2014-04-02April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 2,
2014, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
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 9:00 a.m., by the Chair Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Palmer announced that Club Yancey would be holding a golf tournament on April 7 at the
Spring Creek Golf Club in Gordonsville and is hoping for great attendance at this event.
_____
Ms. Mallek announced that the awarding of the Monticello Cup for wine growing would be done at
the Jefferson Theater on April 10 from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. She said Secretary of Agriculture, Todd
Haymore, would be in attendance.
Ms. Mallek also reported that Blue Ridge PACE is now open and is an all-inclusive program of
care for the elderly, including a day center for frail and elderly to attend, with medical services and other
services provided.
Ms. Mallek stated that many Albemarle County schools have participated in a grant program with
the Piedmont Master Gardeners to develop schoolyard gardens with the goal of looking at horticulture as
well as food-growing. She said the master gardeners have provided grants totaling over $4,700 this year
to county schools.
Beginning April 5, Ms. Mallek said there would be live fire training at the training pad on the
northwest corner of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Ms. Mallek stated that “DMV to Go,” which is a mobile Department of Motor Vehicles service unit,
would be at the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company on May 1, August 5, and November 24. She said the
van is handicap-accessible and offers transactions including driver’s license renewals, ID cards, etc.
_____
Ms. Dittmar reported that she had completed her three town hall meetings and felt they went very
well, stating that there were representatives from the fire department, police department, School Board
and County planning staff in attendance. She recognized Lee Catlin and Information Technology
Department for their assistance during these meetings.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions.
Item No. 6a. Elaine Echols as Fellow in the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP).
Mr. Sheffield announced that County Planner, Elaine Echols, has been accepted into the College
of Fellows for the American Institute of Certified Planners, which is a higher level of being a certified
planner which comes with certain distinctions and accomplishments. He said to be inducted as a fellow,
one must have demonstrated certain characteristics as a planner such as exceptional and sustained
leadership in the community, innovation and excellence in creating consensus and support for planning
efforts, innovation and excellence and legacy of profession in the com munity and society as a whole,
exceptional accomplishments over an extended period of time, and active volunteerism in the community.
Mr. Sheffield said Ms. Echols has helped develop the County’s Neighborhood Model and has
been a key player in the Count y’s planning academy, has been a part of master planning processes
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
throughout the entire County, and has developed rural area consensus building as well as volunteering in
the community. He stated that, prior to working for Albemarle County, Ms. Echols worked in Southwest
Virginia on comprehensive planning and ordinances; she has also administered housing rehabilitation
programs in Texas; she has overseen bike and walkway plans in Blacksburg; and volunteers in music
and Boy Scout activities in her home community. Mr. Sheffield said Ms. Echols would be inducted into
the College of Fellows on April 27 at the American Planning Association’s national conference in Atlanta.
__________
Item No. 6b. Proclamation recognizing April 2014 Fair Housing Month. Marguerite David, Fair
Housing Program Manager, Piedmont Housing Alliance.
Ms. Palmer read and presented the following proclamation in recognition of April 2014 as Fair
Housing Month:
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April is Fair Housing Month, and marks the forty-sixth anniversary of the passage of
the Federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988); and
WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination
because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status in the rental, sale,
financing or advertising of housing (and the Virginia Fair Housing Law also prohibits hous ing
discrimination based on elderliness); and
WHEREAS, the Fair Housing Act supports equal housing opportunity throughout the United
States; and
WHEREAS, fair housing creates healthy communities, and housing discrimination harms us all;
and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County supports equal housing opportunity and seeks to affirmatively
further fair housing not only during Fair Housing Month in April, but throughout the year
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility
of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2014 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide
by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Ms. Palmer moved to approve the resolution as presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Marguerite David of the Piedmont Housing Alliance addressed the Board, and presented a
public service announcement done in collaboration with NBC Channel 29 on the fair housing law and
housing discrimination.
__________
Item No. 6c. Innovative Leaders Institute.
Mr. Foley addressed the Board, stating that Albemarle County has adopted an organizational
vision of “one organization committed to excellence,” and one of the most important tenants is that there
must be leadership at all levels of the organization, not just from department heads and Leadership
Council – but at all levels. Mr. Foley said it is easy to talk about a vision and an organizational approach,
but, if one does not do anything about it, then it does not have much meaning. He stated that one of the
things that the County has done to try to promote leadership at all levels and a commitment to excellence
is the Innovative Leaders Institute (ILI). Mr. Foley said the first ILI was held in 2011 and the program
received overwhelming positive feedback from participants and managers and was repeated again in
2012, and now in 2014. He stated that approximately 50 employees have gone through the program,
with about 17 participating each year. He said, because of their commitment to the “one organization”
and cross-departmental action, the learning is so im portant to the program’s design each year that the
people involved are from across the organization with representatives from each department.
Mr. Foley said participants are nominated by their department heads and are high-performing
employees with a track record of embracing innovation, as well as demonstrating leadership potential.
He stated that there are ongoing alumni events which continue to engage past participants and those
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
events have included a joint meeting with the County’s senior Leadership Council, a joint meeting with
participants of similar leadership programs for City employees and features a discussion of CitySpace led
by the County Executive and City Manager. He said all ILI participants graduate and the organization
offers them opportunities to participate in selected projects such as annual budget initiative review teams,
and to work with the County’s performance management site. He said the program has sparked an
engaged staff, and he recognized them for taking the initiative to participate in ILI and be a part of moving
excellence forward in the County. Mr. Foley recognized Louise Wyatt and Lee Catlin, who have spent
significant time working with participants, and said staff is trying to move to the next level with these
efforts. Mr. Foley then presented a short video on the ILI Program for the Board.
Ms. Dittmar recognized the ILI participants and commented that this effort would allow the County
to provide an even higher level of public service to citizens.
__________
Agenda Item No. 7. Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. David Wayland addressed the Board, stating that he is a former member of the Crozet
Community Advisory Council and past president of the Crozet Community Association. Mr. Wayland said
he was before the Board as a representative of the Crozet Western Albemarle Library fundraising
committee, and reported that the Library had over 63,000 visitors since it opened, with an 80% increase
in circulation over what they had in the old library. He stated that the Library has issued new library
cards to over 1,300 people, which is almost double what they had at the old library. Mr. Wayland
reported that use of computers and internet is up 104%, and all of the meeting rooms are in constant use.
He emphasized that they need more library staff, and asked for additional County support at $34,000 to
serve the increased number of patrons. Mr. Wayland said the people of Crozet have raised over
$700,000 to furnish the building, but now they need staff to operate it and asked the Board to consider
funding $34,000 for additional personnel.
__________
Ms. Sarasa Subramony addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of Rosslyn Ridge.
She said the first house in her neighborhood was acquired by VDOT for the Western Bypass right of way,
and it has remained unoccupied for several years and is rapidly deteriorating and becoming an eyesore.
Ms. Subramony stated that maintenance of the property has been poor, and the yard is overgrown,
attracting animal pests. She said the property has also been a magnet for squatters, and posted signs
and a chain across the driveway give it an abandoned look. She stated that, as the first house seen
when entering the neighborhood, it creates a poor impression and impacts the value of other properties
there. She said since the Western Bypass is no longer considered a viable option to the County’s traffic
issues, it seems that VDOT no longer needs the right of way. Ms. Subamony asked the Board to begin
the process of returning the properties to their original use and state, so the continued deterioration does
not affect the economic and natural environment around them.
__________
Mr. Doug Arrington addressed the Board, asking the Board to break out Section 8.1 and deal with
it separately from the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. He said his major concern is transportation. He
said he has problems with the way the plan has been delivered to the public, and cannot make heads or
tails out of the maps that have been presented. Mr. Arrington stated that there are still references to the
Southern Parkway, and Sunset/Fontaine is still listed as a developer -funded project. He said, at the 5th
Street interchange, the Avon shopping center is going in and the I-64 intersection there is already a level
of service “F” during rush hour, with the queues overloading at different times of the day. He reiterated
that Section 8.1 should be considered on its own merits, in the same way that master plans for Crozet
and Pantops were addressed.
__________
Ms. Ellie Tucker addressed the Board, thanking Lee Catlin for her work with the Places 29
Advisory Council, and thanking the Board and Ms. Dittmar for supporting the Philip Shucet Advisory
Committee. Ms. Tucker said her husband, Bill Tucker, is a real estate attorney who has been practicing
in the area for over 40 years and had prepared a statement for this meeting. She read from the
statement, which said “the threat of the previously looming bypass has decreased property values and
affected home sales in the seven neighborhoods, which were threatened physically and economically by
that destructive road.” Reading from the statement, Ms. Tucker said “now that the bypass has been
effectively terminated, it is time to correct the negative impact on the proper ty values in Albemarle County
and that would ideally start with the Board of Supervisors enacting a resolution to request that VDOT
begin the process of liquidating the properties they acquired for the bypass right of way as soon as
possible. The effect of such an action, she said, would be two-fold: first and foremost, the Board would
be sending a clear message to the state that, when the bypass is finally ruled dead, the negative effect on
property values is no longer relevant; in other words, houses and neighborhoods in its path would
immediately increase to their pre-bypass values and relieve homeowners who have been unable to sell
their homes for years.” Ms. Tucker further stated that the second benefit of liquidation of right of way
properties by VDOT is beneficial to the whole County, as tax revenues for Albemarle can increase by
$1.5 million annually with these properties going back on the tax rolls, and adjacent properties regaining
lost value.
__________
Mr. Kirk Bowers addressed the Board, and expressed his gratitude to the Board for its great work.
He said, 30 years ago, Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem.” Mr. Bowers said we the
people are the government, therefore, we are the problem at least some of us are. He stated that there
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
has been a movement to reduce taxes, with a mantra that taxes are bad, but there has been a noticeable
decline in culture and society since this movement began. Mr. Bowers said people cannot continue to
espouse this philosophy, as it has hurt their ability to educate kids, provide basic services, and combat
environmental challenges. He stated that the military budget in 2001 was $270 billion and, by 2008, it
was $760 billion but there were no tax increases to pay for military spending increases. Mr. Bowers said
he supports any attempts by the Board to increase taxes although he is on a fixed income, and his
calculations show it would cost him about $10 more per month.
__________
Ms. Martha Wilhelm addressed the Board, stating that she lives on a piece of property adjacent to
the proposed now-defunct bypass and requesting that the Commonwealth finish the job and take the
bypass out of the six-year plan and sell back the rights of way as soon as possible. Ms. Wilhelm said she
and her husband have their property on the market and believe the road should not be built but, from the
standpoint of being able to sell the property, having the road built would have been a better outcome than
being left in limbo since it is the unknown which is the real deal-breaker. She said they have received
significant feedback that potential buyers like their property, but the uncertainty ab out the road
construction and its ultimate effect on the property was too much of a risk to take when making such an
important purchase decision. Ms. Wilhelm stated that to continue to leave the project in the six -year plan
and to retain the rights of way for no apparent reason is clearly an unfair burden on residents who have
lived under the shadow of the bypass for more than 20 years now. She said not thoroughly completing
the task is poor governing and, as long as the loop is not closed on the bypass, affected homeowners
continue to experience significant negative impacts. Ms. Wilhelm urged the Board to advocate for
citizens at the state level in order to tie up the loose ends for them on the project.
__________
Ms. Laney Kaminer addressed the Board, stating that she is president of the Montvue
Homeowners Association and thank ed Supervisors for the hard work and wisdom in defeating the
Western Bypass. Ms. Kaminer said her neighborhood would like the Board to support and encourage the
sell-back of right of way properties to reinstate property values to the owners and neighbors of these
properties. She said they have lived under the looming specter of this road for 30 years, and the
neighborhood has suffered tremendous loss in home values because the homes have been rented and
not well-maintained. Ms. Kaminer said there are three vacant VDOT houses in their small neighborhood,
which are virtually uninhabitable due to mold, vermin, and garbage left by the last tenants and drugs have
been sold out of two of them. She urged the Board to ask the state to sell the VDOT homes as soon as
possible so they can restore property values and the County can get needed tax revenue for the future.
__________
Mr. Charles Battig addressed the Board, stating that the United Nations 1992 “Agenda 21
Sustainability Development Program” is the basis for the Comp Plan locally and nationwide. He said the
basis for this is the assumption that people are not good stewards of their land and that the government
will do a better job if they are controlled, and individual rights acquiesce to the needs of communities as
determined by the governing body and environmental activists. Mr. Battig stated that in some of the work
by the chief Nature Conservancy scientist, Peter Carriba, he gave a history of the Sierra Club and said
John Muir decided that the occupants of Yosemite “had to go” and supported the expulsion of Native
Americans from what became the parkland. He said the latest United Nations report condemns biofuels,
stating that “they do more harm than good” and the IPC admits that there has been “no evidence showing
that climate change has led to the extinction of a single species.”
__________
Mr. Milton Moore addressed the Board, stating that he had moved to Colthurst Subdivision 26
years earlier and was “held hostage” for 15 years. He said, when the funds are recovered and devoted to
better projects, he will be completely free and able to sell his house.
__________
Ms. Jane Porter Fogleman addressed the Board, stating that she is an Albemarle native and has
been a real estate broker in the community for 37 years. She thanked the Board for its work on the
bypass in making it a dead issue, but it still holds people hostage as many of the homes are derelict and
also because the possibility still exists that the road could come back based on people’s perception of the
late-night vote. Ms. Fogleman urged the Board to encourage VDOT to begin the sale of the right of way
homes and land back to the original owners or to other people. She encouraged the Board to visit the
neighborhood to survey the condition of the homes.
__________
Ms. Tammie Moses addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of Rosslyn Heights and
requested that the Board make a resolution to the sta te to ask VDOT to sell back the rights of way
purchased in connection with the Western Bypass. Ms. Moses said the bypass has held Albemarle
County and its residents hostage long enough, and asked the Board to let them move forward to an era
where neighbors can be proud of their neighborhoods, homeowners can sell their homes, and properties
that have not been adequately maintained by the state can be sold back to residents of the County. She
stated that each day a derelict property remains vacant is one mo re day of potential liability or harm to
neighbors and to the County as a whole. Ms. Moses stated that the vacant lot next to her home is owned
by VDOT and caught fire several years ago because VDOT let a highly flammable weed grow without
properly mowing and spraying the field, as the prior owner had done. She said, fortunately, the County
fire department was able to put out the fire without any damage to surrounding homes, but damage was
done to the stream and wooded areas on her property. Ms. Moses stated that this will get worse if the
rights of way continue to be in the state’s care. She said they are at a point where each impacted home
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
or landowner has seen decreased values because of the bypass and the County has seen decreased tax
revenues on privately owned properties adjacent to or near the bypass, with no tax revenues collected on
properties owned by the state for over 20 years. She asked the Board to support a resolution to return
the land back into the tax base and into the hands of the citizens, who care about the County and will
adequately maintain the properties.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that the
Sammons Cemetery in the proposed bypass path is only part of the African-American heritage in that
area, as VDOT found another set of graves last fall off of Lambs Road which may belong to the family of
emancipated slaves that first purchased that land. He said, if that property is returned, the community
needs to become stewards of those sites, that story and that narrative. Mr. Werner said no one is
speaking for those sites, and it is important that the story is not lost when the properties are transferred.
__________
Ms. Nancy Flynn addressed the Board regarding the mining overlay district in the Comp Plan and
asked Supervisors to take into consideration the citizens and residents with regard to “the corporate
giants that want to run us down.”
__________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. McKeel, seconded by Ms.
Mallek to approve Items 8.1 through 8.7 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as
information (Note: Discussion on individual items are included with that agenda item). Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: Approval of Minutes: October 2, 2013 and January 30, 2014.
Ms. Mallek had not read the minutes of October 2, 2013, and asked that those be carried
forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer had read the minutes of January 30, 2014, and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes of January 30, 2014, as
read, and carried forward the minutes of October 2, 2013.
__________
Item No. 8.2. ZMA-2013-00014. North Pointe Neighborhood Investments (Sign #115) (deferred
from March 12, 2012).
The executive summary states that on March 12, 2014, the Board of Supervisors held a public
hearing for the North Pointe Neighborhood Investments rezoning request (ZMA201300014). Action on
this rezoning amendment was deferred to the Board of Supervisors ’ Consent Agenda on April 2, 2014
in order for technical changes to be made to the proffers. No substantive changes were made to the
proffers.
The proffers have been technically revised, reviewed and found to be acceptable by the
County Attorney.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to approve ZMA
2013-00014, North Pointe Neighborhood Investments, with revised proffers dated March 25, 2014
(Attachment B).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve ZMA
2013-00014, North Pointe Neighborhood Investments, with revised proffers dated March 25, 2014.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ZMA 2013-00014
NORTH POINTE NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENTS - NP, LLC
WHEREAS, the application of Neighborhood Investments - NP, LLC, to amend the zoning map
for Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-022K0 (the “Property”) is identified as ZMA 2013-00014,
North Pointe Neighborhood Investments (hereinafter, “ZMA 2013-00014”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Neighborhood Model District, subject to the “North Pointe
Community” application plan, last revised June 13, 2006, and the proffers accepted in conjunction with
ZMA 2000-00009; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00014 proposed to amend the proffers applicable to the Property to
change the timing and the obligation of the Property to construct Northwest Passage as provided in
Proffer 5.3.1(c) and to make other changes to the proffers previously accepted by the Board of
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Supervisors in conjunction with its approval of ZMA 2013-00007, which pertained to other parts of the
lands subject to the North Pointe Community application plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing for ZMA 2013-00014 on March 12, 2014 after notice
was provided as required by Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2204 and 15.2-2285, and Albemarle County Code §
18-33; and
WHEREAS, the Board deferred acting on ZMA 2013-00014 in order to allow an amended proffer
statement to be submitted that made only changes in form to the statement; and
WHEREAS, an amended proffer statement has been submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that upon consideration of the material and relevant
factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284 and for the purposes of public necessity, convenience, general
welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby amends the
zoning map and approves ZMA 2013-00014 with proffers dated March 25, 2014 submitted by
Neighborhood Investments - NP, LLC in conjunction therewith; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Property also shall continue to be subject to the North
Pointe Community application plan.
*****
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
__________
Item No. 8.3. 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 $569,964.18. 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 eight (8) appropriations as follows:
One appropriation (#2014083) totaling $99,670.00 for various capital projects. This
appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
One appropriation (#2014084) totaling $397,207.00 to appropriate funding related to
state revenue from the Abbott Labs asset forfeiture funds for the Police Department’s
training program;
One appropriation (#2014086) to appropriate $28,991.00 from the Training Pool to
various departments for training and professional development. This appropriation will not
increase the total County budget;
One appropriation (#2014087) totaling $119,320.01 for various school division grants and
programs;
One appropriation (#2014088) totaling $6,998.67 for donations to various general
government programs;
One appropriation (#2014090) totaling $10,898.00 for the grant funding related to a
Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant from the U.S. Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
through Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU);
One appropriation (#2014091) totaling $10,000.00 for transitioning the County’s
warehouse facility; and
One appropriation (#2014093) totaling $25,540.50 for various Emergency
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Communication Center (ECC) projects approved by the Emergency Communication
Center Management Board.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2014083, #2014084 #2014086, #2014087,
#2014088, #2014090, #2014091 and #2014093 for general government programs as described in
Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2014083 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Funds from Existing Capital Projects
This appropriation request is to appropriate $10,700.00 from the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) Dam Break Study project to the CIP Stormwater Management Program. The
Dam Break Study is complete and will not be using the remaining balance. The
Stormwater Management Program supports anticipated projects related to Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) mandates.
This appropriation request is to appropriate $75,600.00 that had been previously
appropriated to purchase a Brush Truck 64 for the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company
(SPVFC) to support the purchase of Command vehicle 20 for the East Rivanna Vo lunteer
Fire Company (ERVFC).
This funding was originally allocated to the ERVFC to replace its Command vehicle 20,
but the funding was amended on August 7, 2013 in appropriation 2014-018 in order for
the SPVFC to purchase Brush Truck 64, which exceeded its gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) and was determined to no longer be safe for operation on the road. Since the
approval of appropriation 2014-018, the SPVFC has determined that this amount of
funding would not be sufficient to purchase a replacement and that Brush Truck 64 can
be safely operated in the short-term by reducing its weight by limiting the amount of water
and equipment it carries.
Upon the Board’s approval of this appropriation, the ERVFC Command Vehicle 20 will be
replaced in FY14 as initially planned and the SPVFC’s Brush Truck 64 will be replaced in
FY17.
This appropriation request is to re-appropriate $13,370.00 in funding that had previously
been appropriated to the Crozet Library to the Crozet Streetscape Phase II Project. The
Crozet Library is complete and will not be using the remaining balance. The budget for
the Crozet Streetscape Phase II Project requires additional funding to cover the cost of a
retaining wall at the edge of the Crozet Library property. This was originally included in
the Crozet Library project scope but got shifted to the Crozet Streetscape Phase II project
scope due to the timing of the installation of a segment of storm sewer. After the approval
of this request, the Streetscape project will include the retaining wall cost, and the close -
out of remaining library project funds will be completed. The Streetscape project is
scheduled to be completed November 2014.
Appropriation #2014084 $397,207.00
Source: State Revenue $397,207.00
This request is to appropriate $397,207.00 in state revenue from the Abbott Labs asset forfeiture
funds for the enhancement of the Police Department’s Crisis Intervention Team through “Train the
Trainer” training, crisis negotiations training, travel for training, tasers, Crisis Intervention and Crisis
Negotiations Teams’ cell phone consoles and a crisis negotiations response vehicle. This supports the
Police Department’s ability to obtain training for the County’s officer’s in Crisis Intervention, provide tasers
for officer’s that do not currently have one in the field, and provide enhanced capabilities of the Crisis
Interventions and Negotiations Teams through cell phone consoles and a Team response vehicle. The
Office of the Attorney General announced the award of these funds on December 18, 2013. The award
stipulates that all funds be expended within 24 months from receipt of transfer, which was December 18,
2013.
Appropriation #2014086 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Training Pool $28,991.00
This request is to appropriate $28,991.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for
approved training opportunities and professional development. The Board approved a Training Pool of
$50,000.00 in the FY 14 budget to support the County’s strategic objective to expand opportunities for
training and professional development. After this appropriation, $22,560.00 will remain available in the
Training Pool.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Appropriation #2014087 $119,320.01
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $43,645.01
State Revenue $75,675.00
This request is to appropriate the following School Division requests approved by the School
Board on January 9, 2014 and February 13, 2014:
The appropriation of $1,131.45 that was received by the Albemarle Resource Center
(ARC) from IBBS of Virginia DBA K-12 Textbook Solutions. These funds were issued to
the ARC for the sale of old textbooks.
The appropriation of $33,128.31 in reimbursement from the school division’s insur ance
company, Virginia Association of Counties Group Self Insurance Risk Pool (VaCORP).
These funds are to reimburse the school division for expenses to repair damage to
Broadus Wood Elementary School building that occurred on December 5, 2013.
The appropriation of $10,060.25 in miscellaneous grants and donations, including
$675.00 in State Revenues, received by Albemarle County Public Schools. These funds
will be used for a variety of programs in the School Division.
The appropriation of $75,000.00 in National Board Incentive Bonus Payment awards from
the Department of Education. The National Board Certification is an extensive year-long
assessment of actual teaching practice based upon high and rigorous standards
established by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).
Through this process, teachers document their subject matter knowledge; provide
evidence that they know how to teach their subjects to students most effectively; and
demonstrate their ability to manage and measure student learning. The School Division
has 15 teachers that meet these standards. In recognition of this achievement, the
Department of Education issues the National Board Incentive Bonus Payments to these
teachers. An initial award is set at $5,000 (pre-tax) with a subsequent annual award of
$2,500 (pre-tax) for the life of the certificate (10 years). This appropriation totals
$75,000.00 in awards.
Appropriation #2014088 $6,998.67
Source: General Fund Fund Balance $ (159.00)
Special Revenue Fund Balance $7,157.67
This request is to appropriate donations received in previous fiscal years for the following ge neral
government departments and programs:
$6,440.00 to the Department of Fire Rescue. Donations to this department support
various efforts including the car safety seat program, public education, smoke detectors,
and one-time equipment or station furnishing purchases;
$303.33 for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program;
$255.34 for the Bright Stars program; and
$159.00 for undesignated general government operations.
Appropriation #2014090 $10,898.00
Source: Federal Revenue $10,898.00
This request is to re-appropriate $10,898.00 in funding associated with a Strategic Prevention
Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) from FY 13 to FY 14. The purpose of the grant funding is
to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol -impaired drivers between the ages of 15
and 24. The Strategic Prevention Framework – State Incentive Grant (SPF-SIG) grant funds are received
from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention through Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). VCU, as the Prim e 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 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 for a
total grant award of $205,629.00. This re-appropriation request is for $10,898.00 in grant funding that
was received in prior years and has not been appropriated for use in FY 14. VCU extended the
Subcontract Agreement until May 31, 2014, allowing these grant funds to be expe nded in FY 14.
Appropriation #2014091 $10,000.00
Source: Sale of Surplus $10,000.00
This request is to appropriate $10,000.00 to the Finance Department/Purchasing Division for
temporary personnel to assist with moving the contents of the existing warehouse to the new warehouse
that will be co-located with the Northside Library. Funds to support this effort will be available by the sale
of surplus County vehicles in April. The County’s current warehouse space lease expires on May 31,
2014. The County is preparing to move the contents of the existing warehouse (including confidential
records, files, equipment, and surplus property) to the new Northside Library/Storage Facility building, a
significantly smaller space. This transition will require consistent attention through the sale and
distribution of surplus property, clean up and preparation for the move from the existing storage space
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
and the setup of the new warehouse. The timing of the Library project may require temporary storage in
trailers on the new Northside Library site until the storage component of the building is ready. The
Department of Finance requests two months funding for a temporary employee to assist with efficiently
managing these efforts. Currently Purchasing, Building Services, and General Services have been
working on this transition process, however, adequate time and attention cannot be consistently given to
this transition effort due to the departments’ multiple priorities. This temporary position would provide
proper oversight of and assistance with this process.
A fully developed plan for the management of the new warehouse facility will be brought to the
Board of Supervisors for consideration in FY 15.
Appropriation #2014093 $25,540.50
Source: ECC Fund Balance $25,540.50
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent
for the ECC, appropriate funding from the ECC’s fund balance for the following requests, which have
been approved by the ECC Management Board:
Requests $13,540.50 for a mobile data system software maintenance agreement for
January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014.
Requests $12,000.00 for painting the interior of the Emergency Communications Center.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2014083, #2014084
#2014086, #2014087, #2014088, #2014090, #2014091 and #2014093 for general government
programs.
ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
4-9100-82047-482040-312350-9999 -$10,700.00 Dam Break Study (To Stormwater Manag Program)
4-9100-82040-482040-800975-9999 $10,700.00 Stormwater Management Program (From Dam Break
Study)
4-9010-32020-432020-810206-3140 $75,600.00 ERVFC Command 20 (Fr SPVFC Brush Truck 64)
4-9010-32020-432020-810604-3140 -$75,600.00 SPVFC Brush Truck 64 (To ERVFC Command 20)
4-9010-94160-494070-800605-7140 -$13,370.00 Crozet Library (To Crozet Streetscape Ph II)
4-9010-41023-441200-800605-9999 $13,370.00 Crozet Streetscape Ph II (From Crozet Library)
3-1236-24000-324000-240443-1003 $397,207.00 State Award-CIT/CNT
4-1236-39000-439000-580905-1003 $397,207.00 Public Safety Contribution
4-1000-81021-481020-550100-1008 2,500.00 LEAD Training
4-1000-53011-453010-550100-1005 10,000.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-1000-12010-412010-550100-1001 1,537.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-1000-31013-431010-550100-1003 5,200.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-1000-12147-412140-550100-1001 595.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-1000-12143-412140-550100-1001 3,610.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-1000-12145-412140-550100-1001 3,049.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-1000-12030-412030-390057-1001 2,500.00 LEAD Training - Tr. To School HR
4-1000-99900-499000-999984-9999 -28,991.00 January distribution
3-2000-62000-319000-190250-6599 2,500.00 Distribution from Training Pool
4-2000-62420-462140-580500-6501 2,500.00 LEAD Training
3-3104-63104-318000-181278-6599 7,000.00 February 13 SB meeting
3-3104-63104-318000-181324-6599 700.00 February 13 SB meeting
3-3104-63104-318000-189900-6599 1,685.25 February 13 SB meeting
3-3104-63104-324000-240362-6599 275.00 February 13 SB meeting
3-3104-63104-324000-240418-6599 400.00 February 13 SB meeting
4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6304 7,000.00 February 13 SB meeting
4-3104-63104-460700-312500-6109 400.00 February 13 SB meeting
4-3104-63104-460700-312500-6253 275.00 February 13 SB meeting
4-3104-63104-460700-420100-6117 700.00 February 13 SB meeting
4-3104-63104-460700-800100-6116 1,685.25 February 13 SB meeting
3-3909-63909-318000-189900-6599 1,131.45 February 13 SB meeting
4-3909-63909-461101-602000-6599 1,131.45 February 13 SB meeting
3-2000-62000-318000-189900-6599 33,128.31 February 13 SB meeting
3-2000-62000-324000-240218-6599 75,000.00 January 9 SB meeting
4-2000-62433-462420-331200-6505 33,128.31 February 13 SB meeting
4-2000-62100-461101-160120-6199 23,223.41 January 9 SB meeting
4-2000-62100-461101-210000-6199 1,776.59 January 9 SB meeting
4-2000-62100-461101-160120-6299 23,223.41 January 9 SB meeting
4-2000-62100-461101-210000-6299 1,776.59 January 9 SB meeting
4-2000-62100-461101-160120-6399 23,223.41 January 9 SB meeting
4-2000-62100-461101-210000-6399 1,776.59 January 9 SB meeting
3-1000-18100-318100-181109-1001 159.00 Contributions
3-1000-51000-351000-512008-9999 6,440.00 Transfer from Fund #8405
3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 -159.00 App Fund Balance
4-1000-32012-432010-580015-1003 80.00 Donations-FR Training
4-1000-32013-432010-580015-1003 3,360.00 Donations-FR Prevention
4-1000-32015-432010-580015-1003 3,000.00 Donations-FR Operations
3-1553-18100-318100-181109-1005 255.34 Contributions
4-1553-51154-453010-301200-1005 255.34 contract services
3-8405-51000-351000-510100-9999 7,157.67 App Fund Balance
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
4-8405-93010-493010-930009-9999 6,599.00 Transfer to General Fund
4-8405-93010-493010-939999-9999 558.67 Transfer to Other Funds
3-8406-18100-318000-181109-9999 303.33 Contributions
4-8406-82070-481020-999999-1008 303.33 Contingency
3-1591-33000-333000-330001-1005 10,898.00 VCU Grant - Federal
4-1591-53163-454101-312210-1005 10,898.00 Contract Services
4-1000-12145-412140-317000-1001 10,000.00 Warehouse Manager
3-1000-15000-315000-150205-1000 10,000.00 Warehouse Manager
3-4100-51000-351000-510100-9999 25,540.50 App fund balance
4-4100-31040-435600-312210-1003 13,540.50 contract services
4-4100-31040-435600-331800-1003 12,000.00 R&M Buildings
1,159,243.70
__________
Item No. 8.4. Amendment to Albemarle County Purchasing Manual.
The executive summary states that Albemarle County’s Purchasing Manual, as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors, governs and guides local government and school purchases in accordance with the
Public Procurement Act of the Virginia Code.
Under the Virginia Public Procurement Act, public bodies are enabled to adopt their own small
purchase procedures for purchases if the aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed
$100,000. Chapter 22 of the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual outlines the County’s current small
purchase procedures.
Additionally, Virginia Code § 2.2-4310(B) requires: “All public bodies shall establish programs
consistent with this chapter to facilitate the participation of small businesses and businesses owned by
women, minorities, and service disabled veterans in procurement transactions. The programs established
shall be in writing and shall comply with the provisions of any enhancement or remedial measures
authorized by the Governor pursuant to subsection C or, where applicable, by the chief executive of a
local governing body pursuant to § 15.2-965.1, and shall include specific plans to achieve any goals
established therein.”
After review and discussion, staff is recommending changes to the small purchase procedures as
set forth in Attachment A to improve efficiencies in the County’s procurement and payment processes.
Proposed amendments to the County’s small purchase procedures include:
Increase the amount for which a purchase order is required from purchases over $1,000
to purchases over $5,000; and
Increase the amount for goods or nonprofessional services for which a purchase can be
made with one quotation from up to and including $1,000 to up to and including $5,000.
The proposed language for small purchases up to and including $5,000 is adapted from the
Commonwealth’s small purchase procedures (http://www.eva.virginia.gov/library/files/APSPM/Chapter5.pdf).
These proposed changes are also consistent with the procedures of comparable localities (e.g. Hanover,
Henrico, Fauquier, and Frederick counties). The proposed revisions would allow for service
improvements, efficiencies and cost savings to the County through greater use of the Purchase Card
program; would allow the Purchasing Department to focus more on higher value contracts (67% of
Purchase Orders are currently for purchases below the $5,000 threshold but they represent only about
20% of the total dollars spent with purchase orders); and would provide operational efficiencies in
obtaining goods and services in a timely manner, without the loss of proper oversight.
Staff is also recommending the addition of Chapter 29, Participation of Small Businesses and
Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County
Procurement, as set forth in Attachment B to better document compliance with Virginia Code § 2.2 -
4310(B). The proposed new Chapter 29 is intended to facilitate the participation of small businesses and
businesses owned by women, minorities, and service disabled veterans in County procurement
transactions. Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of
the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
No budget impact is expected other than increased efficiencies.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to amend and re-
adopt the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual by amending Chapter 22, Small Purchases, and by
adding Chapter 29, Participation of Small Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and Service
Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County Procurement.
(Discussion: Mr. Boyd asked if this is intended to aid in group purchasing. Mr. Foley confirmed
that this would allow for purchasing cards so the County can make larger purchases more efficiently.
Ms. Mallek commented that there are programs that VACO and NACO have for joint purchasing
which result in tremendous savings for Staples and other stores, and perhaps the County should revisit
those.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Foley said the County is taking advantage of some of those, but staff would make sure there
is nothing they are missing.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to amend and re-
adopt the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual by amending Chapter 22, Small Purchases, and
by adding Chapter 29, Participation of Small Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-Owned,
and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County Procurement.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND AND RE-ADOPT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PURCHASING MANUAL
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Purchasing Manual (“Manual”) delineates not only the
requirements of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, but also the methods and procedures that best
enable the County to procure the highest quality goods and services at a reasonable cost and in an
efficient, fair, and competitive manner; and
WHEREAS, the Manual was last amended on September 4, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the best interests of the County to amend the County’s
procedures for small purchases not expected to excee d $50,000, and to adopt procedures in accordance
with the Virginia Code for the participation of small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and
service disabled veteran-owned businesses in County procurement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
amends and re-adopts the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual by amending Chapter 22, Small
Purchases, and by adding Chapter 29, Participation of Small Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-
Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County Procurement.
*****
Chapter 22. Small Purchases
Summary
This chapter establishes the procedures to be followed when the cost of the goods or services to
be procured is not expected to exceed $50,000. If goods or nonprofessional services are sought
to be procured, one of the three following procedures shall apply, depending on the expected cost
of the procurement: (1) procurements up to and including $5,000; and (2) procurements greater
than $5,000 up to and including $50,000. A separate procedure applies when professional
services are being procured.
Essential Information in this Chapter
The using department shall make a good faith determination as to whether the cost of the procurement is
expected to exceed $50,000.
Neither the purchasing agent nor the using department shall procure goods or services in a piecemeal manner in
order to avoid formal procurement procedures that would otherwise apply.
The receipt of written quotations is preferred, even if verbal or telephone quotations are authorized.
If goods or nonprofessional services are sought to be procedural, one of three informal procurement procedures
applies. A separate procedure applies when professional services are sought to be procured.
Key References to the Code of Virginia Applicable to this Chapter
Section 2.2-4303(G): Small purchases for goods and nonprofessional services
Section 2.2-4303(H): Small purchases for professional services
22-1 General
This chapter establishes the procedures to be used for single or term contracts when the
aggregate or the sum of all phases is not expected to exceed $50,000.
The following general principles apply to all procurements made pursuant to this chapter:
Determination of estimated cost of procurement: The using department shall make a
good faith determination as to whether the cost of the procurement is expected to exceed
$50,000 as provided in section 4-5.
Providing for competition: These small purchase procedures are intended to provide for
competition whenever practicable, and shall be applied to further this intent.
Piecemealing of procurement prohibited: Neither the purchasing agent nor the using
department shall procure goods or services in a piecem eal manner, otherwise split a
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
procurement into multiple procurements, or request or require that the selected vendor
invoice the County at intervals, for the purpose of reducing the estimated cost of the
procurement to below the $50,000 threshold.
Written price quotations are preferred: The receipt of written quotations is preferred, even
if verbal or telephone quotations are authorized, in the event that a dispute arises after
the order is placed regarding terms or pricing.
Travel and training expenses whose costs not expected to exceed $50,000 exempt:
Travel and training expenses whose costs are not expected to exceed $50,000 are
exempt from the procedures set forth in sections 22-2, 22-3 and 22-4. These costs,
which may include those for job-related training, continuing education, and associated
meals, lodging and other related and authorized expenses, are subject to the approval of
the using department and the purchasing agent.
Purchase Order required over $5,000: A Purchase Order is required on any purchase
over $5,000.
22-2 Goods or Nonprofessional Services: Cost Not Expected to Exceed $1000
Where the estimated cost of goods or nonprofessional services is $5,000 or less unless
exempted (see Part 4), purchases may be made upon receipt of a minimum of one (1)
written or telephone (oral) quotation. Additional sources may also be solicited. Other
quotes received that were not solicited shall be considered. If more than one quote is
received, the award shall be made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. A
record of the quotation must be kept with the file. If a telephone quote is solicited, a
record shall be kept of the name and address of the vendor(s) contacted, the item
description or service offered, price quoted, delivery dates and terms, names of persons
giving and receiving the prices and the date the information was obtained. Notation on
the requisition form is considered to be an adequate record.
Additional competition should be sought whenever there is reason to believe a quotation
is not a fair and reasonable price.
22-3 Goods or Nonprofessional Services: Cost Expected to be Greater Than $5,000 up to and
including $50,000
If the cost of the goods or nonprofessional services is expected to be greater than $5,000 up to
and including $50,000, the following procedure shall apply:
Scheduling: The using department should allow at least five business days to complete a
procurement.
Price quotation: The using department shall obtain at least three (four, if the cost is
expected to exceed $30,000) written price quotations from vendors. When soliciting a
price quotation, the using department shall describe the goods or services desired, the
quantity, the date by which delivery or performance is expected to be made, that the
County is seeking competitive quotations, and the date by which written price quotations
must be received in the office of the using department.
Posting of public notice: Purchases under this section that are expected to exceed
$30,000 shall require the posting of a public notice on the County’s website, the Virginia
Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website, and/or other
appropriate website(s).
Contents of written price quotation: A written price quotation submitted by a vendor shall
contain the following information: (1) the name of the vendor quoting the price; (2) the
name of the individual quoting the price; (3) the manufacturer and model of the goods or
a description of the services; (4) the unit price; (5) the payment terms; (6) the pro mised
delivery or performance date; and (7) the date the quotation was made.
Selection of vendor: The using department shall select the vendor providing the lowest
price quotation. However, if the vendor fails to provide a written price quotation which
contains all of the information required by the preceding paragraph or if the purchasing
agent determines that the vendor is not responsible, then the purchasing agent shall
select the vendor providing the next lowest price quotation and shall state the bas is for
the decision in writing and place it in the procurement file.
The purchasing agent may require that any procurement of goods or services otherwise subject
to this section comply with the competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation procurement
procedures set forth in parts 2 or 3.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
22-4 Professional Services: Cost Not Expected to Exceed $50,000
If the cost of professional services (as defined in section 1-5 of this Manual) is not expected to
exceed $50,000, the following procedure shall apply:
Scheduling: The purchasing agent should allow at least five business days to complete
the procurement.
Negotiation with one or more vendors: If the cost is not expected to exceed $15,000, the
using department is authorized to negotiate with one or more vendors. If the cost is
expected to be greater than $15,000 up to and including $50,000, the using department
shall contact and interview a minimum of three vendors. The negotiations may be
conducted either in person or by telephone, and shall consist of identifying the services
desired, the date by which performance is expected to be made, the qualities of the
vendor described in the following paragraph, and the cost for such services.
Selection of vendor: The using department shall recommend to the purchasing agent the
vendor to be selected. If the using department negotiated with more than one vendor,
the using department shall recommend the vendor it determined to be the most qualified,
responsible and suitable; cost shall not be the sole determining factor. The purchasing
agent shall notify the selected vendor, whose selection shall be contingent upon the
County and the vendor entering into a written agreement.
Written agreement: The purchasing agent shall prepare a written agreement approved by
the county attorney which shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) the
name of the selected vendor; (2) a detailed description of the services to be provided; (3)
the cost of the services to be provided; (4) the payment terms; and (5) the promised
performance date.
The purchasing agent may require that the procurement of professional services otherwise
subject to this section comply with the competitive negotiation procedure set forth in part 3.
*****
Chapter 29. Participation of Small Businesses and Minority-Owned, Women-Owned, and
Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses in County Procurement
Summary
This chapter outlines the County’s policy promoting procurement from small businesses, and
businesses owned by minorities, women, and service disabled veterans.
Essential Information in this Chapter
This County policy is to assure that small businesses and businesses owned by minorities, women, and
service disabled veterans have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in County
procurement transactions.
Key References to the Code of Virginia Applicable to this Chapter
Section 2.2-4310(B): Participation of Small, Women-Owned, Minority-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran-
Owned Business in Procurement
29-1 Definitions
The terms set forth below shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires
otherwise.
a. “Control” means exercising the power to make policy decisions.
b. “Operate” means being actively involved in the day-to-day management of the business.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the terms “Minority individual,” “Minority-
owned business,” “Service disabled veteran,” “Service disabled veteran business,” “Small
business,” and “Women-owned business” shall be as defined in Virginia Code § 2.2-
4310(E) or its successor(s), as amended.
29-2 Policy
It is the policy of the County of Albemarle, acting through its officers, agents and employees, in a
manner that is consistent with the provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, to:
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
a. Actively promote the procurement or lease of goods, services, insurance, or construction,
from small businesses or businesses owned by minorities, women, and service disabled
veterans in an equally competitive manner.
b. Include participation from qualified small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned,
and service disabled veteran-owned businesses on solicitation lists.
c. Assure that small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and service disabled
veteran-owned businesses are solicited whenever they are potential sources.
d. Utilize a list of small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and service
disabled veteran-owned businesses published by the Virginia Department of Small
Business and Supplier Diversity and the Department of Veterans Services.
e. Where procurement requirements permit, establish delivery schedules which will
encourage participation by small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and
service disabled veteran-owned businesses.
f. Cooperate with, and use the services and assistance of, the United States Small
Business Administration, the Virginia Department of Small Business and Supplier
Diversity and the Department of Veterans Services, and other public or private agencies.
g. Participate to the maximum extent possible in all local and regional purchasing fairs for
small businesses and minority-owned, women-owned, and service disabled veteran-
owned businesses.
__________
Item No. 8.5. Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension.
The executive summary states that the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center (“LCEC”) leases
property jointly owned by the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville located at Darden Towe
Park for the purpose of establishing the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. The LCEC was awarded
grants totaling $800,000.00 from the Transportation Enhancement Fund Program (“VDOT Enhancement
Program”) administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) to provide funding (to be
combined with other funds to be raised by the LCEC) for the construction of an educational building, an
access road and parking area, and a connecting trail network at Darden T owe Park. The LCEC’s
application for the VDOT Enhancement Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the
grant from VDOT. The County was required to enter into a Project Agreement with VDOT to ensure
VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility were met. The County then entered into a separate Pass-
Through Agreement with LCEC that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s responsibilities under the
VDOT Enhancement Program to the LCEC, including holding the County harmless from any liabili ties
created by the County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program grants.
The LCEC advised the County that its fund-raising efforts had fallen short of its goal and by letter
dated March 19, 2013, requested that the County and the City provide fun ding assistance in the form of a
short-term loan to ensure the project would be completed and all requirements related to the
enhancement grant would be met. The total shortfall was estimated at $260,000. In order to assist the
LCEC and ensure that the grant requirements would be met, the Board, at its April 3, 2013 meeting,
approved an appropriation of $130,000 to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the purpose of
the EDA providing a short-term loan to the LCEC. The City of Charlottesville committed to contribute the
other $130,000 required to make up the $260,000 shortfall.
The EDA loan agreement and note were executed on April 17, 2013, and pursuant to the loan
agreement and note terms and conditions, the $130,000 loan was due and payable to the EDA by
October 17, 2013. In a letter to the EDA dated August 27, 2013, the LCEC advised the County that it
would be unable to raise all of the funds ($130,000) by the repayment deadline and requested a six -
month extension. The Board, at its October 2, 2013 meeting, approved LCEC’s requested extension of
six months and requested that the EDA extend the date by which the loan is due and payable subject to
the same terms and conditions. The October 2, 2013 executive summary (Attachment A) stated that sta ff
was sympathetic to the LCEC’s extension request, but that it would recommend an examination and
reconsideration of the terms and conditions of the loan if any additional extensions were requested.
In a letter to the EDA dated March 10, 2014 (Attachment B), the LCEC advised the County that it
will be unable to raise all of the funds ($130,000) by the extended repayment deadline of April 17, 2014,
and have requested an additional six-month extension. The County-EDA agreement allows for the
extension if approved by the County and the EDA; however, the EDA-LCEC promissory note will have to
be amended to allow a second extension. Staff has determined that the LCEC has neared substantial
completion of the project, and that it will require all of its current funds to finalize the project and to begin
operating the facility. Given the LCEC’s progress on the project, staff again recommends approval of the
LCEC’s request to extend the loan repayment deadline. However, if the LCEC requests any further
extensions, staff will recommend, at a minimum, that a partial-repayment plan be implemented.
If the Board is agreeable to this extension, the EDA can consider extending the repayment period
and amending the promissory note.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
There is no impact to the budget for this extension, as the funds have been previously
appropriated. Upon repayment, the $130,000 would be returned to the County’s Capital Reserve.
Staff recommends that the Board: 1) approve LCEC’s requested repayment deadline for
repayment of the loan to October 17, 2014; 2) request that the EDA extend the date by which the loan is
due and payable and amend the promissory note to allow for the extension subject to the same terms and
conditions; and 3) authorize the County Executive to sign an amended loan agreement and promissory
note with the EDA on behalf of the County after approval of form and substance by the County Attorney.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved LCEC’s requested repayment deadline
for repayment of the loan to October 17, 2014; requested that the EDA extend the date by which
the loan is due and payable and amend the promissory note to allow for the extension subject to
the same terms and conditions; and authorized the County Executive to sign an amended loan
agreement and promissory note with the EDA on behalf of the County after approval of form and
substance by the County Attorney.
__________
Item No. 8.6. SDP-2013-00011. Old Trail Village, Block 2B – Special Exception to Authorize
Variation #14 from ZMA2004-0024.
The executive summary states that the Board of Supervisors approved the original rezoning for
Old Trail Village on September 14, 2005. Another rezoning was approved November 12, 2008 to amend
the Code of Development for Block 2 to allow “rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage
or similar institution” as a by-right use, which now contains an assisted living facility known as the Lodge
at Old Trail. Block 2B is a 0.80 acre area located in the southwest corner of Block 2 between the Lodge
and Block 1 (see Attachment A). The applicant is proposing a hotel and restaurant on this site, which is a
by-right use within this block.
This variation request has been reviewed for Zoning and Planning aspects of the regulations.
Variations are considered by the Board of Supervisors as a Special Exception under Chapter 18 Sections
33.5 and 33.9. Staff is recommending approval of this variation request.
The Code of Development uses a spatial enclosure ratio for regulating building height and
massing. This ratio caps the maximum number of stories for each building based on several factors such
as the width of right-of-way, sidewalk and planting strip width and front setback. In the CT5 section of Old
Trail, the Code of Development permits building heights up to 3.5 stories (or up to 6 stories, if located at
an intersection with a roundabout), but the proposed hotel is a 4 story structure (see Attachment B).
Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variation from the 3.5 story height limit to allow the propo sed 4
story building.
Staff notes that the Code of Development aims to integrate a range of uses in this section by
using a variety of building facades and architectural features that are properly proportioned to their
surrounding areas. Permitting an additional 0.5 story for Block 2B would support this intent without
compromising health, safety or welfare. The applicant has also received a County-wide Certificate of
Appropriateness from the ARB. Staff analysis of the variation request under Section 33.9 is guided by
factors in Section 8.5.5.3(c) as provided below:
1. The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
This request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2. The variation does not increase the approved development density or intensity of
development.
It would be possible to achieve a similar height and massing as the proposed building
without a variation because the Code of Development specifies that attics do not count as
a “story” when calculating the spatial enclosure ratio. This proposal does not increase
the density beyond the maximum permitted density in this block.
3. The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of
any other development in the zoning district.
The timing and phasing of any development in this district is unaffected.
4. The variation does not require a special use permit.
A special use permit is not required.
5. The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the approved
rezoning application.
This variation is in general accord with the approved rezoning application.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the special exception, subject to the following
condition: Development results in a building that is in general accord with the architectural drawings
numbered A2.1 and A2.2 entitled “The Rutherford Hotel at Old Trail” and dated 07-08-2013.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the special exception, sub ject to the
following condition:
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
1. Development results in a building that is in general accord with the architectural
drawings numbered A2.1 and A2.2 entitled “The Rutherfoord Hotel at Old Trail”
and dated 07-08-2013.
__________
Item No. 8.7. ZTA-2012-00010. Off-site Signs (defer to May 7, 2014).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved deferral of ZTA-2012-00010 to May 7,
2014.
__________
Item No. 8.8. County Grant Application/Award Report, was received for information.
Pursuant to the County’s Grant Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports
to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of five grant applications that were
approved during the time period of February 14, 2014 through March 13, 2014.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
This report is for information only.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from February 14, 2014 through March 13, 2014
Applications were approved for the following grants:
__________
Item No. 8.9. Annual Report of the Planning Commission, was received for information.
2013 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall
“make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the
status of planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County
Planning Commission’s membership and activity during 2013.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT CURRENT TERM
Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice-Chair Jack Jouett 1/10 - 12/31/13
Don Franco Rio 1/10 - 12/31/13
Cal Morris, Chair Rivanna 1/12 - 12/31/15
Ed Smith Samuel Miller 1/10 - 12/31/13
Rick Randolph Scottsville 1/12 - 12/31/15
Thomas Loach White Hall 1/12 - 12/31/15
Bruce Dotson At-Large 1/12 - 12/31/13
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/13 - 12/31/13
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from February 14, 2014 through March 13, 2014
Applications were approved for the following grants:
Granting
Entity
Grant Type Amount
Requested
Match
Required
Dept Purpose
Virginia
Commission
for the Arts
FY15 Local
Challenge
Grant
State $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Management
& Budget
Supports independent arts
organization for arts activities
in the locality. Piedmont
Council for the Arts was
selected as this year’s local
organization.
Junior
League of
Charlottesvil
le 2014
Community
Grant
Local $ 1,000.00 None Social
Services
If awarded, Family Support
workers will use these funds
to purchase summer kits for
children on the Family
Support Worker' caseloads.
Families will receive an age
appropriate summer kit
containing a variety of
activities to improve family
engagement.
Virginia
Highway
Safety
Office
FY15 VA DUI
Enforcement
Grant to ACPD
Federal $ 30,082.00 $ 2,301.00 Police Additional funds would allow
for increased DUI
enforcement in the County,
with an expected outcome of
reduced DUI-related traffic
crashes.
Virginia
Highway
Safety
Office
FY15 VA
Speed
Enforcement
Grant to ACPD
Federal $ 34,136.00 $ 2,611.00 Police Additional funds would allow
for increased traffic safety
enforcement in the County.
Virginia
Department
of Motor
Vehicles
Selective
Enforcement -
Speed
State $ 28,800.00 $ 14,536.20 Sheriff Additional funds would allow
for overtime hours for the
Sheriff’s Office to provide
speed enforcement.
Awards were received for the following grants:
No awards were received during this time period.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
2013 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = ___34___
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS # Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan Amendment
(Includes 5 Year Review
and Master Plans) (CPA)
1 1 - 1
Zoning Text Amendment
(ZTA) 10 7 - 3
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 1 1 - -
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 1 - -
Zoning Map Amendment
(ZMA) 14 10 1 3
Special Use Permit (SP) 23 20 1 2
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) - - - -
Final Site Plan (SDP) - - - -
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 2 2 - -
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - - -
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - - -
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) - - - -
Subdivision Waiver (SUB) - - - -
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 14 13 - 1
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) - - N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver (SUB) - - N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) - - N/A N/A
PC Minutes 43 43 N/A N/A
Other 4 4 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan Amendment
(Includes 5 Year Review
and Master Plans) (CPA)
15 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text Amendment
(ZTA) 7 N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) - N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) - N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map Amendment
(ZMA) - N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit (SP) - N/A N/A N/A
Other 3 N/A N/A N/A
2013 HIGHLIGHTS
The CPA considered was the Comprehensive Plan review and update (including the regional Livability
Project review)
ZTAs considered included Wireless (Phase I), Off -site Signs, Family Day Homes, Inoperative Vehicles,
Noise (Phase I), Steep Slopes, Dam Break Inundation, Residential and Industrial Uses in the Downtown
Crozet District and the Flood Hazard Overlay District
The STA considered was the Subdivision Ordinance Process Imp rovements
The CCP considered was the Rio Road Public Property Uses (including the new Northside Library)
ZMAs considered included Church of Our Saviour, Avon Park II, Riverside Village, The Lofts at
Meadowcreek, Pantops Corner, Out of Bounds, 1306 Crozet Avenue, Piedmont Environmental Council,
Albemarle Place (aka Stonefield), North Pointe and Hollymead Town Center
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
SPs considered included Faith Christian Center, 5th Street Station, Bellair CSA Barn, Faith & Grace
Christian Fellowship, All Things Pawssible, Regents School, Field School, Commonwealth Office, Les
Yeux Du Monde, Roberts House and Public Garage, Mahone Family Additional Development Right and
several Tier III wireless facilities (towers)
SUBs considered included Houndstooth and Kuttner
Other matters covered included AFD additions and renewals, the Capital Improvements Program and the
Community Development Work Program
__________
Agenda Item No. 9. Water Resources Community Engagement Process.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that on January 8, 2014, the Board
directed staff to develop a process to inform the public and to seek input on preferences for funding
mandated enhancements regarding two separate water resource protection programs. On February 5th,
the Board approved processes for obtaining community feedback on mandates related to both programs,
including: (1) meeting additional responsibilities due to changes to the Virginia Stormwater Management
Program (VSMP) (Program 1), and (2) complying with new requirements under the County’s Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, including achieving pollutant load reductions as part of the
Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan (Program 2). The Board approved the engagement plan and, with respect
to Program 2, directed staff to bring back a discussion regarding formation of an Advisory Committee and
a potential scope of work for a consultant, both to assist complying with new requirements under the
County’s MS4 permit.
As mentioned above, the County will engage the community regarding the new water protection
mandates. The Board approved a process dividing this community engagement into two programs.
Program 1 will address the current ordinance considerations focused on active land use development and
Program 2 will address the requirements of the MS4 program and long-term funding solutions. Both
programs are described below.
Program 1: VSMP
This program has been focused on targeted outreach to the development community and other
interested stakeholders, including holding a roundtable with stakeholder representatives regarding
changes to the VSMP on March 6th. To date, staff has not heard concerns about the proposed revised
Water Protection Ordinance and has received only a request for clarification on the grandfathering
provisions required by recent amendments to the State’s stormwater regulations, which will be
incorporated into the ordinance. Staff believes the ordinance can be ready for public hearing in May and
plans to assure that interested parties have access to the proposed ordinance at the time it is first
advertised, if not sooner.
Program 2: MS4
As described in the Board-approved Community Engagement Plan, this program is the more
expansive effort. Whereas Program 1 was largely focused on educating the public on the mandated
stormwater requirements, Program 2 is intended to provide a recommendation on permanent funding
solutions for the County’s MS4 program. In order to meet the desired public participation level and goals
identified in the community engagement plan, staff recommended the following:
Appointment of a short-term stakeholder Advisory Committee
Because the complicated nature of the new requirements of the MS4 program creates
the need for sustained community engagement throughout an ongoing education and
recommendation development process, staff recommends that the Board establish a
short-term stakeholders Advisory Committee, which would not be a permanent, ongoing
group. Instead, the Advisory Committee would fulfill its responsibility and be disbanded
following the development of a recommendation for funding the County’s MS4 program to
the Board and would help ensure broad-based and informed input into the decision
making process. In combination with the Advisory Committee, the plan recommends
education and outreach opportunities to the general public, as well as more targeted
stakeholder groups. The Advisory Committee approach proved very successful as an
efficient way to obtain critical community feedback at important milestones d uring the
new Crozet Library design process and has been employed by nearby jurisdictions , such
as Charlottesville and Harrisonburg, to reach decisions on funding issues for similar
programs. A full description of a proposed charge, membership and organization is
included in Attachment A.
Consideration of consultant assistance
The dedication of necessary time and the level of knowledge and expertise required to
inform and guide discussions of the Advisory Committee on the complex technical and
funding issues related to the MS4 program is beyond County staff’s current capacity.
Staff recommends engaging a technical consultant, as some of our peer localities have
done. A full description of a proposed scope of work is included in Attachment B.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Timeline for completion of a recommendation
The program calls for this work to be completed in time to be used in developing the
FY17 - 21 Five Year Plan. A complete timeline focused on this date of completion has
been incorporated into the committee charge provided in Attachment A. This may or ma y
not include implementation of the recommended funding strategy in the FY17 budget,
depending on the complexity of implementation.
Staff has estimated that a consultant’s assistance would cost between $40,000 and $60,000
for approximately nine months of work. Funds for this service are available in a General Services
fund already appropriated for MS4-related consulting services.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to proceed with the proposed engagement
process, including procuring a consultant, and for the Board to initiate its process to appoint members to
the Advisory Committee, all in accordance with the timeline outlined above.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships,
addressed the Board, stating that, on February 5, the Board approved two processes for obtaining
community feedback on mandates for separate but related water resource protection programs. She
explained that one of those pertained to meeting additional responsibilities due to changes to the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) which is related primarily to active land development
activities; and the second one pertained to complying with new requirements under the County’s
municipal separate stormwater system (MS4). Ms. Catlin said staff began with the first program, focused
specifically on targeted outreach to the development community and other interested stakeholders
regarding VSMP, and also held a roundtable along with other initiatives and feels that the ordinance can
be ready for a public hearing in May.
Ms. Catlin stated that what staff wanted to address at this meeting was the second program,
which is the more expansive effort and will involve the entire public and business owners in the mandated
stormwater requirements and the appropriate permanent funding mechanism for those. Ms. Catlin said
staff recognizes that, because of the pervasive nature of this and the fact it is a complicated process ,
there will need to be sustained community engagement through an ongoing education and
recommendation development process, and staff recommends that the Board establish a short-term
stakeholder’s advisory committee. She stated that the Board gave preliminary approval but ask ed staff to
come back with more details on what the committee would look like and how it would function. She said
the advisory committee approach proved to be very successful during the Crozet Library design project,
and other communities going through this process have also used a short-term community advisory
committee.
Ms. Catlin said, in the Board’s materials, there is a charge statement and membership and
organization information for a water resources funding advisory committee. She explained that this is a
short-term advisory committee to help the County develop a permanent funding source in order to comply
with new requirements. She said the charge of the committee would be 1) to provide direction and advice
on a public stakeholder engagement process; 2) to consider and balance the concerns and issues of
affected stakeholders and building public consensus for committee recommendations; 3) to review
alternative funding mechanisms; and 4) to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a final
preferred funding option. Ms. Catlin said the statement provided in the attachment indicates that the
advisory committee’s work is anticipated to be concluded with a final recommendation to the Board no
later than October 30, 2015, and lays out a number of milestones over the next 18 months to ensure the
Board would be in a position to make its recommendation at that time.
Ms. Catlin said staff has recommended a membership roster and appointment process, with 15
voting members to be appointed by the Board and representing a variety of stakeholder groups. She said
it has been brought to staff’s attention that they do not have sufficient business community representation
on this committee, but there is one large property owner intended to provide that representation. Ms.
Catlin stated that qualifications include working within a consensus -driven decision-making process,
willingness to work within established County procedures and processes, ability to be open-minded, to
listen and be respectful of values, views and opinions of other representatives, and other qualities that will
allow the Board to meet its charge. She said, in addition to this advisory committee, staff feels the
process should include a broader public engagement facet to include open houses, workshops and ot her
appropriate mechanisms to ensure the public at large would have an opportunity to provide input. Ms.
Catlin stated that the other item staff brought forth to the Board in February was consideration of
consultant assistance.
Mr. Doug Walker, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that there was a
recommendation to provide expert technical support to compliment the work of staff and the advisory
group, realizing that the information related to the MS4 permitting also includes implement ation of the
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Walker said the Board has expressed
specific interest in the technical support not being merely facilitators, and the scope of work provided as
an attachment to the Executive Summary intends to lay out a draft with a fairly narrow scope and
recognizes that, depending on how far along they get with the decision-making process, there may need
to be clarification as to what the technical expertise may ultimately need to provide. He stat ed that the
scope as presented sees the consultant as the third leg of a three-legged stool, with staff’s work being
one leg and citizens’ work and the committee being th e second. Mr. Walker said, unlike the VSMP which
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
is effective July 1, 2014, the MS4 has been in effect since last July and staff has already been working to
be in a position to move this forward.
Mr. Walker stated that some of the consultant’s specific roles and responsibilities in the areas of
funding options include review of materials and supplementation with expert knowledge in preparing
summary papers. Mr. Walker said this conversation is occurring within local governments in Virginia and
other states and in counties, in particular, to the extent there will be a stormwater utility, only one county
has adopted a stormwater utility so relying on some expert understanding of how that might be applied in
the Albemarle County context would be important both to staff and to the advisory committee in coming
forward with any information the y would have for the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Walker stated that they
would look for the consultant to be reviewing County work and working with the committee on rate
structures and revenue estimates and, with a utility model, there is an opportunity to address incentives
and credit policies which would benefit from technical, professional expertise. He said the cost range for
this effort is estimated to be $40,000 to $60,000 and that contemplates a fairly narrow scope with the
ultimate scope determined as staff engages with a consultant to help understand what can be
accomplished in looking at the funding mechanisms which is the goal.
Mr. Sheffield asked if staff had spoken with any consultants specifically. Mr. Walker said the
County Water Resources Engineer, Greg Harper, had taken the lead on that from a staff perspective and
could speak to that question.
Mr. Greg Harper, Water Resources Manager, addressed the Board, stating that he had only a
casual conversation with one consultant about the services they might be able to provide, and they
offered to meet with staff about what the County might need from them and how their services would help
which would likely happen through the RFP process. Mr. Harper said he has also spoken with a few local
governments that have gone through the process already of working with a consultant, and they all seem
to agree that having one on staff is invaluable to confirm their understanding of numbers and add to what
they know about different funding mechanisms.
Mr. Sheffield asked if a large amount of the consultant’s work would be analytical and numbers -
related. Mr. Walker said the key would be how narrowly they can focus the consultant’s work with the
County on understanding the funding options and, if a decision is made to pursue a funding option, it may
lead to additional technical expertise to understand how it might be implemented. He stated that, with
communities that have implemented a stormwater utility, the cost of their technical ex pertise is much
higher than the range provided here. Mr. Walker said, with a utility model for example, they would need
to establish a utility billing system and that would be specific to a decision which has not yet been made.
Mr. Sheffield noted that staff had mentioned other localities’ use of consultants, and wanted to
know which peer communities were used. Mr. Harper said staff did a small study of their own to figure
out what other communities were doing, and looked at comparable counties to Albema rle such as
Stafford, James City County, and Hanover County.
Mr. Sheffield clarified that he was trying to determine which of those used consultants, because
he is trying to gauge the effectiveness of using them and setting the expectations as to what the County
would need Mr. Harper stated that no single local government has adopted a dedicated funding
mechanism without the use of a consultant.
Mr. Boyd said the City of Charlottesville used a consultant. Mr. Harper said there are many
examples of communities using consultants, and there are none that did not use a consultant when they
actually moved forward and adopted a dedicated funding mechanism. He said a lot of the comparable
communities are relying on its general fund for now and are at the same point as Albemarle in trying to
figure out what to do so they will likely be engaging consultants more as they progress toward the
dedicated funding mechanism.
Ms. Palmer asked if there were communities that had hired a consultant and then chosen not to
establish a stormwater utility, because they could provide information on how valuable the consultant is .
She said she has spoken with a group that went through this process but did not adopt a stormwater
utility.
Mr. Harper said it is possible that there is an example, but he cannot think of any. He said the
City used a consultant to build up to a larger conversation with Council but, decided at that time not to
proceed with a dedicated funding mechanism, however, just recently, enacted its stormwater utility.
Ms. Mallek stated that she is concerned about hiring someone to do what their stakeholder group
is supposed to be doing, and the first decision that needs to be made is which direction the County is
going to go. She said the Board had decided to postpone that decision at the beginning of this budget
season because Supervisors were told it was too difficult to do a utility or an impact-based program in the
short term, but the Board needs to face this decision and figure out whether it wants to have an impact-
based program or not. Ms. Mallek stated that she is wary of having consultants come in at the beginning
and cut and paste Albemarle’s name into work they have already done in other localities or states for a
high cost so she hopes the County will make more of these decisions locally first.
Mr. Foley said there is a tricky balance between figuring out how far the County needs to go to
make an informed decision and how many issues are on the table. He said staff would want to put the
scope of work together in such a way that there would be benchmarks that capped any spending based
on the committee’s decision about whether or not to do a utility. He emphasized that staff is intending to
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
put the scope of work together in such a way that the Board would have those important decision points,
and, if a committee has been asked to look at all the alternatives and, one of those is establishing a utility,
even County staff would need to know what that would look like. Mr. Foley said the County does not
have a utility billing system in place now, so it is more complicated to set one up, whereas the City can
use the utility infrastructure it already has in place.
Mr. Boyd said he has spoken with someone who was on the group that reviewed this for the City,
and that person said the consultant was a very important part of that process because of their expertise in
different systems adding that he is not usually in favor of lots of consultant work.
Ms. Palmer stated that, when Supervisors went to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO)
meeting in January, there were a lot of experts who had information about this, and she thought that
perhaps they could provide some of this information.
Ms. Dittmar said there are two issues as part of this discussion which are: hiring a consultant and
at what point to do that, and feedback on the engagement process.
Mr. Boyd said when staff develops an RFP and scope of work, that is when the Board can make
the decision as to whether it should move forward with a consultant.
Mr. Foley said staff can go to the next level and try to show how they might phase this with some
initial assistance, with a second phase only if the Board gets to a certain point. He stated that staff can
draft something that is a little more detailed and show a trigger where a decision might come back to the
Board prior to moving on to another consultant.
Mr. Walker stated that there is a challenge in that “they do not know what they do not know” and,
while Albemarle is at the front edge among counties in Virginia about how to evaluate the different
funding options, he has worked with a local government that spent a lot of money on consultants only to
ultimately not proceed with development of a stormwater utility. Mr. Walker said he brings that sensitivity
to Albemarle County and is aware of the benefit of being narrow in the scope and answering the question
that is asked – which is what are the funding options – with involvement of the stakeholder committee, so
that can be brought to the Board prior to another effort which could be quite expensive.
Ms. Dittmar suggested looking at the engagement process first and then come back to the
consultant discussion, because part of the question is whether to engage fir st and then hire a consultant
afterward, or have the consultant help start the engagement process.
Mr. Sheffield said the Board cannot start the process until the information is put forth to the public,
as Supervisors are asking the public to respond to the information – not create it.
Ms. Mallek said it is out there already, as it has been presented at VACO and through webinars.
Mr. Sheffield said there is still some work which needs to be developed regarding specific
information and tasks identified in the draft scope such as analyzing the County’s GIS information on
which stormwater areas need attention.
Ms. Mallek said that is a staff responsibility.
Ms. Catlin said the way staff laid out the timeline is that there would be a parallel process which
recognizes it will take some time for the committee to get advertised, appointed and oriented, and they do
not want them to meet during the summer because that is never a good time. She stated that, at the
same time, the RFP was intended to move forward so they would come together at a point when the
committee was formed, and had an opportunity to get oriented, then the consultant would be ready to
step in with the help needed to get to the next stages.
Mr. Sheffield asked for clarification that the Board would be voting on a budget next year that has
.7 cents for stormwater management requirements and, in the FY17 budget, the County would potentially
take that money out and change to something else. Mr. Foley said that was correct.
Ms. McKeel asked for clarification that the consultant would be bringing expertise regarding
regulations, the law, what the County can and cannot do, and the implications of the regulations.
Mr. Walker said there is a level of technical expertise with regard to implementation of a
stormwater utility program that would benefit from knowledge that staff does not have, especially given
the challenges from a billing standpoint as a locality that does not have a history of providing municipal
services such as water and sewer. He stated that use of credits is a significant issue in looking at
stormwater utilities, whereby one is using some sort of measurement – usually impervious surface – in
order to quantify how much is owed. Mr. Walker said valuing the credit and being able to apply it
equitably and defensibly in a way that can be explained to the public and administered consistently, would
also benefit from expertise and experience which County staff does not have. He stated that, if there are
experts on the advisory committee who can bring that, it would also add but, without knowing that, staff
felt it was reasonable to bring in people who have direct experience in working with localities through
these issues.
Ms. McKeel said she is also cautious about using consultants, but commends staff for
recognizing what they do not know and acknowledging that this expertise would be valuable.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Foley stated that staff has included everything they might need in this list, and they could
come back to the Board and present all of the initial things a consultant might help with before moving on
to a more detailed review.
Mr. Boyd said, at this point, the County is not even sure what the specific TMDL requirements are
going to be, so that is where the County can gain some advantage by enlisting the help of people who
have thought further ahead.
Ms. Mallek stated that the County has a set of rules it must deal with now and, while that may
change in five years, there are allocations which have been set at this point.
Mr. Harper said there are prescribed rules which the County must follow related to TMDL, but Mr.
Boyd’s point is that this is not an exact science and staff cannot know exactly what it will cost to meet
these mandates. He stated that staff has put out the best estimates it can, and one of the services a
consultant could provide is to look over their shoulder and double -check assumptions and numbers, and
provide input as to how much money needs to be generated to cover the costs. Mr. Harper said he
envisions the RFP process to be a learning process whereby consultants present a range of options and
staff provides feedback and input, with a narrowing of scope. He stated that the Board can decide during
the consultant selection process what the County does and does not need and not have the consultant do
things that staff is already confident about.
Mr. Boyd said that is what he was thinking when he suggested going through the RFP process,
as that will define it a lot more and it will always come back to the Board for appropriation.
Mr. Sheffield asked if staff was asking for that appropriation now.
Ms. Mallek said she is not ready to sign off on this yet.
Mr. Harper said staff intended to use money that has already been appropriated by the Board for
TMDL-related consulting services, so there is about $138,000 left in that appropriation which staff is
planning to use.
Mr. Foley stated that, if the Board is comfortable that there is need for some assistance and staff
wants to make it as minimal as possible, they could start the RFP process for a consultant with the scope
reviewed by the Board prior to engagement, and no money would be spent to that point.
Mr. Sheffield said his biggest concern is the timeline.
Ms. Dittmar asked when the Board would be able to review the consultant information. Mr. Foley
said it would depend on how long the procurement process took, but staff could be back in a few months
after talking to the consultant.
Mr. Boyd stated that it is in the timeline.
Ms. Mallek said the staff report indicates developing the RFP in April, with submittals due in May,
so the Board would hear something back at that time. She said she appreciates the need to have an
information dump at the beginning of the process to get it started, but she does not want to have a
consultant hanging around for $50,000 watching other people talk.
Mr. Foley suggested the Board authorize the RFP process now, with staff bringing back a defined
scope for review and endorsement.
Mr. Sheffield said the only question he had about the public engagement process is whether
Board appointments would be advertised to solicit interest from residents.
Ms. Catlin said staff has done this in several different ways in the past – a general advertisement
to bring forward interested people, and also direct contact to organizations such as the Farm Bureau to
have them recommend a specific person to serve.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to see representation from someone in the development community,
particularly someone with experience managing large shopping centers as it would have a huge impact
on them, as well as apartment complex owners such as the association of apartment owners.
Ms. Mallek said those categories are the reason the County is having to spend all of this money,
so they should be represented, however, finding the solution is the important goal, not preventing the
County from doing it.
Ms. Palmer asked how big the County would like this group to be. Ms. Catlin said staff had set
the cap at 15 participants as an optimal size, however, adding those two would keep it within reasonable
limits but would not recommend going much larger.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was need of a motion to support the Board’s desire to see the final
RFP in May, and also regarding the engagement process with the addition of the two members.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would hinder getting replies to the RFP if the money had not been
appropriated.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Mallek and Mr. Sheffield noted that Mr. Harper indicated the money was already there.
Mr. Foley said the County is in good shape with that.
Mr. Walker said, in further defining the scope of work, there should be some language which
offers what questions should have been asked but were not.
Ms. Dittmar then moved to proceed with the proposed engagement process to include
representation on the Advisory Committee from large apartment complexes, development
community/large shopping center, with 15 as the optimal size, and to authorize the RFP process with staff
bringing back a defined scope for review with the stormwater process as presented by staff. Mr. Boyd
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Palmer said, in recalling the presentation made by VACO, a representative from James City
County told her that a number of counties went through this process and decided to use general funds.
Mr. Walker said it would be helpful to have that information so he could follow up with him.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the VACO notebook is in the Supervisors’ office and could be utilized. Mr.
Foley said staff would make sure to reference that information.
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Larry Land with VACO could connect staff with everyone they need.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Solid Waste Options.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that over the last two years, the
County has considered alternatives to continuing the contract for solid waste services with the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority (RSWA), including the construction and operation of up to three convenience
centers in the County. During this period, the County has maintained service agreements with the
RSWA for the operation of the Ivy Material Utilization Center (MUC) and the McIntire Road Recycling
Center (McIntire). At its January 8, 2014 meeting, after a public hearing on the matter, the Board
suspended further consideration of any convenience center location until such time as the County
completes an evaluation of long-term strategies for solid waste management services and develops a
public process for vetting specific approaches with citizens. It then requested that the RSWA approve an
amendment to the Ivy MUC and McIntire agreements to provide for a one year extension of the
agreements to June 30, 2015. This action was taken to allow the County additional time to consider its
long-term options for solid waste services. On January 28, 2014, the RSWA Board agreed to the
County’s request to extend the agreements through FY 15. The Board formally approved the extension
of the agreements on March 5, 2014.
The RSWA operates the Ivy MUC as a transfer station pursuant to a regulatory permit issued by
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and is therefore obligated to meet all regulatory
requirements of the permit as determined by DEQ. On February 26, 2014, County staff met with
representatives from the RSWA and DEQ to discuss the continued operation of the Ivy MUC as a tr ansfer
station. In that meeting, DEQ clarified that, while it would allow RSWA to continue to operate the Ivy
MUC as a transfer station as requested by the County for another year, RSWA must act by April 1, 2015
to either 1) issue a final notice of intent to close the Ivy MUC as a transfer station no later than July 1,
2015; or 2) provide a formal written plan, including a firm schedule, in which the RSWA commits to
achieving full compliance with current standards for a transfer station either at the Ivy MUC or at another
specific location.
See previous Executive Summaries (Attachments A, B and C) for additional background
information. The County is challenged to address both long-term solid waste management issues and
interests and the much more urgent regulatory deadline to continue current solid waste services provided
by the RSWA at the Ivy MUC transfer station.
Near-Term Needs
In discussing the continued use of the Ivy MUC to provide on-going solid waste service needs in
the County, it is important to highlight the distinction between a transfer station and convenience center.
A transfer station, such as that currently operated by RSWA at the Ivy MUC, requires an operating permit
issued by DEQ. This permit enables RSWA to accept a higher volume and broader array of waste
materials, including large loads and waste delivered by commercial haulers.
In contrast, a convenience center does not require a DEQ permit but does not allow the collection
of certain waste materials, including waste delivered by commercial haulers. During the course of the last
year, much of the conversation regarding solid waste services and delivery systems focused on
convenience centers for the collection of recyclable materials and household waste as an alternative to
the continued operation of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station. Convenience center services previously
approved and/or desired by the Board are identified in the November 13, 2013 Executive Summary
(Attachment B).
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Staff believes that more clarity from DEQ is needed regarding what is and is not allowed at a
convenience center. Confirmation of the specific types and levels of service desired by the Board would
enable staff to work with the RSWA, DEQ and others to develop viable alternative proposals for the
construction and operation of a transfer station or a convenience center. For example, in addition to the
materials highlighted above, the Board may want to allow refrigerators and other items, which would
require special handling, the disposal of clean fill and large loads of vegetative waste, which would
require machinery and labor, the use of dump trailers and/or other mechanized means of material transfer
from vehicles, and/or the collection of “commercial waste” to the extent that such waste would not change
the designation of the facility to a transfer station.
Currently, the Ivy MUC is owned by the RSWA and the RSWA is the holder of the DEQ permit. If
continued operation of the Ivy MUC is desired, the Board could continue to contract with RSWA or
consider an alternative arrangement in which the County operates the site as a convenience center
through General Services or a suitable contract with a private firm. It should be noted that if the County
desires to continue the use of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station, the County would be required to obtain a
permit from DEQ. County operation of the site as either a convenience center or transfer station would
require leasing the property from RSWA and addressing significant liability issues.
Recycling
Staff believes that there may be some ways to move quickly to improve recycling opportunities in
the County. Input from Board members and others has highlighted the interest for improved recycling as
an important goal. While specific alternatives have not been vetted, staff does think that some measure
of improvement can be identified and implemented in the near term, even while long -term options and
alternatives are being considered.
Long-Term Issues and Interests
Staff notes that the longer-term evaluation of solid waste service issues, options, opportunities
and challenges will require significant public engagement and active citizen and stakeholder participation.
While there is some concern with staff’s capacity to focus simultaneously on both the immediate need to
resolve compliance and service delivery issues at the Ivy MUC and to launch a comprehensive long-term
evaluation of solid waste services generally, it is reasonable to consider designing a public engagement
process around a re-evaluation of the January, 2008 draft Solid Waste Strategic Plan, which was
prepared for the RSWA by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) (Attachment D).
The FY15 proposed budget includes $60,000 for the County’s share of the operation of the
McIntire Recycling Facility and $390,000 for the net cost to continue operation of the Ivy MUC as a
transfer station through June 30, 2015. Future capital and operating budget impacts will be determined
based on a decision by the Board to operate the Ivy MUC facility either as a transfer station or as a
convenience center, with consideration of specific services to be provided. It is anticipated that costs w ill
be off-set in part by revenue from fees.
In order to meet DEQ’s deadline of April 1, 2015 for the RSWA to either issue a notice to close
the Ivy MUC as a transfer station or to provide a written DEQ compliance plan, staff believes that the
Board must decide whether to continue use of the Ivy MUC as a transfer station or a convenience center.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to prepare and provide at a future meeting additional
information to assist the Board in determining which approach is the most desirable considering costs for
construction and operation, as well as services to be provided.
If the Board finds that improved recycling services is a priority, staff recommends that the Board
direct staff to bring back to the Board for further consideration viable alternatives for providing increased
recycling opportunities for County residents in the near term.
Finally, staff proposes to use input from the Board’s April 2nd discussion of this matter to develop
a Public Engagement Plan for long-term solid waste solutions, including a process using community
involvement to identify and evaluate specific solid waste issues and alternatives. Staff recommends that
the Board direct staff to develop the Plan with a focus on a comprehensive evalua tion of the January,
2008 draft report prepared for the RSWA by GBB.
_____
Mr. Doug Walker stated that the discussion of solid waste options has received considerable
attention from the Board and the larger community, and this conversation would hopefull y provide staff
with some direction moving forward. Mr. Walker reported that, in January 2014, the Board held a public
hearing on the proposed Keene and Mill Creek convenience center site and, at that time, agreed to
suspend further consideration of those sites pending an evaluation of long-term strategies – including a
public process for vetting approaches before the Board makes another d ecision. At that time, he said the
Board also asked for an extension for the Ivy transfer station. Mr. Walker said most recently, the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) was informed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that it
would not authorize a permit extension at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) past June 30, 2015 in
its current form and, in order for DEQ to grant a new permit, the RSWA would need to submit an
approved plan by April 1, 2015, in order to bring the facility into full compliance with current standards.
Mr. Walker said, because of the recent decision by DEQ, there is an immediate need to find a
solution to meet that June 30 deadline, however, the April 1 date is even more compelling because the
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
County will need to have a formal plan with a timeframe about how the facility would be brought into full
compliance. He said this does not mean that consideration of long-term direction cannot occur at the
same time. Mr. Walker said continuing operations at Ivy would assure continuity of services for the
community in some form, and there would need to be a conversation as to how to optim ize capital
investment, recognizing that there are different costs associated with how Ivy might be used depending
on policy choices going forward. He stated that, in the long term , there is consideration of a wide range of
alternatives that are facing the community on how it wants to deal with municipal solid waste including
recycling. Mr. Walker said the Board provided strong direction to staff in January about having public
involvement and some engagement process in order to consider long-range alternatives.
Mr. Walker stated that the continued use of the Ivy MUC is compelling because it is a facility that
already exists, and there is a relatively short period of time to deal with that and/or something else. Mr.
Walker said there are two alternatives for Ivy presented by staff – to continue its operation as a transfer
station, which would require a permit by DEQ. He said it would enable current services to be continued,
including the use of that facility by commercial haulers, but it would require significant capital investment.
Mr. Walker stated that the other option is a convenience center, which is not a transfer station and does
not require a DEQ permit. He said this option would enable the facility to continue to receive residential
waste as well as some limited commercial services at the Ivy location, and also the possibility of
continuing other current services such as receiving clean fill and vegetative waste. He said some capital
investment would be needed, but that would need better clarification going forward, although it is
assumed that investment in a convenience center is less than the investment in a transfer station.
Mr. Walker stated that recycling has also been identified in conversations with Board members in
particular, but also through comments heard repeatedly from members of the public. He said it was
suggested by the Board most recently to continue operations at McIntire, but there has also been
discussion about additional recycling opportunities which might include public/private partnerships or
regional collaboration, therefore, doing something sooner in that regard might be of interest to the Board.
Mr. Walker stated that the property control issue at Ivy is extremely relevant at the governance and legal
levels, and there is post-closure environmental liability in which the County participates along with the City
and University. Beyond that, he said any use of property around that would also require understanding,
evaluation and legal determination with regard to what environmental liability is there. Mr. Walker said
that options with regard to continued use at the Ivy facility would include continuing a contractual
relationship with the solid waste authority, but also may include leasing property from the authority either
in contracting with a private vendor for operations or in providing services directly by the County if that is
determined to be preferred. He stated that property ownership instead of a lease is possible, and “lease”
in this context is intended to represent control but staff is not comfortable representing ownership of
property for a facility where there is current liability as being preferable to lease.
Regarding longer-term directives, Mr. Walker said public involvement could take the form of a
public engagement plan – similar to what the Board had just approved for TMDL/MS4 water quality
initiatives – in order to involve the public in consideration of solid waste solutions. Mr. Walker said that a
first step may be in the context of the 2008 draft solid waste strategic plan which was done for RSWA,
and was not approved but is a meaningful document that includes a wealth of information and has
already been paid for by the community. He stated that the Board could choose to establish a working
group such as a task force or advisory committee and, if the Board were interested, staff could come back
with an engagement plan. Mr. Walker said professional technical consulting support might also be
needed for this effort, as the County does not have a department of public works or solid waste – and,
while Mark Graham is quite skilled, this effort is going to become more involved and will require state-of-
the-art solutions.
Mr. Walker stated that, absent other convenience centers and other options, the continued use of
Ivy seems to be a reasonable starting point to have a conversation and should include a determination as
to whether a transfer station or convenience center is preferred. He said not all distinctions between the
two are known, and there would need to be clarity as to what constitutes “commercia l waste.” Mr. Walker
said service options would need to be established in order to determine cost of operations and the cost of
investment or capital – whether it is a transfer station or convenience center – so, if there is an interest in
looking at Ivy, the County would want to work closely with the RSWA to determine what those operational
and capital costs might be. He stated that the property control and operations issues are a natural
consequence of looking at how the operation of Ivy would look in the short term, and three to five years
seems reasonable when considering the complexity of addressing longer-term options. Mr. Walker said
pursuing other recycling opportunities could generate some information coming back to the Board for
further consideration, and other considerations moving forward include identifying long-term solid waste
solutions, clarifying the public involvement piece, and establishing the level of technical support needed.
Ms. Mallek said, about a month ago, the Board had a conversation with staff that indicated they
had already received clarification about small commercial use at a convenience center from Mr.
Zimmerman, and she did not want to throw that back into the discussion if the status of smaller business
operations had been resolved.
Mr. Walker stated that he wished it were clear, but there has been some indication it is not.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board and said there are
many shades of gray with the issue – how big of a load someone can take, what kind of handling is
required, etc. – and the rule of thumb from DEQ has been that there is an expectation it would come in on
small vehicles and that the material is such it can be hand-loaded from the vehicle directly into the
container never having to be put down on the surface.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Ms. Mallek said someone could use a small dump trailer, because that small amount of dumping
is also allowed. Mr. Walker said he did not hear DEQ say dump trailers were allowed.
Mr. Graham said DEQ did not say dump trailers were allowed.
Ms. Mallek said that is the case in other localities.
Mr. Walker said that was part of the distinction which would become clear, because there is also
a question as to whether a contractor can take waste from that one job as long as he does not go to
another job and take that waste also.
Mr. Foley stated that he is hoping the Board’s general understanding would be confirmed, and
wants to make sure that staff is aware of any issues.
Ms. Mallek said the other question she had was which parts of the current operation at Ivy accept
commercial haulers, and which ones of those could not be done in a convenience cente r. Mr. Walker
said staff is under the impression that clean fill and vegetative waste would be allowed to continue,
however, stumps remain a question because the size of the grinder needed may or may not require an air
permit.
Ms. Mallek stated that Rivanna has already said it does not want a stump grinder there. Mr.
Walker said vegetative waste and clean fill do not require permits, so that is the demarcation point, and
those services could continue.
Ms. Mallek asked if contractors needed to have a place to dump hazardous material daily rather
than waiting for the twice per year disposal. She also asked if they would be able to do that at the
convenience center. Mr. Graham responded that, if it is residential, then it could be done, but daily
household hazardous waste is a much higher level service which is more expensive, because the facility
would have to be constructed to DEQ standards and also one that is permitted for holding those
materials. He said the once or twice per year events do not require that permit, as the material is simply
being loaded and hauled.
Ms. Mallek said the wrapping is what allows that to be stored onsite.
Ms. Dittmar said staff is asking the Board to make decisions on direction, however, it does not
have all the information necessary in order to parse it out.
Ms. Palmer asked if there are any regulations in the works that would change the definition o f a
“convenience center,” and would also like to know what options make the most sense with Ivy in the
event another site were to be used.
Mr. Walker said the discrete question is whether the County wants to stay at Ivy and, if it does,
then there is other information that should be brought forward with RSWA regarding the distinction
between the transfer station and the convenience center. He stated that operational issues would impact
the cost of using the facility for vegetative waste and, if the County is going to continue to receive it in
large quantity, someone would need to be there to manage it and grind it. Mr. Walker said a
determination to proceed with the expectation that the County will stay at Ivy for the short term in order to
achieve an April 1 deadline would then enable staff to move forward and get more information so it could
then be established as to what the Ivy facility will look like.
Mr. Foley said what staff is looking for now is direction to further evaluate transfer versus
convenience center at the Ivy location, and wanted to confirm that the Board would like staff to do that.
He stated that staff has enough information on service level differences which can be brought back to the
Board. He stated that staff is seeking initial direction from the Board to pursue that at Ivy either under a
lease or contracting it out with Rivanna, and that is the three to five-year plan staff is talking about. Mr.
Foley said the second question is what the Board wants to do regarding the public process.
Ms. Dittmar said the third question is how to deal with recycling, and asked if there was a feeling
on the Board if it would like to continue to consider Ivy, and also get a better understanding of what the
options are that go into that decision-making.
Mr. Sheffield said the information he would like to have – which is understandably very difficult to
get – is who is using the Ivy station, for what purpose, and where they are coming from. He stated that
what came out of the Keene and Mill Creek process was direct feedback that the people in those areas
would not use the convenience center sites. Mr. Sheffield said the vast majority of Rio District residents
pay for trash pickup, and probably do not even know about the Ivy facility.
Ms. Mallek said the previous month the Board was presented with a petition signed by 2,518
people from the western part of the County in favor of keeping Ivy open and, in her mind, what is left to be
done is to work out how it is operated, how it will be controlled in a way that does not expose the County
to liability, and to allow the presence of a more modern contractor which is very different from the current
outdated model onsite there.
Ms. Palmer said, as a long-term user of the Ivy facility, she believes it is worthwhile to keep it in
operation on some level, thinks it is a core service of government, and she is very interested in getting
more specifics on what that would look like.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Mr. Boyd said this feels like the movie, “Groundhog Day,” because the Board has had these
discussions many times before, and suggested Board members go back and look at minutes.
Mr. Sheffield said there is no information as to who is using Ivy , where they are coming from and
for what purpose.
Mr. Boyd said if the County is going to continue to operate Ivy, the two issues are cost and liability
– including capital costs and permitting fees. He stated that the Board has been through this analysis
before, and what is needed is the cost of leasing out the Ivy facility from Tom Frederick. He said it is his
recollection that the cost of upgrading Ivy to DEQ requirements was $2-3 million as a transfer station.
Ms. Mallek said she is not interested in making it a transfer station, but wants an enhanced
convenience center for residential customers who cannot afford or get trash pickup and for small
businesses with allowance for items that have been obstacles in the past. She said, in past years, the
main discussion has been the cost, rather than whether it should be a core service.
Mr. Boyd said there would also have to be a lease agreement, and asked what she felt the
County should be spending on solid waste facilities.
Ms. Mallek stated that she does not want to spend the $300,000 they are currently spending on
Rivanna and would prefer to move toward something the County can control.
Ms. Palmer said this gets into long-term planning, adding that she and Ms. Dittmar had met with
some knowledgeable citizens and the consultant that did this report. She stated that they were told ,
along with Tom Frederick, that if the City, University and County could collaborate on recycling, the
material would pay for itself but the entities would have to develop a plan to do that. Ms. Palmer said the
Board must have the discussion on what to do with solid waste long-term and also about the cost which
must be developed initially. She stated that there is a terrible dumping problem in this community and,
while this will not solve that, part of the effort is educating the public on using the sites and using the Ivy
facility. Ms. Palmer said the County must do something about trash, adding that a neighboring
community with the Central Virginia Solid Waste Authority is getting 57% recycling rates – and the only
reason Albemarle is getting part of that is because the County is sending trash to a dirty MRF which is
getting picked out. She said that is not good enough, and the Board needs to look at the Comp Plan,
long-term solutions and the long-term expectations of the community because the County is not meeting
those goals currently.
Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. Palmer wanted to start all over again in order to decide what to do.
Ms. Dittmar said that is not part of the recommendation, and the Board’s starting point should be
consideration of the 2008 plan to determine what is relevant.
Mr. Boyd said that was a hugely expensive plan and perhaps technology has changed since then,
but the plan recommended complete cooperation between the City, University, County and possibly
another county but he does not see that in the cards. He stated that the City has decided what it is going
to do for both recycling and solid waste, and are headed off in that direction which does not include the
County.
Ms. Palmer stated that the City is doing an excellent job, much better than the County is doing.
She stated that the City has single-stream recycling picked up with all the rest of the trash going to Van
der Linde to be picked through again. She said there is the possibility of coming up with a solution that
would involve the City and perhaps piggyback onto one of its existing contracts, perhaps looking at the
County’s urban areas to see if homeowner associations are interested.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that this is not a process which would occur in a year or two, adding that it
will take years.
Ms. Palmer said staff has clearly said there is a short term and a long term solution.
Ms. Mallek stated that the short term is what the County is going to do with Ivy and how it is going
to frame that particular use going forward. She said, even in the best long term case scenario, the
County will still need a place for people to take a bag of trash or branches after a storm and, since Ivy is
established and in a good location, it would be a huge mistake to let it get away.
Ms. Dittmar clarified that the Board wants to look at Ivy as an option, and to also determine
whether to go with a transfer station or convenience center. She said staff would also need to get back to
Board members individually to hear the questions it needs to have answered.
Mr. Sheffield said Board members are still wrestling with the overarching goals, as there are
lingering fiscal concerns that remain in addition to determining what service to provide to residents. Mr.
Foley said those would be part of the long-term study.
Mr. Sheffield said he is more concerned about what residents need and what the County is
providing because, at the end of the day, that is the Board’s job. Mr. Foley stated that, for the short-term
issue, staff would bring back the best data available on who is using Ivy, and all of those goals are fully
appropriate for whatever process is done for long-term solutions.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Palmer said the Board also needs a report on what the problem is and, from her perspective,
the County is putting too much in landfills. She stated that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission’s regional report on solid waste has “reduce, reuse and recycle” as its highest goals. She
stated that the long term vision should be where the County wants to be in 30-50 years, and where the
industry is going with solid waste disposal.
Ms. Dittmar said that will be the long-term focus, but the Board’s immediate need is to make a
decision about Ivy and to let staff know the questions the Board needs to have answered in order to make
it, i.e., who is using it, what the costs are, and all the options. Mr. Foley said, if the Board has reached
consensus on that, staff will reach out to Supervisors individually and bring a report back.
Ms. Palmer stated that recycling should be part of the Board’s long-term discussion.
Ms. Mallek said part of this suggestion could happen in the very near future. Mr. Foley said that
is the question staff had. He asked, in the near term, before doing the long term, would the Board like
staff to come back with some alternatives for expansion, and/or are there other things staff should report
back on.
Ms. Palmer said, in the discussion she and Ms. Dittmar had with the group they met with, the
consultant made the point that, if the County is going to do recycling and the City is doing single-stream –
the County should also do single-stream. She said the consultant also suggested putting unmanned
places at shopping centers to pick up only comingled recyclables and, in addition, he had some
interesting ideas about upgrading McIntire. Ms. Palmer said the consultant’s emphasis was that recycling
should be consistent throughout the community, so everyone knows this is how recycling is done.
Ms. Mallek said Whole Foods Market had a recycling bin at its store when it was located on
Route 29 North which was used by store customers, and was viewed by the store as an asset to t he
business. She stated that, at the public hearing the County held, there was lots of public input on the
desire to have recycling closer to the source so that packaging can be taken back to the area in which it
was purchased.
Ms. McKeel stated that she is interested in a comprehensive materials management strategy for
Albemarle County, in response to what the community wants and would prefer not to proceed with a plan
just because it is the cheapest approach. She said she would also like to prioritize recycling and explore
potential partnerships for solid waste.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Board members wanted to look at recycling as part of the long-range plan.
Ms. McKeel said it should be something considered for the long term.
Ms. Mallek said she was certain it would be part of the long-range strategy, but thought it could
be done in the short term as well.
Mr. Sheffield stated that this sounds like a good Board retreat discussion.
Mr. Boyd said he has already been through this several times and was involved i n the 2008
study, and is not interested in going back through it all over again. He added that he made his decision
based on good information available a year or two ago.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to have staff come back with creative ideas on public -private
partnerships such as the shopping center ideas, as well as regional collaboration and reaching out to
other localities such as Nelson and Greene.
Ms. Palmer said she had asked staff to look into a possible agreement with bordering counties for
Albemarle residents to be able to use their facilities.
Ms. Mallek said Waynesboro is welcoming everyone regardless of residence, and a lot of western
Albemarle residents go there because it is closer.
Ms. Dittmar stated that these are ideas to consider in the short term, and asked Board members
to provide some guidance for long-range plans also.
Ms. Palmer said she would like more information about the Central Virginia Solid Waste Authority
and its structure, and would like to explore that possibility here because it is all based on volume, and
collaboration with the City and the University might provide that. She stated that she would also like
information on the legal issues of using one disposal site over another, as far as the legal requirements if
trash is separated from recyclables with regional usage. Mr. Foley said those are important questions to
be answered with regard to long term alternatives.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to establish where single-stream recycling would be handled in
the long term, as a County.
Ms. McKeel said she would like some information regarding the Southeastern Recycling
Development Council, and perhaps the County could make contact with them to see what they are doing
and perhaps partner with them .
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Ms. Dittmar said there is a local solid waste advisory group in place, and asked if that group could
be used to help develop an overall engagement plan. Mr. Foley responded that the County has some
appointees to Rivanna’s advisory committee as well as City representatives and there are vacancies on
that group, so the Board could possibly use that body for this purpose.
Ms. Mallek said, in the short term, she would propose having the Albemarle County appointees
serve as a subcommittee of the solid waste advisory committee to help get them going, and she would
like to free up these appointees and have them get to work. She stated that the City is not going to come
down to the County’s level on this.
Ms. Palmer said that is a wonderful idea to get them going, and she was not sure if they would
want a structure to that process.
Ms. Mallek said that group should be left alone to do its work and see what they bring back.
Mr. Davis said that committee was created by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority organizational
agreement so it is a Rivanna committee, not a County committee, and consists of three members
appointed by the County, three appointed by the City, two appointed by the University, and an at-large
chairman who is jointly appointed by the City and County. Mr. Davis clarified that the County has made
its three appointees, and the at-large position has not been appointed by the City at this point.
Ms. Mallek said the City has made the at-large appointment, but not the other City appointments,
and she would like to free the committee up to get working.
Mr. Davis said the committee is not under the Board of Supervisors – it is under the control of
Rivanna – so the Board could recommend that there be a subcommittee or advisory committee for the
County, but not the entire Board.
Mr. Walker said his understanding of this suggestion is those four individuals would also be
appointed by the Board to serve as an advisory committee to the Board, so they would actually be serving
in both capacities.
Ms. Mallek moved to establish a solid waste advisory subcommittee with membership comprised
of the three County representatives and one at-large member, all who currently serve on the RSWA’s
solid waste committee. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Foley clarified that this subcommittee would do some initial work on the long -term solutions to
solid waste disposal, and staff would develop a charge and timeline to bring back to the Board for
approval. He stated that he wants to ensure the charge is broad enough for the group to look at some of
the big picture issues, including coordination with the University.
Ms. Dittmar said, in looking at the advisory committee’s composition, there are two UVA
appointees in addition to the three expired City appointees.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is no harm in having them meet with County staff to raise their
education level and prepare for a meeting as a larger committee.
Ms. McKeel said it seems those people could come back and say they feel that, for the benefit of
their work and the committee’s work, they would like some other appointees or someone else at the table.
She said this group does need a specific charge and, at some point, the scope should be narrowed down
a bit.
Mr. Foley suggested having staff meet immediately with those appointees, get their input on a
charge and talk about some of the broader issues.
Board members agreed with this approach.
Mr. Boyd said it seems as though the Board has just created a new committee with general
information and the group would fall under the Freedom of Information Act, require minutes, etc. with no
real name or purpose for the committee.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board would hear about that at the May meeting, after staff has had a
chance to meet with them to talk about a recommended charge.
Ms. Mallek stated that the advisory councils have done very well in meeting FOIA requirements,
posting meetings and taking care of the minutes requirement.
Mr. Foley read the recommendation he had crafted for establishment of the subcommittee: “Staff
recommends to the Board to direct staff to prepare and provide at a future meeting, additional information
to assist the Board in determining which approach is the most desirable concerning costs for construction,
operation at Ivy, as well as services to be provided.” He read the second recommendation as: “Staff
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
recommends to the Board to direct staff to bring back to the Board for further consideration viable
alternatives for providing increased recycling opportunities for County residents in the n ear term.” Mr.
Foley said the last recommendation was to “Develop a public engagement plan for long-term solid waste
options, including a process using community involvement to identify and evaluate specific solid waste
issues and alternatives. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to develop a plan with a focus on a
comprehensive evaluation, including the January 2008 draft report.”
Ms. Mallek said the committee should start with that plan, and should include clarification for the
subcommittee to also provide input on the public engagement process.
Ms. Palmer stated that there should also be clarification that the committee not be involved in
figuring out the use of the Ivy site, as its focus should be on defining the community-wide problem – more
on recycling and less on landfills, to set some goals, and look at the path going forward.
Mr. Foley said the only work staff would want to do is ensure the committee knows the direction in
which the Board would want the committee to go, so the development of the charge would be the part
staff works on with the new group. After that, he said the committee would lead this process, however,
staff may need to provide some technical assistance as well.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Comprehensive Plan Review Process.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that on March 12, 2014, the Board
received initial input from the public on the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“CPA”) recommended
by the Planning Commission in July and August of 2013. Thirty-seven (37) speakers provided comments
on the following topics:
Format and length of document
Amount of detail related to Virginia Code requirements
Amount of detail related to existing Comprehensive Plan, especially in Natural Resources
and Rural Area Chapters
The vision statement
Sustainability
Surface and groundwater
Recommendations related to expanding the natural resources extraction overlay district
Prioritization of economic development activities
Recommendations for Rural Area residential development
Recommendations for Rural Area lower level of service
Rural Area lodging and restaurants
Community services for crossroads communities
Density at the high-end of the range in the Development Areas, especially in the Village
of Rivanna
Southern and Western Neighborhoods master plans
Expansion areas in Places 29 and Southern Neighborhoods (Somerset Farm)
Solid waste recommendations
After the March 12th public hearing, the Board agreed to finalize its process for review of these
and other topics of Board interest at its April 2, 2014 meeting. The Board indicated an intention to begin
the review with the Plan’s vision statement. A suggestion was also made that review of the
goals/objectives/strategies (found in the Plan Summary) should take place before proceeding to a
sequential review of each chapter in the Plan. The Board directed staff to provide one or more
approaches for the Board to consider in undertaking a systematic review of the draft Plan.
On April 2nd, staff will ask the Board for a decision on the approach the Board would like to follow
for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. After that, staff will solicit the identification of additional topics to
cover in the review of the Plan. Finally, staff will lead a discussion with the Board on the vision and will
seek feedback regarding whether or how the Board desires to revise the vision to better reflect specific
aspects that are important to the Board.
Based on comments and intentions expressed by the Board following the March 12 public
hearing, staff offers two slightly different approaches for the Board’s review of the draft Plan:
1. Review of vision statement, followed by review of goals/objectives/strategies (as
found in the Plan Summary), followed by sequential review of each chapter,
including policy issues relevant to each chapter as raised by the Board and the
public, and updated information provided by staff.
Staff believes that this approach would first provide a “big picture” discussion, with details
discussed later in a chapter-by-chapter review. During the review of chapters, the Board
could then base its decisions on the goals/objective/strategies relevant to each particular
chapter, but could also revisit them as necessary.
2. Review of vision statement, followed by sequential review of each chapter,
including relevant goals/objectives/strategies, policy issues raised by the Board
and the public, and updated information provided by staff.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
This approach would begin with the vision statement, and then proceed with Chapter 1.
The goals/objectives/strategies would be reviewed on a chapter-by-chapter basis, rather
than collectively, early in the process. At the end of the process, staff would revise the
Plan Summary to reflect the goals/objectives/strategies decided on throughout the
review.
Under either approach, after the Board has completed its review of a final draft, a second public
hearing will be held prior to the Board taking action to adopt the Plan.
Attachment A outlines both review approaches and organizes the known topics for review by
chapter, including those identified by staff and those raised by the public on March 12th. Staff identified
topics that have arisen since the Planning Commission made its recommendation, such as decisions
regarding the indoor firing range, changes to the flood hazard overlay district, and the County’s
acceptance of the Arrowhead Farm land. Staff also included topics provided by Board members over the
last several months, such as biodiversity in the Development Areas and policing standards. Finally,
topics are included that may need further attention, such as inclusion of the wireless policy, which was
inadvertently left out of the draft provided to the Planning Commission.
The process identified in both approaches will require at least eight Board work sessions prior to
completion of the final draft for a second public hearing. Staff has included a proposed review schedule
consisting of eight work sessions for both options, but has not assigned specific dates for those meetings.
The frequency of meetings will dictate how quickly the review can be completed, a public hearing can be
held, and the Plan can be adopted. It is hoped that the process can be completed before the end of the
2014 calendar year.
Recommendations in the draft Comprehensive Plan include recommendations for future capital
improvements and operations.
Staff prefers the first approach and recommends that the Board proceed with this approach for
review and discussion of the Plan. Both approaches include a review and discussion of the vision
statement (Chapter 2, page 2.3 in the draft Plan) as part of the Board’s April 2 work session and staff will
ask for direction from the Board on the vision statement at that time.
_____
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that staff would like to get
some feedback from the Board regarding a strategy for how it wants to do the review, confirm the topics
in the review, discuss potential changes to the vision, and the time and frequency of work sessions. Ms.
Echols stated that the first decision pertains to the strategies regarding the plan review, and there are two
alternatives in the staff report – with the only difference being one approach beginning with the goals,
objectives and strategies, and the second explores the goals, objectives and strategies of each ind ividual
chapter. She said alternative one makes the most sense to staff, and the Board would most likely start
reviewing the vision statement at the next meeting.
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said staff identified topics and issues heard from
the public’s input, and the Planning Commission has finished its review , therefore, if the Board knows of
anything else it wanted to discuss, it would be helpful to let staff know.
Ms. Mallek said it seems the difference between the two processes is that, first, the Board makes
a decision about goals across the board, then goes back to see how the chapters fit and her concern is, if
the Board does not review the chapters one by one, there would not be enough information to make
those decisions.
Ms. Echols said the Board may not want to make any decisions about goals, objectives and
strategies and may want to use that as an opportunity to become familiar with what those are and then
perhaps determine if those are the right ones as Supervisors go through the chapters.
Ms. Mallek said it is duplicative because the Board would be doing the same review for every
chapter.
Mr. Cilimberg said, by doing the goal review first, the Board would know what to focus on when it
gets to that chapter.
Mr. Sheffield said this is what he had recommended – looking at what the Board is trying to
achieve and then revisiting the goals as it goes through the chapters to see if the goals need to be
adjusted. He said the first point of review would be to inform Board members, to see if the story set out at
the beginning is playing out throughout the chapters. Mr. Sheffield said the Board might identify things it
wants to change and put it on the list similar to what was done during the budget work sessions and then,
at the end, come back to those things.
Ms. Mallek said she felt comfortable with that explanation.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff would like to get a good idea about the vision, because everything the
plan does is connected to that vision so, if that is going to be different, staff would need to know that.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Boyd said the only decision here is on the sequencing of chapter reviews.
Ms. Echols and Mr. Cilimberg said that was the case.
The Board agreed to proceed with the first alternative.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there could be a reminder of the goals and strategies. Ms. Echols stated
that the Board had received the minutes from the meeting, and staff consolidated them into a summary
sheet of speaker, general comments, categories and everything falls into this group, although that is not
how it would go about the review. She said that the review is in the Board’s attachment, which addresses
different topics and the different meetings, and she asked if the Board had looked through the topic list to
assess what it wanted to keep, add or eliminate. Ms. Echols noted that she had incorporated previous
Board comments into the list, and asked if Board members noticed anything missing.
Mr. Sheffield said Board members had received a few emails related to transportation
infrastructure which he had forwarded to staff and wanted to ensure staff had received those. He also
mentioned that there are certain topics he planned on championi ng and encouraged fellow Board
members to go back through the emails and let staff know that Supervisors intend to do the same.
Mr. Cilimberg said Chapter 10 is the transportation chapter which would be reviewed later in the
Comp Plan cycle, with the Long Range Transportation Plan of the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) being adopted by that time as well.
Mr. Foley said, if there are any particular issues in the emails which the Board feels staff should
spend some time on, Supervisors can send those along to Ms. Echols.
Ms. Echols asked the Board if there were other topics which should be added to the list. Mr.
Boyd stated that some of the reference materials and appendices are not on the list, and that is a topic
which should be addressed at som e point.
Ms. Echols asked if that could be done chapter by chapter. Mr. Boyd said that was fine.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff’s plan was, when they reached a chapter that had an appendix or
reference document attached to it, staff would go over it. He said, in their advanced information to the
Board, staff would focus on what a particular work session would cover and the reference and appendix
material will be part of that.
Mr. Sheffield pointed out that the opportunity for public input was still open.
Mr. Boyd said the Board should allow public input during the work sessions.
Mr. Sheffield said the Board might have to limit that time, as it would extend the length of the work
sessions.
Ms. Mallek said the Board could direct the conversation toward questions and clarifications.
Mr. Sheffield suggested Board members provide input on specific items to staff within a week for
the review timeframe.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to have some indication on the best way to deal with the Southern
Neighborhood Master Plan situation.
Mr. Cilimberg said that item could be taken up during the Chapter 8 discussion and the Board
may want to separate that particular item out depending on how it is able to progress through each of the
work sessions.
Ms. Dittmar asked how much detail Board members would be working through with master plans
as part of the Comp Plan review process. Ms. Echols said staff suggests the Board review the
recommended master plan and, if there are places where the Board felt additional work was needed, staff
would be advising on that. She stated that this might prompt additional meetings or it could be handled in
a work session prior to public hearings. Ms. Echols said the Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan is as important as all of the other master plans including Crozet and Pantops, so the Board
will need to be familiar enough with it so that Board members are comfortable approving it.
Ms. Mallek asked if there had been a public input process for those two neighborhoods. Ms.
Echols said there had been a number of meetings for southern and western neighborhoods, starting a
few years earlier, and they started with the existing plan along with some alternatives, then we nt to the
Planning Commission who suggested staff get more public input, and then brought some transportation
items to them as well.
Ms. Mallek asked if there had been an appointed committee of stakeholders who were really
digging into the master plan. Ms. Echols confirmed that there had not been.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to see the minutes for those meetings. Ms. Echols said there are
meeting notes which is information taken from the meetings by staff, in addition to the notes taken at the
meetings.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Palmer stated that the Board has the natural resources and the minerals and mines sections
already identified as needing discussion.
Mr. Boyd said it would be helpful to have the dates of these meetings available as soon as
possible so Supervisors can share it with community advisory groups.
Mr. Cilimberg said there would be a discussion related to the schedule and calendar.
Ms. Echols stated that, regarding a future vision, she would like the Board to think about what it
would like the community to look like in 50 years.
Ms. Echols reported that staff has at least eight work sessions identified even before the Board
gets to the public hearing process so, with one work session per month, it would be December before it
can get to a public hearing. She said the Comp Plan often takes a backseat to other more immediate
concerns, and staff is concerned that, if that occurs too often, the Comp Plan will never get finished. Ms.
Echols emphasized that there are departments waiting to get going on their work programs as soon as
they know what their charge is.
Mr. Boyd suggested holding work sessions either before or after the Board’s regular meetings,
with two hours set aside for each. Ms. Echols and Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the two-hour timeframe
would work.
Ms. Mallek suggested there be two work sessions per month so it does not drag out for too long
and proposed work sessions be held a few hours before the night meeting.
Mr. Sheffield said his only concern is that the public has been frustrated with meetings that are
held before 5:00 p.m. because they do not have a chance to participate. He stated that, for topics like
solid waste, they may not be as interested but might be interested in the planning of their communities.
Mr. Foley stated that the County has traditionally held its public hearings at 6:00 p.m., but a lot of
localities hold them at 7:00 p.m., so holding work sessions earlier could capture the 5:30 p.m. crowd.
Mr. Sheffield said Mr. Boyd’s suggestion of having work sessions from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. might
accommodate that. He stated that all of the feedback he has received from the public so far is that they
are frustrated when public hearings are held during the day.
Ms. Palmer stated that the City has “matters from the public” at the begin ning and the end of its
meetings so, if a meeting is scheduled which straddles the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. timeframe, that might
accommodate everyone.
Ms. McKeel said the public might also want to hear the discussion, and it would be nice to find a
way to accommodate them. She suggested the Board not piggyback an important conversation on top of
a long meeting, because it is hard to have the mental energy to properly discuss an item.
Ms. Mallek said holding the work sessions beforehand would be great from her perspective, and
either 4-6 p.m. or 5-7 p.m. would work for her.
Mr. Sheffield suggested the Board try the 5-7 p.m. timeframe and see how the public reacts.
Ms. McKeel said the 5-7 p.m. timeframe might also give more people the opportunity to listen to
the live stream of the meeting.
Mr. Boyd stated that the reason he suggested keeping the work sessions on existing Board
meeting nights is because those are already plotted out on his calendar, and he has built his other
schedule around that.
Board members agreed to hold the Comp Plan work sessions twice per month to accelerate the
schedule.
Ms. Dittmar clarified that the day meeting would be extended from 5-7 p.m.
Mr. Sheffield and Ms. Palmer said the night meeting would be 5-7 p.m., and the day meeting
would be at the end.
Ms. Dittmar stated that each slot would be 5-7 p.m., whether it is at the beginning of the night
meeting or the end of the day meeting.
Mr. Boyd suggested the day meeting schedule should be extended from 4-6 p.m., and work to
keep the regular meeting ending at 4 p.m.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that the Board’s first meeting of the month would have a work session from
4-6 p.m., and the second Wednesday would have a work session from 5-7 p.m.
Ms. Echols said the only remaining question is if and how the Board would want to take public
input at those work sessions.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Sheffield asked if there was a way to set up a webpage for people to submit a comment and
hit “send” so that everyone is getting the comments. Mr. Cilimberg said the County has a website, and
would have to work with the Information Technology (IT) Department on how to set it up in order to
accommodate the comments that come in.
Mr. Foley said IT should be able to do that.
Mr. Boyd suggested having about 15 minutes set aside at the beginning of each work session for
public comments on the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said people could be given enough time to simply state their concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission found it helpful to get public comment on some
items before getting into its discussion.
_______________
Recess. At 11:37 a.m., the Board recessed their meeting, and reconvened at 11:51 a.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. B. F. Yancey Elementary School Community Use.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that on December 13, 2012, the
Board of Supervisors and the School Board approved the charter for a work group (Attachment A) whose
members were to be appointed by the County Executive and Superintendent of Schools. The purpose of
the work group was to explore and recommend potential community - wide use of B.F. Yancey
Elementary School to serve the southern Albemarle community. The charter for the work group identified
the following “Primary Objectives of the Work Group”:
1. Identify service needs of the southern Albemarle community including review of existing
needs assessments and other data compiled by the County and other community
partners over the past 5 -10 years.
2. Develop recommendations for enhanced use of the school building. Ideas for strategies
might include first identifying how much and what kind of space may be available,
identifying any restrictions on the use within the building and identifying
activities/programs that are aligned with continuing the building as an elementary school.
3. Identify other individuals, entities, and/or organizations already engaged in or interested
in enhanced service delivery, and to determine feasibility for public/private partnerships to
support program development.
4. Conduct research into best practice models where successful programs or uses have
been identified and implemented.
5. Research avenues of possible funding support for model programs, including foundations
with interest in enhanced service delivery in settings such as the Yancey Elementary
School.
On December 12, 2013, the attached Final Report of the Yancey Work Group (Attachment B) was
presented to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. Recommendations were discussed and the
Board directed staff to bring back an update of community use, programming and opportunities.
Members of the Yancey Work Group have met regularly since April 2013 to accomplish the above
objectives. As a result of their work, the following services have been implemented at Yancey
Elementary School:
Quick Start Tennis –Basic tennis for adults and children of all ages sponsored by a
QuickStart Tennis Grant.
Introduction to Computers – Beginner class for adults to learn and/or improve computer
skills in partnership with Adult Education.
Baby Steps – Drop-in playgroup for infants to school-age children in partnerships with
Club Yancey, Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Community, organized community
volunteers and the Southern Albemarle Family Practice.
Open Gym – Open on weekends to all ages in partnership with the Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation Department.
Cyber Sundays – Community Internet access in the school in partnership with the
Southern Albemarle Intergenerational Community Committee and Club Yancey.
Reading, Writing, or Speaking English – The Literacy Volunteers of
Charlottesville/Albemarle has partnered with Yancey Elementary and Club Yancey.
Social Services Day - Dedicated days and times to provide resource and benefit
information to the community in partnership with the Albemarle County Depar tment of
Social Services.
Open Doors Learning Catalog (Attachment C) - An informational publication of ongoing
activities at Yancey and community events throughout southern Albemarle in
partnerships with Community Education, Yancey Elementary and Club Yancey.
Veggie Village at Yancey – Grant awarded to Club Yancey by Quick Start Tennis and
Piedmont Master Gardeners that provides Club Yancey afterschool program participants
with the opportunity to enhance their gardening skills and harvest their own vegetates .
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Club Yancey partnering with the Thomas Jefferson Gardening Club to grow flowers and
make landscape improvements to the school.
Weekly reading and one-on-one tutoring in partnership with Club Yancey and volunteers
from the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) and the Scottsville JABA Senior Center.
Additional action steps and program elements supported by the members of the Yancey Work
Group that are currently scheduled or proceeding are as follows:
Establish B.F.Yancey as an Intergenerational Education Learning Center for southern
Albemarle.
Continuation of the Parks and Recreation partnership.
Expanding JABA programming to include additional learning opportunities for all ages.
In partnership with JABA, applying for a VDOE 21st century community center grants that
supports Club Yancey.
April 16 - Community Expo – Introduction of the New Yancey Community Center through
presentations from students, community organizations and other community resources.
April 19 - Community Egg Hunt.
FY 2014/15 approved Capital Facility Improvements - Land purchase, new septic system
and roof replacement totaling $1,119,066.00.
Further, the members of the Yancey Work Group recommend the following additional actions:
1. The County Executive and Superintendent of Schools appoint the Yancey Work Group as
the Yancey Advisory Panel for Intergenerational Programming for southern Albemarle
and establish its continuing function by charter.
2. The School Board dedicate funding for Club Yancey to support the salary of a Director
and to expand and facilitate intergenerational programming. The School Board, pursuant
to 26 USC § 170 (c) (1), can accept tax deductible charitable contributions designated to
support Club Yancey.
3. Funding of an additional $10,000.00 to be used for Club Yancey for personnel and space
cost for youth and adult Intergenerational educational programs throughout the school
day in addition to after school, evenings and weekends.
4. The Board of Supervisors and School Board authorize a letter of endorsement and
financial commitment (Attachment D) to be used in the solicitation of grant opportunities
that encourage private and public partnerships.
5. The County staff and Long Range Planning Committee continue to partner with the
Yancey Advisory Panel in identifying existing facility needs and attain design and cost
estimate for future facility needs for Intergenerational educational programs throughout
the school day in addition to after school, evenings and weekends for southern
Albemarle.
In partnership with B. F. Yancey Elementary School, Club Yancey, the Yancey Work Group and
community volunteers providing intergenerational programming and services to the citizens of southern
Albemarle, County and School Division staff have provided in-kind staff and program support in excess of
$38,000.00 since April, 2013. Part of this contribution was in the form of Parks and Recreation staff
supervision of the Open Gym on weekends from January through March of 2014 with funds ava ilable in
the Parks and Recreation FY14 budget for programs. This support enabled the school to be open for
non-school purposes with Parks and Recreation paying the cost of the gym supervisor. B.F. Yancey
School also benefits from the Family Support program through the Albemarle County Department of
Social Services. This support is on-going and is valued at approximately $34,000 annually.
Members of the Yancey Work Group have expressed an interest in continuing four hours of
community-based programming each weekend and have requested the Board’s consideration of funding
support in FY14 and FY15 for this purpose. The cost to use the school for four hours of weekend
programming through Parks and Recreation would be $115 per weekend. That level of support would
translate to $1,495.00 for the remainder of FY14, and $5,980 for FY15. It is assumed that only the
$28.75/hour Custodial Fee would be assessed by the School Division and that the $17.25 Use Fee would
be waived. If the Board supports either request, it is suggested that it consider the use of Reserve for
Contingencies for the FY14 portion and either identify one-time funding for FY15 or support an increase in
the FY15 General Fund Budget for Parks and Recreation in an amount necessary to cover the cost as
described.
Further, as indicated above, members of the Yancey Work Group have also expressed an
interest in $10,000 to be used for Club Yancey for personnel and space cost for youth and adult
intergenerational educational programs throughout the school day in addition to after school, evenings
and weekends. If the Board supports such a request at this time, it is suggested that one-time money be
identified in FY14 or FY15 for this purpose and that the matter be revisited as an on-going operating
expense as part of the upcoming 5-year Financial Plan discussion.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Staff recommends that the Board:
1. Direct staff to work with the members of the Yancey Work Group to draft a Charter for the
establishment of a Yancey Advisory Panel for Intergenerational Programming as a way to
guide the on-going work of the community stakeholders regarding the community use of
the Yancey School. It is understood that the Charter would also be submitted to the
School Board for its consideration
2. Authorize the attached letter of endorsement (Attachment D)
3. Direct staff regarding any support for additional funding for weekend programming
through Parks and Recreation and/or additional funding for support of Club Yancey as
described hereinabove.
_____
Mr. Bob Crickenberger, Director of Parks and Recreation, addressed the Board, stating that he
would provide an update on the work of the Yancey workgroup specific to community-wide use of the B.
F. Yancey Elementary School. Mr. Crickenberger said, in December 2012, the Board of Supervisors and
School Board approved a charter for a workgroup whose members were appointed by the County
Executive and the Superintendent of Schools, with the purpose of exploring and recommending potential
community-wide use of B.F. Yancey Elementary. He stated that members of the Yancey workgroup have
continued to meet since they gave their report to the Board and School Board in December 2013. He
said, during that time, recommendations were discussed and the Board directed st aff to come back and
update it on community use and current programs and services being offered. Mr. Crickenberger said
members of the Yancey workgroup have continued to meet regularly, as they have been since April 2013,
to accomplish the primary objectives within that charter.
As a result of their work and developing partnerships within the community with Yancey
Elementary, Mr. Crickenberger reported that Club Yancey organized community volunteers, Parks &
Recreation Department, churches, and other agencies and the following services have been
implemented: Quick Star tennis instruction, Introduction to Computers beginning class for adults, Baby
Steps playgroup, an open gym program, Cyber Sundays community internet access, Literacy Volunteers
reading and writing classes and speaking English, dedicated Social Services days with onsite resource
and benefit information, a vegetable garden established by Piedmont Master Gardeners and funded by
another Quick Star grant, and reading/writing/one-on-one tutoring that partners with Jefferson Area Board
for Aging (JABA) and the Scottsville Senior Center. Mr. Crickenberger said the Yancey workgroup has
other activities planned for the future, and wishes to expand partnerships with the Parks & Recreation
Department and JABA specifically through pursuit of the 21st Century Community Center grant that
supports Club Yancey, and is the bulk of the organization’s operations funding. He stated that a
community expo would be held at Yancey on April 16, and a community Easter egg hunt would also be
held. He said the new septic system and roof replacement are on schedule to occur during the summer.
Mr. Crickenberger stated that the Yancey workgroup members recommend the following
additional actions: that the County Executive and Superintendent of Schools appoint the workgroup as
the “Yancey Advisory Panel” for intergenerational programming for southern Albemarle, and establish its
continued functioning by charter; that the School Board dedicate funding for Club Yancey to support the
salary of a director to expand and facilitate additional intergenerational programming; funding an
additional $10,000 to be used for Club Yancey for personnel and space fee for youth and adult
educational programs to be held throughout the day and during after-school hours and weekends; the
Board of Supervisors and School Board authorize a letter of endorsement and any financial commitment
that can be used by the workgroup to solicit any grant opportunities that exhibit a private and public
partnership, and that County staff, along with a long-range planning committee, continue to partner with
the Yancey Advisory Panel to identify existing space within the school to obtain design and cost estimates
for future space and planning.
Mr. Crickenberger said the proposed budget impact includes support for the four hours of
programming currently held on weekends, and the Yancey workgroup requests that the Board consider
funding and support for FY14 and FY15 for weekends. Mr. Crickenberger stated that the cost to use the
school for weekend programming through Parks & Recreation is $115 per weekend, or a total of $1,495
for the remainder of FY14, and $5,980 for FY15 – totaling $7,475. He said, if the Board supports either
request, it is suggested that it consider the use of reserve for contingencies for the FY14 portion, and
either identify one-time funding for FY15 or support an increase in the FY15 general fund budget for
Parks & Recreation. He stated that the workgroup has also expressed an interest in securing $10,000 to
be used for Club Yancey, for personnel and space costs for programs offered during the school d ay, after
hours, and weekends in addition to what is currently being offered. Mr. Crickenberger said the
recommendations before the Board are that it direct staff to work with members of the Yancey workgroup
to draft a charter for the establishment of a Yancey advisory panel as a way to guide the ongoing and
future community use of Yancey School; authorize a letter of endorsement that can be used for soliciting
grant opportunities; and direct staff regarding support for additional funding for weekend programs
through Parks & Recreation or additional funding to support Club Yancey.
Ms. Palmer said the original estimate for keeping the four-hour time slot open was approximately
$9,300, but this estimate is around $7,500. Mr. Crickenberger said, if Parks & Recreation were to
sponsor or help co-sponsor the weekend and after-school activities at Yancey, by School Board policy,
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
they are a “Type I” partner so the space fee would be eliminated. He stated that these figures reflect that
sponsorship. He said the original cost estimates included the space fee.
Ms. Palmer asked about the open gym program, and if it was done at all of the elementary
schools. Mr. Crickenberger said the open gym program is held only at Yancey, and includes four total
hours of programming over weekends.
Ms. Palmer stated that there is a group of people that have been working very hard, and a
director working for Club Yancey that is putting in a huge amount of time trying to get these other
activities going during weekends. She said it is a little bit confusing when parsing out where the money is
going and who it is going to, adding that she is hoping she can talk the Board into providing $10,000 per
year.
Mr. Doug Walker said there are two organizations in a position to receive funding support in order
to continue programming: Parks and Recreation, which has been providing support through the Open
Gym program, which was initiated by the workgroup and are using funding already in the FY14 budget.
He stated that the other organization is Club Yancey, which is directly affiliated with the schools and run
by a school employee but funded through non-school means.
Mr. Davis clarified that Club Yancey is not a legal entity, it is just a school club so all of the
funding would go through the school system.
Ms. Palmer said the immediate issue is the endorsement letter, which needs to be done so the
workgroup can meet an April 10 grant deadline, and the other issues are more complicated and
controversial. She added that she would not want the momentum of the workgroup’s efforts to date to be
stalled by not allowing the school to be open.
Mr. Boyd asked what the financial commitment was as represented in the letter.
Ms. Palmer said the letter is for $10,000, and the 21st Century grant is for about $150,000. She
said the grant is being written by the director of Club Yancey, and one of the grant’s criteria is support
from the community, with 25% of the grant focused on community support and involvement. She stated
that staff has done a lot of work with the group on establishing the value of in-kind support, and it was
somewhat inflated because it was counting a family support worker but part of that was already her job
and needed to be parsed out. Ms. Palmer said she was asking for $10,000 to go towards keeping the
school open so the group could continue activities.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is $7,500 to keep the school open and $10,000 for personnel.
Ms. Palmer said she thought the $10,000 was for keeping the school open, but that is an entirely
different thing. Mr. Crickenberger clarified that they are entirely different things – with $7,500 to continue
the weekend classes and offerings, and the $10,000 is a request by the group which would be dedicated
to Club Yancey for expanding programs beyond what is currently being offered.
Ms. Palmer asked if there would be a problem with the $10,000 if the County were to approve it
for Parks & Recreation, and if Club Yancey could not say they were getting that support if it went through
Parks & Recreation.
Ms. Mallek said the $10,000 is not even in the letter, so that is not an issue.
Ms. Palmer stated that she had sent an email out the day before with updated information,
including a revised amount.
Ms. Dittmar asked for clarification as to what the Supervisors were trying to accomplish.
Ms. Palmer said she would like to receive approval of the letter, and the only other action item for
this meeting was to approve the group as a committee.
Mr. Foley stated that the clarification he needed after reading the letter was whether this was a
$10,000 one-time allocation needed to match the grant.
Ms. Mallek said the letter references an expectation of the County to provide a similar level of in-
kind support going forward.
Mr. Foley said that is separate from the $10,000.
Ms. Mallek said the in-kind support was essentially the Social Services worker and the school
staff already there.
Ms. Palmer stated that the group would continue in that manner, but would have to see how the
in-kind support was tabulated.
Ms. Mallek said her confusion is related to the $10,000 and if it is for after-school activity, or is it
for personnel, and who is in charge of it. Mr. Crickenberger stated that the $10,000 would go to Club
Yancey.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Ms. Mallek clarified that the Yancey workgroup is not a nonprofit entity, so they cannot get the
money directly. Mr. Walker said it would be a donation to the school designated for that purpose.
Ms. McKeel stated that this is confusing and she would like for the item to come back later, but
the letter is critical as it allows Yancey to apply for a grant. She stated that the $10,000 referenced in the
letter would be one-time money that the County was putting up with the hope they would get the grant
and, if they do not get the grant, she was not sure what would happen to the $10,000.
Mr. Foley said what the County would typically do is wait to hear that the grant is approved before
releasing the money.
Ms. Palmer stated that she wants the grant to get funded, but it is also very important to her to
keep the school open on weekends.
Mr. Foley asked if there was money already allotted to provide four hours per weekend for three
months out of the year. Mr. Crickenberger said that pays for the Open Gym program, and the supervisor
can also serve as the building supervisor.
Mr. Foley said $7,500 would be needed to continue that program beyond this fiscal year, and that
would be an ongoing commitment.
Ms. Palmer asked if that had been counted as in-kind support in the past. Mr. Walker said, in the
past, that support had been counted as Parks & Recreation’s time: Mr. Crickenberger’s time, the
supervisor’s time, and [Debbie’s] time.
Ms. Palmer asked Charlotte Brody, the Yancey workgroup coordinator, to help explain the
request.
Ms. Brody said the workgroup had considered the $7,500 because it was what Parks &
Recreation Department was providing to the school as part of the in-kind support and, in the first draft of
the letter, staff only had the past in-kind contributions, so there was nothing reflected going forward. She
stated that the workgroup thought those amounts were still to be determined, and asked separately for a
special one-time $10,000 allocation to Club Yancey in support of the expanded vision for the future. Ms.
Brody said, in addition to the grant due on April 10, there are other grant applications they want to make
in April and May, and several more due in August and September and did not want to have to come back
to the Board each time.
Ms. Dittmar suggested the Board separate out the urgent action item and try to clear up the
confusion on the rest later.
Ms. Palmer said the grant will look a whole lot better if the County can provide a match of
$10,000. She said she recognizes the request did not go through the regular Agency Budget Review
Team (ABRT) process so that is why she is trying to include it in Parks & Recreation funding in the future.
.
Ms. Mallek clarified that the $7,500 is being called $10,000, and it is just one category instead of
two.
Ms. Palmer said she was not expecting the Board to support a grant at this time, and she used
the $10,000 figure because it had already been talked about as $9,339 during the budget process.
Mr. Foley stated that if the Board is unable to resolve this matter now, there is one more meeting
before the grant deadline of April 10.
Ms. Mallek said the Board should at least try to resolve it by the end of the day.
Ms. Palmer agreed, and apologized for the confusion.
Mr. Sheffield said it is a stronger gesture by the County to back up the letter with a financial
commitment, with the stipulation that it would be escrowed until the Board knows what is happening. He
added that it is always good to get local support to draw down other funds.
Ms. Mallek stated that this is going to go toward keeping the center open, and shows that the
County is willing to put some skin in the game.
Mr. Foley agreed to bring the item back in a more formalized fashion at the end of the meeting
that day.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Board of Supervisors Annual Retreat.
(Note: Due to lateness of hour, the Board decided to take this matter up during the afternoon
portion of the meeting.)
_______________
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Agenda Item No. 14. Board of Supervisors/City Council Joint Meeting.
(Note: Due to lateness of hour, the Board decided to take this matter up during the afternoon
portion of the meeting.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Meeting.
At 12:55 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 (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments;
under Subsection (1) to discuss the assignment of a specific public safety employee; under Subsection
(3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for court facilities because an open meeting discussion
would adversely affect the bargaining position of the County; and under Subsection (7) to consult with
and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation concerning a personnel matter
because a public discussion would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Meeting.
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. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Ms. McKeel moved to appoint/reappoint the following individuals to boards, committees and
commissions:
reappoint Ms. Frances Hooper to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee
(CTAC), with said term to expire April 3, 2017.
reappoint Mr. Russell Lafferty as the Planning Commission liaison to the Citizens
Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) with said term to expire April 3, 2017.
appoint Ms. Nancy Fleischman as the White Hall District representative to the
Equalization Board with said term to expire December 31, 2014.
appoint Ms. Angela Lynn as the White Hall District representative to the Social Services
Advisory Board to fill an unexpired term ending December 31, 2015.
appoint Mr. Lynwood Bell as the Rivanna District representative to the Social Services
Advisory Board to fill an unexpired term commencing May 13, 2014 and ending
December 31, 2015.
reappoint Ms. Cyndi Burton to the Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council, with
said term to expire March 31, 2016.
Appoint Supervisor Liz Palmer to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC), with said term to expire December 31, 2015
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) Annual Report.
Dr. Frank Friedman addressed the Board, stating that he would provide a brief orientation for the
benefit of the new Supervisors. Dr. Friedman reported that the Board appoints four of PVCC’s thirteen
board members, and the current members are Debbie Goodman, Sean Moynihan, Bruce Dotson, and
Steven Davis. He said the next opportunity the Board would have to appoint a member would be in 2016
when Debbie Goodman’s term expires, with four-year terms renewable once. Dr. Friedman stated that
the Board can solicit his input or not, adding that all of the Board’s appointees have been excellent.
Dr. Friedman stated that there are four elements of PVCC’s mission, with the first one being
access. He explained that the College exists to make higher education available to everyone who can
benefit, and this is done in a number of ways – by trying to be as flexible as possible, by having day
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
classes, night classes, online classes, weekend classes, etc. He said three-fourths of PVCC students are
part-time, and many are married with children and are fitting college in around all of their other
responsibilities – so they have set the College up to serve that kind of person. Dr. Friedman stated that
the other way to keep access available is to keep tuition as low as possible, and PVCC’s current tuit ion
and fees for a full year total about $4,000, which is about one-third of the next lowest cost option, and
would include tuition, fees and room and board at public four-year colleges in-state.
Dr. Friedman said the second part of PVCC’s mission is student success, stating that the College
is not there to weed out the educational winners and losers, but is there to make educational winners out
of everyone it can. Dr. Friedman said the College provides many learning support services – a writing
center, a learning center, math center, tutoring for every course offered, counseling and advising – all at
no extra cost. Dr. Friedman stated that PVCC is a teaching institution, and enrollees will most likely never
be in classes of more than 40 students, with most classes not exceeding 15 students per class. He said
there are only about five classes that have more than 40 students, and those are in areas where they go
out to clinicals afterward anyway. Dr. Friedman said most classes are between 15-30 students, and it is a
very personal and interactive form of education with distance learning online courses limited to the same
number of students in face to face classes. Dr. Friedman stated that the last part of PVCC’s mission is
community, and the College wants to work with the Board as leaders of the community to be a major
resource in helping provide educational opportunities and workforce development for the people of
Albemarle County.
Dr. Friedman said Fall 2013 semester enrollment was approximately 5,630 students, with a
record the previous year of 5,690. He said the 2005-2012 enrollment increased by approximately 1/3 –
going from 4,100 to 5,600 and, now that the recession is over; the number has plateaued, which is fairly
typical. He stated that Albemarle County residents comprise 40% of enrollment and, in looking at an
entire year; about 3,000 residents take credit courses with another 1,500 taking non-credit courses. Dr.
Friedman stated that, for Albemarle County High Schools out of a gra duating class each June, 20% enroll
in PVCC in the fall and, for the same time period, 600 are taking PVCC courses in their high school
through dual enrollment. He said students earn college credit and their grades are reflected on
transcripts and, because most of the courses are liberal arts, those credits will be accepted at almost any
college. Dr. Friedman stated that Albemarle County students received the equivalent of $500,000 in free
tuition last year, and that free education was worth about $1.5 million at UVA. He said PVCC offers a
wide range of courses online and, currently, about 40% of students take at least one online course each
year with 750 Albemarle students taking at least one online course last year.
Dr. Friedman reported that, in looking at PVCC’s enrollment in 2012 versus 2013, 1,500 students
had moved onto four-year colleges and universities with 2/3 in Virginia and 1/3 out of state; about 125
students transfer to UVA every year, which makes PVCC the largest provider of transfer students to UVA.
He said PVCC students do extremely well at UVA, with a 90% graduation rate and an average 3.2 GPA.
Dr. Friedman said the biggest area of workforce programs provided is in healthcare, with about
200 graduates per year. He said the one area getting the most attention is the Associate Degree in
Nursing program, but there are also programs to prepare license practical nurses (LPNs), certified nursing
assistants (CNAs), surgical technologists, radiographers, sonographers, paramedics, patient admis sion
coordinators, coders, and health information managers. He said the College is hoping to have two new
healthcare programs: pharmacy technician and central sterile processing. He said all health programs
are done in conjunction with the UVA Health System and Martha Jefferson Hospital, which help the
College design the curriculum and often provide financial assistance to get the programs launched. Dr.
Friedman said the Intelligence Analyst Program has had about 50 graduates, and most of them are
working as intelligence analysts either for the government or private contractors. He stated that the
viticulture and enology program has had about 400 students go through and, in almost any winery
operation in the area; the owner has also taken the program. Dr. Friedman said PVCC has also opened
a culinary arts program this year with about 40 students enrolled.
Dr. Friedman reported that PVCC receives about $20,000 from Albemarle County each year, and
the seven jurisdictions split a $50,000 appropriation to PVCC, which is based on percentage of
enrollment. He said a bigger contribution is when they build a new building and, by state law, the state
will not fund the site development work at community colleges – anything outside of the building – so any
time PVCC builds a building, Dr. Friedman will come before the Board and ask for its share of the site
development funding as part of its regional share. He said the last time the College made that request, it
was in 2009 for the Kluge Moses Science Building, and he hopes to be asking the County again in the
next two or three years as PVCC is in line for about $20 million for a student success center. Dr.
Friedman stated that the facility would include a new and expanded library, new and expanded stu dent
support services, and a student union. He said PVCC did not get the funding from the General Assembly
this year, but he is hopeful it would come to fruition in the next session.
Dr. Friedman stated that the County is doing a master plan for southern Albemarle County, and
although PVCC’s land is state-owned and institutional, they are looking at a parcel that is behind the
Dickinson Building going up to Avon Street which offers no academic use and may be leasable. He said
the parcel is projected for a multi-family housing area, and is in the proposal for the master plan as
requested by PVCC.
Ms. Mallek said the EMT training classes at PVCC helped the Earlysville firefighters to be able to
run their own ambulance out of its station. She asked if the 10:00 p.m. bus route was nonexistent at this
point.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Dr. Friedman stated that PVCC has always had a bus route to PVCC, and the last bus picked up
at 10:00 p.m. because night classes go from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. He said, in January, the College was
suddenly informed that the last bus was going to be at 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. He said PVCC reacted
immediately, and the Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) rerouted buses so the last bus could pick up at
PVCC at 9:55 p.m. but only for one semester. Dr. Friedman said it would be a real hardship to take that
route away, and it does not make much sense to him for communities that value education to take away
that option from the people who need it the most.
Ms. McKeel thanked him for staying involved with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical
Education Center’s (CATEC) strategic planning process, as it is an important initiative for them.
Dr. Friedman said PVCC has been very involved with the new strategic plan for CATEC, adding
that the consulting firm brought him in early in that process. He stated that they are very excited about
the possibility of a closer relationship with CATEC in order to help provide a seamless array of vocational
technical programs to the City and County. Dr. Friedman said they do this now to a pretty good degree,
but it would fit together better in a four-year pattern which takes a student from 11th grade through two
years at PVCC and that would be PVCC’s goal. He said he has been working closely with Adam
Hastings at CATEC, and they were co-presenting on this topic at the Tom Tom Festival the following
Saturday.
Ms. McKeel commented that she felt the seamless flow would be even better if CATEC was on
the PVCC campus.
Dr. Friedman said PVCC would be very interested in that, and said he had an article about a
community who built a new career and technical high school on the college campus. He stated that the
college provided the land for free, and PVCC would be willing to do that. Dr. Friedman said one big
advantage to the joint campus layout is that laboratories in the building can be used by high school
students during the day and by adult community college students at night, which provides a lot more bang
for the buck. He mentioned that there is a real advantage in taking college course s rather than adult
basic education courses, because college courses qualify for federal financial aid whereas CATEC
classes for adults do not.
Ms. McKeel said all of the models show that having a career and technical school located near a
community college makes them both very high performing, and it is a wonderful boon for the community.
She asked if the money for the new building site work would go into the County’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), and wondered if the Board should put a placeholder in the budget.
Mr. Foley said staff would work with Dr. Friedman on that request since it is on the horizon, and it
would depend on the amount of the request because, in the past, funds have been covered by
operations, not capital.
Dr. Friedman said it is not a huge amount and, in the past, they have spread it out over three or
four years so it does not hit each county all at once. He said it takes that long to get state approvals to do
construction, so they spread the contribution out over several years.
Ms. Dittmar stated she would like to add that to the Board’s list of discussion points with
legislators regarding costs passed onto localities when the construction is being done for state
universities.
Dr. Friedman said a bill was filed this year to amend that part of the state code to have
community colleges treated the same as other universities, but he was not sure where it stood. He
emphasized that community colleges do not feel those costs should be passed onto localities either.
Ms. Palmer thanked Dr. Friedman for his report and asked him to comment on PVCC’s
dependency on adjunct professors for core classes.
Dr. Friedman said it is a fiscal reality to do so, but not a reality he would choose. He stated that ,
at one point in his career, he worked at Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA) at a time when
community colleges were funded by state formula that provided 70% full-time faculty and 30% adjunct.
Dr. Friedman said that was a very acceptable format to him and for the colleges because, in many
disciplines, adjuncts bring real-world knowledge right into the classroom. He stated that, due to funding
changes, especially over the last 10 years, PVCC is about 45% full-time and 55% part-time based purely
on fiscal realities. Dr. Friedman said, as an open-door institution, they do not turn students away and, as
an access institution, they do not cap enrollment. He said, as a teaching institution, they keep classes
small. He stated that the way to handle more students and keep classes small when there is not enough
money is to hire adjuncts, who make approximately half of what full-time faculty do on a course by course
basis. Dr. Friedman said, each year for the past five or six years, the community colleges have gone to
the General Assembly with a legislative initiative to try to reverse this trend, but they have only been
successful in getting enough funding to hire three or four full-time faculty. He stated that the College
would appreciate any help the Board could provide in this regard.
Ms. Palmer said she posed that question with the idea of adding it to the legislative list, and
asked him to provide a brief outline of the issue to the Board over the summer.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Dr. Friedman agreed, and said the College really needs about 20 more full-time faculty than they
have currently which would cost about $1.6 million for salary and benefits just for PVCC but that would
put PVCC at about 60/40 full-time/part-time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Board-to-Board, March 2014 Monthly Communications Report from School
Board.
School Board Chairman, Mr. Ned Gallaway, addressed the Board, stating that there had been a
few changes since his report had been sent to Supervisors. He echoed Ms. McKeel’s comments to Dr.
Friedman about the importance of PVCC’s partnership with CATEC. Mr. Gallaway announced that the
school calendar would need to be adjusted, with the last day of school being Thursday, June 12. He said
next year’s snow make-up days would be spread into spring on the academic calendar. He stated that
the School Board was looking at work days through February, the day before spring break, possibly days
in spring break, and days at the end of the school year for a total of nine potential make -up days. Mr.
Gallaway said the School Board received a report on the CATEC strategic plan on March 13, and CATEC
approved the plan the following week.
Mr. Gallaway reported that Albemarle had performed extremely well in the regional science fair,
and students, Selena Fang of Albemarle High School and Caitlin Dutta of Western Albemarle High
School, were both “best in show” grand award winners – automatically qualifying for the international
show. He stated that two Albemarle High School teams advanced to the state championships for
forensics, and Faye Cunningham’s team placed third in the state, with Gary Kellenberger and John Harris
placing first in “serious duo,” Andrew Dickinson placed second in storytelling, Kevin Zong placed third in
extemporaneous speaking, Lauren Oliver placed third in impromptu, and Lucy Birchfield placed third in
storytelling. Mr. Gallaway reported that a production of “Footloose” was held at Western Albemarle High
School in March, and both Albemarle High School and Monticello High School would hold spring musicals
in May – with Monticello doing an additional program in April with some student-written work. He said
there is also a spring music concert to be held at Western Albemarle High School in May, with many other
concerts taking place in schools throughout the County. Mr. Gallaway reported that high school
graduations would be held in May this year instead of June, the weekend after Memorial Day weekend,
and the Murray High School graduation would be held May 29.
Ms. McKeel said she had heard there may be some unanswered questions from the Board of
Supervisors due perhaps to an email glitch, and asked fellow Supervisors to make sure those questions
for the School Board had been answered.
Ms. Palmer stated that she did not read all of the questions sent to the School Board via em ail,
but her question remains and that is what the Schools will cut if a rate of 79.8 cents is adopted.
Mr. Gallaway said he answered that question generally in an email sent out a few days earlier
which summarized the School Board’s conversations on the topic, and it is finding it very difficult. He
stated that it was difficult for the School Board to go to the tiered approach because, given the realm of
cuts, it would mean it is not the nature of what the School Board cuts, but more of how much to cut. Mr.
Gallaway said the School Board is very reluctant to go to class size and if it has to go there, the School
Board would try to do as minimal of a class size increase as possible. He said the School Board is not
going to get to $2.4 million by cutting some of the smaller items.
Ms. Palmer asked if he was saying that teacher salaries have the same weight as class size. Mr.
Gallaway clarified by saying that some Board members are reluctant to go to class size for cuts, and
some are reluctant to go to staff and teacher compensation for cuts. He emphasized that tier one would
be to not cut anything, so it is all the same tier to the extent to which it would have to be done.
Ms. Palmer said, in her opinion, it would help the Schools’ cause for the Board to know exactly
what it would look like if the advertised tax rate were lowered another penny. Mr. Sheffield explained that
each penny equates to $1.56 million, so adding that would bring the gap closer to $4 million.
Ms. Palmer stated that it would help the Schools’ cause if the Board knew what that would look
like. Mr. Gallaway said the list of cuts is where the School Board is going to go and, while there may be a
few items not on there, it is fairly comprehensive as far as potential cuts, and the extent of those cuts is
what the School Board is struggling with currently. He stated that School Board members are having
difficulty putting its priorities forward, because any cut of any amount will affect the quality of education in
Albemarle County.
Ms. Palmer stated that she agrees, but wishes she had more information so she could argue the
School Board’s point better. Mr. Gallaway said it is very difficult to try to answer the question, and the
School Board would rather do a .25 class increase than a .5 or a 1.0 but, if the cuts are beyond $2.4
million, there are some School Board members who say it would have to go to class size to close the gap.
He stated that there are others who feel it could do $2.4 million with protected class size, but that would
be bumping right up against it and, if the School Board does that, then compensation will have to be on
the table. Mr. Gallaway said Schools are already looking at operational cuts which have been made over
the past four or five years, and the quest ion is “how to cut” not “what to cut.” He stated that, in the past,
the School Board has presented the Board with a list of tiered items, but that list is much smaller now so
class size and compensation have to be considered.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Board has two weeks to make the decision, and then the Board can
take School Board members up on its idea of approaching the budget process a bit differently. Mr.
Gallaway said the School Board is strongly in favor of working with Supervisors, as this is not a one-time
issue and, if both Boards cannot figure out a way to sustainably solve these issues; both Boards will be
back here next year doing the same thing.
Ms. Mallek said she read the entire School Board budget during the snow days and did have a
better understanding of the challenges being faced, but when the School Board comes back together,
there may be some ideas from the outside on things the schools have not put on its list such as assistant
principals who are far above the state standard, and also putting coaches back into the classroom
because more teachers are needed.
Mr. Gallaway said, prior to his time on the School Board, it was considered, the last time being
when it considered consolidating the three small elementary schools of Yance y, Red Hill and Scottsville.
He stated that, when the decision was made not to consolidate those, the School Board decided to
reduce the building-level principal down to a half-time position so state standards of quality would mean
there would not be a full-time principal in five of the elementary schools.
Ms. Mallek said she was referring to the eight assistant principals in the small elementary
schools. Mr. Gallaway stated that, in that case, the hits would be on the other side – the big schools –
and Henley, for example, just got assistant principals that were needed as the size of the school has
grown. He said, if there are other items brought forward that are good ideas, the School Board will
certainly consider those and then make a final call.
Ms. Mallek said she is hopeful that Superintendent Staples will help out with the SOL issue, as
that would save localities a lot of money and teachers a lot of time teaching. Mr. Gallaway said
Superintendent Staples has been well received in his position, and the School Board is hoping to have an
ally in that regard.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Historic Preservation Committee’s 2013 Annual Report.
Mr. Jared Loewenstein addressed the Board, stating that the Board had received copies of the
priority recommendations which have been whittled down in the most recent recommended
Comprehensive Plan revisions. He said the Committee would like to find a way to work with the Board so
that the Historic Preservation Committee could be guaranteed access to properties that should be
documented before demolition and, at this point, the owner’s permission is required. He stated that the
Committee’s intent is not to prevent the demolition, but to document what is there and determine if it is
worthy of being documented. Mr. Loewenstein said this effort could prevent the situation which recently
happened with the uncovering of cemeteries in plotting the course of the Western Bypass, and it would be
helpful for the Committee to have access to properties that potentially contain historic resources before
those disappear.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that the committee would also like to address the work which has been
done with the help of Piedmont Environmental Council staff regarding the enormous database project for
the County of identifying each historic building in the County and each of the 12 national historic districts .
He said, with the status of each property, the Committee would like to include whether or not it is a
contributing structure to the district. He said that work was now complete except for the Greenwood/Afton
District, which is underway. He said all of the information is being incorporated into the County’s GIS and
will be an extremely useful planning tool for people inside the County as well as developers.
Mr. Loewenstein said the Historic Preservation Committee would like to find a way to work with
the County on helping to identify potential problems which can arise during a planning process earlier in
the process. He stated that getting things documented and locating sites will help in the future. He noted
that there were many historic sites uncovered with the proposed Western Bypass route, which were put
on a map generated by the Piedmont Environmental Council, but those were identified late in the
process. Mr. Loewenstein emphasized that it is very important to recognize the history in Albemarle, and
imperative not to overlook documenting these resources as early and as broadly as possible.
Mr. Loewenstein thanked Margaret Maliszewski of County staff for all of her work to keep the
Committee functioning, and asked the Board to utilize the broad expertise available through the activitie s
of their highly skilled group. He said the Committee includes an eminent architectural historian, two
historic property realtors, an historic property science expert, two archeologists, the chair of the local
historical society, a preservation land use expert, and others. Mr. Loewenstein said this expertise is
available to anyone who needs it, and their only goal is to provide information and assistance as
requested, including helping owners of historic homes and buildings find resources for their own
preservation efforts.
Mr. Boyd said people sometimes refuse to let committee members come onto their property to
take pictures, etc., and asked if their request was for the Board to provide some authority so members of
the committee can access those sites even against the will of th e property owner. Mr. Loewenstein
stated that he is asking for the same type of authority that County staff have such as building inspectors
and only for demolition properties. He said this request stems from a recent incident in the western part
of the County in which an owner refused them access to document an old building that was coming down.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Boyd said VDOT was very aware of the historic properties identified along the Western
Bypass route, as they had turned up in its environmental scan but were deemed not to be historic. He
stated that it was overturned by the acting Historic Preservation Commissioner at the federal level. Mr.
Loewenstein said VDOT did not know about all of the sites, and did not know the potential significance of
the sites because there was no historical background whatsoever for most of them.
Ms. Mallek said VDOT missed about 12 sites, and their consultant may not have been skilled
enough to do the job. She stated that this can actually be a money-saver in the long run because it will
eliminate the need for redesign if historic resources are discovered during the site -work or construction
phase. Ms. Mallek asked if designation is put on the deed in the case of a property that is put on the
historic register. Mr. Loewenstein said he did not think it was put on the deed, and it would be helpful to
at least be able to document the buildings through field notes and photographs and deposit them at the
County.
Ms. Mallek asked what the next steps were for the Historic Preservation Committee. Mr.
Loewenstein said they have a subcommittee in place which is set up to study the possibility of an
ordinance and, in the past, members have taken an ordinance from each of the municipalities in the state
for comparative purposes. He stated that they are slowly assembling that data, and would have a report
ready to present to the Board at some point. Mr. Loewenstein said every m ember of the Committee as a
whole is strongly committed to the idea of eventually seeing an ordinance here . He said it is pretty
amazing that they have one of the most historic counties in the Commonwealth but no means to protect it
except at the local level.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. VDOT Quarterly Report and Six Year Secondary Road Plan Process
Overview.
VDOT Residency Administrator, Mr. Joel DeNunzio addressed the Board, stating that he would
spend most of the Board’s time addressing the upcoming six-year secondary plan process, particularly
because of the new Board members. He stated that, for the monthly reports, there was a significant log
of traffic items currently under review, and that department was starting to get a backlog so the y hired a
consultant to assist with the traffic reports to help catch up. Mr. DeNunzio said VDOT would be doing a
lot of gravel road maintenance in the near future, as they have taken a beating from the winter weather .
He reported that, in the past month, they have worked on 37 gravel roads, i.e., machining them and
adding stone. He stated that they have been focusing on three primary routes and 15 secondary routes,
patching potholes, cleaning debris and doing some ditching efforts.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that, over the next few months, they would be talking about the Albemarle
County six-year secondary plan, and they would assess the projects currently in the plan as well as
determine if any new projects are needed. He explained that the Six Year Improvement Program (SYIP)
is the state overall plan that funds all roads, and the local Secondary Six Year Plan (SSYP) funds the
secondary County roads. Mr. DeNunzio said the primary highway system has roads under the number
600 – Route 53, Route 6, Route 29, Route 250 – and those are included in the SYIP, but not in the SSYP.
He said the SSYP, or secondary plan, includes all local roads or county roads, all with route numbers of
600 or above. He said the urban routes are within the City of Charlottesville itself, and are maintained
through its urban system. Mr. DeNunzio said there are primary routes which are exceptions, and those
are University of Virginia roads; frontage roads such as Hansen Mountain Road and Golden Eagle Lane;
and the 9000 road series which include bus loops.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that he included information about the 1932 Byrd Road Act, and Virginia is
one of only four states in the U.S. that maintains local secondary roads or county roads. He said , in
1932, due to the Great Depression, the state relieved most counties in Virginia of “the burden of
maintaining and building secondary roads,” and that is when the secondary system was established. He
stated that the secondary system is a partnership between the County and VDOT to identify road
improvements, and the intention is that the decisions on the projects will still be at a County level, but the
state will assist with the construction and maintenance of those roads.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that the SYIP is under the Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-12.7B, which
states that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will adopt a new SYIP every year by July 1,
documents how the allocations of transportation funding will be put on projects, and guides the state in
spending over the six-year period. He stated that the SYIP allocation for this year is about 2-3% lower
than the previous year, and the secondary plan has approximately $47 million for the Culpeper District –
with about $5 million allocated to the secondary system in Albemarle o ver the next six years. Mr.
DeNunzio said Section 33.1-70.01 creates a partnership between VDOT and the County to improve local
roads, and the Board will be making the decisions as to what projects are on the plan and how those are
prioritized. He stated that, once the Board decides that, VDOT’s responsibility is to take the available
funding and allocate it to the projects the Board has decided will go on that plan. Mr. DeNunzio said it
would be a 1-10 numbering system in which the project at the top gets constructed first but, in certain
cases, especially for rural rustic roads, there will be projects constructed ahead of the priority projects.
He stated that, after the Board decides on projects and prioritizations, the County will hold a public
hearing and invite public comment on the list, and the plan would be adopted after that.
Mr. David Benish addressed the Board stating that, in Albemarle, they have kept an inventory of
projects that have been deemed desirable to construct and that is called “the County’s priority list for
secondary road improvements.” Mr. Benish said the list is quite simply a collection of the projects the
Board feels are worthy to construct at some point in the future, and sets a priority on those projects. He
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
stated that this priority list is used to assist the Board in the next projects which enter into the state’s plan
once funding becomes available, and the County’s plan has no funding associated with it and no
schedule associated with it. He explained that it is simply prioritizing those projects in a queue so that, as
funding becomes available in the VDOT six-year plan, the projects can be moved onto the list. Mr.
Benish said the County reviews its priority list annually and, at the same time, looks at the state’s plan
with priorities derived from the Comp Plan, master plans, regional transportation plans, VDOT -identified
projects, and safety issues raised by police, fire/rescue and scho ols, as well as public requests.
Mr. Benish said the County’s list of projects is long, and the total number and cost for those
projects far exceeds what is available in any six-year period of a six-year secondary road plan. He
emphasized that, since funding has been relatively limited, VDOT has not been able to move very far
down the County’s list. Mr. Benish stated that they use the priorities which have been established in the
various transportation planning documents or the Comp Plan as guidance for priority-setting, but also look
at the consistency of the road project to the County’s growth-management policies, road capacity issues,
safety issues, level of service, traffic volume, etc. in helping to establish the County’s priority list. He said
staff divides the priorities into three categories: strategic or major projects, such as Georgetown Road,
Jarman’s Gap Road, the John Warner Parkway; bridge improvements; and unpaved road projects which
are divided into two sub-lists. He explained that the rural rustic road projects are the preferred approach
because of lower cost and impact on rural character, and the second group is regular road paving for
projects that do not qualify for rural rustic status or are more significant projects requiring right of way
acquisition or road modifications.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that VDOT will review the rural rustic list on May 7, looking at last year’s
projects and reviewing any potential new projects. He said the public hearing is set for the Board’s
evening meeting of June 11. After that point, he said the Board would be able to adopt the new
secondary six-year plan.
Ms. Palmer asked if Board members should bring forward information from constituents regarding
road concerns before the work session, so those items can be discussed and prioritized at that time.
Mr. DeNunzio said if it is an actual road project – such as a hard-surfacing or widening – the work
session would be the time to talk about it but, if it is just maintenance issues for a road, those can be sent
directly to him as they are not typically addressed in the secondary six-year plan. He stated that
proposed paving of gravel roads would be considered unpaved road projects, and would be part of a six -
year plan.
Mr. Benish clarified that, if a citizen is requesting that a road be paved, Board members should
contact him or Mr. DeNunzio and they collect a list of those projects and bring those to the Board at that
time. He said, if it is a general question about a road needing repair and it is somewhat unclear as to
whether they are specifically asking for an improvement, Supervisors should contact Mr. DeNunzio and
he can figure out whether they are asking for just maintenance or about a particular project.
Mr. Boyd said, if Board members have constituents asking about roads that are not already on
the list, Supervisors should keep in mind that there are roads which have been on the list for 40 years.
Ms. Palmer said she understand the long list, but she wants to make sure that any new road
projects are compared to other projects so she can explain to constituents how road pr ojects are
prioritized and why.
Mr. DeNunzio pointed out that to qualify for an unpaved road project, there are certain
requirements – geometric requirements, traffic counts, etc. He said it is pretty easy to get the traffic
counts, but reviewing the roads is what takes time. He explained that there are unpaved roads which are
essentially complete rebuilds of a typical road section, and are far more expensive than a rural rustic
project.
Ms. Mallek said, in the last several years, the County seems to have been able to do more with
paving only the critical sections and leaving the rest alone as a way to spread the resources around, and
that has been pretty successful.
Mr. DeNunzio said that would be considered maintenance paving, and VDOT can do up to 500
feet, often on steep grades of gravel roads, because those roads are difficult to maintain and can be
extremely slick. He stated that doing some maintenance paving can also be very beneficial to address
rutting.
Ms. Palmer asked how VDOT assessed traffic counts for certain roads where there may be only a
few houses, but there is a church. Mr. DeNunzio said there is a little bit of judgment involved, and there is
no clear definition as to when counts should be taken and what is being counted. He said it does not
matter if it is residential or commercial use, but VDOT will usually try to identify things other than single -
family residences on a road.
Ms. McKeel said there are VDOT signs everywhere on Barracks Road that now have “gang tags”
all over those and then other people have come in and covered those tags. She said it is starting to look
a bit “third world,” and asked what VDOT’s capability is as far as replacing signage. Mr. DeNunzio
responded that they get calls often from the police about graffiti – especially at railroad bridges – and
sometimes VDOT removes it.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Ms. McKeel said, when VDOT “removes” graffiti by painting over it, it looks even worse, and
asked if signage falls under maintenance. Mr. DeNunzio said it does, and offered for VDOT to review the
Barracks Road signage.
Ms. McKeel also asked if VDOT could work on the bus stop situation, as there are people in the
urban ring standing in mud holes to catch the bus yet Charlottesville Area Transit says they cannot do
anything because the stops are on VDOT roads.
Mr. DeNunzio asked if there were specific bus stop locations in particular. Ms. McKeel said the
stops of concern in her district were on Barracks Road, Hydraulic Road, and Georgetown Road.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Mr. DeNunzio for all of his work with her thus far.
Ms. Mallek commented that the “alligator” bumps are everywhere along the rural roads due to the
failure of the slurries, and the state transportation commissioner has recognized that the slurry ha s failed.
She said it would be good to get the real paving routine back again to keep the roads from degrading to
the point they have to be completely torn up.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 22. Albemarle County Broadband Task Force Update.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that on September 4, 2013, the
Board directed staff to research grant funding and other strategies to advance the availability of high
speed internet to underserved areas of the County. On October 23, 2013, staff presented its research
results to the Board, and the Board directed staff to proceed with a round table with telecommunications
providers to obtain information regarding plans, ideas and known funding sources to help facilitate
additional service installation in the underserved areas of the County and to identify barriers to providing
services in select rural areas. The round table was held on October 23, 2013, and the outcomes of that
round table were presented to the Board on January 8, 2014 (Attachment A). The Board directed staff to
proceed with a Broadband Task Force.
The Broadband Task Force is composed of three subteams working on the areas set forth below.
Awareness and Broadband Demand Identification – As the next step in this process, the team
is developing a plan to release a web and paper survey focused on collecting information from County
residents regarding the demand for high speed internet access in the County. The survey will ask
questions about the size of households, the reasons for using the internet, and working from home
opportunities. The Virginia Center for Innovative Technology is providing the survey tool for this effort.
The team sought and received approval from various businesses and offices to post flyers regarding t he
survey in various locations and is working to obtain permission from additional businesses and public
schools to post fliers in additional locations. The team is now testing the survey instrument and plans to
link it from a dedicated page on the Albemarle County website. With this update, the team is providing
information on the draft public information plan (Attachment B). The team is also developing a plan to
include Albemarle County in Accelerate Virginia’s statewide Internet Speed Test, which will be
administered by the eCorridors program at Virginia Tech and will collect data from residents across the
State in an effort to evaluate the demand for broadband services in Virginia.
Funding Options Recommendation – This team is continuing to evaluate grant opportunities for
high speed internet funding that may be available from a Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development Planning Grant or from Connect America Funds. The team is in the early stages of
consulting with the County Attorney’s Office regarding enabling authority for localities to participate in the
deployment of broadband services. The team provided input for a letter from the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expressing
interest in participating in the FCC broadband trial experiments. The expression of interest let ter
(Attachment C) has been submitted on behalf of all localities served by the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission.
The team attended the FCC March 19 Rural Broadband Workshop online here.
Permitting Process Review, Rights of Way, and Recommendations – The team discussed
the process for obtaining wireless facilities permits and the level of documentation required for submitting
a request to construct or modify a wireless facility. Suggestions to facilitate the permit application process
included additional information on the website to clarify the process (specific references were made to
developing a flowchart), easy to use applications and direction to specific staff to address questions. The
team discussed Community Development’s ongoing work to revise the County’s wireless regulations
including antenna size, number of permitted arrays and other technical issues. The team is also
researching ways in which the County can promote high speed internet deployment by both the public
and private sector.
The Broadband Task Force is on schedule for releasing the dedicated web page, community
survey, and internet speed test starting April 9, 2014.
The only direct budget impact of moving forward as proposed would be the utilization of staff time.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
This executive summary and presentation is provided for the Board’s information.
_____
Mr. Mike Culp, Director of Information Technology (IT), addressed the Board, stating that he
represents the County IT Department as well as the Albemarle County Broadband Task Force. Mr. Culp
stated that the executive summary contains those activities the task force has performed, separated into
three separate teams with one team working on funding options. He said the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission (TJPDC) has submitted an expression of interest to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), which controls the funding that comes from the Connect America funds and has
additional funding. Mr. Culp said, by submitting the expression of interest, the County has the opportunity
to place itself as a frontrunner for localities that may receive additional funding. He stated that there
would be an addendum submitted to the FCC for additional items, and noted that he was not before the
Board to ask for any funding. Mr. Culp said the task force is also working with the Planning Department,
and identified Bill Fritz and Sarah Baldwin of the Community Development Department as having been
very helpful on the task force. He stated that the internet service providers have also been a huge help
on the task force because they have brought back detailed information on what it takes to get a permit
and the required timeframes, plus the additional costs when going to tier three.
Mr. Culp said there is a new survey which the state has put together, and Albemarle will be
among the first localities to use it. He explained that it is an online internet access survey that will be
distributed to as many individuals and businesses as possible, and it will help the task force further define
a project because the County cannot ask for funding without a well-defined project. Mr. Culp said the
task force has set up a webpage, which is in draft form, and they plan to hit the airwaves and talk to the
media as well as use social media to get the word out. He stated that they are also working with the
libraries and the Senior Center. He reported that Philip Freeman, who is part of the task force, has
brought that information together and secured commitments from “anchor institutions” such as Martha
Jefferson Hospital and State Farm in order to promote participation in the survey.
Ms. Mallek asked when the survey would be completed. Mr. Culp stated that the survey would
end in mid-June when school is out and, when it first goes out, there will be a lot of input but they are
hoping to get additional information later on. He said the task force is concerned about the length of the
survey; it requests a lot of information, however, it is easy to fill out.
Ms. Mallek said it is concerning to her that, if people do not have internet, they do not have
access to the survey, and her question is how those people will be reached with six weeks not being very
much time to reach 10,000 people who do not have any connection.
Mr. Culp said the current plan is to print the survey and provide those to all of the libraries, the
School Division, and at the post offices.
Ms. Mallek stated that the County cannot use company sponsor logos like Century Link at the
post office, and emphasized that there would need to be a strong effort on the part of the Board to g et the
word out. She said the issue in the past has been that they do not have the correct state map information
for the County, and perhaps the TIGER grant the TJPDC is pursuing would help get the proper
information and validate it.
Ms. Pat Groot, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, said she is not sure they
have any grants in the pipeline to acquire that information, and the TIGER grant is a separate grant that
would not accomplish this. She stated that they have been advised by the Center of Innovative
Technology to ensure they can map the vertical and land assets, including economic development areas .
She said the task force is currently evaluating how to best gather the information that will enable them to
position themselves for grant eligibility. Ms. Groot said the survey will be critical in ascertaining that, and
the other piece beyond knowing what the assets are – both vertical and in-ground – is also knowing to
what degree the community recognizes the need for internet and broadband. She stated that there are
many people and businesses who are not clear on how it will benefit them, and she is not certain that the
benefit of having broadband is being adequately tied to the investment. Ms. Groot said the other target
population is students, because many do not have sufficient internet access to be able to further their
academic achievements.
Ms. Dittmar said the City of Charlottesville is one of the top ten wireless communities in the
country but half of her district has spotty or no access to internet access. She stated that it is important to
get the word out about the survey through other avenues, such as PTOs or guid ance offices in schools,
volunteer fire departments, churches, the Town of Scottsville, etc. She pointed out that June is a short
timeframe to distribute and collect paper surveys.
Ms. Mallek stated that the Farm Bureau would be another avenue.
Ms. Palmer said she had many suggestions for distribution, including putting a sign up at Bro wn’s
Store in Esmont and leaving the surveys in the store for people to fill out. She also stated that she was
unaware until she read the TJPDC’s letter that a portion of this region fell in the “National Radio Quiet
Zone” established by the FCC in 1958 to minimize interference with the National Radio Astronomy
Observatory. She said locating broadband infrastructure within this boundary adds another regulatory
layer to the permitting process and requires modification of typical designs. Ms. Palmer said portions of
Greene, half of Albemarle, and most of Nelson County are impacted by these requirements.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Ms. Groot explained that there is a no-fly zone equivalent from the station on Observatory
Mountain which is key to national security. She said, in order to ensure that no frequencies interfere with
their activities, they limit the direction of signals adding that all signals are required to go from west to
east, not east to west.
Ms. Palmer asked if this had been a problem for companies who are trying to get signals into the
area. Ms. Groot said it is something they have to accommodate, and emergency services do that with
their public safety towers and also the direction of their communications in the air, so it is a factor in their
planning.
Ms. Palmer said she wanted to know how much of a factor it is.
Ms. Mallek said it does not really matter because it is something they have to do.
Ms. Palmer asked how it might complicate the situation. Ms. Groot said she is not sure the task
force could get a lot of information, given the confidenti al nature of the facilities. She pointed out that
localities are given parameters and those are expected to be followed with due diligence.
Ms. Boyd asked if this was the AT&T facility on Southwest Mountain that she was referring to.
Ms. Groot said this was the National Observatory, part of the U.S. national security network, and
companies have said that, once broadband is there, it is beneficial to them because they have a customer
base so the effort of promoting to the public how it will benefit them will also feed into whether or not the
companies will have a return on investment that is sufficient to ensure they can offer the service.
Ms. Palmer stated that she was aware that survey information is needed in order to apply for
different grants, and asked what the methodologies were for doing an appropriate propagation map.
Ms. Groot said one key element would be for phone companies to identify where its assets are
located, and to provide the maps of those locations. She said the Center for Innovative Technology (CIT)
is working with providers to try to pull that information together, and she would be filing an amended
“expression of interest” because there is now preliminary information from CIT which will give percentage
of coverage in the County along with access speeds. Ms. Groot stated that 86% of the County is covered
with landline access to high speed, but high speed is loosely defined, however, that would not meet the
eligibility criteria for percentage of coverage in Albemarle but would because of the speed of service. She
said the FCC is encouraging minimum speeds of 25 megabytes per second (MBPS) and, of the providers
in Albemarle, only two exceed that with 13 providing less than 25 megabytes.
Ms. Palmer asked if that was DSL. Ms. Groot said it was a combination of DSL, cable, fiber,
satellite, terrestrial fixed wireless and terrestrial mobile wireless. She said only Comcast and Blue Ridge
Internetworks offer more than 25, with both offering 100 MBPS to 1 gigabyte.
Ms. Mallek stated that her CenturyLink service was 300 per second, and the weather does not
affect it. Mr. Culp said it was probably 3 MBPS download speed.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was done more specifically or by territory, because one of the issues with
the 456 exchange in Greenwood and Afton is that one company has a small corner of it served but is
allowed to claim that they serve the whole area. Ms. Groot stated that policymakers are now aware of
that information and, through their efforts of collecting that information through speed tests and mapping
of the infrastructure, they are attempting to draw conclusions separate from the map because they are
aware the map is overstated.
Mr. Culp agreed, and said staff is also adding online a connection to an internet speed test that
Virginia Tech is sponsoring, in an effort to get more input and accuracy on the statewide broadband map.
He stated that they need citizens and businesses to fill out the survey to clarify this, and not all providers
contribute information to the state broadband map – so the state sponsorship of both the survey and the
internet access speed test is helping the task force get the information staff needs.
Ms. Mallek asked if this would be involved in licensure to ensure better compliance going forward.
Mr. Culp said that would hopefully be the case.
Ms. Palmer stated that she was told there were companies that put equipment on top of their cars
and drive around to map out everything if it is not available from the providers.
Mr. Culp said that would happen for wireless, and one of the task force memb ers has done some
research on what it would cost. He said, if there is someone who would do that research, staff can bring
forward the estimated cost, but the task force has no budget.
Ms. Mallek suggested the task force pitch that as a grant item. Ms. Groot said that would be
more difficult because it is a planning piece. She stated that the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) grant is a planning grant, and the County could apply for up to $25,000 – but that
would not cover the full cost of what they expect to collect, so there would need to be matching funds.
She stated that, if they had the information requested, t hey would be in an excellent position to negotiate
for a larger grant. She emphasized that there is no way to know how they fit into the market scheme of
things nationally; all they can do is position themselves to be in the best position possible to attract
business and be eligible for grants. Ms. Groot added that mapping infrastructure, both vertically and in-
ground and superimposing economic development areas are key to positioning for grant eligibility. She
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
explained that the DHCD has a planning grant available on a rolling deadline, and there needs to be a
benefit demonstrated to low and moderate income and quite a bit of eligibility pieces that need to come
into it. Ms. Groot said she did not think there needed to be a match on the planning grant, but it did, at
one time, contemplate being followed by a construction grant, however, those construction funds are no
longer available.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this was something the Board should talk about when the survey is
completed. Mr. Culp said the Board should, especially if it is a project that impacts low to medium income
people as an example or, if it is a broadband experiment through the FCC, there may be some attributes
of the survey which help the task force put the application even further up in the line for the Connect
America funds. He stated that the FCC is still working on how it is going to distribute the next round of
funding, so that will need to be watched closely. Mr. Culp said it sounds like the task force has received
Board approval to go forward with the information plan, with additional direction of making sure they get
the survey to all possible areas. He stated that the task force would need help in encouraging residents
to not only take the surveys, but return them, and make sure the sites that have surveys are able to return
them.
Ms. Mallek stated that, with personal information, people are not going to want to leave it in
locations such as stores, so residents would need to send the survey back to the task force.
Mr. Culp said that would be optional, but it is not going to be 100% accurate, however, the
assessment would help with the data analysis and would pull out the offset information. He stated that he
sees this as one of multiple projects that will be pulled out of the su rvey collection, adding that this is one
of the most dynamic fields they have ever been involved with.
Ms. Groot emphasized that, if residents want broadband, they will need to complete the survey,
and their contribution will move things in that direction. She said it automatically provides a biased
sample because the people who are motivated to return the survey are those who want broadband.
Ms. McKeel asked how closely the task force is working with the School D ivision on this issue.
Mr. Culp responded that Vince Scheivert from County Schools is a member of the task force, and they will
help deliver the survey information and work with the task force directly. He stated that the Schools’
project to bridge the digital divide through wireless connections is a separate project from the stated goal
to help with the rural broadband. Mr. Culp said there are some connections with the School Division, and
they are working to try to figure those out.
Ms. Groot said the partnership is there, but there are also FCC regulations which require the
problems be separate. She asked that any changes or corrections to the information she had provided
the Board be given to her.
Ms. Mallek noted that the Crozet Library address was now Library Avenue instead of Three
Notched Road.
Mr. Culp said the task force has made the correction for the Librar y and also for Martha Jefferson
Hospital. He concluded by thanking the Broadband Task Force for all of its work.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 23. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the current cash proffer policy
(Attachment A) was adopted by the Board on October 10, 2007. The cash proffer policy is part of the
County’s Comprehensive Plan (CPA 2007-04). The policy was developed following the Fiscal Impact
Advisory Committee’s (FIAC) analysis of the fiscal impacts of development on the County’s public
facilities and infrastructure. The FIAC’s methodology for determining maximum cash proffer amounts by
dwelling unit type and the policy is limited t o five capital improvement funding areas: 1) Schools, 2) Parks,
3) Libraries, 4) Public Safety, and 5) Transportation. Other costs associated with growth, such as
stormwater, court facilities, and solid waste, were not included in the evaluation process. T he policy does
not fully capture all anticipated infrastructure costs and provides for a number of possible credits towards
the maximum cash proffer amounts.
At its November 6, 2013 meeting, the Board received a staff report (Attachment B) regarding
staff’s evaluation of the cash proffer policy in terms of its effectiveness and potential barriers to
development. The Board discussed the information presented and policy provisions regarding credits
against maximum cash proffer amounts. Following this discussion, the Board expressed its interest in
amending the cash proffer policy to provide a credit for the number of dwelling units allowed for by-right
development under the existing zoning and requested that staff include this as part of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. On February 5, 2014, the Board reviewed the Community Development Department’s
(CDD) work program and discussed how a review of the cash proffer policy could be accelerated in the
context of the CDD’s other work plan items. The Board requested that the cash proffer policy be
prioritized and brought back for Board review. Today’s work session starts with a review of the existing
policy, consideration of public process options in developing revisions to the policy, and a request that the
Board adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
The uses that may be allowed on land may be changed by amending the zoning map and
changing the zoning district in which the land is situated (a zoning map amendment, more commonly
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
referred to as a rezoning). When land is rezoned at the request of the landowner, one of the ways in
which the impacts from the development that will result from that rezoning are addressed is through
proffers. A rezoning accompanied by proffers is called conditional zoning.
Conditional zoning is enabled by State law to address the inadequacy of traditional zoning
methods and procedures when competing and incompatible land uses conflict. At least in theory,
conditional zoning allows land to be rezoned that might not otherwise be rezoned because the proffers
protect the community in which the land is located by imposing additional regulations or conditions on the
land being rezoned.
Proffers are reasonable conditions designed to address the impacts resulting from a rezon ing.
Typical proffers may address a wide variety of impacts including impacts to public facilities such as
schools, parks and libraries (a commitment to contribute cash or to phase development to coincide with
installation of needed infrastructure), impacts on transportation (a commitment to contribute cash or to
construct necessary transportation improvements such as travel lanes or signals); impacts on natural,
historical or cultural resources (a commitment to preserve certain areas, structures or cultur al resources
on the site); or impacts on the environment (a commitment to install enhanced erosion and sediment
control measures).
Proffers are not imposed by the Board when it acts on a rezoning application. Instead, proffers
are submitted by the applicant and, by State law, they must be voluntary. The voluntary nature of proffers
does not mean that the County is powerless to engage the applicant in a dialogue as to how the impacts
resulting from a rezoning should be addressed. The County is obligated to identify all of the impacts
resulting from a proposed rezoning and identify what needs to be done to address those impacts through
proffers. It is then up to the owner to decide whether it wants to provide proffers to address some or all of
those impacts; the owner at its option may elect not to address all of the impacts , and instead try to
persuade the Planning Commission and the Board that the impacts need not be addressed or that the
proposed project has other public benefits that would justify approving the rezoning, even if some or all of
the impacts go unaddressed in proffers.
Existing Policy
The County’s Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities is an appendix to the Growth Management
section of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The cash proffer policy establishes general guidelines, a
methodology for computing the impact on public facilities associated with each type of new dwelling unit,
and the maximum cash proffer that will be accepted for each type of dwelling unit. The proffer policy was
developed for a number of reasons:
To provide an additional means of funding an increasing demand for infrastructure
improvements associated with growth in the Development Areas. The Growth
Management Plan recognizes the need to fund capital improvements and infrastructure
with a higher level of service to Development Areas and emphasizes the shared
responsibility between the County and new development to pay for infrastructure to
address the impacts of new development. The cash proffer policy provides a balance
between the developer increasing its property’s value resulting from rezoning the
property to allow more intensive residential development and assuring funding for
improvements needed to reduce the impacts resulting from that development. This policy
only applies to property where the owner is requesting it be rezoned for higher density
and does not apply to “by-right” development.
To respond to recommendations of the Development Process Review Task Force
(DPRTF). Recommendations of the DPRTF included a list of priority actions for the
County, including the development of a proffer policy: “Develop a Proffer Policy to include
elements beyond a cash amount.”
To simplify the evaluation of rezoning applications. The DPRTF determined one of
the major delays in the consideration of rezoning applications was reaching an
agreement on the case-by-case impacts associated with each proposal.
To create certainty for developers. Because a cash proffer policy assumes an average
impact for all development, each property is evaluated against this average impact. This
greatly reduced the uncertainty for developers in determining the cost of a rezoning
application.
Process Options
Staff has outlined two approaches to this proposed policy amendment with an attempt to correlate
the amount of public engagement to the breadth of the considered changes. An outline with a timeline
and roles for both options is provided as Attachment C and each option is summarized below.
Option 1 - This option is a simplified process with limited considerations: 1) Update the proffer
amounts using the methodology in Part B of the current policy to calculate maximum proffer amounts; and
2) Update possible credits in Part C of the policy. Staff believes the maximum cash proffer amount
should be recalculated by the FIAC using the approved methodology and the FY 15 budget (The capital
improvement plan for FY 15-19 and the capital needs assessment for FY 20-24). Based on input from
the Board and the development community, staff believes that Part B of the policy regarding credits
should be updated to address, at a minimum, credits for by-right development credits for land and
infrastructure. Given the limited changes with this option, staff believes the opportunity for public input
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
provided in the typical Planning Commission process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be
sufficient.
Option 2 - This option is a more comprehensive consideration of the policy in which the public
would first be requested to identify desirable changes to any element of the policy. This could include
significant changes to sections regarding both the infrastructure and the credits provided in the policy.
This would be a major effort and limit staff’s capacity to address other Board priorities that may be
identified for the next year.
For the reasons outlined in the November 6, 2013 Executive Summary, staff believes it is
premature to consider a complete reevaluation of the policy. The policy was adopted just prior to the
2008 recession, and a significant inventory of zoned property existed at that time. The economy is
returning to normal, but a large inventory of previously zoned property still remains undeveloped. As
such, staff believes Option 1 is the more appropriate consideration at this time and believes this option is
consistent with the Board’s direction at the November 6, 2013 meeting.
Resolution of Intent - As part of the process, staff recommends that the Resolution of Intent
(Attachment D) be adopted. This would clarify the Board’s intent to consider changes to the policy and
legally initiate the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
Should the Board wish to consider changes to the policy, staff would include consideration of
budget impacts with those changes. Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address
impacts from development and they support the funding of important County projects which would
otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for curre nt or planned
FY14–FY18 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In
addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general
tax revenue.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment D) and that
the Board direct staff to proceed following the process outlined as Option 1 in Attachment B. Should the
Board wish to modify this process, staff requests the Board identify the specific chang es. Staff will then
implement the approved process.
_____
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board and distributed a
summary of the cash proffers that have been collected which he said is part of the quarterly proffer report.
Ms. Rebecca Ragsdale, Permit Planner, addressed the Board, stating that she works as the
proffer planner to track proffers as they come in and work with developers once the proffers are accepted,
as well as reviewing building and zoning permits. Ms. Ragsdale said staff would give the Board a history
and overview of the current proffer policy and recap what has been discussed over the past few months
regarding updating the policy. She reported th at the methodology used by the Fiscal Impact Advisory
Committee (FIAC) to establish the maximum cash proffer amounts was endorsed in May 2007, and the
cash proffer policy in effect today was adopted in October 2007. She said, since that time, the County
has not revisited the policy or updated FIAC’s analysis. Ms. Ragsdale said, in November 2013, the Board
received data from staff regarding building activity and proffer activity since 2007 and, in December,
decided that Supervisors needed to separate it out from the Comp Plan process. She stated that the goal
for this meeting was to get the resolution of intent adopted, to start working on the Comp Plan update,
and to ensure everyone is on the same page as far as the scope of the amendment and also the
preferred public engagement process.
Ms. Ragsdale reported that the proffer policy is a component of the Comp Plan in the growth
management section of the plan, adding that the plan itself speaks to the higher level of service and
public facilities which will be needed for the development areas. She said the plan also addresses the
shared responsibility between the County and new developments in terms of how those impacts will be
addressed and how funding will be provided for new capital facilities. Ms. Ragsdale said, based on the
recommendations of the Development Review Task Force and for reasons already stated in the
Comprehensive Plan, the County adopted the cash proffer policy. She stated that it is a helpful tool for
both staff and developers to have a dialogue about what the appropriate proffers would be, on a case by
case basis, in order to address the individual impacts of a rezon ing. Ms. Ragsdale said staff works within
the framework of the state code of Virginia in terms of conditional zoning and the requirements of proffers
associated with rezonings need to be reasonable and consistent with the Comp Plan and those are
voluntary.
Ms. Ragsdale said the current policy applies to new residential development or upzonings to
residential developments, and has the maximum cash proffer amount in the policy that was developed as
a result of the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) work. Ms. Ragsdale said the maximum cash
proffer amounts, according to the policy, are adjusted annually based on the Standard & Poor’s multiplier
provided by the County’s fiscal impact planner, however, the baseline amounts have not been updated
since 2007, so staff is suggesting it be done. She stated that the Board discussed at length the credit
provisions of the cash proffer policy for things such as affordable housing and dedication of land for a
park. Ms. Ragsdale said the policy is specific to five impact areas or public facilities to be addressed with
proffer funds from rezonings: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety facilities. She
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
stated that the cash proffer policy stipulates how the funds will be used and would go toward projects that
are in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), priority projects in master plans or the strategic plan.
Mr. Graham said staff has provided two options for Board consideration; the first being based on
what staff believes it heard from the Board in November, which is a somewhat limited consideration of
what the Board will look at. He stated that the Board seemed to indicate an interest in making sure the
cash proffer amounts were updated per the policy, and to go back and examine the credit questions
which staff feels will be a much shorter, simpler process. He said the second option includes a review of
every component of the policy, including whether Albemarle County should have a proffer policy at all,
and that would be a much more comprehensive approach. Mr. Graham said it would be appropriate to
have a much more inclusive public process in which the Board would get input up front before there were
any decisions made. He stated that staff could have the first process back to the Board in the fall, and
the second option would take considerably longer, probably not until early 2015.
Ms. Palmer asked what would happen if a developer came forward and the Board was still
deciding on what kind of cash proffers the County would have. Mr. Graham said the policy stands until it
is changed, and that is how staff would approach it.
Mr. Boyd stated that one of the problems with the proffer policy as it stands now is that Board
members are getting feedback from the development community that it is contradictory to what the
County wants to do from a land use policy. He said the County is trying to push for increased density for
development in the growth areas, but the opposite is happening and is now seeing a lot of by-right
development. Mr. Boyd stated that he had hoped for some kind of hybrid between option one and option
two, and feels it should go back to FIAC so they can evaluate how to structure the proffers and how to
calculate it. He said, as it stands, the County includes both the CIP and the capital needs assessment as
part of what the proffered amounts are and, with the current budget, that is $100 million for the CIP and
another $200 million for out years 5-10, so that significantly increases the cost of those proffers. Mr.
Boyd stated that the cost is largely based on educational costs, which are some of the biggest CIP
projects, and FIAC needs to look at some formula which better correlates population growth with the
number of children moving here and entering school.
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Boyd was referring to retirement-type developments like the Lodge at Old
Trail, or just general residential properties.
Mr. Boyd said he was referring to general residential, and trying to think outside the box with
some different approaches.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she likes the idea of involving FIAC from the beginning, and asked if it
was necessary to have a joint Board/Planning Commission work session.
Mr. Graham said Mr. Boyd had raised some of the issues needing to be addressed and they are
policy questions versus implementation questions, so staff is recommending talking to the public first . He
said the joint work session should be what happens after that public input.
Ms. Dittmar said she was not questioning the public engagement part, she was asking about the
joint Board/Planning Commission work session with public comment item on the calendar.
Mr. Graham said the joint meeting would occur after the public comment was received, and
getting some direction from the Board on how it wants staff to address the policy issues – then starting to
work with the Planning Commission on it – so staff feels it is definitely a necessary step.
Ms. Mallek said an issue she would like to have staff think about is whether it would be
reasonable to have commercial – which is developed at the same time as residential and located in a
high-density urban area – be designated as some kind of credit. She stated that it has not been done
before, but it is something that has been raised often to her.
Mr. Graham reminded the Board that the cash proffer policy only applies to new residential.
Ms. Mallek said she understood that but, if there is value to commercial coming with it, it could
possibly offset the proffer charges that would be levied on the residential. Mr. Graham stated that, if the
Board wanted that as a credit consideration, staff could include it.
Ms. Dittmar asked to discuss the two options for reviewing the policy.
Mr. Boyd said option one is talking about not changing any policies, with the exception of by-right
credits and would be a matter of updating the numbers. He stated that FIAC went through it about a year
ago, and it turned out to be similar to what is in place now because, as long as the same criteria is used,
the numbers will be the same.
Ms. Palmer asked if there is flexibility in the number of years that is used with the CIP. Mr.
Graham said there was a suggestion of just using the CIP instead of the CIP with the capital needs
assessment, and there was a decision made in 2007 which could now be revisited.
Ms. Palmer stated that everyone did an excellent job in 2007 figuring this out and, in her opinion,
this is a “buy-in cost” to buy into a wonderful community which has a lot of services similar to a connection
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
charge for all of those services. She said she does not have that many concerns with the policy, so she
is inclined to go with option one.
Mr. Boyd said the problem is that not all new development means new people moving to town, it
involves people moving from smaller houses into larger houses. He stated that a FIAC member had
suggested adding that money to the closing statement when someone buys a house because they are
new to the community and needed to pay the price for it.
Ms. Palmer stated that a lot of her constituents would probably be happy about it because, when
someone is moving into a larger house with their children, someone else is moving into their smaller one.
Ms. Dittmar said the business before the Board is not to decide the proffer values but to consider
which process the Board prefers. She stated that it would be good for this Board to take a fresh look at
the proffer policies and see what works for the comm unity with the values it currently has in place. She
added that her question is whether the Board should take a longer look with the Planning Commission
process taking extra time. Ms. Dittmar said she does not want it to take so long, but she would rather
invest the time to establish a sound policy which the Board can live with for several years.
Ms. Mallek said what bothered her in the fall was a lot of subjectivity built into the existing policy
as to the merits of each project, which is used by the Board to make decisions. She said the item most
prevalent in 2007 was the fact that developers and residents of new developments were not absorbing
the costs as existing residents had been a ll along. Ms. Mallek said she acknowledges that it is difficult for
developers to get financing for some projects.
Mr. Boyd said the entire proffer policy was designed by the FIAC, which is a very diverse group of
individuals, so it should go back to that group for reconsideration and, to him, that is a good starting point
for any policy changes.
Ms. McKeel stated that, whenever a policy has been in place for a while, it should be revisited
and tightened up so she is willing to take a look at the entire thing. She said FIAC could provide some
input and having the Planning Commission weigh was a good idea as well.
Mr. Davis said the FIAC came up with the formula for addressing the fiscal impact – not the policy
– and those are two different things. He stated that the formula to address fiscal impact and the
considerations of the five capital resources are the domain of that committee and, if they were to go back
and revisit the numbers, that could be part of their review. Mr. Davis emphasized that the policy is
outside the scope of the FIAC’s charge, and that would be in the domain of the Planning Commission
unless the Board wanted to expand the charge of the Fiscal Impact Committee to get into policy issues of
land development.
Ms. Dittmar said if the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee’s charge is the financial piece, that
group may have the expertise to help inform the Board on policy. She asked what the hybrid option might
look like, as suggested by Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd stated that, when the FIAC first went through the policy, the committee decided what
criteria to use and it was the group’s clear decision to use both the CIP and capital needs budgets, and
the categories used were copied from Chesterfield County’s plan. He said the law governing proffers is
very specific, and Chesterfield County’s policy has survived legal challenges where other localities’
policies have not.
Mr. Davis said his recollection was that the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee did not get into the
policy issues of the proffer policy itself, and the financial model was the CIP and the capital needs
assessment which was part of the formula determination the committee did to see whether it captured the
full fiscal impact.
Mr. Boyd agreed that is what happened, and said he is suggesting that the current Fiscal Impact
Committee include that same type of discussion.
Mr. Davis said that is where staff’s confusion originates, because the fiscal impact model itself
should be reviewed which may or may not lead to different cash proffer amounts. He said the separate
issue raised by Ms. Mallek and Ms. Dittmar is whether there were proper credits applied to the cash
proffer amounts. Mr. Davis stated that, since 2007, the County has not had many proffered rezonings –
less than 10 – and the County has not had the experience yet to know whether or not it was working. He
said Mr. Graham’s suggestion had been to delay the comprehensive review for a few more years, until
the economy started back up, and staff could then see whether the applications were actually being
impeded by the cash proffer policy.
Mr. Boyd said the Fiscal Impact Committee had that discussion, having received the report from
staff which suggested holding off for a year. He stated that, a few years ago, they did not even include
any out years and never adjusted the proffer amounts.
Mr. Foley stated that, during the recession, there was very little money so no one looked beyond
five years but now the CNA has been updated.
Ms. McKeel said, in November, staff was saying they did not have enough history, but now they
feel they do.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Graham said he is still recommending holding off a few years from taking a comprehensive
look, as he feels they could benefit from a few additional years to build up a little more history post -
recession on how the policy is really working. He said he thinks the jury is still out, so that is why staff is
recommending option one and holding off on changing the policy.
Mr. Boyd stated that they could lose two more years of proffers or the density the County wants,
because what the Board is hearing is that, in order to avoid the proffer policy, developers are building by-
right developments such as Dunlora Forest, which could not make the numbers work with the increased
proffer amount.
Ms. Mallek said Foothills and the school site in Crozet built by-right for the same reason.
Mr. Sheffield said he would argue that not having the density is not a bad thing, such as Lochlyn
Hills.
Ms. Dittmar said this is why the policy should be analyzed, and staff is prudent to say they do not
have enough to analyze it in terms of experience but may want to hear the impact on developers.
Ms. Mallek asked how the five-year versus the ten-year affects the numbers.
Mr. Boyd said it is about three times as much, so the proffers are going to be three times as
much. He stated that, in looking at the budget numbers, there was $107 million in the CIP and $203
million in the out years in the capital needs assessment, so it tripled the amount of proffers.
Ms. Mallek said people are going to be using the public facilities over the next 25 years so, at the
very least; they should be looking at the long term.
Mr. Davis pointed out that, from staff’s perspective, the criticism of the policy that came out last
year was not because of the policy – it was because developers did not want to pay that much money.
He said what developers are concerned about is not the policy, it is about the amount of money they have
to proffer and, if the Board does not want to capture the impact of the entire development, then that is a
policy decision the Board can make by lowering the proffer amounts. Mr. Davis said if the Board believes
the proffer amounts are stopping developments from coming forward and stopping important growth
management goals of increasing density, the Board does not have to change the policy; it can just
change the amounts.
Mr. Graham said that can be captured under option one, if that is the interest of the Board. He
stated that, when the policy was done the first time, it was not set at 100% so the Board deliberately
scaled it back because it felt that a full recovery was too much. Mr. Graham stated that the Board has the
ability to set the amount of recovery wherever it wants.
Mr. Boyd said it was a very small reduction. Mr. Graham said it was only 5-10%, but the Board
did reduce it.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board had the enabling ability to be able to have a different recovery
percentage for the highest-priority brownfield growth area developments versus other developments, in
order to make that more financially beneficial. Mr. Graham said the County is not going to see residential
units on brownfields.
Ms. Mallek disagreed, stating that the Neighborhood Model is all about that, with residential units
on top of businesses and mixed-use development.
Mr. Sheffield said “brownfield” usually comes with a connotation of contaminated property.
Ms. Mallek said “grayfield” is probably the appropriate term.
Mr. Davis stated that the law requires the proffers must reasonably address the impacts of the
development on an individualized basis, and that is why the County has a maximum cash proffer policy –
not a minimum. He said every application that comes forward is analyzed on what the impacts are, and
the proffer policy gives a framework for making that analysis and for developers to anticipate what those
impacts would be and how they would be addressed under a cash proffer policy.
Mr. Graham said, under the existing policy, there is a credit for substantial upgrades to design
development standards so, if the Board felt the mixed-use concept was very important in raising the
quality of development, the policy provides for a possible credit.
Ms. Mallek added that design standards could be any number of things.
Mr. Graham stated that it could be a number of factors, and suggested that the Neighborhood
Model sets a good basis for how well a development integrates those principles.
Ms. Dittmar said if the County is incenting or encouraging behavior in a certain way, she does not
think the Board needs to tweak the policy but, if the Board does not understand what the goal is, then
there is a need to at least look at the policy.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
Ms. Mallek said, by June or July, the Board will have at least had some conversations and
received some input.
Mr. Boyd stated that the policy started out with the Development Review Task Force, which was
put together with a group of people in the development community, environmental community, etc. and,
prior to that, the County had no policy and everything was done on a case-by-case basis. He said it was
the development community that asked for a proffer policy so they would have some guidance as to what
they should expect, and now the question is whether the existing policy is too much. Mr. Boyd stated that
there needs to be some housekeeping items addressed, because there are some interpretation questions
dealing with things such as whether there should be credit for what a developer already has buildable by -
right.
Mr. Davis said the policy was consistently followed until December.
Ms. Palmer said the policy intends to address the impact of development and if somebody does
not achieve full density, there are less people so that means less impact.
Ms. Dittmar stated that there is much better capacity to provide services in the urban ring, and it
makes sense to incentivize density in that area and to also discourage it elsewhere.
Mr. Boyd said, in using himself as an example, he and his wife are considering moving out of a
large home where they raised their four children into a condo, and they would end up pa ying $17,000 in a
proffer fee but would not be adding anything to schools, roads, etc.
Mr. Sheffield said reducing the cash proffers will impact the tax rates because the improvements
will need to be paid for one way or another.
Mr. Boyd said Board members are not going to decide on the policy tonight, so it should be
revisited.
Ms. Dittmar said Supervisors definitely need to look at the financial model, but the question
remains as to whether the Board would want to take a longer look at policies.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he could go either way but, after 2008-09, the policy has been turned on
its head and the Board needs to look at growth in general, which comes out of the Comp Plan discussion.
He added that he wants to make sure this discussion involves stakeholders also.
Ms. Palmer said Mr. Graham has said it would be helpful to have a few more years behind them,
and Supervisors would be evaluating the policy in a time that may not be a normal time because of the
recession. She stated that it might be a good idea to wait another year so the Board has more
information, and then plan on doing a big year-long review next year.
Ms. Mallek said the County does have properties in the growth areas and business districts that
have not gotten over the threshold of being doable yet, and have been sitting for years. She asked if the
smaller discussions might be a way to push some of the projects over the threshold so the County can
get the benefit of those businesses. She stated that she is reluctant to leave the “grayfields” alone and
disrespected for another few years while the Board waits for the economy to turn around, which is already
happening.
Ms. Dittmar surveyed the Board to see if it wanted a full review, or just a proffer amount review.
Mr. Boyd said he wanted to look at the policy because the world is changing fast, and putting it off
is not a good idea because too much can happen while the County is waiting.
Mr. Sheffield said the second option would actually elongate the process.
Mr. Boyd said it would not take two years.
Ms. McKeel said she does not want to throw proffers out completely and would like to give
stakeholders a voice at the table, so she is leaning toward option two.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she would like to see if the time can be compressed without reducing the
quality of the discussion.
Mr. Graham said it seems to him that the Board prefers option two, but staff still needs action on
the resolution of intent as presented.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the resolution of intent, as presented, and that the Board direct
staff to proceed following a process as outlined in Option 2. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Cash Proffer Policy for Public Facilities was adopted as part of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan on October 10, 2007 so that all new rezoning that include resid ential development
would pay for the equivalent of their full impact; and
WHEREAS, it is the consensus of the Board to review and update the Cash Proffer Policy for
Public Facilities, including “credits” and other issues identified during a public study process.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts
a resolution of intent to consider amending the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as deemed
necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Planning Commission shall
expeditiously hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed by this resolution
of intent and forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 24. Phase 2 Wireless Amendments to include public comments.
The executive summary forwarded to Board member’s states that the Telecommunications Act of
1996 introduced federal policy promoting the deployment of wireless infrastructure throughout the United
States. In doing so, however, Congress preserved local zoning authority over wireless facilities, subject
to certain limitations. A summary of how wireless network operates and the limitations on localities’
authority to regulate wireless facilities is briefly addressed in Attachment D.
The County’s Wireless Policy was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 2000 and was
the basis for the first ordinance specifically dealing with wireless service facilities in 2004. A major update
of the County’s wireless regulations was adopted in 2013 to address changes needed in response to new
Federal laws, FCC rulings and decisions from the Courts. Industry representatives and staff meet often
about specific applications and multiple roundtables have been held to receive input from industry and
other interested members of the public.
The primary focus of the County’s wireless regulations (County Code §§ 18-5.1.40 et seq.) is to
minimize the visual impacts of wireless facilities by regulating antenna size, mounting techniques, number
of arrays, tower height, setbacks, fencing, landscaping and tree preservation.
The wireless regulations classify proposed wireless facilities in three tiers. Tier I facilities require
only a building permit. These are facilities located on or within existing structures. Tier II facilities are
often referred to as “treetop facilities.” Generally, these are facilities composed of new monopoles that
are no more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet. Tier I and Tier II facilities are acted on
administratively and require notice of the pending application to abutting owners. Tier III facilities are
proposed wireless facilities that do not qualify as Tier I or Tier II facilities. These facilities are located in
“avoidance areas” or are more than 10 feet taller than the tallest tree withi n 25 feet. Avoidance areas are
ridge areas, parcels with agricultural and forestal districts, parcels within historic districts, and sites on
which the proposed facility would be within 200 feet of a scenic highway or by-way. The County has a
long history of approving applications from all three tiers with very few denials.
The County’s wireless regulations have been a balance between the desires of the wireless
industry and the County’s efforts to minimize visual impacts and their impact on abutting parcels and the
character of the district in which they are located.
At the direction of the Board and based on the input received at formal roundtables, work
sessions and informal meetings with industry representatives and interested parties, the existing wireless
regulations are being considered for amendment. A summary of the regulations being considered for
amendment is included as Attachment A.
Facility Standards
Staff believes that some changes to the Facility Standards for wireless facilities are a ppropriate to
address changes in technology that have occurred since the adoption of the wireless regulations in 2004.
Staff recommends changes to the tower width, antenna size, mounting standards and definitions.
However, further work is required before staff can provide specific recommendations.
The industry has proposed that the wireless regulations be amended to increase the maximum
permitted height of “treetop facilities” from 10 feet to 15 feet above the reference tree. Originally, the
permitted height of “treetop facilities” was 7 feet above the reference tree with up to 10 feet permitted if
certain findings were made. This was ultimately changed to a permitted height of 10 feet. Increasing the
height of “treetop facilities” improves the coverage area of a facility but may also cause increased visual
impacts. The height of “treetop facilities” is a compromise between ease of deployment of wireless
service and minimizing visual impacts. Expanding the number of wireless facilities that would qualif y as
Tier II “treetop facilities” would allow them to be deployed by-right, subject to the County’s wireless
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
regulations. Staff will need to analyze such an expansion to ensure that potential impacts can be
adequately addressed by appropriate standards.
Application and Review Standards
Staff also recommends changes to the Application and Review Standards as set forth in
Attachment A. The recommended changes provide for more streamlined applications while still providing
the information the County needs to adequately review applications.
Some members of the public have suggested that wireless facilities be prohibited in some zoning
districts. Staff does not recommend that the wireless regulations prohibit wireless facilities in zoning
districts. Instead, staff recommends that wireless facilities continue to be reviewed for the impacts they
would generate. All zoning districts may have appropriate locations for wireless facilities and the industry
should have the opportunity to seek those sites out and make application. If by-right wireless facilities are
permitted, it may be appropriate to allow them to be by-right in some districts and to require special use
permits in other districts.
Staff also recommends that most wireless facilities continue to be allowed by-right subject only to
review by staff to ensure they comply with all applicable regulations. The Board’s consistent decisions
over the years on special use permits for Tier III wireless facilities will allow staff to propose new
standards to allow more facilities to be allowed by-right, subject to performance standards that ensure
that the impacts of the facilities are adequately addressed. For those facilities still requiring Tier III
discretionary review by the Board, staff is considering recommending that the special exception
procedure be used rather than the current special use permit process. The special exception process
provides for a more expeditious review.
Some of the proposed changes could reduce review costs and others may increase cost, but
most changes would have little or no impact. As the ordinance amendment is developed, staff will be able
to develop a more accurate estimate of any changes in review costs and would include this information
with the proposed ordinance amendment. Any changes in the review costs could be reflected in the fees
charged for the reviews.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with the development of a zoning text
amendment addressing issues set forth in Attachment A with any further direction provided by the Board
on any specific issue at the conclusion of the work session.
______
Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, addressed the Board, stating that he would provide some
background and legal framework for the wireless policy as well as the County’s options.
Mr. Fritz stated that there are a number of cells with each cell having a facility located in it. He
said they can be mounted to towers, buildings, power l ine poles, water towers, etc. covering a specific
and limited geographic footprint, with the higher the antenna the larger the footprint. He stated that
antenna type, frequencies, ground obstructions and weather can impact the footprint, and the facilities are
generally located several miles apart. Mr. Fritz said each facility can handle a limited amount of data due
to the limited frequencies available, and companies will break the cells into multiple sites and reuse the
frequency as a way of increasing the total capacity the system has. He provided an example of a tower
and stated that, rather than a single site broadcasting on frequency one, it is broken into three pieces with
sectors using different channels, and reusing the signal down the line which allows for increased capacity.
Mr. Fritz stated that there are two issues when talking about coverag e: one is a radio signal, and the
tower’s broadcast of the signal; and the second involves usable capacity within the signal, because there
is only so much data that can be pumped through. He explained that, when the sector is done, there can
be one face broadcasting in one frequency band and another face broadcasting in another frequency
band, and the third behind. He stated that this type of antenna array would require a special exception in
Albemarle County, and presented an example of a multi-sector array with a flush mount antenna
arrangement, which has a reduced level of service because of the different mounting option.
Mr. Fritz said there are three primary federal provisions which affect the County’s regulations:
the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 201 2, and FCC
rules. He said the Telecomm Act is the starting point, and presented a summary of what it says. Mr. Fritz
stated that the County’s ordinances take all of these factors into account, and the one provision that gets
raised more than any other is the fact that the County cannot base its decisions on the environmental
effects of radio frequency emissions. He said this has been an issue raised by members of the public
when an application is made, and staff must emphasize when developing the ordinance and when acting
on an application that no decision can be made based on the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions. He stated that the Middle Class Tax Relief Act deals with wireless and places new burdens
on the County. He said the interpretation of this provision is becoming increasingly controversial
nationally as the law contains no definition of what a “substantial change” is. Mr. Fritz said the County
has adopted its own definition, and the FCC has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that may impact
the interpretation of the law. He stated that staff would continue to monitor that and advise the Board of
any actions necessary to address the new rules, which will be handed down any day. Mr. Fritz presented
information on the “shot clock,” which requires the County to act within time restraints, and the ordinance
has been amended to do that.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
Mr. Fritz stated that the history is long for wireless. He said the County adopted a wireless policy
in 2000, as one of the first localities in the country to do so and, in 2004; the County adopted its first
comprehensive list of regulations rather than using the existing approach of special use permits and
conditions. Mr. Fritz said the ordinance was comprehensively adopted in 2004 and, in 2010; there were
some minor changes to accommodate wireless broadband to bring it into the umbrella of personal
wireless service facilities, which required a much more complex review process. He stated that, in 2013,
the County did Tier I changes which brought it into compliance with the shot clock and some procedural
changes, including administrative review of Tier II applications. Mr. Fritz said, in 2004, the Board adopted
a tiered approach, with a Tier I facility being an antenna mounted on an existing structure, and the
ordinance specifies some design requirements. He presented an example of a Tier I facility at the
Regional Jail and one at Fontaine Research Park, which has multiple antennae on the site. Mr. Fritz said
Tier I applications are treated just like building permits, and are purely administrative with permits issued if
an applicant meets the standards.
Mr. Fritz stated that Tier II facilities require administrative review, with notice given to the abutting
property owners, and staff must review the application for compliance with the ordinance. He presented
an example of a facility located on Route 20 between I-64 and the City limits, and the site is only visible
from within the City. Mr. Fritz said the facility is 10 feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet, which is
compliant with Tier II facilities. He presented another example of a Tier II facility located on Avon Street
and pointed out two reference trees.
Ms. Mallek said the Avon site is an example of a facility that is not skylit because of the hillside
behind it, which makes it less visible than if it were on top of the hill.
Mr. Fritz presented a photo taken from across the street, still on Avon Street next to Cale
Elementary, which depicted an older site that would be a Tier III site, and has antenna on it that was done
previously. He pointed out the conventional array of antenna which would require special exceptions, and
also depicted a Tier I facility attached to an older Tier III facility.
Ms. Mallek said that one was put up before the ordinance, which is why it looks the way it does.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that it was constructed prior to the 2004 amendments to the ordinance, and
emphasized that Tier III is everything other than Tier I and Tier II.
Mr. Fritz stated that he had broken out all of the issues that were included in Attachment A, and
would go through the review in that same order. Mr. Fritz said the County’s policies and ordinances have
always been a balancing act, trying to facilitate the deployment of wireless without resulting in adverse
impacts. He said staff is very aware that times have changed since the adoption of the policy, and the
use of wireless 14 years ago bears little resemblance to the prevalence of wireless use today, and the
public’s attitude toward wireless has also changed. Mr. Fritz said som e of the recommendations that
follow were intended to address technological changes which have occurred in that timeframe, and other
changes are based on lessons learned during the review process including things that would improve
staff’s ability to review projects, as well as attempts to recalibrate the original balancing act set out by the
policy in the ordinance. In developing this list of issues, he said staff considered the comments made by
the public during the review of individual applications, comments made at community meetings including
one attended by an estimated 200 individuals, roundtables attended by representatives of the wireless
industry and other interested parties, and comments made by the public, Planning Commission, and the
Board during public hearings. Mr. Fritz said, in reviewing these, staff would like to glean from the Board
whether each item is something staff should continue to work on, stop working on, or maintain as is.
Mr. Fritz presented the items for consideration, with the first one being the industry’s request that
the size of antenna be expanded to two feet wide, which is now limited to 1,152 square inches. He said,
currently, the typical antenna is under 16 inches wide and 5-8 feet long adding that down-tilt can improve
the service a site offers by aiming the devices toward the ground. Mr. Fritz said they would be discussing
increasing treetop tower height, and the Board may want to consider those taller heights using the current
mounting standards, and allowing different mounting standards for facilities that are not more than 10 feet
above the trees. He stated that staff has no recommendation on this particular one because there is a
continued balance between deployment of service and visibility and, if antennas are wider, they have a
potential greater impact.
Mr. Boyd asked how far off the pole the example provided is. Mr. Fritz said it was three feet.
Ms. Mallek stated that there would be a spectacular increase in visibility.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to hear from the industry as to the impact on their service capability.
Ms. Mallek said the industry has suggested all of these things, which would make their lives
easier. She said, years ago, the industry had said if the Board implemented the ordinance, there would
never be cell service and that did not turn out to be true.
Mr. Fritz stated that the problem has always been that it is a complex issue with a lot of
competing comments and opinions, so there is a balancing act between ease of deployment and visual
impacts. He said the County has been wrestling with that since 1998 when it started work on the wireless
policy, which was delayed because of a lawsuit against the County. Mr. Fritz stated that a larger antenna
with a down-tilt would unquestionably im prove the ability to better deploy, would allow better coverage
and increase capacity from each site and those types of antennas are more efficient than the flush-
mounted ones.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
Ms. Palmer said the complaint from the industry is always that the applications take too long. Mr.
Fritz said there are some proposals within this policy that would address that by potentially changing the
review process or making some of the facilities by-right.
Ms. Palmer asked if anyone has complained about the Tier I process speed and are there ways
to expedite Tier I without making changes to the impact. Mr. Fritz said it is largely a staff resource issue,
and the wireless facilities are treated similar to building permits so they are in that mix and can be more
difficult if a special exception is being requested.
Ms. Palmer asked how an additional staff person might impact a Tier I permit. Mr. Fritz said that,
of course, would decrease the time, but he does not have a specific number at this point as to the impact.
Ms. Mallek said the County time of the process is very small when compared to the time the
business spends researching, surveying, investigating and engineering. Mr. Fritz said staff is working on
some things now that do not require any amendment to the ordinance in an effort to streamline that
process but that is independent of this policy effort.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Foley how much time the Board should devote to this discussion, as it
seems to require a few hours.
Ms. McKeel said this needs a good, solid discussion, and she is not interested in changing
anything if the reason is because there is not enough staff.
Mr. Foley said he would let Mr. Graham comment on the urgency of the matter. He added that, if
the issues were not clear, those could come back in a different manner and staff could reschedule that.
Ms. Palmer stated that the biggest issue seems to be the industry’s concern about time for
processing the applications and, if that is the case, she is not sure how much can be gained by not
changing the policies.
Mr. Fritz said the industry’s challenges are more than just the time it takes for the review process
and that has been revealed during the broadband task force discussions such as concerns with 10 feet
versus 15 feet tree top, which is difficult for them to do. He stated that, in general, having visibility as a
standard makes it difficult to site facilities, so it continues to be a balancing act.
Ms. McKeel asked if some of those specific issues could be broken out. Mr. Graham said there
are two different sets of issues: the complexity of the process, which relates to time and can take months
and tens of thousands of dollars for a Tier III application. He stated that there may be opportunities to
simplify and make that more of an administrative process, so addressing that is one set of questions. Mr.
Graham said the other set of issues is how to improve coverage or reach of the antennae, which is
primarily about visibility in one form or another and is a policy judgment call directed by the Board.
Mr. Boyd said the tilt-down for example might extend the antenna width by six feet over flush-
mounted antenna but, if that increases performance by 40-50% and reduces the number of towers
needed, that might be something he could live with from an aesthetic standpoint.
Ms. Mallek asked how that could be guaranteed because, in her estimation, there will probably be
just as many towers and those will be a whole lot bigger.
Mr. Boyd said, if the County thinks the industry is trying to pull a fast one over on it, the Board
should not even be having this conversation.
Ms. Dittmar said she wants an honest broker for information, because are competing objectives
here. She said aesthetics do mean a lot to some people, while others reall y need coverage. She stated
that she would like to have information about what coverage can be provided by these proposed
improvements.
Mr. Graham said staff could break out some of the simple parts for the Board to address first,
such as reducing the complexity of the process, and then come back at a different time to go through the
visibility issues which are far more complex and subjective.
Mr. Fritz stated that there are two things the Board has directed staff to work on previously, which
they can continue to work on. He said one is exempting wireless facilities from the critical slopes
regulations – which would just be the facility, not the access road – and staff can develop some
performance standards for that, as the areas that are disturbed tend to be very small. Mr. Fritz said the
other one is that the Board has directed the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to come up with a
countywide certificate of appropriateness for these, so staff could move forward with that to remove the
ARB having to act on the applications and just have staff involved. He stated that staff can also work on
the survey information and the provision allowing County staff to require photo simulations, as well as the
Cell on Wheels (COWS) policy for temporary cellular facilities for emergencies and special events – which
currently is not codified but should be. Mr. Fritz said staff is also trying to improve the County’s website
so people can be aware of balloon tests and see the raw images from the test, which requires no ch ange
in the ordinance.
Mr. Boyd asked how the critical slopes waiver would impact the tower in the Key West
neighborhood, which had two special exceptions to it. Mr. Fritz explained that it is an issue, and all the
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
performance standards would still be there so, if it met the setbacks and had the antennas properly
mounted, with the only issue being critical slopes, the permit would have been approved. He said it never
got to that final point though because of other issues.
Mr. Fritz said, at this point, the Board could direct staff to work on these specific items and they
would bring this back at a future meeting.
Ms. Mallek said the critical slopes issue is not just the damage done by the pole going up, it is the
impact of the destruction to get machinery in, the road built to get it in, and the lack of control with a pole
going on a slope.
Mr. Fritz stated that the Board’s previous direction was to address only within the lease area, and
staff would establish some performance standards for that but not the access road and surrounding area.
Mr. Davis clarified that the next step in the process is the adoption of a resolution of intent so this
can be advanced as an ordinance amendment. He said there are two parts to this: the technical and
process part, and the relaxation of visibility standards to advance the deployment of cell service in the
County which is the more important policy issue, and one that has been extremely important to the
community and the Board. He noted that the County had litigated this to the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals in 1999, which helped develop the case law in the U.S. on this issue, and the policy was in
advance of almost every locality. Mr. Davis emphasized that Albemarle has been a leader in this area,
and staff does not want the Board to make the decision lightly so, if Board members need more time, he
would encourage that.
Mr. Boyd asked for a white paper with the pros and cons so the Board can formulate an opinion
based on available information.
Ms. Palmer said the industry has changed, and there is a much stronger need to get it into certain
areas than there was 10 years ago. She stated that, with the propagation map that may or may not
materialize, the Board could decide that there are areas of the County in which it would want to speed up
the process.
Mr. Fritz stated that there is one specific example which might help in that regard. He said one
option staff had brought forth was to use a special exception process instead of the special use permit
process and, if that is applied to the Tier III facilities only, it has the potential to reduce the review time
while still preserving the ability of the public to participate. Mr. Fritz said staff does recommend pursuing
that change, which they could bring back to the Board. He stated that the second item is the
consideration of public notification, and there are two options: to maintain the current policy of notifying
abutting owners, or to notify people within a set distance. Mr. Fritz said visibility was mentioned as a way
of approaching that, but it is not practical given the technology they have.
Ms. Mallek said visibility is not an insignificant issue, and there have been some major tensions in
the past over those problems.
Ms. McKeel agreed that it needed further discussion.
Mr. Fritz asked if the Board would like staff to work on the special exception also.
Ms. Mallek said she does not if it involves sidelining the ARB, because the whole point of the
special exception was that, if the ARB had signed off on the application and had addressed the visibility
issues, which is how it qualified for the exception in the first place. She said reduced notification would
also mean there is no way for people to find out they can object.
Mr. Fritz clarified that the special exception notice does not cut out the notification, adding that the
special exception process would still have notice. He explained that the special use permit automatically
goes to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and notice is given; the special
exception process would have notice given and, if no objection was received, it would be placed on the
Board’s consent agenda. He said, if there was objection, it would go to a full hearing by the Planning
Commission and then to the Board. Mr. Fritz emphasized that it has the potential of reducing the review
times for those projects where no objection is received.
Ms. Mallek said, if the objection is from the abutting property owners and there is no public
hearing advertisement for either the Commission or Board hearings, there is very little chance that
anyone would find out about it.
Mr. Fritz said that is why staff brought up the issue of notification, where the Board could change
who would be notified.
Mr. Foley stated that there is a lot here to discuss and it does not seem that there will be much
more progress at this meeting, so staff would need to take the Board’s concerns and try to address the
simpler items while developing a plan for the more complicated ones.
Ms. Mallek said she is trying to find out which things were simple so those could be addressed.
Mr. Foley said he did not think staff would be able to answer that at this meeting.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 77)
Ms. Mallek said this has been years in the process.
Mr. Fritz stated that the original policy took about three years to develop.
Ms. McKeel said there may be things the County can do to speed up the process, and what she
would like to know is what the Board would need to do in terms of having adequate staff to improve the
process.
Ms. Dittmar said the process time is one issue, and additional coverage potential is another so
she would like to get some information on that technology.
Mr. Boyd said it could be as simple as taking “tilt-down” and dividing it into “industry’s position”
and “staff position,” and the different opinions on each.
Ms. Dittmar said a public speaking opportunity was held with this work session.
Mr. Foley stated that there could be more opportunity for that going forward.
Ms. Lori Schweller of LeClaire Ryan, representing Verizon Wireless, ad dressed the Board and
said her comments were from Verizon’s perspective but were applicable to other carriers. Ms. Schweller
said she did not see a competition with visual impact versus how a facility works, and there are minor
ways to change the ordinance which would help the industry a lot. She said Verizon Wireless works
within the County’s guidelines that are implemented to foster the policy of keeping facilities minim ally
visible, stating that the question is whether it really has an impact and if it impairs the general view shed.
She stated that Mr. Culp was accurate in his comments that technology continues to change constantly,
so the criteria was established in 2004 but, just in 2007, the technology has gone from 1G and 2G to 3G
to 4G to AWS to now small cells. Ms. Schweller said every time a carrier brings in new technology to
provide better service to the County, there will be additional physical facilities and antennas so, when 4G
was rolled out, they had to have an application for every single site in Albemarle County. She stated that
Stephen Waller was a County planner at the time the current ordinance was drafted and is now a zoning
consultant, and he knows that the 1,152 square inch maximum size for a panel antenna was developed
simply because, at the time, that was the size being used. Ms. Schweller said, if the County could relax
some of the specific performance standards such as size of antenna, stand-off of antenna, and the
number of antennas on a pole - those things that cause very minor visual impact – it would prevent sites
that should be Tier I or Tier II from requiring special exceptions and spec ial use permits. She said those
processes require Board approval, so it takes 4-6 months just to add an antenna to a pole, and that is
outside of federal regulations.
Mr. Jeff Werner with the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) addressed the Board, stating
that the landmark case is why everyone is here. He said, in the late 1990s, PEC brought a consultant in
to work with the County, and that process led to the policy which is currently adopted. Mr. Werner said he
understands that the industry wants the simplest and fastest solutions – taller towers, more visible towers,
and less local regulation – which then requires less public input. He stated that the PEC urged the Board
to remember what the community values are, which is the visual aesthetics. Mr. Werner said people in
the community still care about these towers and their visibility, and he has received numerous calls about
the Key West tower and others throughout the County. He stated that the Board has pushed back
successfully against industry pressures, and urged it not to backpedal on visibil ity issues and to
remember the importance of trees particularly when they surround a treetop tower. Mr. Werner said the
County needs to continue to respect adjacent property owners with the setback requirements, and urged
Board members to not eliminate or reduce the importance of avoidance areas, or eliminate or reduce any
opportunities for public comment. He stated that the way to speed the process up is to follow the rules
because, if an applicant comes in and abides by the guidelines of the policy, it will go quickly. Mr. Werner
said the Board gets told all the time what the industry “must have,” and suggested the County hire a
consultant, if necessary, to represent its interests.
Mr. Neil Williamson addressed the Board, stating that the policy was brought forth originally as
“more towers, shorter towers, slightly above the trees,” then there was a step to make it a tiered policy
which was very effective and saved both the County and industry a lot of m oney. Mr. Williamson said
maintaining the Tier III is critical, increasing the height above the treetop to 15 feet is not really extreme in
the context of backdrop against mountains, and he would like the Board to consider it in terms of the
demands placed on the wireless network. He stated that rural s hop-owners are having great success
using the Square Device, which attaches to an IPad, but they cannot get a signal and are just storing the
data so the credit card may not be valid. Mr. Williamson said these little things need to be considered,
and cellular access and connectivity are important for people who want to live here. He emphasized that
the County needs to take care of the dead spots, and take care of the citizens that need the connectivity
to the cellular network.
Mr. Dan Meenan, Vice-President of Engineering for Ntelos Wireless and an 18-year resident of
Crozet, addressed the Board, stating that he does not wake up every day trying to build very tall towers.
Mr. Meenan encouraged the Board to think about some of the changes being proposed as not being
wholesale changes, but optimization efforts to speed the deployment of broadband servic es in the
County. He said providing service to the underserved areas of the County is a priority, and many of these
proposed changes will speed the deployment of those services on existing structures and not necessarily
proliferate the County with more towers. Mr. Meenan encouraged the Board to think about that as the
changes come forward.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 78)
Mr. Foley said the Board has provided staff with lots of input on some steps they might take next,
with the more complicated items coming back later. He said staff would have to come back to the Board
fresh, on a much more narrow case, and get some direction on the larger issue.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24a. Resolution urging General Assembly to pass State budget.
Ms. Mallek asked if there were any comments on the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo)
resolution for the General Assembly regarding the budget.
Mr. Boyd said he had concerns about item 9 in the resolution, stating that he would like to replace
it with wording which Fluvanna County’s resolution contains: “Now, therefore, be it resolved, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors inform the Governor of Virginia and the Vir ginia General
Assembly to pass the budget as soon as practicable to ensure the continued functioning of the state and
local governments; and be it further resolved that the issue on Medicaid expansion under the Affordable
Care Act should be decoupled from the budget negotiations and considered in a separate legislation
session to facilitate the prompt passage of the state budget.” He stated that he feels this is the only way
to get the budget stalemate resolved. He said everything in the state budget is settled except for the
Medicaid exemption which seems to be stalling the entire process.
Ms. Mallek said she would not support that because she feels it is too important of an issue to
force them to deal with, and there are many alternatives that have been raised for which the answer is
“no,” so she would rather legislators stay there until it is resolved. She stated that the state will get a
budget passed and, if it takes until the end of June to get a really important thing accomplished, then that
is OK with her.
Mr. Boyd said he could not support the resolution without the clarification.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the intent of the resolution, as she reads it, is to say “get about your
business,” and she can support sending it to the legislators that represent Albemarle County. She said , if
the General Assembly feels it has to decouple the Medicaid issue in order to get that done, that should be
its decision.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the resolution as presented. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said the only reason he would be voting against it is because the only solution to get it
done is to decouple the Medicaid expansion issue.
Ms. Mallek said the House of Delegates members have been campaigning through all of the
jurisdictions trying to get Boards of Supervisors to ask the Governor to do that, so they just want to get
their way.
Mr. Boyd stated that he was reading from Fluvanna County’s resolution.
Ms. Mallek said Supervisors have all gotten the emails from various legislators asking for
resolutions supporting the decoupling.
Ms. Dittmar stated that what Mr. Boyd has pointed out is the sticky issue, but the General
Assembly needs to be accountable for what slows them down or speeds them up.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
(The resolution as adopted is set out in full below).
RESOLUTION
Whereas, the Virginia General Assembly did not agree on the approval of a budget by the
adjournment date of March 8, 2014; and
Whereas, funds from the state received by Albemarle County comprise a large portion of
revenues necessary for Albemarle County to deliver many of the public services mandated by the
Commonwealth; and
Whereas, the delivery of mandated public services by Albemarle County depends upon a stable
and healthy partnership between state and local governments; and
Whereas, Virginia’s local governments are subject to strict, statutory deadlines for approving
certain components of their respective budgets; and
Whereas, local governments under Sections 15.2-2500 and 15.2-2503 of the Code of Virginia are
required to approve their respective budget and tax rates by July 1 of each year; and
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 79)
Whereas, by May 1 of each year, or at least 30 days after receiving an estimate of state aid,
whichever is later, local governments are required under Section 22.1-93 of the Code of Virginia to adopt
an annual school budget; and
Whereas, not later than July 1 of each year, all school divisions under Section 22.1-304 of the
Code of Virginia, must notify teachers of reductions in force due to decreased funding; and
Whereas, failure to approve a budget in a timely manner would disrupt the ability of Virginia’s
businesses and public agencies to operate effectively; and
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors that the Virginia General
Assembly and the Governor of Virginia are urged to reconcile their differences and agree on a FY 2015 -
2016 budget; and
Be It Further Resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shall transmit copies of
this resolution to the Honorable Terry R. McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia, and to members of the Virginia
General Assembly representing Albemarle County.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. B. F. Yancey Elementary School Community Use (continued
discussion).
Regarding the Yancey School item, Ms. Palmer stated that the letter is the only issue the Board is
discussing, and that has to go out very soon. She said she had not communicated well with staff and was
surprised with the presentation, however, Board members now have clarification that the in-kind
contribution is $11,000. Ms. Palmer said what Club Yancey is doing now is keeping the school open five
hours on Saturday and five hours on Sunday. She said she told the group that they could only ask for
four hours because that is what she asked for in the budget discussion with staff’s figure of $9K.
Because Yancey is figuring out the time differently through Parks & Rec reation, she said it turns out that
the amount is less, therefore, if the Board approves $9,339 those funds would go toward keeping the
building open only. If there are any funds left over at the end of that period, she said it would carry over
into the next year. Ms. Palmer said, going forward, the County anticipates being able to provide a similar
level of in-kind support at $11,000, and the 2014 budget allocation of $10,000 would help fund operating
costs of Club Yancey with the new intergenerational education programs. She stated that her only
question at this point is whether the Board would be able to use the $10,000 in the next year if Club
Yancey does not use the allocation for its intended purpose.
Mr. Foley said, if the Board grants approval, it could carry the amount over with the idea that it is
one-time money.
Mr. Boyd asked if Yancey was talking about one-time money because, to him, that is the key
element. Ms. Palmer stated that she was very clear with the Yancey group that it was one -time money to
keep the school open and to keep the momentum going with the community to be able to offer the
programs.
Mr. Boyd asked if the money would come from contingency funds in this year’s budget. Mr. Foley
clarified that it would mean continuing the in-kind amount, and having a one-time $10,000 amount that
would be allocated this year depending on the timing, which staff would support coming from the Board’s
contingency.
Ms. Palmer stated that the $11,000 is the in-kind contribution, and the County is expecting that to
continue as that has been done all along which includes the time from January through March that Parks
& Recreation keeps the building open, and a few additional hours of the family support social worker.
She clarified that $10,000 is a one-time contribution.
Mr. Foley said the in-kind money is already a commitment, so the only new item here is whether
to provide $10,000 to assist with what is going forward. He stated that, if the Board would like to do that,
staff is recommending the funds be taken from the Board’s reserve for contingency as a one-time
amount.
Ms. Palmer moved to approve $10,000 to keep Yancey School open for weekend programming
for the Intergenerational Center for FY14 and FY15 using one-time funds from Reserve for
Contingencies. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Palmer then moved to authorize the Chair to sign the letter of endorsement to support a
variety of funds for Club Yancey’s application to grantors. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 80)
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Boyd said he is not completely sold on the total report from Yancey, and he hoped that would
come back to the Board as a separate issue for discussion.
Ms. Palmer stated that she hoped to bring it back within the next month, including a
recommendation to make the committee permanent.
Mr. Foley said staff would bring a report back that is more comprehensive.
Mr. Boyd said it should also include operating costs.
(The letter is set out in full below:)
To Whom It May Concern
In December, 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County
School Board approved a Charter establishing the B. F. Yancey School Work Group and setting forth five
primary objectives for the Work Group, including to explore and identify community-based issues in the
community served by the school and to recommend potential community uses of the school for the
benefit of southern Albemarle County. The B. F. Yancey Work Group presented its final report at a joint
meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board in December, 2013 and has since continued to
work to initiate a variety of innovative programs that build on the success of Club Yancey and, in doing
so, demonstrate how effectively a community working together can leverage public support and private
resources to maximize the use and benefit of an iconic community facility such as B. F. Yancey School.
Club Yancey, initiated in 2005 as an after-school and summer program for students in
kindergarten through fifth grade, continues to ensure that children in the Esmont area and surrounding
communities develop the necessary academic, social and physical fitness skills intended to help break a
cycle of poverty for the many at-risk children in the area. This program has benefited greatly from public -
private partnerships that have enabled Club Yancey to serve children whose families could not otherwise
afford participation in after-school and summer enrichment programs.
The Board of Supervisors and the School Board acknowledge the significant work of the B. F.
Yancey Work Group to date and recognize the opportunity to use Club Yancey as a successful model of
community-based service delivery. The Boards support on-going efforts to develop an intergeneration
learning center at the school as a way of broadening and deepening the value of education, enrichment
and health and wellness services to all community members in southern Albemarle County. Currently,
the County provides on-going operating funds for a full-time Family Support Worker in southern
Albemarle County through the Albemarle County Department of Social Services. This employee
dedicates 20-hours each week to the children and families of B. F. Yancey School at an annual cost of
$34,000. As further indication of their support of this project, the Board of Supervisors and the School
Board provided in-kind contributions of approximately $38,000 over the past 12 months as tangible
evidence of a keen interest in the value of public-private partnerships to serve important community
needs. Both Boards continue to support this project and encourage other public and private interests to
contribute to this determined community-lead effort to serve families in southern Albemarle through
delivery of intergenerational education programs at the B. F. Yancey School.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter of endorsement from the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and the Albemarle County School Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Board of Supervisors Annual Retreat. (Moved from earlier on agenda).
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the Board of Supervisors has
formally engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. Strategic planning is considered a
best practice and is a critical component of the adopted excellence framework under which the County
operates. Every five years, the plan is fully reconsidered and the other annual meetings serve as priority
setting sessions for the Board within the context of the strategic plan, as well as an assessment of
progress. The County’s current five-year strategic plan was adopted on July 1, 2012.
At its March 5, 2014 meeting, the Board agreed to have an annual retreat this summer to
consider and clarify top objectives and priorities under each strategic goal going forward and to ensure
staff’s work is aligned with Board priorities. The Board also expressed support to use an outside facilitator
to help manage discussion and to assist the group in finding common ground and consensus.
Based on Board direction, the annual retreat is scheduled for Tuesday June 10th from 9:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m. at a location to be determined. Given the importance of this retreat and the need for effective
facilitation, as well as the need to move quickly to begin preparations, staff contacted Tyler St. Clair, an
experienced local government consultant who specializes in working with elected bodies. St. Clair has
worked with elected bodies in diverse Virginia cities and towns such as Staunton, Charlottesville, Falls
Church, Newport News, Richmond, Danville, and Manassas, and has significant experience facilitating
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 81)
these types of retreats. She also provides faculty services to the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service where she supports the nationally-recognized Senior Executive Institute and
LEAD programs. A full biography of St. Clair is attached (Attachment A). The County’s Leadership
Council recently worked with St. Clair and believes she is well-qualified to facilitate this retreat. Based on
her recent work with the County, she is also familiar with many of the County’s current challenges.
The retreat is an important opportunity to clarify and align the Board’s policy direction with staff
work, insuring there is appropriate focus and resource allocation for both long and short term prioriti es. As
envisioned, the retreat will allow the Board to build on the strategic plan previously developed for FY 13 -
17, which has provided valuable guidance to staff in focusing work, addressing capital projects in a timely
way, and insuring thoughtful resource allocation. At the retreat, the Board will have an opportunity to
review the existing FY 13-17 Strategic Plan and make any changes it feels are necessary as part of the
larger priority-setting process. Preparation for the meeting will include individua l interviews between the
facilitator and each Board member to acquire input and enable the final design of the retreat to address
the Board’s needs.
Working with the facilitator, staff recommends the following specific goals for the retreat:
1. Gain an understanding of the Board’s individual perspectives on strengths, assets,
needs, and desired change initiatives for the County;
2. Review the current strategic goals and identify any changes that should be made to
achieve the desired future of the County;
3. Clearly articulate the need for and intent of each strategic goal, including projects and
initiatives that may be important over the long term and short term; and
4. Identify/agree on specific priorities to be addressed over the next three years that are
consistent with resources and capacity.
Staff recognizes the challenge of accomplishing these goals in a single day and expects that
follow up work may be necessary to finalize clear direction on priorities. Any needed follow up will be
scheduled at subsequent Board meetings if necessary. The ultimate outcome of the retreat is expected
to be clear direction that drives the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan in October and annual budget
process for FY2016.
The FY13-17 Strategic Plan provides direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and
annual budget processes.
Staff requests approval of the proposed consultant and the goals outlined for the retreat, with any
amendments the Board feels are appropriate.
_____
Ms. Louise Wyatt, Organizational Development Manager, addressed the Board, stating that at its
March 5 meeting, the Board agreed to have an annual retreat in order to consider and clarify top
objectives and priorities in each goal going forward, and to make sure staff’s work was aligned w ith Board
priorities. She said, at that time, the Board also expressed support for an outside facilitator for the retreat.
Ms. Wyatt stated that, based on that input, the annual retreat has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 10,
at a location to be determined. Given the importance of the retreat and the need for effective facilitation
and also the need to move quickly, she said staff contacted Tyler St. Clair who is an experienced local
government consultant who has done a number of these retreats with elected bodies throughout the
state. Ms. Wyatt said Ms. St. Clair has also done some work with the County’s Leadership Council, and
staff felt she was well-qualified to facilitate the retreat and also has a sense of some of the County’s
challenges.
Ms. Wyatt said, in preparation for the retreat, there will be individual interviews between the
facilitator and each individual Board member, as a way to acquire input and ensure that the retreat meets
the needs and desires of the Board. She stated that, in working with the facilitator, staff is recommending
four specific goals for the retreat as outlined in the executive summary. Ms. Wyatt said the first one is to
gain an understanding of individual Board members’ perspectives on strengths, assets, needs and
desired change initiatives; the second is to review the existing strategic goa ls and identify any changes
Board members might feel are appropriate; the third is to clearly articulate the need for and intent of each
goal, including projects and initiatives that may be important over the short and long -term; and the fourth
is to identify and agree on some specific priorities to be addressed over the next three years that are
consistent with resources and capacity. She noted that the County is currently in the second year of an
adopted five-year strategic plan.
Ms. Wyatt said staff recognizes the challenge of accomplishing all of those goals in a single day,
and there is a good chance there may be follow-up work needed to finalize clear direction on priorities,
especially if the Board directs staff to come back with additional information on any priorities that might
emerge from the retreat. She stated that the ultimate outcome of the retreat is to get clear direction that
will help inform the County’s five-year financial planning process, which happens in October, and also the
annual budget process for FY16, which will start soon after that. Ms. Wyatt said the work that the Board
will do will be timed to try to feed into that five-year planning; adding that the individual interviews with
Board members will take place during May.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 82)
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the Board retreat plan including both the consultant and the outlined
goals recommended by staff for the retreat. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion.
Ms. Dittmar said having this many goals is very heady, and it may be difficult to cover them all.
She stated that the first and fourth goals seemed similar to her, and aske d if there was a presumption that
the Board would stay with the seven goals it currently has.
Ms. Wyatt stated that the idea is to stay within the framework of the existing plan to the degree
possible, and the goals are fairly broad so most of the priorities staff has heard from the Board would fit
in. She said there would be an opportunity at the retreat to look at the adopted goals and objectives, and
to revisit and reaffirm or revise them as necessary.
Mr. Foley said it was staff’s thought that the Board would stay with the goals it currently has but, if
the Board feels something is not covered properly, there will be an opportunity at the retreat.
Ms. Mallek said there may be a different understanding of one of the elements with the new
Board, and it is important to have that discussion.
Mr. Foley said staff did not want to stop that, and that can come out in Supervisors’ individual
discussions with the facilitator.
Ms. Dittmar stated that, from the individual interviews, the facilitator will develop the agenda to
take the Board through the four goals. Mr. Foley confirmed that was the case.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. McKeel reported that she had recently attended a Chamber of Commerce event at the Stultz
Center at the Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC), and Sue Friedman of the Alzheimer’s
Association mentioned that they had held their board retreat in that building and it was a very nice space.
Mr. Foley said staff has been considering several options, including going to one of the wineries.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board wanted to be sure it had an idea of intended outcomes from its
upcoming conversation with the City.
Mr. Foley stated that he had spoken with Maurice Jones , City Manager, and they agreed that July
might be a good month for that.
Ms. Dittmar said her original thought was to not have anything structured but simply have a
conversation.
Mr. Sheffield stated that his thought was to try to prioritize what the City and Count y can agree on
and work towards, what it somewhat agrees on, what still needs consensus on, and identify the things the
jurisdictions are divided on and would require a lot more work.
Ms. McKeel said it will be a great step forward to have a joint meeting with the City in an effort to
determine if there are some things both jurisdictions can come together on in addition to the things they
are already doing together.
Ms. Palmer agreed, and added that each body will have a list of things it wants to discuss. She
said there should at least be a little bit of structure, but the less structure the better.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the City also holds a retreat.
Ms. Dittmar said the City had a retreat in the beginning of the year. She asked if the Mayor was
planning to attend the stakeholder’s meeting.
Mr. Foley said Mayor Huja was planning to attend. Mr. Foley said he and Mr. Jones had
discussed the idea of the two of them meeting with the Board of Supervisors Chair and the Mayor to talk
about the process. He said if they can establish a mutual agenda for the future, then it could be narrowed
down to those things that could be discussed at the joint meeting.
_____
Ms. Palmer stated that she has suggested there be a liaison from the Planning Commission
appointed to the Natural Heritage Committee, and her appointee has agreed to that but she was not sure
what else would need to be done. She said she also asked Mark Graham for more information about the
oversight of the Natural Heritage Committee intern which was approved for $20,000 in order to do some
mapping and other work.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 83)
Mr. Foley said he has spoken with Mark Graham about that, and he was planning to talk to two
members already on the committee about how staff would help move this forward so he is planning to get
input. He stated that, if the Board wanted to have a liaison as suggested, that would move this forward,
and would typically come from the Commission to the Board instead of the other way around.
Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek expressed approval of the liaison idea.
Mr. Foley said staff would move forward, and Mr. Graham would follow up with the Board.
_____
Mr. Sheffield said the Board heard from the public at the beginning of the meeting about
abandoning the right of way for the bypass, and asked if Ms. Dittmar should bring this matter up to the
panel or have the Board send a letter to the panel to consider that when it makes a recommendation to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). He said his fear is that the CTB will hold onto the right
of way even after May 14, and he is hoping otherwise.
Ms. Mallek said, two CTB meetings ago, this came up very directly as soon as they began
discussing the Federal Highway Administration letter, and several of the members from around the state
talked about the burden on the homeowners. She stated that they did say they would wait for the task
force to be done, but she got the impression they would be very agreeable to moving on this in May. Ms.
Mallek said her first instinct is to let the task force have another meeting or two, but the Board needs to be
ready when the time comes to bring this issue forward.
Mr. Davis said the Board should be careful to let the Commonwealth Transportation Board
terminate the project first.
Board members agreed.
Ms. Dittmar said the scope of what the panel is trying to do is examine alternatives, and Mayor
Huja had placed a suggestion on the table, and asked what was meant by “be careful.”
Mr. Davis stated that Board members need to be careful as to how to make the request because
the CTB, at some point, will have to take some action to terminate the project. He said, if that is its
decision then, at that point, it would be appropriate for the Board to make the request.
Ms. McKeel said Philip Shucet had said the $200 million could be added to the sale of the
property.
Ms. Mallek said that item was discussed at the CTB meeting also, and that the sale of the right of
way was part of the improvements budget.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board should wait for the committee’s alternatives to go to the CTB and,
after that, then the Board can move forward.
Mr. Sheffield asked Mr. Foley if he could confirm where and when the CTB meeting would take
place, because the current indication is they would be meeting in the Charlottesville area.
Mr. Foley said staff would follow up with the Board regarding information about the next meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 26. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley reported that his report contains the tentative two-month agenda planner, which gives
the Board an opportunity to provide input on agenda items. He stated that he included several items on
which staff was not certain where the Board stood and included a work session on public/private
partnerships.
Ms. McKeel said she brought that up because she was interested in information and education on
the topic, adding that Kathy Galvin had indicated to her that City Council might be interested in hearing
that also.
Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted to spend a few minutes on that topic at its joint meeting with
City Council.
Ms. McKeel suggested Chris Lloyd provide a short presentation.
Ms. Mallek suggested staff ask if City Council would be interested in that topic.
Ms. Palmer stated that there was a good presentation on this at the Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority during the dredging discussion, and perhaps the Board could get that information as a starting
point because staff did a significant amount of work on it.
Mr. Foley said staff would follow up on that.
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 84)
Mr. Foley stated that the other item he had as uncertain was the next intersection for the photo-
red light. He said the Chief of Police had said the Route 20 site did not appear to be a good candidate,
as the Board had originally thought it might be, because of safety issues identified by VDOT.
Mr. Boyd said he thought VDOT wanted to finish the line and lane study before installing the
camera, adding that there was also a proposal for Hydraulic and Route 29. He stated that Colonel Sellers
reported that the camera could be installed on the County’s corner since it traverses the City line.
Mr. Foley said he would speak with Col. Sellers about the Route 20 intersection to see if that is
still a possibility, and what the timeframe would be.
Mr. Foley stated that the only other matter was in the “follow-up items” regarding the request from
the Chair for some background on the County’s community engagement process. He said there is
information in the Board’s Dropbox from Lee Catlin as to how these processes are approached.
Mr. Foley said he had developed a breakdown of priority review schedules, and there are a lot of
big issues happening at once, which makes it a challenge. He stated that a meeting with the School
Board is on the list of projects, but there is no real direction as to when that should occur. Mr. Foley said
Board members have a June Board retreat scheduled and a joint meeting with the City slated for July,
and suggested a meeting with the School Board be held prior to the Board’s five-year plan discussions in
the fall.
Ms. Dittmar said she had asked when recommendations for the school budget were needed and
learned that the end of September was a good deadline point. She asked Board members if it would
want to meet with the School Board first and then let a group start working on the process.
Mr. Foley stated that there is also a long-range planning committee for the schools, which feeds
into this process.
Ms. McKeel said that committee meets as needed for enrollment issues. She stated that Board
members have been talking about a sustainable funding stream for the schools, and that would require an
ad-hoc committee to come up with some ideas and make some recommendations which would need to
have some members who are not school people or local government. Ms. McKeel said an initial
discussion with the School Board would be beneficial, and that should be done quickly.
Mr. Foley asked if August would be acceptable.
Ms. McKeel said August would really be too late.
Ms. Dittmar suggested having Mr. Foley speak with Dr. Moran about it.
Mr. Foley said staff would put it back on the agenda for the Board’s next day meeting with some
ideas and thoughts on approach.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board would want to have two meetings with legislators, with a separate
discussion for unfunded mandates in addition to the regular legislative meeting.
Mr. Davis said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) usually starts its
planning of the legislative agenda in September which is typically when the Board would give its
legislative priorities and that feeds into a December meeting with legislators, as they are preparing to go
to Richmond. He said a discussion prior to September would be a new process the Board could certainly
consider. Mr. Davis stated that there is a deadline in December for legislators to ask Legislative Services
to draft bills.
Mr. Foley suggested bringing that back in May as an item for discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 27. Closed Meeting.
At 6:08 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 (1) to discuss a performance standards and
evaluation process for specific County employees appointed by the Board. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 28. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 7:21 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
April 02, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 85)
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 29. Adjourn.
At 7:22 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
______________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/04/2015
Initials: EWJ