2014-06-11June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting and a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 11, 2014, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The adjourned meeting was held at 3:30 p.m., Room 241, and was adjourned from June 10, 2014. The
regular meeting was held at 6:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
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 3:33 p.m., by Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Steve Koleszar, Mr. Eric Strucko, Ms. Kate Acuff
and Ms. Pam Moynihan (arrived at 3:42 p.m.)
Mr. Steve Koleszar, immediate past chair of the School Board, noted that their Board did not have
a quorum and thus would not call the meeting to order until a quorum arrived.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Medical and Dental Insurance Programs.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that In November 2000, the Board
of Supervisors and School Board (Boards) approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target employee
salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above market levels. Medical
insurance and the Virginia Retirement System are the largest components of the benefits piece of that
strategy. The information provided in the attached Memorandum from the Health Care Executive
Committee (HCEC) to the County Executive and Superintendent (Attachment A) details the analysis of
the medical and dental programs and prior actions taken to meet the benefits target.
Each year the HCEC, with the assistance of a health care consultant, evaluates the Health
Insurance plan’s claims experience, trends in health care costs, policy design issues, market conditions
as related to insurance benefits and insurance regulations or policy mandates imposed by State or
Federal law. The mandates in the Affordable Care Act have particular relevance to this and future years
of the plan.
The attached Memorandum outlines the HCEC’s recommendations for the County’s Medical and
Dental Insurance program based on the following objectives:
offer affordable options that meet varying needs of employees and their families;
maintain reserves at approximately 25% of claims;
ensure plans are in compliance with the Affordable Care Act; and
maintain the Boards’ competitive position for benefits (slightly above market).
Based on this year’s evaluation process, the HCEC has recommended a number of plan design
changes as well as premium adjustments to ensure continued solvency and sustainability of the County’s
health care reserve fund and compliance with Federal and State mandates. Some of these changes,
particularly those involving premium adjustments and the possibility of deduct ibles, were foreshadowed
last year during board work sessions, and the anticipation of these changes was communicated to
employees. Additional plan design changes and additional premium adjustments are also recommended
to be effective in plan year 2016, which staff believes should be carefully evaluated over the next few
months in preparation for work sessions with the Boards in late Summer or early Fall. The additional time
will also allow staff to communicate and engage employees in advance of implementing any approved
additional changes.
At this time, staff recommends that the Boards approve the implementation of an 8% increase in
the County’s contribution for health care and an 8% increase in employee contributions as discussed in
the joint meeting of the Boards in October 2013 and included in the proposed budget. Staff also
recommends that we phase in the implementation of deductibles. Specifically, staff recommends the
implementation of a $250 deductible, effective January of 2015, to bring the plan into alignment with
market and allow additional time for employee communications regarding the change. Staff also
recommends that the Boards direct staff to evaluate additional policy modifications, including out of
pocket maximums, co-pays, deductibles and premium adjustments as proposed by the HCEC and as
may be necessary or advisable to maintain a competitive and sustainable health insurance program.
Other modifications may also be necessary to avoid the “Cadillac Tax” (effective January 2018) as
required by the Affordable Care Act, which is based on total plan cost for individual coverage. The plan,
for example, may need to have changes made to its subsidies for the dependent portion, including the
subsidy formula, the rate for children and spouses, and the subsidy provided to part-time employees and
retirees. The HCEC will develop these recommendations in the late summer/early fall time frame in
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 2)
preparation for a joint board presentation and discussion in October. Delaying the implementation of all
of these proposed changes would reduce the County’s reserve balance to below target levels in the short
term, but would restore the reserves within a two-year period.
The 8% increase in the County’s (employer’s) contribution was included in the County
Executive’s and Superintendent’s proposed FY15 budget. Future budgetary impacts will be
dependent upon future plan changes as may be approved by the Boards in the fall.
Staff’s recommendations are:
Medical Plan:
1. Continue to offer the Basic and Plus plans through Coventry.
a. Both plans are Point-Of-Service Plans with the same benefit coverage.
2. Increase the Board contribution by 8% for the new plan-year beginning on October 1,
2014.
3. Set full-time employee premiums (8% increase) at the rates shown in Attachment A.
4. Implement a $250 deductible effective January 1, 2015.
5. Retain a self-insured medical plan with Specific-Claim-Stop-Loss insurance to limit the
County’s liability against any single large claim .
Dental Plan:
1. Continue the contract with United Concordia.
2. Continue to offer the Basic and High Options with no change in benefit design.
3. Reduce the current rates for the new plan year beginning on October 1, 2014.
4. Approve the employee premiums as shown in Attachment A.
5. Continue the dental rate holiday (which began in February 2014) through September
2014 for all dental enrollees for this period, regardless of hire date.
_____
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources (HR), said she would share medical and dental
insurance information with both Boards, and introduced Benefits Administrator, Claudine Cloutier, and
Wellness & Safety Coordinator, Leanne Knox. Ms. Gerome stated that HR’s work is to support
employees, and the work around compensation and benefits is designed to attract and retain a highly
qualified workforce. She reported that their compensation targets are to meet the market – with teachers
at the bottom of the top quartile – and the benefits target is to be slightly above market. Ms. Gerome
stated that health insurance is the cornerstone of their benef it package. She reported that benefits were
changing, and she and other HR staff have spent the last few months visiting with every department to do
presentations, so that all employees would recognize what an important choice they have in terms of
moving to the hybrid plan or staying in a VRS plan. Ms. Gerome noted that these changes have created
some inconsistencies in the leave policies, so staff is looking at that also, adding that the Affordable Care
Act (ACA) is also changing the healthcare environment. She stated that staff is trying to keep
communications at the forefront, i.e., they have started a newsletter called “Benefits Focus,” and staff is
developing webinars and videos for employees as well.
Ms. Gerome stated that this year, HR sent out an exchange notification to all employees to give
them the opportunity to look at the exchanges and make a decision about them. She said there are also
some fees which employers must pay as a result of the ACA, the first of which – the patient-centered
outcomes research institute fee – would be levied in July, at a cost of $14,000. Ms. Gerome said the
individual mandate is also required, or people will pay a penalty. She stated that some of the things they
are looking at in the future include a re-insurance fee, which is due in January, at a cost of over $300,000
– and there is also the employer mandate requiring the County to offer “affordable” healthcare to all full-
time employees, defined as those who work over 30 hours per week. Ms. Gerome said they already have
some systems in place to begin measuring this, and most employers are choosing a whole year as the
review period. She stated that there are also some reporting requirements whereby the County must
report the value and cost of the health insurance benefit to the IRS. Ms. Gerome said there is also a
“Cadillac” tax, which will begin in 2018 and will look at the total cost for a premium for the organization
and the employee – with the threshold of $10,000 – so if the total cost of a plan is over that amount, there
is a 40% excise tax.
Ms. McKeel asked for some clarification on the $14,000 fee. Ms. Gerome said the fee goes to
research which looks at outcomes-based healthcare, so there is a long-term incentive to consider
outcome-delivered medicine.
Ms. Mallek asked if the fee would be based on how many employees they have. Ms. Gerome
said the fee would be based on subscriber numbers, which is one reason why some employers are
looking for ways to reduce the number of eligible subscribers.
Mr. Boyd asked what the impact would be on bus drivers who do not work full time but have
insurance paid by the County. Ms. Gerome stated that, because they do not work full time, the County is
in compliance with the ACA, even though most of the bus drivers work more than 30 hours. She said,
because the County is going beyond the bottom line in what they provide, there is no penalty.
Ms. Gerome presented information on the “pay or play” aspect of the ACA, and said that a n
organization must determine whether offering healthcare benefits to employees is critical to its retention
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 3)
and recruitment – and if they decide that it is not, they just pay the $2,000 penalty instead of providing
health insurance and then those employees go out to exchanges and purchase insurance themselves.
(Note: At the arrival of Ms. Moynihan at 3:42 p.m., Mr. Koleszar called the School Board to
order.)
Ms. Gerome said one of the components of the Affordable Care Act is to encourage employees to
manage their healthcare costs and become more consumer-driven.
Ms. Claudine Cloutier said one of the things they strive for in the organization is to make it
affordable to employees, as they want to meet the Board’s adopted target while meeting individual and
family needs, and maintain reserves at 25% if possible. Ms. Cloutier said the County pays Coventry to
manage the healthcare plan, but it is self-funded so the claims that come in are paid from the reserve.
She added that compliance with state and federal regulations is also a goal. Ms. Cloutier reported that
there is a Healthcare Executive Committee, comprised of various stakeholders including HR and Finance
staff, CATEC, the regional jail, the juvenile detention center, and others. She said the committee looks at
claims data, market data on plan design – including where premiums and Board contributions are set,
trends with the plan and external factors, employee feedback from surveys and advisory committees, and
the reserve balance. Ms. Cloutier stated that, going forward, stakeholders would be stretching out the
process so they meet for a longer period during the year before making recommendations to the Board,
with finalization slated for the spring.
Ms. Cloutier said changes to the health plan can include premiums or plan design, and staff’s
evaluation also considers salary increases – with October 2013 having the only increase to employee
premiums since 2008. She reported that they have made changes to the plan design over the years in an
effort to keep it self-sustaining without raising premiums, especially in times when salary increases were
zero or very low. Ms. Cloutier presented 2012-13 survey data from comparative employers, noting that
those presented have annual deductibles whereas Albemarle has not historically had them. She
presented information on what County employees have been paying for plus or basic premiums, as well
as employer contributions – which is “pretty rich” in terms of the overall cost of the plan. Ms. Cloutier
said, for family coverage, employee premiums are low in comparison with the market, particularly in the
basic plan, and the employer percentage of total contribution is in line with market.
Ms. Gerome said the market survey data comes from Mercer, which does government employer
surveys and Kaiser, which is the best known employee benefit survey. She stated that staff goes out
every other year to get detailed data from the Board-adopted market, so they will have that for the Board
in October. Ms. Gerome said they already have some cost data from the market, noting that Albemarle
was slightly higher than the market in terms of annual cost – the employer plus employee contribution for
individual plans - $7,000 versus $6,000; and for family plans, they were significantly lower - $10,000
versus $17,000. She stated that the reason for the big discrepancy in the family plan is because many
employers do an additional subsidy for a dependent, whereas the County uses a flat amount.
Ms. Leanne Knox addressed the Board, stating that she would provide an update on some of the
recent wellness initiatives, including the new “Be Well” website – a comprehensive site featuring
everything from programs that are run internally to local and national resources, recipes and success
stories, and walking maps for all County buildings and schools. She stated that they also offered onsite
flu vaccination clinics in over 50 locations in 2013, and there was great success with mobile
mammography clinics – including a specific situation in which a school employee had her cancer caught
early when the unit came to her site in the fall. Ms. Knox said the “Lose Well” program has been very
successful, with one employee having lost over 60 pounds through diet and lifestyle changes. She stated
that they have partnered with the Thomas Jefferson Health District and the Community Action on Obesity
to promote the “Move to Health” programs, and they have also established a CPR/AED first aid training
program in conjunction with the Albemarle Resource Center and the professional development program.
Ms. Gerome commented that staff considers this to be one of the critical components of the
County’s overall healthcare management.
Ms. Knox presented initiatives that are being considered for the future, including health risk
assessments and biometric screenings, which were last done three years ago with fairly good
participation. She said available tools have changed a lot over the last few years, so they have been
researching what would be best for the County – but the data has been mixed, with some short-term data
showing that employee incentives work for a particular task but not necessarily long term. Ms. Knox said
an activity challenge with something like a “fit bit” might be an option, and the “grants for wellness
champions” is probably farther along in terms of actually happening. She said wellness champions are
representatives in each school and each department, with small grants available to fund a program which
can be generated at the grassroots level to better fit that particular unit. Ms. Knox added that they are
also considering subsidies for fitness memberships or a Weight Watchers program.
Ms. Gerome noted that, in considering medical plans for the future, staff will be looking at how
contributions are structured – perhaps considering dependent subsidies, or not offering insurance to
spouses who can get coverage elsewhere, as well as coverage for part-time employees. She said the
Healthcare Executive Committee has a great deal of work ahead in the coming months to address some
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 4)
of these issues. Ms. Gerome stated that, in terms of plan design, they would evaluate offering some
consumer-driven health options such as a health reimbursement account (HRA) and, while they
considered it this year, there was not enough differentiation between the basic plan and the HRA. She
emphasized that there would be changes with healthcare, and staff would do their best to communicate
those changes as quickly as possible.
Ms. Gerome stated that staff’s recommendations for this year is to continue to offer the basic and
plus medical plans through Coventry, with the Board’s contribution already approved for an 8% increase;
set the full-time employee premiums, with the increase varying from $3 to $78 depending on the level and
type of coverage. She said about 80% of employees a re in the high plan, so staff plans to do an
educational campaign about the difference between the high plan and the basic plan. Ms. Gerome said
the other recommendation was to implement a deductible effective January 2015, to reflect the direction
in which the market was moving and to keep the plan solvent into the future. She stated that t hey are
also increasing the out-of-pocket limit in order to comply with the Affordable Care Act, because some of
the pharmaceuticals now go toward the co-insurance. She said they would continue with their current
dental coverage plan, but would actually reduce the current rates by 5% and continue the “dental rate
holiday” from February through September.
Ms. Mallek asked for more information about adding the deductible requirement to the policies,
because it seems absolutely contrary to the goal of getting people to seek treatment sooner.
Ms. Gerome said deductibles would only go toward services that require co-insurance, such as
diagnostic tests, hospitalization, and pharmacy explaining that any doctor visits or wellness checks would
not be affected. She clarified that the amounts were $250 for individuals and $500 for family policies.
Ms. Mallek asked if they were going to raise the out-of-pocket limit because some people were
getting too much coverage out of the insurance for their medicine.
Ms. Cloutier explained that previously, prescription drugs did not go against the out-of-pocket
maximum, so it was a detriment to people with expensive medicine because they would not hit their out-
of-pocket maximum because of those costs. She said the Affordable Care Act is mandating that the cost
of prescription drugs be applied against the out-of-pocket max, but most people won’t notice a difference
one way or the other.
Ms. Palmer asked if the co-pays were $25 for a doctor visit and $40 for a specialist.
Ms. Cloutier clarified that it was $15/25, and those were staying the same adding that the only
plan changes were to increase the out-of-pocket maximum and institute the deductible in the middle of
the year. She said self-administered injection drugs would go onto co-insurance and thus would go
toward the out-of-pocket max.
Ms. Acuff asked if there were any employees for which insurance was not provided, and how
many spouses of employees have another primary source of insurance available. Ms. Gerome said the
County does not know how many spouses can get coverage elsewhere, and would prob ably need a
survey to get that information. She stated that they were very surprised at the number of employees
which came onto the County plan from the University of Virginia, but a side-by-side comparison shows
that the County’s plan offers more for the money. She stated that the number of employees that do not
elect to get health insurance through the County’s plan is around 8%, but they offer insurance to
employees that are part-time, or at least half-time.
Mr. Koleszar said, at some point, he would like to have a history of the healthcare reserve, how
much is in it, etc.
Mr. Strucko asked if staff perceived any threat to maintaining the 25% minimum reserve, as he
was assuming the premium increases were a function of their forecasts to maintain that. Ms. Gerome
responded that they would have to continue making changes to the plan going forward in order to keep
reserves where they want them to be, particularly in light of some of the new fees associated with the
Affordable Care Act.
Ms. Mallek asked if the re-insurance fee was an annual amount. Ms. Gerome said it is a two-year
temporary fee for the time being.
Mr. Strucko asked if the County pays 95% of the premium cost for employees. Ms. Gerome said
that is accurate for the high plan, and it is 98% for the basic individual-only plan.
Ms. Gerome stated that staff’s recommendation is to continue their medical plans through
Coventry, set the full-time premiums with an 8% increase, and implement the $250/$500 deductible
effective January 1, 2015. Ms. Gerome noted that the 8% has already been reflec ted in budgets for the
Board contribution.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 5)
Ms. Mallek asked if the balance of the deductible versus a premium increase had been
compared. Ms. Gerome said staff had done the comparison, and stated that it was absolutely necessary
because of the solvency of the plan and the need to stay in line with the market.
Ms. Mallek said she has always been conflicted about that strategy, because it is more important
to her to offer a great healthcare plan for 2,600 people rather than some ethereal goal she cannot really
grasp.
Ms. Gerome said a $250 deductible would still make this a very rich plan, as it is a low deductible
by comparison.
Ms. Palmer asked how much the 8% increase was for the County and the schools. Ms. Gerome
said she did not have that figure immediately available.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the recommendations as presented by staff for both the medical and
dental plans. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Acuff, seconded by Mr. Strucko, to approve staff
recommendations for both the medical and dental plans. On a voice call vote, the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Strucko said, as the Healthcare Executive Committee does its work over the course of the
year, he would like to see the impacts of these different forces along with the potential budget income.
He stated that the “Cadillac tax” can be financially onerous once they cross that threshold, which is why
many firms are taking the penalty or self-insuring. He said he would like them to look at the balance of
funding, as they are funding 95-98% of employee premiums, and he would like to know what is in their
control and what is not in terms of bottom line costs.
Ms. Mallek stated that, if they have an intermediate stage in the deliberations, she would like to
get a report mid-stream, in order to avoid a sudden big change at the end of the year as has happened in
previous years.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. Gerome and her team for their report, and complimented them on the
wellness programs, which have been a recent hallmark of forward-thinking organizations.
__________
Item No. 3b. Planning for Joint meetings of Board of Supervisors and School Board.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the County’s budget process was extremely challenging this year, and the
purpose of this conversation was to evaluate how both Boards might come together to figure these things
out.
Mr. Koleszar said School Board Chair, Ned Gallaway, has written up some ideas to share.
Ms. Acuff reported that the School Board held a retreat the previous week, in which it had talked
about working together to make the budget process friendlier, and to look at better mechanisms for
County and School Board revenue. She read a letter from Mr. Gallaway, which stated that he would not
be able to attend the meeting due to an out of town work obligation. The letter emphasized the
importance of leadership and board to board communications, as well as the inclusion of community
stakeholders to help identify alternative means of increasing revenues and enhancing operational
efficiency. Mr. Gallaway’s letter encouraged both Boards to hold a series of ongoing joint work sessions
to work through these items, and to leverage volunteers, with the goal of improving funding and efficiency.
The letter also stated that the past budget cycle had left both boards and th e community in a state of
unease, adding that it was its responsibility to bring the boards together to strengthen the relationship and
improve the budgeting process while enhancing the quality of life in Albemarle County.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Mr. Gallaway’s letter spoke for the entire School Board, and if it felt
comfortable proceeding with the discussion. Ms. Acuff indicated that the School Board could continue
with the discussion as there were three members present at the retreat, in addition to Mr. Strucko’s
presence at this meeting.
Ms. Palmer asked if the School Board had discussed what an agenda might look like. Ms. Acuff
said there were two focus areas identified: the budget process and how to improve it, and a broader look
at financing county and school activities.
Mr. Koleszar said a third piece was to do some team building to foster a better working
relationship and develop a mutual trust and support between the two boards.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 6)
Ms. Acuff stated that she is a new School Board member, and there are also new Supervisors, so
now would be a good time to move forward in this manner.
Ms. Dittmar said it is also important to show citizens that elected officials can work together, and
the purpose of a meeting would be to identify what worked and what did not, revenue types or formulas,
and team building.
Ms. Acuff stated that the School Board had talked about joint work sessions regarding how both
boards can work better together and also looking at a broader picture of revenue. She said she would be
interested in having the leadership of both boards set this up.
Ms. Mallek said that has been problematic in the past to have just chairs and vice chairs, and it is
much more beneficial to get everybody to the table.
Ms. McKeel asked if starting with a big retreat should be considered, and then perhaps drilling
down to the smaller details. Mr. Koleszar agreed that the first step should be a retreat.
Ms. Mallek said both boards need to have an initial conversation about what worked and what did
not work, because, if certain things do not change, this is not going to get any better. She stated that, as
difficult as that may be at first, Board members are not going to make any progress until that is done.
Board and School Board members agreed to have a work session to include discussions on what
worked and what did not work , as part of an overall team-building process.
Ms. Mouly said the team-building exercise should happen first.
Ms. Mallek said she did not feel they should do team-building until they identified what worked
and what did not work.
Ms. Mouly said they do not have a mechanism of working together, so they cannot figure out
what worked and what did not work.
Ms. McKeel said, currently, both Boards are only working together over a budget cycle for a short
period of time, and they must find a way to make it more of a relationship and discussion throughout the
year.
Ms. Palmer stated that one of the things which made it more difficult for her is the surprise
element as to what the school budget needs were, noting that she did not feel her rapport with individual
School Board members had any friction. She added that she agreed with Ms. Mallek that going through
what worked and what did not work would help everyone figure out a way to work together. She
emphasized that the whole process was a problem for her.
Ms. Acuff said she did not have much communication about the educational process behind the
budget, as it was just handed to her, and they need to have a bigger view of what they are doing as a
County.
Ms. Dittmar agreed that they needed a year-long relationship, not just a budget one.
Mr. Koleszar said every new member feels that way, as he did 19 years earlier.
Ms. McKeel said both Boards need to get back to having more dialogue more often.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that getting issues out on the table in order to resolve them is the first step
in team building.
Ms. Mouly said part of establishing what worked and what did not work is figuring out how to get
along, which includes team building, and she did not want to sit in a room with charts and itemizing what
worked and what did not. She added that they needed to find a way to become a team before tackling
the problems.
Mr. Koleszar said whoever sets up the agenda can work through that issue.
Ms. Mallek said it would all emerge as they go along if they consider everything together, and
they could then delineate the issues into categories of content versus process.
Ms. McKeel emphasized the importance of meeting soon and not waiting until fall.
Mr. Koleszar said both Board clerks could work it out.
Ms. Mouly stated that the issues are so profound that it may necessitate more than an evening
work session.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 7)
Ms. Mallek said this work session would at least get everyone started, and could be one of
several.
Ms. Dittmar said it might be helpful to discuss the legislative approach at a different time, and
stated that, during the “From the Board” agenda item at its regular meeting later that evening, the Board
could talk about what it wants the joint meeting to entail.
Ms. Mallek stated that one example of something for everyone to consider was the fact that she
was never informed about the $9 million presented as a shortfall until a reporter called her, and said that
they need to do a better job of keeping people informed when information is released.
Mr. Strucko said that phone call may have happened after the Superintendent presented her
budget to the School Board – which is the first time the School Board learned of the budget gap – and
perhaps some of the tensions could be alleviated through a change in process. He stated that the
Superintendent presents a budget to the School Board before it knows revenue allocation and tax rate, so
perhaps a process change would give them more confidence in the revenue numbers and help shape the
original budget.
Board members agreed that this would be a good point of discussion.
(Note: The School Board adjourned their meeting at 4:28 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Recess.
At 4:28 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection One to discuss the annual performance review of
the County Executive. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
At 5:03 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Boyd seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
NonAgenda. Ms. Dittmar moved to approve the Employment Agreement of the County
Executive for Fiscal Year 2015. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this _______ day of June, 2014 by and between the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors, hereinafter “Employer” and Thomas C. Foley, hereinafter “Employee.”
RECITALS
The parties recite and declare:
A. Employer is in need of the services of a person possessing the skills and ability required to be the
County Executive; and
B. Employee, through education and experience, possesses the requisite skills to perform these
duties; and
C. Employer desires, therefore, to engage the services of Employee as County Executive under the
direction of the Employer, pursuant to the authority vested in Employer by Section 15.2 -509 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
D. The parties acknowledge that Employee is a member of the International City/Coun ty
Management Association (ICMA) and that Employee is subject to the ICMA Code of Ethics, but
the provisions of that Code are in no way incorporated into this agreement.
For reasons set forth above and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties,
Employer and Employees agree as follows:
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 8)
SECTION ONE
Employment
Employer employs, engages and hires Employee as the County Executive of Albemarle County, and
Employee accepts and agrees to this employment, engagement and hiring. It is acknowledged that
pursuant to Section 15.2-510 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the County Executive is not
appointed for a definite tenure and may be removed at the pleasure of the Employer.
SECTION TWO
Governing Law
This Agreement and the employment of Employee shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Code of the County of Albemarle and policies adopted from
time to time by Employer (including the provisions of Albemarle County Personnel Manual), relating to
sick leave, retirement and life insurance contributions, holidays, other fringe benefits and other matters
not specifically addressed in this Agreement.
SECTION THREE
Duties
Employee is hereby delegated the following powers and duties:
A. The statutory powers and duties as set forth in Section 15.2 -516 and powers and duties set forth
in any other sections of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
B. Powers and duties delegated or imposed (i) by the Albemarle County Code or (ii) a duly adopted
motion, resolution, or ordinance of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
C. Responsibility to develop and recommend personnel and other policies and revisions to the
Board of Supervisors for its approval.
SECTION FOUR
Terms of Employment
A. This Agreement shall be for a term beginning July 1, 2014 and ending on June 30, 2015. Nothing
in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Employer to
terminate the services of the Employee at any time, subject to the provisions set forth in Section
4E of this Agreement.
B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of Employee to
resign at any time, provided Employee gives written notice to the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of the resignation, unless the
parties otherwise agree.
C. Employee shall remain in the exclusive employ of the Employer and devote all of the Employee’s
working time, attention, knowledge and skills solely to the interests of the Employer, and
Employer shall be entitled to all of the benefits arising from or incident to all work, services and
advice of Employee. The term “Employee’s time” shall not be construed to include Employee’s
annual time off.
D. Employee shall maintain a permanent place of residence within Albemarle Coun ty. Permanent
place of residence shall be defined to include the purchase or lease of a residential dwelling unit
and the occupancy of that dwelling no less than 75% of the time during an average work week
while in the active employment of the County.
E. In the event any Board of Supervisors terminates or fails to reappoint Employee at any time
during his employment by Employer, Employee’s rights to benefits and compensation shall be
governed under Section Nine or Section Twelve, below.
SECTION FIVE
Compensation
A. Salary - Employer shall pay Employee, and Employee shall accept from Employer, an annual
salary of $179,819 effective July 1, 2014 payable in installments as provided for County
employees generally. Additionally, Employer agrees to review the per formance of Employee on
or before June 30th of each year and, upon satisfactory performance review, consider an increase
in annual salary. Employee shall annually provide Employer a survey of the market for his
comparable position in similar localities to aid the Employer’s review of whether the Employee
should be considered for a market adjustment of the Employee’s annual compensation.
B. Deferred Compensation - Employer agrees to contribute annually $23,000 to an eligible deferred
compensation program selected by the Employee.
C. Car Allowance – Employer agrees to provide the Employee an annual vehicle allowance of
$6,300.
SECTION SIX
Benefits
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 9)
A. Employer agrees to provide the Employee with annual leave equivalent to that of an employee
with twenty four (24) years of consecutive employment with the County.
B. Employer agrees to provide such other benefits to the Employee that are provided to all County
employees per the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual.
SECTION SEVEN
Dues, Memberships, Education and Meetings
A. Employer agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Employee
necessary for his continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local
associations and organizations necessary and desirable for his continued professional
participation, growth, and advancement, and for the good of the Employer.
B. Employer hereby agrees to budget for and to pay the travel and subsistence expenses of
Employee for professional and official travel, meetings and occasions adequate to continue the
professional development of Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other
functions for Employer, including but not limited to the annual conference of national, regional,
state and local government groups and committees thereof which Employee serves as a
member.
C. Employer agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee
degree courses, institutes, and seminars that are necessary for his professional development and
for the good of the Employer.
D. Employer reserves the right to determine whether Employee is devoting the appropriate amount
of time to professional development and may review and direct the Employee to balance the
amount of time deemed necessary for his professional development against the other needs of
the Employer.
SECTION EIGHT
Performance Evaluations
A. Employer, acting through its Board of Supervisors, shall conduct an annual performance review
of Employee on or before June 30 of each year. Said review and evaluation shall be in
accordance with the specific criteria developed jointly by Employer and Employee. Said criteria
may be changed from time to time by Employer, in consultation with Employee. Employer shall
provide Employee with a written summary of the findings of the Employer and provide an
adequate opportunity to discuss said evaluation.
B. Employer shall annually establish goals and performance objectives which it determines
necessary for the proper operation of the County and the attainment of the Employer’s policy
objectives, which shall be reduced to writing.
SECTION NINE
Termination and Severance Pay
A. In the event Employee is terminated by the Board of Supervisors or resigns at the request of the
Board, Employer agrees to pay for the continuation of all compensation provided in Section Five
and health insurance benefits provided for in Section Six, paragraph B, for the current month and
for six additional months on a monthly basis beginning the next month after the date of separation
from employment. Employee shall also be compensated for all earned vacation and other
accrued benefits earned up to the date of termination, excluding any accrued sick leave, as
provided in the Personnel Policy & Procedures Manual.
B. In the event the Employee is terminated for cause, then in that event, Employer shall have no
obligation to provide the payments designated in the above paragraph, with the exception of the
obligation to pay all compensation, earned vacation and other accrued benefits earned up to the
date of termination, excluding any accrued sick leave, as provided in the Personnel Policy &
Procedures Manual.
C. In the event Employer at any time during the term of this Agreement reduces the compensation or
other financial benefits of Employee in a greater percentage than an applicable reduction for all
other management level employees of Employer, or for a reason not related to budget reductions
caused by adverse fiscal circumstances of the County , or in the event Employer refuses,
following written notice, to com ply with any other provision benefitting Employee herein, or the
Employee resigns following a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by the Board of Supervisors
that he resign, then, in that event Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be “terminated” at
the date of such reduction or such refusal to comply and shall be entitled to the payments in
paragraph A, above.
SECTION TEN
Liability Insurance
Employer shall provide full liability insurance, in an amount at least equal to that provided for the B oard of
Supervisors, to cover Employee against any loss from tort, professional liability claim, or demand, or other
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 10)
legal action, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the
performance of Employee’s duties hereunder, unless the act or omission occurring in the performance of
Employee’s duties involved willful or wanton conduct.
SECTION ELEVEN
Bonding
Employer shall bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bonds required of the Employee under any law o r
ordinance.
SECTION TWELVE
Disability
If Employee is permanently disabled or is otherwise unable to perform his duties because of sickness,
accident, injury, mental incapacity or health for a period of twelve (12) successive weeks, Employer shall
have the option to terminate this Agreement, subject to the severance pay requirements of Section Nine,
paragraph A. In addition, for any termination made for the reasons set forth in this section, Employer
agrees to pay Employee for 25% of all unused accrued sick leave earned up to the date of termination.
SECTION THIRTEEN
Extension of Agreement
If Employee is not notified by Employer of termination or alteration of contractual terms before the
expiration date of this Agreement, it shall be extended on the same terms and conditions for an additional
year.
All amendments to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
SECTION FOURTEEN
Modification
A modification or waiver of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition or provision of it, shall not be
valid unless in writing and executed by the parties.
SECTION FIFTEEN
Severability
All Agreements and covenants in this Agreement are severable, and in the event any of them shall be
held to be invalid by any competent court, this Agreement shall be interpreted as if the invalid
Agreements or covenants were not contained.
SECTION SIXTEEN
Entire Agreement
This written Agreement embodies the whole agreement between the parties. There are no inducements,
promises, terms, conditions, or obligations made or entered into by either Employer or Employee other
than those contained in this Agreement.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has caused this Agreement to be
signed and executed in its behalf by its Chairman and the Employee has signed and executed this
Agreement, both in duplicate, the day and year first above written.
____________________________________
Jane D. Dittmar, Chair
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
____________________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Approved as to form only:
_____________________________
County Attorney
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment, to
begin with public comments and possible Board direction.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board stated that the Planning Commission’s
recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014 and
previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf.
Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions
have also been identified for the Board’s consideration . This work session is the fourth in the series of
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 11)
detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which
can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151. The
Board’s direction to date has been recorded in Action Memos from Board meetings at which the topic was
discussed.
At this work session, the Board will review Chapter 5: Historic, Cultural, and Scenic
Resources. This Chapter may be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/05_Chapter_Hist_Cultural_Scenic_final_1-23-14.pdf
The Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources chapter provides information on
The definition of a historic resource (page 5.3)
The location of historic landmarks and districts in Albemarle County that are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (page 5.5)
In addition, the chapter identifies the importance of
Identification and recognition of important historic resources (pages 5.7 – 5.8)
Pursuing additional protection measures (pages 5.8 – 5.9)
Providing educational programs about historic resource preservation (pages 5.9 – 5.10)
Promoting regional cooperation in preserving and promoting the overall community’s
historic resources (pages 5.10 – 5.11)
Enhancing scenic resources for residents and visitors (pages 5.11 – 5.13)
Maintaining the visual quality of the County’s roadways (pages 5.13 – 5.14)
Maintaining the visual integrity of the Entrance Corridor (pages 5.14 – 5.18
Protecting the scenic quality of the County’s streams (pages 5.18 0 5.19)
Preserving important views for tourism and recreation (pages 5.19 – 5.20)
Protecting the dark sky (pages 5.20 – 5.21)
The Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Implementation Priorities, Measures of Success, and list of
Appendices and Reference Documents are found in a single document – Attachment A.
The Appendix, found here -
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/ARB
_Applications/Historic_Preservation_Plan.pdf, contains the current Historic Preservation Plan adopted in
2000. Much of the detail needed to implement the different strategies for historic preservation is part of
that Plan.
A table comparing the existing and recommended Comprehensive Plan regarding Historic,
Cultural, and Scenic Resources is provided as Attachment B. Only one topic has been identified by staff
for particular focus – the Monticello Viewshed (see page 5.11). The Planning Commission spent
considerable time on this recommendation and it represents a change from existing policy.
Staff comment: The Commission reviewed the existing Comprehensive Plan recommendations
for the Monticello Viewshed, recommendations from the Historic Preservation Committee, specific
requests from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), and comments from several groups in the
community. Attachment C provides information on the TJF request and the Commission’s
discussion and response.
Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital
improvements and operations.
The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein
presented and concur on those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then
make any necessary changes and bring them back to the Board for its approval prior to its public hearing.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
addressed the Board, stating that staff would like to present a brief overview of the “Mind Mixer”
community engagement platform, which was still in a testing phase but far enough along so it could be
used for the Comp Plan going forward. She stated that they are calling the tool “Engage Albemarle,”
which is a new citizen engagement software platform which will allow them to use the internet and social
media to encourage participation in issues. Ms. Catlin said it is a virtual town hall, which helps staff
organize and distribute content, provide an opportunity for participants to discuss issues with the County,
and provide data regarding what citizens think about the issues before them. She stated that this
program is essentially a way to have more effective and affordable outreach to a greater number of
people in the community than traditional methods, and it interacts with Twitter, Facebook, and other social
media platforms. Ms. Catlin reported that the County’s A-mail currently has 4,670 subscribers. She said,
in a typical month, the County website gets about 65,000 visits; Facebook has approximately 1,700
followers; and Twitter has close to 1,000 followers – so implementing a tool which can reach those people
easily will be important and impactful for the County.
Ms. Catlin presented information on the County’s home page for Engage Albemarle, noting that
they have the ability to load several different topics for people to respond to, and there are designated
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 12)
staff monitoring the different topics as they are being posted to see if a response is needed. She noted
that people can sign in, but they do not have to be signed in to see what kind of activity is going on. Ms.
Catlin provided a few sample web pages with questions that will be changed as the Board reviews each
Comp Plan chapter. She stated that there is a link to the Comp Plan which allows people to review the
document and provide comments. She explained that, in order to read the comments, a visitor does not
have to log in but logging in would be necessary in order to make a comment.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the system sends a confirmation or verification email to the sign-in address
provided. Ms. Catlin said it does and, once a person is signed up, they can add comments to existing
ones, or add a new comment thread. She noted that they launched Engage Albemarle a few weeks
earlier to test it, and it would now be online as a tool – with comments downloadable to a spreadsheet
which can be used in reports for the Board.
Ms. Palmer asked who was Tweeting for the County. Ms. Catlin stated that Communications
Specialist, Jodi Lewis, along with Travis Morris and Mike Brown have done a lot of work to put this
together, with Ms. Lewis being the primary Tweeter and Facebook poster. She added that, on the Comp
Plan website page, the question was em bedded so the public could answer there rather than having to go
to the Engage Albemarle page.
Ms. McKeel asked if this tool had the capability to do a constituent tele-town hall type of meeting.
Ms. Catlin said Engage Albemarle does not have audio capability, but does automatically update when
new questions are added.
Ms. McKeel asked if staff could limit the push-out to certain areas, such as a specific
neighborhood. Ms. Catlin said the easiest sort is zip code, and there may be more parameters on a
question by question basis, but staff is still figuring out those nuances.
Ms. Mallek said she hoped there would be additional opportunities for comments on the Comp
Plan sections which have already been discussed. Ms. Catlin said staff should definitely reword this to let
people know what items had already been covered and also is a place to put their comments.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this tool is being captured for the Comp Plan process, in terms of comments
coming in. Ms. Catlin said staff cannot backload comments, but people can be directed to feed their
comments through this tool. She said the Board can view comments live, and staff will also be able to
export those comments to a spreadsheet which would come to the Board during review of a particular
chapter.
Ms. Mallek stated that she hoped people would still send comments to BOS@albemarle.org,
because that happens instantaneously as opposed to having Board members get them from t he Engage
Albemarle tool. Ms. Catlin emphasized that this is not replacing e-mail, it is just another method to
engage people who are a bit more oriented to this type of comment platform versus sending an email in
the traditional way.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was a point at which this would come up for evaluation. Ms. Catlin sad
staff would give it a few months, and would need to do a publicity push to get people using it so they have
enough information to evaluate.
Ms. Dittmar said it would be helpful to examine which kinds of questions generate the most
interest, so the Board can see trends. Ms. Catlin stated that they have different kinds of questions – an
idea submission, a survey, an instant poll, a map of the County, upload pictures, etc. – so staff is just at
the beginning of understanding its full functionality.
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that they would continue with
review of Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, with the goal of finishing Natural Resources and also
review Chapter 5 – Historic, Cultural and Scenic Resources. She stated that she would like to talk about
the action memos, and staff is trying to turn those around to the Board as quickly as possible so the
Board will know what staff has taken away from each meeting. Ms. Echols said the final draft would
include a paragraph addressing goals, objectives, and strategies along with the text of the plan. She
stated that staff is aware that a lot of the requests for additional language are related to cross-referencing
because the subjects do not have clear boundaries in many cases and, to keep the document at a
manageable size, staff has cross-referenced items rather than repeating them. Ms. Echols said two
Supervisors have requested a copy of the plan in a Word document, and that would be made available in
the Dropbox as soon as staff can make it available.
Ms. Echols reported that the goal today is to finish the Natural Resources chapter before public
comment on Historic, Cultural and Scenic Resources, with special attention to be paid to the Planning
Commission’s deliberation on the Monticello view shed and vistas as well as additional comments
received today.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the public comment period allows for comment on any section of the
Comp Plan, and asked the Board if it was the desire of Supervisors to start with public comment.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 13)
Ms. Palmer said there is a lot to cover with Natural Resources, so she would prefer to start with
public comment.
Ms. Dittmar opened the public comment period.
Mr. Lonnie Murray, Chair of the Albemarle County Natural Heritage Committee, addressed the
Board stating that, if Board members had any questions on the Natural Heritage chapter, he was
available to answer those. Mr. Murray said a statement was made that the growth management policy
does not protect rural areas, and he feels the economics of that is flawed. He stated that there is little
they can do in terms of the notion that increasing supply will decrease the demand for rural properties,
and suggested the County needs to address the root causes of sprawl and also look at the sheer number
of by-right developments in the rural area. Mr. Murray said if the Board has the goal of protecting rural
areas, then it should not be paving rural roads, because they are “de-facto rezonings.” He said the paved
section of Dick Woods Road, for example, is all subdivisions whereas the gravel section is all farms; so,
once these are paved, subdivisions follow immediately, and it is often the developers who submit the
requests for the paving. Mr. Murray stated that, at the very least, the Board should try to proactively
remove the roads that are part of rural greenways, and highly used by runners, walkers and mountain
bikers. He said the largest contiguous forest block is the southern Albemarle mountains around
Batesville and, when the parks and greenways portion of the Comp Plan comes before the Board, it
should include a goal of a park, greenway or trail system in the Batesville area in keeping with protection
of the unique resources of that area – one that could be used by both Crozet and Batesville. Mr. Murray
said he has a few signatures to that effect from Batesville Day, and also the support of the Batesville
Ruritan Club. He added that he has also started a new trail club in the area.
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking as an individual and thanked
the Board for the skepticism it showed toward the expansion of the soapstone extraction district at the
work session the previous week. He stated that he was also a member of the Natural Heritage
Committee. He said the statement in the Comp Plan chapter which says, “Develop an action plan for
biodiversity to protect significant areas of biological importance in the County,” and references “a
comprehensive biological inventory” is obsolete and should be edited out. Mr. Olivier said the only thing
remaining was the landscape analysis, which the Board had agreed to fund this year. He stated that the
other item he wanted to point out pertains to the Rural Areas chapter, and said the 2005 update
recognized that these areas were more than just rural industries or ag/forestal industrial zones and noted
that natural resources were extensive and highly valuable. Mr. Olivier said one of the key ingredients in
the update was that it recognized “conservation areas” as a legitimate land use. He said land occupied
by natural ecosystems preserves biodiversity, and provides ecosystem services which are important for
clean air and clean water. He stated that it was really important to affirm conservation areas in the new
plan as a legitimate land use.
Mr. Brian Roy addressed the Board, stating that he has a particular interest in preservation of
historic assets, particularly those which relate to the Woolen Mills neighborhood. He said he wanted to
give the Board a lot of admiration and appreciation that the goals for the Historic, Cultural and Scenic
Resources are quite commendable, and the strategies listed are consistent and necessary to keep the
stated goals for this chapter in the plan. Mr. Roy stated that the encouragement the County can offer
both current and prospective landowners is needed but might be limited in terms of what can be done
and, as pointed out in the draft plan, they have seen some historic opportunities which have gone by the
wayside due to lack of resources. He said there are economic resources from a historic perspective
when one talks about tax credits, and there can be a disconnect when one mentions the potential for
redevelopment and reuse as it relates to these historic assets and with potential redevelopment in the
zoning of these assets. Mr. Roy encouraged the Board to be flexible when looking at the preservation of
these assets, and to consider how it might be a detriment to offer the historic preservation along with the
fixed zoning requirements which exist. He said other municipalities have been able to enhance and
repurpose old factories, warehouses and mills – particularly as they have a close proximity to prominent
waterways, and those opportunities exist in Albemarle as well, specifically in the Woolen Mills
neighborhood. Mr. Roy reiterated the importance of creativity and flexibility as it relates to potential
redevelopments as those arise in the future.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was anything specific in the Comp Plan draft that was overly
prescriptive. Mr. Roy said the plan itself was good but, when you get down to the idealistic intentions of
the goals and strategies, they are extremely accurate but, when you get down to the actual practicality of
achieving some of that, there can be a disconnect between what is stated and the opportunity to go
through the development and redevelopment process.
Ms. Mallek noted that the issues arise when it leaves the Comp Plan and gets into staff and the
processes of zoning. Mr. Roy said there is potential for that disconnect, but it is not definitive.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that he was speaking on behalf of the Free
Enterprise Forum and thanking Supervisors for reviewing the Comp Plan chapter by chapter. He said the
Historic, Cultural and Scenic Resources Chapter 5 is fundamentally flawed in that it continues to
reference the County’s 2000 Historic Preservation Plan. Mr. Williamson said while the FEF believes in
incentivizing historic preservation, they balance this desire with the property rights of property owners,
and several items in the 2000 plan have been rejected by previous boards and the community at large.
He said, specifically, the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance and the proposed Historical Preservation
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 14)
Ordinance continue to be rejected by committees and boards, and asked if these flawed ideas should
continue to be referenced in the forward-thinking Comp Plan document. Mr. Williamson said the chapter
seems to focus significantly on creating new regulations – “protection measures” – and the FEF believes
firmly that voluntary measures along with incentives are a better methodology to achieve historic
preservation. He stated that the FEF opposes Strategy 2B on page 5.9 calling for new regulations,
including a Historical Overlay District, in the zoning code. Mr. Williamson said the FEF takes issue with
the idea that the community has a common responsibility for these resources, as mentioned in the third
objective, and privately-held historic homes are just that – privately held. He stated that he was happy to
see that his work with the Planning Commission and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation resulted in
significant changes to the proposed language regarding the Monticello view shed strategy, and requested
that the word “voluntary” be added for clarity to the last sentence of Strateg y 4C. Mr. Williamson said the
FEF is concerned that the Comp Plan says Albemarle County is actively s eeking “greater ability to
regulate aesthetics” on Page 5.11. He stated that, under Strategy 5B, the County is seeking enabling
legislation to provide for scenic protection and a tourist enhancement overlay district, and the FEF is
opposed to inclusion of this language in the Comp Plan and will work actively to defeat any such
legislation at the state level. Mr. Williamson said any view which the County wishes to preserve for
Monticello should be purchased. He also asked that Strategy 7F be reconsidered as it calls for yet more
roads to be added to the County’s list of 21 entrance corridors.
There being no further public comments, the Chair closed that portion of the work session.
Ms. Echols stated that the first step in the Board’s review was to look at the Natural Resources
goal, with wording provided by Ms. Palmer. She said, at the Board’s last meeting, there was discussion
of natural resources protection should be the highest priority, and Ms. Palmer had offered to provide
language relating to the statement that preservation of natural resources is the highest priority for
residents. She said the second topic related to development and other human activity adapting to the
natural environment rather than vice versa. Ms. Echols presented a slide showing what the new
statement would look like, noting that part of it is in the current Comp Plan and emphasizing that staff has
softened some of the language because they are trying to use a similar voice throughout the entire
document. She said the idea is that the Board should weigh in on these concepts and whether they
should be in the Natural Resources section.
Ms. Palmer said there is a statement in the introduction portion of the entire Comp Plan which
uses that phrase.
Ms. Echols said there is some similarity, but it did not state as well as it should have “the most
valuable features of the County which contribute to the high quality of life in Albemarle County and the life
of Albemarle County citizens occur in the natural environment.” She said this statement was trying to
reaffirm the information gleaned from citizen surveys taken over the past 20 years with regard to the
physical features of the community which are most valuable, but there are other aspects which come into
play so the Board may not want to keep it in this form.
Ms. Palmer said she was putting it in the introduction of the natural resources in the first
paragraph.
Ms. Mallek said the sentence could follow the first sentence that is on Page 4.3, and then go into
the statement regarding reaffirmation with the citizen surveys.
Ms. Echols said, at this point, she would just like to get agreement on the two concepts rather
than the exact wording.
Ms. Dittmar said everything they do is adapting to the environment, and she was not sure what
the purpose was of emphasizing that they should be adapting to their environment.
Ms. Mallek stated that one reason for spelling it out is, for example, when there are choices of
where to site things, i.e., a location which has rare species, that should be the last choice – and that was
the kind of adaptation she was hoping people would consider as an aspirational goal in the Comp Plan.
Ms. Palmer said one can always consider natural resources and contours when one is building,
and engineers can help make this happen so, when the County is trying to do something, it is important to
try to follow those natural features and respect nature rather than fighting with it when something is sited.
Ms. Dittmar commented that it is not so much the adaption, it is how they adapt.
Ms. Mallek said this recognizes that it is a useful process.
Mr. Sheffield asked where, in the context of the document, would this be included.
Ms. Echols said it would be added at the very beginning of the Natural Resources chapter, and
stated that this is something in the Development Areas chapter which will be discussed because resource
preservation is dealt with differently there than it is in the rural areas section. She stated that the question
is whether or not there should be more emphasis placed on the natural environment and, throughout the
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 15)
plan, there are recommendations related to preserving the natural environment which might be sufficient,
however, if the Board feels that it is essential, they should put it in.
Ms. Palmer said, to her, it should be emphasized as a value for the County to try to do those
things when it can, and there were similar references in the previous plan – but some were left out and
she wanted to make sure that it was the highest priority. She stated that, without clean air and water and
natural resources, they are done as a community, adding that there is a lot of development which would
continue. Ms. Palmer stated that, if other Board members felt it should be removed, they should discuss
it.
Mr. Sheffield said he was not sure about the word “adapt,” and perhaps “respect” would be better,
although he understood the intent of the statement.
Ms. McKeel said she was happy with it as it is.
Ms. Palmer said she prefers “adapt,” but “respect” is acceptable to her.
Ms. Echols said there seems to be general agreement on the concept, so staff would work on the
wording going forward.
Mr. Sheffield asked Ms. Palmer if she was proposing to remove the last two sentences of the
existing paragraph or add to them. Ms. Palmer said she was proposing that they add them . She said she
did not spend a lot of time on the wording because she assumed staff would work on that.
Ms. Mallek said what was now the second half of the statement should probably become a new
paragraph.
Ms. Echols stated that the Board would see the redline document and decide if it works for them.
Ms. Echols reported that the Board had not finished the water resources section, and Ms. Palmer
had sent some more information on recommendations for things to include in the Natural Resources
section. She said staff’s recommendation was to have a comprehensive water resources plan and
program with all of the items covered by it. Ms. Echols stated that Ms. Palmer has suggested that they go
a bit further in being specific about the collaboration with other agencies and data collection/analysis, and
suggested that they have all of the items as part of collaborative work along with possible coordination on
other issues. She said the Planning Commission did not include these in its recommendation and, to do
all of those requested items would require significant staff resources. Ms. Echols stated that there are
significant staff resources which would be involved by getting into these particular issues, and said that
Mark Graham was available to answer specific questions.
Ms. Mallek said a lot of these are very long-term initiatives, but many of them used to happen, so
it is really bringing them back.
Ms. Palmer noted that a lot of these things came from the League of Women Voters’ statement,
so she included them here.
Ms. McKeel asked Ms. Mallek for some clarification about “bringing back” these items.
Ms. Mallek explained that, before the recession, the County did a lot more with water resources
programs and research, which used to be Greg Harper’s job, but now he does that as a small part of
many other responsibilities.
Ms. Palmer said the County used to have a water resources manager and, at one point, that was
a shared position with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), so there had been a lot going on
in this area in the past.
Board members asked where this might be included in the p lan.
Ms. Echols said it would be on Page 419 under Strategy 1E, and said that, if this concept is
something the Board wanted to see happening with the water resources program, staff would find the
right place for it.
Mr. Sheffield said he did not mind including it, but he was concerned that it implied a commitment
of resources to it.
Ms. Mallek stated that the rural planner item has been in the Comp Plan for 20 years but hasn’t
been funded, and people are used to that and want the Board to set goals.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said the County used to have a number
of these positions, such as a groundwater manager to do that monitoring who were actually trying to build
up a database with that information. He said they also had a natural resources manager that was doing a
lot of work on the stream buffers, and that position actually started as a funded position through RWSA
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 16)
and eventually became a County position. He stated that there are ordinance enforcement sections
related to the groundwater program which other County staff have had to take on, such as the
requirement to verify underground storage tanks on parcels where new building permits are being
requested. Mr. Graham noted that the stream buffer issues have also had to be taken up by other staff.
Ms. Mallek said having that new person might help to balance the workload all around.
Mr. Graham said what the Board may be struggling with are the Board’s expectations moving
forward and, if the Board is looking for expansion beyond what staff is doing right now, the more definition
they can get on that, the better they can try to craft their requests for additional staff to match
expectations.
Ms. Dittmar said the expectations start with the grand design – the Comp Plan – and the question
to the Board is whether it wants to add what Ms. Palmer has proposed.
Ms. Mallek said she would vote yes.
Ms. McKeel said she would vote yes.
Mr. Sheffield said he would vote no because he did not think they should be adding it.
Ms. Palmer asked what part of this could be taken off to make it more reasonable.
Mr. Graham reiterated that it is important for the Board to first identify its goals for water
resources, i.e., reducing the number of significantly impaired streams in the County, because the data
collected would help inform that.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to hear Mr. Graham’s presentation again which he made to the
previous Board, in which he addressed strategies for fixing the impaired streams, adding that there were
never any decisions made on how to approach it. Mr. Graham said they were running out of time with the
Virginia Stormwater Management Program mandate, and staff had to put all of their emphasis on
complying with that law, agreeing that they would address overall water resources with the Board at a
later point.
Mr. Foley said the idea all along has been to have staff come back and have the Board provide
some direction as to level of service it would like to achieve beyond the mandates, and the question is
how far they go with that.
Ms. Mallek said that makes the inclusion of this language from Ms. Palmer even more
appropriate.
Ms. Palmer emphasized that it is really not adding any undue financial burden on the County by
having this in the Comp Plan, because a lot of the items listed were already being done. Mr. Graham
said, if the Board expects more data collection, it will impact the cost.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board needs to determine whether it wants specific actions or ways of
accomplishing this in the Comp Plan.
Ms. Echols stated that the Planning Commission wanted to get the “big picture” right, and felt that
the specific actions would take place later so that is why it did not include these details in the draft.
Ms. Palmer said putting this in the Comp Plan does not mean they would get into the weeds, as
the discussion of the specifics can come later with a bigger discussion from the Board.
Ms. Dittmar suggested eliminating the first several words related to data – collection, sharing
maintenance, and use of – and replace those with “data should be part of the collaborative work,” so as to
allow the execution of its goals to include specifics on who would collect it, who it would be shared with,
who would maintain it, how it is used, etc.
Ms. Palmer said she did not understand why they would do that, because data collection, sharing,
maintenance and use of data should be part of a collaborative work for water protection, and the County
is already doing that through a number of different partnerships with other groups.
Ms. Mallek said, in a way, it is confirming the importance of what the County does now. She said
there is concern among some groups about the considerable editing which has been happening with the
Comp Plan and the disappearance of items that have been deemed important. She stated that , as a
compromise, they could stop after the term “water protection.”
Ms. Palmer agreed, and added that the septic system coordination was extremely challenging.
Mr. Graham said that is a great example of why it depends on what the Board’s expectations and
interests are because, if the Board is having some concern with those streams that are impaired and it is
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 17)
determined that the cause is leaking underground storage tanks or failing septic systems, that data
becomes important as far as trying to identify where those systems are and where they are located in
relation to streams. He said, as the Board sets those expectations and defines those goals, staff would
say that they need data to back up whatever strategies would be involved with the goals for water
resources.
Ms. Palmer said, with the Oak Hill community, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
received a community block grant to connect them to public sewer because the septic systems were
leaking and causing contamination of Moore’s Creek – so they worked with the County on that as a
collaborative effort with the data collected by the state. Mr. Graham said there have been other similar
collaborations where there were failing septic systems draining directly into a scenic river – the Doyle’s
River.
Ms. Mallek noted that it was draining right into the reservoir.
Mr. Boyd commented that his concern was turning this document, which is a vision statement,
into an action plan which is what the Board is doing when it begins to talk about staffing. He said he
agrees with the Planning Commission to not get too far into the weeds and keep it a vision statement.
Ms. Palmer said she hoped the strategic plan would be informed by this on some level, and
agreed that it was a visionary plan. She said she would like to see this particular language in the plan,
and did not feel it was adding extra layers.
Mr. Sheffield agreed with Mr. Boyd that it is adding another layer of work.
Ms. McKeel said she could support it if they ended the statement after “water protection.”
Ms. Dittmar said she reviewed the charge of a Comp Plan and had to agree with Mr. Boyd and
Mr. Sheffield that Board members should not get too detailed in the plan, but agreed to leave in the
statement up to that point.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that there were some areas of the plan where the strategies actually called
for programmatic considerations which would include staff and other areas that did not. He said where
the Planning Commission felt it was important to have programmatic enhancements which might involve
staff, it included those as strategies.
Ms. Echols said the next area of consideration was a recommendation for a person or committee
to oversee all activities of water-related programs, which was also a suggestion by Ms. Palmer. She said
the Planning Commission wanted to allow that to play itself out in terms of the best way to accomplish
those things, so the Board would need to decide whether to add these words into the plan or leave them
out.
Mr. Sheffield said he would recommend leaving them out, because they specifically identified this
at yesterday’s retreat and that has more teeth than the Comp Plan materials.
Ms. Palmer said she did not understand why they would put it in the Strategic Plan but not in the
Comp Plan.
Mr. Sheffield said it goes back to vision and general statements versus specific actions, and
instructing staff to create the position is more of a Strategic Plan item than a Comp Plan item. He stated
that he would like to see a transportation planner in the transportation section, but he would rather charge
staff with determining the financial implications as well as the staffing implications.
Ms. Palmer said several planners have said the Comp Plan should be more specific, and others
have said it should be more general but, as long as this was in the strategic plan, she is fine with it.
Ms. Echols stated that there was another suggestion to add a strategy to encourage the
development community and the state to minimize pervious cover and that is not necessarily problematic
but, when they talk about the development areas, they do have expectations fo r the roads that are
different than the roads in the rural area. She said the education component throughout the Comp Plan
was not something the Commission felt they needed to put a whole lot of effort into, given the amount of
time to be spent in relation to the other programmatic activities which needed to be accomplished. Ms.
Echols said, because of that direction, a lot of the education language and the encouragement language
was taken out of the existing Comp Plan into the draft, not because they would not be doing it but
because the expectation might be difficult to achieve.
Mr. Sheffield said, given the upcoming stormwater requirements, there is a need for resident
education related to pervious and impervious surfaces, and it is important that the County know how to
best communicate with the public on these issues.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 18)
Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel expressed their agreement with his point. Ms. Mallek said, if they do
not do it in the Comp Plan, they would need to do it in the zoning instructions, etc. so it would be simpler
to do it here.
Ms. Echols said Ms. Palmer had mentioned the need to have a “developing river corridor” plan as
a strategy, and there is already one in the plan which can be cross-referenced. She stated that the
Rivanna River Basin Commissions made some recommendations for a corridor study, and that is
included in the parks and green systems part of the plan. Ms. Echols said that was an item which carried
over into a lot of different areas, so a cross-reference would be useful to ensure that people know there’s
a natural resources component to it also.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, pointed out that this was one of the two priorities of
both the City and County Planning Commission for activity over the next few years, a nd it would probably
be a major part of the Pantops Master Plan update.
Ms. Dittmar asked if it was part of the Southern Neighborhood Development Area because of the
Woolen Mills portion.
Ms. Echols said that was part of it, and did include Pantops and the Southern neighborhoods.
She noted that the Planning Commissions were both excited about this as a project because th ey could
see tremendous benefit for both communities.
Ms. Mallek commented that communities such as San Antonio that have turned toward the river
have realized tremendous benefits – recreationally, environmentally and overall.
Ms. Echols reported that the Board had discussed the impact that mining would have on water
resources, and staff gleaned from that discussion that Board members wanted to add a clear statement in
the mineral resources section that natural gas extraction – particularly through fracking in the County – is
not appropriate due to its potential impact on other natural resources. She said Ms. Mallek had wanted to
provide more emphasis on the impacts of that to the watershed.
Ms. Mallek agreed, adding that those impacts to water can travel for miles and miles.
Mr. Boyd said he did not agree with inclusion of a statement against natural gas extraction,
because it is a new industry which could create a lot of good, well-paying jobs, and information he is
received from Dr. Battig and others indicates that it does not damage the water supply because it is done
thousands of feet under aquifers.
Ms. Echols said staff did not receive any additional recommendations related to the goal of
“protect air quality,” but Ms. Palmer had suggested adding a strategy related to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. She stated that the Commission struggled over what to include for air quality because those
impacts have to do with vehicle emissions and energy use, and the monitoring of that does not take place
by the locality – with the EPA very involved in that process. Ms. Echols presented a graphic showing
“healthy air day” and where problem areas seemed to be, and the most that the Commission could come
up with was reducing the number of vehicle trips per day. She read their recommendation: “Help protect
local and regional air quality by reducing the County’s carbon footprint and by promoting alternatives to
single-occupancy vehicles such as walking, bicycle use, ridesharing, and public transit services.”
Ms. Mallek said, if this section’s focus is on air quality and health, the particulate part of emissions
from power plants is enormously concerning and does not come from vehicles and, although it is not
generated here, it does blow in here from the northwest.
Ms. Palmer said she was seeing other places where greenhouse gas emissions could be
addressed, and initiatives the County could do locally is what she is struggling with.
Mr. Cilimberg said, in the introduction paragraph to the section, staff could mention those sources
for emissions which are not under the County’s control.
Ms. Echols said information for objective four – biological diversity and ecological integrity –
included some memos from the Natural Heritage Committee, and there were some changes which need
to be added to this section. She stated that there definitely needs to be information on the distinctions
between the rural areas and the development areas, but not to the detriment of the ecological integrity in
the development areas. Ms. Echols emphasized that staff wants to make sure it gets discussed
appropriately and does not get left out and, again, providing cross-referencing because there is lots of
overlap between biodiversity and corridors and greenways. She said most of the greenway information is
in the parks and green systems section, but getting the cross-references is essential and staff did not
want to leave it out.
Ms. Echols reported that the last thing they looked at was the priority sites, and the last plan that
included information on biodiversity did not include priority sites – but staff did, in this plan, try to get at
some strategies for the work of the Natural Heritage Committee. She said what they found is it caused
some trouble because those sites would change, and the priority sites came from a report which had
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 19)
been given to the Board and never started in the Comp Plan. Ms. Echols said it was staff’s thinking that
would be an outgrowth of the action plan that the Natural Heritage Committee was putting together, and
they would then make some recommendations to the Board in a report. She said the only other
recommendation was to add a strategy to preserve vegetation in the development area, but she would
like to put that issue on hold until the Board gets to the Development Areas chapter – at which time they
can come back to Natural Resources and add it in.
Ms. Palmer said a member of the Natural Heritage Committee had sent a comment that “the most
important features to protect in the development areas are wooded, riparian areas, wetlands and habitat
corridors – which gets to the broader need to include green space to promote healthy communities in the
development area and also as a specific strategy policy of the County.” She asked if this was already in
some of the other sections.
Ms. Echols explained that the Neighborhood Model talks a lot about the importance of having
parks and open space systems, and also speaks to the master plans in identifying those important
ecological areas, so there should definitely be a link there, so it is clear that those two are closely
connected. She said, when the Board gets to the Development Areas, and it decides there’s more that
needs to be added, staff will do that.
Ms. Palmer said she wanted to make sure people see that, because many who read it focus only
on one particular section and not the entire Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said it is something the Board could work on going forward, because a person
interested in biodiversity would stop with that chapter.
Ms. Echols said the Board could pick that up in the Development Areas chapter.
Ms. Mallek stated that this is about habitat protection under biodiversity, and the language is
about providing information on the importance of protecting habitat when creating lots for development .
She suggested taking out the reference to subdividing because people who aren’t subdividing still need to
be made aware of this.
Ms. Palmer agreed, adding that people especially need to know before they subdivide.
Ms. Echols said those were the only times when staff was going to make a connection with
people, so they were trying to get an action to let people know. She said that does not mean the Board
cannot add what Ms. Mallek is suggesting, as there are other people who would be carrying the message,
as with historic preservation.
Ms. Mallek commented that it would be helpful to have that information in the packet a person
picks up when they are getting ready to make an improvement and not necessarily subdividing, i.e.
building a barn or doing some renovations.
Ms. Echols said, regarding the Mountains section of the plan, it has been suggested that staff
acknowledge the recent ZTA for the steep slopes provision in the development areas, and that should be
easily accommodated. She stated that Ms. Palmer’s suggestion was to add a statement about
development adapting to existing topography in the development areas, and staff would like to postpone
that conversation because there is a Neighborhood Model principle which goes directly with that.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Williamson had made a reference to the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, but
that was never approved, and he was not sure why that would be in the Comp Plan.
Ms. Echols said there is no mountain protection plan in the Comp Plan anymore, but it is in the
reference document as something that had happened in the past. She stated that there are elevations
that have been recommended for protection which did not go out of the plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Mountain Protection Plan was an amendment to the Comp Plan that was
approved by the Board of Supervisors, but what was not approved was an ordinance to enact mountain
protection provisions which the County could regulate. He said the reference to Mountain Protection Plan
elements is very important because it also connects to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
program in terms of how properties are scored, and emphasized that the plan is different than the
ordinance.
Mr. Boyd stated that it was a very controversial issue adding that the Board had to move the first
public hearing because the number of people could not be accommodated. He said he would go along
with Mr. Cilimberg’s explanation to include it for historical reference.
Ms. Mallek said, regarding the ACE program, that is where mountaintop protections have
happened. She said Byrom Park is one where they have the ridge tops protected; the property in Crozet,
which ACE picked up last year, has a huge area of mountaintop protection and that owner has promised
to include that in their easement.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 20)
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it is also a consideration in rural protection developments, and one of
their early RPDs. He noted that the Turner Mountain Rural Preservation development was based on the
mountain protection area within the overall development, with a mountain protection area outside the
cluster of lots.
Ms. Mallek said, as the County is learning about stormwater requirements, this is a prevention
item which is easier to do than trying to deal with the consequences resulting from not doing it.
Ms. Echols stated that, with land cover, there was a suggested change from Ms. Palmer to add a
strategy encouraging voluntary protection of wetlands. She said that is in the text already, but if the
Board felt it needed to be a strategy, it could add it as a strategy but that is already referenced in the text
as a way to get protection of wetlands.
Ms. Palmer asked why it was in the text and not an objective. Ms. Echols said the conservation
easements are addressed more in the Rural Areas section, to include the types of things they would be
preserving with those easements. She said the text has the same weight as a strategy but, if the Board
wanted to emphasize it, then it could be bulleted out. She noted that Strategy 6B was still there, on Page
4.33, related to protection of wetlands, and forest is included as part of land cover.
Ms. Echols stated that she would like to cover the “hazards” section, stating that County
Engineer, Glenn Brooks, had taken a very close look at the floodplain section of the Comp Plan. She
said, after last year with several requests for fill in the floodplain and things the County needed to do to be
in conformity with FEMA, Mr. Brooks felt strongly – and staff agrees – that they need a better explanation
of what goes on in the floodplain and what needs to be reviewed as far as those proposals go. Ms.
Echols said they found some loopholes, and want to study the possibility of imposing a freeboard to help
provide a margin of safety in terms of flood hazards, so staff would recommend adding those things to the
text. She stated that Ms. Palmer had suggested a few other changes, one of which included exploring
the County’s ability to restrict building on properties prone to debris flow, and that was something which
could be included as an exploration; and the second item pertained to hazards from climat e change. Ms.
Echols said, to help inform her review, she looked at the regional hazard mitigation plan – which talked a
bit about impacts of the changing climate and the hazards resulting in global temperature shift, including
flooding, earthquakes, etc. She stated that the plan focuses both on preventing problems and how to
deal with them once they occur, and the mitigation plan is in the appendix so it is part of the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek noted that some of those have already been addressed through the Board’s work on
stream buffers because, now, people would not be putting houses in the debris flow.
Ms. Echols said that is a little different as there are areas which have been mapped as being
prone to debris flow which staff would like to do a bit more with, and this is just another way of
implementing that particular action if the Board decided that is what it wanted to do. She pointed out that
staff could hyperlink the hazard mitigation plan – which is on the TJPDC website –in the text of the Comp
Plan, in addition to appearing in the appendix as it does now.
Ms. Mallek said 7C talks about the work they were just describing as underway to do the mapping
for the debris flow.
Ms. Echols said staff would be doing more detailed mapping of the debris flow areas.
Ms. Palmer suggested that staff insert in the materials that the regional hazard mitigation plan
addresses potential complications of climate change, so anyone reading this document realizes that the
County recognizes this problem. She also asked where the City included this in its Comp Plan. Ms.
Echols explained that the City puts links to their current activities on its webpage, such as Cool Counties.
Ms. McKeel said she had some language related to the vision statement in the education piece
which she would provide to Ms. Echols.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that the Crozet Historic District was not on the map.
_______________
Non-Agenda The Board recessed the meeting at 6:41 p.m., and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. for
their night meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Call to Order. The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 8. Moment of Silence.
_______________
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Boyd stated that since there were a number of people in the audience who were present to
hear the Six-Year Secondary Road Plan, he would like for the Board to move the item up on the agenda
and hear it as the first public hearing.
Board members agreed.
Ms. Dittmar said that they would move Agenda Item No. 15 up so that was considered directly
after the Consent Agenda.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the final agenda as modified. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9a. Recognition: Proclamation recognizing June 2014 as Business
Appreciation Month.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the Business Appreciation Month proclamation from the Governor’s
office, as modified by the County. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Ditmar read a portion of the following proclamation, recognizing Tim LaRue, of behalf of the
Better Business Challenge, Helen Cauthen, on behalf of the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic
Development, Tracy Green, on behalf of the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council, John Lowery, on
behalf of the Albemarle County Economic Development Authority, and Frank Squillace, on behalf of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Business Appreciation Month
WHEREAS, Governor Terry McAuliffe has recognized June 2014 as Business Appreciation Month in the
Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is currently home to more than 30 Fortune 1,000 firms and more than 70 firms with
annual revenues in excess of $l billion; and
WHEREAS, Virginia ranks among the top ten states best prepared—in knowledge, innovation and internet
technology—to navigate the demands of an increasingly globalized economy; and
WHEREAS, economic vitality is a stated goal of Albemarle County’s Strategic Plan and an important
component of our Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County businesses play a pivotal role in strengthening our County by embracing
job creation, innovative technologies, and employing a diverse workforce to preserve the
economic well-being of all our citizens; and Albemarle County businesses play a pivotal role in
strengthening our County by embracing job creation, innovative technologies, and employing
a diverse workforce to preserve the economic well-being of all our citizens; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County applauds the success of local businesses that provide economic
opportunity while supporting the County’s goals and values of resource protection and an
attractive, vibrant, and livable community; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County appreciates community partners including the Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, the
Economic Development Authority, and the Charlottesville Business Innovation Council.
Together, these organizations work collaboratively to support the many faces of the Albemarle
business community; and
WHEREAS, this year Albemarle County became one of the 1.5% of counties nationwide to have received
triple AAA bond rating (including Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s) which reflects the
positive contributions of our business in creating a stable and diverse economy; and
WHEREAS, preliminary data shows the FY 13/14 sales tax revenue will be about 19% above the Great
Recession bottom level, which occurred in FY 09/10, and will surpass pre-recession levels of
FY 06/07, as an indicator of our economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County recognizes the environmental stewardship of our local businesses, as
evidenced by the Better Business Challenge, first created in 2011 as a friendly competition
among local businesses to increase efficiency and sustainability in daily operations (energy,
water, waste, transportation and purchasing) which is now celebrating the achievements of
184 competition participants.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 22)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby
recognize
June 2014
as
BUSINESS APPRECIATION MONTH
in the County of Albemarle, and express our appreciation to our local, regional and state
business partners for their valuable contribution to our community.
Signed and sealed this 11th day of June, 2014.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. McKeel mentioned that it was Ms. Palmer’s birthday.
Ms. Palmer reported that she had a field trip planned to the Schuyler area to visit Polycore and to
visit the land they are planning to mine in the future.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Public: Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Boyd, seconded by Mr.
Sheffield to approve the Consent Agenda, with Item 12.1, as read. (Note: Discussions on individual
items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 12.1. Approval of Minutes: August 14, October 2 and December 12, 2013; February 5,
March 27 and April 10, 2014.
Ms. Dittmar said she had not read the minutes of December 12, 2013 and March 27, 2014, and
needed to pull them.
Ms. Mallek said she had not read her portion of the minutes of Augus t 14 and October 2, 2013,
and needed to pull them.
Ms. Palmer said she had not read her portion of the minutes of February 5, and April 10, 2014,
and needed to pull them.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were carried forward to the next meeting.
__________
Item No. 12.2. Northside Library Lease Extension.
The executive summary states that the County currently leases 15,572 square feet of space from
Rio Associates Limited Partnership at 300 Albemarle Square for use as the Northside Library. The
original 1991 lease was extended by a First Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered into on
November 1, 2004, and by a Second Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered into on
October 1, 2009. The current lease term expires October 31, 2014.
The new Northside Library and Storage Facility is currently under construction at 705 Rio Road
(former Phillips Building Supply building) and will provide a permanent location for the library. The County
is planning on substantial completion and occupancy of the new library in mid-January, 2015. Because
the new library will not be ready for occupancy by October 31, 2014 when the current library lease at the
Albemarle Square location expires, a lease extension through January 31, 2014 at the current location is
necessary. The landlord, Rio Associates Limited Partnership, has agreed to a 3-month extension, from
November 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015, at the current monthly rental amount of $25,953.33, subject to
the same terms and conditions as set forth in the previously modified and extended lease.
The County Attorney’s office has prepared a “Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement”
(Attachment A) to extend the lease for 3 months, which has been executed by the landlord.
The County share of the extended rent payments for 3 months would be 83.6% of $77,860, or
$65,091. This amount is proposed to be funded from the Northside Library and Storage Facility project
budget, the majority of which would come from a $50,000 credit from the construction contractor for the
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 23)
County providing him more time to complete the project, as well as a $17,500 cost-avoidance in storage
space rent. A transfer of project funds to cover the costs is expected in the new Fi scal Year (FY15).
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) authorizing the
County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Third Lease Modification and
Extension Agreement between the County of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited Partnership to extend
the Northside Library lease through January 31, 2015.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution authorizing the
County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Third Lease
Modification and Extension Agreement between the County of Albemarle and Rio Associates
Limited Partnership to extend the Northside Library lease through January 31, 2015:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND
RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
FOR THE NORTHSIDE LIBRARY
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle leases from Rio Associates Limited Partnership 15,572
square feet located at 300 Albemarle Square for use as the Northside Library; and
WHEREAS, the original lease for the Northside Library was first dated January 31, 1991, and
was extended by a First Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered into on November 1, 2004,
and by a Second Lease Modification and Extension Agreement entered into on October 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the current lease term expires October 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the attached Third Lease Modification and Extension Agreement extends the lease
of the Northside Library through January 31, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to sign, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the Third Lease
Modification and Extension Agreement between the County of Albemarle and Rio Associates Limited
Partnership to extend the Northside Library lease through January 31, 2015.
*****
THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION AND
EXTENSION AGREEMENT
This THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into this 1st day of June,
2014, by and between RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, hereinafter referred to as
"Landlord", party of the first part, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to
as "Tenant," party of the second part,
W I T N E S S E T H:
THAT WHEREAS, by LEASE dated the 31st day of January, 1991, commencing on the 1st day of
July, 1991, and originally scheduled to end on the 30 th day of June, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "said
Lease"), which Lease was held over by prior written consent of Landlord on a month-to-month basis at
the same rental rate as the rate that prevailed for the 10th year of said Lease, Landlord leased to Tenant a
portion of certain real property situated in the County of Albemarle said property being more particularly
described in said Lease as 15,572 square feet located at 300 Albemarle Square, in Charlottesville,
Virginia, which Lease was further extended between the parties by the FIRST LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into on the 1st day of November, 2004, commencing November
1, 2004 and expiring October 31, 2009, and which Lease was further extended between the parties by the
SECOND LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT entered into on the 1st day of
October, 2009, commencing November 1, 2009 and expiring October 31, 2014;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained,
the parties hereto do hereby covenant and agree to and with each other as follows:
FIRST: Said Lease, as previously modified and extended, shall be extended for an additional 3 rd
extended term (hereinafter “the Third Extended Term”) of three (3) months commencing November 1 ,
2014 and expiring January 31, 2015 on the same terms and conditions as set forth in said previously
modified and extended Lease, except as follows:
SECOND: The fixed minimum monthly rental for the Third Extended Term, under Provision 2(a)
herein shall be twenty-five thousand, nine hundred fifty-three and 33/100 Dollars ($25,953.33).
THIRD: Except as herein modified, all of the terms and conditions of said Lease shall remain in
full force and effect.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 24)
FOURTH: The signatories whose names are herein below affixed are authorized to bind their
respective parties to the terms and conditions of this THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION
AGREEMENT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this THIRD LEASE MODIFICATION
AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written:
TENANT:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: ______________________________________
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
LANDLORD:
RIO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By: Dumbarton Properties, Inc., its Agent
By: ________________________________
James N. Plotkin, President
__________
Item No. 12.3. FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in
the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies
to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 14 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $67,694.00. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of six (6) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2014103) for $(16,411.00) to reconcile the various sources of
revenue of the Office of Facilities Development Internal Service fund;
One appropriation (#2014104) to appropriate $25,000.00 from the Reserve for
Contingencies to the Department of Parks and Recreation and to adjust the budgeted
amounts for the County’s share of the services for the Albemarle Charlottesville
Regional Jail and Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center. This appropriation will not
increase the total budget;
One appropriation (#2014105) to allocate salary lapse between department budgets.
This appropriation will not increase the total budget;
One appropriation (#2014106) to appropriate $2,506.00 for the Individual Student
Alternative Education Plan grant;
One appropriation (#2014107) to appropriate $7,647.00 in funding associated with a
Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG); and
One appropriation (#2014108) to appropriate $73,952.00 for an Emergency
Communications Center maintenance agreement.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014103, #2014104, #2014105, #2014106,
#2014107, and #2014108 for general government and school division programs as described in Attachment
A.
*****
Appropriation #2014103 ($16,411.00)
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 16,411.00
Use of Fund Balance – Stormwater $ 9,339.00
Use of Fund Balance – School CIP $ (25,751.00)
The Office of Facilities Development (OFD) provides project management support for School and General
Government capital projects and the office staff also provide services for General Government projects
that fall outside of the Capital budget such as the ir staff work on the Belvedere and Lewis and Clark
projects or other administrative and non-designated CIP activities. An internal service fund was
established for OFD in FY 13, and OFD charges hourly-based project management (PM) fees for their
work on individual projects in order to capture the true full project costs.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, an estimate is made regarding how OFD’s project management
activities will be budgeted and at the end of the year a reconciliation is prepared to pr operly account for
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 25)
and capture actual project costs. This request is to reconcile OFD’s FY 14 sources of revenues with the
expenses incurred in FY 14.
This request is to (a) appropriate $16,411.00 from the County’s Reserve for Contingencies to the Gener al
Fund’s Project Management Services for the project management efforts on Belvedere and Lewis and
Clark and other administrative costs. This portion of the appropriation does not increase the County
Budget; (b) appropriate $9,339.00 in the use of Stormwater CIP Fund fund balance monies for
Stormwater Project Management Services incurred in FY 14, and (c) reduce the appropriated use of
School CIP Fund fund balance by $25,751.00 for a reduction in required School Project Management
Services in FY 14.
Appropriation #2014104 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center $ 140,308.00
Reserve for Contingencies $ 25,000.00
This request is to appropriate the following:
$140,308.00 from the County’s budgeted Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center
contribution to the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail to fund the County’s projected
share of costs based on the funding formula established by each entity’s regional
agreement.
$25,000.00 from the County’s Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Parks and
Recreation to fund expenditures for utilities and equipment repairs, both of which
exceeded the historical numbers (used to develop the FY 14 budget) due to an unusually
cold winter season and significant equipment repairs.
Appropriation #2014105 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Existing Budgeted Salary Lapse $ 122,690.00
At the beginning of each fiscal year, a budget estimate is made regarding which departments salary lapse
is expected to occur and at the end of the year a reconciliation is prepared to properly account for actual
salary lapse.
This request is to allocate salary lapse between department budgets to reflect where the actual salary
lapse occurred. This request will not increase the total County Budget.
Appropriation #2014106 $2,506.00
Source: State Revenue $ 2,506.00
This request is to appropriate the following School Division request approved by the School Board on
May 8, 2014:
The appropriation of $2,506.00 for the Individual Student Alternative Education Plan
(ISAEP) grant. The purpose of the ISAEP grant is to supplement existing General
Equivalency Diploma (GED) services by developing specialized occupational training and
employment necessary for students to become productive and contributing citizens in
support of the School Division’s strategic plan. The Virginia Department of Education
increased state funding for FY 14 by $2,506.00 from the original budget amount of
$23,576.00. These funds will be used to purchase GED Testing Service Official GED
Practice Test and computers.
Appropriation #2014107 $7,647.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 7,647.00
This request is to appropriate $7,647.00 of an $273,550.00 Strategic Prevention Framework – State
Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) for the time period of June 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014. The remainder of
the grant will be appropriated in FY 15 for the time period of July 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015. The
purpose of the grant is to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers
between the ages of 15 and 24 and to decrease the amount of binge drinking frequencies (4 or more
drinks within a couple of hours) by 5% among college students. The County will work with the University
of Virginia regarding the initiative associated with college students.
The SPF-SIG grant funds are received from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Menta l Health Services
Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention through Virginia Commonwealth University
(VCU). VCU, as the Prime Awardee, provides these federal grant funds to the County as its
Subcontractor.
The County, in its previous capacity as fiscal agent for the Commission on Children and Families (CCF),
received the first SPF-SIG Project grant for the time period of February 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 26)
in the fall of 2011. CCF was dissolved in December 2012, so the second SPF -SIG Project Grant was
awarded directly to the County for the time period of February 1, 2013 through May 31, 2014.
Appropriation #2014108 $73,952.00
Source: ECC Fund Balance $ 73,952.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the
ECC, appropriate funding in the amount of $73,952.00 from the ECC’s fund balance for a maintenance
agreement related to hardware and equipment for the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system for the
time period of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. This request has been approved by the ECC
Management Board.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriations #2014103, #2014104,
#2014105, #2014106, #2014107, and #2014108 for G eneral Government and School Division
programs.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2014103 4-9000-69050-464600-312366-6599 -$25,750.00 School CIP Fund Project Management Services
2014103 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 -$25,750.00 School CIP Use of Fund Balance
2014103 4-9100-91046-482040-312366-9999 $9,339.00 Stormwater CIP Fund Project Management Services
2014103 3-9100-51000-351000-510100-9999 $9,339.00 Stormwater CIP Use of Fund Balance
2014103 4-1000-43100-443100-312366-1004 $16,411.00 General Fund Project Management Services
2014103 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -$16,411.00 Reserve for contingencies
2014104 4-1000-33020-433020-700002-1003 140,308.00 ACRJ contribution
2014104 4-1000-39001-439000-563400-1003 -140,308.00 BRJDC contribution
2014104 4-1000-71012-471010-331600-1007 9,000.00 R&M EQUIP.-POWER EQUIP.
2014104 4-1000-71012-471010-510121-1007 4,000.00 Electrical Services
2014104 4-1000-71015-471010-510121-1007 8,000.00 Electrical Services
2014104 4-1000-71015-471010-510200-1007 4,000.00 Heating Servicse
2014104 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -25,000.00 Reserve for Contingencies
2014105 4-1000-12013-412010-119998-1001 -$5,000.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12141-412140-110000-1001 $65,000.00 Redistribute salaries to reflect charges
2014105 4-1000-12141-412140-119998-1001 $7,760.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12142-412140-110000-1001 -$10,000.00 Redistribute salaries to reflect charges
2014105 4-1000-12142-412140-119998-1001 $13,210.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12143-412140-110000-1001 $20,000.00 Redistribute salaries to reflect charges
2014105 4-1000-12143-412140-119998-1001 $7,560.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12144-412140-119998-1001 $18,950.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12145-412140-110000-1001 -$35,000.00 Redistribute salaries to reflect charges
2014105 4-1000-12145-412140-119998-1001 $4,730.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12146-412140-110000-1001 -$40,000.00 Redistribute salaries to reflect charges
2014105 4-1000-12146-412140-119998-1001 $9,460.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12147-412140-119998-1001 $4,860.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12150-412150-119998-1001 -$19,000.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-12200-412200-119998-1001 -$6,000.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-32015-432010-119998-1003 -$74,190.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-43204-432040-119998-1004 -$12,000.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-53012-453010-119998-1005 -$6,500.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-71011-471010-110000-1007 $650.00 Reclassification
2014105 4-1000-71012-471010-110000-1007 $8,500.00 Reclassification
2014105 4-1000-81021-481010-119998-1008 $52,000.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-81023-481010-119998-1008 $4,160.00 Distribute lapse
2014105 4-1000-99900-499000-999908-9999 -$9,150.00 Reclassification Pool
2014106 3-3142-63142-324000-240203-6599 2,506.00 ISAEP Grant
2014106 4-3142-63142-460410-601300-6530 1,000.00 ISAEP Grant
2014106 4-3142-63142-460410-800100-6530 1,506.00 ISAEP Grant
2014107 3-1591-33000-333000-330001-1005 7,647.00 federal revenue
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 27)
2014107 4-1591-53163-454101-110000-1005 7,103.61 Salaries
2014107 4-1591-53163-454101-210000-1005 543.39 FICA
2014108 3-4100-51000-351000-510100-9999 73,952.00 App fund balance
2014108 4-4100-31040-435600-332100-1003 73,952.00 R&M EQUIP.-BUILDINGS
TOTAL 135,388.00
__________
Item No. 12.4. Resolution to Support Application by Buckingham Branch Railroad Company for
Grant Funds.
The executive summary states that The Buckingham Branch Railroad Company (BBR) has
requested a resolution of support from the Board for the company’s application for grant funds from the
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Rail Preservation Fund. A description of the
projects and improvements to be undertaken with the requested funds is provided in Attachment A. BBR
is not requesting any financial support from the County for this work.
The Buckingham Branch Railroad Company leases approximately 200 miles of track from CSX
between Clifton Forge and Richmond, including the CSX rail line located in Albemarle County. BBR
commenced operation on this line in December 2004. BBR needs to make improvements to this track in
order to reduce future maintenance requirements and to improve the riding quality of the rails/surfacing,
and is pursuing Rail Preservation Funds to help cover the cost of this work. Applicants for Rail
Preservation Funds are required to obtain support from each locality where work will take place. The only
impact to Albemarle County citizens would be the potential for temporary traffic/access interruptions while
rail improvements are made at any at-grade road crossings. Based on a review of the County mapping,
there are approximately twelve (12) state route and ten (10) private road/private drive at-grade crossings
of the Buckingham Branch rails in Albemarle County.
The BBR coordinates with VDOT on any work at state route crossings. County staff will assist
VDOT with issuing news releases to notify citizens of any potential traffic impacts. According to the BBR
project manager, BBR will provide advance notice to the private crossing users and will coordinate its
work so that it does not coincide with the morning and evening commutes. County staff will also work
with BBR to assist with issuing news releases to inform citizens of any potential traffic impacts.
A Resolution of Support is attached (Attachment B) for the Board’s consideration.
There will be no budget impact to the County of Albemarle related to the adoption of the attached
Resolution. BBR will provide all local matching funds for the grant. Neither the Buckingham Branch
Railroad Company nor the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation is expecting financial
assistance from the County for these projects.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of support (Attachment B).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT APPLICATION
BY BUCKINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY
FOR FUNDING FROM RAIL PRESERVATION FUND
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for its projects; and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost
$6,637,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program,
provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth of
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of Albemarle
transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic development of the
area, and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means
of transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle supports the project and the retention of the rail service;
and
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 28)
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for all
allocation and distribution of the funds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does
hereby request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to
the projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
__________
Item No. 12.5. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) – Letter of Support.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the following letter of support for the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act:
“The Honorable Mark R. Warner
475 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Tim Kaine
B40C Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Robert Hurt
1516 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senators Warner and Kaine, and Representative Hurt:
On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and a member of the National
Association of Counties (NACo), we write to ask you to support passage of the bipartisan,
bicameral legislation, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity, H.R. 803 (as amended). This
legislation would reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998.
WIA is long overdue for reauthorization, as it expired in 2003. A strong streamlined
workforce system will increase investments and resources for quality training and help to ensure
that localities and states can continue to meet the needs of j obseekers and employers. The
bipartisan WIOA bill provides the needed framework for a modernized workforce development
system by maintaining the local role in system, which Albemarle County supports, since there
have been attempts to undermine the local role.
The bill also provides added flexibility for local workforce boards by reducing the overall
size and allowing more training funds to be used for incumbent workers. This will help local
boards build and enhance relationships with businesses and help localities meet the training
needs of jobseekers and businesses. The bill would also standardize performance goals for
adults and youth to determine workforce program success, which will simplify the current varied
and complex measures.
In Albemarle County, WIA is making a real difference for both jobseekers and employers.
Per the most recent quarterly report, WIA operations exceeded their performance goals in 10 out
of 12 categories and met the goals for the remaining two metrics. In terms of the number of
people assisted by WIA this reached 9,698 by December of 2013 and the placement rate for the
Adult Worker program was at 83%. WIA employer services in 2013 and 2013 included several
new large-scale enterprises such as HomeGoods, Trader Joe’s, Hyatt Pla ce hotel, Fresh Market,
and Burton’s Grill, as well as existing enterprises such as Lowe’s, CustomInk, Frontline Test
Equipment, NIITEK, LUMI juice, Northrop Grumman, and JC Penny. Without WIA resources,
HomeGoods and Burton’s Grill were at risk of missing their grand opening schedules due to a
lack of appropriate workforce talent.
Albemarle County urges you to support the passage of WIOA by voting yes on H.R. 803
(as amended). WIOA will enhance localities’ ability to address workforce challenges in their
communities and meet the training needs of workers and businesses. We hope that the County of
Albemarle can count on your support of this important legislation.”
_______________
Note: At this time the Board took up Agenda Item No. 15.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: To receive comments on the proposed Secondary Six-
Year Plan for Fiscal Years 2014/15 through 2019/20 in Albemarle County, and on the Secondary System
Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2014/15. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2,
2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the purpose of this public hearing is to
receive input on the proposed Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary Six Year
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 29)
Program (SSYP), FY 15-20 (Attachment A). The SSYP is the funding program for the construction of
secondary road projects based on the County’s Priority List and reflects available State road funding
allocated to the County. The Board held a work session on the SSYP and the County’s Priority List of
Secondary Road Improvements on May 14, 2014 (Attachment A – Executive Summary). Due to limited
available funding for this SSYP, staff recommended and the Board agreed to no changes to the County’s
Priority List for this year (Attachm ent B). It was agreed that a more complete update of the County’s
priority list would be undertaken next year when it is expected the updated Comprehensive Plan and the
MPO’s regional Long Range Transportation Plan will have been adopted.
VDOT staff has provided a draft of the FY 15-20 SSYP (Attachment C) that is based on the
priority list agreed to by the Board at its May 14th work session. Projected funding allocations for this
SSYP were provided to the Board in the May work session’s Executive Summary (Attachment A). Since
then, VDOT has revised these allocations slightly downward, but with no impact on the projects that can
be funded. As indicated last month, all available funding for the FY 15 -20 SSYP will be used to complete
projects previously listed in the FY 14-19 SSYP:
Dry Bridge Road (Rt. 708) bridge replacement (under construction)
Black Cat Road (Rt. 616) bridge replacement
Broomley Road (Rt. 677) bridge replacement
Dick Woods Road (Rt. 637) bridge replacement
Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) bridge replacement over the N. Fork Rivanna River
Pocket Lane (Rt. 703), from Rt. 715 to end state maintenance – paving project (RRR
project)
Midway Road (Rt. 688), from Rt. 824 to Rt. 635 – paving project (RRR project)
Keswick Drive (Rt. 731), from Rt. 744 to Rt. 22 – paving project (RRR project)
Rio Mills Road (Rt. 643), from paved section to US 29 – paving project (non-RRR paving
project)
Doctors Crossing (Rt. 784), from Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 – paving project (RRR project)
The Six Year Secondary Road process establishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of
State/VDOT secondary road construction funds and does not impact County’ funding.
After the public hearing, adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the FY15-20
SSYP and authorize the County Executive to sign the SSYP .
_____
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, addressed the Board and introduced Jamie Glass from
VDOT. Mr. Benish said that the purpose of this meeting was to receive comments on VDOT’s six -year
secondary road program, and for the Board to adopt that plan. Mr. Benish said that they review the plan
annually, beginning with the County’s list for road improvements – a general running list of projects that
the Board of Supervisors prioritizes, and that is used as a guide for the projects that enter into the VDOT
six-year improvement plan for construction funding. He noted that tonight they are acting on the actual
VDOT plan for expenditure of funds for projects. Mr. Benish said that the Board had reviewed the p riority
list at a work session the previous month, and agreed to no major changes to that priority list. He stated
that Board members had made staff aware of a project – Dick Woods Road – that would be removed
from the list, based on public comments.
Mr. Benish said that for the six-year plan requiring action at this meeting, the funding was
somewhat lower than what it was when the plan was reviewed the previous year. He stated that due to
that limited available funding, the Board agreed in the work session to not make any major changes to the
VDOT plan, maintain the existing projects in that list, and focus available funding on the completion of
those projects. He presented a list of the projects that are in the six-year plan, which the Board has as an
attachment, and the first five projects are bridges that almost exclusively use federal bridge funds. Mr.
Benish said that the ones receiving funding in the plan are Pocket Lane, Doctor’s Crossing, Midway
Road, Keswick Road, and Rio Mills Road – and are all paving projects.
Mr. Boyd asked how much funding was available for rural rustic roads, and how many of those
projects could realistically be done. Mr. Benish referred the Board to the funding allocations page, which
represented all six years, and stated that for FY15 there is $184,000 for unpaved roads; the tele-fee funds
are available for any construction project and total $298,000 – allocated to Black Cat Road this year. He
stated that for the first three years of the six-year plan, they have $184,000, $354,000 and just over
$500,000 for unpaved roads. Mr. Benish stated that the funding is fairly limited, but for the projects within
the plan there has been some adjustment to cost estimates so those projects are costing less and are on
a similar schedule to what they were before.
Mr. Boyd asked if Doctor’s Crossing had been updated, because there was some confusion on
that. Mr. Benish said that the cost estimates for Doctor’s Crossing in this plan were $633,000.
Mr. Boyd said that he saw the amount at $933,000. Mr. Benish said that the amount is $633,500
as reflected in Attachment D.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the price of that project has been reduced – and last year’s cost was
$933,000, with this year’s cost being the $633,500.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 30)
Mr. Boyd pointed out that there is only $198,000 available.
Mr. Benish explained that VDOT shows completion of that project in FY16-17, so it is receiving
$40,000 in the upcoming fiscal year, $212,000 in the second year, and $380,000 in the third year to
complete the funding.
Ms. Mallek noted that this assumes that the allocations will come in as projected, because this
year they were supposed to get $500,000 but that got reduced very quickly.
Ms. Dittmar said that it seems that some years they change things up, as Mr. Benish had
mentioned in their work session in speaking about funding levels.
Mr. Benish clarified that last year, the projections assumed that they would get more funding, so
they were able to bring more projects in because of that projection. He said that unless there is a
decision not to do a project, they usually stay on the list, so his comment was to suggest that unless
there’s a decision not to do a project, they will stay on the list. Mr. Benish added that as funds become
available, that frees up money for other projects to be added to the list.
Ms. Mallek said that several years ago, they took all of the small-funded projects and put all of
that to Georgetown Road and Jarman’s Gap so those could get finished, and that is why the smaller
funds are currently empty.
Mr. Boyd said that he thought they could not use the rural rustic road money for standard paving
of secondary roads. Mr. Benish stated that last year the General Assembly set aside funding for roads
restricted based on traffic volume, but this year they did not impose that requirement. He explained that
they had two sources of funding – one of which they did not fund at all, and the other having a restriction
on it that they lifted. He said that these dollar amounts can basically be used on any projects with a traffic
volume of 50 vehicle trips per day or greater.
Mr. Boyd said that Bunker Hill has been on the secondary road list for full paving, and recently
was identified for rural rustic road improvement, and asked if it had b een costed out yet. Mr. Benish said
that VDOT hasn’t updated the cost yet, and in this intervening year staff would take the projects from the
regular road paving list and moving them to rural rustic, with new priorities and updated costs.
Ms. Palmer stated that this is all explained well in the work sessions, but less so in the public
hearings, and asked for clarification of the County’s six-year plan and how projects get to the VDOT six-
year plan. She also asked if Mr. Benish had a slide with the Count y’s six-year plan. Mr. Benish said that
the Board had a copy of it, but it is not in his presentation for the public.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Attachment B is the County’s priority list, and at the work session
staff had indicated that they weren’t proposing any changes – so it was still last year’s list because there
was no reason to update it, but the numbers have changed because of funds available.
Mr. Boyd said that they agreed to not change it going into the public hearing, not to completely
not change it. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that was what was directed.
Ms. Palmer said that she has had questions about rural rustic paving and projects moving up in
the queue. Mr. Benish said that he would review that process, and stated that they are lookin g at the
VDOT six-year secondary road program, and that is the state’s allocation of funds for construction and
improvements of roads in the secondary road system – which are roads numbered 600 or higher. He
said that the amount of funding available through VDOT sources is relatively limited given the number of
improvements in the County, so what they have had for a number of years is a list of possible projects
that have been identified through input from the public, Fire & Rescue, police, the planning de partment,
and VDOT. Mr. Benish said that the County provides a priority for those improvements, but the list has no
funding associated with it, and provides for some organization of priorities for what is important, and as
funding is available through VDOT, that list is used by the staff and the Board of Supervisors to determine
what projects actually get funded next.
Ms. Palmer said that is why projects can stay on the six-year secondary road plan for decades.
Mr. Benish said that the amount of projects on the list far exceeds the average $350,000 per year that the
County has been receiving for the past 10 years.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that at one point the list was easier to knock out because they were getting
about $5 million.
Ms. Mallek said that before the last eight years, it had been about $5 million or more.
Mr. Benish reported that for unpaved roads, the preferred process for paving roads is the rural
rustic program – which paves the existing road without major construction improvements, and is a fairly
cost-effective way to pave. He said that since it does not typically require right of way, the County will
notify residents along the roadway before proceeding with paving of a rural rustic road to ensure there is
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 31)
general agreement in paving the roadway. He said that if there is opposition or concern, staff will bring it
back to the Board and have them determine whether or not to move forward.
Ms. McKeel asked what the timing was for that notification. Mr. Benish said they like to do it in
the year before the project, or the year it is being construction and, for the last project, they ran up on a
schedule and did it right before the project was scheduled for construction. He stated that VDOT can
usually do the project in-house, and that means they can do it much more rapidly, but that can change
based on their work program. Mr. Benish clarified that candidates for rural rustic roads must have a
designation which makes it eligible for that design standard – so it has to be a road that is not intended to
serve future development, such as in a growth area, and it must have some geometric standards which
allow it to be paved in place. He said it is more likely to be funded because of the lower cost, and
because you do not have the impacts of a standard construction project which takes out hedgerows and
changes the character of the road.
Ms. Dittmar asked if staff had evaluated whether the new formulas passed at the state level
would impact local funding. Mr. Benish said staff had not evaluated it yet, but there is another road
paving fund specifically for high-volume roadways of 500 vehicle trips per day or greater, and the only
qualifying road for that was Rio Mills Road.
Mr. Cilimberg said the extent to which VDOT could project their funds in the six-year plan does
reflect the new monies available under the new transportation bill. He stated that , beyond that, Mr.
DeNunzio had thought there might be more money but, as it turns out, revenue has not equaled
projections.
Ms. Mallek said the changes in the gas tax and the replacement with wholesale did not turn out
as expected, in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars and, even though the 17-cent gas tax
disappeared, the price did not go down.
Ms. McKeel stated that Virginia has one of the lowest gas prices in the country, yet no money for
roads and transportation.
Ms. Dittmar said she had attended a meeting in which localities had talked about enacting a
special tax district in situations where residents along a r oad agreed to improvements – and asked if that
had ever been tried in Albemarle.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that Mr. Davis could probably speak best to funding options, and said that
there was an MPO report several years earlier which looked at funding source, such as a service district,
and there are even proffers for community development authorities that could theoretically do that kind of
project, if the CDA was put in place – but that would be more for higher-density residential or commercial
areas.
Mr. Davis said there is enabling authority to define a specific area of the County to provide a
higher level of service by imposing an additional ad-valorem tax on the property values for the people in
that district for a specific purpose, such as road improvements. He stated that they had considered this
several years ago for improvements along the 29 corridor when there was no other funding available for
that, but the Board has never had a public hearing on a specific proposal to bring it forward.
The Chair opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Mr. Ray Hamrick addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Scottsville District and
said he would like to convince the Board to put Route 712 on the six-year plan. He stated that the road
has a maintenance barn at the beginning of the road where it meets Route 20, and the road leads to
Dave Matthew’s house entrance, where the paving ends. He said, for 2.5 miles, the road is gravel and
lime rock, adding that the paving starts and stops along that road. Mr. Hamrick said Rt. 712 leads into
Blenheim Road (795) and, if you continue across, it leads to Jefferson Mills Road, which goes to Route
53. He stated that it is the only crossover for five miles, and he has to go 11 miles out of his way to avoid
the gravel road of 712. Mr. Hamrick said he called the County Engineer to ask for information on the
road, but was told there was no information on it – although he was told that the road was widened 15
years ago so it could be paved. He stated that the road is 20 feet wide, and does not need additional
improvements in order to be paved, and it could serve as a crossover road for people coming from
Fluvanna.
Ms. Mallek said that it was on the list.
Ms. Dittmar said the public hearing provides input so the Board can decide what improvements
would be covered over the six years.
Mr. Hamrick stated that he had attempted to get help from the previous Scottsville Supervisors –
Christopher Dumler and Lindsay Dorrier – with no results.
Ms. Dittmar introduced herself as his Supervisor for the Scottsville District, and asked him to
leave his contact information with Deputy Clerk , Travis Morris.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 32)
Ms. Maxine Holland addressed the Board, stating that she is from the Rivanna District and
thanking Mr. Boyd for his “listening ears, involvement and encouragement.” Ms. Holland said Bunker Hill
Road has deteriorated over the years and needs to be paved and, over the years, taxpayers have had to
endure mud, dust and flooding. She stated that residents feel it is time for the road to be paved, and
thanked the Board in advance for its consideration.
Mr. Andrew King addressed the Board, stating that Bunker Hill is a lovely neighborhood, but its
one downfall is the road because of the flooding, the mud and the ditches – and it is amazing how much
effort VDOT must put in to keep the road maintained even at the lowest level. He said, years ago, that
road was on the rural rustic road list, but then it got turned into a regular paving candidate and the cost
skyrocketed. Mr. King encouraged the Board to move it back to rural rustic status so it could possibly get
done sooner.
Ms. Linda Battle addressed the Board, stating that she has two grandchildren who have to catch
the bus at end of Bunker Hill and, when it rains, there is no road there so they have to stand on a bank
and then jump on the bus because the road is washed out. Ms. Battle said VDOT grades the road and
sprinkles gravel on it but, when it rains, it all washes away. She stated that, when two cars pass, one
must go in a ditch. She emphasized that the road is a safety issue for children and for drivers.
Ms. Diane Townes addressed the Board, stating that she lives on Bunker Hill and indicating that
she has allergy problems due to the dust and mud on that road, and her car brakes also get clogged with
soot. She stated that, although she has lived on the road for 60 years, nothing has changed and
improvements are long overdue.
Mr. Ronald Hahn addressed the Board, stating that he has been coming before them for 20 years
and has lived in his home since 1979. He stated that White Mountain Road (Route 736) has deteriorated,
with the spot paving done actually making it worse. Mr. Hahn said there are four conditions to the road –
a mud hole, a dust bowl, a pot hole, or washboard. He presented a letter from the Rockfish Valley Fire
Department, which was written in 2006 by then Fire Chief Tommy Harvey, expressing concerns about
safety along that road. Mr. Harvey’s letter outlined concerns about the narrowness of the road, stating
that the road is 2.5 miles long with half of it not wide enough for cars to pass safely and that it is
impossible for fire trucks to access people who live off of the road, with the road too narrow to turn
around. He said VDOT could have surface treated the entire road for what they spent on the spot paving
and, in the year 2007 alone – from January to June – they had spent $25,000 just on patching it.
Ms. Mallek said that the road was on the list for regular paving, but perhaps it needed to move up.
Ms. Paula Brown Steedly addressed the Board, stating that she was before them to talk about
Doctor’s Crossing and noting that they moved onto the road in October 1981. She said, at that time, the
road – which had been in existence since 1916-17 was 2.5 miles long and could never meet the setbacks
required. Ms. Steedly said, in 1981, the road had been on the list for improvements for 33 years, and it
was 75 on the list for improvements. She said that in 1986, she started a petition after there was a school
bus accident in front of her home, and in 1989 they paved 4/10 of a mile because of erosion and the
inability for anyone to travel more than a car length without their hand on the horn. In 1992, she said,
they were 65 on the list, with 45 residents, and made it to “school bus safety” for fixing the road. In 1994,
she said, they went back to 75th on the list and 58 people lived on the road – which had a bid of $1.238
million. Ms. Steedly said that in 2004, they were 6th on the list for paving, but were removed from rural
rustic because their bid was so high – even though there were 73 homes generating 360 vehicle trips per
day, fostered because of two subdivisions allowed via exceptions. In 2000, she said, they were 4th on the
regular paving list with 280 trips; and in 2006-07 they went to 14th in the list. She stated that she found
out in 2006, the bid had been computer-generated, and the bridge was at $1.292 million. Ms. Steedly
said that in 2008-09 they went to 3rd on the regular road paving list, and the cost was now up to $1.84
million. In 2012, she said, the count was 130 and the bid had dropped to $933,000 – and David Krim of
VDOT had bid the bridge at under $286,000 – so the math tells you that the bid is statistically wrong. Ms.
Steedly stated that she has letters she obtained through FOIA confirms that the bid they are giving is
much too high.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. Palmer said these are serious problems and the money situation is known, so it may be
helpful for constituents to contact their state representatives as they are the ones appropriating the
money for VDOT.
Mr. Boyd said it concerns him that the roads get juggled around, as is the case with Doctor’s
Crossing and Bunker Hill Road, with roads getting taken off and put back on the lists. He stated that
somehow they must get a handle on this, and the amount of money the County is allocated from the state
is far too low to even complete one of those projects. He stated that there are dangerous situations here
with school buses and no ability for cars to pass each other, and they need to do something about this –
although he did not know what the solution was and had been trying to figure it out for the last 11 years.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 33)
Ms. Mallek said the wide variance in cost estimates is also concerning to her, with roads like
Bluffton going from $140,000 to $550,000 in two years, and then back down again – so it has been a
struggle to get it completed, with the amounts determining which projects get done.
Ms. Dittmar asked Jamie Glass of VDOT to address them.
Mr. Jamie Glass, Assistant Resident Administrator for VDOT’s Culpeper District, addressed the
Board and stated that VDOT is frustrated with the funding situation as well. He said the money is
allocated by formulas, and those seem to change whenever there is a change in staff, so that is what
VDOT must deal with as well. Mr. Glass said he understands the frustration with some of these roads,
and is often surprised that some of these roads are even in the state road system. He explained that they
have been strategizing how to deal with this by using state forces – area maintenance personnel –
instead of hiring contractors, and have actually started three projects in the past year. Mr. Glass noted
that this will help them move some projects forward, and the qualit y is much better. He said they ran out
of maintenance funds this year, so they went ahead and worked on the rural rustic projects with those
teams.
Ms. Mallek said this was a huge step in the right direction, as there was a three-year period in
Richmond which required engineers’ approval for everything – which was more than what was needed for
just small County roads.
Ms. Palmer asked what they could do to find out what the actual cost is now for a road like
Doctor’s Crossing. Mr. Glass said Mr. Banks in the Culpeper District has done an excellent job with
estimating, and hopefully he would stay in that position for a while.
Ms. Mallek stated that it would be very helpful to get updated estimates on these road projects, as
something like a bridge cost can skew the whole thing.
Mr. Boyd said they also need to figure out what to do about Bunker Hill Road, because they lost
their slot when they were taken off the rural rustic road list and put on the regular paving list.
Mr. Glass stated that there used to be a restriction on what state forces could do, as it used to be
$300,000 but it was bumped up to $500,000 with approval from a district administrator. He said that
sometimes could drive a project estimate as well, based on whether they have to use a contractor or not.
Mr. Benish said the estimates in the VDOT plan would be more reliable because they are in the
process of being designed, so they have been updated for this year – and that is why Doctor’s Crossing is
actually lower. He noted that a road that is projected to be constructed over two to three years might
increase based on the economy.
Mr. Boyd said that it is difficult for the Supervisors to have to answer to constituents as to why
their road was bumped off the list, and the misinformation can make that very challenging.
Mr. Benish said that when they come back with the updated list, one of staff’s suggestions is to
not have two lists for unpaved roads. He stated that years ago, the Board wanted to have a distinction
between unpaved and paved projects, so it would be less confu sing to the public to have one list that
everything stayed on – with the Board’s decision being what construction form they wanted and what
funding was available.
Mr. Boyd said that if they concentrated on some of the high safety issue roads, they can p robably
accomplish some of these projects like Doctor’s Crossing. He suggested that they sit down every year
and take the amount of money to be allocated, and clarify all the “nuances” with the different pots of
money because it changes every year.
Ms. Mallek said that the CTB designates a certain amount for dirt roads only, and that changes
everything.
Mr. Sheffield stated that part of that discussion would need to include new roads which residents
want to add to the list, and the Board needs to set a realistic expectation that it may be a long process.
Mr. Boyd said it was an initiative for him to not bump people from the list once they were on there,
and he did not really like moving roads out of sequence – but when they get kicked on and off the list for
rural rustic roads, it changes everything.
Ms. Mallek said Bunker Hill needs to get back on there at the top because it was there before.
Mr. Boyd commented that it is likely not as expensive as Doctor’s Crossing.
Ms. McKeel said that if there were roads that were truly safety issues, it would be nice to identify
those that have critical safety issues – such as school bus problems. She stated that the Board has been
talking recently about meeting with legislators, and they really need to think hard about adding this to their
discussion with local legislators and having some real data to show them. Ms. McKeel said that they
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 34)
really need to rethink that process and how the Board is representing the needs of their constituents with
the lack of funding in many areas, including education and transportation.
Ms. Dittmar said they were at the end of a budget cycle, asked how this would be fit into the
conversation so they do not have to revisit it each year in the same way.
Mr. Foley said that some of the ideas that have been brought up are good ideas, and staff should
talk about them a bit more – and there might be a question about establishing some more definite criteria
about the unpaved roads. He pointed out that the Board did have the opportunity of bringing down more
state money by matching it with revenue sharing, which they could target to the highest safety concern.
Mr. Foley emphasized that they would want to carefully consider the criteria so they did not increase
expectations that they cannot keep up with, but if there are safety issues perhaps they can identify what
kind of list they might target to do something different with. He said that the success they have had with
Georgetown, Meadow Creek and Jarman’s Gap could be repeated with other projects, by prioritizing and
moving funding from small allocations to assign it to larger ones.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were at the end of the process as Ms. Dittmar had said, and whether they
needed to approve it so that it could go to the CTB. Mr. Benish confirmed that was the case, and added
that this year they were basically deciding what to do with the $184,000 – which cannot even do one
project.
Ms. Mallek said that if Bunker Hill is very short and local forces can do it; that may be a project
that is almost there.
Mr. Boyd said that the road was not that short.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this was all part of what staff had anticipated bringing back next year as
part of the overall update, and while it won’t be a lot more money it at least would help get the projects
more in order.
Mr. Boyd said that the point was they do not want to wait until their backs are against the wall and
start the process at the end.
Mr. Foley said that the Board had identified a strategic area of critical infrastructure at their
meeting the previous day, so perhaps they could take an issue like this and put it in there to keep it in the
forefront and figure out how to work through a policy/directional type of thing.
Ms. Palmer said that the challenge they have encountered with some of the roads is that some of
the residents want to pave them and some do not – which is not the case with Bunker Hill or Doctor’s
Crossing. Regarding White Mountain Road, Ms. Palmer said that her predecessor h ad met with the
group that does not want to pave it, and she met with the group that does want to pave it. She noted that
Joel DeNunzio of VDOT has been accused by the people who do not want it paved of paving it 500 feet
at a time, and she said that this is the first time she has heard it is a safety issue and asked staff to clarify
that point.
Ms. Mallek said that the fire trucks are 12 feet wide, which is why it is a safety issue.
Mr. Benish said that most of the roads that are unpaved are not going t o meet VDOT standards
for a secondary road, which is typically a 20-foot wide roadway, because most of these are between 14-
16 feet, sometimes 20 feet, so if the measure of safety is whether it meets the engineering standard for a
safe road, none of these are going to meet safety standards. He said that he did not know the specifics
of White Mountain specifically, but there are various sections with varying degrees of vertical and
horizontal curvature, which is part of the criteria used in prioritizing roads. Mr. Benish emphasized that
the list of County priorities has a first page of projects identified as having “significant deficiencies” on
roads carrying 10-15,000 vehicle trips, whereas rural roads are serving 100-200 trips. He said that they
met recently to discuss Old Lynchburg Road heading down to Walnut Creek, at a project cost of $5
million, and there are 42 projects on the unpaved road list combined – so using a conservative estimate
of about $400,000 to construct those that is $16 million. Mr. Benish stated that there are other priorities
on roads carrying a lot of traffic that also have safety issues, so using revenue-sharing money must be
considered seriously but the plan is to go over the entire list – including bridge projects. He said that
staff’s expectation in coming back was to talk about funding unpaved roads but also other critical projects.
Mr. Boyd said that in the past they had a similar process but they were getting $5 million a year
back then, and what they really need is a plan.
Mr. Foley said that staff would organize that, and perhaps their strategy was to dedicate some
revenue sharing to this – and while it may be limited, it is a better approach than waiting around and not
getting anything done.
Ms. Mallek said that one of the benefits of this discussion is that hopefully they’ll get a better
community understanding about the whole process, and said that people have called her about Dick
Wood Road on both sides of the paving issue. She said that what the County has done in the past is
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 35)
leave gravel roads alone, unless there are safety issues, and more recently have been paving short
sections to save on maintenance dollars. Ms. Mallek stated that they got permission from the legislature
to post gravel roads at 35 mph maximum, which helps with road conditions, and one of the problems with
Dick Woods is that there are large areas that aren’t posted at 35. She said that they need to educate
their drivers to slow down, and that this is part of life in the country so they cannot expect to pave
everything – but they must address safety issues to diminish the threat of loss of life.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was a cap on the revenue-sharing dollars. Mr. Cilimberg said that the
cap was $10 million per year.
Mr. Boyd said that the County was only utilizing about $1 million of that.
Ms. Dittmar asked if counties ever used bond issues to raise the money to do revenue sharing.
Mr. Foley said that they would need to have a list of specific projects.
Mr. Davis stated that he was not aware of anyone doing it for these types of projects, but
Chesterfield and a few other counties put road projects on bond referendums and use money like that to
match highway funding for major projects like parkways. He said that it might be possible to us e that for
smaller projects, but he was not aware of it being done.
Mr. Foley said that staff could explore financing alternatives as what they bring back to the Board.
Ms. Mallek suggested that they dust off the transportation work group report, which s he had
participated in, as they covered all of these different elements and how to fund them. She said that they
were “hounded out of the room” in Richmond when they went to ask for help, so they would need to start
that again.
Ms. McKeel said that they need to think about the big picture when they are working up their
legislative packets.
Mr. Foley said they would talk about that next month, and would add this to the list.
Ms. Dittmar said that there had been a suggestion for this round to have Bunker Hill moved up on
the list.
Mr. Boyd said that he would at least like to get some solid information on cost, and if it came in at
$184,000 or less then he would like to build it next year, but he did not know if it would.
Ms. Mallek said that “miracles do happen,” because Gillum’s Ridge had some funding and they
got it done in a few months before the bridge was closed for the detour.
Mr. Boyd asked for a quick description of where the $184,000 would go. Mr. Benish said that it
was in the spreadsheet, and $146,000 was going toward Pocket Lane, which is a project that had worked
its way up the list; $37,000 was beginning to be allocated to Doctor’s Crossing – with a small bit of money
starting to infuse that project.
Mr. Boyd asked if that had to go into what they approve at this meeting. Mr. Benish said that
what they are essentially doing is agreeing to the table – “Attachment C” – by adopting the resolution.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were to find that Bunker Hill could be done for $146,000 they could swap
that out. Mr. Cilimberg said that it would be changing their priority list and do what they said they did not
want to do – jump projects ahead of one another. Mr. Boyd agreed, but said that Bunker Hill was an
exception because they lost their place when they were taken off the rural rustic road list.
Ms. Mallek said that in the past they had said they were just going down the list – not prioritizing –
except for safety. She said that they just needed to find out the dollar amount.
Mr. Boyd asked if this meant they could not change it if they approved it tonight. Mr. Benish said
that there’s a process to amend the plan mid-year.
Ms. Mallek asked if they could at least put it back on the rural rustic list. Mr. Boyd said that it is
already been put back on the list. Mr. Benish said that it is eligible for that funding even though they have
not re-prioritized it, it would be fairly high on the list because the list has finally gotten reasonably small.
Mr. Foley said that they would need to act on what is before them, but staff could come back with
a plan for how it could be amended.
Mr. Benish stated that he would get with VDOT to obtain a cost estimate as soon as possible, and
have Mr. DeNunzio bring it back to them for that specific project.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they would also need to be informed as to how it affects the projects that
are on the list that would potentially be delayed.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 36)
Mr. Boyd said that they would work on a long-term solution for this, to evaluate the funding they
are getting over the next six years and divvy it up.
Ms. Mallek stated that some of the things on the list that say “public request” have not come
through her as requests, and she would like to know if some of these things have been generated by one
phone call. She said that if people are going to be waiting for years and years, then the County needs to
be more diligent in how the list is kept and made.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that they add that to their discussion of process.
Mr. Benish said that they do some vetting of that, but they could discuss it further as part of the
long-term conversation.
Mr. Cilimberg said that these are public requests over a number of years, and Mr. Benish’s report
each year notes the public request so they can go back and clarify when it was made.
Mr. Boyd then moved to adopt the following Resolution approving the FY15-20 SSYP and to
authorize the County Executive to sign the SSYP. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called,
and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution in full is set out below.)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 33.1-23.4 provides the opportunity for each county to work with the
Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary System Six -Year Construction Program;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has previously agreed to assist in the prepara tion of this Program, in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures, and participated in a
public hearing on the proposed Program (FY 15-20) as well as the 2014 Construction Priority List for
Albemarle County on June 11, 2014, after duly advertised so that all citizens of the County had the
opportunity to participate in said hearing and to make comments and recommendations concerning the
proposed Program and Priority List; and
WHEREAS, Joel Denunzio, the Resident Administrator of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, appeared before the Board and recommended approval of the Secondary System Six -
Year Construction Program (FY15-20) and the 2014 Construction Priority List for the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Secondary System Six Year Construction Program (FY15-20) and the 2014
Construction Priority List, as presented at the June 11, 2014 public hearing, are in the best interest of the
County and of the citizens of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves the Secondary System
Six-Year Construction Program (FY15-20) and the 2014 Construction Priority List as presented at the
June 11, 2014 public hearing, and authorizes the County Executive to sign the Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the clerk of the Board shall forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the District Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 37)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 38)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 39)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 40)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 41)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 42)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 43)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 44)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 45)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 46)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 47)
_______________
Non-Agenda . The Board recessed their meeting from 8:26 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
_______________
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 48)
Agenda Item No. 13. Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital
Projects.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that as presented by staff states that
the County’s Special Revenue and Capital Project Budgets most often affect multiple fiscal years, thus
requiring a re-appropriation of the remaining funds from one fiscal year to the succeeding fiscal year.
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 cumulative total of the FY 15 appropriations included in the comprehensive resolution
itemized below is $36,902,072.63. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one
percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required in order to re-
appropriate unspent and unencumbered Capital Improvement Projects and Special Revenue funds.
The proposed FY 15 Budget Amendment and the comprehensive resolution funds and
appropriates the remaining balance of $36,902,072.63 for encumbered purchase orders and contracts
and the unencumbered special revenue projects and capital projects in a single resolution. The
estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown be low:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Capital Improvements Funds $ 35,860,452.17
Special Revenue Funds $ 1,041,620.46
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 36,902,072.63
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenue $ 1,244,560.61
State Revenue $ 1,772,668.00
Federal Revenue $ 520,062.00
Bond Proceeds $ 3,830,516.61
Other Fund Balances $ 29,534,265.41
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 36,902,072.63
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the $36,902,072.63 Budget Amendment
for FY 15 and adoption of the Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital
Projects Appropriation #2015001 (Attachment A) that appropriates a total of $36,902,072.63 to various
capital improvement projects and special revenue projects that were funded in FY 14 but are on-going in
FY 15.
_____
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that state code requires the County to hold a public hearing before amending its budget if the total
amount of funds appropriated exceeds 1% of the expenditures in the adopted budget. She said that this
is the annual CIP carr y-forward resolution for FY15, and this is their first amendment to that budget
beginning in July. Ms. Allshouse said that as they discussed during the budget work session on the CIP,
and as one of the County’s capital budget policies, they do multi-year capital budgeting – which means
that all unspent and unencumbered appropriations allocated for capital projects in one year are re -
appropriated to the next year for efficiency in continuing those projects. She said that Attachment A is a
resolution to appropriate FY15 funding of the projects, and staff recommends that the Board approve it
after the public hearing. Ms. Allshouse said that the resolution appropriates an estimated maximum
remaining balance of $39.6 million in funding for purchase orders, contracts and unencumbered capital
and special revenue project amounts at the end of FY14 as outlined in the attachment; it authorizes the
County Executive to adjust this amount downward if necessary to accurately reflect the actual amounts as
of June 30, 2014; and it authorizes the County Executive to close out a capital project and transfer any
unencumbered residual funds to the CIP fund balance.
The Chair opened the public hearing. No public comment was offered, and the Chair closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Ms. Palmer moved to approve the $36,902,072.63 Budget Amendment for FY 15 and to adopt
the Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital Projects Appropriation
#2015001 that appropriates a total of $36,902,072.63 to various capital improvement projects and special
revenue projects that were funded in FY 14 but are on-going in FY 15. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 49)
Resolution to Appropriate FY 15 On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital Projects
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015
Appropriation # 2015001
Whereas, purchase orders and contracts encumbered at the end of the fiscal year must be
carried over into the next year for payments; and
Whereas, capital and special revenue projects are not completed within one fiscal year,
necessitating the budgeting and appropriation of the remaining balance of project funds from one fiscal
year to the succeeding fiscal year;
Whereas, the encumbrances are estimated at $13,576,961.74 as of June 30, 2014, and approval
of an estimated remaining balance of $23,325,110.89 for unencumbered capital project balances and
special revenue project balances will give the responsible departments and agencies continuous acce ss
to project funding; and
Whereas, the total amount of estimated encumbrances and unencumbered capital project
balances and special revenue project balances is $36,902,072.63, set forth as follows:
Total School Division Capital Improvement Fund (9000):
School Division Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
Agnor Hurt E S Renovation/Addition $ 99,898.29
School CIP Maintenance 1,314,228.67
Telecommunications Network Upgrade 818,614.69
Total School Division Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 2,232,741.65
School Division Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Loan Proceeds $ 1,625,991.00
Use of Fund Balance 606,750.65
Total School Division Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 2,232,741.65
Total General Government Capital Improvement Fund (9010):
General Government Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
ACE Program $ 751,454.60
County View Project 8,339.12
GIS Project 376,719.36
Ivy Landfill Remediation 820,461.45
Pantops Master Plan 108,731.45
Places 29 Master Plan 1,170,921.12
Records Management 161,308.37
Rivanna Master Plan 50,000.00
Street Lights 35,231.74
ECC Emergency Telephone System 1,343,208.00
ECC Integrated Public Safety Technology Project CAD 150,000.00
Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal 263,909.24
Tax/Rev System Replacement 290,424.35
Apparatus Replacement Program - Deputy Chief Command Vehicle 75,035.16
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS AMBULANCE 142 288,750.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS AMBULANCE 143 288,750.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS COMMAND 131 75,600.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - CARS SQUAD 134 819,000.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - E. RIVANNA ENGINE 21 28,562.20
Apparatus Replacement Program - EARLYSVILLE AMB - MEDIC 4 288,185.17
Apparatus Replacement Program - EAST RIVANNA COMMAND 20 75,600.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - Ivy Ambulance Medic 15 32,416.78
Apparatus Replacement Program - Monticello Ambulance 14,290.91
Apparatus Replacement Program - Monticello Ambulance 112 21,051.41
Apparatus Replacement Program - SCOTTSV-AMB 707 & EQUIP 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - SCOTTSVILLE - AMB 705 26,250.00
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 50)
Apparatus Replacement Program - SCOTTSVILLE-AMB 706 43,420.86
Apparatus Replacement Program - SEMINOLE COMMAND 80 29,848.51
Apparatus Replacement Program - SYSTEM AMBULANCE 11,435.43
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS - AMB 501 288,750.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS AMBULANCE 502 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS AMBULANCE 503 26,250.00
Apparatus Replacement Program - WARS COMMAND 507 45,522.35
Fire Rescue Lifepacks 16,187.04
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers Replacement 3,572.43
County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance 22,105.60
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Program 375,488.69
Keene Landfill 40,000.00
Old Jail Facility Maintenance 21,000.00
Public Works Facility Maintenance-General 451,069.36
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Old Crozet School 73,469.00
Roadway Landscaping 65,413.30
Sheriff's Office Maintenance/Replacement 7,006.50
County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 274,554.59
Microsoft Upgrade 42,018.36
City-County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance 365,108.27
Crozet Library 64,888.95
Crozet Streetscape Phase II 2,145,144.11
Health Department Maintenance/Replacement 46,200.00
Ivy Fire Station 829,255.61
J & DR Court Maintenance/Replacement 28,000.00
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Preston Morris Building 36,720.00
Public Works Facility Maintenance-Wheeler Building 31,750.00
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program (FY14-15 Match) 2,019,439.61
Rio Property-Northside Library & Storage 8,078,595.76
Seminole Trail VFD Renovation/Addition 2,188,174.41
Sidewalk, Avon Street 70,992.22
Sidewalk, Crozet Avenue North 818,889.71
Sidewalk, Fontaine Avenue 87,524.66
Sidewalk, Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive 187,699.24
Sidewalk, Hydraulic & Barracks Rd 780,246.00
Sidewalk, South Pantops Dr/State Farm Blvd 814,998.50
Sunridge Road 6,696.42
Transportation Improvements - Local (Brocks Mill Rd plat) 8,050.16
Cory Farm Greenway Connector 50,000.00
Greenway Program 27,211.11
Parks Maintenance 283,771.26
Preddy Creek Park Phase II 86,250.00
YMCA Recreation Facility Contribution 2,030,000.00
Police Technology Upgrade 489,174.27
Voting Machine Replacements 301,258.18
Total General Government Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $31,329,850.90
General Government Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Other Transfers) $ 1,942,324.21
Revenue from Other Local Sources 556,760.00
Revenue from the Commonwealth 1,772,668.00
Revenue from the Federal Government 520,062.00
Bond Proceeds 1,516,725.00
Use of Fund Balance 25,021,311.69
Total General Government Capital Improvement Fund Sources $31,329,850.90
Total Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund (9010):
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 51)
Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
Regional Firearms Training Center $ 1,375,601.22
Total Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 1,375,601.22
Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Revenue from Other Local Sources $ 687,800.61
Bond Proceeds $ 687,800.61
Total Regional Firearms Training Center Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 1,375,601.22
Total Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund (9100):
Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations
Stormwater Management Program $ 28,252.86
Stormwater TMDL Study 214,300.00
Church Road Basin 342,149.40
Stormwater Multi-facility Maintenance 291,418.71
WAHS Stormwater Improvement 46,137.43
Total Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 922,258.40
Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Use of Fund Balance $ 922,258.40
Total Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 922,258.40
Special Revenue Fund Appropriations
UVA Research Park (Fund 8525) $ 117.72
Hollymead Area C Proffer (Fund 8527) 62,264.79
Hollymead Area D Proffer (Fund 8528) 31,146.37
Avon Park Proffer (Fund 8534) 64,596.33
Wickham Pond Proffer (Fund 8540) 104,303.05
Westhall 1.2 Proffer (Fund 8542) 23,925.91
Westhall 1.1 Proffer (Fund 8541) 53,728.70
Liberty Hall Proffer (Fund 8544) 22,530.49
Hollymead Town Center A1 Proffer (Fund 8545) 31,056.42
North Pointe Proffer (Fund 8538) 8,451.43
Stonefield Proffer (Fund 8547) 1,170,700.00
MJH @ Peter Jefferson Place Proffer (8529) 369,503.00
Total Special Revenue Capital Improvement Fund Appropriations $ 1,942,324.21
Special Revenue Capital Improvement Fund Sources
Use of Fund Balance $ 1,942,324.21
Total Special Revenue Capital Improvement Fund Sources $ 1,942,324.21
Total Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund (9011):
Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Appropriations
Belvedere Bond Default Project $ 1,041,620.46
Total Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Appropriation $ 1,041,620.46
Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Sources
Belvedere Bond Default Project $ 1,041,620.46
Total Belvedere Bond Default Project Fund Sources $ 1,041,620.46
Whereas, approval of an estimated remaining balance amount at the beginning of the fiscal year
facilitates the payment of outstanding bills and ensures continuity of ongoing projects; and
Whereas, a properly advertised public hearing was held on June 4, 2014 on the proposed
amendment to the FY 15 budget and all interested citizens were heard;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 52)
1. Does hereby budget and appropriate the remaining balance of $36,902,072.63 for
encumbered purchase orders and contracts and the unencumbered capital and special
revenue project balances of June 30, 2014, as set forth above;
2. Does hereby authorize the County Executive to adjust this amount downward, if
necessary, to accurately reflect the actual encumbered amounts and actual
unencumbered capital and special revenue project amounts at the end of FY 14; and
3. Does hereby authorize the County Executive to close out a Capital project and transfer
any unencumbered residual funds to the Capital Improvement Fund fund balance.
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and fourteen.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: SP-2014-00004. Bojangles
Restaurant @ Pantops - Drive-Thru. Rivanna Magisterial District. Tax Map/Parcel 07800-00-
00-073A2. 2005 Abbey Road, on the south side of Route 250 in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping
Center. Request for a special use permit to establish a drive-thru window associated with a fast
food restaurant on .75 acres under Section (s) 22.2.2 (10) Commercial, 23.2.2 (5) Commercial
Office, and 24.2.2(12) Highway Commercial, Permitted Uses, by Special Use Permit of Zoning
Ordinance. PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial which allows large-scale
commercial uses and residential by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre . Entrance
Corridor. Comp Plan Designation: Urban Mixed Use – retail, commercial services, office, and a
mix of residential types (6.01 – 34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 3, Pantops. The executive
summary as presented by staff states that the County’s FY 15 Operating and Capital Budgets
were adopted by the Board on May 7, 2014, together totaling $351,989,970. T he attached Annual
Resolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2015 provides the authority
from the Board to spend those funds, effective July 1, 2014
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on May 6, 2014, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing for the Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops –Drive-Thru Window special
use permit request (ZMA201400004). The Commission, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the
special use permit with the conditions recommended by staff.
Two revisions have been completed to the plans since the Planning Commission public
hearing, as recommended by staff.
1) On the original cover sheet, the applicant requested a parking waiver for one parking
space. Staff determined that enough parking was provided and a parking waiver
request was not needed since the applicant is providing 2 additional parking spaces
than the number of parking required. The cover sheet is now revised to show this
clarification in the parking analysis.
2) On the original plan Sheet 4 of 4, has been revised to eliminate the arrows and
reference to one way in the middle of the two way travel isle.
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 201400004/Bojangles Restaurant @ Pantops–
Drive-Thru Window with the following conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans
prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover sheet) and 4 of
4 (Conceptual site layout), dated February 18, 2014, revised 4/14/14 (hereafter “Layout
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the specified plans, development and use shall re flect the following
major elements as shown on the plans:
– Building location, orientation and mass
– Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
– Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise conflict with the elements listed
above, may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices including
but not limited to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the
drive-thru lanes, subject to county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe
travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by
the Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before June 11, 2016 or the permit shall expire and be of
no effect.
5. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250 shall be a
two-way travelway for the entire portion of the property.
_____
Ms. Claudette Grant, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that the Bojangles property
was located at 2005 Abbey Road on the south side of Route 250 in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center.
She said that the aerial picture as presented shows the existing conditions, and stated that there are
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 53)
three pad sites on the portion of the property; Applebee’s is located on the west; First Citizens Bank is
located to the east; the undeveloped subject site is located in the middle. Ms. Grant stated that the
property is zoned Planned Development-Mixed Commercial, and the Pantops Master Plan designates the
property as urban mixed-use. She presented a slide showing the location of the site in a larger context.
Ms. Grant reported that the applicant is requesting a special use permit to establish a drive-
through window associated with a fast food Bojangles restaurant, and presented a concept layout plan.
As described in the executive summary, she said, two revisions recommend ed by staff have been made
since the Planning Commission public hearing. She said that a note on the cover sheet is revised
regarding a parking waiver that is not needed, and the plan is revised to eliminate direction arrows with a
note referencing a one-way travel aisle. Ms. Grant stated that staff sees the following factors as
favorable: the ARB staff has completed a preliminary review of this proposal and had no objections to the
proposed drive-through use, and there is no conflict anticipated between vehicles stacked in the drive-
through lanes and vehicles in the parking lot or offsite traffic. She stated that staff finds no factors
unfavorable, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 6 regarding the proposal and
recommended approval with conditions as recommended by staff. Ms. Grant said that staff recommends
approval with five conditions as presented.
Mr. Boyd said that in the bottom of the letter from the Planning Commission, there are four
different options provided to the applicant, and he wondered if that was something new staff was
including. Mr. Cilimberg stated that after the Planning Commission meeting, staff was providing to the
applicant additional direction as to how they can proceed at their choice, to make sure that the project
does not drift away. He said that staff has been using it for a while, but the Board may not have gotten
the full copy of the action letter, which is an attachment that goes with every letter.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Justin Shimp addressed the Board, stating that this has been a very smooth process without
a lot of complexity, and he did not have a lot to add but offered to answer questions.
There being no further public hearing, the Chair closed the public hearing and the m atter was
placed before the Board.
Mr. Davis clarified that the motion for approval is to approve the special permit as recommended
by the staff subject to the five conditions outlined before the Board.
Mr. Boyd then moved to approve SP-2014-0004 with the five conditions outlined in the executive
summary. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the following revised plans prepared by
Shimp Engineering, P.C. Sheet(s) 1 of 4 (cover sheet) and 4 of 4 (Conceptual site layout), dated
February 18, 2014, revised 05-14-2014 (hereafter “Layout Plan”), as determined by the Director
of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the specified plans,
development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the plans:
– Building location, orientation and mass
– Relationship of drive-thru lanes to the building and the parking lot
– Location and general character of landscaping
Minor modifications to the plan that do not otherwise
conflict with the elements listed above, may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices including but not
limited to signage and pavement markings at the entrance and exit points of the drive-thru lanes,
subject to county engineer approval to ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the
Architectural Review Board.
4. The use shall commence on or before June 11, 2016 or the permit shall expire and be of no
effect.
5. The northern most travelway located on the property parallel to U.S. Route 250 shall be a two-
way travelway for the entire portion of the property.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Appeal of ARB Decision: ARB-2014-024. New Hope Church.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that an overlay district is a zoning district
in which the requirements of the overlay district must be complied with, as well as the requirements of the
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 54)
underlying “base” zoning district; thus, one district overlays another. The entrance corridor overlay district
(ECOD) is one of seven County overlay districts. County Code § 18 -30.6.1 provides that the ECOD is
intended to implement the comprehensive plan’s goal to preserve the County’s scenic resources because
those resources are essential to the County’s character, economic vitality and quality of life. An objective
of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the County’s roadways by using design guidelines.
New construction and site improvements (new development) within the ECOD are reviewed by
the County’s architectural review board (ARB) to ensure that they are consistent with the design
guidelines promulgated by the ARB and ratified by the Board of Supervisors. The sole issue before the
ARB in its review is whether the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines (County
Code § 18-30.6.7(g)). The ARB’s decision that new development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines is called a “certificate of appropriateness.” The ARB’s decision may be appealed to the Board
of Supervisors. On an appeal to the Board, the issue is the same as it was before the ARB – whether the
new development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The Board may affirm, reverse, or
modify in whole or in part, the decision of the ARB (County Code § 18-30.6.8(c)). In considering an
appeal, the Board is directed to “give due consideration to the recommendations of the [ARB] together
with any other information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal” (County Code § 18 -
30.6.8(c)).
On April 7, 2014, the ARB issued a certificate of appropriateness, with conditions, for site
improvements related to the final site plan for New Hope Church (Church) by a vote of 4-0, with one
member abstaining (See Attachments E (action letter) and F (minutes)). Because only a small portion of
the Church site is within the ECOD (See Attachment J), the certificate of appropriateness pertains only to
proposed landscaping around the base of the Church’s entrance drive at its intersection with Dickerson
Lane, and along a portion of the entrance drive itself (the Church’s entrance). The only applicable design
guidelines are Design Guidelines 7, 8 and 33 (See Attachment D, pages 3 and 4). Charles M. Boldt, an
adjacent landowner, appealed the ARB’s decision (See Attachment A).
The appellant identified seven grounds for appeal. However, the legal scope of review for a
certificate of appropriateness is limited to the specific issue of whether the site improvements are
consistent with the applicable design guidelines. The scope of review is further limited in this case
because only a small portion of the Church site – the portion where the Church entrance is located – is
within the ECOD.
The three design guidelines applicable to this appeal are set forth in Attachment D. They pertain
to the proposed landscaping of the Church’s entrance. Staff analyzed (Attachment D, pages 3 and 5) and
the ARB approved the certificate of appropriateness on April 7, 2014, based on staff’s recommendations,
with conditions (Attachment E).
The following table summarizes Guidelines 7, 8 and 33, the staff analysis of the application under
the Guidelines and approved by the ARB, and staff’s response to the appellant’s challenge to the ARB
decision. Staff’s in-depth response to the appellant’s challenges are on page 4 of Attachment G.
The other grounds raised by the appellant are beyond the scope of ARB review and this appeal.
Nonetheless, staff has responded to all of the grounds raised by the appellant in Attachment G.
No changes to the Community Development Department’s appropriated budget are anticipated as
a result of this appeal.
Staff recommends that the Board affirm the ARB’s decision.
_____
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 55)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, stating that he
would introduce the item and then turn it over to Margaret Maliszewski, who has been the lead on the
project for the ARB. Mr. Graham clarified that what is being appealed here is not the final site plan, it is
the ARB’s certificate of appropriateness. He said that the final site plan is an administrative matter, which
is under review, and once the ARB issue is resolved staff can bring neighbors in and sit down with their
Supervisor, Ms. Mallek, and review what is been done with the final site plan as well as answering any of
the other questions they might have.
Ms. Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, stated that this is an appeal of an ARB decision that
was made on April 7, 2014, for approval with conditions of the final site plan for the New Hope Church –
located at the intersection of Dickerson Road and Dickerson Lane – with the parcel located approximately
350 feet west of the Route 29 Entrance Corridor. For parcels that are not adjacent to the EC street, she
said, only the portion of the parcel that falls within 500 feet of the EC street is included within the EC
district. She said that only a small portion of the church site is located within the EC overlay, so the
ARB’s review and approval of the proposal pertain only to that small portion of the site, and she
presented an image showing the location of the portion in question. Ms. Maliszewski stated that the
primary feature proposed in that area is the lower end of the entrance drive, and development within the
Entrance Corridors is reviewed according to EC design guidelines, and the ARB determines whether the
proposed development is consistent with those guidelines. In this proposal, she stated, because there
are limited features that fall within the overlay district, there are limited guidelines that apply – numbers 7,
8 and 33. Ms. Maliszewski said that the letter of appeal by the adjacent landowner listed seven issues as
grounds for appeal, but only the three guidelines listed here applied in this particular case. S he said that
those three guidelines pertain to landscaping, and in its initial review of the plan in March of 2013, the
ARB indicated that a mix of trees would be required along the entrance drive to achieve a natural
appearance and to compensate for lost wooded area.
Ms. Maliszewski said that the revised design presented in the final site plan on April 7 shows a
mix of trees and shrubs along the entrance drive, and that mix exceeds the guideline minimums for
quantity and spacing, provides for a more natural appearance than the standard street tree requirement
would provide, and is expected to mitigate the engineered appearance of the slope along the drive. For
those reasons, and given the 350-foot distance from the Entrance Corridor, the relatively narrow width of
the open view to the site from the EC, and the typical mode for travel along the portion of this corridor,
staff recommended approval of the proposal with the two minor conditions. She stated that after
reviewing the application on April 7, the ARB agreed with staff’s recommendation and approved the
proposal with conditions. Ms. Maliszewski said that staff’s recommendation to the Board today is to affirm
the ARB’s April 7 decision.
Ms. Dittmar said that this is her first consideration of an appeal from the ARB, and asked Mr.
Davis for some guidance.
Mr. Davis explained that what is before the Board is simply to look at the decision from the ARB
as to whether the certificate of appropriateness was properly issued – so they step into the ARB’s position
and can affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the ARB. Mr. Davis emphasized that
this is the only matter before them, and this application pertains only to the portion of the site that is within
the Entrance Corridor – within 500 feet of Route 29, with the primary feature being the entrance way. He
said that the Board has to apply the ARB guidelines, so their determination is whether or not the
guidelines have been properly interpreted and applied by the ARB. In reviewing that decision, he said,
they must give due consideration to the ARB’s findings, and in this matter there is an approval by the
ARB of this application as well as a staff recommendation regarding the application of those guidelines to
a particular site plan. He stated that this is not a time to review the special use permit process, the site
review plan process, or the critical slopes process – and the sole issue before them is to determine
whether the Entrance Corridor guidelines have been properly approved. Mr. Davis said that their action
would be to either approve or deny the certificate of appropriateness based on their findings as to
whether the ARB has appropriately applied those guidelines.
Ms. Maliszewski said that #7 talks about promoting visual order within the Entrance Corridor and
helping to integrate buildings into the existing environment; but in this case, the building was not in the EC
overlay district, so that guideline did not really apply. She said that #8 talks about promoting continuity in
the corridor – obtained by planting different types of plant materials that share similar characteristics. She
said that such common elements allow for flexibility in the design of structures, and the continuity along
the corridor would apply – with landscape features helping to harmonize the appearance of development
as seen from the street on which the corridor is centered. Ms. Maliszewski stated that #33, landscaping
along interior roads, stipulates that large trees should be planted parall el to all interior roads – at least
2½” caliper, 40 feet on center, which would be the standard guideline to be applied to something like the
entrance drive. She noted that in this case, the applicant exceeded those minimum standards.
Ms. Mallek said that regarding the continuity in the view from the roadway, there is a very narrow
curved entrance with no open view to the church building or the top of the hill – and it was all masked by
the trees from the side. She stated that she was very surprised when she visited the site to see how it
had been cut back so widely, and asked how much reliance someone is allowed to have over property
they do not own – because all of the trees on the north and south entrance are owned by someone else.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 56)
Ms. Maliszewski said that if the view has been opened up to the building on the parcel, the
building is beyond the Entrance Corridor so the ARB cannot address it; in a case where there is a parcel
between a subject parcel and an Entrance Corridor and has either trees or othe r development on it
already, that is taken into consideration as determining what the view is. She stated that they might
consider that all the trees on the adjacent parcel to Route 29 would be removed and the view would be
more open, but they would have to consider that a building might be built here that would again block the
view.
Mr. Graham said that it is important to remember the landscaping standards, as they are intended
to provide a quality of development – and the intent is not to screen from the Entrance Corridor, it is to
assure that it is of a quality of appearance that matches the expectation from the guidelines.
Ms. Mallek said that was an important element in the SP discussion, but she did not write it into
the conditions because that was a given from the applicant when the project was offered.
Ms. Maliszewski said that it is not an ARB issue because the building is outside of the EC district.
Mr. Davis said that the issue that Ms. Mallek is raising is an issue as to whether the site plan was
in general accord with the special use permit, and that issue is not before the Board tonight – that issue
has been decided.
Mr. Graham said that the Zoning Administrator has already made the determination that the site
plan is in general accord with the plan that was approved with the SP.
Mr. Chuck Boldt addressed the Board, stating that it has been described as a zoning matter, but
when he appealed the decision he went to the BZA and the County Attorney said he had no standing
because it was not a zoning issue. Mr. Boldt said that he is an aggrieved party, and has been told “this is
the next round.” He stated that his home and properties are directly adjacent to the proposed New Hope
Church, and he is appealing the ARB’s issuance of a CO related to the final site plan submitted for the
church. Mr. Boldt said that the basis of his appeal is that several issues exist that have been overlooked
by the County, which must be addressed before the ARB can intelligently approve a CO, and before the
final site plan can be acted on. He stated that under the County code, you’re entitled to review any
information deemed necessary for a proper review, and asked the Board to look at the project as a whole
and not ignore its history. Mr. Boldt encouraged them to utilize all of the information at their disposal and
not allow issues on the project to remain unresolved or unchecked before proceeding further. He said
that is request to the Board is for them to reverse the ARB decision, or stay or defer the decision to allow
time for them to meet with him and other aggrieved parties – and to review additional matters that have
come up since then, before the final determinations are made. Mr. Boldt said that the acting chairman of
the ARB instructed members to “put a bag on your head and vote for this,” which was disrespectful of the
neighbors’ legitimate concerns and how people should be treated in the process.
He stated that the minutes of the May 8, 2013 Board meeting document the basis for approval for
the initial CO, and they provide specific direction to staff on how to proceed, what should be presented to
the ARB when this matter came up for review again, what kind of landscape plan they would expect to
see, and that the approval of critical slope disturbances was still an unresolved issue. Mr. Boldt said that
those directives were ignored, and the plan submitted to ARB on April 7 was not the plan approved last
year, nor was it amended as requested or required. He stated that in its presentation to the ARB, s taff did
not review what was different from the Board approval, so the ARB assumed that what they were looking
at was what they had seen before. When this was pointed out in the public comments after staff’s
presentation that the plan was different, staff was unable to respond with documentation, and the
discussion became muddled. He stated that despite staff’s contention that the site is only visible for the
70 feet from Dickerson, that assertion ignores that over 1,000 feet of the site is visible to bot h lanes of 29
if the trees are removed. Mr. Boldt said that there are a long series of items in the minutes that describe
what should be done – the most significant being a comment made by the church that they would plant
“whatever level and style of trees that is acceptable to the neighbors and the ARB staff,” but the
neighbors have been excluded from this process. He stated that he wished the Board would revisit this
matter in a manner in which something acceptable to all and followed the process would result.
Mr. Ed Blackwell addressed the Board, stating that he was the civil engineer for the project and
had done the site plan; he introduced Joan Albiston as the landscape architect for the project. Mr.
Blackwell said that the limit of this appeal is t he Entrance Corridor, but the church is open to add
screening or additional trees – including trees that may have been cut up on the site that should not have
been – and they were willing to plant those back in as the landscape architects recommend.
Ms. Joan Albiston addressed the Board, stating that she did the planting plan for the entrance,
and has been working on the project for about a year but came in after the initial site review. Ms. Alb iston
presented a close-up image of the entrance, which she had color-coded as native, evergreen, and
woodland to remain. She said that addressing the concerns #7, the building is not within the environment
but she tried to integrate the entrance into the Route 29 corridor; she said that she created a landscape of
trees, shrubs, sub-shrubs, grasses and perennials that are mostly native and could be expected to
reasonably occur following the site disturbance. She said that the massing of the plants was done to
create a visually balanced and organized landscape, so she used natives in masses to do that. Ms.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 57)
Albiston said that continuity per #8 was achieved by selecting plants that share similar characteristics,
and she used criteria such as deer resistance, stability, and the ability to stabilize the slope. Regarding
#33, she said that they planted large trees parallel to all interior roads – and she did it in an informal
matter because the entrance is in a rural community. She stated that the plantings are balanced, and are
about 40 feet on center.
Ms. Mallek asked if the yellow in her plan was intended to be trees that remain. Ms. Albiston said
that it was intended to be trees to remain.
Ms. Mallek said that in looking at the picture the trees are all gone, and asked how they would
deal with addressing that – because the intention was to leave the trees there as screening. Ms.
Albeston said that her understanding from the owner is that he is willing to do that, and she did not do the
grading plan nor did she oversee the grading that was done.
Ms. Mallek said that she was just trying to see what could be done going forward, and when the
SP was granted the understanding was that the church would be in its secluded spot – as all of the other
churches are in that neighborhood. She stated that Ms. Albiston has made the driveway look beautiful,
but there has been so much removed between the church and the trees.
Mr. Blackwell explained that the original woods were mature, tall, slender trees, and when they
removed the trees in the plan, the remaining trees are very thin so it looks thinner than what they were
thinking it would – and the pastor is open to putting more trees in to add to the screening.
Ms. Mallek stated that it is important that they comply with what was given during the special use
permit process, and what was presented at the public hearing.
Mr. Blackwell said that some of the trees are in there, but they are thin so the visual just blows
right through it. He added that they would add more in the final site plan process.
Ms. Dittmar asked where Mr. Boldt’s concerns along with the willingness of the church to plant
trees fit into this process.
Mr. Davis said that the Board has the authority to place conditions on the certificate of
appropriateness they approve, provided that they are related to the EC design guidelines, as the
jurisdiction of the ARB. He said that if their finding is that additional landscaping is necessary for
replacement of trees because it is necessary to comply with the guidelines, they could place a condition
that would require that. Mr. Davis said that Ms. Maliszewski might be able to speak to whether that was
considered by the ARB as appropriate for their consideration.
Mr. Mike Henderson, the Church Pastor, addressed the Board and said that the church does not
want the building to be visible either, and stated that he would also like to see more tree infill in the open
area.
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Maliszewski to comment on whether the ARB considered asking for more
vegetation or landscaping. Ms. Maliszewski stated that it was not made clear to the ARB that all of the
tree area is gone.
Ms. Mallek said that they did not have the landscaping plan available until a month after the
meeting.
Ms. Maliszewski said that the initial review happened in March 2013, and at the April 7 meeting
they had the landscape plan as showed on the screen.
Mr. Davis noted that the ARB had placed two conditions on the certificate of appropriateness, as
reflected in their action letter, but if the Board finds that additional conditions are necessary for it to meet
the design guidelines, they can add an additional condition. He said that if the desire is for there to be
additional landscaping, the Board would probably want to defer a decision and let them submit a revised
landscape plan that would be reviewed by Ms. Maliszewski, and then have a recommendation for
approval with revised landscape being a condition of the certificate of appropriateness.
Ms. Palmer said that sounds very reasonable to her.
Ms. Mallek stated that it would be the entire landscape plan, and she did not want to segregate it.
Mr. Davis said it would be the landscape plan which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Entrance
Corridor, which would be the part of the plan that is within 500 feet of Route 29.
Ms. Maliszewski stated that there would be a single landscape plan, but the portion subject to
ARB review remains the same as it was.
Ms. Mallek asked if the entirety of it was still in process.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 58)
Mr. Graham said it was being considered as part of the final site plan, and the church has
indicated a willingness for that part of the property also to have additional landscaping above and beyond
what is required.
Ms. Mallek said she was told personally by them that it would be done, but it did not appear on
the plan.
Mr. Graham said it is important to note that the County cannot require additional landscaping
above and beyond the minimum requirement, and this is something the applicant has volunteered to do
and has indicated a willingness to work with everyone to provide that.
Ms. Dittmar asked who had to agree with the deferral.
Mr. Davis explained that it is within the Board’s discretion, and the length of the deferral would be
contingent on how long it would take for the applicant to submit a revised plan, and for staff to review it.
Ms. Dittmar asked how much time was reasonable. Mr. Blackwell said they would like to get
moving as quickly as possible, and it is been a two-year process for the church so they would like to start
on their building, but would be happy to provide a revised landscaping plan. He stated that he would like
for the Board to approve this with conditions if possible, instead of coming back in two months.
Ms. Palmer said that she would rather see it deferred because she wants to make sure the
planting takes place at a reasonable time.
Mr. Graham stated that to meet a July meeting review date, they would need to shortcut some of
the executive summary process and treat this application outside of the norm.
Mr. Blackwell said that the July 9 date would work for them, because it would be tough to do it in
three weeks, given the need for comments.
Mr. Boyd asked if they had a right to put this condition on, since they exceeded minimum
requirements. Mr. Graham said that it is not something the County can require them to do, but in the
Entrance Corridor it can be included as a condition of the certificate of appropriateness.
Mr. Davis stated that for the area within 500 feet of Route 29, the Board steps into the shoes of
the ARB and determines how much landscaping and what type is necessary to meet the design
standards – so their finding would need to be that this is necessary for the certificate of appropriateness.
Mr. Foley said this is separate from the site plan process.
Mr. Boyd said that he did not feel comfortable putting himself in the shoes of the ARB if they have
already ruled on it.
Ms. Dittmar stated that this is an appeal and it is their role to consider it, so the question is
whether to act on the appeal tonight or defer it.
Mr. Davis said that the church is asking that they approve it with the condition requiring a new
landscaping plan, or the Board could defer it and have that landscaping plan before them as they make
their decision, or decide it tonight with what the ARB had approved.
Ms. Maliszewski said that if the area shown on the plan is heavily wooded, and the ARB knew it
was gone, they would want to see this character of landscaping continued up to where the rest of the
wooded area remains – so it is OK for the Board to make a different decision than the ARB did. She said
that if the character of landscaping shown was continued up to the wooded area, the Board could
approve it and have staff approve it because they see the character that is there.
Ms. Albiston asked if the ARB requirements were being extended beyond the 500 feet. Ms.
Maliszewski pointed out the area in which trees had been removed and said that would need to be
defined on a plan and filled in.
Mr. Davis reiterated that beyond that 500-foot line, there is no legal authority for the County to
require additional landscaping beyond what is required in the site plan ordinance – and staff has already
reviewed that and found that the existing site plan already meets that minimum requirement.
Mr. Graham noted that they had not yet completed review of the landscape plan.
Mr. Davis said that staff would review the landscape plan to ensure that it meets minimum
requirements, and if the church wants to submit a plan that exceeds minimum requirements, they can do
so – and would be required to plant that amount of landscaping unless they came in for a site plan
amendment.
Ms. Dittmar stated that it sounds as if they would be willing to work with this.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 59)
Ms. Mallek said that the deferral is important so they can see the revised plan because there
have been so many different plans.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board defer the item to July 9, and then staff would bring back a
plan along with a condition to make the plan a requirement of the certificate of appropriateness. He
emphasized that this is a tight turnaround time.
Ms. Mallek said that if they have not had time to review it, or the plan still needs work, the item
must move to August.
Mr. Davis said that they could always defer it again at their July 9 Board meeting if necessary,
and the consensus seems to be that direction to staff is to review a new submittal from the church, so the
motion would be to defer the item to July 9 to provide time for staff to review a resubmittal of a landscape
plan for a portion of the site that is within the Entrance Corridor.
Ms. Mallek moved to defer the Board’s consideration of ARB-2014-0024 until July 9 to provide
time for staff to review a resubmittal of a landscape plan for a portion of the site that is within the Entrance
Corridor. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Business Assistance Program During Road Construction.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) is developing a strategy to implement reasonable, cost -effective solutions to
address the congestion in the Route 29 corridor in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville region.
Improvements to relieve congestion in that area have been considered for many years. Most recently, in
February the Federal Highway Administration expressed concerns about the construction of the Route 29
Western Bypass. Given those concerns, VDOT is identifying reasonable alternatives to ensure the
continued efficient movement of people and goods and the viability of this vital transportation corridor.
An advisory panel representing communities along the Route 29 Corridor was created to assist in
the development of alternatives to improve mobility in the Albemarle County/Charlottesville region.
Former VDOT Commissioner Philip Shucet, who headed the panel, presented a solutions package at the
Advisory Panel’s May 8 meeting. The Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization must approve the plan before the work can begin. The MPO approved the
recommendation on May 28, 2014. The CTB will consider the recommendation on June 18 th. The
recommended solutions package includes the following specific projects as well as non-project-specific
recommendations including a continuing consideration of transit options in the Route 29 corridor and the
resale of the right-of-way purchased for the Route 29 western bypass:
Best Buy Ramp Project (Route 29 and US 250 Interchange)
Hillsdale Drive Extended Project (extended to Holiday Drive)
Route 29 Widening Project (extended to Polo Grounds Road)
Adaptive Signal Time Improvements in the Route 29 Corridor)
Berkmar Drive Extended
Route 29/Rio Road Grade Separated Interchange
Route 29/Hydraulic Road grade separated Interchange (Preliminary Engineering Study
only)
Additional Train AMTRAK Regional Service (Fund 25% Additional Trainset)
Implementation of these strategies will involve disruption to businesses during construction.
County staff desires to work proactively with VDOT and the business community to minimize negative
impacts as much as possible and to develop positive solutions for maintaining successful operations
during any Route 29 improvements.
In considering potential options available to support businesses during Route 29 improvements,
staff researched various communities in Virginia and across the country to see what types of assistance
programs were used in similar circumstances. These programs range from large-scale financial aid
packages to assist businesses with ongoing operational expenses to smaller -scale grant programs
focused on promotional and marketing support. It is important to note that in all cases programs were
tailored specifically to meet the needs of the impacted community and the individual businesses involved ,
and that all programs had established criteria to determine eligibility. All programs focused on the reality
that road/transportation construction can be hard on businesses in the short term and that the ultimate
outcomes are good for businesses and communities. Staff believes that the following types of strategies
should be further explored to develop a comprehensive business assistance program for consideration by
the Board.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 60)
State and local partners, including VDOT, the Chamber of Commerce and the North 29 Business
Council, should be engaged in the creation of a final program. Potential funding from VDOT for the
following should also be explored.
Before and during construction:
Strong communications/outreach program to keep businesses and customers informed
before and during construction, including information on how to plan ahead and prepare
as much as possible (i.e., publications like “Road Construction Survival Guide” by the
City of Madison or “How to Thrive During Road Construction” by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Attachments A & B)).
Business assistance grant program for promotional support focused specifically on
marketing, advertising, outreach, signage, and other support strategies. This would need
to be coordinated with the Albemarle County Economic Development Authority (EDA) as
the appropriate entity to administer grants.
Business counseling/technical assistance offered before and during construction to
prepare for and respond to challenges as they occur – making resource expertise easily
available to businesses.
During construction:
Ensure a business-oriented approach to construction – coordinate schedule, pace and
order of construction to minimize impact; focus on maintaining access; visible signage;
impact mitigation; etc.
Aggressive “real time” communications effort that provides regular construction updates
including “look aheads” and on-site opportunities for drop in visitors to get project
information.
Support a “buy local” effort – identify impacted businesses in the County to channel work
to during construction (i.e., sign makers, restaurants, and coffee shops) to support those
businesses.
Other possibilities to explore:
Rewards programs in the form of discounts (funding source to be determined) that
incentivize customers to patronize affected businesses during construction.
Development of apps/social media strategies that keep motorists instantly aware of
changing conditions in construction zones.
Next Steps
Close coordination with VDOT and the business community is necessary to develop a business
assistance program that will provide meaningful support during any upcoming construction. As a first
step, staff would move quickly to arrange a conversation with VDOT officials and business community
representatives to establish goals and general agreement about how such a program would be developed
and implemented, with an emphasis on ongoing communication and dialogue beginning at the earliest
stage of the project.
Staff will determine the budget impact of the program once it is finalized and ready for the
Board’s consideration.
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) provide feedback regarding the potential business
assistance strategies outlined above; and 2) direct staff to begin engaging with appropriate VDOT officials
and the business community upon approval by the CTB regarding the development of a final program to
be brought back to the Board for its consideration.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin addressed the Board, stating that she would present strategies for business
assistance during road construction. Ms. Catlin said that the Route 29 Solutions Package is now under
consideration by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and a number of the projects that are part of
the package would involve disruption to businesses during construction She stated that it is the Board’s
desire to work proactively with VDOT, stakeholders, the business community and the public at large to
minimize negative impacts as much as possible and to develop some positive solutions for maintaining
successful business operations during construction.
Ms. Catlin said that staff is seeking the Board’s feedback on their suggestions, and said that they
have done a fair amount of research as to what other communities are doing both in Virginia and
nationally. She stated that they pulled together a range of possibilities, and in each case they researched
the approaches were tailored to the individual community so there’s not a “one size fits all” way of doing
this. Ms. Catlin said that there has been no sugar-coating of the facts that construction impacts business
and this is a tough thing for them to go through, but the focus should remain on the longer-term gains
realized for the whole community. She stated that since this executive summary was put together, VDOT
shared information regarding communication plans used for various types of projects across the state,
and there will also be assistance from Chip Boyles at TJPDC as well as ideas from the Free Enterprise
Forum.
Ms. Catlin said that in every case, there was strong communications and outreach program in
every case, which seems to be foundational to any successful program; other ideas include a business
assistance grant program for promotional support that would focus on marketing, outreach, signage,
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 61)
advertising and other support strategies; business counseling and technical assistance offered before and
during construction – and in the planning phase, a lot of emphasis was put on ensuring a business-
oriented approach to construction, which had to do with how the schedules coordinated, how it is paced,
and how the order of the construction unfolds – with important elements being maintaining access, visible
signage, impact to mitigation, and an aggressive, real-time communication program that provides look -
aheads, regular construction updates, onsite opportunities for people to drop in, etc. Ms. Catlin said that
the tactics used during the downtown m all re-bricking project and the Crozet streetscape could also be
considered. She stated that some communities support a “buy local” effort, and look at what parts of the
construction projects could be funneled into the businesses being impacted. She stat ed that some
businesses looked into rewards programs for people that patronize businesses during construction; use
of social media and apps for how to get around during construction.
Ms. Catlin said that staff’s recommendation for a first step would be coordination with VDOT, with
the business community, with representatives from the affected area, and from the Chamber of
Commerce and North 29 Business Council to encourage candid conversations about the issues. She
stated that staff is looking to get feedback from the Board as to the ideas presented and reflected in the
executive summary, as well as to encourage ideas from them that staff has not uncovered. Ms. Catlin
said that staff also hopes to get direction from the Board as to beginning engagement with appropriate
parties pending the outcome of action that the CTB is expected to take on June 18.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would like the initiative to be expanded to homeowners associations
also, as there are several neighborhoods that would be impacted, especially in his district.
Ms. McKeel agreed that there would be interested parties outside of businesses, such as the
library, which is more of a stakeholder.
Ms. Catlin said that “stakeholder” is a much better word than “business” in this si tuation.
Ms. Mallek said that there are other interests that are not bricks and mortar parties, such as
commuters, that should also be engaged – so groups such as Places 29 should be involved. She stated
that the Rio area should be addressed quadrant by quadrant, because they all have different needs
requiring different solutions. She suggested starting with conversations that include smaller groups of
people so they do not feel steamrolled.
Ms. McKeel said that people have said that the downtown mall re-bricking had very good
communication, and businesses felt like they were “in the know” on what was happening, so locally that
was a good model as to how to work with groups at a different level.
Ms. Dittmar said that she was not comfortable with the term “stakeholders” for this because
commuters are a different group than the neighborhoods, and they are all vastly different from the
businesses impacted. She stated that they may need to bifurcate their focus so they did not create a
large entity that did not really please anyone. Ms. Dittmar said that she hoped they would take a very
proactive role that required convening VDOT and starting a dialogue that allows commuters and
businesses to be on equal footing with them. She stated that the business assi stance program is also a
communication program, and wondered if the EDA could be tapped to listen to the panel and
communicating with VDOT on a part-time basis – so there’s one person who serves as a liaison in the
process. Ms. Dittmar said that it was very important to get business input early on, so they are being
listened to and not just handed something they do not need or want.
Ms. Mallek said that when the airport runway extension project happened, the airport hired an
onsite engineer to be there during the entire VDOT construction project of moving Dickerson Road, so it
is important that they layer on the supervision – as there would be a lot of moving parts. She stated that
VDOT has said they would lay it out completely from start to finish.
Ms. Catlin agreed that there needed to be a strong communications program and a strong
businesses assistance program, and while they will overlap they will not be the same thing. She also
agreed with the importance of having the businesses involved from the s tart, as they needed to provide
their concerns and issues and solutions would be.
Ms. Mallek said that they would have different concerns, and that is why it would be better to
have smaller groups.
Mr. Sheffield asked if they would be talking soon about forming this group. Ms. Catlin said that
staff’s thought was rather than forming a group right off the bat, they have some conversations and get
some consensus about how to move forward, with businesses and homeowners in a parallel path. She
stated that they would also involve resources from VDOT, TJPDC, etc., and have the conversations that
would allow staff to bring back a better shaped plan for their consideration.
Mr. Sheffield said that he did not want to wait too long after the CTB meeting the following week
to get this rolling.
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 62)
Ms. Mallek said that by August, they should have some information that is real and valid, and
hopefully by then will have had a hundred people who have participated in some discussion. She said
that if they rush this, it would create great resentment among people who feel left out, and if they start
slowly and get it in the news people will come forward and want to be involved.
Ms. Catlin said that staff may come up with a “pre-plan plan” that establishes who to talk to, how
to talk to them, etc.
Ms. Palmer said, at some point soon, she would like to see how other utilities would be involved,
to ensure that they would not have projects that are ongoing or on the way, as well as other development
projects – to get an idea of what might be going on at the same time.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that they have a conversation about this again on July 2 after the CTB
meets.
Ms. Mallek said that hopefully they will have comments back from other people too.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Board should start taking comments and suggestions now.
Board members felt that they should.
Mr. Foley said that staff would summarize this conversatio n and bring it back to the Board with
what they have already provided.
Ms. Mallek asked who was on WINA’s next show.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that whoever is on air next make a point of getting the word out.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley said Senator Tim Kaine would be present at their meeting in Room 241 on June 16,
and he would be in attendance from 11:00 to 11:45 a.m., and confirmed that all Board members except
Ms. Palmer would be present. He clarified that the issues of concern to the Board include the
transportation bill reauthorization, the Workforce Investment Act, and the BRAC Commission and
potential base closures.
Ms. Dittmar said that the volunteer/career firefighter issue might be something to ask him.
Ms. Foley said, in the past, Supervisors have taken an issue and spoken about it, so staff would
provide background prior to the meeting.
Mr. Foley also reported that they would hold their joint meeting with the City on July 1 from 12:00
noon to 4:00 p.m., to be facilitated by Russ Linden. He stated that he and City Manager, Maurice Jones,
established the purpose of the meeting as building relationships and identifying a shared agenda for the
future, and some of the general topics identified include: courts project, solid waste,
transportation/transit, affordable housing, economic development, CATEC, public safety opportunities,
and Rivanna River opportunities. Mr. Foley said that they would start off by talking about existing
partnerships between the County and the City, as they are unique in the state in terms of the amount of
collaboration they have.
_______________
June 11, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 63)
Agenda Item. No. 20. Adjourn to June 16, 2014, 11:00 a.m., Closed Meeting, Room 241.
At 10:08 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved to adjourn the Board meeting to June 16, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.
in Room 241. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 11/12/2014
Initials: EWJ