2013-08-14AAugust 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
August 14, 2013, 3:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from August 7, 2013.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. William B. Craddock, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:04 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Firearms Training Facility.
Mr. Doug Walker, Assistant County Executive, said that the Board has held a number of
conversations and work sessions on the firearms training facility and the public safety training facility. He
said that most recently, staff brought back an update on the work staff was doing in terms of evaluating
candidate sites – using a set of criteria it felt was meaningful in the context of making recommendations to
the Board. Mr. Walker stated that the discussion today will include the possibility of engaging potential
project partners, represented by agency heads present at the meeting, and soliciting some specific citizen
participation with staff as part of the overall evaluation. He said that staff will address the estimated costs
for the range, including some identified impacts – as well as the assumptions driving those costs. Mr.
Walker stated that staff will also discuss the model that the Board has already approved regarding citizen
participation, recognizing that the process will ultimately be followed once the Board is comfortable with
the site. The discussion will include next steps to move the project forward, and staff will be making a
specific site recommendation at this meeting.
Mr. Walker explained that they have involved two committees at the staff level – the first of which
includes project partners such as the police departments of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville,
and UVA, as well as City government and UVA. He said that there have been a number of meetings held
with representatives of those agencies to help define the partnerships and consider specific site options,
including property owned by UVA. Mr. Walker mentioned that the group has reached consensus on the
site recommendation, but there has been discussion of land lease arrangements with UVA that
foreshadows the recommendation. He stated that there has been some development of conceptual
models regarding governance, the operating structure, and cost arrangements – focusing primarily on
some existing inter-agency governance arrangements, such as the regional jail, the juvenile detention
center, and the ECC.
Mr. Walker reported that the second committee has included police department staff and three
County citizens, who have participated in an active way by talking through assumptions staff is making
and the evaluation criteria used to differentiate between the quality of sites being considered. He said that
this resulted in a conversation about the public safety training facility as a whole and the site needs in
order to accommodate the entire facility – and all of the components – compared to the need for a police
firearms training facility specifically. Mr. Walker stated that the consensus was it was not inconsistent with
the needs of public safety – and in some cases even preferable – to consider addressing specific needs
such as the firearms training separately. He said that this process has also enabled staff to discuss other
components of the larger public safety training facility, and there is an opportunity to expand the existing
burn building site – which is in a good location that is severely constrained because of property line issues
with the regional jail. However, he stated, the property’s neighbor is the Juvenile Detention Commission,
and they both have needs that could be addressed through a partnership addressing public safety needs.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, noted that the internal
committee with citizen involvement helped to prioritize and focus the needs of the police force, and in the
discussion and review process they helped emphasize the opportunity for partnership. Mr. Henry reported
that the recommendation to the Board is to use the UVA Milton site – the former airport currently owned by
UVA, which is the site of the current open firearms range used by UVA police for qualification and training.
He stated that it is located in the southeast quadrant of the County, about 7.5 miles from the County Office
Building. Mr. Henry said that the site itself is 172 acres, of which the majority is in the floodplain bordering
the Rivanna – with approximately 35 buildable acres. He stated that there’s an existing firearms range
there, a hanger that UVA currently uses for its Engineering Department and would continue to use, and a
golf course across the river.
Mr. Henry presented a conceptual “test fit” site plan overlayed onto a map of the site, noting that it
was done to provide a first look as to whether it would work, and what the order of magnitude cost would
be. He said that staff followed this same process with the other candidate sites, and this was found to be
the easiest and least expensive to build on. Mr. Henry stated that some of the attributes identified by staff
and the committees are: consensus on location, property owned by UVA; replace current outdoor range
with enclosed range; convenience of access for all primary users 24/7 (ACPD, CPD, UPD); joint training
opportunities within partnership, including scenario based training; site limited to firearms training facility;
and limited scope of site work required.
In terms of site/location impacts, Mr. Henry reported that traffic has been identified as a concern
needing to be addressed. Several studies have been done, including a recent two-week assessment that
showed about 5,000 cars on Milton Road. He said that based on anticipated usage of approximately 560
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
visits per week for the range, the anticipated increase in traffic is between .6-1%, or a negligible increase.
Mr. Henry said that with the cars being police cruisers, there might be more visibility, but the actual
number of cars will not be significant. He added that the study also showed that the average speed of the
vehicles using that road as being high, so perhaps a police presence might help. He stated that they have
done some sound analysis, and if they construct the facility with a cement roof there will be minimal sound
at the property line, with the noise estimated to be at or below ambient sound at all times. Mr. Henry
noted that more analysis will need to be done once they get into the design aspect.
Mr. Walker mentioned that noise is a variable that will also impact cost considerations, affecting
what materials will need to be used and how the construction takes place in order to address sound levels.
Mr. Foley commented that County staff is holding themselves to its own standards, and what is
located on that site now has louder noise than what is even proposed with an open-air range.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the volume of shooting will be greater.
Mr. Henry stated that the range location is believed to be in the Monticello view shed, and will
need to be evaluated as part of the design process. He said that the existing outdoor range will need to
be remediated, and UVA’s estimate for that is $25,000-$50,000, which has been included in the budget.
Mr. Thomas asked if staff will contact Monticello about the view shed issues. Mr. Henry
responded that it will be part of their process. Staff will have to evaluate whether the future building can
be seen and what type of shielding might be required. He said that there is a fairly good amount of tree
coverage there, but visibility will be one of the first things considered moving forward.
Mr. Henry reported that the new range is intended to be a 20-lane range, separated internally in
the building with 12 lanes on one side and 8 lanes on the other – with the 12 lanes used primarily for
qualification purposes and the 8 lanes used for scenario-based training. He said that the lanes will be 50
yards long with 4 feet per lane, for a total of 215 feet long by 105 feet wide. Mr. Henry stated that the
building is a little over two-thirds of a football field in length and one-third of a field in width. It will, also,
include a classroom component of training prior to the shooting training. He said that the facility will also
include small office space, restrooms for men and women, and storage for the firing range equipment.
He stated that the cost of the new facility is estimated at $4 to $5 million, and as the project enters
its design phase it may be modified.
Ms. Mallek asked if the cost included all of the lead traps, air handlers, etc. Mr. Henry confirmed
that it did, noting that that’s a significant component of the overall cost.
Mr. Henry reported that there will be a formal public participation plan, which Ms. Catlin briefed the
Board on several meetings ago. Staff will follow the County’s guidelines for establishing a systematic
approach for meaningful community engagement. Staff will now work to bring a site-specific plan back,
assuming that is the direction of the Board. He noted that there is more to be done, but they are off to a
good start.
Mr. Walker reported that the key is getting direction from the Board to pursue Milton as the
preferred location for the firearms training facility. Staff is not offering alternative sites at this time because
they feel it is a good site for its intended purpose – and has support from the law enforcement community.
He said staff will look to the Board for at least some direction as to whether it is comfortable moving
forward with this option, before staff spends any more time and money pursuing it. Mr. Walker said that
the other work necessary is to work on the agreements, including an operating agreement as to how the
facility will function on a day to day basis – which will be decided by the chiefs of police as to how
decisions will be made on the operations. He stated that the governance agreement is more of an MOU
regarding the participating jurisdictions and how they will jointly participate in the overall structure, noting
that the ECC governing board includes representation from the three jurisdictions which provide policy
guidance, along with significant input from fire and law enforcement chiefs on the day to day aspects of
how the ECC serves the interest of public safety in the field. Mr. Walker added that the funding model will
need to be fleshed out in terms of what is mutually acceptable, and to ensure equitable cost disbursement
among all participants – including capital costs and ongoing operational costs for the facility.
Mr. Rooker said that there are a number of other funding agreements in place, which are usually
based somewhat on population, but in this case the use of the facility will be driven by the number of
officers using it – so that seems to make sense.
Mr. Walker stated that the officers as a numerator is a logical model to start with, then breaking
down the capital costs using a similar funding arrangement. He said that as relative comparison of
officers among jurisdictions changes over time, the use of the facility changes correspondingly and thus
should be split accordingly. Mr. Walker mentioned the regional jail model of a “prisoner per-bed” ratio.
Mr. Boyd asked if they know what the ongoing operating costs will be. Mr. Walker responded that
he is not aware of what they are as of yet. Mr. Henry said it is still a work in progress.
Mr. Snow asked what the cost of the original outdoor range was. Mr. Henry responded that the
initial budget on that was $1.2 million, and it rose to $1.6 million when the rifle range was added, along
with wetlands mitigation – but that did not include all of the sound mitigation measures such as a rear
berm and additional baffling.
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Rooker commented that adding those things would have pushed the cost upwards of $2
million.
Ms. Mallek said that would not have included the lead trap, which is an important measure.
Mr. Rooker stated that this is a superior location from all three jurisdictions’ standpoints in terms
of accessibility. One of the considerations expressed by the Police Department is the time it takes to get
someplace to train. He said that this location is convenient for all three jurisdictions and is already owned
by one of them, with a firing range already in place. Mr. Rooker added that there is also some benefit to
Glenmore by having all of the firing moved inside and the noise potentially attenuated.
Ms. Mallek said that the fact it brings in more partners than they would have had before is also a
huge advantage.
Mr. Boyd asked how this site will accommodate rifle training. Mr. Henry responded that the site
will not support rifle training, so that will still need to be done out of the County.
Mr. Rooker asked how much rifle training is required as opposed to hand gun training. Colonel
Steve Sellers, Police Chief, stated that it is something they can talk to the Rivanna Rifle Club about since
the volume will be much less. They have been going to Harrisonburg for rifle training. He said that the
ratio of rifle training to regular firearms training is about three-quarter handgun, one-quarter rifle.
Mr. Foley said that it’s important to point out that they have moved from a conceptually ideal place
to a reasonable place. Colonel Sellers responded that they cannot find a better location, as it is in the
center of the County and meets all needs while allowing officers to get back to their respective
jurisdictions. He said that he is willing to negotiate rifle training with Rivanna, but they have a good
temporary arrangement in Harrisonburg, if necessary. Colonel Sellers stated that they have less officers
at a time when they do that, so it won’t be a huge impact.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be possible to outfit rifles with silencers and still use them outside at
Milton. Colonel Sellers responded that it is not an option because the site does not support it.
Mr. Craddock asked if all of the rifle training must be strictly outside. Colonel Sellers responded
that they can do some rifle training indoors, such as patrol rifle training. He said that shotgun training can
also be done indoors.
Mr. Craddock asked if this precludes flying radio-controlled planes or UVA using the hangar for its
Engineering people. Colonel Sellers responded “no”; it should not affect any existing operations.
Mr. Craddock asked if the range would be strictly for police, or if it could be used for a class for
general citizens. Colonel Sellers said that they should start out with local law enforcement partners, and
then if they decide to provide one or two days a year for community access, they will need to come
together as jurisdictions and discuss it before they go down that road.
Mr. Craddock stated that he would like to encourage them to build something that is worthy of the
Milton area – something Jeffersonian – because although it cannot be seen from Route 729, it will be seen
from across the river.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff was looking for a vote to move forward with the next steps. Mr. Foley said
that staff is looking for the Board’s acquiescence to pursue Milton to the fullest extent and begin the
process of engaging with the public. He said that the critical path is to ensure that the partners are all
committed to a funding formula that is based on an objective method. He stated that once they feel
comfortable with the approach and the funding, then they can move forward with public inclusion. Mr.
Foley said that there still needs to be discussions at the City Manager’s office to ensure everyone is
committed to the funding that it takes to move this forward. He added that a significant grant application
has been filed along with discussion of community fundraising efforts.
Ms. Mallek asked if the proposed size will have enough space to comfortably accomm odate future
departmental growth. Mr. Walker said law enforcement has indicated that the 20 lane range is sufficient
for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Walker reported that the next steps include development of a land lease arrangement with
UVA. The County Attorney’s office has indicated that the process will not be simple or quick. He said that
they would also like to develop a more specific public engagement plan for this use in this location. Staff
plans to come back to the Board in October with an update on progress to date. Mr. Walker said that
there is a very short timeframe with respect to the current lease with Rivanna Rifle Club, so they want to
keep the project moving forward efficiently.
Ms. Mallek then moved to direct staff to pursue the Milton site as the preferred location for the
firearms training facility. Mr. Snow seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Craddock, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Snow and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Mallek thanked everyone for their hard work.
Mr. Foley expressed thanks to the citizens who have gotten involved, as it helped to change the
County’s perspective on the proposed range.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
“The Comprehensive Plan Amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission
(Attachment 1) is presented to the Board with a summary of changes from the current Comprehensive
Plan (Attachment 2).
On July 26, 2011, the Planning Commission began the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process
with a general review of the County’s Vision, Goals, and Objectives. Since that time, the Commission has
conducted approximately 40 meetings with opportunity for public input at each meeting. On July 30, 2013,
the Commission recommended approval of CPA-2013-00001, the attached draft Comprehensive Plan
with the summary of changes. The Commission has not finished its review of the Master Plan for the
Southern and Western Neighborhoods, the Implementation Chapter, and the Summary, but
recommended that the draft plan be forwarded to the Board with the understanding that the Commission
anticipates completing its review of these chapters in August and forwarding them to the Board in
September. At that time, the Commission’s work of the CPA will be done.
At the Board work session on August 14, 2013, staff will provide a presentation on the draft plan
(Attachment 1) and a summary of changes that have been recommended (Attachment 2). Staff will also
offer two possible approaches to reviewing the draft plan for the Board’s consideration. The draft plan is
being edited for typographical and grammatical errors and consistency of voice.
Staff noted a process for review of the plan was not established in prior Board discussions about
the Comprehensive Plan update, though preferences have been expressed by individual Board members.
The following outlines two general approaches for review of the plan that the Board may wish to use to
frame its discussion around preferences for consideration of the Plan:
1. Public Hearing followed by a review of raised concerns.
Staff would consider this a good approach if the Board believes the draft plan adequately
addresses its policy concerns. Typically, Comprehensive Plan Amendments have
required more Board attention than suggested by this process, but there have been times
when the Board believed the recommended plan was ready for consideration. For
example, the Crozet Master Plan was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on July 27, 2010 and adopted by the Board on October 13, 2010, a period of
slightly more than two months. If this approach is desired by the Board, staff would
provide a September work session to review the plan, followed by a public hearing in
October or November, with a Board action to occur as early as November or December.
This is the only process staff identified that could result in completion in 2013.
2. Detailed review of chapters and/or policy issues raised by Board members,
followed by a public hearing.
This approach would provide the Board the opportunity to delve into the plan details and
identify possible changes prior to holding a public hearing. This approach is more typical
of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and can require extensive time before the Board.
For example, the Places 29 Master Plan was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on October 27, 2009, first considered by the Board on January 13, 2010, and
adopted by the Board on February 2, 2011, a period of slightly more than fifteen months.
Recognizing the draft plan includes 13 chapters and covers a wide range of potential
issues, staff believes this type of detailed review would require at least six work sessions
prior to a public hearing and the entire process could take approximately one year. If this
approach is preferred, staff requests the Board indicate if a chapter by chapter review is
preferred or provide a list of policy issues where detailed considerations are desired.
Staff will then develop this into a proposed review schedule for the Board to consider in
September.
As noted above, the Planning Commission anticipates a recommendation on the Implementation
Chapter in August. This will include recommendations for future capital improvements and operations.
No action on the CPA is being requested at this time. The purpose of the work session is to present the
draft to the Board and solicit input on a process to be used for review and consideration.
_____
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, addressed the Board, stating that also present is Ms.
Elaine Echols has been project manager through all the efforts to update the Plan. He said that the
discussion at this meeting will center around getting direction on the review the Board would like to
undertake. Staff will provide an overview of what the Planning Commission has done up to this point.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that there have been several Comp Plans over the years, dating to the
early 1970s, the last of which was dated in 1996. In 1996, the Land Use Plan was updated; the update did
not include the full Comp Plan. Other components of the plan have been adopted since 1996 – but that
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
was the last major initiative to review the Plan and make big decisions regarding land use. Mr. Cilimberg
mentioned that the Development Areas Initiatives (DISC) process followed resulting in the Neighborhood
Model, then a Rural Areas plan, followed by a Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Plan.
He explained that staff’s update of the current Comp Plan began in spring of 2011, with the focus
being a truly Comprehensive Plan – to get back to one document with standard format, reduce the bulk of
the plan, update information and data that is important to the guidance provided by the Plan, and focus on
topic areas that needed particular attention more substantively as part of the review.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the Comprehensive Plan, which is a series of documents that include the
Master Plans and some supporting documents. Staff hopes to consolidate all of this into one
manageable, readable Plan for the County. He said that the Planning Commission, as stipulated by State
Code, has been working with the update to deliver the Board a recommendation for the Comp Plan. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that it is a primary charge for Commissions to do this work, and between their own work
sessions along with those under the Livability Project and meetings with the community, resulted in 62
different meetings over the last two years – and in each of those meetings there were opportunities for
public comment. He explained that the result of what they have been working on is the draft the Board
has received – the draft Comprehensive Plan document dated July 23, 2013 – with some suggested
changes to particular points and the history of their recommendations.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, said that the additional changes that the Planning
Commission made are reflected in Attachment 2 of the Board’s executive summary. The Commission
went through the Plan and told staff what else needed to be changed. She said that the changes were
fairly minor, and they wanted to send the bulk of the Plan onto the Board. Ms. Echols explained that the
summary suggests that these are changes from the existing Comp Plan to the proposed Plan – but these
are the changes from the July 23 version that the Commission last saw, which they wanted to send onto
the Board for review. She said that on August 27 the Planning Commission will be looking at the southern
and western neighborhoods master plan, including the Area B recommendations, as well as the
implementation chapter and a summary of the Plan. Ms. Echols presented a slide denoting the last true
Comp Plan, and a summary of the proposed Plan that includes goals, objectives and strategies. She also
said that there were typographical errors, map updates, and Planning Commission changes that staff will
be making – but the document is expensive to reproduce and they wanted to solicit Board feedback first.
Ms. Echols stated that the Planning Commission has reduced the bulk and attempted to
streamline the document. To make information current staff has included new population projections and
additional land use analyses. She said that they also updated the Community Facilities Plan, with new
standards included. The land use maps for the master planned areas are somewhat different – so staff
has used the Crozet Master Plan and the Places 29 Master Plan to get at the designations to be used.
Ms. Echols said that none of the master plans change throughout the document, and the only ones that
will change are the southern and western plans. She stated that the Area B studies are about five
separate documents, but they are very dated so staff has worked with the City and UVA to update those
recommendations – some of which had already been done. Ms. Echols clarified that they incorporated
those outlying documents into the text and the maps of the plans, and most of this manifests itself in the
southern and western neighborhoods but there are also rural area properties in Area B.
Ms. Echols reported that the Planning Commission also assessed the development area
boundaries and studied the expansion area requests before putting together its recommendations. She
said that the Commission also looked at the ways chickens, goats, bees and community gardens might be
appropriate in the development areas. She said that the bulk of time spent was on ways to improve the
local economy, specifically as it relates to tourism in the rural areas, the interstate interchanges, land for
economic development, and employment uses related to agriculture. Ms. Echols stated that the
Commission also tried to take Board directives and incorporate them into the Plan, such as the
Whittington development, and are recommending new chapters for economic development and housing.
She noted that those are presently just policies – but they are very big and are important to the Comp
Plan, so the Commission has incorporated them into the Plan recommendations. Ms. Echols said that the
Commission also went into some clarification on expectations for natural resource conservation in the
rural areas, and did an update on the Neighborhood Model for the development areas.
Ms. Echols stated that one of the things to note is the change in format, which may also explain
the reduction in volume of the plan. She presented two pages from the current Comp Plan, noting that
there are different ways to provide for goals, objectives and strategies – and where information for history
goes. Ms. Echols emphasized that staff has tried to create uniformity so that there’s balance among
different chapters, with the same order within each. She said that the Commission took the vision from
the strategic plan the Board set for the County and made that the starting point for everything, as well as
making sure that each chapter within the Plan had a relationship to the vision. Ms. Echols said there is a
summary of the overall recommendations made in the Plan based on the July 23 document, which is
when the Planning Commission reviewed it.
Ms. Echols said that several Board members have asked about redline versions of the Plan, but
staff resisted so that they could get through the Commission’s review. She presented a redline version
and pointed out that it is very difficult to read, adding that it will not be easy for the Board to figure out what
was in the old plan versus the new plan. Ms. Echols added that the things coming out of that would be
repetition and redundancy, and staff has tried to say things in fewer words while retaining the same
meaning. She stated that the only things of substance that the Commission is recommending will be
pointed out by staff, but they have attempted not to change the substance of most of the Plan. Ms. Echols
said that staff is proposing to put together a comparison that shows the goals, objectives and strategies –
what’s in the Plan currently and what’s in the proposed Plan.
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Echols reported that the methods for review include alternative method #1, whereby staff
would recommend a public hearing on what they have right now along with a review of specific topics the
Board would want to pull out of the plan, and that would allow for potential adoption in 2013. She said that
it would have to rely on the work of the Planning Commission with a public hearing up front and the Board
telling staff what needs to be changed, and staff would finalize the document and get it to them for action.
The other method provides for a much more detailed review by the Board either on chapters, topics or
policy issues. The Board would hold its public hearing after this review, but it could take as much time as
a year, possibly less. Ms. Echols mentioned that the Commission had a meeting almost every Tuesday
night for the last six months to perform a detailed review. She said that staff has put a lot in front of the
Board, but right now needs to know how it wants to look at this document.
Ms. Mallek said that she would rather not have a public hearing on something the Board is going
to change. It seems the Board should make some effort on the front end so it is a meaningful public
hearing.
Mr. Snow agreed, stating that he prefers alternative #2 whereby the Board has a chance to go
through it thoroughly first.
Mr. Boyd also agreed, stating that he appreciates the Planning Commission’s hard work, but feel
that as elected officials they need to take a close look at it before they approve it.
Mr. Rooker agreed, noting that a review has not been done on this scale since 1996. It seems to
him that the Board needs to know what is in the Plan and go through it chapter by chapter.
Mr. Craddock and Mr. Thomas also agreed.
Ms. Echols asked if the board wanted to review the Plan chapter by chapter or topic by topic.
Mr. Boyd responded that chapter by chapter would be preferable to him.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff could follow a similar process to the Planning Commission’s format
after they had its public hearing and got input, which was a chapter by chapter review. He stated that they
wouldn’t want to begin until the Commission does its final work on August 27, so the Board could begin as
early as the fall.
Mr. Rooker asked when the Board would be starting budget meetings. Mr. Foley responded that
the first five-year financial plan meeting is in November, with another in December.
Mr. Rooker said that he would like to have at least one meeting on this before the budget
meetings start.
Ms. Mallek said they could do at least one meeting a month.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to be methodical in how the Board goes through it, and it will
take as long as it takes.
Mr. Thomas asked what level of specificity the Comp Plan will cover, and his question is about
how it will affect property rights. Mr. Rooker explained that the Board will have to look at it chapter by
chapter, with some having no impact on property rights and others having more.
Mr. Foley commented that staff will look at meeting dates and bring back proposed dates for work
sessions.
Ms. Mallek asked to have a list of which chapters will be reviewed in which order, so the Board
members can read them in the same order as to how they will be discussed. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff
worked hard to keep things in order so the process will have a smooth flow. He added that staff will
proceed and start incorporating the changes reflected in the two-page attachment presented – along with
the August 27 decisions of the Commission.
Ms. Echols added that the summary page explains why staff laid the Plan out the way they did.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Status Update on Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and
Preston.
The following executive summary was forwarded to Board members:
On July 3, 2013, staff provided the Board with an update on the status of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) review and approval for the issuance of project-based
vouchers (PBVs) for The Crossings. The County committed nine PBVs to The Crossings in March 2010.
Although staff believed all regulatory requirements had been satisfied based on previous guidance
received from HUD, the County was informed in March 2012 of a number of deficiencies in the process
used to commit the vouchers. The specific deficiencies and actions taken by staff are outlined in the July
3, 2013 Executive Summary. A timeline of events was also included as an attachment. In April 2013, the
County submitted a revised request for certain regulatory waivers to HUD after receiving comments from
HUD in March 2012 on the initial submittal in September 2012.
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
There has been significant correspondence with HUD since July 3, 2013. Although HUD has not
committed to a timeframe for the approval to issue PBVs, the County received a letter on July 19, 2013
dated July 12, 2013, indicating that HUD had completed its review of requested waivers, prepared a
recommendation, and forwarded the waiver request to Headquarters (Washington). The letter also stated
that no regulatory waivers would be approved until all issues with statutory requirements were resolved.
The two outstanding statutory requirements are the Environmental Review (ER) and Subsidy Layering
Review (SLR). A revised ER, prepared by the City of Charlottesville, was sent to HUD on May 1, 2013.
The City received a request from HUD on July 8, 2013 for additional information, specifically a timeline for
the ER. This information was sent to HUD by the City on July 24, 2013.
The County sent materials to HUD for the SLR on July 10 and on July 16, 2013. HUD requested
additional information, some of which was needed from the City and the owners. On July 17, 2013, the
County responded to the request providing the information available at that time. On July 24, 2013, the
requested information prepared by the owner was sent.
The County was surprised to receive yet another letter from HUD dated July 19, 2013, identifying
54 items which HUD indicated were missing or not adequately addressed in the Administrative Plan. The
County initially revised and approved its Plan in June 2012 and submitted it to HUD for comment. In July
2012, HUD provided comments which were addressed in a second revision, approved by the Board, and
submitted to HUD in September 2012. An additional request by HUD for revisions (10 months after the
County had addressed all issues identified by HUD in July 2012) came within ten days after staff was
contacted by Representative Robert Hurt’s office seeking information on The Crossings and the lack of
resolution from HUD. It must be noted that most of the items identified in HUD’s July 19, 2013, letter are
requirements for which the County has no discretion. HUD’s guidance on preparing Administrative Plans
states that including items for which there is no discretion is not advised. Staff responded to this latest
request in a July 24, 2013 letter challenging those items which are non-discretionary, identifying some
items not related to the Administrative Plan, and requesting that HUD consider a revised Plan with some
additions and clarifications on those requirements for which the County has choices. Staff also contacted
Rep. Hurt’s office to advise them of this new request.
The Board committed to provide local general funds to support rents for nine units in The
Crossings for up to twelve months. This commitment ends August 31, 2013. The FY13 appropriation
was $53,640 for ten months and $10,728 is appropriated in FY14. To date, $51,970 has been
expended to cover rents through August 31, 2013. The balance from both appropriations would
provide an additional 3 months of rents at the current level.
As of July 1, 2013, only six of the original nine tenants remain.
Staff recommends that the Board approve an extension of the current agreement with Virginia
Supportive Housing, the owners of The Crossings, for up to an additional three (3) months using funds
appropriated for FY14 and the balance of funds from FY13. If the Board approves this extension, FY13
funds will be included in a request for reapproriation in September.
_____
Mr. Ron White, Director of Housing, said that there has been frequent correspondence to and
from HUD, including one received earlier that day. He said that on June 19, 2013, after their meeting with
Deputy Secretary Maurice Jones of HUD, the communication level increased, and the Housing Office
complied with every request soon after receiving it. Mr. White stated that the Richmond HUD Office has
finally informed the local office that they were being responsive to the requests, but the “bad news” is that
the environmental review is holding things up. He explained that the review was conducted by the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for the City of Charlottesville for the Crossings project
and was certified by HUD in late 2011. Mr. White said that the issue HUD found was that the Housing
Office had signed the agreement with the Crossings in April 2011, but was not supposed to sign it until the
environmental review was certified. He said that he requested a regulatory waiver for that, which can be
granted by HUD, but the HUD Public Housing Office is having a problem accepting what the HUD
Community Planning and Development Office did in the environmental review and certification. Mr. White
stated that the Housing Office has tried to learn what the specific issues are so they can work with the City
to get them address, but there has been no response on specific issues. He said that the City did receive
a request from HUD for a timeline of all events associated with the environmental review.
Mr. Rooker asked if HUD is questioning the substance of the environmental review, or just the fact
that the agreement was signed in advance of that. Mr. White responded that they do not know. The fact
that the agreement was signed in advance is separate because it is been addressed through the waiver
process – but the Public Housing Office apparently needs to certify the environmental review, although
another office in HUD has certified it. He said that they do not know whether it’s technical issues such as
parts of the review that were not done in accordance with regulations.
Mr. Rooker said that the August 14 letter says, “In summary, HQ is not able to address requests
for regulatory waivers or review the SLR until all statutory compliance items have been determined,” and
asked what that would entail. Mr. White responded that environmental and subsidy land reviews are
statutory requirements, but HUD already informed the Housing Office that it would take two months to
approve. He said that he submitted parts of that in early July, with additional information in mid July, and
the City provided information on August 1. Mr. White stated that he believes the Richmond field office has
everything it needs for the subsidy land review to be sent to D.C., and the D.C. office is the one that is
questioning the environmental review – and the Richmond field office certified the original one.
Ms. Mallek asked if HUD Secretary Maurice Jones would be the one to sort out which of the
offices would be involved. Mr. White said that it wouldn’t be in his hands, as everything has shifted to the
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
public housing arena. Last week, he learned that HUD was looking at its legal counsel to give them
advice on the environmental review, and it may entail sending HUD staff to Charlottesville to re-conduct
the review. Mr. White commented that he is not sure how that will be done now that the building is built,
but that is for them to figure out.
Mr. Foley said that this is still a mystery, but the County has been as responsive as it can be. He
said that they really need to find out what is holding up the environmental review.
Mr. Snow asked if it would be beneficial for a group of Board members to go to D.C. and meet
with Congressman Hurt. Mr. White responded that he has had three conversations with Congressman
Hurt’s D.C. office, and in their second phone call – made after receiving HUD’s June 19 letter – the
Congressman’s assistant was very disturbed at the situation. Mr. White said that the staffer suggested
setting up a meeting with Board members, HUD staff, and Congressman Hurt. Mr. White said that he
responded that the Board would need to decide that, but the meeting should include both field office and
headquarters staff.
Mr. Snow said that he would like to go ahead and do that.
Mr. Foley said that staff could work to coordinate that meeting. Mr. Snow reiterated that he would
like to be a part of that meeting. Ms. Mallek said she would also like to be a part of the meeting.
Mr. Foley then suggested bringing a resident along. Ms. Mallek stated that she would hate to put
a resident through that, but perhaps they could bring Nancy Carpenter.
Mr. White said that it’s been frustrating because during the 18-month period of this process, there
have been three or four notices that have come out from HUD enforcing housing agencies to work toward
housing the homeless. He stated that they are trying to do this locally, but are meeting obstacles and
opposition.
Mr. Walker said that the timeline is compelling, and the pace of responsiveness has picked up
significantly on both sides.
Mr. White stated that on September 4 he will have a consent agenda item for the Board’s action
on a completely rewritten administrative plan chapter for the project-based vouchers.
Mr. Walker also pointed out that there is an action item in the Board’s executive summary today.
Mr. Boyd asked for an explanation about the item. Mr. White explained that there are three
people who are not at the Crossings now who were assisted in the beginning, and the intent was to help
the original nine and not refill those three slots – so that left some money available. He said that the
money appropriated over the last fiscal year had a balance left, and if the Board agrees to re-appropriate
the funds, it will cover the Housing Office for three additional months with the six individuals. Mr. White
said that he would like the Board to extend the agreement for three months and use the money that has
already been appropriated.
Ms. Mallek said that she is in favor of extending the balance, as there’s a good chance the
vouchers will work out.
Mr. Boyd said he does not have a problem with using money already allocated and not adding
anything to it, but the principle that concerns him is the fact that HUD is continuously left off the hook. Ms.
Mallek responded that they will be punishing the wrong people if the Board does not fund it.
Mr. White said he hopes the pressure will come in a meeting with HUD, with the Board and all
appropriate HUD staff.
Mr. Foley said that staff will prepare some talking points that address what effort has been put into
this up to now.
Mr. Rooker stated that what is annoying is that HUD has never been clear about what it is
procedurally that needs to be done in order to satisfy the requirements, which seem at times to be
multiplying. He said that it is one of the worst cases of “process over substance” that he has ever seen.
Mr. Rooker then moved to extend the agreement with Virginia Supportive Housing for up to three
months additional, using appropriated money from the previous fiscal year. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Mr. Boyd said that the County will be in a better position by stating to HUD that the County is not
going to continue the funding beyond the three months.
Mr. White said that he does not want to convey to HUD that it will be funded locally beyond that
point, and the only way to extend the agreement for the short term is through appropriation.
The Board expressed consensus that they would support an appropriation.
Mr. White said there is no reason that staff cannot be directed at HUD to review the waiver
request and have a response ready as soon as the environmental review is complete. He stated that he
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
does not see a reason why they need to do one thing before they do another, although the letter seems to
indicate that those are the steps HUD is taking.
Mr. Foley said that in Chesapeake, HUD allowed them to move forward before the SLR was
complete.
Mr. White said that in Chesapeake, HUD approved the waivers contingent upon the
environmental review and the substantive land review being approved. He said that he hopes they will do
the same for Albemarle. He added that, in 25 years, this is the worst case of bureaucracy that he has run
into in dealing with HUD. Generally, from the field office staff on up through their financial management
centers and headquarters, they would work with you if there was a rationale for an interpretation made of
the regulations.
Mr. Rooker then withdrew his motion, and Ms. Mallek withdrew her second.
_______________
NonAgenda. From the County Executive: Report on Matters not Listed on the Agend a.
Mr. Foley said that at its last meeting, the Board received a request for a letter of support for
wireless extension into the rural areas from an agency that is proposing to the FCC a whole new way that
they give out grants – which would require a local match to buy down infrastructure costs. He said that the
group is proposing a new way for the grant program to be proposed and administered, and they want a
letter of support from localities. Mr. Foley stated that they have 30 days to submit a letter, and staff
suggests that this be brought back to the Board in September for further consideration.
Ms. Mallek said it sounds to her like the private group is just trying to get more public money so
that the private industry doesn’t have to spend as much, and she does not like that approach.
Mr. Foley said that the Board will have to consider this when they discuss it, and it is the challenge
for the rural areas. He said that supporting the approach does not mean the County will necessarily
submit for any project. It will depend on the circumstances.
Mr. Snow commented that providing internet for people who run home-based rural businesses will
benefit from this.
Mr. Foley said that the Board’s only consideration in September is whether it wants staff to submit
a letter of support for another approach. After that, the Board will need to decide in the future whether it
wants to see a matching grant based on specific project areas.
Mr. Rooker said that Pat Groot, the Grants Administrator, at TJPDC, has been working on a
collaborative effort that would involve multiple localities – Nelson, Fluvanna, etc. It seems to him that the
County should explore that first before asking the FCC to change the rules of the game.
Mr. Foley said that the proposal to the FCC is being submitted, and there will be 30 days for
information to be submitted to support the grant proposal.
Mr. Rooker said that he didn’t see it as a big deal, because whether or not Albemarle supports it is
not going to make a difference at the FCC level.
Ms. Mallek stated that if it becomes a requirement, she doesn’t want to support it – she wants to
work against it. She also said that the state service maps developed for wireless are full of errors, and
those are what are used to determine percentage of coverage, which has disqualified the County in the
past. She stated that it is important to get that cleared up first.
Mr. Rooker said that the companies provide the service maps, and the federal and state
governments make their maps based upon that.
Mr. Thomas said that the bottom half of Dunlora is com plaining because they have no coverage,
but there has been a tower proposed for that district. Mr. Boyd said that was the Sinclair property, and it is
proposed to come back to the Board.
Mr. Rooker stated that it was approved and went to the Virginia Supreme Court, which is the
whole basis on which the Board must handle waivers at its level now.
_______________
August 14, 2013 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 5. Recess.
At 4:41 p.m., with no further business at this time, the Board recessed until its regular night
meeting.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/04/2013
Initials: EWJ