an
increase in the total budget.
Appropriation #2013003 $39,793.00
Revenue Source: State Shared Expenses $ 39,793.00
The Virginia Appropriation Act (Chapter 890, 2011 Acts of Assembly), Item 67.90 states that “the
Compensation Board shall use the greater of the most recent actual United States Bureau of the Census
or the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia” in determining the salary of
Constitutional Officers. Albemarle County’s 2011 population estimate from the Weldon Cooper Center
exceeded 100,000, resulting in an increase to the Constitutional Officers’ salaries effective July 1, 2012.
This increase is fully reimbursed by the State.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
Appropriation #2013005 $168,679.20
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 168,679.20
The following requests are for the re-appropriation of unused FY 11/12 General Fund contingency funding
for the following projects:
ACCESS ALBEMARLE: This request is to re-appropriate $156,679.20 in General Fund monies to
continue the software maintenance payments supporting Access Albemarle. These contingency
payments are necessary for another year to add Tax and Revenue Collections software and Time
and Attendance software to the Program.
WIRELESS PLANNING: This request is to re-appropriate $12,000 to hire a consultant to update
the County’s Wireless Policy / Regulations. A contract has been awarded to CityScape
Consultants, Inc., and the contract has been signed. Details regarding the scope of the work and
a schedule for this project was provided to the Board on May 2, 2012 and an update on July 11,
2012.
Appropriation #2013006 $11,706,539.58
General Government Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 174,717.00
Federal Revenue $ 580,062.00
Loan Proceeds $ 1,600,000.00
Other Fund Balance (Proffer) $ 394,920.33
Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 8,956,840.25
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating General Government CIP project funding is for staff to
present to the Board a list of General Government Capital Improvement projects to which funds were
previously appropriated in the General Government Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in
that year, and are either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or on-going
maintenance CIP projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, 3) CIP projects
which are planned to be completed in FY 13 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain available
in the following fiscal year, or 4) CIP project balances that are requested to be reappropriated for other
uses.
A re-appropriation of the qualifying FY 12 fund balances is necessary at this time to fund the continuation
and/or completion of those capital projects in FY 13. Staff is submitting a proposal to the Board in a
separate July 11, 2012 agenda item that would improve the efficiency of this end-of-year administrative
process moving forward.
Many of the following projects may also have remaining balances after the fiscal year-end adjustment
period. If required to complete or continue these projects, these remaining balances will also be required
to be re-appropriated in October.
Re-appropriations requests for active or encumbered General Government CIP Projects that
remain unfinished at year end:
Description Amount
Access Albemarle: This request is to re-appropriate $147,295.33 to support Access
Albemarle project implementation including:
• Deployment of scanners to all departments and schools. Full implementation is being
scheduled with the Schools. This project is on schedule with the full AA implementation
and is on-budget;
• Upgrade the current Dynamics GP system to the next current release. The full cost for
the upgrade is to be determined; and
• Purchase of additional software licenses as required and necessary during the final
phase of implementation
$147,295.33
Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA): This request is to re-appropriate
$450,000.00 to support the replacement of the current CAMA system. The CAMA
system is the automated system that is used by the Office of the Assessor to value
residential and commercial/industrial properties, to administer the Land Use
Assessment Program, and to value all new construction and parcels in the County. A
Request for Proposal (RFP) has been issued and proposals have been received. The
Review Committee met on June 7, 2012 to review the proposals. The contract is
anticipated to be awarded in late June or early July 2012. The replacement is
scheduled to begin July, 2012 and to be completed by July, 2013.
$450,000.00
McIntire County Office Building (COB) Brick Repointing: This request is to re-
appropriate $400,000.00 to support brick and masonry repairs to McIntire COB. This
funds two separate projects: 1) removal and replacement of existing damaged grout
and expansion/caulk joints at the exterior; and 2) partial brick veneer replacement and
installation of new spiral ties. Both projects are currently underway and contractual
substantial completion is anticipated to be November, 2012. A separate procurement
will take place for repair and waterproofing of the front entry stairs.
$400,000.00
Crozet Library: This request is to re-appropriate $430,000.00 to support design,
construction administration, LEED commissioning/administration, and miscellaneous $430,000.00
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
costs (printing, mailing, signage, etc) related to the construction of a 23,000 square foot,
2-story, library facility in Downtown Crozet. Construction funding for the library facility
has been appropriated in FY 13. The project has been bid and the low bidder, MB
Contractors, has been given a Notice to Proceed effective July 1, 2012, with substantial
completion of the project anticipated to be achieved by June, 2013.
Crozet Main Street: This request is to re-appropriate $92,084.62, the account balance,
for the extension of Library Avenue (a.k.a. Crozet Main Street), to the proposed Crozet
Eastern Avenue. The current available funds may be used to extend or connect
developer-funded/built portions of Library Avenue to existing developments. There is a
Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) currently under review by the County which, if
approved, would enable a developer to construct a significant segment of Library
Avenue. The connection to Eastern Avenue would be dependent on the design and
construction of the proposed Crozet Eastern Avenue, which is not currently funded;
however, construction of the northern portion of Eastern Avenue is part of the Foothill
Crossing development approval, and the Westlake Hills development approval
(preliminary plat being reviewed by County) would construct the portion of Eastern
Avenue south of Foothill Crossings and adjacent to the existing Westhall development.
$92,084.62
Crozet Streetscape Phase II: This request is to re-appropriate $1,895,000 to support
(a) construction and utility-related work for the relocation of overhead electric and utility
lines to underground lines along and adjacent to Crozet Avenue, (b) a new stormwater
drainage system, (c) pedestrian/vehicular/streetscape enhancements along Crozet
Avenue from The Square to Tabor Street, and (d) the first block of “Main Street” (a.k.a.
Library Avenue).
All CenturyLink easements have been obtained and staff is currently awaiting updated
plans and a cost estimate from CenturyLink. Once these documents are received from
CenturyLink, staff will issue a purchase order and notice to proceed with the work. The
County recently took ownership of the CSX parcel and there is a public hearing
scheduled for July 11th for the County to grant the final Dominion Power easement
required for the project. Once this easement has been granted, staff will request
updated plans and a cost estimate from Dominion Virginia Power. Once these
documents are received from Dominion Virginia Power, staff will issue a purchase order
and notice to proceed with the work. Staff anticipates completion of the utility relocation
work this summer.
Staff is currently working with three property owners on remaining right-of-
way/construction easement dedications. Once the remaining right-of-way/easement
dedications have been obtained, plans can be finalized and the streetscape project put
out to bid. Once the project is bid and contract awarded, completion will take
approximately 14 months.
The first block of Main Street (a.k.a Library Avenue) has been completed and opened to
the public. As-built drawings are being reviewed and documentation preparations are
underway for VDoT acceptance. The acceptance process is anticipated to be
completed by the first quarter of FY 13.
$1,895,000
ECC Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD): This request is to re-appropriate
$150,000 to support the first phase of the 30-month Public Safety CAD regional project,
which is the selection of a professional Consultant to assist in the CAD procurement
process.
ECC has initiated a RFP process to hire a professional CAD Consultant to assist with
the procurement process by writing the regional CAD Request for Proposal document.
Nine vendors responded to the RFP. Interviews of the top three firms will be scheduled
in the next few weeks. The firm selected will be hired to assist the jurisdictions with
writing the CAD RFP and to lead UVA, the City and the County through the entire
project from selection to installation and the training of personnel. ECC projects the
cost to be between $75,000 and $150,000. This is based on benchmarking with other
jurisdictions and the information obtained from the vendors to date. The selected CAD
Consultant will then work with the representatives of the three jurisdictions and the ECC
staff to complete the final parts of the complete.
$150,000.00
Firearms Range: This request is to re-appropriate $4,164.10 to support the design
component of Phase 1 of the Firearms Range project. An engineering firm was hired to
study the design, placement, and mitigation strategies relating to development and to
make recommendations. All deliverables related to the design component of the Phase
1 project are expected to be on time.
$4,164.10
GIS Project: This request is to re-appropriate $42,545.00 to support a contract already
in progress for project priorities identified in the five year GIS implementation plan and
schedule as recommended by the GIS Steering Committee.
$42,545.00
Greenways, Crozet: This request is to re-appropriate $12,000.00 to support the Crozet
Greenway recreational trail systems. This request supports two foot bridges at Licking
Hole Basin connecting Westhall, Cory Farms and Western Ridge trail system. The
projects are to be untaken and completed by Oct of 2012
$12,000.00
Ivy Fire Station: This request is to re-appropriate $1,825,300.00 to support a fire-
rescue facility of roughly 5,800 square feet, within an existing warehouse, consisting of 3
apparatus bays and support facilities for a crew of six. A lease agreement with the
University of Virginia for use of a portion of the Kirtley Warehouse for the fire station was
$1,825,300.00
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 50)
signed in March 2011. The target construction start date is October, 2012 with the new
station to be online by Spring, 2013.
Ivy Landfill: This request is to re-appropriate $666,351.34 to support the Memorandum
of Understanding for the County's share of ongoing environmental remediation at the Ivy
Material Utilization Center, which is managed by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA).
$666,351.34
Microsoft Upgrade: This request is to re-appropriate $73,719.09 to complete the
upgrades to (a) SharePoint, the County’s major internal collaboration tool, (b)
Exchange, the County’s e-mail system, and (c) the County’s Office Productivity tools
such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. IT completed the Server portions of
these upgrades and has been working with Microsoft to achieve optimal client pricing
(Office 2010). Funds for this upgrade are anticipated to be expended in FY 13.
$73,719.09
Police Mobile Data Computers: This request is to re-appropriate $24,400.00 to
support the purchase of 50 mobile data computer vehicle docking stations and
adapter/charger kits. The order was recently placed and it is anticipated that units will
be delivered in July, 2012.
$24,400.00
Police Technology Upgrade: This request is to re-appropriate $450,000.00 for on-
going Police Technology software (Mobile Data Computer Software) system
implementation. A portion of the custom system software did not meet the Police
Department’s requirements and they are currently in negotiations with the vendor
regarding project balance and future license fees. Following negotiations, the Police
Department will pay a portion of the remaining balance and license fees to the vendor
as appropriate. It will be necessary to retain some of these funds in FY 13 for
emergency modem/docking station purchases and installs if needed.
$450,000.00
Records Management System: This request is to re-appropriate $10,000.00 to
continue utilizing temporary employees for back -file scanning for conversion of older
files to digital format in the County's Community Development Department.
$10,000.00
Revenue Sharing Road Program: This request is to re-appropriate $1,500,000.00 to
support the County's committed share of the VDoT Revenue Sharing program match for
the Broomley Road Bridge project. The funds will be expended when VDoT invoices the
County, which is anticipated to be in FY 13.
$1,500,000.00
Sidewalk, Crozet Ave North: This request is to re-appropriate $185,000.00 to support
the replacement (construction) of approximately 1,100 feet of sidewalk and drainage
improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to
Crozet Elementary School.
Design plans are currently under review. Construction is not fully funded; however, an
application has been submitted for VDoT Revenue Sharing funds for this project. Once
the plans and right-of-way acquisitions are complete, and construction funding
appropriated, the project will be advertised for construction and will take approximately 6
months to complete.
Safe Routes to School: To improve pedestrian crossing at the school and extends the
sidewalk to Ballard Drive. Design is currently underway as well as right-of-way
acquisition. It is anticipated that this portion of the project will be advertised for
construction in Fall, 2012 and will take approximately 4 months to complete.
$185,000.00
Sidewalk, Fontain Avenue: This request is to re-appropriate $87,524.66 to support
installation of a short sidewalk (~160') from the Research Park to the City line (right-of-
way required). This project closes the gaps between sidewalks which may create safety
issues if left uncorrected. The project is anticipated to be completed within six months
of starting the design (assuming no easements are required). Start date is targeted for
the end of this summer.
$87,524.66
Sidewalk, Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive: This request is to re-appropriate
$194,499.24 in funding to support the completion of the sidewalk connection from
Hollymead to Sutherland Schools. The required right-of-way has been donated. The
project is anticipated to be completed within 6 months of starting the design, targeting to
start in early Fall.
$194,499.24
Sidewalk, South Pantops: This request is to re-appropriate $450,000.00 to support the
design and construction of 3,500 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side
of South Pantops Drive and the west side of State Farm Boulevard. Draft final design
plans are currently under review. Construction is not fully funded; however an
application has been submitted for VDoT Revenue Sharing funds for this project. Once
the plans and right-of-way acquisitions are complete, and construction funding has been
appropriated, the project will be advertised for construction and will take approximately
six months to complete.
$450,000.00
Sunridge Road: This request is to re-appropriate $6,696.42 to support the extension of
Sunridge Road within the existing right-of-way serving three parcels and drainage
improvements to resolve downstream flooding. These funds will specifically be used for
maintenance or to repair any damage until the road is accepted by VDoT. As-Built
plans are being prepared in-house and it is anticipated that the as-builts will be
completed and VDoT acceptance of the road will be completed in the 1st quarter FY13.
$6,696.42
Tourism-Park, Preddy Creek: This request is to re-appropriate $2,374.00 to support
trail maintenance/repairs to Preddy Creek Park. This request supports grading, culvert
pipes and aggregate fill in various locations and completion is anticipated in July/August
of 2012.
$2,374.00
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 51)
VFD-Stoney Point Engine 61: This request is to re-appropriate $110,719.00 to support
the purchase/installment of equipment for the Stoney Point Engine 61; the engine is still
being manufactured, and the County anticipates delivery of the tanker in the Fall of
2012.
$110,719.00
Re-appropriations for routine or on-going maintenance General Government CIP Projects:
Description Amount
Court Facilities Repair & Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $190,000.00 to
support County facilities maintenance projects in progress, including brick repointing, ADA
ramp installation , and the repair to the County Office Building’s cupola. These projects
are anticipated to be substantially complete by September, 2012.
$190,000.00
Court Square Enhancement: This request is to re-appropriate $1,883.00 to support the
evaluation of the County’s future Court needs. A consultant is under contract for the
feasibility study. The summary outline of the study is currently under review by the County
Executive’s Office to determine the next steps.
$1,883.00
Maint-Central Library: This request is to re-appropriate $40,000.00 to support the
County's share of the elevator replacement at Central Library. The majority of the work is
being performed in FY 12, but most of the cost is not anticipated to be billed by the City
until the first quarter of FY 13.
$40,000.00
Old Jail Facility Maint: This request is to re-appropriate $1,200.00 to support
maintenance projects at the Old Jail Facility beginning in late May, 2012, including
landscaping and vegetation control. These projects are anticipated to be substantially
complete by August, 2012.
$1,200.00
Parks & Rec Maintenance: This request is to re-appropriate $138,000.00 to support
various maintenance and replacement projects for County Parks & Recreation and school
facilities used for community recreation, which are projects to be undertaken and
completed before October, 2012. This request supports sidewalk replacement & exterior
building/siding repairs at Scottsville & Meadows Community Centers, electrical service
upgrade and improvements/enlargement to existing dressing rooms at Greenwood
Community Center and athletic field maintenance/repairs totaling ($38,000.00); and to
provide for the County's share of the relocation of the McIntire Skate Park to the east side
of McIntire Park once the McIntire Park Master Plan is approved in July of 2012.
Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department anticipates an August/September, 2012
relocation (totaling $100,000).
$138,000.00
Re-appropriations for General Government planned CIP allocations or contingencies:
Description Amount
ACE-County: This request is to re-appropriate $472,225.69 to support the Acquisition of
Conservation Easement Program established by the Board of Supervisors to purchase
desired easements. There are several opportunities County staff will be pursuing this
summer.
$472,225.69
Fire Department Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate $59,084.11 to support
major, unexpected repairs to County-owned fire and rescue apparatus. $59,084.11
Sidewalk, Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate $83,735.54 to support
unforeseen project costs related to the current sidewalk projects or of sidewalk
projects/improvements that arise as a result of safety issues.
$83,735.54
Street Improvements - Local: This request is to re-appropriate $726,690.16 to support
(a) VDoT and/or County shortfalls for high priority transportation projects as listed by the
Comprehensive Plan (and associated Master Plans), Priority List of Secondary Road
Improvements, and Priority List of Primary Road Improvements, (b) funding for sidewalk
and/or crosswalk projects, or other high priority transportation projects as recommended
in Master Plans, and (c) required matching funds for the VDoT Revenue Sharing Program
application submitted in November 2011 for four sidewalk projects as presented to the
Board on November 2, 2011.
$726,690.16
Tourism-Greenway Program: This request is to re-appropriate $35,000.00 to support
uniform trail signage (regulation, directional, naming), foot bridges/boardwalks and kiosks
(at Old Mills Trail/Rivanna Greenway), to be undertaken and completed by
August/September of 2012. A mid-July, 2012 completion is anticipated for the three
pedestrian bridges currently underway.
$35,000.00
Volunteer Fire Departments-Contingency: This request is to re-appropriate $16,174.57
to support major unexpected repairs to volunteer and joint volunteer/County-owned fire
and rescue apparatus.
$16,174.57
CIP project balances that are requested to be combined or reappropriated for other uses:
Description Amount
CARS - Ambulance #1: This request is to re-appropriate $150,000.00 to support the re-
chasis of CARS Ambulance #1 which exceeds replacement criteria. In September, 2011,
an emergency replacement for CARS 139 (a supervisor’s response vehicle) was
requested and approved. During that time period, CARS indicated their intention was to
re-chasis both ambulance #1 and #2 rather than replace them. The estimated cost to re-
chasis both ambulances resulted in a balance sufficient to support the emergency
$150,000.00
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 52)
replacement of CARS 139 and the request for an ambulance for Pantops and related
equipment.
CARS - Ambulance #2: This request is to re-appropriate $150,000.00 to support the re-
chasis of CARS Ambulance #2. In September 2011, an emergency replacement of
CARS 139 (a supervisor’s response vehicle) was requested and approved. During that
time period, CARS indicated that their intention was to re-chasis both ambulance #1 and
#2 rather than replace them. The estimated cost to re-chasis both ambulances resulted in
a balance sufficient to support the emergency replacement of CARS 139 and the request
for an ambulance for Pantops and related equipment.
$150,000.00
Pantops Ambulance: This request is to appropriate $197,000.00, $98,500 from the
balance of the CARS - Ambulance #1 project and $98,500 from the balance of CARS -
Ambulance #2 project as noted above, to support the purchase of an ambulance for
Pantops and related equipment. The estimated cost to re-chasis both ambulances
provided a balance sufficient to support the emergency replacement of CARS 139 and the
request for a Pantops ambulance.
$197,000.00
Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping: This request is to re-appropriate $208,626.68 to
the Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping project, as well as the remaining balance of
$27,247.03 from the engineering portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway project, for a
combined appropriation of $235,873.71 to the Landscaping project. This will support
design and material expenses for landscaping associated with the John W. Warner
Parkway (a.k.a. the Meadow Creek Parkway). Staff is targeting early fall to start design.
$235,873.71
Appropriation #2013007 $655,094.40
School Division Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Revenue Source: Other Fund Balance (Proffer) $ 24,016.44
Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 631,077.96
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating School Division CIP Project funding is for staff to
present to the Board a list of School Division Capital Improvement projects to which funds were previously
appropriated in the General Government Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in that year,
and are either: 1) active CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or on-going
maintenance CIP projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, 3) CIP projects
which are planned to be completed in FY 13 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain available
in the following fiscal year, or 4) CIP project balances that are requested to be reappropriated for other
uses. A re-appropriation of the qualifying fund balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or
completion of the projects in the next fiscal year.
Re-appropriations requests for active or encumbered School Division CIP Projects:
Brownsville Elementary School: This request is to re-appropriate $33,313.33 to support
the renovation of the media center this summer. The work is scheduled to begin on July 1,
2012 and will be completed by August 31, 2012.
$33,313.33
Greer Elementary School: This request is to re-appropriate $329,104.56 to support the
Greer Phase II addition. This project broke ground in the Fall of 2012. The project will be
completed by August, 2012 with the new building opening for the 2012/13 school year.
$329,104.56
Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF): This request is to re-appropriate $31,068.93 to
support the VMF Lifts project. The work will occur between June, 2012 and August, 2012. $31,068.93
Re-appropriations for routine or on-going maintenance School Division CIP Projects:
School CIP Maintenance - ADA: This request is to re-appropriate $54,191.02 to support
ongoing School Division ADA work. Although most of the barriers have been eliminated in
the School Division, the School Division continues to discover or get requests for additional
modifications each year.
$54,191.02
School CIP Maintenance- Child Nutrition: This request is to re-appropriate $29,756.49 to
maintain the kitchens and serving line equipment in the schools in order to keep them in
good working order and to continue complying with Health Department regulations.
$29,756.49
School CIP Maintenance - General: This request is to reappropriate $95,610.95 to
support recently bid projects including the Western Albemarle High School Track and
Tennis Courts Project, as well as the Auditorium Theater Lighting Replacement projects at
Western and Albemarle High Schools. The projects are currently underway and will be
completed in August, 2012.
$95,610.95
The requests below re-appropriate balances of the School Division Capital Improvement Fund
remaining as of June 30, 2012:
School CIP Maintenance - CATEC: This request is to re-appropriate a total of
$84,049.12, the combined balance of various related project balances, into one budget to
support efforts to fully comply with the Americans Disability Act. Work includes, but is not
limited to, modifications to sinks, bathrooms, doorways, signage, etc. The work is
underway and will continue this summer.
Supporting revenue also includes the Old Trail Proffer.
$84,049.12
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 53)
Appropriation #2013008 $165,492.65
Stormwater Division Capital Improvement Project Re-Appropriation Requests
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 36,620.13
Other Fund Balance (Proffer) $ 74,880.00
Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $ 53,992.52
The County’s current practice for re-appropriating Stormwater CIP Project funding is for staff to present to
the Board a list of Stormwater Capital Improvement projects to which funds were previously appropriated
in the Stormwater Capital fund in a prior year but were not expended in that year, and are either: 1) active
CIP projects that remain unfinished at year end, 2) routine or on-going maintenance CIP
projects/programs that staff recommends should continue to be funded, 3) CIP projects which are planned
to be completed in FY 13 or CIP contingencies that staff recommends remain available in the following
fiscal year, or 4) CIP project balances that are requested to be reappropriated for other uses. A re-
appropriation of the qualifying fund balances is necessary to fund the continuation and/or completion of
the projects in the next fiscal year.
Re-appropriations requests for active or encumbered Stormwater CIP Projects:
Description Amount
McIntire County Office Building (COB) Parking Lot Biofilters: This request is to re-
appropriate $13,817.65 for stormwater management of two aisles of the COB parking lot,
as well as landscaping improvements and a pedestrian walking trail on property adjacent to
the parking lot. The project was completed in December, 2011 and all payments have been
made to the contractor. This re-appropriation of remaining funding will be used to repair a
sinkhole adjacent to the biofilter between the parking lot and McIntire Road, which will be
done in July (staff is currently obtaining the quote). Funding is also requested to be used
for interpretive sign design, material costs, and installation.
$13,817.65
Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project: This request is to re-appropriate $30,000.00 for
stormwater management through pipe and channel improvements and the construction of
a stormwater wetland system to treat runoff from existing and future development in
Downtown Crozet. This project is currently under construction and will be substantially
complete by June, 2012. Tree planting will take place in the Fall of 2012.
Supporting revenues include the Virginia Resource’s Authority (VRA) Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) grant and the Grayrock proffer.
$30,000.00
Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) Stormwater Improvements: This request is to
re-appropriate $91,675.00 to identify and address stormwater impacts from WAHS that
threaten downstream water quality, county infrastructure, and public safety. Preparation of
a Stormwater Management Master Plan for the WAHS campus has been completed.
Also, repairs to a highly eroded drainage channel in the front of the school has been
completed. A contract has recently been executed for providing stormwater management
design services for a portion of the southern (rear) drainage from WAHS and a purchase
order will be issued once funds are reappropriated. Improvements will be accomplished
using funding from this account and school funds identified by Building Services.
$91,675.00
Woodbrook Lagoon Improvement: This request is to re-appropriate $30,000.00 to
support stormwater management for a 250 acre urban watershed through channel
improvements, wetlands, and biofiltration. This project is under construction and the
contractual substantial completion date was May, 2012 with the contract completion to be
achieved at the end of June. Vegetation/shrubbery planting is currently underway and
additional expenditures on the project are anticipated after the contractor has completed its
work, including the installation of a fence for safety purposes.
$30,000.00
Appropriation #2013009 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This appropriation is to transfer the Organziational Development Manager from Organizational
Development in the Human Resources Department to the County Executive’s Office and to re-allocate
associated funding. This move will better align the work of the County’s Organizational Development
Manager with the efforts of the County Executive’s Office to foster high-performing organizational
practices. The position’s duties will include more work around strategic planning, leadership development,
and organizational self-assessment and improvements.
Appropriation #2013010 $342,888.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 335,188.00
Bright Stars Fund Balance $ 7,700.00
On April 18, 2012, the General Assembly approved a variety of changes to reform the retirement plan
administered by the Virginia Retirement System (VRS). The General Assembly adopted bills establishing
a new hybrid retirement plan for state and local employees who are hired on or after January 1, 2014 (HB
1130 and SB 498), as well as a companion bill (SB 497) which requires current employees of local
governments and school divisions to pay a 5% employee contribution to VRS by no later than July 1, 2016
and for local governments and school divisions to provide employees with a salary increase to offset the
cost of the employees’ VRS contribution.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 54)
On May 9, 2012, the Board of Supervisors approved fully implementing this change in FY 13. This
appropriation increases the salaries of local government employees by 5% and reduces the employer
share of the VRS rate by 5% from 18.99% of employees’ salaries to 13.99%. The total impact of this
change is $356,978.00. This increase will be funded with $14,090.00 in savings from a reduction in the
group life insurance rate, $335,188.00 in General Fund balance, and $7,700.00 in Bright Stars fund
balance. The total amount added to the County budget is $342,888.00. The School Division adopted its
FY 13 budget in May, 2012 incorporating a comparable change.
Upon approval of the concurrent appropriation #2013012, savings to the General Fund due to
implementing OFD’s internal service fund will offset the use of the General Fund balance by $53,683.55.
The net use of General fund balance will total $281,504.45, and the net increase to the County budget is
$289,204.45.
Appropriation #2013011 $9,865.81
Revenue Source: Sheriff Donation Fund Balance $ 5,465.81
General Fund Balance $ 4,400.00
This request is to reappropriate $9,865.81 in contributions that were received to support the Sheriff’s
volunteer reserve programs. These contributions will support the various reserve programs such as
Project Lifesaver, TRIAD, Search and Rescue, child fingerprinting, and any other programs/activities that
the Reserves are involved in within the community.
Appropriation #2013012 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (Non-Tax) $ (10,266.00)
Loan Proceeds $ 33,276.80
General Fund Balance $ (53,683.55)
Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ 34,197.01
School CIP Fund Balance $ 28,699.29
Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $ 36,170.47
This appropriation request is to amend the budget, pursuant to the Board’s action on June 6, 2012, to (a)
create the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Internal Service Fund (ISF) by reallocating OFD’s
operating budget from the General Fund to an Internal Service Fund and (b) amend the capital projects
budgets to reflect project management (PM) services. This appropriation will not increase the total
appropriated budget.
OFD’s operating budget will be budgeted as an ISF and charges for services will offset the total cost of the
operating budget. Those services include project management (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 Fund).
OFD’s operating budget totals $889,238 which reflects the 5% increase in salaries resulting from the
recent VRS changes but otherwise does not increase. The VRS change impacts the billable rate for the
approved proposed FY 13 billable rate which increased from $70.00/hour to $70.50/hour. As reflected in
the table below, the result of establishing the ISF will be a decreased expense to the General Fund and a
corresponding increase in costs to the Capital Project Funds of approximately $53,684.
FY 13 Adopted
+ VRS
Appropriation
2013012
Impact
App-Adp
General Fund
Expenditures
OFD Operating Budget 889,238$ 184,009$ (705,229)$
Revenues
Project Management Fee 651,545$ -$ (651,545)$
Net Cost, General Fund 237,693$ 184,009$ (53,684)$
OFD Internal Service Fund
Expenditures
OFD Operating Budget -$ 889,238$ 889,238$
Revenues
General Fund Services -$ 184,009$ 184,009$
Project Management Services -$ 705,228$ 705,228$
-$ 889,238$ 889,238$
Net Cost, OFD Internal Service Fund -$ 0$ 0$
Capital Funds (Projects)
General Government CIP 444,913$ 433,726$ (11,187)$
School CIP 202,687$ 231,386$ 28,699$
Stormwater CIP 3,945$ 40,115$ 36,170$
Net Cost, Capital Funds 651,545$ 705,228$ 53,684$
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 55)
As authorized by the Board on June 6, 2012, and after consultation with the sponsoring departments, the
OFD Director determined which FY 13 CIP projects are subject to OFD oversight and the associated PM
services for all Local Government, School and Agency projects. The net project amendments are
reflected below:
School Division Projects
CIP-Maintenance ($62,277.82)
CIP-Technology ($70,824.00)
Unplanned but anticipated $133,036.41
Stormwater Projects
Church Road /
Multi-Pond Sediment Removal $17,343.42
WAHS Stormwater Impacts $10,363.75
Stormwater TMDL Study $1,695.14
Downtown Crozet Stormwater $6,768.16
General Government Projects
Information Technology ($12,782.00)
Court Facilities Maint/Repl $7,405.36
Juvenile Court ($585.00)
Public Safety ($42,394.00)
Police Department ($9,331.00)
Firearms Range ($7,410.43)
Volunteer Fire Dept ($40,351.00)
East Ivy Station $19,756.14
Ambulance/Rescue Service ($8,948.00)
Ivy Landfill ($16,507.00)
Facilities Maint/COB Brick Repoint ($12,792.80)
Parks Maint/Repl & Rivanna Trail Bridge $24,971.35
Library Maint/Repl $528.19
Crozet Library ($152,005.67)
Pantops EMS ($2,197.00)
Sheriff’s Office ($568.00)
STVFD Ren/Add $33,276.80
Crozet Streetscape Phase II $52,171.26
Sidewalk Projects $54,850.33
Crosswalks $29,328.71
Street Improvements $16,920.41
Roadway Landscaping $14,664.35
Unplanned but anticipated $40,820.49
Also as a result of the amended project cost, this request decreases the City of Charlottesville’s projected
reimbursement by $10,266 for the Firearms Range and increases the general government CIP fund
balance by $2,856. Based on the appropriated FY 12 and FY 13 budgets, the project budget will total
$1,132,890, of which the County’s projected share is 50% and the City’s 50%.
Ap propriation #2013013 $4,852,108.00
Revenue Source: Loan Proceeds $ 3,080,050.00
Other Fund Balance (Proffer) $ 677,199.33
Prior Year General Fund Balance $ 2,566,762.00
Gen. Gov’t. CIP Fund Balance $ (595,039.19)
School CIP Fund Balance $ (676,453.42)
Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $ (200,410.72)
On June 6, 2012, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to bring back an appropriation to amend the FY
13 Capital Budget as presented by staff. This request appropriates $2,566,762.00 in the use of prior year
general fund balance, $3,080,050.00 in loan proceeds, $677,199.33 in proffers as well as reduces the use
of the general government CIP fund balance $595,039.19, reduces the use of the school CIP fund
balance $676,453.42, reduces the use of the stormwater CIP fund balance $200,410.72 and reallocates
$117,561.00 of the Capital Board contingency to offset the various added projects. Funding will be
appropriated as follows:
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) Renovation/Addition: This appropriates
$3,416,670.00 in loan proceeds (20-year term at 5.0% interest rate) and $375,000.00 in proffer revenue
from Stonefield proffer for a total of $3,791,670.00. The cost for project management services is not
included in this request, as the FY 13 portion is included in appropriation 2013-012 and the FY 14 portion
will be requested in the FY 14 budget process. The scope of the project includes a 10,500 square foot
addition to STVFD consisting of a two-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 (ACE): This appropriates $178,000.00 in the use of prior year
general fund balance to be used to leverage matching grants from the Virginia Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services (VDACS) Office of Farmland Preservation (OFP) for the acquisition of one to two
conservation easements.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 56)
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program: This appropriates $1,000,000.00 from in the use of prior
year general fund balance to be used to leverage matching grants from the FY 14 VDOT Revenue
Sharing Program for identified priority candidate sidewalk/trail/bike/ pedestrian safety improvement
projects.
Board Contingency: This appropriates $117,561.00 in general fund transfer towards the use of capital
projects by reducing the use of general government CIP fund balance for the equivalent amount.
Crozet Library: This appropriates $302,199.33 in various proffer revenue, which is listed below, and
decreases the use of loan proceeds by the equivalent amount. The project budget remains the same.
Proffer Name Amount
Poplar Glen II $108,045.19
Stillfried Lane $962.07
Western Ridge $1,016.58
Wickham Pond $105,674.57
Liberty Hall $86,500.92
Ivy Fire Station Equipment: This appropriates $34,420.00 in the use of prior year general fund balance
and decreases the use of loan proceeds by the equivalent amount. The project budget remains the same.
Ivy Fire Station Building: This appropriates $250,000.00 in the use of prior year general fund balance
and decreases the use of loan proceeds re-appropriated from FY 12 by the equivalent amount. The
project budget remains the same.
Other: This appropriates the remaining balance of $1,104,342.00 in the use of prior year general fund
balance:
$676,453.42 for the net impact of the projected decreased use of loan proceeds in future School
Capital Projects for the LAN Technology Project and WAN Technology Project;
$200,410.72 to support the projected increase experienced in future Stormwater Capital Projects
for the PM Fee for Service; and
$227,477.86 to support the projected net increase experienced in future General Government
Capital Projects for the PM Fee for service and offset the projected decrease in general fund
transfer revenue due to the increased debt service for the STVFD Building Renovation/Addition.
Appropriation #2013014 $17,408.48
Revenue Source: VPSA Refunding $ 75,284.00
Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 28,937.76)
Sch. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 28,937.76)
This request is to appropriate a net total of $17,408.48 for revenues of the debt service funds and
reallocate the resulting available general fund transfer balance to the capital budgets:
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Refunding: This appropriates $75,284.00 for debt
service savings related to VPSA's Series 2010 C Refunding Bonds and decreases the general
fund transfer to school debt service fund by the equivalent amount of $75,284.00. This results in
a net increase totaling $0.00 for the School Debt Service fund leaving $75,284.00 to be
reallocated to other debt and capital funds.
Virginia Resource’s Authority (VRA) Debt Issuance Reallocation: This reallocates the total
budget of the FY 11 VRA Debt issuance in the amount of $31,134.00 from the Stormwater Debt
Service fund to the General Government Debt service fund. This results in a net budget increase
totaling $0.00.
VRA Debt Issuance Amendment: This increases the general fund transfer by $17,408.48 to the
General Government Debt service fund to support the principle and interest payments scheduled
for FY 13. The principle and interest increases from $31,134.00 to 48,542.48.
General Fund Transfer Reallocation to Capital Funds: The general fund transfer net balance
from the debt service adjustments totals $57,875.52
o This decreases the use of School CIP Fund balance in the amount of $28,937.76 by
increasing the general fund transfer by $28,937.76.
o This decreases the use of General Government CIP Fund balance in the amount of
$28,937.76 by increasing the general fund transfer by $28,937.76.
Appropriation #2013015 $3,427,710.69
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 453,844.56
Other Fund Balance $ 2,973,866.13
The following requests are for the re-appropriation of FY12 funds to the following projects:
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center (LCEC) Grant: This re-appropriates $453,844.56 in
awarded grants from the Transportation Enhancement Fund Program administered by VDoT to
support funding for the construction of an educational building (including transportation exhibits
and river history); an access road and parking area; and a connecting trail network, all located at
Darden Towe Park. In FY 12, the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center (LCEC) was awarded
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 57)
grants totaling $800,000.00. LCEC's application required the County to be responsible for
accepting the grant from VDoT. The County entered into a Pass-Through Agreement with LCEC
that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s responsibilities under the VDoT Enhancement
Program to the LCEC. LCEC is required to pay the project invoices and then submit
reimbursement requests, including all necessary documentation, to the County. The County is
responsible for coordinating the submittal of the reimbursement request documentation to VDOT
and all reimbursements will be paid to the County for its pass-through to LCEC. Two
reimbursements have been processed and it is anticipated that all reimbursements to LCEC will
be completed by October, 2012.
Belvedere Bond Project: This re-appropriates $2,793,318.08 to support the Belvedere Bond
project. The County demanded payment on six letters of credit in January, 2009 that secured
performance bonds for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase 1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A
covering water protection (erosion control & stormwater management), roads, drainage and
related site work, and water and sewer improvements. Phase 1 Belvedere Blvd. (Rio Rd to Free
State Rd) was bid and a contract awarded to S. L. Williamson Company, Inc., in December, 2011.
In January, 2012, quality issues were discovered with the lower portion of the base asphalt.
Based on the evaluation of asphalt core samples, VDOT has required removal of all the base
asphalt. Cost of improvements/repairs are limited to the remaining value of the specific bond for
those improvements and the current estimate is higher than the available bond proceeds. At this
time, the project is on hold pending the resolution of the quality issues and the funding required to
complete the improvements. Any balances left on purchase orders will be requested for re-
appropriation in October, 2012.
Abington Place Bond Default Project: This re-appropriates $2,258.48 to support the Abington
Place Bond Default project. Specifically, the funds will be used to address any erosion issues and
any remaining funds will be used towards the County's cost to manage the project. The County
demanded payment on the bond that secured the greenway path improvements required by
condition number 4 of ZMA2002-002, as the improvements were to be completed by December
31, 2010. The County contracted with S. L. Williamson Company to complete the paving of the
pathway.
Orchard Acres Planning Grant and Oak Hill Sewer Project: This re-appropriates $8,359.72 for
the Orchard Acres Planning Grant, which was appropriated to this project in March, 2012 (FY 12),
and $116,647.85 for the Oak Hill Sewer Project, which was re-appropriated to this project in
October, 2011 (FY 12). Both projects are anticipated to be completed in the first quarter of FY13.
Police Grant (#2010-DJ-BX-0920): This re-appropriates $17,821.00 in the remaining balance for
a U.S. Department of Justice grant awarded to the Police Department. This grant is being used for
a crime analysis and mapping system to enhance problem recognition and response.
Police Grant (#11-A2277HS10): This re-appropriates $24,929.00 in the remaining balance for a
State Homeland Security Program grant awarded by the Department of Criminal Justice Services
to the Police Department. The purpose of this grant is for maintenance and/or replacement of
equipment and services purchased with previous Homeland Security grant funding. This includes
the replacement/upgrade of 11 mobile data computer set-ups within the mobile data system; the
replacement of 12 portable radios; resupplying the patrol officers with digital cameras; and the
replacement of 12 filters for gas masks.
Police Grant (#2011-DJ-BX-02583): This re-appropriates $10,532.00 in the remaining balance
for a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice to the Police Department. The purpose of
this grant is to assist in funding overtime hours for more community policing by current officers in
support of reducing crime and improving public safety.
Appropriation #2013016 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 4,775.00
This request is to appropriate $4,775.00 to the Department of Fire Rescue from the Reserve for
Contingencies for rent costs associated with the Pantops EMS service that will be beginning in FY 13. This
cost was not anticipated when the budget for Pantops EMS Service was developed.
Appropriation #2013017 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate $3,900.00 from the Blue Ridge Medical Center (BRMC) to the Thomas
Jefferson Health District to administer the Latino Lay Health Promoter program, an agency program
approved in the FY 13 budget. The BRMC recently approached the Health District about transitioning the
administration of this program and the Health District has agreed to do so.
Appropriation #2013018 $74,032.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 74,032.00
This request is to appropriate $74,032.00 from the General Fund balance to the Department of Fire
Rescue for temporary staffing. This one-time funding will allow the department to hire one firefighter
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 58)
position in operations (salary and benefits) and temporarily reassign an existing staff position to
administration to assist with several major projects as described below:
Ivy Fire Rescue Station – planned to open in July, 2013. Managing associated purchasing, hiring
& training of career staff, apparatus, and all preparations for the opening of the station and
beginning of service.
MJH/Pantops Ambulance – planned to start in Fall of 2012. Managing associated purchasing,
hiring & training of career staff, apparatus, and all preparations for the opening of the station and
beginning of service.
Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) reprogramming, design, and implementation associated
with new stations and run areas.
Training/orientation of new volunteers and officers for Ivy Station.
Development and implementation of operational policies necessary for both new stations.
Line of Duty Act (LODA) – policy development, implementation, and training from the Fire Rescue
Department Perspective.
Assist in the transition from Deputy Chief Brown, who is retiring, to the new Deputy Chief,
scheduled to be hired in September, 2012. This will provide continuity and support in a key
leadership position for the Department.
The assignment is for a one year period only. At the end of FY 13, the person who was temporarily
assigned to administration will return to operations and the firefighter position that was hired in operations
will be absorbed by existing vacancies anticipated in FY 14.
Appropriation #2013019 $185,200.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 185,200.00
This request is to appropriate $185,200.00 for a recently awarded Community Development Block Grant
through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development's (DHCD) Scattered Site
Demonstration Program. Staff is completing all requirements for the execution of a contract between the
County and DHCD with all requirements expected to be completed in July, 2012. The grant will provide
for the replacement of two substandard houses in the County and the projects will be carried out by the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
Appropriation #2013021 $773,777.00
Revenue Source: ECC Fund Balances $ 773,777.00
The following requests are for the re-appropriation of FY12 funds to the following projects:
$696,230.00 for the radio system augmentation project related to the emergency dispatch system
to provide better coverage for system users in the Scottsville, Howardsville, Schuyler and
Blackwell Hollow areas of the County. This funding has been held in reserve for this project until
Emergency Communications Center (ECC) could procure the additional 800 MHz frequencies
needed to allow them to move forward with project completion. The first part of the project will
start in the Scottsville area.
$52,100.00 for renovations to the office space on the second floor of the Albemarle County Office
Building located on 5th Street to install the appropriate electrical circuits, receptacles, switches,
antennas and telephone lines to allow the location to be used as a back-up location for the ECC in
the event that the primary location would need to be evacuated or is damaged in some way.
$25,447.00 for the replacement of back-up batteries for the microwave system at the ECC in the
event of power and generator failure. The batteries currently being used are several years old and
have been recommended for replacement.
Appropriation #2013023 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget
This request is to appropriate $32,000.00 from the Ivy Landfill Remediation project to the County Solid
Waste Services project. This funding supports the Board of Supervisor's direction to finalize a scope of
solid waste services and cost with a consultant. Staff has selected Drapen Aden Associates to evaluate
future solid waste service options. This appropriation is contingent upon approval of the Solid Waste
Services consent agenda item.
_____
Mr. Boyd asked about the $235,873.71 for landscaping of Meadow Creek Parkway, noting that he
travels that road every day and it was landscaped but no one has mowed it. He said that his
understanding was that the City was responsible for the linear park for maintenance.
Mr. Benish explained that there was some landscaping done as part of the VDOT project, but
there are some gaps that require some enhanced landscaping, particularly at the terminus point near
Melbourne Avenue. He said that this money was to augment what VDOT was going to provide as part of
the project. He added that he would check with Mr. Kelsey on the status of that. Mr. Benish added that
his understanding was that the work would be done once the work is completed on the City’s section.
Ms. Mallek said that would not cover the hillsides and such north of the bridge.
Mr. Benish said there is some space to do some landscaping as you turn into the County portion.
Mr. Boyd asked if this money has already been spent or under contract.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 59)
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, said that this is basically
reserve funding to complete the design and construction of the “gap areas,” so there is no obligation or
commitment – but it is work that could be completed this fall or at an appropriate time.
Mr. Boyd asked if the title of that property had been transferred to the City.
Mr. Foley said that VDOT has transferred it, and it would be an ongoing maintenance cost, not a
project cost. The City has taken title from VDOT ; it is like a City park now for them to maintain going
forward – but this is completion of the project and this money has not been allocated specifically by
contract yet.
Ms. Mallek noted that this was the tail end of six-year secondary road funds. Mr. Benish
responded, “yes”.
Mr. Foley pointed out that it is local funds committed to the project.
Mr. Boyd said the funds could be spent on another project. He also asked if based on the
financial policy change the Board just made, would the Board see this project since it is the first time it was
appropriated.
Mr. Foley explained that it would not have been brought back to the Board because it is an item in
a project budget that is not closed out yet.
Mr. Henry stated that this is an example of a project that does not have money that has been
encumbered, that has been previously approved and appropriated by the Board – so under the new
process, it would show up in a report as work in the future.
Mr. Snow said that the project looks complete to him right now, and you could buy a lot of
landscaping for $235,000.
Ms. Mallek said it is the labor that is the cost factor here.
Mr. Foley asked the Board if it would like some specifics brought back on the plans, and how they
are planning to apply the landscaping.
Mr. Rooker responded that it would be helpful to see how it fits into the overall plan, what has
been done and what is left undone according to the original landscaping proposal – and he is not clear on
whether the plan has been presented to the City.
Mr. Foley said that Mr. Kelsey would probably have more details, and the question for the Board is
whether it does not want to appropriate the money at this time.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to remove it and receive clarification. Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know what else the money could be spent on. Mr. Foley
commented that that is a different issue. Staff will bring that information back in August.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, thanked the Board for its allocation to
the ACE Fund. PEC continues to hope for the day when the Board will return full funding for the program.
He stated that PEC operates in a nine-county region between Albemarle and Loudoun County, and is
close to 350,000 acres in easements in that region which is one of the largest concentrations of privately
protected land in the country. Mr. Werner said that Fauquier County is slightly ahead of Albemarle in
protection, but the County has over 85,000 in private conservation easements. The ACE Fund has
provided funds for about 7,500 acres of those easements. He said that the protection includes 372 miles
of stream and river, with 32,000 acres of that prime farmland and 23,000 acres along scenic byways;
36,000 acres of that is in state and nationally designated historic districts. Mr. Werner stated that PEC
believes that agriculture and the scenic beauty of Albemarle is critical to the economic future of the area,
and is one of the reasons people love this place.
No one else came forward to speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to, approve, with the exception of the Meadow Creek Parkway
Landscaping (part of #2013006), the FY 2013 budget amendment in the amount of $24,743,584.10 and to
approve Appropriations #2013002, #2013003, #2013005, #2013006, #2013007, #2013008, #2013009,
#2013010, #2013011, #2013012, #2013014, #2013015, #2013016, #2013017, #2013018, #2013019,
#2013021, and #2013023 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and
programs. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 60)
APP #2013002
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Funds to reimburse General District Court for payments to court appointed attorneys
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 21040 421040 312101 1002 18,000.00 Court Appointed Attorney Fees
4 1000 99900 499900 999990 9999 (18,000.00) Reserve for Contingencies
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2013003
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Increase Constitutional Officer salaries as a result of increased population estimates
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 13020 413020 110000 1001 6,139.00 Registrar Salary
4 1000 13020 413020 210000 1001 470.00 Registrar FICA
4 1000 13020 413020 221000 1001 859.00 Registrar VRS
4 1000 13020 413020 241000 1001 73.00 Registrar Group Life
4 1000 21060 421060 110000 1002 10,474.00 Clerk of Court Salary
4 1000 21060 421060 210000 1002 801.00 Clerk of Court FICA
4 1000 21060 421060 221000 1002 1,465.00 Clerk of Court VRS
4 1000 21060 421060 241000 1002 125.00 Clerk of Court Group Life
4 1000 21070 421070 110000 1002 11,042.00 Sheriff Salary
4 1000 21070 421070 210000 1002 845.00 Sheriff FICA
4 1000 21070 421070 221000 1002 1,545.00 Sheriff VRS
4 1000 21070 421070 241000 1002 131.00 Sheriff Group Life
4 1000 22010 422010 110000 1002 4,742.00 Commonwealth's Attorney Salary
4 1000 22010 422010 210000 1002 363.00 Commonwealth's Attorney FICA
4 1000 22010 422010 221000 1002 663.00 Commonwealth's Attorney VRS
4 1000 22010 422010 241000 1002 56.00 Commonwealth's Attorney Group Life
3 1000 23000 323000 230600 1001 7,541.00 State Shared Exp - Registrar
3 1000 23000 323000 230149 1002 12,865.00 State Shared Exp - Clerk of Court
3 1000 23000 323000 230201 1002 13,563.00 State Shared Exp - Sheriff
3 1000 23000 323000 230101 1002 5,824.00 State Shared Exp - Comm. Atty.
TOTAL 79,586.00
APP #2013-005
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various time-sensitive uncompleted general fund projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 168,679.20 Approp. Fund Balance
4 1000 81021 481020 317000 1008 12,000.00 Wireless Planning
4 1000 12210 412210 999999 1001 156,679.20 Access Albemarle
TOTAL 337,358.40
APP #2013-006
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted general government capital projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9010 12140 412140 950004 1150 450,000.00 CAMA
4 9010 12200 412200 800714 1160 73,719.09 Microsoft Upgrade
4 9010 12210 412200 120000 1160 2,463.17 Access Albemarle
4 9010 12210 412200 130000 1160 9,026.40 Access Albemarle
4 9010 12210 412200 210000 1160 1,694.00 Access Albemarle
4 9010 12210 412200 312105 1160 9,897.05 Access Albemarle
4 9010 12210 412200 580000 1160 814.20 Access Albemarle
4 9010 12210 412200 800700 1160 123,400.51 Access Albemarle
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 61)
4 9010 21005 421005 331000 2180 190,000.00 Court Facilities Repair & Maint
4 9010 21006 421005 950135 2110 1,883.00 Court Square Enhancement
4 9010 21008 421005 950301 2111 1,200.00 Old Jail Facility Maint
4 9010 31000 431000 800306 9999 150,000.00 ECC CAD
4 9010 31010 431010 800317 3110 24,400.00 Police Mobile Data Computers
4 9010 31010 431010 800714 3110 450,000.00 Police Technology Upgrade
4 9010 31029 431010 312405 3110 4,164.10 Firearms Range
4 9010 32010 432010 999999 3140 59,084.11 Fire Dept Contingency
4 9010 32020 432020 810099 3140 16,174.57 VFD-Contingency
4 9010 32020 432020 950360 3140 110,719.00 VFD-Stoney Point Engine 61
4 9010 32021 432010 800200 3140 100,000.00 Ivy Fire Station
4 9010 32021 432010 800605 3140 1,373,000.00 Ivy Fire Station
4 9010 32021 432010 800741 3140 110,000.00 Ivy Fire Station
4 9010 32021 432010 800742 3140 110,000.00 Ivy Fire Station
4 9010 32021 432010 999999 3140 132,300.00 Ivy Fire Station
4 9010 32030 432030 950350 3140 150,000.00 CARS - AMBULANCE #1
4 9010 32030 432030 950351 3140 150,000.00 CARS - AMBULANCE #2
4 9010 41000 481020 950110 1240 10,000.00 Records Management System
4 9010 41020 441200 950081 9999 1,500,000.00 Revenue Sharing Road Program
4 9010 41020 441200 950136 9999 726,690.16 St Improvement - Local
4 9010 41020 441200 950171 9999 6,696.42 Sunridge Road
4 9010 41021 441200 950117 9999 0.00 Meadow Creek Parkway Landscaping
4 9010 41023 441200 800605 9999 1,000,000.00 Crozet Streetscape Ph II
4 9010 41023 441200 800670 9999 895,000.00 Crozet Streetscape Ph II
4 9010 41350 441200 950510 9999 450,000.00 Sidewalk, South Pantops
4 9010 41350 441200 950514 9999 185,000.00 Sidewalk, Crozet Ave North
4 9010 41350 441200 950519 9999 87,524.66 Sidewalk, Fontain Avenue
4 9010 41350 441200 950522 9999 194,499.24 Sidewalk, Hollymead-Powell Creek
Drive
4 9010 41350 441200 999999 9999 83,735.54 Sidewalk, Contingency
4 9010 42042 442040 700006 1210 666,351.34 Ivy Landfill
4 9010 43100 443200 950103 1100 400,000.00 COB Brick Repointing
4 9010 71020 471020 800949 7100 138,000.00 Parks & Rec Maintenance
4 9010 71020 471020 950202 7100 12,000.00 Greenways, Crozet
4 9010 72030 471010 950026 7100 35,000.00 Tourism-Greenway Program
4 9010 72030 471010 950233 7280 2,374.00 Tourism-Park, Preddy Creek
4 9010 73025 473010 800949 7146 40,000.00 Maint-Central Library
4 9010 81010 481020 580409 1240 472,225.69 ACE-County
4 9010 81010 481020 950147 1240 42,545.00 GIS Project
4 9010 81010 481020 950199 1240 92,084.62 Crozet Main Street
4 9010 94160 494070 312350 7140 430,000.00 Crozet Library
4 9010 32018 432010 950391 3140 197,000.00 Pantops Ambulance
3 9010 41000 341000 410500 9999 1,600,000.00 Loan Proceeds
3 9010 24000 324000 240238 9999 174,717.00 VDOT Safe Routes to Sch. Grant
3 9010 33000 333000 330062 9999 580,062.00 TEA Grant
3 9010 51000 351000 512056 9999 73,764.89 Proffer, Wickham Pond
3 9010 51000 351000 512059 9999 10,896.30 Proffer, Westhall 1.2
3 9010 51000 351000 512064 9999 53,728.70 Proffer, Westhall 1.1
3 9010 51000 351000 512065 9999 16,098.27 Proffer, Liberty Hall
3 9010 51000 351000 512054 9999 24,016.44 Proffer, Old Trail
3 9010 51000 351000 512046 9999 62,264.79 Proffer, Hollymead C
3 9010 51000 351000 512053 9999 31,146.37 Proffer, Hollymead D
3 9010 51000 351000 512066 9999 31,056.42 Proffer, Hollymead Town Center A1
3 9010 51000 351000 512069 9999 8,451.43 Proffer, North Pointe
3 9010 51000 351000 512037 9999 117.72 Proffer, UVA Research Park
3 9010 51000 351000 512058 9999 83,379.00 Proffer, Stillfried
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 8,720,966.54 App Gen. Gov't. CIP Fund Balance
4 8540 93010 493010 930010 9999 73,764.89 Wickham Pond-Trsf to CIP
3 8540 51000 351000 510100 9999 73,764.89 Wickham Pond App F/B
4 8542 93010 493010 930010 9999 10,896.30 Westhall 1.2-Trsf to CIP
3 8542 51000 351000 510100 9999 10,896.30 Westhall 1.2 App F/B
4 8541 93010 493010 930010 9999 53,728.70 Westhall 1.1-Trsf to CIP
3 8541 51000 351000 510100 9999 53,728.70 Westhall 1.1 App F/B
4 8544 93010 493010 930010 9999 16,098.27 Liberty Hall-Trsf to CIP
3 8544 51000 351000 510100 9999 16,098.27 Liberty Hall App F/B
4 8537 93010 493010 930010 9999 24,016.44 Old Trail-Trsf to CIP
3 8537 51000 351000 510100 9999 24,016.44 Old Trail App F/B
4 8527 93010 493010 930010 9999 62,264.79 Hollymead C-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8527 51000 451000 510100 9999 62,264.79 Hollymead C Fund Balance
4 8528 93010 493010 930010 9999 31,146.37 Hollymead D-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8528 51000 451000 510100 9999 31,146.37 Hollymead D Fund Balance
4 8545 93010 493010 930010 9999 31,056.42 Hollymead A1-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8545 51000 451000 510100 9999 31,056.42 Hollymead A1 Fund Balance
4 8538 93010 493010 930010 9999 8,451.43 North Pointe-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8538 51000 451000 510100 9999 8,451.43 North Pointe Fund Balance
4 8525 93010 493010 930010 9999 117.72 UVA Research Park-Trsf to Gen. Govt.
CIP
3 8525 51000 451000 510100 9999 117.72 UVA Research Park Fund Balance
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 62)
4 8533 93010 493010 930010 9999 83,379.00 Stillfried-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8533 51000 451000 510100 9999 83,379.00 Stillfried Fund Balance
TOTAL 23,731,172.40
APP #2013-007
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted school capital projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9000 69980 464600 800665 6599 54,191.02 Sch CIP Maint - ADA
4 9000 69980 464600 800949 6305 84,049.12 Sch CIP Maint - CATEC
4 9000 69980 464600 800949 6599 95,610.95 Sch CIP Maint
4 9000 69980 464600 950257 6599 29,756.49 Sch CIP Maint - Child Nutrition
4 9000 69985 466730 800200 6104 200,000.00 Greer E S
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6102 31,313.33 Brownsville E S
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6104 99,104.56 Greer E S
4 9000 69985 466730 800605 6522 31,068.93 VMF
4 9000 69985 466730 999999 6104 30,000.00 Greer E S
3 9000 69000 351000 512054 9999 24,016.44 Proffer, Old Trail
3 9000 69000 351000 510100 6599 631,077.96 App F/B
4 8537 93010 493010 930010 9999 24,016.44 Old Trail-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8537 51000 451000 510100 9999 24,016.44 Old Trail Fund Balance
TOTAL 1,358,221.68
APP #2012-008
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various uncompleted stormwater capital projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9100 82060 482040 800605 9999 30,000.00 Woodbrook Lagoon Improvement
4 9100 82062 482040 800605 9999 30,000.00 Downtown Crozet Wetlands Project
4 9100 82063 482040 800975 9999 13,817.65 COB Parking Lot Biofilters
4 9100 82066 482040 800975 9999 91,675.00 WAHS Stormwater Improvements
3 9100 24000 324000 240052 1008 36,620.13 DEQ-VRA
3 9100 51000 351000 512063 9999 74,880.00 Proffer, Grayrock
3 9100 51000 351000 510100 9999 53,992.52 Stormwater Fund Balance
4 8523 93010 493010 930010 9999 74,880.00 Grayrock-Trsf to CIP
3 8523 51000 351000 510100 9999 74,880.00 Grayrock App F/B
TOTAL 480,745.30
APP #2013009
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Move funds for OD Manager from Organizational Development to the County Executive's Office
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 12031 412030 110000 1001 (61,958.00) OD Salaries - Regular
4 1000 12031 412030 210000 1001 (4,740.00) OD FICA
4 1000 12031 412030 221000 1001 (8,668.00) OD Virginia Retirement System
4 1000 12031 412030 231000 1001 (6,745.00) OD Health Insurance
4 1000 12031 412030 232000 1001 (302.00) OD Dental Insurance
4 1000 12031 412030 241000 1001 (737.00) OD VRS Group Life
4 1000 12031 412030 270000 1001 (204.00) OD Worker's Compensation
4 1000 12031 412030 312500 1001 (8,000.00) OD Prof. Ser. Instructional
4 1000 12031 412030 332104 1001 (2,068.00) OD Maint. Cont. - DP Equip
4 1000 12031 412030 520300 1001 (320.00) OD Telecommunications
4 1000 12031 412030 520315 1001 (240.00) OD Cell Phone Stipend
4 1000 12031 412030 550100 1001 (200.00) OD Travel/Training/Education
4 1000 12031 412030 580100 1001 (250.00) OD Dues & Memberships
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 63)
4 1000 12031 412030 580500 1001 (1,160.00) OD Staff Development
4 1000 12031 412030 600100 1001 (100.00) OD Office Supplies
4 1000 12031 412030 601108 1001 (500.00) OD Training Supplies
4 1000 12030 412030 282040 1001 (25.00) HR Total Rewards
4 1000 12010 412010 110000 1001 61,958.00 CE Salaries - Regular
4 1000 12010 412010 210000 1001 4,740.00 CE FICA
4 1000 12010 412010 221000 1001 8,668.00 CE Virginia Retirement System
4 1000 12010 412010 231000 1001 6,745.00 CE Health Insurance
4 1000 12010 412010 232000 1001 302.00 CE Dental Insurance
4 1000 12010 412010 241000 1001 737.00 CE VRS Group Life
4 1000 12010 412010 270000 1001 204.00 CE Worker's Compensation
4 1000 12010 412010 312500 1001 8,000.00 CE Prof. Ser. Instructional
4 1000 12010 412010 332104 1001 2,068.00 CE Maint. Cont. - DP Equip.
4 1000 12010 412010 520300 1001 320.00 CE Telecommunications
4 1000 12010 412010 520315 1001 240.00 CE Cell Phone Stipend
4 1000 12010 412010 550100 1001 1,360.00 CE Travel/Training/Education
4 1000 12010 412010 580100 1001 250.00 CE Dues & Memberships
4 1000 12010 412010 600100 1001 100.00 CE Office Supplies
4 1000 12010 412010 601108 1001 500.00 CE Training Supplies
4 1000 12010 412010 282040 1001 25.00 CE Total Rewards
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2013010
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Adjust salaries and benefits resulting from the change in VRS requirements
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 11010 411010 110000 1001 4,516.00 BOS - Salaries
4 1000 11010 411010 210000 1001 346.00 BOS - FICA
4 1000 11010 411010 221000 1001 (3,929.00) BOS - VRS
4 1000 11010 411010 241000 1001 (65.00) BOS - VRS Group Life
4 1000 11010 411010 270000 1001 5.00 BOS - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12010 412010 110000 1001 24,641.00 CE - Salaries
4 1000 12010 412010 210000 1001 516.00 CE - FICA
4 1000 12010 412010 221000 1001 (21,440.00) CE - VRS
4 1000 12010 412010 241000 1001 (353.00) CE - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12010 412010 270000 1001 33.00 CE - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12013 412010 110000 1001 10,034.00 Com.Bus. Ptnr. - Salaries
4 1000 12013 412010 210000 1001 767.00 Com.Bus. Ptnr. - FICA
4 1000 12013 412010 221000 1001 (8,731.00) Com.Bus. Ptnr. - VRS
4 1000 12013 412010 241000 1001 (145.00) Com.Bus. Ptnr. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12013 412010 270000 1001 14.00 Com.Bus. Ptnr. - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12031 412030 110000 1001 5,341.00 ODD - Salaries
4 1000 12031 412030 210000 1001 409.00 ODD - FICA
4 1000 12031 412030 221000 1001 (4,647.00) ODD - VRS
4 1000 12031 412030 241000 1001 (77.00) ODD - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12031 412030 270000 1001 13.00 ODD - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12040 412040 110000 1001 33,491.00 Co. Atty. - Salaries
4 1000 12040 412040 210000 1001 1,595.00 Co. Atty. - FICA
4 1000 12040 412040 221000 1001 (29,140.00) Co. Atty. - VRS
4 1000 12040 412040 241000 1001 (481.00) Co. Atty. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12040 412040 270000 1001 30.00 Co. Atty. - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12141 412140 110000 1001 18,116.00 Fin. Admin. - Salaries
4 1000 12141 412140 210000 1001 1,023.00 Fin. Admin. - FICA
4 1000 12141 412140 221000 1001 (15,762.00) Fin. Admin. - VRS
4 1000 12141 412140 241000 1001 (260.00) Fin. Admin. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12141 412140 270000 1001 23.00 Fin. Admin. - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12142 412140 110000 1001 28,057.00 Fin. Rev & Tax - Salaries
4 1000 12142 412140 210000 1001 2,146.00 Fin. Rev & Tax - FICA
4 1000 12142 412140 221000 1001 (24,413.00) Fin. Rev & Tax - VRS
4 1000 12142 412140 241000 1001 (403.00) Fin. Rev & Tax - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12142 412140 270000 1001 36.00 Fin. Rev & Tax - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12143 412140 110000 1001 14,875.00 Fin. Acct. - Salaries
4 1000 12143 412140 210000 1001 1,138.00 Fin. Acct. - FICA
4 1000 12143 412140 221000 1001 (12,942.00) Fin. Acct. - VRS
4 1000 12143 412140 241000 1001 (213.00) Fin. Acct. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12143 412140 270000 1001 19.00 Fin. Acct. - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12144 412140 110000 1001 40,144.00 Fin.Real Est. - Salaries
4 1000 12144 412140 210000 1001 3,071.00 Fin.Real Est. - FICA
4 1000 12144 412140 221000 1001 (34,929.00) Fin.Real Est. - VRS
4 1000 12144 412140 241000 1001 (577.00) Fin.Real Est. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12144 412140 270000 1001 474.00 Fin.Real Est. - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12145 412140 110000 1001 10,568.00 Fin.Pur. - Salaries
4 1000 12145 412140 210000 1001 808.00 Fin.Pur. - FICA
4 1000 12145 412140 221000 1001 (9,196.00) Fin.Pur. - VRS
4 1000 12145 412140 241000 1001 (152.00) Fin.Pur. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12145 412140 270000 1001 13.00 Fin.Pur. - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12146 412140 110000 1001 19,419.00 Fin.Business - Salaries
4 1000 12146 412140 210000 1001 1,485.00 Fin.Business - FICA
4 1000 12146 412140 221000 1001 (16,896.00) Fin.Business - VRS
4 1000 12146 412140 241000 1001 (279.00) Fin.Business - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12146 412140 270000 1001 182.00 Fin.Business - Worker's Comp
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 64)
4 1000 12147 412140 110000 1001 7,965.00 Fin.Payroll - Salaries
4 1000 12147 412140 210000 1001 609.00 Fin.Payroll - FICA
4 1000 12147 412140 221000 1001 (6,930.00) Fin.Payroll - VRS
4 1000 12147 412140 241000 1001 (177.00) Fin.Payroll - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12147 412140 270000 1001 10.00 Fin.Payroll - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12150 412150 110000 1001 8,793.00 OMB - Salaries
4 1000 12150 412150 210000 1001 673.00 OMB - FICA
4 1000 12150 412150 221000 1001 (7,651.00) OMB - VRS
4 1000 12150 412150 241000 1001 (166.00) OMB - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12150 412150 270000 1001 12.00 OMB - Worker's Comp
4 1000 12200 412200 110000 1001 66,521.00 IT - Salaries
4 1000 12200 412200 210000 1001 4,729.00 IT - FICA
4 1000 12200 412200 221000 1001 (57,939.00) IT - VRS
4 1000 12200 412200 241000 1001 (957.00) IT - VRS Group Life
4 1000 12200 412200 270000 1001 86.00 IT - Worker's Comp
4 1000 13020 413020 110000 1001 6,636.00 Registrar - Salaries
4 1000 13020 413020 210000 1001 508.00 Registrar - FICA
4 1000 13020 413020 221000 1001 (8,026.00) Registrar - VRS
4 1000 13020 413020 241000 1001 (173.00) Registrar - VRS Group Life
4 1000 13020 413020 270000 1001 17.00 Registrar - Worker's Comp
4 1000 21010 421010 110000 1002 2,121.00 Circuit Court - Salaries
4 1000 21010 421010 210000 1002 163.00 Circuit Court - FICA
4 1000 21010 421010 221000 1002 (1,845.00) Circuit Court - VRS
4 1000 21010 421010 241000 1002 (31.00) Circuit Court - VRS Group Life
4 1000 21010 421010 270000 1002 1.00 Circuit Court - Worker's Comp
4 1000 21060 421060 110000 1002 19,550.00 Clerk of Circuit Court - Salaries
4 1000 21060 421060 210000 1002 442.00 Clerk of Circuit Court - FICA
4 1000 21060 421060 221000 1002 (16,375.00) Clerk of Circuit Court - VRS
4 1000 21060 421060 241000 1002 (264.00) Clerk of Circuit Court - VRS Group Life
4 1000 21060 421060 270000 1002 39.00 Clerk of Circuit Court - Worker's Comp
4 1000 21070 421070 110000 1002 50,001.00 Sheriff - Salaries
4 1000 21070 421070 210000 1002 2,791.00 Sheriff - FICA
4 1000 21070 421070 221000 1002 (43,174.00) Sheriff - VRS
4 1000 21070 421070 241000 1002 (777.00) Sheriff - VRS Group Life
4 1000 21070 421070 270000 1002 1,516.00 Sheriff - Worker's Comp
4 1000 22010 422010 110000 1002 32,814.00 Commonwealth Attorney - Salaries
4 1000 22010 422010 210000 1002 1,440.00 Commonwealth Attorney - FICA
4 1000 22010 422010 221000 1002 (28,529.00) Commonwealth Attorney - VRS
4 1000 22010 422010 241000 1002 (473.00) Commonwealth Attorney - VRS Group
Life
4 1000 22010 422010 270000 1002 35.00 Commonwealth Attorney - Worker's
Comp
4 1000 31013 431010 110000 1003 343,358.00 Police - Salaries
4 1000 31013 431010 119998 1003 (3,782.00) Police - Lapse
4 1000 31013 431010 120000 1003 18,099.00 Police - OT
4 1000 31013 431010 210000 1003 25,751.00 Police - FICA
4 1000 31013 431010 221000 1003 (301,552.00) Police - VRS
4 1000 31013 431010 270000 1003 8,070.00 Police - Worker's Comp
4 1000 31013 431010 930200 1003 705.00 Transfer to Victim/Witness
4 1000 32011 432010 110000 1003 18,314.00 F/R Admin - Salaries
4 1000 32011 432010 210000 1003 1,064.00 F/R Admin - FICA
4 1000 32011 432010 221000 1003 (15,935.00) F/R Admin - VRS
4 1000 32011 432010 270000 1003 444.00 F/R Admin - Worker's Comp
4 1000 32012 432010 110000 1003 8,330.00 F/R Training - Salaries
4 1000 32012 432010 210000 1003 638.00 F/R Training - FICA
4 1000 32012 432010 221000 1003 (7,906.00) F/R Training - VRS
4 1000 32012 432010 241000 1003 (106.00) F/R Training - VRS Group Life
4 1000 32012 432010 270000 1003 285.00 F/R Training - Worker's Comp
4 1000 32013 432010 110000 1003 12,161.00 F/R Prevention - Salaries
4 1000 32013 432010 210000 1003 930.00 F/R Prevention - FICA
4 1000 32013 432010 221000 1003 (10,581.00) F/R Prevention - VRS
4 1000 32013 432010 270000 1003 552.00 F/R Prevention - Worker's Comp
4 1000 32015 432010 110000 1003 177,473.00 F/R Operations - Salaries
4 1000 32015 432010 119998 1003 (3,782.00) F/R Operations - Lapse
4 1000 32015 432010 120000 1003 13,800.00 F/R Operations - OT
4 1000 32015 432010 210000 1003 13,344.00 F/R Operations - FICA
4 1000 32015 432010 221000 1003 (151,129.00) F/R Operations - VRS
4 1000 32015 432010 270000 1003 7,885.00 F/R Operations - Worker's Comp
4 1000 34050 434050 110000 1003 35,027.00 CDD Inspections - Salaries
4 1000 34050 434050 210000 1003 2,679.00 CDD Inspections - FICA
4 1000 34050 434050 221000 1003 (30,477.00) CDD Inspections - VRS
4 1000 34050 434050 241000 1003 (526.00) CDD Inspections - VRS Group Life
4 1000 34050 434050 270000 1003 421.00 CDD Inspections - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43100 443100 110000 1004 30,523.00 OFD - Salaries
4 1000 43100 443100 210000 1004 2,335.00 OFD - FICA
4 1000 43100 443100 221000 1004 (26,558.00) OFD - VRS
4 1000 43100 443100 241000 1004 (439.00) OFD - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43100 443100 270000 1004 482.00 OFD - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43201 443200 110000 1004 12,894.00 DGS Admin - Salaries
4 1000 43201 443200 210000 1004 986.00 DGS Admin - FICA
4 1000 43201 443200 221000 1004 (11,218.00) DGS Admin - VRS
4 1000 43201 443200 241000 1004 (185.00) DGS Admin - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43201 443200 270000 1004 100.00 DGS Admin - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43202 443200 110000 1004 8,082.00 DGS Maint - Salaries
4 1000 43202 443200 210000 1004 618.00 DGS Maint - FICA
4 1000 43202 443200 221000 1004 (7,032.00) DGS Maint - VRS
4 1000 43202 443200 241000 1004 (116.00) DGS Maint - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43202 443200 270000 1004 166.00 DGS Maint - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43203 443200 110000 1004 3,557.00 DGS Custodial - Salaries
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 65)
4 1000 43203 443200 210000 1004 272.00 DGS Custodial - FICA
4 1000 43203 443200 221000 1004 (3,095.00) DGS Custodial - VRS
4 1000 43203 443200 241000 1004 (66.00) DGS Custodial - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43203 443200 270000 1004 84.00 DGS Custodial - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43204 443200 110000 1004 5,101.00 DGS Copy Center - Salaries
4 1000 43204 443200 210000 1004 390.00 DGS Copy Center - FICA
4 1000 43204 443200 221000 1004 (4,438.00) DGS Copy Center - VRS
4 1000 43204 443200 241000 1004 (73.00) DGS Copy Center - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43204 443200 270000 1004 79.00 DGS Copy Center - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43205 482040 110000 1004 5,965.00 DGS Stormwater - Salaries
4 1000 43205 482040 210000 1004 456.00 DGS Stormwater - FICA
4 1000 43205 482040 221000 1004 (5,190.00) DGS Stormwater - VRS
4 1000 43205 482040 241000 1004 (86.00) DGS Stormwater - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43205 482040 270000 1004 94.00 DGS Stormwater - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43206 443200 110000 1004 5,253.00 DGS Grounds Maint - Salaries
4 1000 43206 443200 210000 1004 402.00 DGS Grounds Maint - FICA
4 1000 43206 443200 221000 1004 (4,571.00) DGS Grounds Maint - VRS
4 1000 43206 443200 241000 1004 (76.00) DGS Grounds Maint - VRS Group Life
4 1000 43206 443200 270000 1004 103.00 DGS Grounds Maint - Worker's Comp
4 1000 43207 443200 110000 1004 2,620.00 DGS Environmental Mgmt - Salaries
4 1000 43207 443200 210000 1004 201.00 DGS Environmental Mgmt - FICA
4 1000 43207 443200 221000 1004 (2,280.00) DGS Environmental Mgmt - VRS
4 1000 43207 443200 241000 1004 (52.00) DGS Environmental Mgmt - VRS
Group Life
4 1000 43207 443200 270000 1004 41.00 DGS Environmental Mgmt - Worker's
Comp
4 1000 53011 453010 110000 1005 43,179.00 DSS Admin - Salaries
4 1000 53011 453010 210000 1005 2,926.00 DSS Admin - FICA
4 1000 53011 453010 221000 1005 (37,571.00) DSS Admin - VRS
4 1000 53011 453010 241000 1005 (620.00) DSS Admin - VRS Group Life
4 1000 53011 453010 270000 1005 171.00 DSS Admin - Worker's Comp
4 1000 53012 453010 110000 1005 62,784.00 DSS Benefits - Salaries
4 1000 53012 453010 119998 1005 (3,782.00) DSS Benefits - Lapse
4 1000 53012 453010 210000 1005 4,513.00 DSS Benefits - FICA
4 1000 53012 453010 221000 1005 (51,338.00) DSS Benefits - VRS
4 1000 53012 453010 241000 1005 (847.00) DSS Benefits - VRS Group Life
4 1000 53012 453010 270000 1005 98.00 DSS Benefits - Worker's Comp
4 1000 53013 453010 110000 1005 89,620.00 DSS Services - Salaries
4 1000 53013 453010 210000 1005 6,856.00 DSS Services - FICA
4 1000 53013 453010 221000 1005 (77,978.00) DSS Services - VRS
4 1000 53013 453010 241000 1005 (1,361.00) DSS Services - VRS Group Life
4 1000 53013 453010 270000 1005 763.00 DSS Services - Worker's Comp
4 1000 53015 453010 110000 1005 19,409.00 DSS Medicaid - Salaries
4 1000 53015 453010 210000 1005 1,485.00 DSS Medicaid - FICA
4 1000 53015 453010 221000 1005 (16,888.00) DSS Medicaid - VRS
4 1000 53015 453010 241000 1005 (279.00) DSS Medicaid - VRS Group Life
4 1000 53015 453010 270000 1005 78.00 DSS Medicaid - Worker's Comp
4 1000 53150 453010 110000 1005 32,183.00 DSS Family Support - Salaries
4 1000 53150 453010 210000 1005 2,462.00 DSS Family Support - FICA
4 1000 53150 453010 221000 1005 (28,002.00) DSS Family Support - VRS
4 1000 53150 453010 241000 1005 (492.00) DSS Family Support - VRS Group Life
4 1000 53150 453010 270000 1005 286.00 DSS Family Support - Worker's Comp
4 1000 71002 471000 700007 1007 964.00 Transfer to Towe Park
4 1000 71011 471010 110000 1007 6,901.00 Parks Admin - Salaries
4 1000 71011 471010 210000 1007 528.00 Parks Admin - FICA
4 1000 71011 471010 221000 1007 (6,004.00) Parks Admin - VRS
4 1000 71011 471010 241000 1007 (99.00) Parks Admin - VRS Group Life
4 1000 71011 471010 270000 1007 9.00 Parks Admin - Worker's Comp
4 1000 71012 471010 110000 1007 23,711.00 Parks Maintenance - Salaries
4 1000 71012 471010 210000 1007 1,814.00 Parks Maintenance - FICA
4 1000 71012 471010 221000 1007 (20,630.00) Parks Maintenance - VRS
4 1000 71012 471010 241000 1007 (340.00) Parks Maintenance - VRS Group Life
4 1000 71012 471010 270000 1007 543.00 Parks Maintenance - Worker's Comp
4 1000 71014 471010 110000 1007 2,936.00 Parks Athl & Classes - Salaries
4 1000 71014 471010 210000 1007 224.00 Parks Athl & Classes - FICA
4 1000 71014 471010 221000 1007 (2,554.00) Parks Athl & Classes - VRS
4 1000 71014 471010 241000 1007 (42.00) Parks Athl & Classes - VRS Group Life
4 1000 71014 471010 270000 1007 67.00 Parks Athl & Classes - Worker's Comp
4 1000 71017 471010 110000 1007 3,023.00 Parks Teen Prgms - Salaries
4 1000 71017 471010 210000 1007 231.00 Parks Teen Prgms - FICA
4 1000 71017 471010 221000 1007 (2,629.00) Parks Teen Prgms - VRS
4 1000 71017 471010 241000 1007 (44.00) Parks Teen Prgms - VRS Group Life
4 1000 71017 471010 270000 1007 69.00 Parks Teen Prgms - Worker's Comp
4 1000 81021 481020 110000 1008 118,450.00 CDD Admin - Salaries
4 1000 81021 481020 210000 1008 8,015.00 CDD Admin - FICA
4 1000 81021 481020 221000 1008 (103,064.00) CDD Admin - VRS
4 1000 81021 481020 241000 1008 (1,701.00) CDD Admin - VRS Group Life
4 1000 81021 481020 270000 1008 817.00 CDD Admin - Worker's Comp
4 1000 81023 481020 110000 1008 8,429.00 CDD E911 - Salaries
4 1000 81023 481020 210000 1008 645.00 CDD E911 - FICA
4 1000 81023 481020 221000 1008 (7,334.00) CDD E911 - VRS
4 1000 81023 481020 241000 1008 (121.00) CDD E911 - VRS Group Life
4 1000 81023 481020 270000 1008 11.00 CDD E911 - Worker's Comp
4 1000 81030 481030 110000 1008 14,926.00 Housing - Salaries
4 1000 81030 481030 210000 1008 1,142.00 Housing - FICA
4 1000 81030 481030 221000 1008 (12,987.00) Housing - VRS
4 1000 81030 481030 241000 1008 (214.00) Housing - VRS Group Life
4 1000 81030 481030 270000 1008 160.00 Housing - Worker's Comp
4 1000 82030 482030 110000 1008 2,563.00 S&W Consv. - Salaries
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 66)
4 1000 82030 482030 210000 1008 196.00 S&W Consv. - FICA
4 1000 82030 482030 221000 1008 (2,231.00) S&W Consv. - VRS
4 1000 82030 482030 241000 1008 (37.00) S&W Consv. - VRS Group Life
4 1000 82030 482030 270000 1008 4.00 S&W Consv. - Worker's Comp
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 335,188.00 Use of Fund Balance
4 4200 71002 471010 110000 1007 4,485.00 Towe Park - Salaries
4 4200 71002 471010 210000 1007 344.00 Towe Park - FICA
4 4200 71002 471010 221000 1007 (3,902.00) Towe Park - VRS
4 4200 71002 471010 241000 1007 (64.00) Towe Park - VRS Group Life
4 4200 71002 471010 270000 1007 101.00 Towe Park - Worker's Comp
3 4200 16000 316000 160503 9999 964.00 Transfer from GF
4 1225 31012 431010 110000 1003 3,644.00 Victim Witness - Salaries
4 1225 31012 431010 210000 1003 279.00 Victim Witness - FICA
4 1225 31012 431010 221000 1003 (3,171.00) Victim Witness - VRS
4 1225 31012 431010 241000 1003 (53.00) Victim Witness - VRS Group Life
4 1225 31012 431010 270000 1003 6.00 Victim Witness - Worker's Comp
3 1225 51000 351000 512004 9999 705.00 Transfer from GF
4 1553 51122 453010 110000 1005 1,003.00 BS Greer - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51122 453010 112100 1005 2,547.00 BS Greer - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51122 453010 114100 1005 1,006.00 BS Greer - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51122 453010 210000 1005 348.00 BS Greer - FICA
4 1553 51122 453010 221000 1005 (4,007.00) BS Greer - VRS
4 1553 51122 453010 241000 1005 2.00 BS Greer - Group Life
4 1553 51122 453010 270000 1005 73.00 BS Greer - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51129 453010 110000 1005 1,267.00 BS Stone Rob - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51129 453010 112100 1005 3,266.00 BS Stone Rob - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51129 453010 114100 1005 1,066.00 BS Stone Rob - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51129 453010 210000 1005 428.00 BS Stone Rob - FICA
4 1553 51129 453010 221000 1005 (4,924.00) BS Stone Rob - VRS
4 1553 51129 453010 241000 1005 2.00 BS Stone Rob - Group Life
4 1553 51129 453010 270000 1005 89.00 BS Stone Rob - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51150 453010 110000 1005 1,075.00 BS Woodbrook - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51150 453010 112100 1005 2,704.00 BS Woodbrook - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51150 453010 114100 1005 897.00 BS Woodbrook - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51150 453010 210000 1005 358.00 BS Woodbrook - FICA
4 1553 51150 453010 221000 1005 (4,113.00) BS Woodbrook - VRS
4 1553 51150 453010 241000 1005 2.00 BS Woodbrook - Group Life
4 1553 51150 453010 270000 1005 74.00 BS Woodbrook - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51151 453010 110000 1005 950.00 BS Agnor-Hurt - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51151 453010 112100 1005 2,818.00 BS Agnor-Hurt - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51151 453010 114100 1005 1,120.00 BS Agnor-Hurt - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51151 453010 210000 1005 374.00 BS Agnor-Hurt - FICA
4 1553 51151 453010 221000 1005 (4,300.00) BS Agnor-Hurt - VRS
4 1553 51151 453010 241000 1005 5.00 BS Agnor-Hurt - Group Life
4 1553 51151 453010 270000 1005 79.00 BS Agnor-Hurt - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51152 453010 110000 1005 1,130.00 BS Cale I - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51152 453010 112100 1005 2,235.00 BS Cale I - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51152 453010 114100 1005 738.00 BS Cale I - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51152 453010 210000 1005 314.00 BS Cale I - FICA
4 1553 51152 453010 221000 1005 (3,607.00) BS Cale I - VRS
4 1553 51152 453010 241000 1005 (2.00) BS Cale I - Group Life
4 1553 51152 453010 270000 1005 64.00 BS Cale I - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51153 453010 110000 1005 919.00 BS Scottsville - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51153 453010 112100 1005 2,198.00 BS Scottsville - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51153 453010 114100 1005 866.00 BS Scottsville - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51153 453010 210000 1005 305.00 BS Scottsville - FICA
4 1553 51153 453010 221000 1005 (3,502.00) BS Scottsville - VRS
4 1553 51153 453010 241000 1005 2.00 BS Scottsville - Group Life
4 1553 51153 453010 270000 1005 63.00 BS Scottsville - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51154 453010 110000 1005 3,200.00 BS Program Mgr - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51154 453010 210000 1005 245.00 BS Program Mgr - FICA
4 1553 51154 453010 221000 1005 (2,785.00) BS Program Mgr - VRS
4 1553 51154 453010 241000 1005 (46.00) BS Program Mgr - Group Life
4 1553 51154 453010 270000 1005 29.00 BS Program Mgr - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51155 453010 114100 1005 422.00 BS Red Hill - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51155 453010 210000 1005 32.00 BS Red Hill - FICA
4 1553 51155 453010 221000 1005 (372.00) BS Red Hill - VRS
4 1553 51155 453010 241000 1005 2.00 BS Red Hill - Group Life
4 1553 51155 453010 270000 1005 8.00 BS Red Hill - Worker's Comp
4 1553 51157 453010 110000 1005 959.00 BS Greer II - Regular Salaries
4 1553 51157 453010 112100 1005 3,042.00 BS Greer II - Teacher Salaries
4 1553 51157 453010 114100 1005 827.00 BS Greer II - Teacher Aide
4 1553 51157 453010 210000 1005 370.00 BS Greer II - FICA
4 1553 51157 453010 221000 1005 (4,248.00) BS Greer II - VRS
4 1553 51157 453010 241000 1005 5.00 BS Greer II - Group Life
4 1553 51157 453010 270000 1005 78.00 BS Greer II - Worker's Comp
3 1553 51000 351000 510100 9999 7,700.00 Use of Bright Stars Fund Balance
TOTAL 689,114.00
APP #2013011
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 67)
EXPLANATION: Sheriff Donations Appropriation and Reappropriation
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 8408 51000 351000 510100 9999 5,465.81 Fund Balance
4 8408 93010 493010 930009 9999 5,465.81 Transfer to GF
3 1000 51000 351000 512020 9999 5,465.81 Transfer from fund 8408
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 4,400.00 Fund Balance
4 1000 21070 421070 301230 1002 9,865.81 Reserve Programs
TOTAL 30,663.24
APP #2013-012
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Office of Facilities Development Internal Service Fund
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 43100 443100 110000 1004 (647,092.00) Salaries-Regular
4 1000 43100 443100 210000 1004 (49,503.00) FICA
4 1000 43100 443100 221000 1004 (90,528.00) Virginia Retirement Sys.
4 1000 43100 443100 231000 1004 (60,705.00) Health Insurance
4 1000 43100 443100 232000 1004 (2,718.00) Dental Insurance
4 1000 43100 443100 241000 1004 (7,700.00) VRS Group Life Insurance
4 1000 43100 443100 270000 1004 (10,224.00) Worker's Compensation
4 1000 43100 443100 282040 1004 (202.00) Total Rewards
4 1000 43100 443100 332104 1004 (3,385.00) Maint. Cont. - DP Equip.
4 1000 43100 443100 520100 1004 (250.00) Postal Services
4 1000 43100 443100 520300 1004 (2,070.00) Telecommunications
4 1000 43100 443100 530900 1004 (1,531.00) Automotive Insurance
4 1000 43100 443100 550100 1004 (1,900.00) Travel/Training/Education
4 1000 43100 443100 580000 1004 (500.00) Miscellaneous Expenses
4 1000 43100 443100 580100 1004 (400.00) Dues & Memberships
4 1000 43100 443100 600100 1004 (1,000.00) Office Supplies
4 1000 43100 443100 600800 1004 (2,670.00) Vehicle & Equip. Fuel
4 1000 43100 443100 600900 1004 (800.00) Vehicle & Equip. Repairs
4 1000 43100 443100 601100 1004 (800.00) Uniforms & Apparel
4 1000 43100 443100 601200 1004 (290.00) Books & Subscriptions
4 1000 43100 443100 601700 1004 (1,000.00) Copy Expense
4 1000 43100 443100 800501 1004 (2,290.00) Motor Vehicles-Repl
4 1000 43100 443100 520315 1004 (1,680.00) Cell phone Stipend
4 1000 43100 443100 312366 1004 184,009.45 Project Management Coord.
3 1000 16000 316000 160560 1004 (651,545.00) Charges for Service
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 (53,683.55) App General Fund fund balance
4 1925 43100 443100 110000 1004 647,092.00 Salaries-Regular
4 1925 43100 443100 210000 1004 49,503.00 FICA
4 1925 43100 443100 221000 1004 90,528.00 Virginia Retirement Sys.
4 1925 43100 443100 231000 1004 60,705.00 Health Insurance
4 1925 43100 443100 232000 1004 2,718.00 Dental Insurance
4 1925 43100 443100 241000 1004 7,700.00 VRS Group Life Insurance
4 1925 43100 443100 270000 1004 10,224.00 Worker's Compensation
4 1925 43100 443100 282040 1004 202.00 Total Rewards
4 1925 43100 443100 332104 1004 3,385.00 Maint. Cont. - DP Equip.
4 1925 43100 443100 520100 1004 250.00 Postal Services
4 1925 43100 443100 520300 1004 2,070.00 Telecommunications
4 1925 43100 443100 530900 1004 1,531.00 Automotive Insurance
4 1925 43100 443100 550100 1004 1,900.00 Travel/Training/Education
4 1925 43100 443100 580000 1004 500.00 Miscellaneous Expenses
4 1925 43100 443100 580100 1004 400.00 Dues & Memberships
4 1925 43100 443100 600100 1004 1,000.00 Office Supplies
4 1925 43100 443100 600800 1004 2,670.00 Vehicle & Equip. Fuel
4 1925 43100 443100 600900 1004 800.00 Vehicle & Equip. Repairs
4 1925 43100 443100 601100 1004 800.00 Uniforms & Apparel
4 1925 43100 443100 601200 1004 290.00 Books & Subscriptions
4 1925 43100 443100 601700 1004 1,000.00 Copy Expense
4 1925 43100 443100 800501 1004 2,290.00 Motor Vehicles-Repl
4 1925 43100 443100 520315 1004 1,680.00 Cell phone Stipend
3 1925 16000 316000 160560 1004 889,238.00 Charges for Service
4 9000 69980 466730 312366 6599 (62,277.82) CIP-Maintenance
4 9000 69990 468200 312366 6599 (27,869.00) CIP-Technology
4 9000 69990 468300 312366 6599 (42,955.00) CIP-Technology
4 9000 69050 464600 312366 6599 133,036.41 Unplanned but anticipated
4 9000 69985 466730 312366 6104 28,764.70 Greer E S Renov/Add
3 9000 69990 351000 512004 6599 28,699.29 App Sch CIP Fund Balance
4 9010 12200 412200 312366 1160 (12,782.000) Information Technology
4 9010 21005 421005 312366 2180 7,405.360 Court Facilities Maint/Repl
4 9010 21050 421005 312366 2140 (585.000) Juvenile Court
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 68)
4 9010 31000 431000 312366 9999 (42,394.000) Public Safety
4 9010 31010 431010 312366 3110 (9,331.000) Police Department
4 9010 31029 431010 312366 3110 (7,410.430) Firearms Range
4 9010 32020 432020 312366 3140 (40,351.000) Volunteer Fire Dept
4 9010 32021 432010 312366 3140 19,756.140 East Ivy Station
4 9010 32010 432010 312366 3140 (8,948.000) Ambulance/Rescue Service
4 9010 42042 442040 312366 1210 (16,507.000) Ivy Landfill
4 9010 43100 443200 312366 9999 (12,792.800) Facilities Maint/COB Brick Repoint
4 9010 71020 471020 312366 7100 24,971.350 Parks Maint/Repl & Rivanna Trail Bridge
4 9010 73025 473010 312366 7140 (3,349.410) Library Maint/Repl
4 9010 73025 473010 312366 7141 3,877.590 Library Maint/Repl
4 9010 94160 494070 312366 7140 (152,005.670) Crozet Library
4 9010 32018 432010 312366 3140 (2,197.000) Pantops EMS
4 9010 21070 421070 312366 2160 (568.000) Sheriffs Office
4 9010 32022 432020 312366 3140 33,276.800 STVFD Ren/Add
4 9010 41023 441200 312366 9999 52,171.260 Crozet Streetscape Phase II
4 9010 41350 441200 312366 9999 54,850.330 Sidewalk Projects
4 9010 81110 481020 312366 9999 29,328.710 Crosswalks
4 9010 41020 441200 312366 9999 16,920.410 Street Improvements
4 9010 41021 441200 312366 9999 14,664.350 Roadway Landscaping
4 9010 91046 443100 312366 9999 40,812.800 Unplanned but anticipated
3 9010 41000 341000 410500 9999 33,276.80 Loan Proceeds
3 9010 19000 319000 190319 9999 (10,266.00) Firearms Range-City Share
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 (34,197.01) App General Govt CIP Fund Bal
4 9100 82040 482040 312366 9999 17,343.42 Church Road / Multi-Pond Sediment
Removal
4 9100 82066 482040 312366 9999 10,363.75 WAHS Stormwater Impacts
4 9100 82046 482040 312366 9999 1,695.14 Stormwater TMDL Study
4 9100 82062 482040 312366 9999 6,768.16 Downtown Crozet Stormwater
3 9100 51000 351000 512004 9999 36,170.47 App Stormwater CIP Fund Bal
TOTAL 475,386.00
APP #2013-13
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: CIP Adjustments - -Add Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Facility Renovation/Addition; -
Increase Funding to Project: ACE; -Add Local Match for Transportation Revenue Sharing Program; -Loan Proceed Adjustments -
Crozet Library, Ivy F S Project/Equipment, School LAN,
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9010 11010 411010 999999 1110 (117,561.00) Board Contingency
4 9010 81010 481020 580409 1240 178,000.00 ACE
4 9010 41020 441200 950081 9999 1,000,000.00 Transportation Rev. Sharing Program
4 9010 32022 432020 312350 3140 381,320.00 STVF Ren/Add-Engineering/Planning
4 9010 32022 432020 800605 3140 2,838,500.00 STVF Ren/Add-Construction
4 9010 32022 432020 800200 3140 150,000.00 STVF Ren/Add-Furniture/Fixtures
4 9010 32022 432020 800742 3140 138,000.00 STVF Ren/Add-Altering System
4 9010 32022 432020 999999 3140 283,850.00 STVF Ren/Add-Contingency
3 9010 51000 351000 510103 9999 1,689,897.86 TRS FR GF SUP&EXP SAVINGS
3 9010 41000 341000 410500 9999 3,080,051.00 Loan Proceeds
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 (595,039.19) App General Govt CIP Fund Bal
3 9010 51000 351000 512072 9999 375,000.00 Trs. From Proffer, Stonefield
3 9010 51000 351000 512070 9999 108,045.19 TRS FR Proffer, Poplar Glen II
3 9010 51000 351000 512058 9999 962.07 TRS FR Proffer, Stillfried Lane
3 9010 51000 351000 512073 9999 1,016.58 TRS FR Proffer, Western Ridge
3 9010 51000 351000 512056 9999 105,674.57 TRS FR Proffer, Wickham Pond
3 9010 51000 351000 512065 9999 86,500.92 TRS FR Proffer, Liberty Hall
3 9000 69000 351000 510103 6599 676,453.42 TRS FR GF SUP&EXP SAVINGS
3 9000 69990 351000 512004 6599 (676,453.42) App Sch CIP Fund Balance
3 9100 51000 351000 510103 9999 200,410.72 TRS FR GF SUP&EXP SAVINGS
3 9100 51000 351000 512004 9999 (200,410.72) App Stormwater CIP Fund Bal
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 2,566,762.00 App General Fund fund balance
4 1000 93010 493010 930010 9999 1,689,897.86 TRS GF SUP&EXP SAV Gen Govt CIP
4 1000 93010 493010 930202 9999 200,410.72 TRS GF SUP&EXP SAV Stormw CIP
4 1000 93010 493010 930004 9999 676,453.42 TRS GF SUP&EXP SAV Sch CIP
4 8547 93010 493010 930010 9999 375,000.00 Stonefield-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8547 51000 451000 510100 9999 375,000.00 Stonefield-App Fund Balance
4 8546 93010 493010 930010 9999 108,045.19 Poplar Glen II-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8546 51000 451000 510100 9999 108,045.19 Poplar Glen II-App Fund Balance
4 8533 93010 493010 930010 9999 962.07 Stillfried Lane-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8533 51000 451000 510100 9999 962.07 Stillfried Lane-App Fund Balance
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 69)
4 8535 93010 493010 930010 9999 1,016.58 Western Ridge-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8535 51000 451000 510100 9999 1,016.58 Western Ridge-App Fund Balance
4 8540 93010 493010 930010 9999 105,674.57 Wickham Pond-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8540 51000 451000 510100 9999 105,674.57 Wickham Pond-App Fund Balance
4 8544 93010 493010 930010 9999 86,500.92 Liberty Hall-Trsf to Gen. Govt. CIP
3 8544 51000 451000 510100 9999 86,500.92 Liberty Hall-App Fund Balance
TOTAL 16,192,140.66
APP #2013-14
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Debt Adjustments; -VPSA Credit; -VRA Principle & Interest (Fund correction and increase)
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 9900 41000 341000 410101 9999 75,284.00 VPSA Credit
3 9900 51000 351000 512004 9999 (75,284.00) TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
4 1000 93010 493010 930003 9999 (75,284.00) Trans-School Debt Service
4 9911 95000 495000 920077 9999 (11,134.00) INTEREST - VRA FY 2011
DEBT
4 9911 95000 495000 910077 9999 (20,000.00) Principle - VRA FY 2011 DEBT
3 9911 51000 351000 512004 9999 (31,134.00) TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
4 1000 93010 493010 930229 9999 (31,134.00) Trans-Stormwater Debt Service
4 9910 95000 495000 920077 9999 6,437.22 INTEREST - VRA FY 2011
DEBT
4 9910 95000 495000 910077 9999 42,105.26 Principle - VRA FY 2011 DEBT
3 9910 51000 351000 512004 9999 48,542.48 TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
4 1000 93010 493010 930011 9999 48,542.48 Trans-Gen Gov Debt Service
4 1000 93010 493010 930010 9999 28,937.76 Trans-Gen Government CIP
3 9010 51000 351000 512004 9999 28,937.76 TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
3 9010 51000 351000 510100 9999 (28,937.76) Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal.
4 1000 93010 493010 930003 9999 28,937.76 Trans-School Debt Service
3 9000 69000 351000 512001 6599 28,937.76 TRS. FR. GENERAL FUND
3 9000 69000 351000 510100 6599 (28,937.76) Sch CIP Fund Bal.
TOTAL 34,816.96
APP #2013-015
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reappropriating costs related to various time-sensitive uncompleted special revenues projects
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1219 51000 351000 510100 9999 116,647.85 App Fund Balance
4 1219 81030 481030 300205 1008 18,235.70 Oak Hill Administrative
Services
4 1219 81030 481030 950523 1008 98,412.15 Oak Hill Construction
3 1224 51000 351000 510100 9999 8,359.72 App Fund Balance
4 1224 81032 481030 300205 1008 8,359.72 Orchard Acres Administrative
Services
3 1515 51000 351000 510100 9999 24,929.00 App Fund Balance
4 1515 31013 431010 800100 1003 24,929.00 Machinery and Equipment
3 1537 51000 351000 510100 9999 17,821.00 App Fund Balance
4 1537 31013 431010 317000 1003 17,821.00 Professional Services
3 1588 51000 351000 510100 9999 10,532.00 App Fund Balance
4 1588 31013 431010 120000 1003 9,784.00 OT Wages
4 1588 31013 431010 210000 1003 748.00 FICA
3 1592 33030 333000 330036 1007 453,844.56 VDOT-FHWA: Transportation
Enh Grant
4 1592 72055 472030 568915 1007 453,844.56 Lewis & Clark Exploratory
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 70)
Center
3 9011 51000 351000 510100 9999 2,793,318.08 Re-App Fund Balance
4 9011 91000 491000 940080 9999 2,793,318.08 Belvedere Bond
Project
3 9016 51000 351000 510100 9999 2,258.48 Re-App Fund Balance
4 9016 91000 491000 940086 9999 2,258.48 Abington Place Bond Default
TOTAL 6,855,421.38
APP #2013016
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Pantops EMS Rent
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AM OUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 99900 499000 999990 9999 -4,775.00
4 1000 32015 432010 540200 1003 4,775.00
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2013017
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Transitioning Latino Lay Health Promoter Program from Blue Ridge Medical Center to Health Dept
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 1000 59000 459000 566605 1005 -3,900.00 BRMC
4 1000 59000 459000 560100 1005 3,900.00 Health Dept
TOTAL 0.00
APP #2013018
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Fire Rescue Temporary Staffing
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1000 51000 351000 510100 9999 74,032.00 App Fund Balance
4 1000 32015 432010 110000 1003 52,591.00 Salary
4 1000 32015 432010 210000 1003 4,023.00 FICA
4 1000 32015 432010 221000 1003 7,357.00 VRS
4 1000 32015 432010 231000 1003 6,745.00 Health
4 1000 32015 432010 232000 1003 302.00 Dental
4 1000 32015 432010 241000 1003 626.00 Group Life
4 1000 32015 432010 270000 1003 2,388.00 Workers Comp
TOTAL 148,064.00
APP #2013019
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Housing Scattered Sites CDBG Grant
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 1224 33000 333000 330043 1008 185,200.00 Scattered Site CDBG Award - DHCD
4 1224 81031 481030 300205 1008
8,800.00
Scattered Site Administrative Services
4 1224 81031 481030 563100 1008 176,400.00 AHIP
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 71)
TOTAL 370,400.00
APP #2013021
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: ECC Reappropriations
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
3 4100 51000 351000 510100 9999 77,547.00 App Fund Balance
4 4100 35600 435600 800663 1003 52,100.00
4 4100 41041 435600 800700 1003 25,447.00
3 4110 51000 351000 510100 9999 696,230.00 App Fund Balance
4 4110 31060 435600 312105 1003 81,400.00 Consulting Services
4 4110 31060 435600 800305 1003 234,800.00 Radio System Equipment
4 4110 31060 435600 300204 1003 800.00 FCC Licenses
4 4110 31060 435600 800150 1003 332,300.00 Labor & Installation
4 4110 31060 435600 999999 1003 46,930.00 Contingency
TOTAL 1,547,554.00
APP #2013-23
DATE 07/11/2012
BATCH NAME
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION
EXPLANATION: Reallocation from Ivy Landfill Remediation to County Solid Waste Services Project
ACCOUNT NUMBER
TYPE FUND DEPT FUNCTION OBJECT LOCATION AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4 9010 42050 442050 301200 9999 32,000.00 Solid Waste Services
4 9010 42042 442040 700006 1210 (32,000.00) Ivy Landfill Remediation
TOTAL 0.00
_______________
(Note: The next two agenda items were heard jointly.)
Agenda Item No. 17. ZTA-2012-00002. Water and Sewer. Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.1,
Area and health regulations related to utilities, 4.2, Critical slopes, 4.2.1, Building site required, 4.2.2,
Building site area and dimensions, 4.2.3, Location of structures and improvements, 4.2.4, Location of
septic systems, 4.7, Open space, 5.1.43, Special events, 5.1.44, Farm worker housing, and 10.5.2, Where
permitted by special use permit; and repeal Secs. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 (all
untitled), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. (Deferred from May 9, 2012)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. STA-2012-00001. Water & Sewer. Amend Secs. 14-106, Definitions, 14-
309, Soil evaluations, 14-310, Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems,
14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems, and 14-416, Individual private wells and septic
systems, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. (Deferred from May 9,
2012)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, summarized the following executive
summary which was forwarded to Board members:
“Current zoning and subdivision regulations require that individual sewer systems be composed of
a septic tank and a subsurface drain field, and require that when lots are created they have sufficient area
for a primary and a reserve drain field. These systems are defined under Virginia law as “conventional
onsite sewage systems” (“conventional systems”). The General Assembly has mandated that “alternative
onsite sewage systems” (“alternative systems”) be allowed upon approval by the Virginia Department of
Health, subject to the regulations of the Department of Health that became effective December 7, 2011.
Alternative systems come in various forms, but one significant difference from conventional systems is
that they need not have a subsurface drain field.
ZTA 2012-00002
The proposed ordinance would expressly allow alternative systems as required by State law
and update and standardize the terminology for both conventional and alternative systems in several
sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Because alternative systems do not require drain fields, the
ordinance would allow new lots for which alternative systems would be used to not have area set aside
for a reserve drain field, although they would continue to be required for lots using conventional
systems.
The proposed ordinance also would revise and reorganize County Code § 18-4.1, which
establishes the standards by which an owner must connect to the public water supply or the public sewer
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 72)
system, and eliminates the minimum area requirements for on-site central water supplies or central sewer
systems. Experience has shown that the area requirements are not a reliable standard to provide for the
actual needs of a central water supply or central sewer system serving a particular establishment, and
they unfairly affect small businesses. For example, under the current regulations, 25 establishments with 2
employees each may have the same water and sewer demands as a single establishment with 50
employees, but the minimum area requirements for the 25 2-employee establishments would be 25 times
greater than the single 50-employee establishment. The existing area requirements would be replaced by
a case-by-case evaluation by the Health Department that would consider the type of system (conventional
or alternative), location, and the area required to serve the particular use.
Although County Code § 18-5.1.44 was originally proposed to be revised solely to update the
sewer system terminology, the recent Sinclair decision necessitates further amendment to eliminate the
role of the planning commission as well as the commission’s and the zoning administrator’s authority to
impose conditions in conjunction with a zoning clearance.
Lastly, the proposed ordinance would delete County Code § 18-10.5.2.1(9), which allows special
use permits for additional development rights within the watershed of a public water supply reservoir.
Subsection (9) directly conflicts with the introductory paragraph to County Code § 10.5.2.1, which
expressly prohibits special use permits for additional development rights within the watershed of a public
water supply reservoir. The legislative history reveals that County Code § 18-10.5.2.1(9) was retained
when the prohibition was imposed in 1989 to continue to allow special use permits for rural preservation
(cluster) developments of more than 20 lots within a watershed. Since then, both the State law and the
County’s zoning regulations pertaining to cluster developments have changed, and special use permits
are no longer permitted for rural preservation developments of more than 20 lots. Therefore, the need for
County Code § 18-10.5.2.1(9) no longer exists and, in any event, it conflicts with the opening paragraph of
that section.
An annotated ordinance explaining the proposed zoning text amendment section by section is
attached (Attachment D).
STA 2012-00001
The proposed ordinance would expressly allow alternative systems and revise and standardize
the terminology for both conventional and alternative systems in several sections of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The ordinance also would revise the terminology so that it is consistent with the terminology
in the proposed zoning text amendment.
The proposed ordinance also would eliminate the minimum lot size for lots served by private
water and sewer systems in County Code § 14-415 so that it would be consistent with the proposed
amendments to County Code § 18-4.1. This does not change minimum lot sizes required by district
regulations.
May 9, 2012 Public Hearing
Following the joint public hearing on the proposed ordinances on May 9, 2012, the Board
requested staff to investigate whether other localities have established performance standards related to
the use of alternative systems. The results of that investigation are in the Discussion section below.
State law prohibits localities from regulating the maintenance of alternative systems, but a recent
Attorney General’s opinion concluded that localities may adopt standards and requirements for alternative
systems that are in addition to or more stringent than those promulgated in regulations by the Virginia
Board of Health, provided that the standards or regulations do not relate to maintenance issues. To learn
whether other localities have established performance standards for alternative systems, staff conducted
an informal poll of localities and contacted both the Virginia Municipal League (VML) and the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACO).
Fauquier County requires applicants requesting an alternative system to provide a performance
bond to ensure the prompt completion of repairs if needed. This requirement is described in the attached
document prepared by VACO (Attachment C). VACO representatives informed staff that Fauquier
County’s regulations prompted House Bill 942 in the General Assembly’s 2012 session. That bill is
currently tabled at the request of the bill’s patron while a stakeholders group meets this summer. VACO
representatives cautioned staff that any action by Albemarle County to impose additional regulations on
alternative systems could complicate the efforts of the stakeholders group to find compromises.
Staff also discussed the reliability of alternative systems with local Health Department staff. The
Health Department reports that the new alternative systems have proven to be effective. For example,
Pippin Hill Farm & Winery has installed a high-end alternative system that allows it to hold events that
might have been infeasible otherwise. Thus, alternative systems may allow many of the agricultural-
related activities encouraged by the County’s agricultural economic development policies and regulations,
whereas the use of a conventional septic system might restrict those opportunities.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ordinances as set
forth in Attachments A and B. Staff also recommends that additional performance standards for alternative
systems not be considered at this time. Staff will monitor the HB 942 stakeholders group’s work and
continue to study the potential health and safety impacts from alternative systems, the need for County
regulations to address those impacts, and the state of the enabling authority at that time.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 73)
Staff does not anticipate that these ordinances will result in the need for any additional staff or
funding. Staff will continue to rely on the Health Department for the technical analysis of private water
and sewer systems.
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Adopt ZTA 2012-00002 (Attachment A) and, in separate action
2. Adopt STA 2012-00001 (Attachment B).
Staff has not identified any need to delay the effective date of these ordinances.”
_____
Mr. Rooker asked who was conducting the stakeholders’ meeting. Mr. Dumler responded that it
was Scott Lingenfelder.
Mr. Graham said the legislation was introduced at the request of some development and industry
interests. He stated that Fauquier was represented in the meeting, and most of the meetings have been
held in their area with them. Mr. Graham said there was another meeting at the end of the month. He
said that he was relying on Ted McCormick, of VACo, as a point of contact because he sits on the
stakeholders’ group. Mr. McCormick has been good about keeping the County informed with what is
going on with the group. The group does seem to be working toward some compromises, but it is a little
early to tell what that is going to involve, and there is anticipation that there will be substitute legislation
introduced for the 2013 General Assembly.
Mr. Graham stated that staff’s recommendation is that any additional AOSS regulations be
evaluated after the 2013 General Assembly so it is clear what those changes may involve and how the
County can react to them. For the time being, he said, staff recommends approval of the ordinance
amendments as presented because it brings the County into compliance with the law. It is important that
staff have clear consistency with the State law. He then recommended adoption of both the zoning text
amendment and subdivision text amendment, and offered to answer questions.
Ms. Mallek said that her concern is the general worry about handing over all of the decision on this
to the Board of Health, as far as what is acceptable, and there is no criteria that have to be met. She
stated that there are concerns when different family members are selling. Citizens are being left in a lurch
by local government not taking a more active role. For the County to sit passively and just not do
anything, or say anything, waiting for the General Assembly to make up their mind does not seem to be
the right thing. Ms. Mallek added that she is aware of new houses going in the Rio District that do not
have adequate room for a septic field, and it is clear from the ordinance that the Health Department is
going to be doing what localities should be doing. She said that she is very frustrated with the whole
situation.
Mr. Boyd commented that the County does not really have an alternative, as this is legislation –
and it just brings them into conformance with state law.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that there are options, and Fauquier is acting on its options. She does not
think the County should be passive about this situation.
Mr. Dumler said that staff’s recommendation is to hold off on doing that for fear of giving the
General Assembly something else to outlaw, more or less. He added that he shares Ms. Mallek’s
concerns, and really appreciates the amount of work staff had done to research this. It is a little
disheartening that Richmond continues to abrogate local authority to do important government things like
protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens, and he hopes there is some good compromise that
comes out of HB 942, but he cannot in good faith vote for something without knowing what the next step
is. To his knowledge there are next steps available, but he does not think the Board should live in fear
and abrogate its responsibility to citizens because it is afraid that the General Assembly will then come in
and tell the County it should not have done that.
Mr. Graham said it is not staff’s point of view that there is a fear of additional legislation, but a
recognition that the State is going to change something – and the only issue staff has identified as an
issue with these systems is the maintenance – will they be adequately maintained. They actually perform
better than conventional septic systems in place right now. He mentioned the system at Pippin Hill, stating
they may not have been able to go into operation without their alternative system.
Mr. Dumler commented that the problem is when they are not maintained and they are five feet
away from a stream.
Mr. Graham stated that the one thing the State has been very clear on is that localities do not
have the authority to regulate the maintenance of those systems.
Mr. Dumler said the County should have back-up provisions in place for when they are not
maintained, and when people do not comply with VDH regulations – which they will certainly not all the
time.
Mr. Rooker commented that he is sensitive to the arguments being made, but there is a starting
presumption somehow that septic systems are a magic bullet – which they are not. He said that
regulation of septic systems today is a Health Department matter, not a County matter, and the County
does not require maintenance of septic fields.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 74)
Mr. Davis responded that the County does require a 100% reserve, which is not otherwise
required by the Health Department. He said that the County has some additional regulations that have
been on the local books for decades, on top of minimum requirements for drain fields. The County is
preempted by State law from regulating maintenance of AOS systems. The County is required by State
law to approve them if they are otherwise approved by the Health Department. The only question is
whether or not there is authority and/or a desire to provide enhanced further regulations that are outside
the scope of maintenance, and that is the issue that is being debated by the General Assembly study
committee – whether or not those types of conditions are going to be appropriate or not. Staff is
recommending to go ahead, comply with State law requirements by making these things approvable –
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance – and then take a look at it in the spring to see whether or not the
General Assembly has restricted the authority the County may have, and then look at the experience on
these things too to see whether or not there are other standards that are reasonable in place that will
address the health safety issues, and see what other localities are doing as well.
Mr. Rooker said that establishing a stream setback for the effluent would be the most meaningful
thing, because the County does not have the expertise to make judgments between all the alternative
systems available.
Mr. Davis stated that the County already has a stream setback requirement based on the buffer
requirements, and the question would be whether additional buffers are necessary. He said that Mr.
Brooks has looked at the issue and has not found a compelling reason to expand the stream buffers
beyond what Albemarle already has in place, which is more than what neighboring localities have. He
said that the Engineering staff was trying to take an objective approach to it, and at this point they do not
have recommendations for additional standards – but experience and/or legislation might change that
position in the spring.
Mr. Rooker said he is not really sure what other than stream buffer requirements for effluent could
be imposed. He asked that if a system is offsite from a house somehow and the effluent starts closer to
the stream than the house, if that would be protected from the ordinance.
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, explained that the current W ater Protection Ordinance does
not allow septic systems in the stream buffer at all. It would have to be demonstrated that there is no
alternative on an existing lot. He said that in situations with older houses there are conventional septic
systems in the stream buffer, but that would not happen with new construction, and the W ater Protection
Ordinance applies to “septic system” in general.
Ms. Mallek commented that she is concerned about systems in the rural area that may drain down
slopes into streams and such, causing damage.
Mr. Brooks responded that if it was an existing lot that was created before critical slope
regulations or stream buffer regulations were implemented, the County would not be able to deny them a
building site.
Mr. Davis said they would have to locate it in the place that would least encroach upon the stream
buffer, and Engineering would review that placement and location so it would be put in the best position
possible – but for an existing lot, the ordinance has a built-in protection so the County is not taking away
all reasonable use of the property. He added that that is only for existing lots. For future lots, this is going
to be reviewed so that there is a proper location, a proper building site outside of the stream buffers.
Mr. Graham added that there is still a requirement for a building site for a new lot.
Mr. Davis clarified that there are two ordinances before the Board – as the public hearings have
already been held and closed – the zoning text amendment, and the subdivision ordinance amendment.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to adopt ZTA-2012-0002. He stated that it is required for the
County to conform to State law, but the Board should still closely monitor what is happening in Fauquier
and participate in the stakeholders’ meetings to be informed about options for further ordinance changes
that account for environmental considerations. Mr. Rooker said he does not feel the Board is aware of
any actions that could be taken to improve circumstances that may arise from the ordinance. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion.
Mr. Dumler said he would like his vote in opposition to stand as an extra encouragement to staff
to pay close attention to the roundtable. Ms. Mallek agreed.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
(The ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-18(4)
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
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 75)
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. 4.2 Critical slopes
Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required
Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions
Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements
Sec. 4.2.4 Location of septic systems
Sec. 4.7 Open space
Sec. 5.1.43 Special events
Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing
Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit
By Amending and Renaming:
Current New
Sec. 4.1 Area and health regulations related to utilities Water supplies and sewer systems
By Repealing:
Sec. 4.1.1 Untitled
Sec. 4.1.2 Untitled
Sec. 4.1.3 Untitled
Sec. 4.1.4 Untitled
Sec. 4.1.5 Untitled
Sec. 4.1.6 Untitled
Sec. 4.1.7 Untitled
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Regulations
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Alternative onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health that
is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does not result in a point source discharge.
. . .
Conventional onsite sewage system: A treatment works approved by the Virginia Department of Health
consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity, pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity
distributed subsurface drainfield.
. . .
Critical slopes: Slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as determined by reference to either current
topographic mapping available from the county or a more accurate field survey certified by a professional
surveyor or engineer.
. . .
Onsite sewage system: A conventional onsite sewage system or an alternative onsite sewage system.
. . .
Subsurface drainfield: A system installed within the soil and designed to accommodate treated sewage
from a treatment works.
. . .
Treatment works: Any device or system used in the storage, treatment, disposal or reclamation of sewage
or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not limited to pumping, power and other
equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including land, that are or will be: (i) an
integral part of the treatment process; or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of residues or effluents resulting
from such treatment.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.1 Water supplies and sewer systems (Amended 6-3-81)
The water supply and sewer system serving either a development or any individual lot shall comply with
the following:
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 76)
a. Public water supply and public sewer system within the services areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority. Within the services areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority (the
“service areas”), each development and each lot shall be served by the public water supply and
the public sewer system. Within the service areas, no building permit shall be issued for any
structure if its use requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the
structure will be connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system. Connection
to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is not required in the following
circumstances:
1. Existing structure damaged. When an existing structure is damaged as a result of factors
beyond the control of its owner and/or occupant, the structure may be repaired or
reconstructed provided that the repair or reconstruction is commenced within twelve (12)
months and completed within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the damage, and
further provided that the structure is not repaired or reconstructed so as to increase the
number of water supply or sewage fixtures.
2. Cost of connection to public water supply or public sewer system exceeds cost of onsite
sewage system. When the director of community development, in consultation with the
Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting the proposed
development or lot to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, exclusive of
connection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or an onsite sewage
system.
3. Capacity of public water supply or public sewer system is inadequate. When the director
of community development, in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority
finds that the capacity of the public water supply and/or the public sewer system is
inadequate to serve the proposed development or lot.
4. Nonconforming use or structure. The structure is used for a nonconforming use and
satisfies the requirements of section 6.2(C) or the structure is nonconforming and
satisfies the requirements of section 6.3.
b. Water supply and sewer system when development or lot not connected to the public water
supply and/or the public sewer system. When a development or a lot is not or will not be
connected to the public water supply and/or the public sewer system, the following shall apply,
except when an existing structure is damaged as provided in section 4.1(a)(1):
1. Lots served by an alternative onsite sewage system. On any lot served by an alternative
onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of
which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of
the location and area for the alternative onsite sewage system.
2. Lots served by a conventional onsite sewage system. On any lot served by a conventional
onsite sewage system, no building permit shall be issued for any structure, the use of
which requires sewage disposal, without the Virginia Department of Health’s approval of
the location and area for both an original and a replacement subsurface drainfield that is
adequate to serve the use. For residential uses, each subsurface drainfield shall have
suitable soils of adequate area to accommodate sewage disposal from a three (3)
bedroom dwelling as determined by the current regulations of the Virginia Department of
Health.
Sec. 4.2 Critical slopes
The provisions in this section through section 4.2.5 implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and
conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas because of
the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and sewage disposal problems
associated with the disturbance of critical slopes. The disturbance of critical slopes may result in: rapid
and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-
made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the event of onsite sewage system failure, a
greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health,
safety and/or welfare. The regulations in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 are intended to direct
building and onsite sewage system locations to terrain more suitable to development and to discourage
development on critical slopes, and to supplement other regulations regarding the protection of public
water supplies and the encroachment of development into flood plains. (Amended 11-15-89)
Each request to waive or modify any requirement of sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 under section
4.2.5 shall be by special exception under section 31.8. (Added 11-15-89)
Sec. 4.2.1 Building site required
No lot other than a special lot shall have less than one (1) building site, subject to the following:
a. Composition of building site. A building site shall be composed of a contiguous area of land and
may not contain any area of land that is: (i) in critical slopes; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay
district; (iii) under water during normal hydrological conditions; (iv) within two hundred (200)
horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public water supply reservoir; and (v)
within a stream buffer under chapter 17 of the Code, provided that nothing contained herein shall
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 77)
be deemed to prohibit or impair the program authority from exercising its discretion as authorized
in chapter 17.
b. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, any requirement of section 4.2.1(a) may be
waived or modified by special exception under section 31.8 upon the board of supervisors’
consideration of whether (i) the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other
unusual physical condition; or (ii) development in a stream buffer on the parcel was authorized as
provided in section 17-321 of the Code.
Sec. 4.2.2 Building site area and dimensions
Each building site shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimension requirements: (Amended
10-17-01)
a. Uses not served by a public or central sewage system. Building sites for uses not served by a
public or central sewage system shall be subject to the following: (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01)
1. Dwelling units. Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand
(30,000) square feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension
exceeds any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle
inscribed within the building site. The building site shall have adequate area for locating
two (2) subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health if the lot will
be served by a conventional onsite sewage system. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01)
2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development
subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square
feet or greater and shall be of such dimensions that no one dimension exceeds any other
by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as described by a rectangle inscribed within the
building site. The building site shall have adequate area for all buildings and structures,
two (2) subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health if the lot will
be served by a conventional onsite sewage system, parking and loading areas, storage
yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity related to the
improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01)
3. Special exception. Notwithstanding section 4.2.5, the rectangular shape required by
subsections (1) and (2) may be waived or modified by special exception under section
31.8 upon the board of supervisors’ consideration of the recommendation from the
Virginia Department of Health and information provided by the developer showing, that: (i)
the parcel has an unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical
condition; (ii) no reasonable alternative building site exists; and (iii) modifying or waiving
the rectangular shape would result in less degradation of the parcel or adjacent parcels
than if those dimensions were adhered to. (Added 10-17-01)
b. Uses served by a central sewage system. Building sites for uses served by a central sewage
system shall be demonstrated by the applicant to have adequate area, as follows: (Amended 10-
17-01)
1. Residential development. Each building site in a residential development shall have
adequate area for all dwelling unit(s) together with an area equivalent to the sum of the
applicable required yard areas for the applicable zoning district and, if parking is provided
in bays, the parking area. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01)
2. Development subject to section 32 of this chapter. Each building site in a development
subject to section 32 of this chapter shall have adequate area for all structures, parking
and loading areas, storage yards and other improvements, and all earth disturbing activity
related to the improvements. (Added 11-15-89; Amended 10-17-01)
(§ 4.2.2, 12-10-80; § 4.2.2, 4.2.2.1, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01)
Sec. 4.2.3 Location of structures and improvements
Except as otherwise provided in section 4.2.2, this section applies to the location of any structure for which
a permit is required under the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site
plan pursuant to section 32 of this chapter. (Amended 11-15-89; 10-17-01)
(§ 4.2.3, 12-10-80, 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(7), 10-17-01)
a. No structure or improvement shall be located on any lot in any area other than a building
site. (Amended 11-15-89)
b. No structure, improvement, or land disturbing activity to establish the structure or
improvement shall be located on critical slopes except as otherwise permitted under
sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6 and 4.3.1.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 78)
Sec. 4.2.4 Location of onsite sewage systems (Amended 11-11-87)
In the review for and issuance of a permit for the installation of an onsite sewage system, the Virginia
Department of Health should be mindful of the intent of section 4.2, and particularly mindful of the intent to
discourage onsite sewage systems on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. Any onsite sewage
system shall be located within a building site. (Amended 11-1-87; 9-9-92)
Sec. 4.7 Open space
Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows:
a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to
development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The
commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and
maintenance of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The
subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall
apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided on a subdivision plat or site
plan.
b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed
with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and
improved for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate
structures; (ii) game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial
recreational uses and structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells; (vi) in a cluster
development, onsite sewage systems if the Department of Health determines that there are no
suitable locations for a subsurface drainfield on a development lot; and (vii) stormwater
management facilities and flood control devices.
c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows:
1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas
deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land in
the one-hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty-
five (25) percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines, stormwater
management facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent or
seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide
reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the
development and adjoining properties.
2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development
to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided
that the redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the
applicable zoning district.
3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than
eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i)
land located within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional,
common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and W ater Features of the
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) critical slopes; and (iv) land devoted to
stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or
feature is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the
agent to constitute a desirable open space amenity.
d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open
space in private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and
preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction
with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be
dedicated to the county in the manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall
count toward the minimum required open space.
(12-10-80, §§ 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4; 6-3-81, 11-15-89; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 4.7)
Sec. 5.1.43 Special events
Each special event authorized by section 10.2.2(50) shall be subject to the following:
a. Eligibility and applicability. Special events may be authorized on those parcels in the Rural Areas
(RA) zoning district on which there is an existing and ongoing by-right (section 10.2.1) primary
use. A special event special use permit issued under section 10.2.2(50) and this section shall not
be required for special events associated with farm wineries or historical centers, or for events
determined by the zoning administrator to be accessory to a primary use of the parcel.
b. Information to be submitted with application for special use permit. In addition to any information
otherwise required to be submitted for a special use permit, each application for a special use
permit shall include the following:
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 79)
1. Concept plan. A preliminary schematic plan (the “concept plan”) satisfying section 32.4.1.
The concept plan shall identify the structure(s) to be used for the special event, include
the area of the structure(s) in which the proposed special events will be conducted, the
parking area, and the entrance to the site from the street. The concept plan shall
address, in particular, provisions for safe and convenient access to and from the street,
the location of the parking area, the location of portable toilets if they may be required,
proposed screening as required by this section for parking areas and portable toilets, and
information regarding the exterior appearance of the proposed site. Based on the
concept plan and other information submitted, the board of supervisors may then waive
the requirement for a site plan in a particular case, upon a finding that the requirement of
a site plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public
interest.
2. Information from the Virginia Department of Health. The applicant shall submit written
comments from the Virginia Department of Health regarding the private water supply and
the onsite sewage system that will serve the proposed special event site, the ability of the
water supply and the onsite sewage system to handle the proposed events, and the need
to improve the supply or the system in order to handle the proposed events.
3. Building and fire safety. The building official and the county department of fire and rescue
shall review and comment on the application, identifying all Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code issues and requirements.
c. Zoning clearance. The applicant shall obtain a zoning clearance under section 31.5 prior to
conducting a special event. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more such
special events in a calendar year as follows:
1. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning clearance for more than one (1)
special event if: (i) the application submitted by the applicant includes the required
information in subsection 5.1.43(c)(3) for each special event to be covered by the zoning
clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each special event is substantially
similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of
conditions that would apply to each such special event may be im posed with the zoning
clearance.
2. The applicant shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of
the first special event to be authorized by the zoning clearance. The application shall be
submitted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the
county police department, the county building official, the county department of fire and
rescue, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. As part of his review,
the building official shall determine whether the structure(s) proposed to be used for the
special events satisfies the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code
for that use.
3. The application shall describe the nature of each special event to be authorized by the
zoning clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such special event,
the facilities, structures to be used, and the number of participants and support staff
expect to attend each special event.
4. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions of
the special use permit are satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required
by the offices identified in subsection 5.1.43(c)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a
zoning clearance for one or more special events. The validity of the zoning clearance
shall be conditional upon the applicant’s compliance with all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, all conditions of the approved special use permit, the approved concept plan or
site plan, and all conditions imposed by the zoning clearance.
d. Special events sites and structures. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this
chapter, special events sites and structures shall be subject to the following:
1. Structures used for special events. Each structure used for a special event shall satisfy
the following: (i) the structure shall have been in existence on the date of adoption of this
section 5.1.43, provided that this requirement shall not apply to accessory structures less
than one hundred fifty (150) square feet in size; (ii) the structure shall be a lawful
conforming structure and shall support or have supported a lawful use of the property;
and (iii) modifications to farm buildings or farm structures as those terms are defined in
Virginia Code § 36-97 shall allow the structure to revert to an agricultural use, as
determined by the building official.
2. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front
yard shall be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side yard shall be twenty-five feet (25)
feet. The minimum rear yard shall be thirty-five (35) feet. All yards shall be measured
from structures and off-street parking areas. These minimum yard requirements shall
apply to all accessory structures established after the effective date of this section 5.1.43
and all tents, parking areas and portable toilets used in whole or in part to serve special
events.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 80)
3. Parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for a special event shall be as required
in section 4.12.6. Notwithstanding section 4.12.15(a) through (g), the additional parking
area(s) for special events shall consist of or be constructed of pervious materials
including, but not limited to stabilized turf, approved by the county engineer. Asphalt and
impervious materials are prohibited. If the parking area is on grass or in a field, the
applicant shall reseed and restore the parking area site as required by the zoning
administrator. In addition to the requirements of section 4.12.5, the parking area shall be
onsite and screened from abutting parcels by topography, structures or new or existing
landscaping. Notwithstanding section 4.12.16(d) and (e), the delineation of parking
spaces and the provision of bumper blocks shall not be required.
4. Water and sewer. The private water supply and onsite sewage system serving a special
event shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health.
5. Streets and access. Streets serving the site shall be adequate for anticipated traffic
volume for a special event. Access from the street onto the site shall be adequate to
provide safe and convenient access to the site, and applicant shall install all required
improvements and provide adequate sight distance in order to provide safe and
convenient access.
e. Special events operations. In addition to all other applicable requirements of this chapter, special
events operations shall be subject to the following:
1. Number of participants. The number of participants at a special event at any one time
shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons
2. Number of special events per year. The special use permit shall identify the number of
approved special events per calendar year, which number shall not exceed twenty-four
(24).
3. Signs. Permanent and temporary signs advertising a special event shall be permitted as
provided in sections 4.15.4, 4.15.4A and 4.15.8.
4. Food service. No kitchen facility permitted by the Virginia Department of Health as a
commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the site. A kitchen may be used by licensed
caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be
served at a special event.
5. Portable toilets. If required, portable toilets are permitted on the site, provided that they
comply with the yard requirements in section 5.1.43(d)(2) and shall be screened from that
parcel and any street by topography, structures or new or existing landscaping.
f. Prohibition of development to a more intensive use. A parcel subject to a special events special
use permit shall not be subdivided so as to create one or more parcels, including the parent
parcel, of less than twenty-one acres in size without first amending the special use permit to
expressly authorize the subdivision. If a parcel is so subdivided without first amending the special
use permit, special events shall thereafter be prohibited on the resulting parcels unless a new
special use permit is obtained.
(Ord. 05-18(8), 7-13-05)
Sec. 5.1.44 Farm worker housing
Each farm worker housing facility shall be subject to the following:
a. Concept plan to be submitted with application for farm worker housing. Before applying for the
first building permit for a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, or in addition to any other
information required to be submitted for a farm worker housing, Class B, special use permit, the
applicant shall submit a concept plan meeting the requirements of section 5.1.44(b).
b. Contents of concept plan. The concept plan shall show the following: (i) the boundary lines of the
farm (may be shown on an inset map if necessary); (ii) the location and general layout of the
proposed structures at a scale of not more than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet; (iii) vehicular
access, travelways and parking for the facility; (iv) topography (with a contour interval of no
greater than ten (10) feet); (v) critical slopes; (vi) streams, stream buffers and floodplains; (vii)
source(s) of water for fire suppression; (viii) building setback lines as provided in subsection
5.1.44(g) below; and (ix) outdoor lighting. The concept plan also shall include a written description
of each structure’s construction and materials used, and the number of persons to be housed in
the farm worker housing facility.
c. Notice of receipt of concept plan to abutting owners. The zoning administrator shall send notice of
the receipt of a concept plan as follows:
1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker
housing, Class A, facility, the zoning administrator shall send notice to the owner of each
lot abutting the parcel for which a concept plan has been received within ten (10) days
after submittal of the concept plan deemed by the zoning administrator to be complete.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 81)
The notice shall include a copy of the concept plan and shall advise each recipient of the
right to submit written comments within ten (10) days of the date of the notice and the
right to request planning commission review as provided in section 5.1.44(d). Notice
mailed to the abutting owner shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and
mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax assessment
records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of
an abutting owner to receive the notice required by this section shall not affect the validity
of an approved concept plan or zoning clearance.
2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility: For each concept plan received for a farm worker
housing, Class B, facility, notice to the owner of each lot abutting the parcel for which a
concept plan has been received shall be provided in conjunction with the notice required
for the special use permit.
d. Review and action on concept plan. A concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon as follows:
1. Farm worker housing, Class A, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class A, facility, the
concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator before any building permit is
issued for the facility. The concept plan shall be approved by the zoning administrator if it
satisfies all applicable requirements of this chapter.
2. Farm worker housing, Class B, facility. For a farm worker housing, Class B, facility, the
concept plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in conjunction with the special use permit.
e. Farm worker housing facilities; permissible structures. Farm worker housing facilities shall not
use motor vehicles or major recreational equipment, as that term is defined in section 4.12.3(b)(1)
of this chapter, to provide for sleeping, eating, food preparation, or sanitation (bathing and/or
toilets).
f. Minimum yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the minimum front yard shall
be seventy-five (75) feet. The minimum side and rear yards shall be fifty (50) feet. All yards shall
be measured from the farm worker housing structures.
g. Zoning clearance. The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance from the zoning administrator as
provided in section 31.5 of this chapter before a farm worker housing facility is occupied, subject
to the following additional requirements:
1. The applicant shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the first
expected occupation of the farm worker housing facility. The application shall be
submitted to the zoning administrator.
2. The zoning clearance application shall include all of the following information:
a. Written approval of the farm worker housing facility as a migrant labor camp
under 12 VAC 5-501-10 et seq., the food preparation area, the private water
supply, and the onsite sewage system by the Virginia Department of Health.
b. Approval of the access to the site from a public street by the Virginia Department
of Transportation; provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to require that a
commercial entrance be constructed unless such an entrance is required by the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
c. Written approval of the adequacy of the access to the site for emergency vehicles
by the fire marshal.
d. Written approval of the adequacy of the structures intended for human habitation
by the building official.
3. Upon the zoning administrator’s determination that all requirements of the zoning
ordinance are satisfied, that all conditions of the special use permit authorizing a farm
worker housing, Class B, facility, are satisfied, and upon receipt of the approvals and
documents required in section 5.1.44(g)(2), the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning
clearance for the facility.
h. Use of farm worker housing facility by workers and their families only. A farm worker housing
facility shall be occupied only by persons employed to work on the farm on which the structures
are located for seasonal agriculture work and their immediate families as provided herein. For
purposes of this section 5.1.44, the term “immediate families” means the natural or legally defined
off-spring, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the farm worker.
i. Use of farm worker housing facility when not occupied. When not occupied by seasonal farm
workers, farm worker housing facilities may be used for any use accessory to a primary
agriculture use.
(Ord. 06-18(2), 12-13-06)
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 82)
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit
The board of supervisors may issue a special use permit for more lots than the total number permitted
under sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property within the
boundaries for the watershed of any public water supply reservoir, and further provided that no such
permit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development
than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-5-04 effective 7-1-04)
The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set
forth in section 31.6.1 of this chapter, with consideration of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and, specifically, with consideration of
the following: (Amended 11-8-89)
1. The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for
agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same is shown on the
most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950, to the extent that
is reasonably available.
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on
the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an
agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border
of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the
date of the application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges,
major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall
be considered.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this
section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or
more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of
five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination,
mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness
of an area shall be considered.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers,
services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall be deemed in
proximity to the area or use described:
a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in the
comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89)
c. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive
plan. (Amended 11-8-89)
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in
regard to increased provision of services.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia
Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89)
a. Occasion the need for road improvement;
b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
(§ 20-10.5.2.1, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; §18-10.5.2.1, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1), 5-5-04 effective 7-1-
04)
_____
Mr. Rooker said for the same reasons he would move approval to adopt STA-2012-0001. Mr.
Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Dumler and Ms. Mallek.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 83)
Mr. Rooker commented that he has not seen a recommendation yet for something the County
could legally do to actually improve the circumstances.
Ms. Mallek said she understands, but sometimes, it is just not right.
(The ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 12-14(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE
SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, 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 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article I, General Provisions, Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and
Documents to be Submitted, and Article IV, On-site Improvements and Design, of the Code of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, are hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-106 Definitions
Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or septic systems
Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems
Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and septic systems
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 14-106 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter:
. . .
Alternative onsite sewage system. The term “alternative onsite sewage system” means a treatment works
approved by the Virginia Department of Health that is not a conventional onsite sewage system and does
not result in a point source discharge.
. . .
Conventional onsite sewage system. The term “conventional onsite sewage system” means a treatment
works approved by the Virginia Department of Health consisting of one or more septic tanks with gravity,
pumped, or siphoned conveyance to a gravity distributed subsurface drainfield.
. . .
Onsite sewage system. The term “onsite sewage system” means a conventional onsite sewage system or
an alternative onsite sewage system.
. . .
Subsurface drainfield. The term “subsurface drainfield” means a system installed within the soil and
designed to accommodate treated sewage from a treatment works.
. . .
Treatment works. The term “treatment works” means any device or system used in the storage, treatment,
disposal or reclamation of sewage or combinations of sewage and industrial wastes, including but not
limited to pumping, power and other equipment and appurtenances, septic tanks, and any works, including
land, that are or will be (i) an integral part of the treatment process or (ii) used for ultimate disposal of
residues or effluents resulting from such treatment.
Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Division 2. Documents and Information to be Submitted with Preliminary or Final Plat
Sec. 14-309 Soil evaluations.
The subdivider shall submit to the agent with each final plat the results of percolation tests or
other methods of soil evaluation used to determine the suitability of the soil for subsurface drainfields, if
conventional onsite sewage systems are proposed to be used in the development of the subdivision, and
the results are requested by the agent. These results shall be forwarded by the agent to the health
director.
(9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 84)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3), 15.2-2262.
Sec. 14-310 Health director approval of individual private wells and/or onsite sewage systems.
If required as a condition of final plat approval, a final plat shall not be approved if individual
private wells are proposed for the subdivision until written approval has been received from the health
director by the agent. A final plat shall not be approved if onsite sewage systems are proposed for the
subdivision until written approval has been received from the health director by the agent, provided further
that if the subdivision will be served by conventional onsite sewage systems:
A. The health director shall determine the suitability of the soil of each lot of the subdivision
for which conventional onsite sewage systems will be constructed, and shall submit his opinion to the
agent.
B. The health director may require as a condition of his approval of the installation of
conventional onsite sewage systems that individual lots be graded and drained so as to assure the
effective removal of surface water from each lot.
C. Special lots shall not be subject to this section unless the special lot is created for a water
supply or waste disposal purpose.
(Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 11-14(1), 6-1-11)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2242(2), 15.2-2262.
Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design
Division 3. Water, Sewers and Other Improvements
Sec. 14-415 Central water supplies and sewerage systems.
A subdivision for which public water and/or sanitary sewerage service is not reasonably available
as provided in section 14-414, and which will have twenty-five (25) or more lots of two (2) acres or less,
may be served by a central water supply or central sewerage system, or both, if authorized by the board of
supervisors under chapter 16 of the Code, as follows:
A. The design and construction of each central water system and central sewerage system
required by this section shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Health, or its local office, the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and the board of supervisors. Each system shall
complement or supplement existing or proposed county utilities to the extent that the agent finds existing
public utilities to be inadequate.
B. Neither a central water system nor a central sewerage system shall be required if the
subdivider establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that the soils and parent materials of all of
the lots created for the purpose of transfer of ownership are such that waste disposal methods for the
entire property are satisfactory to the health director, and that no well pollution can occur from the
proposed lot configuration.
C. No final plat for a subdivision served by a central water system and/or a central sewerage
system shall be approved until the requirements of Chapter 21 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia have
been satisfied.
(9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, § 18-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 14-517; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-
20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(4).
Sec. 14-416 Individual private wells and onsite sewage systems.
A subdivision for which public water and/or public sewerage service is not reasonably available as
provided in section 14-414, and for which a central water supply and/or a central sewerage system is not
authorized under section 14-415, shall be served by individual private wells or onsite sewage systems, or
both, and shall meet all requirements of the health department and be approved by the health director.
(§ 18-23 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-27, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-23, 18-27; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-
98, § 14-518; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. WPO-2009-00074. Stonefield (fka Albemarle Place), Request to extend
deadline for installing permanent vegetation.
Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, summarized the following executive summary which was
forwarded to Board members:
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 85)
“With one exception not applicable in this situation, County Code § 17-207(B)(2) requires that
permanent vegetation be installed on all denuded areas within nine (9) months after the date the land
disturbing activity commenced. For those land disturbance permits that were issued prior to adopting this
provision, such as the permit that is the subject of this request, the 9-month period begins when permits
were renewed. County Code § 17-207(B)(3) allows the Program Authority to extend the deadline for up to
six months and the Board to extend the deadline beyond that period.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Permit for the Stonefield project was originally issued on April
26, 2011. The nine month timeframe for this permit would originally have expired in January 2012;
however, a six month administrative extension was granted to July 26, 2012. The County extension letter
is attached (Attachment A). The applicant has requested an additional six (6) month extension. The
applicant’s extension request letter is attached (Attachment B).
The Board may grant an extension under County Code § 17-207(B)(3)(b) if it finds: (1) the
additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner; (2) the owner had made
good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and (3) the owner has plans to effectively control or has
effectively controlled erosion and sedimentation on the property during the land disturbing activity. In
granting an extension, the Board must set a new time limit and may impose other reasonable
conditions.
The southern portion of this project is moving towards completion; however, work on the
northern portion has been delayed. There are several factors contributing to this delay including the
fact while the southern portion has a number of site plans and building permits issued for work no site
plans or building permits have been submitted for the northern side. In addition, infrastructure
improvements on the northern side have required some revisions and the development of solutions
has impacted the completion schedule.
In considering an extension to the Erosion and Sediment Control Permit, Section 17-207(13)(3)(b)
provides that the Board must make three findings. Those findings and staff’s analysis of those findings
are as follows:
(i) the additional time is necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner;
The applicant’s request indicates difficulty in establishing stormwater discharge points in the City as
well as utility relocations. Staff agrees these factors have affected the developer’s ability to complete
infrastructure improvements necessary to reach final grades on the northern portion of the site and
establish permanent vegetation.
(ii) the owner had made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit; and
Staff agrees that the developer is proceeding to completion of the project and has seeded areas upon
the County’s request. Staff would like to have the northern portion of the site reach final grade and be
permanently vegetated.
(iii) the owner has plans to effectively control or has effectively controlled erosion and
sedimentation on the property during the land disturbing activity.
The owner has measures that effectively control erosion and sedimentation from leaving the property.
This has not been an issue.
Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that the evidence supports all three findings.
Finally, Section 17-207(B)(3)(b) provides that the Board is to place a time limit on an approved
extension and may include reasonable conditions as part of granting the extension. If the Board
concludes that the evidence supports all three findings and determines that an extension request is
justified, staff recommends conditions of approval to address the following:
1. Because there are two growing seasons for grasses in this area (March to May and September to
November), staff would recommend the time limit for an extension coordinate with installing
permanent vegetation at the start of a growing season. The best circumstance would be to
require that permanent vegetation be completely installed no later than October 26, 2012.
2. It is recognized that it would be best if the northern side of the site were at finished grades prior to
permanent vegetation being installed. If this is not the case, the site will be disturbed again when
the owner is prepared to finish grading. In order for this to happen, the owner should complete all
rough grading. As examples, the basin must be reduced in size and road grades established for
the temporary road to the signal. This should occur before permanent vegetation is installed on
October 26 so that additional disturbances are not made until site plans or building permits are
approved.
The Water Protection Ordinance requires yearly renewal fees of $100 per disturbed acre. No changes
to funding or staff resources are anticipated as a result of this request.
Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions;
1. Permanent stabilization shall be installed by October 26, 2012.
2. All rough grading shall be completed prior to establishing permanent vegetation by October
26, 2012.”
_____
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 86)
Mr. Brooks presented several pictures of the project, which were taken about three weeks prior,
noting an aerial view of the site in 2010 showing mostly wooded area. He highlighted the development
plan showing the Town Center area on the south side, and the traditional type development on the
northern side. Mr. Brooks pointed out which parts of the site were under construction currently, and noted
the areas that currently have site plans. In terms of those areas, staff did not have a lot of concerns about
the extension request, because the vegetation would be covered by an exemption under the building
permit, or under stone or paving. Mr. Brooks pointed out the location of the large basins currently visible
from Route 29, which are intended for sediment control. He presented a picture taken on Hydraulic Road
where the theatre is being constructed, indicating that most of the area is vegetated in the back and
hardscaped in the front – with a large stockpile near Route 29 that would be used to fill up the basin. He
presented a view from the Comdial parking lot looking at the rear of the project, and pointed out what was
planted and later disturbed for additional grading work. Mr. Brooks presented a picture from Route 29 of
the northern side of the project, stating that the basin is very large and the size has been dictated by the
availability of discharging water into the City.
In terms of the three provisions under the ordinance to be considered - additional time is
necessary due to factors beyond the control of the owner. Staff agrees the applicant has had trouble with
the discharge area that the City is now talking about with its Planning Commission and the manager of the
shopping center on the other side of Route 29. Mr. Brooks said the second provision is that the owner has
made good faith efforts to comply with the time limit, and staff agrees that the project has moved along
fairly well despite the difficulties with utilities and discharge to the City. He stated that the applicant has
plans to effectively control erosion and sedimentation on the property during the land-disturbing activity,
and staff found this was also true. Mr. Brooks said that the applicant has not had any trouble with
compliance, although the County had to send one notice early in the project when the logger was out
clearing the trees. He noted that they were well beyond that now, and there has not been any significant
sedimentation.
Mr. Brooks said that staff recommends approval of the proposed timeline, and the applicant is
requesting an October deadline. He stated that staff has two recommended conditions – the October
deadline, and completion of rough grading on the northern side so that when vegetation is completed it will
stay that way for a time until development plans are executed. Mr. Brooks said that the second condition
may have trouble now that the City is delaying that because they may have to open the pipe and reduce
the size of the basin seen in the picture to achieve some semblance of final grade on that side of the
project.
Ms. Mallek commented that she has appreciated the use of big tarps to keep dirt piles in place,
and she supports the extension.
Mr. Rooker said that the important aspect of this application is the control of erosion and
sedimentation, adding that it is a big project with lots of complexity – with issues that are beyond the
applicant’s control. He would also recommend approving the extension request.
Mr. Boyd said that in 2003, he had just been elected to the Board and before he was seated he
was sent out to visit with Hollymead and Forest Lakes constituents – and was forced to tell them there
was nothing the County could do regarding that development. He stated that years ago he had some
impetus in putting this ordinance together, and his concern is whether there is anyone downstream that
agrees this is not disturbing their property. Mr. Boyd said he would like to hear from constituents, even
though it is not a public hearing.
Mr. Rooker stated that there is no question there is an ongoing dispute between these two
property owners, and he does not think it has to do with the issue of sedimentation that has occurred. He
said that was the issue in Hollymead, and those criteria were not in place there so the Board did not have
the option to see if there was a plan in place that was working on the property in the interim while they
were waiting for stabilization. Mr. Rooker stated that the Board could demand that the applicant plants
now, but that would not make a lot of sense.
Mr. Thomas said there is a sixty-inch pipe that goes under the highway, and asked if it was
plugged up or not – and what would stop the sediment.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant put together a plan that was approved by the Community
Development Department, the Engineering Department, Erosion and Sediment Control, and was signed
off on by the Department of Conservation and Recreation – after the neighboring landowner lobbied them
to deny it. He also said that the City issued a stop-work order on the property by email, which was
defective, after they had signed off on the plan. The email did not even list the alleged violations. There
have been a lot of strange things going on in this case that seem to him to have very little [to do] with soil
and erosion control, and may have some other reasons for occurring. Mr. Rooker said the applicants are
operating under a plan that was approved by the County, and if they have issues with the City they have to
work through them with the City. He said that he does not see the Board as a forum for arguing a private
case that will probably end up in court.
Mr. Boyd commented that he would like to hear whether people downstream have experienced
erosion problems.
Mr. Rooker said, if the comments are limited to that, he would like to hear them also.
Mr. Snow said that he has been out on Route 29 and has seen the dust blow across the highway,
and asked how much sediment would go through the pipe in the event of a hurricane. He said that the
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 87)
property could be hydro-seeded, which would help stabilize the ground and keep it from eroding until rain
could get it to grow.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff had any recommendation for interim measures.
Mr. Brooks explained that they would have to get the area so it is not actively being worked,
before it could be stabilized in that fashion. He said that most areas of the site are actually being traveled
on by vehicles and worked on. The sooner the applicant can get the City issues resolved the sooner they
can actively finish their work on that side and stabilize it. Mr. Brooks stated that they could do it
immediately with hydro-seeding, which is what they have been doing with the stockpiles.
Mr. Thomas said he still has a question about what happens if the pond fills up and where the
sediment would go.
Mr. Brooks responded that the pond is much bigger than it needs to be, and he has never seen it
full enough to go to the top of the outlet riser. He said that he thinks it would take a very big storm to fill
that basin. It has been designed for larger storms than the ordinance currently requires or the State
mandate; he would doubt that would happen. He also explained that the six-foot pipe Mr. Thomas has
referenced is not connected to the basin, but goes underneath from Commonwealth Drive – and only
under a big surcharge would it enter the pipe.
The Chair opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Fred Payne addressed the Board, stating that he represents Sequel Investors – the owner of
Seminole Square – the neighboring property. Mr. Payne said he does not object to having an extension
for the type of vegetation. His concern is with the term “final grade,” or filling in that basin. He stated that
the basin is there to accommodate potential stormwater problems as long as the 72-inch pipe is opened,
and it was opened unlawfully about a month ago – in violation of the City’s soil erosion permit. Mr. Payne
said the applicant appealed that to City Council, and the item just went to the Planning Commission last
night – who agreed with City staff that the applicant is in violation of the permit, and found as a matter of
fact that the circumstances are a violation. He stated that assuming City Council accepts that
recommendation, the pipe will be stopped. Mr. Payne said the problem is they need to get it resolved,
because if the pipe is closed and the basin is gone there will be uncontrolled stormwater off this property,
which is a major hazard to Route 29.
Ms. Mallek said that no one is suggesting closing the basin and the pipe, and the process just has
to run its way through the City.
Mr. Payne stated that his concern is if the City stops the pipe, and the applicant comes in and fills
in the basin, there is nothing in place.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that it cannot be filled in until staff signs off on the system being in place.
Mr. Payne said the owners would be happy if the Board maintains that position, and all they want
to do is ensure that the basin remains there as long as the pipe issue is unresolved.
Mr. Rooker said that their (owner of the shopping center) position is it is unlawful to open the pipe,
but the applicant takes a different view.
Mr. Payne stated that the pipe is currently opened unlawfully.
Mr. Rooker said that the issue would likely go to City Council, and perhaps Circuit Court. He
added that, as he understands it, the violation is because a certain amount of rip rap was not put down
along the sides of the ditch, and Mr. Payne’s client would not allow that rip rap to be put down.
Mr. Payne claimed that his client has not been asked to have it put down, and has attempted to
have negotiations with the Stonefield applicant about a year ago. He said there was an email sent on
Monday from Mr. Jessup and the Pepsi property owners “inviting Stonefield to negotiate these issues.”
Mr. Payne stated that in the past, Stonefield has been unwilling to do so. He added that they are prepared
today to discuss an overall resolution to this matter.
Mr. Rooker said he hopes the parties could come together and do that.
Mr. Payne stated that Seminole is not trying to stop the project, because they feel it is in their own
interest, but they do not think it is in their interest to have the 100-year flood to flood their property and
flood University Tire. If this plan goes forward, that is what will happen.
Mr. Rooker said that is not what will happen according to County staff.
Mr. Payne responded that staff has not modeled the 100-year storm on the east side of Route 29,
only the 2-year and 10-year storms. He said that the basin there now was designed for the existing
conditions’ 100-year storm, which has worked for 30 years. He stated that the basin fills up in the two-
year storm if the pipe is open, and that is how severe these differences are.
Mr. Rooker said there is some difference in the opinions of the engineers. Mr. Payne said the
numbers he is citing were prepared by W.W. Associates, their engineers.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 88)
Mr. Snow stated that his understanding is the County staff would not be responsible for doing the
100-year study on the other side of the road, but there is responsibility not to allow the water to cover over
until the problem is solved.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a question about the legal rights of a property owner to
release water, and that is an underlying issue in the dispute between the two parties.
Mr. Payne said that the issue is that his clients – and the people downstream from his clients –
simply cannot agree to the extension unless there is some resolution.
Mr. Thomas asked what the Board could solve today.
Mr. Payne replied that as long as the Board adheres to what Mr. Rooker said, his clients do not
have a problem at this stage. As long as the Board does not allow that basin to be filled until the issue of
the 72-inch pipe is resolved.
Mr. Rooker said that the relief being sought today only takes the applicant through October 29,
2012 and does not involve allowing the area to be removed until they are able to meet the plan – which
requires the opening of the 72-inch pipe. He said that if the 72-inch pipe is not lawfully closed at some
point, they will have a right to fill in. Mr. Rooker stated there is an issue here of whether the permit
violation that the City alleges is actually a violation – and that will be determined at some point.
Mr. Payne said it would be determined the following Monday by City Council.
Mr. Rooker said he is not sure what action City Council would take at that point.
Mr. Payne stated that all the appeal does is determine whether the order by the staff is effective,
as the City staff has ordered it closed and indicated to the applicants they would be subject to sanctions if
they do not do that.
Mr. Rooker commented that the City has issued a stop work order before on this property.
Mr. Payne said that stop work order had nothing to do with this permit.
Mr. Rooker added that the City never cited what the violation was.
Mr. Boyd asked if Seminole was experiencing sediment problems with the current conditions. Mr.
Payne responded that there has not been any rain since the pipes have been open.
Ms. Mallek disagreed; the whole summer has had rain.
Mr. Payne said since the pipes were open, there has not been a substantial amount of rain or any
sedimentation during the one month it has been there.
Mr. Davis said that the one legitimate issue Mr. Payne has raised is what is being recommended
by staff requires that the rough grading be completed. There is a likelihood that the issue regarding the
72-inch pipe might not be resolved by October for this planting season to take place – and there would be
a decision point as to whether or not staff will allow the pond to be filled in prior to the final resolution of the
pipe. He said that he thinks everyone agrees that they do not want to have a plugged pipe and no
drainage basin there. He added that technically, under these terms and conditions, the applicant could
proceed to fill in the drainage basin as long as the pipe is open and according to the County-approved
plans. If the issue is unresolved with the City an adverse action to Stonefield could require them to plug it
– which in turn would require the County to have them reestablish a basin or some other plan to deal with
the stormwater, consistent with the plans.
Mr. Rooker said that several things could happen in the interim: they may or may not be found to
be in violation; they may work out a resolution with the property owner; and the court could determine
whether the pipe has to be plugged or not while the case is pending. Those are all things the Board
cannot predict today. The Board would not be approving the filling in of this pond and the plugging of the
pipe by this action today, nor does he think they can operate that way ultimately if that becomes the case.
All the Board can do is what makes sense in light of the County’s ordinance, and what the requirements
are in terms of how best to deal with any current sedimentation problems. Mr. Rooker said that if there
are better ways to deal with the current circumstances, they should be imposed as a condition – if not,
staff has already made a recommendation.
Mr. Boyd said that objective has always been to protect County residents from any kind of erosion
problems. He would like to know from staff if the applicant would be allowed to fill in the pond if the pipe
was blocked.
Mr. Brooks responded that staff is fine with filling in the pond, but if the pipe is blocked it changes
things. Staff has approved it to be open, and has approved the applicant to proceed.
Mr. Graham said that the applicant would have to demonstrate in some other way that there is an
adequate outfall for the drainage – either maintaining the existing basin or amending their plan to provide
some other way for the outfall. There are a large number of options that the applicant could use to amend
their plans to provide that adequacy of outfall. He also noted that there is a larger area planned for
underground stormwater management on the north side. If the 72-inch pipe is plugged the applicant
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 89)
would have to amend their plan – but there are a number of alternatives. Mr. Graham added that up to
now the developer has been very responsive to staff’s requests, regardless of whether it is above and
beyond the ordinance requirements.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to approve the request to extend the deadline for installing
permanent vegetation subject to the following conditions:
1. Permanent stabilization shall be installed by October 26, 2012; and
2. All rough grading shall be completed prior to establishing permanent vegetation by
October 26, 2012.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. SDP-2012-00015. Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse, Parking Grade
W aiver Request.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to Board
members:
“Staff’s initial review and research of this request determined that the existing spaces located
along Kirtley Lane had never been approved by the County. Accordingly, the request was advanced to the
Planning Commission for action with a recommendation of denial by staff. However, staff has recently
discovered that administrative approvals for those spaces were granted in 2005 and 2006 by Community
Development. These existing spaces consist of similar grades to the ones being proposed with this
request. The files from 2005 and 2006 do not indicate the rationale for the approval of these spaces due
to the administrative nature of the review process at that time. The reviewing engineer and planner are no
longer employed with the County.
These prior approvals are new facts to the review of this parking grade waiver request. Staff
seeks to maintain consistency in the application of regulations and decision making. There has been no
change in the relevant regulations or significant change circumstance on this site, exc ept for the addition
of a new church served by the road and the addition of the fire station within the existing Kirtley warehouse
building. Based on this new information, staff has modified the factors favorable (found below) and is now
recommending approval of this waiver request. Please note that had staff been aware of these prior
approvals of the existing parking spaces, staff would have initially recommended approval of this waiver
request. Based on the policy adopted by the Board for the review of waivers and modifications, this
request would have been scheduled for the Board’s approval on consent agenda and no review by the
Planning Commission would have been necessary.
FACTORS FAVORABLE:
1. Administrative approvals were granted by Community Development in 2005 and 2006 for the
existing parking spaces along Kirtley Lane. The existing spaces are of similar grades as being
requested for the seven new spaces as part of this request.
2. The is only a limited number of additional spaces (7) created with these steep
3. The seven additional spaces would be similar in character/grade to the existing, non-conforming
spaces along the travelway.
4. The proposed parking exceeding 5% would be for employees only
5. A maximum grade of 13% has been approved administratively before for a driveway; however,
conditions and expectations for the use of a driveway are different than for a parking.
FACTORS UNFAVORABLE:
1. Engineering recommends denial.
2. A finding that the waiver would better serve public safety, health, and welfare cannot be made.
3. Inclement weather/public safety concerns exist.
4. A maximum parking space grade greater than 10% has never been approved.
Staff recommends Board approval of the parking space grade waiver request.”
_____
(Mr. Thomas left the meeting at 12:34 p.m.)
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said this is a cross-grade on parking spaces for the
access road that exists from Route 250 into the old Kirtley Building – which is the site for the new Ivy Fire
Station. He said there were already a number of spaces that exist on the access road that have cross -
space grades in the 12-13% range. W hen this request came before the Planning Commission, staff found
based on Engineering recommendations that additional spaces of the same grade could be unsafe, so
they recommended denial. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there are seven spaces being requested in that
amount of grade. At that time, staff was not aware that there had been previous administrative approvals
of the other spaces that already exist.
He said that the staff had recommended denial to the Commission, and they in turn
recommended denial to the Board based on the circumstances associated with the seven new spaces
and no record found of other spaces being approved by the County. Mr. Cilimberg stated that based on
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 90)
that, and the idea that the new spaces were not to serve a required or primary parking function but were
for employees to access the LTAC building, staff feels it is appropriate to recommend approval for just the
new seven spaces as being consistent with the existing conditions – and the fact that staff had previously
approved the other existing spaces. He noted that staff has let the Commission know that the
circumstances of staff’s research have changed their position, and they can recommend approval to the
Board.
Ms. Mallek commented that the only issue is the cars sliding down the hill in the event of ice, but
that would happen anytime there is ice. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that was the issue, and the engineering
analysis was proper, but there had been prior approval.
Mr. Dumler asked what the potential liability implications are, since it is property the County is
leasing. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the spaces are along the road serving the property being leased,
and he is not sure the road is part of that lease. They are not required parking for County use.
Mr. Davis clarified that it is not part of the lease.
Ms. Mallek said those spaces are already leased out to someone else, and the spaces along the
road do not belong to the fire station.
Ms. Mallek offered motion to approve the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP-2012-
015, Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Snow.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this item falls under the special exceptions provisions enacted in the past
year. If the staff were recommending approval, it could have been brought to the Board on its Consent
Agenda and not have gone to the Commission.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. SDP-2012-00025. Tier II PWSF: Verizon Wireless, Vest Property/
Hardware River.
(Mr. Thomas returned to the meeting at 12:37 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said this request is to replace an existing wood monopole with a steel monopole,
and it is about 11 feet away on the same property – with six new antenna and two vertical arrays that
would be attached. He said the monopole would be 92.5 feet tall, about 18 feet taller than the existing
wood pole monopole, and seven feet above the new reference tree. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there is a
very small area of critical slopes that would be disturbed. This request is before the Board for both
disturbance of the critical slopes and as a Tier II application, reviewed under the special exception
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
He said that staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver, adding that it is in a location
where a prior wooden monopole was approved by special use permit – and the new approval would
supersede the conditions of SP-2003-0072. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the location off of Route 29 South,
stating that it is in an area adjacent to critical slopes that lead up to mountain overlay area as designated
in the Comp Plan – and is also adjacent to conservation easements both east and west. He said the area
of critical slopes that is disturbed is a small area on the edge at an elevation below the limits of the
mountain protection area.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there were balloon tests taken from a number of different locations both on
Route 29 and an adjacent secondary street, and there was limited sighting. He showed a view of the
existing wood monopole and the reference tree for the new pole, the existing ground equipment, the
entrance to the site facing away from the lease area, and the area next to the existing ground equipment.
Mr. Cilimberg said there would be two trees removed, and there is a tree by which the balloon test was
conducted. He showed a view from Murray’s Lane, directly in front of the site and not skylit, and said the
concern raised by an adjacent owner that triggered a Planning Commission review centered around
potential visibility of the new pole. Mr. Cilimberg showed another view of the balloon used in the test, and
pointed out where it was lower than treetop height – with views from both Murray’s Lane and Henderson
Lane.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there are a number of criteria used in reviewing an application such as
this: general visibility from adjacent roads, not visible although it is visible from Murray’s Lane directly in
front of the site. Staff did not find visibility from adjoining properties. The site is not in an avoidance area
or located on a conservation easement; there is no open space agreement for the property, although there
are conservation easements in the area. There is no visibility from the adjacent property in the
conservation easement. He said that staff found several favorable factors for the critical slopes waiver to
include: a waiver would not be detrimental; and minimal loss of aesthetic resource is anticipated.
Unfavorable factors include: the disturbance of critical slopes is to a larger system of critical slopes; and
an adjoining property owner has submitted a letter of opposition.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff and the Commission have recommended approval of the special
exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes for the ground equipment, and have recommended
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 91)
approval of the special exception for the tower at the proposed height of seven feet above the reference
tree.
Ms. Mallek asked if the old pad and old ground equipment would be removed after the new one
was installed. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the old pole would have to come down and the equipment
would no longer be used for that pole – but the applicant should explain how the equipment would be used
for the new pole.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the Ordinance would require that they remove the existing pole and
equipment unless it is otherwise going to be reutilized.
Mr. Rooker asked if the new antenna would be flush-mounted. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it
would be flush-mounted under County provisions, but they have not asked for any additional area of setoff
for that.
Mr. Davis said that prior to the Sinclair decision, the Board would not have seen either of the two
requests, as it was formerly viewed as a ministerial decision. He stated that it is now a legislative decision
as the Supreme Court opinion required an action by the Board.
Ms. Lori Schweller of LeClair Ryan, representing Verizon Wireless, said that the existing
equipment would remain where it is and would serve the new monopole for PCS and cellular service.
There would be an additional generator and LTE box installed on the same clear compound, but no
additional clearing for the new ground equipment. She noted that the new pole would be about 11 feet
from the compound.
Mr. Snow asked if it would increase coverage for the residents in that area.
Ms. Schweller responded that it should raise the PCS and cell antennae higher by about eight
feet, and then would add the new 4G service with the new LTE antennae. She added that it would all be
painted in flat brown, not reflective.
Mr. Snow offered motion to approve the special exception for SDP-2012-025, Verizon Tier II
personal wireless service facility (tower) at the proposed height of seven (7) feet above the reference tree.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
____
Mr. Snow then offered motion to approve the special exception to allow the disturbance of critical
slopes. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Economic Development Authority (EDA), Amendment to Rules and
Procedures.
Due to time constraints, this item was moved to the afternoon portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Open Burning of Household Waste and Refuse.
Due to time constraints, this item was moved to the afternoon portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. Closed Meeting.
At 12:47 p.m., Mr. Dumler offered motion that the Board go into a Closed Meeting pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions; and under subsection (1) to conduct the annual performance review of the
County Executive. Mr. Snow seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:55 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:
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 92)
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Certify Closed Meeting.
Agenda Item No. 26. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Mr. Snow offered motion to make the following appointments/reappointments:
reappoint Mr. Jean Lorber, Ms. Sherry Buttrick and Ms. Miette Michie to the Acquisition
of Conservation Easements Committee, with said terms to expire August 1, 2015.
reappoint Mr. David Mitchell to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with said term to
expire July 8, 2014
appoint Mr. Frank Stoner to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, with said term to
expire July 8, 2014.
reappoint Ms. Emilie Johnson to the Historic Preservation Committee, with said term to
expire June 4, 2015.
appoint Ms. Valerie L’Herrou to the Jail Authority Board to fill the unexpired term of
Aimee Fausser, to expire August 6, 2014.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 27. VDOT Quarterly Report, Joel Denunzio.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio addressed the Board, stating that he is filling in for Acting Residency
Administrator Jamie Glass. Mr. DeNunzio said they are still recruiting for a new Residency Administrator
and have not filled that position yet. He also introduced Megan Ellenick, who was a U.Va. student working
in his office with land development items. Mr. DeNunzio reported that the Route 250 Shadwell bridge was
reopened sooner than anticipated, and the traffic light pattern at the I-64 ramps was changed back to the
single left-turn lane. He stated that the Route 731 bridge in Keswick would be closed for reconstruction as
of July 16.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that Route 53 safety improvement projects are scheduled for
advertisement in early 2013, and include curve widening near the entrance to Monticello and
improvements to the entrance itself. He said that Route 762 – Rose Hill Church Road – had been under
construction for a few weeks and should be completed by July 12; the other three roads were scheduled
to be completed by the fall.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to see the Broomley Road Bridge preliminary design, and Mr.
DeNunzio offered to show him the plans at some point.
Mr. Snow said there were site distance issues at Porter’s Road near Route 6 and Esmont Road,
and there had been plans to do some grading in those areas. He stated they had planned to put some
rumble strips down and the noise they would make, so perhaps line painting to make it look like strips
would have the same effect. He said that the problem is that there’s a school zone there with buses
crossing Route 6 and coming onto Route 6 and there is a problem with site distance for cars going in that
direction and they cannot see those buses coming out and they are going through there at a pretty good
clip and added that if VDoT would continually let him know what was going on he would appreciate it.
Ms. Mallek stated that at Rhea’s Ford Road and Earlysville Road VDoT painted a very thick “Stop
Sign Ahead” message on the road, but it doesn’t have an actual loud rumble strip – and neighbors there
had no problem with any noise from it.
Mr. Snow said that he had sent VDoT a note requesting bicycle decals for Route 250 near
Farmington, and that decision would be made by the Board later today.
Mr. Dumler said that he thought a traffic study was ongoing for the intersection of Route 20 and
Route 726, as a citizen was killed there in late June and another accident had occurred there several days
later. He also said he had requested speed studies for Route 627 and 625, which are a problem three
months out of the year when there is a dramatic increase in summer activities. Mr. Dumler stated that he
had also requested an update on the sign replacement and new public parking striping in the Town of
Scottsville itself.
Mr. Boyd asked where things stood with the design for widening of Route 29 from Polo Grounds
to Hollymead Town Center.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that he was not certain where that stands, as it had been on the six-year
secondary plan but he wasn’t sure it was still on there.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the money had been allocated for it already.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 93)
Ms. Mallek said, VDoT forgot to put it into the Six Year Plan for the CTB in June, and they were
supposed to redo it in July, to have it funded starting this month.
Mr. Boyd stated that there was a trail – Northtown Trail – planned to run along Route 29 from Polo
Grounds to Forest Lakes, and he would like to have that included in the road design.
Mr. Benish said that the Places 29 plan also has a recommended cross-section that incorporates
a 10-foot multi-purpose path on one side. He stated that the Northtown Trail also acknowledges there is
supposed to be a trail on 29, and both could serve that purpose, so there are two plans that refer to that
trail and Places 29 for the County’s recommended cross-section.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that he would be at the district staff meeting on July 12, and the location and
design personnel should know the status of that as well as the Broomley Road Bridge.
Mr. Rooker said that he had taken the bypass plans and pasted them together, and when you look
at what’s being done from Polo Grounds to Ashwood, there is no widening of Route 29 contemplated in
those plans. He stated that what you have is two lanes of 29 through the area and the ramp coming in
from the flyover that comes into the road, so it would seem that the design for the bypass needs to
contemplate the widening of 29, and asked if VDoT has given up the widening of that section. Mr. Rooker
said that there was Polo Grounds to Ashwood and Ashwood going further north up to the Hollymead Town
Center, where there are three lanes on both sides – so there’s two sections – and he didn’t see anything in
the bypass plans that contemplate the widening from Polo Ground to Ashwood.
Mr. Boyd said that was why he is bringing it up because he wants to know what happened and
what is going on with it.
Mr. Rooker added that as VDoT moves forward with the plans on the bypass, they need to make
certain that’s coordinated with the widening – and that one plan contemplates the other. Mr. Rooker said
that the bypass committee had pointed it out as something that needed to be done, and amended the RFP
to include language in that, but it doesn’t seem to be done in the Skanska design.
Ms. Mallek said that it really just moves the bottleneck to a different spot, so it doesn’t help.
Mr. Rooker stated that the other problem is part of the safety issue – the vertical alignment of the
road – there is a hilly section on the northbound lane near Ashcroft, and it all needs to be addressed at the
same time.
Mr. Boyd said part of the reason for widening the road was to fix the sight distance, because back
when there was a fatality VDOT had said they would solve the line of sight problems at that intersection
when they widened the road.
Mr. Rooker commented that the current Skanska design shows the grade at the same level it is
today, so there’s some work that needs to be done there.
Mr. Boyd said that he knew it was going to be two separate projects but he was hoping that VDoT
would coordinate it, because it needs to be coordinated.
Mr. Rooker said that VDoT did include something an RFP amendment; to say that they need to
coordinate the projects but it doesn’t appear to have gotten done in the design, at least at that point.
Mr. Rooker also said that mowing had gotten way behind schedule, and the weeds on the median
at Rio Road are five feet high, with similar issues on the sidewalk on Hydraulic Road and other areas.
Mr. Boyd said Berkmar was also bad.
Mr. Rooker stated that on Rio at Woodburn Road there is a bus stop, and the weeds are so high
in that area that people can’t wait for the bus. He said he had seen an older lady standing in the road to
catch the bus.
Mr. DeNunzio responded that he would pass the information on to Mr. Glass’ staff that is in charge
of maintenance in those areas.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are acres and acres of thistles in the VDoT right of ways
between here and I-64, and all of that would blow and reseed on other people’s property. The County
needs to be responsible for the property that it has and not create all those problems for everybody else.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Economic Development Authority (EDA), Amendment to Rules and
Procedures.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“On May 2, 2012, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of refinancing bonds by the
Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk for bonds previously issued for Sentara Healthcare
(Martha Jefferson Hospital) that included a fee sharing agreement for administrative fees between the City
of Norfolk, Albemarle County and Prince William County that provides for an annual payment of an
administrative fee to Albemarle County. Because Albemarle County’s EDA has not received such a fee in
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 94)
the past, its rules and procedures do not address the acceptance of this payment. The need to amend the
EDA’s Rules and Procedures to establish a policy to accept such fees opened a larger discussion within
the EDA about its existing fee structure and the possibility of establishing an annual administrative fee.
Economic/Industrial Development Authorities in Virginia are authorized by the Code of Virginia to
assess an annual administrative fee for bonds issued. Those fees cannot exceed 1/8 of one percent, as
established by U.S. Treasury Department regulations. While the Albemarle County EDA has a provision in
its Rules and Procedures that reserves the right to charge such a fee, the EDA does not have a procedure
to accept fees without amending its Rules and Procedures.
The EDA is proposing an amendment to its Rules and Procedures to generally establish an
annual administrative fee. The fee is proposed to be 1/10 of one percent, which is below the maximum
allowed by law and is equivalent to the fee charged by the Virginia Small Business Financing Authority
(VSBFA), the most frequent financing alternative to EDA bond financing in the Commonwealth. The EDA
proposal includes a re-adoption requirement to continue the fee after three years to allow it to assess the
fee’s impact. The EDA is also proposing an amendment to provide for a budgetary process to govern
expenditure of funds received by the EDA. The proposed amendments for both are set forth in
Attachment A. The EDA is also proposing a third amendment to its Rules and Regulations to establish a
tiered system for its application fees that would charge the current $500 application fee for issues less
than $25 million and would increase the application fee to $1,000 for issues that are $25 million or greater.
This proposed amendment is set forth in Attachment B.
The Board of Supervisors must approve any amendments to the EDA’s Rules and Procedures
before they can take effect.
The EDA currently charges an application fee of $500 for each bond issuance regardless of the
size of the financing, and does not charge an annual administrative fee. A survey of Virginia jurisdictions
reveals that Albemarle is in the minority of localities who either charge no administrative fee or only a
small one-time application fee.
Of 95 counties and 30 larger cities in Virginia, three quarters have an EDA/IDA.
50% charge various rates from 1/10 of 1% of the face amount of each issue (Henrico County, for
example) to flat fees per applicant, regardless of the amount of bonds outstanding (for example,
$1,000 per applicant each year).
25% charge the maximum administrative fee allowed. That m aximum rate is 1/8 of 1% per
annum, which is 0.00125% each year on the amount of the issue. One eighth of 1% of $1M is
$1,250 per year.
The remaining 25% charge no administrative fee or a small one-time application fee, including
Albemarle County.
Attachment C includes a list of peer localities and indicates which ones charge fees and generally
what is funded by the fee revenue. Our peer localities use funds generated by the annual administrative
fees to support economic development initiatives like marketing support, incentive packages, business
incubators, grants, building and land purchases/management, loan programs, etc.
Annual Administrative Fee
The EDA’s proposed amendment requires that applicants pay the Authority an annual
administrative fee of $1,000.00 per $1,000,000 of bonds issued, or prorata portion thereof, upon the
issuance of bonds and annually thereafter on the anniversary date of the issuance of bonds until the
bonds are paid in full. The annual administrative fee shall only be applicable to the first $40,000,000 of
bonds issued. Under this scenario, a $25 million bond issue would result in an annual administrative fee
of $25,000.
Budgetary Process
The Code of Virginia establishes that the EDA has the authority to expend funds generated by
fees, with any expenditure requiring approval by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed revision to the
Rules and Procedures states that the EDA will “expend funds that it receives only to support economic
development initiatives that benefit Albemarle County as determined by agreement between the Authority
and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. All such initiatives shall be developed in consultation
with the County Executive, or his designee. The Albemarle County staff will provide support in the
administration of the expenditure of such funds by the Authority.”
Staff recommends that the Board have a joint meeting early this fall with the EDA to discuss
priority economic development initiatives that would be supported by any available funds. The revenue
generated by the Sentara Health Care bond issue that will be received by the Albemarle EDA beginning in
May, 2013, is estimated at $45,000 in 2013 and decreases based on the outstanding principle amount of
the bonds annually for the next ten years. Future bond issues would generate additional revenue if the
proposed annual administrative fee is approved by the Board.
Tiered Application Fee
The EDA’s application fee has not been adjusted since it was first established. The EDA’s
proposed amendment creates a tiered fee structure to more closely reflect costs incurred by the
application process, including copying, mailing, and staff time. The fee would be $500.00 for issues less
than $25M and $1,000 for issues $25M or greater.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 95)
Mr. John Lowry, the Chairman of the EDA, will be present at the Board meeting to support and
explain the EDA’s proposed amendments.
Approval of these amendments will generate administrative fee revenues based on the
amount of future bond issues in addition to the revenue to be received from the Sentara Healthcare
bond issue. The revenues can support economic development initiatives.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment D) to approve the
proposed amendments to the EDA’s Rules and Procedures”.
_____
Ms. Catlin reported that in May the Board adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of refinancing
bonds by the EDA in Norfolk for bonds previously issued for Sentara Health Care for Martha Jefferson
Hospital. She explained that that included a fee-sharing agreement to be split between the City of Norfolk,
Albemarle County and Prince William County, that provides for annual payment of a fee to Albemarle
County. Ms. Catlin said that created the need for the County to review the rules and regulations for the
EDA because they are not currently permitted to accept fees under the regulations that they have, and the
need to do that prompted a larger discussion with the EDA about whether they ought to institute an annual
administrative fee themselves. She stated that the EDAs in Virginia are authorized by the Code of Virginia
to assess an annual administrative fee for bonds issued, and they can’t exceed 1/8 of 1%. Ms. Catlin said
that the EDA for Albemarle County has a provision in its rules and regulations that reserves the right to
charge a fee, but they have never actually done that – so they are going to bring forward three proposed
amendment changes for consideration. She stated that one of them pertains to establishing an annual
administrative fee; the second is an amendment to provide for a budgetary process to expend funds
received by the EDA; and the third establishes a tiered system for its application fees that charge different
fees for bonds of different values. Ms. Catlin said that the Board must approve any amendments to the
EDA’s rules and procedures before they can take effect.
Ms. Catlin reported that the EDA currently charges an application fee of $500 for each bond
issuance regardless of the size of the financing, and that has been in place for many years. She said that
Albemarle is in the minority of localities that charge no administrative fee or a small one-time application
fee. Ms. Catlin reported that of counties in Virginia, about three-fourths of them have an EDA or an IDA,
and of them 50% charge rates from 1/10 of 1% to a flat rate per applicant; 25% charge the maximum
administrative fee permitted, which is 1/8 of 1%; the remaining 25% charge no administrative fee or a
small one-time application fee. She said that the localities that do charge fees use them in a variety of
ways to support economic development initiatives, such as marketing support, incentive packages,
business incubators, grants, building and land purchases, loan programs, etc. Ms. Catlin said staff
recommends that the Board have a joint meeting with the EDA early this fall to discuss what priority
economic development initiatives should be supported by fees.
Mr. John Lowry, Chair of the EDA, addressed the Board, stating that he was here to ask for
approval of a resolution that would allow for changes in the language of their governing rules of
regulations. He said that the EDA began in the 1970s, when they were known as the Industrial
Development Authority, and they do charge an application fee along with a long questionnaire the
applicants fill out. Mr. Lowry said the EDA was before the Board a few years before for the name change,
and they do wish to be part of the Economic Vitality Action Plan and the Target Industry Study. He stated
that their function as an organization is to provide low-cost capital to generally very healthy nonprofits,
although they do provide some loans to commercial entities for light manufacturing. Mr. Lowry said that
nonprofits typically borrow from the EDA for bricks & mortar projects, and the lender gets income from the
loan that’s tax exempt. He stated that the County has no financial liability but does have a perfect track
record with no principle payments missed and no interest payments missed.
Mr. Lowry said the EDA is now trying to do what many of their peers do, charging a fee for the
loans for the use of the County name. He presented a list of names of borrowers, and said if you added
them all up it would total over $500 million in the last 10 years, adding that they have a fairly full pipeline
when compared to other counties due to the University, Monticello and MJH, etc. Mr. Lowry said there
was an opportunity for the EDA, since the borrowers use the County’s name, to charge a small amount
and generate revenue. He stated that the resolution would allow for a two-tiered application fee; for $25
million or more the cost would be $1,000 instead of $500, and the administrative fee would be 1/10 of 1%
annually. Mr. Lowry explained that for the Sentara loan, Norfolk’s EDA was sharing their fee – which is
$44,500 each year for the EDA here for ten years. He said the question is whether that could be directed
to economic development purposes.
Mr. Lowry expressed his appreciation for the Board’s approval of a resolution allowing
Westminster Canterbury to borrow $41 million for a 46-unit building, adding that this is a fantastic example
of how EDA loans can be advantageous both to the borrower and to the community. He said that they
started with a $25 million in the mid-80s to build their original building, then borrowed more money in the
90s and took out a large loan about ten years ago. Mr. Lowry stated that the company sold out all of its
Blue Ridge units and paid back about $40-50 million in debt and are now doing a new loan for an addition
to their facility – and they are beginning to run out of real estate, so you can see that this new building
goes above existing runways, but that’s done with the Albemarle County name on that loan. He said that
they are in an environment with very low interest rates, so there will be refinancing from previous clients,
and if the fee structure is in place the County could get a small fee from the issuers. Mr. Lowry stated that
the maximum the EDA has asked for is $40,000 per issuer, so Westminster Canterbury would be capped
at that level – and that’s cumulative per borrower per year. Mr. Lowry added that if the Board would pass
the EDA’s resolution, they would look forward to having a joint meeting.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 96)
Ms. Mallek said that the fund could build up into a pot to be used for low-cost loans for
infrastructure or any number of different things.
Mr. Lowry said it could be used for that, education, the Economic Vitality Plan initiatives,
partnerships, direct subsidy of economic development.
Ms. Catlin stated that the resolution suggests that the Board, staff and the EDA would develop
priorities so there was a shared understanding of what would be funded with the fees that would be
generated by this.
Mr. Boyd asked if the money came in as general fund dollars, or did it go to the EDA.
Ms. Catlin explained that the EDA would have the ability to expend the funds, but the Board would
have to approve what it is expended on.
Mr. Davis said that the County acts as the fiscal agent for the EDA, but what they do is always
subject to Board approval, and what’s being proposed is a process for a collaborative agreement as to
how the funds would be spent.
Mr. Boyd asked if the funds were actually coming from the particular non-profit that is issuing the
bond.
Mr. Lowry used the City of Norfolk as an example and explained that with Sentara, the City of
Norfolk would cut a check to the County of Albemarle in May 2013, for the first year’s fee arrangement –
for the past year – so every anniversary year they would pay again.
Mr. Davis said that his understanding of the agreement is that it would be a declining balance on
each year – the amount is paid on the unpaid principle balance – so it would decline each year over the
ten year life of the loan.
Mr. Lowry stated that that was a much fairer way and that many localities base it on the original
debt amount because it is hard to keep track of slowly paying off that debt, so how the EDA has
envisioned it is paying off a flat fee until the debt is gone.
Ms. Mallek commented that it encourages them to hurry up with the loan, and free up the money
for someone else.
Mr. Lowry explained that Monticello came to the EDA to borrow 15 million dollars for Montalto
because they needed a loan in a hurry, and they didn’t need it for a long period of time – so the maturity
was this summer – and they have one more estate that’s going to pay them less than a million dollars and
they’ll have paid off the 15 million dollars in less than 5 years – so if we’d been charging Monticello for that
loan it would be gone once it’s paid off.
Mr. Boyd said they’d be paying 10 basis points based on the original outstanding amount for 10
years.
Mr. Lowry explained that the bond may be issued for longer – even 25 years – but there is a 10-
year call, and that’s when things happen and that’s what’s going to happen with issues that have been
issued by us previously.
Mr. Boyd said, but not in an increasing interest market, they wouldn’t be calling those bonds.
Mr. Lowry agreed, and Mr. Davis pointed out that an annual fee on the original amount would be
paid as long as there’s an outstanding balance.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a statutory reason that only the first $40 million was charged a fee.
Mr. Lowry responded that it was all over the map, and they tried to compromise and have a cap.
Ms. Mallek said that the EDA was already providing a benefit by charging a lower than average
interest rate.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the County isn’t lending any money, just its name, as the project is
paid back by the private borrower and advanced by whoever buys the bonds.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a limit to the amount of bonds issued, and Mr. Foley pointed out
there was no longer a cap.
Mr. Boyd commented that he wasn’t sure why it would cost more to issue a $40 million bond than
a $25 million bond, and he didn’t see why it was a cost to the County. How much work is actually
involved?
Mr. Lowry pointed out that Ella Jordan, the Board of Supervisors Clerk, does a lot of the work and
it’s remunerating her office. He said that right now the application fee comes into the general fund. He
noted that every time there’s a bond issue everyone gets paid from the proceeds of the bond issue – the
issuer, the EDA’s bond council, etc.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 97)
Mr. Boyd said this was just another name for a tax, and he’s trying to figure out what out of pocket
expenses we have – and it’s not covering costs.
Mr. Rooker stated that with localities of any reasonable size, there is a recognition that entities are
using the County’s facilities and name in order to obtain a lower interest rate, and if money comes in it
must be used for economic development purposes in some way. He said that he thought the recognition
there is that there is some value in loaning the name, and facilities, in order to obtain a much lower
interest rate – in today’s climate, 3%; the private market might be 5, 5½%. He added that paying one-
tenth of 1% a year is a pretty minimal cost to save 2-3% a year.
Mr. Lowry said that he considers it rent not a tax, but its all how you look at it.
Mr. Boyd stated that he’s supportive of recovering costs for this service, but he isn’t ready to
charge a fee over and above that to get revenues into the County.
Mr. Rooker said the money had to be used for economic development purposes, and the
$200,000 in the Economic Development Fund was being taken out of property taxes today. Does it make
sense to take that out of property taxes, or to have it more closely aligned with funds received from
economic development, which these bonds are issued for entirely? He added that he would rather put the
burden of that on an economic development stream, rather than the property taxes.
Ms. Mallek said that this could be a source of revenue for the Economic Development Fund.
Mr. Boyd said he wouldn’t want this to preclude that.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County is spending money on economic development, and it seems
reasonable to have a revenue stream that most communities are realizing pays for some of those
activities rather than through property taxes.
Mr. Snow said most people would be happy to pay 1/10 of 1% to save 2-3% on a loan.
Mr. Lowry thanked the Board.
Mr. Davis said the resolution was found in Attachment D, which would approve the three different
requests of the EDA to amend their rules and procedures – The EDA Rules and Procedures Document.
Mr. Rooker noted that his understanding is the County wouldn’t be able to share in the fee from
Norfolk.
Mr. Davis explained that the approval of that agreement authorizes that fee going forward, but
what is not in place is a procedure as to how that money would be expended, and the second part of the
resolution needs to be dealt with regardless of whether or not you impose fees going forward – its
particularly important if you impose administrative fees under proposal number 1 because that will
generate revenue that will accumulate and will need to be appropriately expended for economic
development purposes.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to adopt the following resolution to approve proposed amendments to
the EDA’s Rules and Procedures. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RULES AND PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (EDA) has proposed
amendments to its Rules and Procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds such amendments are appropriate to support the economic vitality
initiatives of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the following amendments to the EDA’s Rules and Procedures:
1. Amending subsection 4.3(a) regarding an annual administrative fee for bonds, as follows:
4.3(a). Administrative Fees. If the Authority issues bonds for the benefit of the applicant, the
financing documents shall include a requirement that the applicant pay the Authority an
annual administrative fee of $1,000.00 per $1,000,000.00 of bonds issues, or prorate portion
thereof, upon the issuance of bonds and annually thereafter on the anniversary date of the
issuance of bonds until the bonds are paid in full. The annual administrative fee shall only be
applicable to the first $40,000,000.00 of bonds issues. Except in the case of a refunding, the
filing fee shall be applied as a credit against the first annual fee at closing. This section shall
expire on June 30, 2015.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 98)
2. Adding a new subsection 4.3(c) regarding expenditure of funds, as follows:
4.3(c). Expenditures of Funds. The EDA will expend funds that it receives only to support
economic development initiatives that benefit Albemarle County as determined by agreement
between the Authority and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County. All such initiatives
shall be developed in consultation with the County Executive, or its designee. The Albemarle
County staff will provide support in the administration of the expenditure of such funds by the
Authority.
3. Amending paragraph 3 of the section titled Notes to Application regarding application fees, as
follows:
3. A $500.00 application fee for issues less than $25.0 million or a $1,000.00 application fee
for issues $25.0 million or greater, made payable to the County of Albemarle, should be
submitted to the Authority’s administrative agency, the County of Albemarle, with the
application or at the time the application is considered.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Open Burning of Household Waste and Refuse.
Mr. Howard Lagomarsino summarized the following executive summary which was forwarded to
Board members:
“This agenda item concerns the ability of citizens within certain parts of the County to continue to
legally burn their household refuse. Currently, Chapter 6, Article IV of the County Code permits the
burning of household refuse by homeowners and tenants when there is no regularly scheduled public or
private refuse collection service available at the adjacent street or public road. The Board has the
authority, subject to certain procedural requirements described below, to amend the County Code to
prohibit all burning of household refuse in the County.
Open burning in Virginia is regulated by a complex combination of federal and state statutes and
regulations and local ordinances. For purposes of this agenda item, the Board can focus on two bodies of
law; Article 1, Chapter 13, Title 10 of the Code of Virginia and Chapter 6, Article IV of the County Code.
Several definitions set out in Section 6-403 of the County Code are critical to the discussion of
open burning laws in the County.
1. Open burning is defined as “the burning of any matter in such a manner that the products
resulting from the combustion are emitted directly into the atmosphere without passing
through a stack, duct or chimney.”
2. Household refuse is defined as “waste or refuse normally accumulated by a household
during normal day to day living.”
3. Garbage is defined as “rotting animal and vegetable matter accumulated by a household
in the course of ordinary day to day living.”
State regulations use the term household waste instead of household refuse. 9 VAC-130-20
defines household waste as “any waste material, including garbage, trash and refuse derived from
households.” This executive summary will use the term household refuse.
Article 1, Chapter 13, Title 10 of the Code of Virginia establishes the Air Pollution Control Board
(the APCB) and authorizes the APCB to implement regulations governing open burning in Virginia. The
APCB has enacted regulations starting at 9 VAC 5-130-10. These regulations generally prohibit all open
burning of refuse in Virginia, but create certain exceptions to this prohibition. Relevant to this agenda item
is 9 VAC 5-130-40(A)(6), which permits open burning for the on-site destruction of household waste by
homeowners or tenants in areas which do not have regularly scheduled public or private refuse collection
services at the adjacent street or public road. The County Attorney’s Office and the APCB both interpret
“regularly scheduled public or private refuse collection service” to mean regularly scheduled public or
private collection service provided by entities such as the County or a property owners association.
9 VAC-130-100 permits any locality to adopt an ordinance regulating open burning within its
jurisdiction. Localities may adopt a model ordinance developed by the APCB. The County adopted
APCB’s then model ordinance in 1988 as Article IV, Chapter 6 of the County Code. Note that animal
carcasses, animal waste and garbage, as defined above, may not be openly burned in the County.
A locality has the option of adopting an open burning ordinance which is stricter than the APCB
model ordinance, but to do so must first obtain approval of the ordinance by APCB.
Since 2008, citizen complaints have generated approximately 37 investigative actions for the
County Fire Marshal’s Office, which involved the officers opening a file and/or taking some enforcement
action. The open burning of household trash and refuse has been of particular concern to certain
residents for two reasons: (1) they don’t like smoke and (2) the fear of plastics and other materials that
may be included as “household refuse” and burned. Twenty-seven of the citizen complaints were related
to the open burning of household refuse. Three of those investigations led to charges being filed in court.
There was one investigation of open burning of household refuse that led to a notice of violation,
essentially a warning, but this was related to the violation of County Code provisions regarding leaving the
fire unattended and not to the materials being burned.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 99)
Concerns about the open burning of household refuse have led at least two citizens to contact
members of the Board. This prompted the Board to request additional information from the Fire and
Rescue Department on this issue.
The Virginia Code and County Code prohibit the open burning of waste materials that are
hazardous or injurious to the environment and air quality. There are a number of items listed, which
include hazardous materials, wastes associated with construction materials, such as wood products
impregnated with chemical treatments, and petroleum-based products. Although open burning of
hazardous materials, including petroleum and many petroleum based products, is prohibited, it is legal to
open burn all items that are considered “household refuse”. Citizens are surprised to find out that certain
materials fall under the definition of household refuse and may legally be burned.
Additional research examined what similar jurisdictions are doing about open burning of
household refuse. Comparable jurisdictions used in this research included Chesterfield County, Hanover
County, Henrico County, Roanoke County, Rockingham County, Stafford County, and Spotsylvania
County. The research found that none of these localities allow the open burning of household refuse
under any circumstances.
Staff considered the option of restricting or limiting open burning in certain geographic areas of
the County as a way to address the problem. A logical idea would be to prohibit open burning of
household refuse in the designated growth areas. This is not a viable option as the urban/growth areas
are a relatively small area of the County and limiting burning in those areas would do little to address the
issue. Further, data shows that complaints are overwhelmingly associated with the rural areas.
Staff also considered the option of the Board amending the Code to completely ban the open
burning of household refuse and waste in the County. This ban would not include the open burning of
natural wood, leaves, yard waste, wastes associated with land clearing, forest management, and
government firefighting training. Such a ban would be the easiest to manage and enforce. This option
would ban the open burning of all household waste or refuse, making violations clear, as anyone burning
trash would be in violation of the Code. This would provide the avenue to ensure compliance and to
sustain an enforcement action if needed.
Should the Board decide to amend the Code to include a complete ban on the open burning of
household refuse in the County, staff must first submit the ordinance proposed by the Board to the APCB
for approval before adoption of the ordinance. Because the County would be strengthening its ordinance
beyond the requirements of the Virginia Administrative Code, the request would be handled
administratively by APCB staff rather than require approval of the full APCB.
Currently Fire and Rescue staff is already responding to open burning related incidents.
Other jurisdictions have adopted a “complaint driven” model. This means they do not actively
search out violations or utilize any type of patrol to identify violations. They respond to and handle
complaints as they are received. Therefore, those jurisdictions did not experience an increase in
workload. If the Board amends the Code to ban all open burning of household refuse, staff proposes
following a similar model, and therefore does not anticipate an increase in complaint volume or
investigative workload.
Workload will increase regarding court time for violations. If charges are filed, court time requires
approximately two to four additional hours per incident. Due to the approach that the Fire Marshal’s office
will take, the number of court cases annually is predicted to be less than five. The Fire Marshal’s office, in
all enforcement cases, seeks compliance through education. More often than not, a simple discussion or
notice of violation is enough to achieve compliance. Court action is reserved for those rare cases where
compliance is not being achieved. Based on the history of complaints and investigations, staff expects
only a minor increase of 10-20 hours of court time annually if the Board adopts an ordinance to prohibit
the open burning of all household refuse that follows a complaint driven model. This is manageable within
current budget and staffing.
This Executive Summary was prepared in response to requests by Board members and is
presented for informational purposes. If the Board decides to proceed, staff will present a draft ordinance
to the Board for its consideration and for Board authorization to submit the ordinance to the APCB for its
approval”.
_____
Mr. Lagomarsino addressed the Board, stating that the Executive Summary deals with opening
burning of household refuse and waste, and there are ordinances that deal with this issue – with state
ordinances allowing the County to regulate the burning. Mr. Lagomarsino said that one of the issues with
the codes is the definitions of what household waste and refuse is compared to what is banned to be
burned, and what exemptions are. He stated that open burning is any burning that occurs where the
byproducts are released directly into the air and not through a duct or chimney; household refuse is
considered anything produced in the house during normal daily life. Mr. Lagomarsino said there is a
distinction in the codes between garbage and refuse – with garbage being rotting animal carcasses,
putrefied vegetable remains, etc. He stated that the code prohibits burning of anything noxious or
dangerous to health, including petroleum-based products, and where enforcement issues arise is the
section that grants an exception for allowing the burning of household waste and refuse. Mr. Lagomarsino
said that household trash contains items like plastic containers, and when they go out to investigate
incidents there is no violation. He said that Albemarle’s code states that if there is no provision for
collection of trash at a public street, that is a condition to be met to burn household waste and refuse. Mr.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 100)
Lagomarsino said that in seeking a legal opinion, it was determined that the service is provided by a
government agency or a homeowners association. He stated that they tried that and it didn’t work
because most places in the County don’t have a provided service.
Mr. Lagomarsino reported that since 2008, they’ve had 37 complaints regarding open burning –
27 were related to household waste and refuse, and out of those only one enforcement action was taken,
which was a notice of violation not actually related to the materials involved but instead to the owner’s
neglect of the fire, which ended up burning a shed down. He stated that they did some research as to
what other jurisdictions were doing – looking at Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Rockingham , Roanoke
County, Stafford and Spotsylvania – and they have all banned the burning of household waste and refuse.
Mr. Lagomarsino said they also considered banning the burning based on land use, limiting burning in
growth areas, but that only encompassed 5% of the County so it would limit its effect. He stated that
banning open air burning would help with enforcement, and would enhance their enforcement capability
because every time there was a complaint it would be a violation. Mr. Lagomarsino stated that in
researching plastics, not all of them are petroleum -based, so there could be enforcement based on their
content.
He stated that his proposal is to enact a complaint-driven process, which is what other counties
do, rather than being on active patrol looking for open air burning of trash. Mr. Lagomarsino said the
impact analysis showed it would be very minimal, as they are already responding to complaints – and
court time would take an additional two to four hours. He stated that they also take a view in the Fire
Marshal’s office of compliance through education, working with people through compliance rather than
taking them to court, and by the time they get to violation most are in compliance. Mr. Lagomarsino said
that even if they did a ban, only about five cases or less go into court per year – meaning only 20
additional staff hours.
Mr. Rooker said that publicizing the ordinance would likely reduce complaints also.
Ms. Lagomarsino stated that they would have to draft an ordinance, the Board would have to
approve it, and they would present it to the Pollution Control Board. He said that the current statue mirrors
the model statute, so in order to make it stronger it would need to go through an administrative review.
Mr. Lagomarsino said if the Board should act on this, the Fire Marshal’s office can draft an ordinance and
take it to the Pollution Control Board.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board would adopt the ordinance first – the Fire Marshal’s office would
prepare it; bring it to the Board for public hearing – the Board would adopt it and if it succeeded then, it’d
go to the Pollution Control Board.
Mr. Davis explained that before the Board could adopt it, it would have to be approved by the Air
Pollution Control Board, but before it could be taken to that board the Board needs to know it’s the
ordinance they want to adopt. He said that staff proposes bringing an ordinance back to the Board with
whatever process is acceptable, and then take it to the Air Pollution Control Board. Mr. Davis noted that
the Board could hold the public hearing either before or after, but he would recommend having the public
hearing on the ordinance they are considering – and hold off adopting it until the Air Pollution Control
Board approves it.
Mr. Snow asked if this would increase dumping, and if it took into account leaf burning.
Mr. Lagomarsino said it would only apply to household trash, and according to other jurisdictions
there was no negative dumping impact as a result of the ban.
Mr. Boyd asked him to clarify how many complaints they had received, and if they were repeat
offenders.
Mr. Lagomarsino responded that there had been 27 separate individual complaints since 2008.
Mr. Boyd said, so we’re talking about some legislation to accommodate 27 people over a five-year
period.
Ms. Mallek stated that there are many more than one household being impacted when someone
burns, even if there is only one complaint, and some are deterred from complaining because they’ve been
told there’s nothing to be done. She also said it’s hard to enforce burning of specific items because they
might be at the bottom of the barrel, adding that Virginia is way behind on this when compared to other
localities that don’t allow this kind of air pollution in urban areas or countryside.
Mr. Boyd said he was just trying to identify the scope of the problem.
Mr. Davis said, that he didn’t think staff knew how many people burn household trash in the
County.
Mr. Lagomarsino said that the 27 individuals represented those who the Fire Marshal approached
because they were burning trash, and he didn’t have numbers that show how many calls were received
from different people.
Mr. Davis asked him if his office knew how many people were burning trash.
Mr. Lagomarsino said he did not.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 101)
Mr. Davis stated that they did not know the scope of the impact of the ordinance because the data
is just not available.
Mr. Lagomarsino noted that not all reports from individual fire companies are uniform, so the
responding unit doesn’t always log it as burning household trash. He explained that under the new policy,
the Fire Marshal would show up and tell the person they can’t do it and tell them what they needed to do to
come into compliance. Mr. Lagomarsino said if they burn through a chimney that would be allowed.
Ms. Mallek expressed concern about burning plastics in a stove and going out to a chimney.
Mr. Lagomarsino responded that there is no code that prohibits burning of household trash
through a chimney, although there is prohibition on burning construction waste.
Mr. Rooker said if someone was stupid enough to put trash in a fireplace, you’re not going to see
it anyway, and most people burning trash are doing it in an outdoor container.
Mr. Lagomarsino responded that most of the trash fires they see are in burn barrels.
Ms. Mallek stated that she was impressed with the fact that Stafford requires a 300-foot buffer
from any dwelling when burning.
Mr. Lagomarsino said that you can burn up to 50 feet if you have the permission of the people in
the dwelling. He stated that a lot of the issues they encounter are people burning who were unaware they
were affecting other neighbors.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to direct staff to move forward to draft an ordinance to prohibit open
burning of household waste and refuse. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 28. Economic Vitality Action Plan Quarterly Update.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“The Board of Supervisors adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010,
following extensive public discussion and review. That plan established a schedule for staff to provide
quarterly reports to the Board on staff’s progress and activities related to the Action Plan. Staff will present
the third quarterly report of the Plan’s second year of implementation at this meeting.
Highlights of Progress on the Plan during the last quarter:
Objective 1 - Improve Business Climate and Image
Better Business Challenge – co-sponsor of year-long competition among 106 area businesses
to increase efficiency and sustainability in six key areas: energy, water, transportation, waste,
purchasing and leadership, culminating in an awards program in June, 2012 with a number of
County businesses receiving recognition.
Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) – provided a briefing to 15 VEDP senior
managers on the target industry study, along with regional partners from the Thomas Jefferson
Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED).
Virginia Economic Development Association (VEDA) – continued active involvement with this
statewide group; most recently attended annual membership meeting in June, 2012.
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC) – assisted with organizing the CBIC
Annual Awards Ceremony to recognize entrepreneurial excellence; sponsored the People’s
Choice Navigator Award for significant leadership in the local or regional entrepreneurial or high-
tech community.
Business Appreciation Week 2012 – highlighted “Four Entrepreneurs to Watch” at the June 6,
2012 Board of Supervisors meeting in recognition of Business Appreciation Week 2012.
Objective 2 - Simplify and Create Certainty - Continued regulatory reform
Priority Review Process – developed a Priority Review Process for qualified target industries for
the Board’s approval on July 11, 2012.
Amendment to Tourism Lodging Regulations – the Board approved County Code
amendments to permit additional lodging possibilities; staff is scheduling a roundtable for
educational outreach about the new regulations later this summer.
Legislative and Ministerial Review – conducted Planning Commission work session and
development community roundtable; scheduled to be considered by the Board this fall.
Objective 3 - Support Quality Job Opportunities
Target Industry Study – working with regional partners and TJPED staff on implementation
strategies.
CBIC Tech Tour – participating in planning for 2012 Tech Tour. Last year’s event involved 400
students, including 120 middle schoolers, from 21 area schools; 63 local high tech companies
provided 81 separate tours.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 102)
Alternative Site Foreign-Trade Zone – working with Culpeper County to join their Foreign Trade
Zone which will provide significant advantages to Albemarle County companies that import goods
from out of the country that are subject to tariff; scheduling a briefing for qualifying County
businesses in late July.
Objective 4 - Expand Industrial Land Options
Industrial Districts’ Uses and Commercial and Industrial Setbacks and Buffers – work
session was held with the Planning Commission in June, 2012; roundtable with industrial users is
scheduled for late July; scheduled to be considered by the Board this fall.
Site Selection Fact Sheets – developing marketing fact sheets for available industrial buildings
and sites.
Objective 5 - Promote Rural Economy/Tourism
Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) Strategic Marketing
Plan – consultant scheduled to present final strategic marketing plan that will focus more effort
and resources on promoting the community’s tourism assets, including agritourism and other
attractions in the County, to the Board on July 11, 2012.
Virginia Cider Week – the week before Thanksgiving was declared as “Virginia Cider Week” by a
vote of
97-0 in the House of Delegates and 40-0 in the state Senate; cideries in Albemarle County leading
efforts for marketing and event planning.
Strategic Planning with Monticello Wine Trail – leading a strategic planning retreat with
members of the Monticello Wine Trail in mid-July.
Locavore Expo at Tom Tom Festival – sponsored the Locavore Expo to celebrate and educate
the community about local food production and put spotlight on area’s local farmers and food
innovators.
State Winery Signage Program – unveiling of a new Virginia wine region sign program aimed at
attracting more visitors to Virginia wineries; first signs in the state designate our local Monticello
American Vitacultural Area.
Brewery Legislation – working with Starr Hill on marketing and tourism initiatives following the
2012 General Assembly’s adoption of new legislation that allows a craft brewery to sell the beer it
brews for on-site consumption effective July 1, 2012.
Data reporting
As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and
the local business climate in order to proactively and effectively promote economic vitality. The
most recent quarterly indicators report is attached.
There is no immediate budget impact associated with this item.
There is no action required by the Board on this item.”
_____
Ms. Catlin addressed the Board, stating that staff wanted to use this report to focus on the higher
themes of what they’re trying to accomplish with the plan. She reported that recently a new jobs report
and other indicators have demonstrated that the overarching national and international economic climates
remain vulnerable – and fairly uncertain – which filters down and impacts the local community also. Ms.
Catlin stated that given that, it is important that they maintain a strategic focus on those activities on the
local level that can make a difference in the economy. She said that in considering traditional economic
activities such as recruitment and small business start-ups, it is also important to look at emerging focus
areas that have shown great strength in terms of job growth. Ms. Catlin stated that it’s not surprising to
see that 95% of job gains in an average state in a year are due to either expansion or birth of new
establishments, so they want to ensure they are supporting existing growth-oriented companies while
focusing on organic growth from within.
She mentioned an analogy she’d heard recently at a meeting about “whale hunting”, and how
successful that is in the current environment – looking at large businesses that are relocating from one
community to another is not the kind of activity being seen in the current environment. Ms. Catlin stated
that the term “economic gardening” – balancing traditional practices of business recruitment – embraces
the idea that entrepreneurs drive economies, and is a philosophy that seeks to create jobs by supporting
existing companies in a community. She said that the three basic elements of this approach are:
providing critical information that businesses need to survive and thrive, developing and cultivating an
infrastructure that goes beyond the physical surroundings and includes quality of life; supporting a culture
that embraces growth and change, access to intellectual resources, qualified and talented employees,
etc.; and developing the connections between businesses, people and organizations that help growth
businesses get to the next place. Ms. Catlin said this kind of approach works for Albemarle County and
makes sense for the kind of community that we are.
Ms. Catlin stated that in looking at five local companies who are in the recently adopted identified
target clusters, four of them were brought to the Board for Business Appreciation Week as four
entrepreneurs to watch: Micro, Lewis & Clark Pharmaceuticals, Cellular Materials, and the Farm at Red
Hill. She said that the fifth company, Starr Hill, is already familiar to them. Ms. Catlin stated that in 2007 –
during the worst economy in memory – those companies created 85 new jobs across a spectrum of job
skills and income levels.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 103)
Ms. Catlin said that Economic Vitality Action Plan activities help to achieve the information needs,
cultural infrastructure needs, and connection needs of businesses that support economic gardening:
promoting the County as a desirable business location, including identifying and supporting the attributes
that distinguish it and are attractive to the kinds of companies and that are providing economic growth and
jobs. Ms. Catlin said that “Growing Ideas and Opportunity” includes distinguishing the County’s brand.
She explained that the area is home to 20% of the biotech industry in the state, and the University’s assets
help make a compelling case for small to mid-size biotech companies to come here and grow here. Ms.
Catlin mentioned participation in the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council, the Tech Tour – which
introduces about 300 middle and high-school students to high tech careers, and the Better Business
Challenge – a friendly competition among businesses to incorporate sustainable practices in their
operations and included over 100 local businesses last year. Ms. Catlin also mentioned the County’s
sponsorship of the second Start-Up Weekend, which is scheduled to be held in October and is a 54-hour
event where developers, designers and marketers come together and form teams to pitch company ideas.
Ms. Catlin stated that in looking at another target industry – agribusiness and food processing –
the Tom Tom Founders Festival showcased the area as an innovation hub for music, arts, biotechnology,
and other startups, and the County sponsored the locavore expo portion of the festival – which focused on
innovation in the local food community. She said that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area was named by
Forbes as the locavore capital of the world, so the County should take opportunities to expand its profile
and boost the food processing/agribusiness part of the economy. Ms. Catlin stated that the County is
providing marketing and other support to the local food hub, Buy Fresh/Buy Local, and other avenues to
get the word out.
Ms. Catlin said that the County continues to strengthen its partnership with the City and University
of Virginia and is meeting regularly with their economic development staffs to cultivate relationships and
get as much synergy as possible. She stated that the three entities working together help provide the
assets and attributes that support the high-growth companies she mentioned, and U.Va. has indicated
they had 141 invention disclosures and 37 patents issued in 2011 alone. She stated that U.Va. recently
announced they would be hosting the 2013 annual conference on biomedical research, which would bring
the most innovative pioneers in that field to the area. Ms. Catlin reported that the County also continues to
work with TJPED to develop the regional culture piece, as regional collaboration is powerful in establishing
economic success. She stated that the CACVB marketing program is also part of the appeal of the
County as a destination and tourism culture.
Ms. Catlin reported that the Economic Vitality Action Plan has also focused on ensuring
appropriate product and reasonable processes for people to get their business done here, adding that
many legislative and ministerial changes were working their way through the system. She said that the
plan called out the need for small enterprises that lack experience and knowledge in efficiently addressing
County requirements to have a single point of contact, and they are currently working with a pilot program
with Community Development to initiate that. Ms. Catlin mentioned the new “Small Business Toolkit,” a
publication for helping small businesses understand and navigate County processes. She said that Ms.
Stimart had been working to develop a Site Selection Fact Sheets, which take the buildings and property
available and putting them in an easily marketable form.
Ms. Catlin said the website upgrade was done last year, and staff would be launching a drop in
consultation program in August to provide an opportunity for people to come in, share ideas, get thoughts,
have questions answered, etc. She added that they are also continuing to hold roundtables that lead to
results, such as the rural economy roundtable last year that led to tourism and lodging regulation changes.
Ms. Catlin said they have been discussing enhanced food and wine service opportunities with the
Department of Health and VDACS at the state level. She said that the most important element of all the
initiatives was the ongoing communication with businesses, and Ms. Stimart has been doing a great job
with the Albemarle Business First program – with a goal of having face to face contact with 100
businesses this year.
Ms. Catlin stated that it’s important to keep casting the net and looking for opportunities, and the
Board has a strategic goal about a diverse and vibrant economy – with three objectives being successful
completion of the Economic Vitality Action Plan, which wraps up a year from now; establishing a fully
functioning economic development program, that could range from very passive to very active depending
on Board direction; developing an effective incentive program that includes more than just cash. She said
that these things would be coming back to the Board in the spring for their input.
Mr. Steve Allshouse addressed the Board, stating that he would be presenting data that shows the
County’s slow recovery from “The Great Recession” and its aftermath. He reported that sales tax revenue
when comparing the first quarter of calendar year 2012 with the same quarter of the previous calendar
year is down 4%, which continues to reflect the departure of a major retailer from the County to the City.
Mr. Allshouse said that there had been a 13% in food and beverage tax revenues and a 177% increase in
transient occupancy tax. He reported that the unemployment rate had dropped to 4.6%, which would be
considered in the national context by economists at full employment. Mr. Allshouse stated that in the
County, the natural rate of unemployment is about 3.5%, and the recovery toward that level is progressing.
He reported that VEC data shows a jump in the past year of about 6% in the total jobs base – which
would mean 2,800 jobs – but the overwhelming majority of these jobs are concentrated in the educational
services sector, which County staff finds to be incredible.
Mr. Allshouse reported that the total number of business licenses has increased about 7% over
the last year, with Small Business Development Center client levels remaining flat. He said that the
housing measure he considers is the number of month’s supply of unsold single-family detached housing
in the MLS, and anything over a six-month figure would indicate an oversupply of housing with anything
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 104)
below it indicating a shortage of housing. Mr. Allshouse reported that in the first quarter there was still an
oversupply – about 13½ months – but it is down about three months from the same quarter of the
previous year. He noted that the data was taken from the first quarter of the calendar year, which is a very
slow selling season, and the six-month figure considers an annual metric. He noted that one sector of the
housing market that seems to be intact is single-family attached product, or condominiums.
Mr. Thomas asked if he was only using MLS listing information, and whether he could track
homes that were not in the MLS system.
Mr. Allshouse responded that he uses that information because it is readily available, but he would
not know of for-sale-by-owner properties.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he had recently read an article indicating that about 7-10% of homes
on the market locally were for-sale-by-owner.
Mr. Allshouse reported that on the commercial side, there had been a jump in permits – but that
was largely attributable to activity at Stonefield and a few other projects. He said that he had not heard of
any other big projects in the pipeline, but hopefully once those are done something will come along to take
their place. Mr. Allshouse reported that on the residential side, there was a very dramatic decrease in
percentage terms in the dollar value of building permits, but the number is being skewed by a major multi-
family project that was going on about a year ago.
He emphasized that the quarterly data can capture a lot of variability and with any quarter tax,
revenue entered in the system might have been entered in the last week whereas in another year it could
have been done a different week. Mr. Allshouse reported that sales tax was down about 4.9%, which was
consistent with the loss of one major retailer, and with food and beverage tax combining 4th Quarter 2010
and 1st Quarter 2011, there was roughly $2.8 million in food and beverage tax revenue – compared to $2.9
million for 4th Quarter 2011 and 1st Quarter 2012, an increase of about 4%. He stated that with transient
occupancy tax, the comparative single quarters show a cliff increase of 177%, but when taking the
quarters together there is only an 8.8% increase.
Mr. Allshouse said that to get the unemployment rate of 4.6% down to 3.5%, there would need to
be 630 people employed who are currently not employed. He stated that unemployment figures do not
reflect people who haven’t reentered the labor force, and again this is based on VEC data. Mr. Allshouse
reported that in looking at Quarter Four employment back to 2008, the County has climbed out of the hole.
But regarding the educational services sector, he indicated that he had spoken with Anne Lange, Senior
Economist of the VEC and Ms. Stimart had spoken with David Tysinger, VEC Economist, and they swear
by their numbers and claim that educational services did add all of those jobs. Mr. Allshouse stated that
he, Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart have not been able to justify that job growth in any statistics.
Mr. Rooker asked if the VEC had perhaps mis-categorized those jobs.
Mr. Allshouse replied that it is possible, but he asked Ms. Lange to clarify and she insisted that it
was valid and could not reveal company names because of confidentiality reasons. He said that the only
plausible explanation he could come up with was that place of employment means the place a firm has
listed its main offices here, so it could be jobs added to that company but filled elsewhere.
Mr. Thomas asked if the University of Virginia was included in those figures.
Mr. Allshouse said that they were included for education services, and that the Medical Center is
included but under healthcare and social systems.
Mr. Allshouse reported that retail saw a net gain of 171 positions, professional and technical
services added 134 positions, ‘other’ category added 119 jobs, healthcare and social assistance added 58
positions; accommodation and food services lost 54 positions; finance and insurance lost 53 positions;
and construction lost 39 positions – which is better than previous quarters.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Stonefield construction positions would be listed in Albemarle County, or
wherever the contracting firm was from.
Mr. Allshouse replied that they would be listed where that firm is from, so there is a little bit of
variability. He pointed out that VEC’s labor force numbers are done by employers submitting that
information, and employment/unemployment numbers are done by survey of residents.
Mr. Allshouse pointed out that the County’s foreclosure rate remains very low, especially when
compared to localities like Prince William – which has a five or six time higher rate of foreclosure. He
noted that residential values were still down, but commercial construction has picked up.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any way to track the creation of jobs versus the need for jobs.
Mr. Allshouse responded that staff could look at that and bring it back.
Mr. Boyd said what’s not reflected in the VEC numbers are recent graduates who are trying to get
jobs.
Mr. Rooker noted that they would be included in the unemployment rate.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 105)
Ms. Catlin pointed out that the Target Market Study had included a hidden labor supply piece,
which looked at underemployed, recent graduates, etc., that weren’t reflected in unemployment numbers.
Mr. Boyd asked if there would be feedback provided from the Business First interviews.
Ms. Catlin replied that it was entered into a database called Executive Pulse, and that could be
shared with the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 29. Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitor Bureau (CACVB) Strategic
Marketing Plan.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“As part of the County’s ongoing restructuring and repositioning efforts involved in developing its
Five-Year Financial Plan, staff refined the County’s approach to its support of community agencies to
focus on core services, performance, and fund balances consistent with how the County has approached
local government departments and the School Division for the past several years. As a result of this
review, staff felt compelled to address the very significant fund balance accumulated by the Charlottesville
Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) over the past two years. The Five-Year Financial
Plan adopted in the Fall of 2011 proposed that the Board of Supervisors request that CACVB’s fund
balance be reduced to a 20% level and that the excess funds be returned to the County and the City to
support tourism initiatives by both jurisdictions; an approach that was fully endorsed by the City Manager’s
Office.
In response to CACVB’s fund balance reduction presented in the Five-Year Financial Plan, the
CACVB Board sent a resolution to the Board of Supervisors requesting that the Board allow the fund
balance to remain intact with the assurance that “The CACVB Board of Directors has directed the CACVB
Director and staff to develop, within a short period of time, a targeted marketing action plan to augment
targeted direct marketing of tourism attractions, events, locations, shopping, entertainment, agri-tourism,
recreation and other identified tourism assets while drawing down the accumulated Fund Balance from its
present level to an operational level of between 15% – 20% of annual operating budget levels within a
period not to exceed three (3) years.”
The Board of Supervisors indicated a willingness to consider leaving the fund balance intact with
the assurance that the CACVB would implement a meaningful and productive marketing plan with
performance measures that would insure that expenditure of the fund balance would achieve specific
tourism outcomes and that the CACVB would provide regular reports to the Board. CACVB staff and the
consultant firm selected to create the marketing plan, Payne Ross and Associates, provided an update to
the Board on May 2, 2012 regarding the status of the plan. The Board requested a report on the
completed plan at its July 11th meeting.
CACVB staff and Payne Ross and Associates will present the completed marketing plan to the Board
on July 11th for its discussion and direction. A summary of the plan is attached for the Board’s information and
the complete plan will be provided to the Board for review prior to the meeting.
A decision to leave the CACVB fund balance intact would reduce revenues by approximately
$250,000 over the course of the Five Year Plan.
Staff recommends that the Board receive the CACVB’s strategic marketing plan and provide
direction to the CACVB as to the amount from the accumulated fund balance that the Board would support
to fund the plan.”
_____
Ms. Catlin reported that the Board would receive the final CVB marketing plan, presented by
Payne Ross & Associates, and the CACVB Board has been working with the firm through the process and
has unanimously endorsed the plan. She said the CACVB will continue to provide careful fiscal
management as the plan is implemented, with all projects and expenditures monitored closely by their
staff and board. Ms. Catlin stated that at the end of the presentation, they will be looking to the Board for
direction as to the use of the fund balance for funding the plan.
Ms. Susan Payne addressed the Board, stating that the plan is comprehensive and thanking the
CACVB board and staff, especially chairs Chris Engel and Lee Catlin. She said that the lodging industry,
the Chamber of Commerce, the Jefferson School, the University of Virginia, and Monticello have all had
input in this plan. Ms. Payne stated that the plan focuses on more people staying longer and spending
more money, and the m ission as stated is to enhance the economic prosperity of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle region by promoting and marketing Albemarle County and the City of
Charlottesville as a desirable destination by reminding vacationing families that Charlottesville/ Albemarle
is an exciting, vibrant and authentic American region that helps connect you to the places and the ones
you love.
Ms. Payne said the demographics show the primary market as being people between 25-45 years
old, who hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, and are traveling with children to enjoy recreation and
scenery; the sustaining market continues to be people 35-55 years old, and especially those coming from
Northern Virginia – couples without children. She stated that the strategic goals going forward are to
brand the region as a whole, and in looking at statewide tourism people are branding regions as opposed
to cities or counties. Ms. Payne said they want to raise awareness of the region’s tourism product, and
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 106)
are isolating the target market to D.C., Richmond and Northern Virginia – as well as piggybacking and
cross-promoting with other tourism organizations to maximize dollars, and to extend the tourism season to
ensure there is no off-season. She stated that success in those areas would result in the ultimate goal of
increased revenue.
Ms. Payne reported that tourism assets involve what people do when they come here – weddings,
music, festivals, holidays, romantic getaways, the arts, outdoors, sports, agri-tourism, history, family
vacations, etc. She said that to promote those assets they would use print broadcasting, online media,
public relations, social media, collaborations, e-marketing, trade shows and point of sale. Ms. Payne
stated that the most obvious measurement of success would be people staying longer and spending more
by attending local attractions and events; increased awareness of valuable attractions; higher hotel
occupancy; more food, alcohol and transportation sales; higher tourism tax revenues; support and
sustaining more than 5,000 jobs, and encouraging further job creation; and to preserve the local cultural,
historic and natural resources.
Mr. Thomas asked if alcohol should be a specific word of focus, and Ms. Payne pointed out that
wineries, breweries and cideries were drawing lots of tourists.
Ms. Payne suggested making it wine and spirits.
Ms. Payne indicated that for every dollar spent on marketing, $75 is spent by tourists – with $5
returned in local taxes.
Mr. Rooker said that with an $800,000 expense, they could anticipate $4 million in additional tax
revenues for that category.
Ms. Payne stated that the State reports that as their tourism conversion rate.
Mr. Dumler said there are certain assumptions built in here, and certain places where it breaks
down differently.
Ms. Payne presented a breakdown of expenses for the initiative, stating that the fund balance is
$760,000 – and this plan accounts for $623,800 to be spent fairly quickly but with a three-year shelf life.
She said that the majority of the expenses would have a longer shelf life, except for collaborations and
partnerships, and out of an operating expense of $215,000, $160,000 is accounted for in this plan. Ms.
Payne noted that this year six event areas were funded, including Festival of the Book, Festival of the
Photograph, the Virginia Film Festival, the African American Festival, Piedmont Council of the Arts, and
Journey Through Hallowed Ground – amounting to $142,400. She said that each year, festivals and
collaborations go through a grant process, a study process, in order to be funded – so it isn’t an automatic
renewal.
Mr. Rooker asked what the projected operating income per year would be, outside of the fund
balance, and clarified his question as what percentage of the CACVB revenues would be allocated toward
this program.
Ms. Payne responded that the lodging taxes would be approximately $3 million, with the CACVB
annual budget at $1.2 million – and $215,000 is allocated to marketing and advertising.
Ms. Mallek said that is only 15%, and she understood their major role to be marketing and
advertising.
Ms. Payne stated that the $215,000 is reflected from the fund balance.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a plan for the ongoing revenue, not the one-time expenses, as it should be
considerably more than the $1.2 million.
Ms. Payne said that she is only working with the numbers she’s been given for one year, for the
fund balance.
Mr. Rooker commented that it’s a good plan, and there are normal non-marketing operating
expenses.
Ms. Payne explained that the plan allows the fund balance to be used for tourism assets and to be
able to have some quality marketing materials and present the County in a good light – and in prior years
there hasn’t been enough money to have all of that working for us. She said the fund balance would
provide tourism assets for three years, and then they will be refreshed. This is a very conservative,
sustainable plan.
Ms. Catlin said that what they are looking for today is direction from the Board on expenditure of
the fund balance to support the plan. She added that what’s in the ongoing operating expenses to cover
marketing and advertising in the CACVB’s budget will carry this program forward.
Mr. Dumler asked if the obligation for items from the ABRT programs would all be covered here,
and Ms. Catlin said they are all in here – but in future years, those festivals would have to come back to
the CACVB for funding.
Ms. Mallek said it’s important that the jurisdictions have some say in what is important.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 107)
Ms. Payne emphasized that their job is to promote the region as a whole, and collaborate with
individual entities to partner with the plan to make it work. She said they are looking at ways to create
links back and forth from efforts like the” Journey Through Hallowed Ground”.
Ms. Catlin ensured the Board that there would still be a process by which to approve projects and
budgets, with the opportunity to pull back as appropriate.
Mr. Dumler asked what the next thing to come before the Board would be, if the plan is approved.
Ms. Catlin said it would come before the appointed CACVB board, but the next piece for this
Board is the branding initiative – which drives all of this activity.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that City Council would also have a say in this.
Mr. Foley noted that the fund balance was half the County and half the City, so they would have to
support it too.
Mr. Rooker said the CACVB board has done what this Board has asked and have come forward
with an excellent plan, and he could support it. He added that it took longer than expected, but there is
now a way to judge its success and hopefully there will be a significant payback on this investment. Mr.
Rooker noted that not spending the fund balance has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as there is
now adequate money for materials and advertising efforts – which probably couldn’t have been
accomplished with a single year’s budget.
Mr. Snow said there will be a much better product.
Ms. Mallek asked if the branding phase is where the website will be changed.
Ms. Payne explained that the back end of the website is excellent, and was created with a good
content management system, but it does need a facelift with new branding and more bells and whistles
that people now expect – along with including the words Albemarle County. She said that her firm was
awarded the branding part of this several weeks ago, and they are in the process of working with CACVB
to send out online surveys to as many people as possible to get their feedback. Ms. Payne said they
would then put together six focus groups, with different positions and directions, and then do the branding
from there.
Ms. Mallek said there are two other phases of the plan that have yet to be assigned.
Ms. Catlin explained that the CACVB board is very close to closing the contract on the advertising
and public relations piece, with the City procurement completing that process.
Ms. Mallek stated that the skill level for who is chosen makes a huge impact on the success of
what you’ve done so far already, and that is a concern.
Mr. Thomas mentioned the importance of having hotels finished.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be something in hotel rooms about the region.
Ms. Payne said that the videos will hopefully be on the TVs in the rooms, and they are also
working on a tourism guide – but the best way to do that had not yet been determined.
Ms. Mallek said that having something you get in hand is also valuable for people who aren’t tech
savvy or whose eyes don’t see tiny print very well – they have something to read at night.
Ms. Payne stated that they would continue to have materials in the Virginia welcome centers and
major tourist attractions, and the partnership with the Monticello, Montpelier and the Smithsonian museum
has been really well received, with the VTC website having over two million hits on the President’s
Passport section.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the action for the Board today on this is to voice their support to use the
fund balance to support the marketing plan as presented, and a motion to that effect would clarify their
support.
Mr. Rooker offered motion to support the use of the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and
Visitors Bureau accumulated fund balance to support the CACVB Strategic Marketing Plan. Mr. Snow
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
NonAgenda. Mr. Boyd said that he had meant to ask Mr. Allshouse if there is enough data to start
setting some goals for sales tax increases, job increases, etc. so there are some targets and objectives.
Ms. Catlin responded that the Economic Vitality Action Plan doesn’t have specific targets, and
perhaps the strategic plan goal could encompass that.
_______________
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 108)
(Note: At this time, the Board returned to Consent Agenda Items 8.2 and 8.6)
Mr. Foley noted that they could now discuss an item from the Consent Agenda that had been
moved – Item 8.6 – target industries for fast tracking.
Mr. Rooker said he had asked for that to be pulled and suggested the first bullet be changed to
state: “and demonstrate a plan and commitment for recruiting and hiring a significant percentage of their
workforce from local residents”.
Mr. Boyd asked what a significant percentage means.
Mr. Rooker responded that he wasn’t sure, but all the language in the plan was somewhat
subjective. He said it could say a majority.
Mr. Thomas said it could say when possible.
Mr. Rooker reiterated his original suggestion, adding that there really isn’t a way to police this but
it gives a strong indication that if you want to get into the program, the County is interested in companies
that show some kind of commitment to hiring local people – and would like to see some kind of plan or
commitment by businesses to doing that.
Mr. Foley said the significant percentage might depend on the kind of industry it is.
Mr. Rooker said it needs to remain somewhat subjective, with the point being the intent.
Mr. Boyd stated that his question was who approves a project and identifies that they meet the
criteria for fast tracking, as it looks as if it’s left up entirely to staff without any Board input.
Ms. Mallek commented that this seems to be a pretty clinical, objective decision about whether it
meets the criteria or not.
Mr. Boyd said there’s no wiggle room if it’s done strictly on a staff basis, and having the Board
weigh in on special circumstances.
Mr. Foley stated that the intent of this is to develop criteria that would provide clear direction from
the Board, and asked if he wanted these to come back to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said that perhaps this should include an added opportunity for Board direction or Board
priorities.
Mr. Rooker stated that the process could be slowed down by having Board review, and the Board
always has the authority to do a specific thing with a specific application that may be before us.
Mr. Boyd asked how they would know about it, as there is no mechanism in this for staff to notify
the Board of a request for a project.
Mr. Rooker said the Board meets twice a month.
Mr. Boyd said that there was no indication for staff to notify the Board about a request for a
project.
Mr. Foley asked if that was what the Board was looking for staff to do because staff wouldn’t
typically notify the Board every time an applicant came in and started this process, but if there is another
expectation staff needed to know that. He added that they get applications on a regular basis, and this
just applies a different lens to it based upon Board direction.
Ms. Mallek commented that this might be different because of the priority consideration.
Mr. Foley explained that there are target industries as defined, and criteria for what they have to
bring to the table.
Mr. Boyd suggested that at least the Board member whose district the business would be in
should be identified, at the beginning of the process.
Mr. Foley asked if Mr. Boyd was meant once someone has been identified as a candidate for fast
track.
Mr. Boyd replied that at the beginning of the process is when he would like to know about it – if
someone in the Rivanna district had applied for fast track and staff is considering it – then he would like to
know at that point who it is and what they are doing.
Mr. Rooker said he didn’t have any problem with that, but if they are going to adopt criteria he
doesn’t want it to be an individual Board member-influenced matter. He stated that he didn’t think
individual Board members should have the ability to go to staff and say, I disagree with you, but if they
want to bring it up to the whole Board that’s acceptable. Mr. Rooker expressed concern that this might
lead to a process that’s not at all objective but instead is based on how hard a particular Board member
lobbies.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 109)
Mr. Snow stated that this is really two different issues – setting up an automatic procedure that
staff can handle without any Board input; and a secondary process whereby Board members might hear
about something they want to fast track.
Mr. Boyd said he’s suggesting a notification system of some kind – I’m not saying it’s a step for
approval.
Mr. Rooker commented that if a Board member disagrees with staff’s determination – be it for or
against fast-tracking something – it should be brought back before the whole Board.
Mr. Boyd agreed.
Mr. Foley said that notifying them that something is in the process is fine.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that he just wanted notification of important projects.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to get a list of who has requested fast-tracking.
Mr. Foley responded that would be possible.
__________
Regarding Item 8.2, Mr. Rooker said it didn’t seem to mention the potential for bringing the private
sector in, and Mr. Boyd said his understanding was that the County was going to ask the private sector to
present ideas as to what they would do – and then use the consultant to evaluate those plans.
Mr. Graham explained that staff was trying to say that this would be a contracted service with a
private entity, and the initial step is having the consultant go out and talk to them – based on the services
desired by the County – and trying to make sure all concerns were addressed. He said that once those
conversations happened, staff would come back and review that information with the Board to see if there
was interest to try to go to contract.
Mr. Foley emphasized that the key here is, before the County asks for proposals, they need to
figure out how this is going to operate.
Mr. Snow said they had also discussed involving private contractors in the discussion stage, so
the specifications could be written to create a set of guidelines that are purely bureaucratic.
Mr. Graham replied that they are trying to avoid that, and that’s why the first step is going out and
talking to potential bidders for those services.
Mr. Foley said that would happen on the front end, before an RFP is put together.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wanted to ensure that they didn’t write an RFP that no one is going to bid
on, or that attracts bidders that aren’t even a match.
Mr. Foley said that’s why the first task is for the consultant to meet with the providers.
Mr. Boyd asked if the consultants were going to go in and meet with the private sector to get ideas
about what they are willing to do to meet the County’s needs.
Mr. Graham noted that they are going to meet one on one, as potential bidders may not be as
open to discussions if their competition is there. He said that this was an aggressive timetable, and there
isn’t much slack time in the schedule.
Mr. Boyd then offered motion to approve consent agenda items 8.2 and 8.6. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Rooker mentioned a piece of information that said the CIP account proposes a funding source
that has a surplus of approximately $600,000 in excess of anticipated FY13 expenses, and asked if there
was money there to fill in the sidewalk gaps in the Stonefield area – you can’t walk to the bus stop from
Stonefield and stay on the sidewalk, in the most populated part of the County – we talk about $600,000 of
not identified uses now – if you had the money to do it, probably the least expensive time to fill in those
gaps on sidewalks would be while construction is being done out there. He added that most of the
sidewalk is in the right of way.
Mr. Foley asked if he were saying that they use some of the $600,000 if they are comfortable that
some of it could be reallocated.
Mr. Rooker replied yes – this is just a thought – would we save money by trying to mobilize and
get some of those pieces of sidewalk done while construction crews are out there already doing
sidewalks.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 110)
Mr. Graham explained that the reserve was an environmental contingency because of uncertainty
about the Ivy Landfill cleanup, and staff has tried to maintain a contingency because they had an
environmental agreement that said the City and County would fund those things if they arose.
Mr. Rooker asked if Bill Letteri could look into whether doing sidewalks now while crews are at
Stonefield would save money, or whether it’s impossible to meet the timeframe.
Mr. Foley stated that the County had recently received some good news on revenue sharing for
sidewalks, and staff would get back to the Board on this.
Mr. Snow stated that he would like to see a plan of what they’re talking about – where the links
are.
Mr. Foley said that the project had been identified as a priority, and the revenue-sharing money
may be in place.
Mr. Cilimberg said the project had been identified, but he wasn’t sure of the money flow yet, and
the real question is how the County as a public entity turns money around for a contractor to do additional
work – or somehow mobilize that quickly. He stated that it was more of a capital program and legal
question.
Mr. Rooker said some money could be saved on mobilization, if possible.
Mr. Boyd stated that there are still some dangers in the Ivy cleanup, and he wanted to echo Mr.
Graham’s concern to have as reserve set aside for that.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 30. Local responses to June 29, 2012 severe thunderstorm.
Mr. Foley reported that a local and state emergency was declared for the June 29 storms, and
because state expenses have exceeded $10.8 million, Virginia now qualifies for federal assistance – and
FEMA is onsite now assessing damage, which means the County will get a lot of reimbursement for
expense. He said they are now in cleanup mode, and are assessing how long to keep debris sites open.
Mr. Snow said several of his constituents have asked if there would be declaration of a Federal
Disaster Area, and asked if residents would qualify for low-cost loans.
Mr. Foley responded that he doesn’t think the County has gotten to that point yet, but has met a
threshold whereby they will come in and assess.
Chief Eggleston explained that the state representative is onsite, and is going through the process
right now to determine what the damages are and determine whether the County meets that threshold –
We’ll try to get a timeline, but it varies depending on the type of disaster and the magnitude.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County was at the stage where people should call and report damages to
their homes.
Chief Eggleston explained that state representatives go through a sample assessment to
establish a thumbnail view of what kind of damage occurred in this area, and they will make a
determination based on that. At that point if they need more detail, he stated, there would be a process
for people to report damage.
Mr. Foley said the County was documenting expenses as a part of the process.
Mr. Snow asked who residents in his area should contact.
Chief Eggleston responded that they are advised to immediately contact their insurance
companies, because that is the first process even if they are declared a Federal Disaster Area.
Mr. Foley commented that there are still about 100 people without power, and this has been a
huge event for public safety staff and volunteers regionally – and there has been great effort and
coordination there. He recognized Chief Eggleston, Kathy Ralston, Lee Catlin, Bryan Elliott, Police Chief
Sellers, George Shadman, Bob Crickenberger, Sheriff Harding, and their staffs; and Dr. Lillian Peake of
the Health Department, and Kirby Feltz. Mr. Foley said that on July 12 and 13 there would be debriefing
sessions held at the ECC for the regional efforts. He stated that power companies also made a
tremendous effort, despite some challenges with communication.
Mr. Snow asked if there was another way to recognize personnel who helped.
Mr. Foley replied that he would come back with some suggestions.
Mr. Rooker said that the County should send something in the way of appreciation and
condolences for the man from Comcast who died while trying to assist people here.
Mr. Boyd said that he felt better after meeting with Dominion Power officials and learning what
they had to deal with, and that’s a story worth telling. He also said that this would be a good time to talk
about what people need to do to be prepared ahead of time.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 111)
Mr. Snow suggested getting the power companies to circulate information in their bills.
Ms. Mallek said at the meeting with Dominion, it was suggested that they come to a Board
meeting sometime and explain how they handle these situations behind the scenes – because they can’t
just march right in there and start chopping and disconnecting. She stated that there is a whole cascade
of priorities of where the sources are, and people in the country were very frustrated because they didn’t
see anything happening for a few days. Ms. Mallek said that she agreed with Mr. Boyd that getting this
information out to people now would be helpful.
Mr. Thomas stated that a lot of the damage had to be dealt with manually, and having right of
ways taken care of would eliminate a lot of the damage.
Ms. Mallek said that people have gotten very agitated about tree-trimming, and she was shocked
to know that power companies in the urban areas only have 15 feet of right of way on either side of the
lines. She stated that VDOT has no money now for the tree-trimming they used to do, and now all the
roadways are tunnels. Ms. Mallek said that the state legislature wasn’t helping by saying we’re not raising
taxes when all that degradation of infrastructure is having to be dealt with at the local level.
Mr. Thomas stated that he was very grateful for the work done by power company workers.
Mr. Boyd said he was very appreciative of what they had done. He also said that people who are
on oxygen or have other medical needs, they could pre-register with Dominion – and the power company
have those people identified, and they know that they are the places they have to go to if they were going
to be out for a long period of time. Mr. Boyd stated that the word needs to be spread through the medical
community here so they can get the info to their patients.
Mr. Rooker asked what was going on in the system that caused transformers to blow.
Mr. Thomas explained that it was a backload of power, and it causes the transformers to blow.
Mr. Boyd said that generators can back feed up the lines.
Ms. Mallek noted that that’s the kind of information that should be disseminated, as there are
numerous people who have put on the generators without any kind of contractor or certified electrician
putting them on properly, and it is a huge danger to the crews on the line when they have some place that
is hot and not properly segregated. She said that taking clips and attaching a generator to a circuit
breaker box can kill someone, and that slows power companies down to ensure there isn’t power through
the lines. Ms. Mallek stated that other communities have communication systems like reverse-911 that
provide automated information about storms, bridge closures, etc. She also said that a micro-
climatologist that she knows in Crozet was aware of the storm three hours before it hit, but the information
was never disseminated through the National Weather Service here and that cost Dominion time.
Mr. Rooker stated that Dominion should be on top of that.
Ms. Mallek responded that there was some snag in the system there.
Mr. Foley said that there was some issue with the National Weather Service notification.
Ms. Mallek stated that she m ade a bunch of homemade signs that said, Cooling Center and put
them up so people would know where to go.
Mr. Rooker said that WINA continued to announce these things, and most people still have
portable radios.
Chief Eggleston said that the National Weather Service also holds debriefings, and it provides an
opportunity for local ECC to provide feedback. He said that a lot of people were caught off guard, and
their warning system might not have fit with this type of storm.
Mr. Boyd said he had heard a lot of comments from constituents about the need for a better
system by which to report eyewitness accounts. He said that after the debriefings, it would be helpful to
have Chief Eggleston come back to the Board with an update.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 31. Consideration of joint meeting with Planning Commission, re: Amendments
to Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Boyd said the Commission plans to meet with the Board on the status of their Comp Plan
update, and he was concerned about some global issues they aren’t going to look at – such as putting
property into the development areas. They’re categorically saying, we’re not going to look at that because
we’ve already got enough stock out there, and I don’t think that’s appropriate for the individuals that are
requesting it, or an appropriate way to deal with it. Mr. Boyd stated that he has read statements about
there being too much housing stock available, and wondered if the mixed-use neighborhood model
development on Route 20 South would not be considered under that scenario.
Ms. Mallek said, it’s outside the growth area, that’s why it’s not being looked at.
Mr. Boyd said he doesn’t agree with that.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 112)
Mr. Rooker said that that’s just one person’s perspective. He said that he had no problem with a
joint meeting on amendments to the Comp Plan, although he isn’t prepared today to give direction on
specific proposals. Mr. Rooker stated that the Commission had considered these things on a one-by-one
basis, and the Board had received a report that showed the minutes of their discussions.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission had a work session in October regarding the
development areas and potential expansion, with an analysis of each of the areas being requested, and
that report came to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said, but there’s no analysis of each one individually.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, there was. The report analyzed each individually, pros and cons, and
we were asking the Commission very honestly to provide guidance on whether they wanted us to continue
looking at any one of those areas for potential expansion – and ultimately a recommendation to [the
Board]. And that’s where they did in fact decide not to have us further review or consider any of the areas
other than the Shadwell interchange area, which we are looking at in fact. He stated that Mr. Morris told
him that the Commission would like to hear from the Board as to what they’d already determined in order
to get feedback, as they have to make a recommendation to the Board under Virginia code. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the joint meeting would be a forum for that contact and input, and the Commission was
focused on the expansion areas when they suggested the joint meeting.
Mr. Thomas said that his Commissioner told him the same thing.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that Mr. Morris had asked the Commissioners to talk to their individual
Board members and find out whether they were interested in having a joint meeting. He said that the
meeting would be focused on expansion areas, at least based on the Commission’s more recent
discussion, and they would be looking for any input or feedback from the Board.
Mr. Foley asked if the meeting would be different than the issues that came before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it would be the same items that the Board had seen three months
prior.
Mr. Rooker said that the Commission went through the information, staff made an analysis, and
the Commission made their recommendation – with the Board considering it three months earlier – and
the Board, at that point, accepted their recommendation. He stated that there hadn’t been a vote on the
overall plan, but he was trying to understand what the goal of this process is given what has already been
done.
Ms. Mallek stated that in looking at the Comp Plan, one of the most important requirements is
there needs to be a need for the community to make the change, and the 5/95% split would be completely
ineffective if there weren’t some protocols that needed to be met before the growth area is changed. And
because of the inventory that already exists, it shows that the need does not exist, and that to her is the
most important criteria that the Board has to think about right now. She said there was plenty of
undeveloped area in the growth area already, with transportation and water and everything else already in
place – more efficiently available – and that should be the priority. She said that no one would prioritize
that if they know that they can easily scamper outside into the country and do something else.
Mr. Rooker said he would support having a joint meeting with the Planning Commission when
there is something important to talk about, but he would want it to be a new topic – not something that they
have already gone through and made a recommendation on. He asked if the goal here was to brow beat
them into making some kind of different recommendation.
Mr. Dumler stated that Mr. Boyd’s concern had been that by the time an item comes before the
Board, it’s too late for the Board to make a different recommendation because it’s so far along in the
process – and he doesn’t have a problem meeting with the Commission on this matter.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Dumler was on the Board when this was last discussed.
Mr. Dumler responded that he was, and was in the work session.
Mr. Rooker said the Commission spent a lot of time going through it and made a recommendation
that came before the Board, which the Board accepted, and asked if there are other topics they wish to
discuss.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission had brought up expansion areas, and when they last
met the Board didn’t ask them to do anything differently than they’d already done – and didn’t provide
further guidance as to what they should consider. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the Board was careful
not to take any action as the Commission is responsible for the Comp Plan.
Mr. Foley said that staff tried to make a point that if there were things the Board wanted them to
consider, this was the time to bring them up. He stated that they need to determine if the meeting is just
on expansion areas, or on rural interchanges and light industry, and things that were on the plate before.
Mr. Boyd stated that there are projects that have been languishing out there for years, and those
applicants have been told to bring it back when the Comp Plan adjustments are made – and Somerset,
Yancey Mills, etc. will not be considered as part of the plan – I want to consider them. He said that he
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 113)
wanted to look at the pros and cons, and that he was interested in what the Planning Commission has
done and the thought process they go through, but it is not their decision.
Ms. Mallek said the Planning Commission is responsible for starting the process of modifying the
Comp Plan, and they have chosen three times on Yancey Mills.
Mr. Boyd said that the Crozet Community Association has killed Yancey Mills.
Mr. Rooker said there were not four votes on the Board to move Yancey Mills forward, and there
still aren’t.
Mr. Boyd stated that it hasn’t been brought before the Board, other than in general terms.
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Boyd has brought it up several times, and it has never gotten beyond the vote
at the Board level.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that they would not get a staff report, not consider it, and not look at
the pros and cons.
Ms. Mallek said the Planning Commission had received that information, and Mr. Rooker said he
had read the staff report.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff provided a report to the Board in the packet given to the Planning
Commission previously.
Mr. Rooker said there are also minutes of their discussions.
Mr. Cilimberg recalled the Places 29 discussion of expanding the development area, and the
Commission recommended not to expand those – and staff assumes that anything done with the Planning
Commission to date that has yielded a final recommendation to the Board is information in the plan that
staff needs to bring to the Board. He said that he thought it just becomes a question of now what more
you might want to tell the Planning Commission as they continue their work.
Mr. Foley said the Board could give direction on what they want to look at further, and if there are
enough votes to look at it, it could be brought to the table.
Mr. Rooker said what makes the most sense to him is to let the Commission get through their
work as soon as possible so it could be brought forward to the Board, so they can consider the
recommendations and go with them – or not – based on what the Board thinks makes sense.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would be willing to look at a lot of things that the Commission has
summarily said they’re not going to bring forward to the Board, and whatever the Board does it’s important
to let applicants say there aren’t enough votes to let their projects go forward.
Ms. Mallek said that Yancey has been voted down three times at the Planning Commission, and
the Board didn’t move them forward either – so that’s a pretty definite decision that’s been made over and
over again over three years.
Mr. Boyd said he has never seen Yancey Mills come before the Board as a formal application.
Ms. Mallek said they didn’t push it forward because the votes weren’t there to override the
Planning Commission’s denial to go forward.
Mr. Boyd said he didn’t remember them ever voting on it.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that it wasn’t included in the Crozet Master Plan, and was put aside and not
acted on. He explained that just recently when the Commission discussed the interstate interchanges,
they specifically voted not to have Yancey Mills further considered.
Mr. Boyd said that his thought was that Yancey Mills wasn’t part of the Crozet Master Plan, it was
a side issue because Yancey Mills was outside the Crozet Master Plan area – so it wouldn’t have been
part of the plan anyway.
Mr. Rooker said it was considered as part of the interchange analysis, and the Commission
recommended looking at Shadwell but not Yancey.
Mr. Boyd said that somebody needs to tell Will Yancey that his project is never going to get built.
Mr. Rooker said that forever is a long time, and the community changes over time. He said that
Comp Plan amendments can be initiated without a broad review.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any interest in looking at the Somerset project.
Mr. Rooker said that he wasn’t interested.
Mr. Thomas said he would like to look at it, stating that the County had lost 800 acres of growth
area.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 114)
Mr. Boyd stated that he wanted to look at it.
Mr. Dumler said he had no problem looking at anything as long as it’s not onerous on the staff.
Mr. Foley asked if they wanted to look at it as part of the overall Comp Plan review.
Mr. Boyd responded that he wanted to look at it, wherever it best fits in the work plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff had brought to the Board not only what topics the Commission
reviewed, but whether or not any particular aspects of the plan needed to be accelerated and brought to
the Board earlier versus bringing it forward as one package – and the decision of the Board was not to pull
out any pieces for early decision, but to have the full plan come to the Board by the end of this year to
allow them to begin considering various elements of the plan by January 2013. Mr. Cilimberg stated that
staff’s focus now was completing the Comm ission process, and having their recommendations to the
Board in early 2013, but if the Board wanted to look at particular expansion areas that would change
staff’s overall schedule. He said that if they were interested in having one more meeting with the
Commission to hear their rationale on Comp Plan recommendations, that wouldn’t affect the timeline.
Mr. Cilimberg said that Commissioners had expressed to him in the last meeting that they wanted
to make sure that if there’s a joint meeting, they were under the understanding that there wasn’t going to
be things kicked back to them later because they didn’t cover them.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Board needs to be careful about pulling things out for individual
consideration that are things the Commission didn’t even recommend, because that’s essentially
accelerating something that wasn’t recommended ahead of something that is recommended.
Mr. Boyd said that he is letting the Board know that he’s not going to roll over on the suggestions
from the Planning Commission, and he’s not just going to accept their recommendations and go forward
with it. He said that he’s not going to let it just sort of be this big holistic thing that comes before the Board
that they can’t break apart into pieces and discuss individually. He mentioned the long process involved in
Places 29 and the fact that nobody was happy with all the parts of it.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that with any large plan, there are going to be things people like and things
they don’t like, and it has to be decided on balance whether you’re going to vote for or against an item. He
said that the Board has the power to change any of the Comp Plan points.
Mr. Foley stated that the Commission is on schedule to keep the process moving, but if there is a
majority vote on the Board to reconsider expansion areas as part of their review they can dig right into
that. He said that only question before the Board now is whether or not they want to do something before
the recommendation comes before them.
Mr. Boyd said that he doesn’t want the recommendation from the Commission to say – we
decided we’ve got plenty of housing stock and we don’t need to consider any other things – and it sounds
like it’s the way it’s coming to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Commission has decided there is capacity for the 20 years of
the plan for residential accommodation, and they asked to continue to look at Shadwell for more industrial
type of development or business land use. He said that he would make sure that the Planning
Commission specifically – when they are taking their actions to make their final recommendations to the
Board – have covered all those bases so they have that, clearly.
Mr. Rooker said that one reason you don’t want to look at things piecemeal is you don’t get the
whole picture, such as loss and gain in the growth area – if you have a recommendation coming forward
and it includes recommendations for increasing the growth area and doesn’t recommend a particular area
be included – shouldn’t you look at those things at the same time.
Mr. Boyd stated that the reason he is interested in Somerset is that there needs to be more
opportunity for residential growth south of town, instead of pushing it all in the 29 North area. He said he’d
like to see some houses, retail and jobs in the area.
Ms. Mallek said that the 5th Street/Avon development is underway, is in the growth area, and has
its infrastructure.
Mr. Boyd stated that without enough votes to move forward, he would just wait until the Comp
Plan was before the Board. He emphasized that he would be drilling down on individual situations and not
taking the whole thing as a blanket recommendation.
Mr. Rooker responded you have every right to do that.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Commission could decide on their own to reconsider direction as the
Comp Plan isn’t final yet.
_______________
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 115)
Agenda Item No. 32. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Boyd offered motion to adopt the following resolution to set the FY13 Compensation and
Benefits for the County Executive. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO SET FY 13
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS FOR
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle operates under the County Executive Form of Government; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors determines the compensation and benefits to be paid to the
County Executive for the performance of his duties and responsibilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
deems that Thomas C. Foley, County Executive, shall receive the following compensation and benefits for FY
13, beginning July 1, 2012:
1) Annual salary of $ 176,649.
2) Annual vehicle allowance of $6,300.
3) Annual deferred Compensation paid by the County in the amount of $17,325.
4) Annual leave equivalent to that of a County employee with twenty two (22) years of
consecutive employment with the County.
5) Such other benefits provided to all County employees in the Personnel Policy & Procedures
Manual.
6) In the event of termination by the Board or resignation at the request of the Board, the
continuation of salary and health insurance benefits for six months on a monthly basis beginning the next
month after the date of separation from employment.
_____
Mr. Snow offered motion to request VDOT to install bike lane decals in 35 mph and below areas
along Route 250 west from Farmington towards Charlottesville, and any parts of National Route 76 that
qualify. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_____
With regards to mileage policy for Board members, Ms. Mallek said she had inquired several
years ago at VACo, and the consensus from other localities is to include constituent meetings, as it is part
of their job. Mr. Dumler said it includes any meeting at which County business is discussed.
Mr. Boyd said that he was wondering because he had never filled one out before and had just
taken the meeting times, and didn’t know whether to include that activity – most of the time people just
come to his office to meet. He asked if anything where county business is involved is put on the sheet.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board might want to get information from Ms. Jordan on this, as she
had recently done some research on this.
Mr. Foley said that staff had done that, and it didn’t really provide much insight – the real question
is whether its Board meetings and committee’s Board members are appointed to, or beyond that it’s also
constituent meetings and so forth.
Mr. Boyd said that if he wrote all of that down his bill is going to go way up.
Mr. Foley said that the Board could set that however they wanted, but the County currently isn’t
budgeted to handle those – but it’s something that could be adjusted.
Mr. Rooker stated that he just included committee meetings or committees he was appointed to –
if Board members went to Richmond to meet with legislatures, and went to VACo those types of things
would be included.
Mr. Snow said that if he were in a group and several of them asked him to speak then he would
count that and used his constituents in Esmont asking him to come out and speak as an example.
Mr. Foley stated that it’s clear for appointed committees, VACo meetings, etc., and the next
variation would be speaking at a community meeting – but what’s not clear is when a constituent calls and
wants to have coffee.
Mr. Boyd asked about workshops at the County Building, or roundtable meetings.
Mr. Rooker said those would clearly count.
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 116)
Mr. Foley said that’s an official County meeting. He said that staff would develop some guidelines
and get them to the Board.
_____
Mr. Rooker said there should be a resolution passed to congratulate Charlottesville on their 250th
anniversary/birthday. Mr. Snow said that was a good idea, and other Board members agreed.
_____
Mr. Thomas said that at the Ag/Forestal District meeting the previous Monday, the Committee did
not want to recommend a property that was having a tower put on it. He also said that Castle Hill Vineyard
was applying for up to 1,000-3,000 participants in a party, at one each year, then reducing back to ten 200
participants at a party 10 times a year. He said the Committee didn’t like the commercial activity next to
the district, and Keswick requested a similar unpopular item.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Thomas if the applicants were asking to have property included in an
Ag/Forestal District and are getting turned down.
Mr. Thomas responded “no” they were not getting turned down and explained that the Committee
is not recommending activities like Castle Hill because it’s next to an Ag/Forestal District property.
Mr. Rooker stated that the Committee didn’t have any decision-making capacity on that.
Mr. Dumler asked if they were taking a position on the application.
Mr. Rooker asked if they were making a recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Thomas clarified that the Committee is taking a position on these applications, and telling the
Planning Commission that the use is not appropriate. He said that he has tried to tell the Committee that
the Economic Vitality Action Plan includes an agri-business component.
Ms. Mallek said, within reason, nobody signed up two Januarys ago for 3,000 people.
Mr. Thomas said that he also mentioned to the Committee that restaurants/food service might
take place at these wineries.
Mr. Rooker asked at what circumstance it is applicable to restaurants.
Ms. Mallek said that the State Board of Health and VDACS are working to try to solve the dilemma
that they’ve created for wineries where it’s not currently legal for wineries to have a bowl of crackers on
the counter for tastings. She said that the state guys have got to sort that out first. Ms. Mallek said that
there may be a chance for wineries to have limited food service available for people who are doing
tastings. Ms. Mallek also said that the advisory committees shouldn’t be trying to do the end job – they
should only be looking at the issue from their perspective.
_____
Mr. Thomas commented that he has missed several functions that he had signed up for and
apologized for not attending.
Mr. Thomas also said that staff is in the process of planning another decibel test for Rockydale.
Ms. Mallek said she hoped staff would conduct the test in the swale, because it’s more meaningful
there than 3,000 feet away.
_____
Mr. Dumler said there was a Department of Forestry work session recently that revealed the State
Riparian Tax Credit Program was severely underutilized, and it offers a tax credit of 25% of all timber cut
up to $17,000 a year, and that information should be included in County tax bills and revalidation
packages.
He also stated that he would like to get copies of the quarterly CACVB reports, as he had never
seen their performance benchmarks and methodology so there is a baseline established.
_____
Mr. Boyd asked how the chloramines meeting would be arranged.
Mr. Foley said that staff is going to replace the big chairs with the smaller ones in Room 241, and
the table could accommodate 21 chairs around it.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 33. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley said this was a new item on the agenda for him to make general announcements, which
is similar to what other localities have. He also mentioned that the County Executive’s monthly report was
a work in progress, and he would appreciate any Board feedback.
Mr. Foley reported that staff is working on the strategic planning action plan, and at their retreat
they would be bringing those specific items forth. He said that the primary topic of the agenda is to talk
July 11, 2012 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 117)
about the changing state of local government, and people around the country are calling the next ten
years “The Decade of Local Government” because federal and state sources would be dramatically
cutting back. Mr. Foley said it would be a particularly challenging road ahead, with the financial picture still
teetering on the edge. He added, that he thought it puts the Board in the mode of solutions, because they
could just hang out all day and talk about problems – but it’s really about getting beyond that.
________________
Agenda Item No. 34. Adjourn to July 25, 2012, 7:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
At 5:37 p.m., Mr. Boyd offered motion to adjourn to July 25, 2012, 7:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium,
Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dumler, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Mr. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 09/12/2012
Initials: EWJ