2014-06-04June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 4,
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 9:04 a.m., by the Chair, Mr. 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: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mallek and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Palmer reported that she had met the previous day with the Albemarle County Solid Waste
Committee, and they discussed what the membership would look like as well as additional appointee .
She stated that she would like to take a few minutes at the end of the meeting to go over that, and what
their decisions were. She would like for the Board to make some additional appointments to the
Committee on June 11th.
______
Ms. Dittmar reported that Leadership Charlottesville, a leadership training program sponsored by
the Chamber of Commerce, has issued its applications for the year-long program. Ms. Dittmar said that
the program is time-intensive, but really effective in terms of fostering a fuller understanding of the
community.
She stated that on June 24 at the Paramount Theater, there will be a celebration of diversity in
the business community. Anyone interested in learning more about businesses that are owned by
minorities are encouraged to attend.
Ms. Dittmar announced that the current Director of the Small Business Development Center is
retiring, and asked Board members to spread the word so that a good candidate emerges.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions.
Item No. 6a. Charles P. "Chip" Boyles, II, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission.
Ms. McKeel said that the mission of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is to
help local governments develop effective solutions to issues facing the region by providing a regional
vision, collaborative leadership and professional service. TJPDC’s region consists of the counties of
Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene and Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville. She said that she is
pleased to introduce Mr. Charles P. “Chip” Boyles as the new Executive Director of the TJPDC. Ms.
McKeel stated that Mr. Boyles brings over 20 years of local government managerial experience,
previously serving as a city and town manager – as well as a chief operating officer of a nonprofit
organization. She said that Mr. Boyles comes to Albemarle from East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where he
was vice-president of programs and administration for its redevelopment authority. Mr. Boyles received
his Masters in Public Administration from Clemson University and earned a B.A. in Political Science from
the University of South Carolina.
Mr. Boyles addressed the Board, thanking Ms. McKeel for the introduction. He added that he has
enjoyed the seven weeks he has been on the job at the TJPDC. He stated that he looks forward to
working with the Board on issues – especially major ones like Route 29. Mr. Boyles said that he is
optimistic that the MPO may be able to perform a partnership service in the areas of public outreach,
which may end up being more important than the bricks and mortar of the Route 29 project. He added
that he is a resident of the Rio District and looks forward to being involved in the community.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek commented that the TJPDC is already involved with different agencies across the
area to improve its standing on environmental issues and the river; she is very excited about moving
forward.
__________
Item No. 6b. 2013 (CAFR) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Certificate of Achievement.
Ms. Palmer reported the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is a detailed
presentation of the locality’s financial conditions for the fiscal year. All financial statements are audited by
an external certified public account firm annually. She then recognized Ryan Davidson, a budget and
management analyst for the City of Charlottesville, who is present today as a representative of the
Virginia Government Finance Officers Association (VGFOA). She said that Mr. Davidson is present to
present the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to Albemarle County
because the Finance staff has exceled in their preparation of the 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report. Ms. Palmer said that the purpose of the Certificate is to encourage and assist state and local
governments to go beyond the minimum requirements for generally accepted accounting principles, and
to recognize individual governments that exceed in achieving that goal.
Mr. Ryan Davidson addressed the Board on behalf of the VGFOA, stating that their mission is to
develop leaders with financial management expertise through education, fellowship, and professional
development, to foster excellence in government. He said that the VGFOA appreciates the opportunity to
recognize the County’s accomplishment. He then asked Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, and staff
to be recognized. Mr. Davidson said that the VGFOA achievement of excellence encourages local
governments to go beyond the minimum requirements of generally accepted accounting principles, and to
recognize governments that succeed in achieving this goal. He said that the certificate is the highest form
of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and represents a significant
accomplishment by the government and its management. Mr. Davidson said this was the 19th
consecutive year that Albemarle has received the award which demonstrates the continued priority the
County has placed on financial management.
Ms. Betty Burrell accepted the recognition, thanking Mr. Davidson and the Board . She noted that
this is a highly envied certificate of achievement. She also thanked Mr. Tom Foley and Mr. Bill Letteri for
their support of the Finance Department, and Robinson, Farmer, Cox, the external auditors. Ms. Burrell
added that she particularly would like to recognize County staff. She added that Mr. Ed Koonce has
retired, but he was at the helm when this CAFR was produced. Ms. Tammy Critzer drove the whole
production and software for the CAFR. She also recognized Ms. Ann Murray, Ms. Renee Hoover, Ms.
Kelly Craddock, Mr. Jonathan Kearns, Ms. Susan Mortell, Vicki Pannell, and other Finance Department
employees. She then introduced Mr. Jacob Sumner, the new Chief of Financial Management. Mr.
Sumner comes to Albemarle County from the City of Norfolk; he holds two Masters Degrees; and he is a
Certified Management Accountant. Albemarle is very fortunate to have Mr. Sumner’s talent.
Ms. Dittmar thanked the Finance Department for their work, on behalf of the Board, and said that
it was a relief for those Supervisors serving on the Audit Committee.
__________
Item No. 6c. Crozet Library – LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
Certification.
Ms. Mallek announced that the Crozet Library has been awarded the LEED Silver Certification,
established by the U.S. Green Building Council. Crozet Library achieved this certification for energy use,
lighting, water and material use – as well as incorporating a variety of other sustainable strategies. By
using less energy and water, LEED certified buildings save money for families, businesses and
taxpayers, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to a healthier environment for residents,
workers and the larger community. According to Rick Fedrizzi, President, CEO & Founding Chair, U.S.
Green Building Council, the Crozet Library LEED certification demonstrates tremendous greenbuilding
leadership. Mr. Fedrizzi added further that “the urgency of USGBC’s mission has challenged the industry
to move faster and reach further than ever before, and the Crozet Library serves as a prime example with
just how much we can accomplish.”
Ms. Mallek said that the Crozet Library’s LEED Silver certification was based on a number of
green design and construction features that positively impact the project itself and the broader
community. These features include: construction activity pollution prevention, stormwater management,
water efficient landscaping, optimized energy performance, construction waste management, recycled
content, low-emitting materials and daylighting. She added that the low-emitting materials used do not
release chemical smells as some do, and that was evident upon visiting the library soon after it was open.
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors Ms. Mallek congratulated all parties involved in the
planning, design and construction of the Crozet Library, with special thanks to Mr. John Halliday, Director
of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, and County staff including Mr. Bill Letteri, Mr. Trevor Henry
and Mr. Ron Lilley. The Board appreciates their focus on the County’s values of stewardship and
innovation in achieving this certification. She then invited Mr. Halliday to come forward.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. John Halliday said he would like to add his congratulations to the Library for receiving the
certification. It shows the County’s commitment to energy efficiency and care for the environment. He
said that the LEED certification really is earned, not just given. He said that use of the Crozet Library has
consistently been 75% over use of the old library. In May use jumped up to over 86%. Mr. Halliday
added that flyers have been distributed for the summer children and young adult programs, and invited
Board members to attend also.
Ms. Mallek encouraged Mr. Halliday to distribute the date for the end of summer reading party,
and said that two years earlier, about 300 people had attended.
__________
Item. No. 6d. Rivanna Garden Club – Claudius Crozet Park biofilter.
Ms. Mallek said several biofilters were constructed in the Claudius Crozet Park by the County in
2007. About a year later it was clear that – although the biofilters were functioning well – they did not look
very attractive. County staff reached out to the Rivanna Garden Club for help. The Club offered to “adopt”
the biofilters for several years – to plant additional vegetation and to generally make the biofilters look
great and function well, and this they have done for the last six years. The biofilters are attractive assets
to the Park.
The Board thanks the Rivanna Garden Club – and particularly Ms. Jan Stalfort – for volunteering
their expertise and their time towards helping the County achieve its environmental goals while staying
beautiful.
Ms. Phyllis Ripper addressed the Board, on behalf of the Rivanna Garden Club, stating that this
started out as a three-year project that turned into six years. Ms. Ripper said that there are three garden
clubs in Albemarle County that belong to the Garden Club of Virginia, and they work on beautification,
education and conservation projects – as well as taking turns hosting historic garden week, which will be
held in Brown’s Cove in 2020. She said that the bio-filter project is officially ending, but for some
members, it will likely continue. She added that she looks forward to coming back to the Board to inform it
about some of their future projects.
__________
Ms. Dittmar stated that over the last 10 days, the Board participated in recognitions of high school
graduates at each County high school, including Murray and CATEC.
She then recognized Ms. Ella Jordan for receiving a B.A. in Leadership and Management from
Bluefield College, graduating Summa Cum Laude. The Board is proud of this accomplishment.
___________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. David Thomas, a resident of the Scottsville District, explained that he was before the Board to
present the claim of Mr. Joseph Pace, a long-serving Albemarle County employee who retired from
service on September 1, 2009 and has asked that his full claim of $8,937.59 be paid. Mr. Thomas said
that Mr. Pace’s claims are the same as those made by other former County employees, and like those
employees Mr. Pace was induced to retire early by the offer of a specific sum of money to supplement the
retirement benefits he would otherwise receive through the Virginia Retirement Service – benefits that
would be less because he was retiring early. Mr. Thomas said that Mr. Pace retired under the County’s
Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (VERIP), which was established when the County was faced
with tight budgets in 2008-09, and a health care component was added. He stated former County
Executive Robert Tucker said that the change was to provide additional years in the healthcare portion of
the VERIP program as an incentive for people to voluntarily retire, and said , “I wanted to do the best we
could in solving the deficit problem, but not at the expense of an employee being laid off.”
Mr. Thomas said that Mr. Pace along with a number of employees took the County up on the offer
and went to the Human Resources Department to receive a calculation of what his benefit would be, and
based on that number - $656 per month until he turned 65 – he retired. Mr. Thomas stated that the
County issued a letter to Mr. Pace that they had made a mistake and the amount was actuall y $217 less
per month, and said they were cutting his retirement income by 10% because they made a mistake. Mr.
Thomas said that he does not agree that a mistake was made. The language of the policy was open to
interpretation – but it does not matter, because Mr. Pace was given a specific dollar figure to induce him
to retire, which he did. Mr. Thomas said that it is offer, acceptance, and consideration – basic contract
law. He said that in closed meeting, the Board will only hear from Mr. Davis, who will likely emphasize
that the retirement is “voluntary,” and while that is true it is called an “incentive” plan to encourage
employees to retire. He added that Mr. Davis will likely state that there was no contract – because the HR
specialist could not do that – but every independent party that has considered that, including Judge
Higgins and a jury of Albemarle County residents, has rejected that interpretation. Mr. Thomas said that
he is before the Board to ask it to do what is morally right and pay the claim that is owed.
__________
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Charles Battig, a resident of the White Hall District, opened his presentation with “words do
matter”. He said that “sustainable” is a circular definition, and the goal to “achieve a sustainable
community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet its own needs” asserts a big assumption that whoever is making the policy knows the needs and
abilities of future generations. He said that the definition for “sustainability” comes from the United
Nations in 1987, and it suffers from the same problem of defining the future. Mr. Battig stated that the
Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council is comprised of 34 members representing many counties and
hundreds of thousands of people. He said that the Comp Plan uses the word “assured” in addressing
future economic, human, social and environmental health, and said that has been tried without success in
communist countries. Mr. Battig stated that the word “preserved” in referring to natural mineral resources
means they are not going to be used, and to him that is sloppy language. He also said that the 1998
accords say, “encourage strong ties,” but the County’s Comp Plan does everything to destroy the rural
area. Mr. Battig said that “distribute a human population” seems like race control and distribution, and it
should be removed. He stated that there is no mention of property rights or cost effectiveness in the
context of this. Mr. Battig also said that the Comp Plan is bloated beyond the state definition, has
inconsistent terminology and disregard of private property rights, and no consideration of cost
effectiveness – all being decided by 34 people representing over 100,000 people.
__________
Ms. Nancy Carpenter, a resident of the Scottsville District, said that she was before the Board to
talk about affordable housing, specifically rental housing, and quoting the late Dr. Maya Angelou: “The
ache for home lives in all of us, the safe place where we can go as we are and not be questioned.” Ms.
Carpenter said that in looking at the Comp Plan in the weeks to come, Board members need to keep in
mind that all of the goals related to self-sufficiency, thriving communities and diversified economies come
back to housing. In Albemarle they need to make sure they have housing for everyone, whether it’s
workforce housing, moderate to low-income housing, or extremely low-income housing, especially rental
housing. She stated that approximately one-million mothers in the country use housing vouchers, and
nine in ten households with children that receiving housing vouchers are headed by women. Ms.
Carpenter said that vouchers can help create better health and education outcomes for children . HUD
Secretary Sean Donovan equated housing and health at the recent “Healthcare for the Homeless”
conference. She stated that in 2015, the House Appropriations Committee is considering cutting money
for existing housing vouchers. Over 40,000 housing vouchers were lost over the last sequestration, and
now want to cut more and create more problems for more households headed by women. Ms. Carpenter
said that she hopes the Board will encourage legislators to fund existing vouchers and even put back
money for the 40,000 that was lost. She also stated that she had read a new report from the Urban Land
Institute entitled, “Bending the Cost Curve: Solutions to Expand the Supply of Affordable Rental
Housing,” which talked about the costs for developers and recommendations for developers to put in
housing that is less expensive for the consumer.
__________
Ms. Stacey Norris, Co-President of Voices for Animals, and the founder and project coordinator
for The Houses of Wood and Straw (HOWS) Project, said her job is to bridge the gap between what is
legal and what is moral as it applies to animals, specifically outside dogs in the community. Ms. Norris
said that what she has learned over the last six years is that they “validate what they tolerate.” She said
that in early 2013, Albemarle County Animal Control suggested that Diane Gentry contact The HOWS
Project for improved outdoor shelter assistance for her 30+ dogs. HOWS began on a small scale to
improve the situation. In the summer 2013, Animal Control became more aggressive in pursuing better
conditions for the animals – but during the time the paperwork was in process, Ms. Gentry relocated her
operation to Gordonsville. Ms. Norris said that Albemarle County courts relinquished the case and Louisa
County refused to pick it up – so HOWS was left holding the bag – and violations were numerous. She
said that HOWS has continued to work with Ms. Gentry on improving those conditions, by providing
housing, bedding, food bowls, water buckets, collars, grooming, spay and neuter assistance, etc. Ms.
Norris said that the only difference between Ms. Gentry’s residence and what they see at most places
they visit yearly is the number of animals during the neglect. She stated that she has spoken before
about getting to the root of the problem, and HOWS Project can only do so much – with real change
coming through laws and enforcement. Ms. Norris said that people who neglect animals know that what
is tolerated is validated, and those who wish to end the neglect must realize it also. She stated that she
will email a summation of HOWS statistics from the 2013-14 winter season in the coming weeks. She is
also working with experts in the field to comprise a list of proposed animal ordinance definition changes
per their request to do so, and these proposals will hopefully be a good platform on which to create better
laws to protect animals in the community. Ms. Norris also encouraged Board members to view photos
she circulated to show what happened at the Gentry residence.
__________
Mr. Robert Walters, a resident of Forest Lakes Subdivision in the Rivanna District, said he was
before the Board to ask that they go on record to oppose fracking in Albemarle County. Mr. Walters said
that today the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy w ill commence a new study on
fracking. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had been studying it since 2011, with recommendations
expected in the near future – but that has been expected for the last year. He stated that the County of
Albemarle was approached on June 11, 2011 by Peter Hannock about taking a stance. He said that
fracking is a process by which hundreds of gallons of water are mixed with toxic chemicals and injected
down into wells at high pressure, fracturing the underground rock formations to force oil and gas to the
surface. Mr. Walters said that those chemicals are unknown. The oil industry was able to get an
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
amendment to the Clean Water Act to exempt it from identifying the chemicals, which has been a serious
issue. He stated that many but not all of the experiences of people living near or at fracturing wells
include water contamination with toxic chemicals resulting in severe health issues, well water that can
catch fire due to methane content, diversion of drinkable water in times of drought – especially in shale
areas, the strong stench of fracking chemicals, noise throughout the night with truck convoys, and
earthquakes. Mr. Walters said that Rockingham County recently denied a special use pe rmit for the
Carizzo Gas & Oil Company tried to do some fracking there. He asked the Board to support a resolution
opposing fracking. He stated that it is an issue that will not go away and they will hear more of it in the
future, so he would like to have Albemarle remain in the forefront.
__________
Mr. Ed Brooks, a resident of the Samuel Miller District, said he was present to express concern
that there will be more of a “café culture” instituted in local libraries, as reported on the news several
weeks earlier. Mr. Brooks said that he is a frequent user of the library and has always been a great
admirer and patron of libraries, from the time he was a young child. He stated that under the new
structure, snacks will be allowed to be brought in while people are doing their library work, and cell phone
conversations will be allowed while taking care of library business and no longer will be in designated
areas – with all of this policed and managed by the staff. Mr. Brooks said that he has spoken with Mr.
Halliday about this, and left that conversation “very concerned.” He also talked with his library trustee
twice. He said that this is a staff-driven decision that has already been voted on, and the opportunity for
public input has only entailed speaking at meetings if you know when the meetings were being held. Mr.
Brooks stated that there are some issues that demand public input, and this is a “se a change” policy that
will be difficult to manage. He said that the reasons given for the change are that it w ill create a more
welcoming environment for youth, it will help people do business while they are on the computer, and that
there are libraries all over the country that are doing this. Mr. Brooks said that he considers the library as
a reverential, sanctimonious type of public institution, and when it changes it is hard to corral it. He stated
that when asking Mr. Halliday if there has been a decrease in patronage, but was told there was not – the
change was just part of a national trend. Mr. Brooks reiterated that he was offended that there was not
really ample opportunity for the public to engage in this decision.
__________
Ms. Mallek stated that there was a letter sent from the Board to the Department of the Interior
regarding allowing fracking in the George Washington National Forest. She said that she recently
attended a conference in Hanover County that was the kickoff of the committee dealing with fracking, and
she has asked staff to stream those meetings as it is an incredibly important issue.
Ms. Palmer asked if Ms. Mallek had an opinion about the library atmosphere.
Ms. Mallek said that she learned a little bit through Gary Grant’s update, as he had a few
sentences in his latest email about the response from the JMRL Board meeting. She said that her
primary concern is the extra mess it will create for staff, as young people are not always as fastidious as
they might need to be.
Ms. Dittmar said that she would like to hear more about that under “Matters from the Board.”
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to have Mr. Halliday come back and address that.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would be interested in seeing what the JMRL Board had approved,
and would like to have a copy of that as this raises a red flag for her also.
Ms. Mallek said that currently there is a sign on the door that says “no food or cellphones,” and
she had to struggle to get them to put up signs to keep smokers away from the doorway.
___________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Mallek, seconded by Ms.
McKeel to approve Items 8.1 (as read) through 8.9 on the consent agenda, to pull items 8.2, 8.10 and
8.13 for further discussion and action at end of meeting, and to accept the remaining items for
information. (Note: Discussions on individual items are included with that agenda item.) Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_____
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: August 28, October 10, and December 12, 2013; an d February
5, February 12, March 19, March 27, April 10, April 24 and May 13, 2014.
Ms. Mallek pulled the minutes of August 28, 2013 and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer pulled the minutes of February 5, 2014, pages 1-24 (end at Item #13), and carried
them forward to the next meeting.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Palmer pulled the minutes of April 10, 2014 and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Dittmar pulled the minutes of December 12, 2013 and carried them forward to the next
meeting.
Ms. Dittmar pulled the minutes of March 27, 2014 and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Mr. Boyd read the minutes of October 10, 2013 and found them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel read the minutes of February 5, 2014, pages 24 (begin with Item #13) – end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Sheffield read the minutes of February 12, 2014 and found them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel read the minutes of March 19, 2014 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Sheffield read the minutes of April 24, 2014 and found them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel read the minutes of May 13, 2014 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read and carried the other
forward to the next meeting.
__________
Item No. 8.2. 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 $151,744.80. 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 two (2) appropriations as follows:
One appropriation (#2014100) to appropriate $637.80 in state revenue to support the
Charlottesville Albemarle Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ (SPCA) spay
and neuter efforts; and
One appropriation (#2014102) to appropriate $151,107.00 in state and federal revenue to
the Albemarle County Department of Social Services for direct assistance programs and
temporary staffing.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014100 and #2014102 for general government
programs as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2014100 $637.80
Source: State Revenue $637.80
This request is to appropriate $637.80 in state revenue to support the Charlottesville Albemarle Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ (SPCA) spay and neuter efforts. This revenue is provided by the
State specifically for this purpose and is in addition to the County’s formula-based contribution to the
SPCA.
Appropriation #2014102 $151,107.00
Source: State Revenue $70,080.00
Federal Revenue $81,027.00
This request is to appropriate $151,107.00 to the Albemarle County Department of Social
Services for direct assistance programs and temporary staffing that is federally and state funded. These
direct assistance programs will exceed their initially appropriated budgets due to a higher than expected
number of individuals served in FY14. These additional funds have been requested from and approved by
the state. These state and federal revenues have a local match of $8,955.00, which will be funded
through the Department of Social Services’ currently appropriated budget.
(Discussion: Ms. Mallek said that she does not recall funding the Martha Jefferson Health Fund
at $5,000 and does not know what it is. She also asked what is the Tourism Enhancement Fund. Mr.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Foley said that he would like to have budget staff present to respond, and suggested that the item be
moved to the regular agenda for discussion and action.)
__________
Item No. 8.3. Set public hearing on Proposed Ordinance to establish a Video-Monitoring System
for School Buses.
The executive summary states that in 2011, the General Assembly amended Virginia Code §
46.2-844 to allow localities to enact an ordinance that authorizes their school divisions to deploy a “video -
monitoring system” to record individuals that illegally pass stopped school buses. The ordinances may
impose a $250.00 civil penalty on violators, and may also direct that the civil penalties be payable to the
local school division. In the fall of 2013, the School Division tested a “video-monitoring system” that
indicated there may be as many as 6,000 instances per school year of vehicles illegally passing school
buses that are stopped to load or unload students, posing significant danger to students. On J une 13,
2013, the School Board voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors enact a “video -monitoring
system” ordinance. Virginia Code § 46.2-844 provides that the video-monitoring system may be operated
by the School Division or by a private vendor.
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment B) to amend County Code Chapter 9, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, to add Article VIII, Video-Monitoring System. The proposed ordinance would:
Authorize the School Division to install and operate video-monitoring systems in or on the
Division’s school buses and/or procure the services of a vendor to provide video-
monitoring systems services;
Impose a $250.00 civil penalty for the operator of a vehicle who is found to have failed to
stop his vehicle for a school bus that is stopped on any road or school driveway for the
purpose of loading or unloading children, the elderly, or mentally or physically
handicapped persons;
Make the payment of any civil penalties imposed payable to the School Division; a nd
Bar the criminal prosecution for the violation when a civil penalty is imposed.
Several vendors have presented programs to the School Division that demonstrate their capacity
to execute a comprehensive “video-monitoring system” program. If the Board of Supervisors adopts an
ordinance enacting a video-monitoring system, the School Division intends to publish a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for video-monitoring services. Initially, only buses on routes with documented history of
violations will be equipped with the systems. It is estimated that would include 25-30% of the school bus
fleet.
A sworn law enforcement officer will certify each violation. After a violation is certified, a civil
summons will be issued by mail to the violator. If the violat or does not admit to liability and pay the civil
penalty, the violator may be served with a summons to appear in court for trial.
Civil penalties collected by the School Division would be used to reimburse the Police
Department for its costs associated with the program, and any remaining funds are proposed to be
directed to the Building Services Department for the specific purpose of implementing safety and security
enhancements to schools, including those enhancements recommended in the Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design evaluations currently being performed at the schools by the Police
Department. The goal of the video-monitoring program is to decrease the number of violations of drivers
wrongfully passing stopped school buses. It is projected that the number of violations will decrease over
time as drivers become aware of the financial penalty for such violations, therefore it would be prudent to
use the funds for non-recurring expenses.
Most “video-monitoring system” vendors provide a turn-key solution that is entirely violator-
funded, with no cost to the locality for hardware or services. The School Division estimates that the funds
received from civil penalties would be sufficient to reimburse any associated costs incurred by the Police
Department.
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached proposed Ordinance (Attachment B) for public
hearing on July 2, 2014.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the proposed Ordinance for public hearing on
July 2, 2014.
__________
Item No. 8.4. Change Board of Supervisors’ Regular Night Meeting Time for 2014 Calendar.
The following memorandum dated May 28, 2014, was received from the Clerk, Ella Jordan:
“As you know, the Board set its regular meeting dates and times for 2014 at its organizational
meeting held on January 8th (day meetings were to begin at 9 a.m.; night meetings were to begin at 6
p.m.).
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
In an effort to allow the County’s citizenry ample opportunity to participate in work sessions on
any proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan, the Board recommended that these work sessions be
held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., prior to the regular night meetings.
Virginia State Code Section 15.2-1416 requires that the days, times and places of regular
meetings be established and advertised in the local newspaper. Therefore, with this change, we are
required to provide public notification regarding a change to the start times of the Board’s regular night
meetings from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This notice will indicate that the new schedu le is in effect until such
time the updates to the Comprehensive Plan are complete.”
By the above-recorded vote, the Board changed the start time of its regular night meetings
from 6:00 p.m., to 7:00 p.m., until such time as updates to the Comprehensive Plan are complete.
__________
Item No. 8.5. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad Memorandum of Understanding for Participation
in Cost Recovery Program.
The executive summary states that on September 9, 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance
authorizing the County to charge fees for emergency medical service (EMS) vehicle transports provided
by the Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer rescue squad that applied for and was issued a
permit to charge fees. This program is commonly known as the EMS cost recovery program. The Board
directed staff to establish a billing system to be operable by February 1, 2010.
The County procured the services of Diversified Ambulance Billing (now known as Fidelis Billing)
to act as the billing agent for the County. The Sc ottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad (“SVRS”) applied for
and was issued a permit to charge fees. The Board adopted a Resolution to establish fees for EMS
transports on December 2, 2009. Staff and members of SVRS worked together to develop and implement
an extensive public information plan to inform the public about the EMS Cost Recovery program. On
February 1, 2010, the County began billing for EMS transports by ambulances stationed at the Monticello
and Hollymead Fire Rescue Stations and the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad Station. As the
County’s fire and emergency medical system expanded, the County began billing for EMS transports by
County ambulances stationed at the Seminole Trail, Ivy, Earlysville, and Martha Jefferson Hospital
locations.
During the FY13 budget process, the Board directed staff to re-engage with the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) and the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad (WARS) to expand the
County’s EMS cost recovery program. Staff and members of the squads began meeting in March 2012
and focused on issues that would facilitate participation by CARS and WARS. In late 2012, CARS
decided to withdraw from the discussion; however, staff and representatives from WARS continued to
meet and have now reached agreement on how WARS can partner with the County in billing for
ambulance transports.
As discussions continued between staff and the WARS leadership, it was determined that a more
formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) (Attachment A) between the County and WARS would be
appropriate to capture the negotiated terms and conditions, particularly conditions related to funding the
squad’s operation.
WARS is unique in that they are the only volunteer EMS transport agency that will be participating
in the County’s EMS cost recovery program that does not require supplemental career staffing. In
addition, WARS actively funds their operations by supplementing the annual County contribution with
donated funds. Therefore, WARS relative expenses are low compared to other County EMS transport
agencies. Given the circumstances, the majority of the negotiations centered on the process to fully fund
WARS operational expenses.
The MOU has been approved as to content and form by the County Attorney’s Office and has
been approved and signed by WARS. The significant provisions of the MOU include:
WARS will participate in billing for transport services as part of the County’s EMS cost
recovery program and agrees to apply for a permit from the County to participate in billing
for transport services (Paragraphs 1-5);
The County commits to fund 100% of WARS’s reasonable annual operating budget
requests and WARS commits to continue their traditional fund-raising efforts for major
repairs, renovations or replacement of existing buildings (Paragraphs 5-8);
Either WARS or the County may terminate this MOU with sixty (60) days written notice
under certain circumstances ( Paragraph 9); and
The County agrees to continue its current “compassionate” billing policy and agrees to
implement “insurance only billing” (Paragraph 10).
The County’s FY15 budget includes funding in the amount of $235,300 for WARS operating
budget, as well as an additional $23,530 (10%) for WARS operating expenses that is held in a separate
contingency line item in the Volunteer Fire Rescue budget. In addition, $20,000 in the Fire Rescue budget
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
is earmarked for two additional EMT classes for WARS and $20,000 in the CIP for a structural
modification to an existing apparatus bay.
It is anticipated that billing by WARS will be fully operational by September 1, 2014 and, with a
two to three month delay in the County’s receipts once billing is implemented, the billing is expected to
generate approximately $168,000 of revenue in FY 15 before payment of administrative fees
(approximately $159,000 net). A full year of revenue from billing is expected to generate approximately
$288,000 of revenue before payment of administrative fees (approximately $273,000 net).
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached
Memorandum of Understanding between Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and the County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following Memorandum of Understanding between Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and the
County:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. AND
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into on this 6th day of June, 2014, by the
Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. (“WARS”), a Virginia non-stock corporation and a volunteer
rescue agency located at 1265 Crozet Avenue, Crozet, Virginia, 22932,,and the County of Albemarle,
Virginia (the “County”), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia with its principal offices at
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902, for the purpose of establishing guidelines concerning
WARS’s participation in the County’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) revenue recovery program
(“WARS” and the “County” are hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”; singular, a “Party”).
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors enacted Chapter
6, Article V, of the Albemarle County Code, which authorizes the Albemarle County Department of Fire
and Rescue and any volunteer rescue squad that obtains a permit from the County to charge fees (the
“Fees”) for emergency medical services (EMS) ambulance vehicle transports (hereinafter, “transport
services”); and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2014, the membership of WARS voted to begin billing for EMS vehicle
transport services as part of the County’s EMS revenue recovery program;
WHEREAS, the County acknowledges that WARS has agreed to participate in the County’s EMS
revenue recovery program which is intended to recover costs associated with providing emergency
medical/transport services on the basis that the County will utilize funds from the recovery program to
fund WARS’ reasonable budget requests.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. In consideration of the County’s compliance with the terms of this MOU, WARS will
participate in billing for transport services as part of the County’s EMS revenue recovery
program that began on February 1, 2010. For billing and collection purposes, the County
will serve as the agent and public point of contact for WARS and shall contract with a
third-party provider to administer the billings and collections relative to the revenue
recovery program.
2. All Fees charged by WARS for transport services shall be collected by the County’s
billing and collection provider and retained by the County to support funding of WARS.
Any funds in excess of those needed to support WARS, as set out hereinafter, will be
used to support the Albemarle County Coordinated Fire and Rescue System established
pursuant to Code § 6-102 of the Albemarle County Code.
3. In consideration of the County’s compliance with the terms of this MOU, during the term
of this MOU WARS agrees to provide all reasonably necessary information,
documentation, and cooperation to the County and its billing and collection provider for
the billing of transport services delivered/provided by WARS. For the duration of the
County’s November 11, 2009 contract, as amended by Addendum dated January 3,
2012, with its current billing and collection provider, Fidelis Billing, LLC (“Fidelis”), WARS
agrees to the covenants contained in Articles II, V, IX, X and XII of the County’s contract
with Fidelis. WARS hereby agrees to comply with any similar requirements and
covenants in any successor billing and collection provider contract. WARS also hereby
agrees to supply the County, or such billing and collection provider, as the case may be,
any information that might be reasonably necessary to obtain and maintain billing
approval for the transport services by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
4. WARS authorizes all EMS ambulances owned by WARS, whether solely titled to WARS
or jointly titled to WARS and the County, to be used for the delivery of transport services
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
within the County’s EMS revenue recovery program. The Parties acknowledge that, to
the extent permitted by law, WARS will not be required to bill for any transport services
performed pursuant to a written contract in which WARS agrees to provide “standby”
services to a third party and such contract provides that a patient shall not be b illed for
transport services in such third-party setting, provided that the third-party agrees to pay
for such transport services in an amount not less than would be paid by Medicare for a
Medicare patient transport. Otherwise, the patient shall be billed for any such transport
services under the County’s applicable policies and procedures.
5. WARS agrees to apply for a permit from the County to participate in billing for transport
services and, to the extent that such permit is not inconsistent with the pro visions of this
MOU, will comply with the terms of the permit, once issued. The County’s Board of
Supervisors has previously approved Volunteer Funding Policy SAP-DEP-007 (the
Policy), which provides a detailed outline of the County’s funding policy for v olunteer fire
departments and rescue squads in the County. This Policy shall be used by WARS as a
guideline for creating their annual budget request. However, in consideration of the
participation by WARS in the County’s revenue recovery program, the Cou nty commits to
fund 100% of WARS’s reasonable annual operating (non-capital items) budget requests
consistent with the review and oversight by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for County Departments. In addition, one-time budget requests for facilities repairs and
maintenance and one-time budget requests for items or services such as but not limited
to equipment previously identified in a multi-year funding plan shall be given full
consideration for funding. The County shall establish an annual o perating contingency
for WARS equal to ten percent (10%) of its approved operating budget which shall be
available to fund unanticipated operating expenses or reasonable operating expenses
underfunded in the operating budget. These funds will be provided to WARS upon
reasonable request after consultation and approval by the Fire and Rescue Chief.
6. The foregoing notwithstanding, WARS hereby agrees that it will continue its historical
fundraising efforts for the purpose of generating funds to be used solely by WARS for the
replacement, or major renovations/additions, to its existing facilities/buildings and such
other needs as WARS reasonably deems necessary to deliver timely, efficient and
professional transport services as determined, and approved, by WARS’ Board of
Directors.
7. WARS hereby agrees to determine, at the end of each of its fiscal years, any funds
provided to WARS by the County in connection with this MOU which are not expended by
WARS. As to all such funds, WARS hereby agrees that such funds shall be held in a
contingency fund by WARS. In the event that WARS determines, due to unanticipated
expenses, that funds budgeted for a fiscal year are insufficient to fund WARS, even after
applying the funds held in WARS’s contingency fund, WARS may, after consultation with
the County’s OMB and Fire and Rescue Chief, request an additional appropriation from
the Board of Supervisors, which shall be at the Board’s discretion.
8. Because under Virginia law a board of supervisors may not legally bind a future b oard,
the parties acknowledge and agree that the funding of WARS as set out herein remains
subject to annual appropriations by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
9. The Parties intend that this MOU will last for the duration of the County’s EMS reven ue
recovery program. However, either Party may terminate this MOU by providing sixty (60)
days’ written notice to the other Party in the event that: (i) the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors fails to appropriate funds to WARS in accordance with the Po licy and/or this
MOU; (ii) Federal, State or County laws require discontinuation of the County’s EMS
revenue recovery program; or (iii) a Party commits a material breach of this MOU or the
Policy which is not cured, or otherwise satisfactorily addressed in the sole reasonable
discretion of the aggrieved Party, within sixty (60) days of notice of such breach by the
aggrieved Party to the non-aggrieved Party. Should either Party terminate this MOU, the
terminating Party will cooperate with the other Party to close out all outstanding billing
and collection matters relative to the revenue recovery program outlined above.
10. The County hereby agrees, notwithstanding anything set out herein to the contrary, that
at all times relative to the revenue recovery program set out herein that it shall continue
its current billing policy of “soft” or “compassionate” billing in appropriate circumstances.
The County hereby further agrees that upon a determination that it may do so in
compliance with Federal law, the County will implement “insurance only billing” in which
residents of the County shall not be billed for any portion of a fee for transport services
not paid by an insurance company or program.
WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC.
By: _________________________________
William Wood, President
Date: _______________________________
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: _________________________________ Approved as to Form:
Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
Date: _______________________________ _______________________
County Attorney
__________
Item No. 8.6. Cost Recovery Program – Insurance-Only Billing for County Residents.
The executive summary states that in 2009, the Board adopted an ordinance that authorized the
Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer rescue squad that obtains a permit from the County to
charge fees for emergency medical services (EMS) vehicle transports. At the direction of the Board, staff
began billing in February 2010.
EMS revenue recovery program fees are primarily paid by Medicaid, Medicare and private
insurance companies (“insurance companies.”) The fees allow localities to recover system costs from
those individuals who benefit directly from EMS delivery, including non-County residents. The program is
structured to assure that all emergency medical services are provided regardless of the patient’s ability to
pay and includes compassionate billing policies for those with financial hardship.
On September 5, 2012, the Board directed the County Attorney to request an Advisory Opinion
from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
regarding a proposal whereby the County would not bill County residents for co -pays, deductibles, and
any balances due not paid by insurance companies. Under this proposal, only insurance companies
would be billed for County residents’ EMS vehicle transports and the County would use tax revenues to
fund the unpaid cost-sharing amounts. The OIG Advisory Opinion concluded that the proposed
arrangement would not be in conflict with applicable Federal law.
As of March 2014, the following counties have implemented insurance-only billing programs for
their residents: Augusta, Nelson, Prince William, Louisa, Roanoke, Orange, Stafford, and Spotsylvania. In
cases where a patient does not have insurance and the patient is a county resident, Louisa and Nelson
counties do not bill the patient. In Augusta, Prince William, Roanoke, Orange, Stafford, and Spotsylvania,
if a patient does not have insurance, the patient is billed and if no payment is received or a hardship claim
is submitted, compassionate billing processes are followed. Staff is recommending that the County follow
the same process as Louisa and Nelson. If a County resident is transported and they have insurance, the
patient’s insurance company will be billed and the patient will not be billed for any co-pay or deductible. If
the County resident does not have insurance, the patient will not be billed for the transport.
Before the proposed billing changes can be fully implemented, staff will need to revise t he current
public information material, modify processes with the billing company, and train volunteers and staff on
the new processes. Staff believes these tasks can be completed by August 1, 2014.
Staff is in the process of identifying the most efficient method of determining residency with the
goal of placing the least burden on the patient. A variety of methods will likely be employed depending on
the circumstances, including having the EMS provider collect the data from the patient at the time of
transport, determining residency by cross-checking with Albemarle County’s 911 addressing database,
and where needed, sending an information request statement to the patient (Attachment B).
It is estimated that an insurance-only billing program for County residents will reduce the County’s
annual revenue from EMS billing by approximately 10%.
FY15 Estimate
$1,784,616 - FY15 estimated revenue from Cost Recovery Program
(The estimate includes $168,000 of revenue collected when Western Albemarle Rescue (WARS)
begins billing on September 1, 2014.)
($164,990) - FY15 estimated reduction in revenue resulting from an insurance-only billing
program for County residents effective August 1, 2014.
$1,619,626 – FY15 revised estimate after implementation of insurance-only billing program based
on a partial year
FY16 Estimate
$1,906,116 - FY16 estimated revenue from Cost Recovery Program
(The estimate includes a full year of WARS EMS revenue of $289,500.)
($190,612) - FY16 estimated reduction in revenue resulting from an insurance-only billing
program for County residents.
$1,715,504 – FY16 revised estimate after implementation of insurance-only billing program based
on a full year.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to direct the County Executive to
implement procedures in the County’s Cost Recovery Program to provide for insurance-only billing for
County residents effective August 1, 2014.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to direct the
County Executive to implement procedures in the County’s Cost Recovery Program to provide for
insurance-only billing for County residents effective August 1, 2014 :
RESOLUTION TO IMPLEMENT INSURANCE ONLY BILLING
OF COUNTY RESIDENTS FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
COST RECOVERY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2009, the Board enacted Chapter 6, Article V of the Albemarle
County Code, which authorizes the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue and any volunteer
rescue squad that obtains a permit from the County to charge fees for emergency medical services (EMS)
vehicle transports; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6, Article V of the Albemarle County Code authorized the County Executive
to establish policies and procedures to implement the provisions of Chapter 6, Article V of the Albemarle
County Code in accordance with applicable law, including payment standards for persons demonstrating
economic hardship, which the County Executive has done; and
WHEREAS, the Board instructed County staff to take the necessary steps to implement an EMS
Cost Recovery policy change that would provide that County residents would not be billed for fees not
covered by insurance incurred for the provision of EMS vehicle transport services by the County or by
volunteer rescue squads that obtain a permit from the County to charge fees for EMS vehicle transports;
and
WHEREAS, the Office of Inspector General has issued Advisory Opinion No. 13 -14 to the County
of Albemarle approving an insurance only billing structure for EMS vehicle transp ort services provided to
Albemarle County residents by the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue and permitted
volunteer rescue squads allowing the local taxes paid to count as the deductibles and co -pays for such
County residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby directs that the EMS Cost Recovery Program provide for “insurance only” billing for EMS vehicle
transports rendered by the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue or by any perm itted
volunteer rescue squad to bona fide residents of the County. In accordance with Albemarle County Code
Section 6-503(b), the County Executive shall implement the procedures necessary to effect this change to
the County EMS Cost Recovery Program effective August 1, 2014. All other provisions of the County’s
EMS Cost Recovery Program, including the billing of non-County residents for all fees incurred for EMS
vehicle transports rendered by the Albemarle County Department of Fire and Rescue or permitted
volunteer rescue squads, shall remain in effect.
__________
Item No. 8.7. Fire Services Agreement Between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The executive summary states that in May of 2000, the County entered into an agreement with
the City of Charlottesville for the provision of fire and emergency services for defined response areas of
the County. The fire services agreement was not intended to be a long- term solution for the County, but
rather to provide coverage while the County developed its fire rescue system to more effectively address
current and future service needs. The agreement was for an initial term of 10 years beginning on July 1,
2000 and expiring on June 30, 2010. In 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the term of the
agreement for up to three additional one-year terms expiring on June 30, 2013. In 2010 the agreement
was again amended to allow for an additional five-year extension to end June 30, 2018 unless otherwise
terminated by June 30, 2013.
The need to provide fire rescue services to the County urban areas around the City, including the
Ivy area, was originally identified in a 1994 report to the Board (commonly referred to as the “Deatley
Report”). Over the years, priority was given to establish the Monticello and Hollymead stations with the Ivy
and Pantops stations being delayed, mainly due to economic conditions.
Beginning in November 2010, as part of the fire year financial planning process, the Board
became aware that the City’s response times to the I vy area would significantly increase once the City
relocated its fire station from Ivy Road in the County to Fontaine Avenue in the City. Because of the
planned relocation of the City’s fire station and the critical need to provide protection to Ivy and the
surrounding development areas, the Board directed staff to prepare to end the fire service agreement and
redirect the related funding to construct and staff the Ivy Fire Rescue station. On December 8, 2011,
notice was given to the City to terminate the fire services agreement effective at midnight on June 29,
2013.
County and City staff began meeting to negotiate the terms of a new fire service agreement when
it was determined that a mutual aid agreement with the City was not possible. While the County and City
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
negotiated the new agreement, the City agreed to continue to provide fire support services in the areas in
the County where such services were still needed. The final payment to the City under the prior
agreement was $991,710.69 for approximately 1,800 City-to-County calls run from July 1, 2012 to June
30, 2013.
The intent of the 2014 Fire Services A greement (Attachment A) is to continue the cooperative,
unified approach for fire and emergency services for the Charlottesville-Albemarle community in an
effective and fiscally responsible manner. A summary of the terms and conditions is as follows:
Automatic Aid (AA) – the City Fire Department will be dispatched automatically as a first
due company to certain designated areas in the County.
Automatic Mutual Aid (AMA) – the City or County Fire Department is automatically
dispatched across jurisdictional boundaries to defined areas outside of a first due
geographical area. In terms of a County response, a City company will automatically be
dispatched to certain designated areas to support County companies.
Mutual Aid (MA) – City or County Fire companies are dispatched across
jurisdictional boundaries on request from one jurisdiction to another.
In order to ensure that adequate resources remain available for emergency response in
each jurisdiction, the City and the County will limit responses to no more than two fire companies at
any given time, unless a greater response is authorized by the on-duty chief officer in the
responding jurisdiction.
The 2014 Fire Services Agreement will be in effect for a term of five years, beginning on July 1,
2013 and expiring on June 30, 2018. By a mutual written agreement executed at least one year prior to
the termination date, the City and County may extend the Agreement for one additional five year term,
through June 30, 2023. Either party may terminate the Agreement at any time upon written notice at least
one year prior to the effective date of termination.
The Total Annual Payment for fire services is based on a combination of factors, including a
portion of the City’s debt service for apparatus replacement ($8,445); a portion of capital costs for fire
stations ($10,000); hazardous materials costs ($10,000); and a calculated cost per call ($595). The cost
per call is adjusted annually by the published change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
If a City Fire Department unit is committed on a call in the assigned AA response area of the
County and a second City unit is dispatched to the County as an AA response, the cost for the second
unit will be billed at twice the contractual cost per call rate ($1,190 in the first year of this Agreement).
The parties anticipate a second unit AA response approximately 25 times per year.
It is estimated that the total annual net number of AA and AMA responses by the City Fire
Department into the County will be 241 (216 first unit responses and 25 second unit responses). In order
to allow for flexibility and to provide serv-ices in a manner that is most beneficial, the Agreement provides
that the annual cost per call will be a fixed amount based on the estimated 241 total calls. This applies as
long as the net number of AA and AMA responses by the City into the County is not less than 100, and no
more than 400. The total net number of AA and AMA responses by the City into the County will be
determined on an annual basis by subtracting the total number of AA and AMA responses by the County
into the City from the total number of AA and AMA City responses into the County.
Assuming that the number of City AA and AMA responses will be between 100 and 400 (including
up to 25 second unit responses), the annual cost for the first year of the agreement is anticipated to be
$186,715.
If the total net number of City AA and AMA responses in any contract year exceeds 400, the
County will pay the applicable Cost per City Fire Department Call fee then in effect for each call above
400. If the total net number of City AA and AMA responses in any contract year is less than 100, the
County will be given a credit against the Total Annual Payment in the amount of the applicable Cost per
City Fire Department Call fee then in effect for each call less than 100.
Within 60 days after June 30, 2014, and after each June 30 thereafter, the City will invoice the
County for the Total Annual Payment and will include all calculations to support the invoice.
The City Council approved the Agreement at its meeting on May 19, 2014. The County
Attorney’s Office has approved the Agreement as to content and form.
The FY 15 budgeted amount for the first year of the 2014 Fire Services Agreement is $186,715.
This pays for the service provided from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Ex ecutive to execute the 2014 Fire
Services Agreement as presented in Attachment A.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following 2014 Fire Services Agreement:
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
2014 FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _____ day of June , 2014, and executed in
duplicate originals by the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
WHEREAS, the City and the County entered into the Fire Services Agreement Between the
City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, dated May 3, 2000, governing the provision of fire
services for both localities; and,
WHEREAS, Section 10 of the 2000 Agreement provides that the parties ma y amend or
supplement the Agreement at any time by mutual written agreement; and,
WHEREAS, by amendments dated August 6, 2008 and May 17, 2010 the parties agreed to
extend the term of the 2000 Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the 2000 Agreement was terminated b y the County effective June 29, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the parties have now renegotiated the terms and conditions under which fire
services will be provided across jurisdictional boundaries and the compensation for those services,
which forms the basis for t his new Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
For purposes of this Agreement, words and phrases set forth below shall be interpreted as
they are defined in this section.
Automatic Aid (“AA”) is fire department assistance that is automatically dispatched to respond
across jurisdictional boundaries to a defined First Due geographic area.
Automatic Mutual Aid (“AMA”) is fire department assistance that is automatically dispatched to
respond across jurisdictional boundaries to defined areas outside of a First Due geographical area.
CAD is Computer Aided Dispatch.
Call(s) or Response(s) occur when a fire company is instructed to respond (is dispatched)
to deliver services, and is not cancelled within one (1) minute thirty (30) seconds of the dispatch.
Call Type refers to predefined incident types, such as structure fires, vehicle accidents, etc., that
are used by CAD to dispatch appropriate units.
Chief Officer means a member of either the City or County Fire Department with the rank of
Chief, Deputy Chief, or Battalion Chief, or another Fire Department employee or volunteer specifically
designated to act in one of those positions.
City means the City of Charlottesville.
Consumer Price Index or "CPI" refers to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index (All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items, Base Period: November 1996 = 100). For
purposes of this Agreement, the reference month for calculating the annual change in the CPI shall
be June. For example, at the beginning of the second contract year of this Agreement the parties
will use the percentage change in the published CPI for the period between June, 2013 and June,
2014 when determining the annual adjustment required by Section 5.1 of this Agreement.
County means the County of Albemarle.
First Due Area is a geographic area primarily served by a station that is close in proximity. For
purposes of responses contemplated by this Agreement, First Due Areas are designated areas in the
County where the City will provide Automatic Aid responses.
Mutual Aid is fire department assistance dispatched across jurisdictional boundaries on request
from one jurisdiction to another. The Chief Officer in the responding jurisdiction may modify the
requested response based on available resources.
Next Due refers to the next available unit in a pick order.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Pick Order is a predefined list of stations in CAD which are in order of proximity to defined
geographic areas called ESN’s. Each ESN has an individual pick order. CAD uses ESN’s and the pick
order to determine the appropriate closest unit to respond to a call.
Station Transfer is a transfer of assistance by a fire department across jurisdictional boundaries
to cover a vacated station while the receiving fire department’s resources are committed to an incident.
Section 2. Goals.
2.1. A Unified Approach. The vision and intent of the parties, as evidenced by execution of
this Fire Services A greement, is to continue the cooperative, unified approach for fire and emergency
services for the Charlottesville-Albemarle community in an effective and fiscally responsible manner, as
initially evidenced by the 2000 Fire Services Agreement.
2.2. Continuing Services. Among other things, this means that the City F i r e
D e p a r t m e n t will be dispatched under “automatic aid”, as defined herein, to certain designated areas
in the County; that either the City or the County Fire Department will be dispatched under “automatic
mutual aid”, as defined herein, to certain other designated areas in the community; and that either the
City or the County Fire Department will, on request, be dispatched under “mutual aid”, as defined herein,
to any area outside of a First Due area, after approval by the responding department.
Section 3. Term.
3.1. Unless terminated as provided herein, this Fire Services Agreement shall be in effect for a
term of five (5) years, beginning July 1, 2013 (the “Commencement Date”) and expiring June 30, 2018
(the “Termination Date”). By mutual written agreement executed at least one (1) year prior to the
Termination Date, the parties may extend the Agreement for one (1) additional five (5) year term, through
June 30, 2023, at which time the Agreement shall terminate.
3.2 Either party may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time upon written
notice delivered to the other party at least one (1) year prior to the effective date of termination.
Section 4 . Provision of Interjurisdictional Fire Services.
4.1. Automatic Aid (AA) Responses.
(A) The City Fire Department will be dispatched automatically and will respond under
Automatic Aid to the geographic areas in the County that are shown in the color blue on the map entitled
City/County Contract and dated January 6, 2014. A copy of such Map will be on file in the offices of the
Fire Chiefs of the City and County, and a reduced illustration is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A,
and is incorporated herein by reference. The areas so designated shall be First Due Areas for the City
Fire Department. The City and County fire chiefs shall, by consensus, resolve any ambiguities as to what
specific properties are included within the First Due Areas depicted on the Map.
(B) The response of the City Fire Department’s HazMat Team to an automatic dispatch to
any area in the County will be counted as an Automatic Aid Response, until such time as the City and the
County enter into a cost sharing agreement that supports a regional HazMat Team. A response by the
City’s HazMat Team to a request by an on-scene incident commander in the County will be considered a
Mutual Aid Response, as defined in this Agreement.
(C) Although at the time of the execution of this Agreement it is not anticipated that the County will
have any Automatic Aid Response obligations in any First Due Area within the City, during the term of this
Agreement or any extension thereof the parties may mutually agree to amend the attached Map to
designate a specific area in the City as a First Due Area for Automatic Aid Response by the Cou nty.
4.2. Automatic Mutual Aid (AMA) Responses.
(A) An Automatic Mutual Aid Response occurs when either the City or the County Fire
Department is dispatched automatically to defined areas within the other jurisdiction that are outside of
any designated First Due Area. An example of where an Automatic Mutual Aid Response will occur is
where Fire Department units in the jurisdiction where an incident occurs are already committed,
prompting a next due response form the other jurisdiction.
(B) The geographic areas that are subject to Automatic Mutual Aid Responses are (i) the entire
City of Charlottesville; and (ii) those areas of Albemarle County that are shown in the color green on the
above-referenced Map attached as Exhibit A. The protocols for Automatic Mutual Aid shall be such
protocols mutually agreed to by the City and County fire chiefs.
(C) For the purposes of this Agreement, station transfers will be considered Automatic Mutual
Aid Responses.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
4.3. Mutual Aid (MA) Responses.
(A) A Mutual Aid Response is a response by either the City or the County Fire Department
across jurisdictional boundaries at the request of a Chief Officer in the requesting jurisdiction. The Chief
Officer in the responding jurisdiction may modify the requested response based on available resources.
(B) Neither party to this Agreement will be billed for Mutual Aid Responses into their respective
jurisdiction.
4.4. Maximum Allowable Resources.
In order to ensure that adequate Fire Department resources remain available for emergency
response in each jurisdiction, the City and the County will limit Automatic Aid, Automatic Mutual Aid, and
Mutual Aid Responses to no more than two (2) fire companies at any given time, unless a greater
response is authorized by the on-duty Chief Officer in the responding jurisdiction.
4.5. Cancellation of Response.
If either a City or County Fire Department unit is dispatched pursuant to this Agreement and
subsequently disregarded within one (1) minute, thirty (30) seconds of the dispatch, the response will not
be included as a call under the terms of this Agreement.
Section 5 . Payment for Services.
5.1. Total Annual Payment.
The Total Annual Payment for fire services provided pursuant to this Agreement is based on a
combination of factors, including a portion of the City’s debt service for apparatus replacement; a portion
of capital costs for fire stations; HazMat costs; and a calculated cost per call. The amounts associated
with each of those components are as follows:
(i) Debt service for apparatus replacement: $8,445
(ii) Fire station capital costs: $10,000
(iii) HazMat costs: $10,000
(iv) Cost per City Fire Department call: $595
The calculation supporting the City Fire Department’s cost per call of $595 is attached hereto as
Exhibit B. During the term of this Agreement and any extension thereof the cost per call will be adjusted
annually by the published change in the Consumer Price Index, as defined herein.
If a City Fire Department unit is committed on a call in the assigned Automatic Aid Response area
of the County and a second City unit is dispatched to the County as an Automatic Aid Response, the cost
for the second unit will be billed at twice the contractual cost per call rate ($1,190 in the first year of this
Agreement). The parties anticipate a second unit Automatic Aid Response approximately 25 times a
year.
5.2. Calculation of the Annual Cost per Call Fee.
(A) The County has estimated that the total annual number of AA and AMA responses by the
City Fire Department into the County will be 216, with an additional 25 second unit responses. In
recognition that this number will fluctuate and to a llow for flexibility for both jurisdictions to utilize
Automatic Mutual Aid in a manner most beneficial to service delivery, both parties agree that the annual
Cost per Call Fee will be a fixed amount based on 216 responses and an additional 25 second unit
responses, to be applied when the total net number of AA and AMA responses by the City into the County
is at least 100, and no more than 400.
(B) The total net number of AA and AMA responses by the City into the County will be
determined on an annual basis by subtracting the total number of AA (if any) and AMA responses by the
County into the City from the total number of AA and AMA City responses into the County.
(C) Assuming that the number of City AA and AMA responses will be between 100 and 40 0
(including up to 25 second unit responses), the annual Cost per Call Fee for the first year of this
Agreement (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is anticipated to be:
216 (# of City AA and AMA responses) x $595 (cost per City Fire Department call) + 25 (nu mber
of second unit responses) x $1,190 (cost per City Fire Department call x 2) = $158,270.
(D) If the total net number of City AA and AMA responses in any contract year exceeds 400, the
County will pay the applicable Cost per City Fire Department Call fee then in effect for each call above
400. If the total net number of City AA and AMA responses in any contract year is less than 100, the
County will be given a credit against the Total Annual Payment in the amount of the applicable Cost per
City Fire Department Call fee then in effect for each call less than 100.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
5.3. Calculation of the Total Annual Payment.
The Total Annual Payment required by this Agreement shall be the sum of the annual Cost per Call
Fee, calculated and adjusted as provided herein, and the fees for apparatus debt service, fire station
capital costs, and HazMat costs. For purposes of illustration only the following are examples of how the
Total Annual Payment will be calculated:
Example 1:
(a) City makes 100 AA and 275 AMA responses into the County.
(b) County makes 0 AA and 100 AMA responses into the City.
(c) The total net City calls into the County = 275, which is within the 100 – 400 range.
(d) County payment = $158,270 (annual cost per call fee) + $8,445 (debt service) + $10,000
(capital costs) + $10,000 (HazMat) = $186,715.
Example 2:
(a) City makes 150 AA and 350 AMA responses into the County.
(b) County makes 0 AA and 75 AMA responses into the City.
(c) The total net City calls into the County = 425, which is above the 100 – 400 range.
(d) County payment = $158,270 (annual cost per call fee) + $14,875 (surcharge for additional 2 5
calls above 400) + $8,445 (debt service) + $10,000 (capital costs) + $10,000 (HazMat) = $201,590.
Example 3:
(a) City makes 50 AA and 100 AMA responses into the County.
(b) County makes 0 AA and 75 AMA responses into the City.
(c) The total net City calls into the County = 75, which is below the 100 – 400 range.
(d) County payment = $158,270 (annual cost per call fee) - $14,875 (credit for 25 calls below 100)
+ $8,445 (debt service) + $10,000 (capital costs) + $10,000 (HazMat) = $171,840.
Section 6 . Annual Billing for Fire Services.
6.1. Annual Invoice; Disputes.
Within sixty (60) days after June 30, 2014, and after each June 30 thereafter while this
Agreement is in effect, the City will present to the County a written invoice for the Total Annual Payment,
which invoice will include the calculations contemplated by this Agreement that support the amount
invoiced. Upon receipt of the invoice the County will within sixty (60) calendar days either pay the invoice
in its entirety, or provide written notice of the portions of the invoice that it disputes is due and owing
under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of a dispute representatives of the City and County Fire
Departments will meet to attempt to amicably resolve the amounts in dispute. Any disagreement over the
amount due shall not relieve the County from paying in a timely manner that portion of the invoice that is
not in dispute.
6.2. Default.
Should the County fail to pay any portion of the annual payment due the City hereunder in any
year during the term of this Agreement, the City shall give 20 calendar days written notice to the
County that the County is in breach of this Agreement. If the City or County fails to perform any
other material obligation of this Agreement, the other party shall give 60 calendar days written notice
that such party is in breach of this Agreement and request that the breach be cured. If the City or
County fails to cure the breach during the 20 or 60 day period, as applicable, it may be declared to
be in default and, upon 30 days written notice to the breaching party, the party giving notice may
cease providing services or payment and/or compel performance by an appropriate action in law or
equity.
Section 7. Additional Terms and Conditions.
7.1. A Legal and Moral Obligation.
This Agreement is a service contract for which payment is due for services after services have
been rendered. The annual payments due hereunder for the initial five (5) year term of this Agreement or
any extended term, unless otherwise terminated as provided herein, are deemed to be both a legal and
moral obligation of the County to the City.
7.2. Amendment.
The parties, without penalty, may cancel, amend, supplement, or replace this Agreement at any
time by mutual written agreement.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
7.3. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no other
agreements or understandings between the parties, either verbal or written, which have not been
incorporated herein. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements regarding interjurisdictional fire
service responses, including the Fire Services Agreement between the City of Charlottesville and County
of Albemarle dated May 3, 2000, as amended.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
By: _________________________ Approved as to form:
Title: _________________________ ____________________
City Attorney
Date: _________________________
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE:
By: _________________________ Approved as to form:
Title: _________________________ ____________________
County Attorney
Date: _________________________
EXHIBIT A
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
EXHIBIT B
CALCULATION OF COST PER CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT CALL
(1) Salary and Benefits for 24 / 7 Engine Company: $972,034
(2) Administrative Overhead (7%): $68,042
(3) Operating Costs for 3 Engine Companies: $300,261
(4) Total Cost: $1,340,337
(5) Maximum number of annual calls / 1 Engine Company: 2,250
(6) Line (4) divided by Line (5): $595 per call
(rounded)
__________
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Item No. 8.8. Petty Cash Resolution.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code Section 15-2-1229 provides that the County
may adopt a resolution to establish petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 to be used to transact daily
County business.
The Board of Supervisors last established petty cash funds by a Resolution adopted on July 10,
2013. The Police Department (P.D.) has requested a reduction in its petty cash fund from $1,800 to
$1,000 and the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail (Jail) has requested the elimination of its $300
petty cash fund. P.D. and Jail staff now use P-cards for purchases previously made by staff, and no
longer need to be reimbursed through the petty cash funds. Staff recommends the reduction of the petty
cash fund for the Police Department to $1,000 and the elimination of the $300.00 petty cash fund for the
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.
There is no budgetary impact.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution to amend the existing petty cash
funds (Attachment A).
(Discussion: Ms. Palmer asked why the Finance Department has such a large petty cash
amount.
Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, addressed the Board, stating that it is somewhat of a
misnomer to call it “petty cash.” She said that it is their “change fund” so that when they need small bills
and change to make change for over-the-counter customers, it is available – but it is not really petty cash.
Ms. Palmer said that she would like to see it called a “change fund” in future years. Ms. Burrell
concurred.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to amend the
existing petty cash funds:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §15.2-1229, provides that the governing body of any county may
establish by resolution one or more petty cash funds not exceeding $5,000 each for the payment of
claims arising from commitments made pursuant to law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution on July 10, 2013 esta blishing petty
cash funds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors now desires to amend certain petty cash funds for the
above stated purpose, specifically reducing the petty cash fund for the Police Department and eliminating
the petty cash fund for the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia re-establishes the following petty cash funds:
Finance Department $4,350.00
Social Services 200.00
Community Development 100.00
Police Department 1,000.00
Fire and Rescue 150.00
Fire and Rescue – Hollymead Fire Station 500.00
Fire and Rescue – Ivy Fire Station 1,000.00
Fire and Rescue – Monticello Fire Station 200.00
Commonwealth’s Attorney 300.00
Parks & Recreation 100.00
Total $7,900.00
__________
Item No. 8.9. ZTA-2012-00010. Off-site signs (deferred from May 7, 2014).
The executive summary states that on May 7, 2014 the Board deferred action on ZTA 2012-10
Off-Site Signs in response to concerns expressed by several Board members regarding the proposed
regulations for by-right bundle signs (See Attachment B for May 7 Executive Summary). The Board
requested that staff amend the proposed ordinance to require a special use permit for any off -site bundle
sign and schedule the revised ZTA for the June 4, 2014 meeting.
Staff has revised County Code § 4.15.5A(b) of the proposed ordinance to require a special use
permit for all off-site bundle signs. The ordinance, otherwise, remains as proposed on May 7th.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need for additional staff or funding.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinance as presented in
Attachment A.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 14-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF
THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 4.15.5 Electric message signs; authorized by special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 4.15.5A Off-site signs; authorized by right and by special use permit
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions.
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
(1) Access road. The term “access road” means a public or private street that is not a through street
or provides frontage to fewer than ten (10) parcels.
(1.1) Advertising vehicle. The term “advertising vehicle” means a motor vehicle, trailer or semi trailer
(collectively, “vehicle”) having a permanent or temporary sign affixed, painted on or placed upon
it, including a sign that alters the vehicle’s manufacturer’s profile; provided that a temporary sign
affixed to an employee’s private vehicle during his or her working hours is not an advertising
vehicle. (Amended 3-16-05)
(1.2) Agricultural product sign. The term “agricultural product sign” means a sign or signs identifying
the produce, crops, animals or poultry raised or quartered on the property, or identifying farm
sales, a farm stand, a farmers’ market or a farm winery. (Added 3-16-05; Amended 5-5-10)
. . .
(9.1) Bundle sign. The term “bundle sign” means a freestanding off-site sign that identifies two or more
establishments or sites that are not part of a planned development district and share a common
entrance or access road.
. . .
(14.2) Directional sign. The term “directional sign” means a freestanding off-site sign that directs
vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or both, to an establishment and displays the establishment name,
distance, an arrow providing direction, or any combination of the forego ing.
. . .
(35) Off-site sign. The term “off-site sign” means: (i) within a district other than a planned
development district, a sign that is not located on the same lot with the use to which it pertains,
but does not include a sign located in a public right-of-way; or (ii) within a planned development
district, a sign that is not located within the area depicted on the application plan approved for the
planned development, but does not include a sign located in a public right-of-way. (Added 3-14-
12)
. . .
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord.
10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286(A)(4).
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Sec. 4.15.5 Electric message signs; authorized by special use permit.
Electric message signs may be authorized by special use permit, as provided herein:
a. Authority. The board of zoning appeals is authorized to issue special use permits for electric
message signs.
b. Procedure and administration. The application procedure, the factors to be considered, the
conditions imposed, and the authority to revoke such a permit shall be as provided in section 33.
c. Eligibility for special use permit. In order to be eligible for a special use permit, any proposed
electric message sign shall be located within an industrial or commercial district or a commercial
section of a planned development district, and the proposed sign shall comply wit h all applicable
state laws for such signs.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.05; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12,
effective 4-1-13)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Sec. 4.15.5A Off-site signs; authorized by right and by special use permit.
Off-site signs are subject to the following:
a. Authority of the board of zoning appeals to grant special use permits; procedure and
administration. The board of zoning appeals is authorized to grant special use permits for bundle
signs, directional signs, and signs in public rights -of-way as provided in subsection (b). The
application procedure, the factors to be considered, the conditions imposed, and the authority to
revoke a special use perm it shall be as provided in section 33.
b. When directional signs, bundle signs and signs in the public right -of-way may be authorized.
Directional signs, bundle signs and signs in the public right-of-way are authorized by right or by
special use permit as follows:
Directional Signs
Authorized Eligibility Districts Where
Sign May Be
Located
Other Location
Requirements
By right Up to two (2) directional signs pertaining to
any single twenty-four (24) hour emergency
medical service facilities.
Within any zoning
district.
None.
By right Up to two (2) directional signs pertaining to
any public use.
Within any zoning
district.
The sign shall be located only in
compliance with one of the
following: (i) within one-half (1/2)
mile from the site entrance along
a street providing direct access
to the site entrance; (ii) if the
owner demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the zoning
administrator for public use
directional signs or the board of
zoning appeals for all other
directional signs that it is unable
to obtain permission from an
owner within one-half (1/2) mile
from the site entrance as
provided in subdivision (i), then
within one-quarter (1/4) mile
from the turning decision onto a
street providing direct access to
the site entrance; or (iii) if the
owner demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the zoning
administrator for public use
directional signs or the board of
zoning appeals for all other
directional signs that it is unable
to obtain permission as provided
under subdivisions (i) and (ii),
then another authorized
location.
By special
use permit
The owner shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the zoning administrator that
it has exhausted all possible locations and
sign types for an on-site sign, and that no
on-site sign face located at the site
entrance would be visible from the street
providing direct access to the site entrance
within one hundred (100) feet of the site
entrance.
Within any zoning
district.
Bundle Signs
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Directional Signs
Authorized Eligibility Districts Where
Sign May Be
Located
Other Location
Requirements
By special
use permit
The establishment or site to which the
bundle sign pertains must be located within
an industrial, commercial or residential
district and share a common entrance or
access road with one (1) or more other
establishments or sites.
Within an
industrial or
commercial
district, a
residential district
authorizing a
density of six (6)
dwelling units per
acre or more, or
a planned
development
district.
The sign shall be located on a
parcel having frontage on the
intersection of a street and an
access road serving all
establishments or sites identified
on the sign.
Signs in the Public Right-of-Way
By special
use permit
The sign: (i) shall be either a subdivision
sign or a sign identifying a planned
development authorized by sections 19, 20,
25, 25A, and 29; (ii) the subdivision or
planned development to which the sign
pertains shall abut the public right-of-way in
which the sign will be located; (iii) the
regulations applicable to freestanding signs
for the subdivision or planned development
to which the sign pertains, except for
setback regulations, shall apply unless the
Virginia Department of Transportation
imposes more restrictive standards; and (iv)
the applicant submits a written statement
from the Virginia Department of
Transportation stating that it will permit the
sign to be located in the public right-of-way.
Within any zoning
district.
The sign shall be located only
where the Virginia Department
of Transportation authorizes it to
be located.
c. Other off-site signs authorized by right. The following off-site signs are authorized by right:
1. Agricultural product signs. Agricultural product signs, except for those advertising a
farmers’ market in any district other than the Rural Areas, Monticello Historic District, and
the Village Residential districts, provided that: (i) the agricultural product signs do not
exceed an aggregate of thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area; and (ii) the number of
signs advertising a farmers market in the Rural Areas, Monticello Historic District, or the
Village Residential districts does not exceed two (2) and the signs are posted within that
particular district.
2. Political signs. Off-site political signs, in any district.
3. Subdivision signs. Off-site subdivision signs, in any district, except for subdivision signs in
public rights-of-way which are subject to subsection (b).
4. Temporary signs. Off-site temporary signs, in any district.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.05; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 10-18(4), 5-5-10; Ord. 12-18(7), 12-5-12,
effective 4-1-13)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
__________
Item No. 8.10. Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Employer Contribution Rate Election
Resolutions.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Retirement System requires participating
employers to certify the Employer’s VRS contribution rate beginning July 1, 2014 for the upcoming
biennium. The Board must select one of the two following choices:
Pay the Certified Rate set by the VRS Board of Trustees for the 2014-2016 biennium announced
in December 2013 (13.49%); or
Pay the Alternate Rate (10.79%), which is 80% of the VRS Board-certified rate for FY 2015-2016.
The School Board adopted the attached resolution (Attachment C) certifying its employer
contribution rate of 7.86% for its classified/non-professional employees at its May 22, 2014 meeting.
Adoption of the certified rate appropriately funds the County’s VRS contribution as determined by
the VRS Board of Trustees. If the County elected to pay the lower alternative rate, in the future it will be
required to pay higher rates than future certified rates in order to “catch up” to the mandated employer
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
contribution. It is more cost effective and a better financial practice to pay the certified rate to avoid
having to face more significant rate increases in the future.
The election of the 13.49% Employer contribution rate will not impact the FY 15 General
Government budget, as that amount is already included in the FY 15 budget, which was approved by the
Board on May 7, 2014.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolutions:
1) To certify the County’s employer contribution rate for General Government employees will
be the VRS Board of Trustees’ rate of 13.49%, which is the contribution Certified Rate by
the VRS Board of Trustees for the 2014-2016 biennium (Attachment A);
2) To certify that it concurs with the School Divisions election to pay the VRS Board of Trustees’
Certified Rate of 7.86% for the 2014-2016 biennium for the School Division’s classified/non-
professional employees (Attachment B).
(Discussion: Ms. Palmer asked who makes up the difference between the two percentages that
staff has included for local government, and the schools. Mr. Foley said that staff can follow up with a
response.)
__________
Item No. 8.11. Board-to-Board, June 2014, a monthly report from the Albemarle County School
Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.12. VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, June 2014, was
received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.13. Grants Update, was received for information.
The executive summary states that 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 six grant applications that were
approved during the time period of April 19, 2014 through May 15, 2014.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
This information is for information only.
*****
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from April 19, 2014 through May 15, 2014
Applications were approved for the following grants:
(Discussion: Referring to the “spillway improvement fund” at $100,000, Ms. Mallek stated that
the Department of Conservation is working on a new set of requirements for the dam spillway upgrade
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
based on recently passed legislation. Prior to the County putting up a lot of money to match a grant, she
said they should wait until the new rules were established.)
__________
Item No. 8.14. Biannual Update on FY13-17 Strategic Plan, was received for information.
The executive summary states that the Board of Supervisors has formally engaged in the
County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. The Board provided direction and guidance for the
development of the FY13-17 Strategic Plan during a strategic planning retreat held on June 30, 2011.
After additional discussion at subsequent Board meetings, the Board gave final approval of seven goals
and associated objectives at its May 2, 2012 meeting. Staff provides the Board formal biannual updates
on the FY13-17 Strategic Plan in January and also prior to the annual strategic planning retreat in the
summer.
Implementation of the FY13-17 Strategic Plan began on July 1, 2012. Over seventy employees
have been involved in this process, working together on seven cross-departmental goal teams. The
attached June 2014 Update on the FY 13-17 Strategic Plan (Attachment A) highlights the progress that
has been made towards the seven Strategic Plan goals over the past two years, including key indicators
associated with each goal. More detailed information for many of these indicators is available on the
County’s performance management site at https://ia2010.albemarle.org/performance/kpi.
The attached Update also shows how the Board’s adopted FY15 budget helps to move many of
the existing goals forward. At the upcoming Board retreat on June 10th, the Board will identify and discuss
priority goals to direct future action.
The FY13-17 Strategic Plan provides direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and
annual budget processes.
Staff recommends that the Board review the attached biannual update in preparation for
discussion of Board priorities at the upcoming retreat.
__________
Item No. 8.15. 2014 First Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Community
Development Department, was received for information.
The report states that during the first quarter of 2014, 58 certificates of occupancy were issued for
58 dwelling units. There were no certificates of occupancy issued fo r mobile homes in existing parks.
There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
__________
Item No. 8.16. 2014 2014 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the C ommunity
Development Department, was received for information.
The report states that during the first quarter of 2014, 119 building permits were issued for 119
dwelling units. There were two permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of
$2,500, for a total of $5,000. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a
condominium.
__________
Item No. 8.17. Copy of letter dated May 21, 2014 from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner,
to Mr. Roger W. Ray, Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc., re: LOD-2014-0004-OFFICIAL DETERMINATION
OF PARCEL OF RECORD AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 54, Parcel 26 (property of Thomas
E. Ruscher Trustee of The Barbara B. Ruscher Family Trust) – White Hall Magisterial District, was
received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.18. Copy of letter dated May 23, 2014 from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner,
to Stewart Wright, re: LOD-2014-0002-OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD AND
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 92, Parcel 21 (property of Mary Pauline Johnson and Doris Phyllis
Jackson) – Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.19. Copy of letter dated May 23, 2014 from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to
Brian s. Ray, Roger W. Ray and Assoc., Inc., re: LOD-2014-0003-OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PARCEL OF RECORD AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 122, Parcel 12B (property of Gwynne
B. Daye Trustee of The Gwynne B. Daye Revocable Trust), Tax Map 122, Parcel 12B1 (property of
William or Melissa Dickie), Tax Map 122, Parcel 12B2 (property of Gwynne B. Daye Trustee of the
Gwynne B. Daye Revocable Trust) – Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the
Albemarle County Code, to amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to
increase the compensation of the members of the Board of Supervisors by an inflation factor of
1% effective July 1, 2014 from $15,131.00 per annum to $15,282.00 per annum. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 2014.)
Mr. Davis reported that this is an ordinance that adjusts the Board’s salary for FY 2015. The
statutory scheme for Board compensation is set forth in the Virginia Code. It allows Boards by bracketed
populations to set their salaries and to adjust them on an annual basis by an inflation factor. He said that
since 1998, it has been the Board practice to set that inflation factor by the market raise given to County
employees. This year’s ordinance proposes a 1% inflation factor adjustment for the Board’s salary, which
equates to a $151 increase that would keep their salaries consistent with inflation. Mr. Davis said that the
purpose behind this practice has been that it is easier to keep at market rate if they make annual
adjustments rather than wait five or ten years and make a larger adjustment – which makes it appear that
there is a greater catch-up than the inflation for that year. He stated that the Board’s .41 cent per day
increase for this year will be well worth it as they go forward in their duties.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
There being no public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek , McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: Mr. Sheffield.
(Note: The ordinance is set in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE II,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is
hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-202, Compensation of Board of Supervisors, as
follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be fifteen thousand two hundred eighty-two
dollars ($15,282.00) for each board member effective July 1, 2014. In addition to the regular salary, the
vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired
and the chairman shall receive an annual stipe nd of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91;
Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2), 5-1-02; Ord.
03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05, Ord. 06-2(1), 6-7-06; Ord. 07-2(1), 6-6-07;
Ord. 08-2(2), 6-4-08; Ord. 11-2(1), 5-4-11; Ord. 12-2(1), 5-2-12; Ord. 13-2(1), 5-1-13)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2014.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing – An ordinance to amend sections 4-100, Definitions; 4-
105, Care of companion animals; penalty, 4-106, Noise from animals; penalty, 4-107 Abandonment
of animal; penalty, 4-201, Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry—Generally, 4-202,
Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs, 4-209, Amount of license tax, 4-302, Dogs
killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry-Impoundment and disposition, 4-303, Disposition
of unlicensed dogs; running at large, 4-401, Rabid animals, and 4-403, Inoculation for rabies at
animal shelters, of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed
ordinance removes, amends and adds certain definitions and terms, increases the compensation for
livestock killed or injured by dogs from $400 to $750, and provides that law enforcement and animal
control officers can seize a dog found in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry in order to conform
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
the County Code with recent amendments to Virginia Code §§ 3.2-6500, 3.2-6503, 3.2-6504, 3.2-6522,
and 3.2-6523. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members state that the 2014 General Assembly
amended and re-enacted Virginia Code §§ 3.2-6500, 3.2-6503, 3.2-6504, 3.2-6522, and 3.2-6523,
effective July 1, 2014. These changes require an update to Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, of the
Albemarle County Code to ensure conformance with State law.
The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) amends Chapter 4, Animals and Fo wl, of the County
Code by amending eleven sections as set forth below. The proposed changes encompass both
housekeeping and substantive changes. The term “animal shelter” and “pound” have been deleted in the
Virginia Code. In its place, definitions are created for “public animal shelter” and “private animal shelter.”
The housekeeping changes remove, amend and add certain definitions and terms. The substantive
changes are mandated by the changes in State law and increase the compensation for livestock killed or
injured by dogs from a maximum of $400 per animal to a maximum of $750 per animal and provides that
law enforcement and animal control officers can seize a dog found in the act of killing or injuring livestock
or poultry.
Amends Section 4-100 Definitions
Deletes “animal shelter” and “pound,” adds “public animal shelter” and “private animal
shelter” to mirror changes in the Virginia Code
Amends the definition of “service dog,” “foster care provider,” and “releasing agency” to
mirror changes in the Virginia Code
Amends “boarding establishment” to remove “pound” and add “public or private animal
shelters”
Renumbers definitions to provide for deletion and addition of terms
Amends Section 4-105 Care of companion animals; penalty
Changes “pound” to “public or private animal shelter”
Amends Section 4-106 Noise from animals; penalty
Changes “pound” to public or private animal shelter”
Amends Section 4-107 Abandonment of animal; penalty
Changes “pound” to “public or private animal shelter”
Amends Section 4-201 Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry --Generally
Provides that law enforcement and animal control officers can seize a dog found in the
act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry
Amends Section 4-202 Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs
Increases compensation for livestock killed by dogs to a maximum of $750 per animal
Amends Section 4-209 Amount of license tax
Adds the term “otherwise disabled” to the category of owners whose service dogs are
exempt from license tax
Amends Section 4-302 Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry —
Impoundment and disposition
Provides that the alleged killer dog may be seized by the animal control officer
Amends Section 4-303 Disposition of unlicensed dogs; running at large
Adds “public or private animal shelter”
Amends Section 4-401 Rabid animals
Adds “public or private animal shelter”
Amends Section 4-403 Inoculation for rabies at animal shelters
Adds “public or private animal shelter”
Staff anticipates limited additional enforcement by animal control officers under the proposed
ordinance. In addition, the County Finance records show that livestock kill claims are infrequent. It is
difficult to forecast whether more people will make a claim with the increase in the compensation amount
from a maximum of $400.00 per animal to a maximum of $750.00 per animal. However, staff anticipates
that there should be a minimal budget impact.
Staff recommends that after the public hearing the Boar d adopt the attached ordinance
(Attachment A).
_____
Lt. Sean Reeves addressed the Board, stating that he is the recently promote commander of the
Police Department’s Community Support Division. He then introduced Animal Control Officer Sandra Erie
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
and their community partner Leslie Hervey, Charlottesville/Albemarle SPCA Director. Lt. Reeves reported
that in 2014, the legislature proposes to amend and reenact Virginia Code Sections 3.2-6500, 6503,
6504, 6522 and 6523. These changes require an update to Chapter 4 – Animals and Fowl – of the
Albemarle County Code, to ensure conformance to the State law. He said that the proposed draft
ordinance presented amends Chapter by amending 11 sections as set forth, with the proposed changes
encompassing both housekeeping and substantive changes to the terms “animal shelter” and “pound,”
which have been deleted from the Code and replaced with definitions for “public animal shelter” and
“private animal shelter.” He said that the housekeeping changes remove, amend a nd add certain
definitions and terms, and increase compensation for livestock killed or injured by dogs from $400 to
$750, and provides that law enforcement and animal control officers now have the option to seize a dog
in the act of killing, as opposed to after killing or injuring livestock or poultry.
Lt. Reeves said that the first amendment amends Section 4-100 under definitions of the County
ordinance, deletes “animal shelter” and “pound,” amends the definition of “dog service,” “foster care
provider,” and “releasing agency,” and amends “boarding establishment” to remove “pound” and add
“public and private animal shelters,” and renumbers definitions to provide for deletions and additional
terms. He said that it amends Section 4-105, changing “pound” to “public or private animal shelter,” with
similar changes in 4-106 and 4-107. In Section 4-201, he said, “dogs killing, injuring, or chasing livestock
or poultry” in general provides for law enforcement and animal control officers to seize a dog found in the
act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry. Lt. Reeves said that 4-202 increases compensation for
livestock killed by dogs to $750 per animal, and 4-209 adds the term “otherwise disabled” to the category
of owners whose service dogs are exempt from license tax. He said that Section 4-302 for dogs killing,
injuring or chasing livestock or poultry, impoundment or disposition provides the alleged killer dog may be
seized by the animal control officer; 4-303 adds “public or private animal shelter,” with the same change
found in 4-401 and 4-403.
Lt. Reeves said that staff anticipates limited additional enforcement by animal control officers
under the proposed ordinance, and therefore minimal budgetary impact. Staff recommends that the
Board adopt the proposed ordinance after public hearing.
Ms. Mallek stated that she would like to know what licensing or oversight the Department or
County has over “private animal shelters” for businesses that call themselves a shelter.
Ms. Leslie Hervey said that “shelters” under Virginia Code are visited by the State Veterinarian
Inspector, so the SPCA would be both a public and a private shelter, and it is delineated by square
footage within the shelter. She said that the Code requirements are very minimal as to the difference
between a private and a public shelter, and it basically amounts to fomite carriers – so she can have a
blanket or a stuffed toy in the SPCA part, but not in the pound part because of contamination and
disease-carrying issues. Ms. Hervey said that she does not know at what level the State starts
inspecting, so it would probably fall on animal control to investigate complaints and turn the matter over to
the Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (VDACS). She stated that the SPCA is
inspected annually and they make any changes requested of them.
Ms. Palmer asked if the annual inspection was applicable to all public and private shelters. Ms.
Hervey said that it is, and it is a surprise inspection – with the inspector observing what is happening in
the pound as well as the SPCA, delineating by square footage. She noted that the
Charlottesville/Albemarle facility is half “pound,” now called “public animal shelter,” and half SPCA as a
private organization.
Ms. Palmer asked if it is a number of animals that make a facility qualify as a shelter. Ms. Hervey
said that she is not sure and some facilities fly under the radar, but the SPCA reports numbers annually to
VDACS so they can keep track of what the shelter is doing.
Ms. Mallek stated that she is concerned about “native animals of Virginia,” under “companion
animals” because it gives the impression that it allows people to own wild animals. She would like to add
language that this in no way gives people permission to own a wild animal. The State has been very
aggressive in the past not to allow people to make pets out of foxes, minks, etc. Mr. Davis said that the
definition of “companion animal” is not part of this amendment.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Board could add a sentence of clarification under the definition of
“companion animal”. Mr. Davis said the definition was not advertised for being changed – but the
reference of companion animal in Section 4-105 just changed the terminology for the word “pound” to
“public or private animal shelter,” but didn’t change in any substantive way the definition or application of
the ordinance to companion animals. Ms. Mallek reiterated that more work needs to be done to this
section at some point.
Ms. Dittmar commented that the changes to the ordinance were very good, but wondered what
process they followed to come up with changes. She asked what staff members worked on this and how
they let those impacted by the ordinance know that the County was making changes. Lt. Reeves stated
that they worked with the County Attorney’s office, County Animal Control Officers and the Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) – seeking their input within the past few months. He said that the
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Department also read through the proposals and the upcoming law changes and trouble-shot to see if
there were any kinds of issues or problems.
Mr. Davis said that all of these changes are directly mandated by action that the Virginia General
Assembly took in the last session that is effective July 1. The vast majority of terminology changes are
just that – not substantive changes. He stated that the three substantive changes dictated by the
amendment include two that relate to allowing animal control officers and police officers to seize dogs that
are either chasing or killing livestock, whereas before the State Code previously gave them the authority
to “kill” and not “seize.” Mr. Davis noted that they have always had the practice of seizing anyway, so it
was just a clarification. He stated that the other change was increasing the maximum amount of
compensation for livestock that is killed by a dog – raised from $400 to $750, as directed by the General
Assembly. Mr. Davis mentioned that this is seldom used in the County. There is a three-step process
that must be followed in order to qualify for it, which limits the amount of people who make claims
because the process is very precise that has to be followed, as mandated by State Code. He stated that
this may change as people become more aware of the opportunity to get some compensation when they
cannot otherwise recover from the dog’s owner. From the process standpoint, he said, staff did not go
through an extensive process as they did with the comprehensive update of the Animal Control
Ordinance several years earlier – with public hearings that went into a much greater depth – because
these are simply minor housekeeping ordinance/code amendments.
Ms. Dittmar said that this is a wonderful time to educate people, rather th an have them find out
when they have violated an ordinance or have not taken advantage of it, that there have been changes
made.
Ms. Mallek said that going on the radio and talking about something that is coming up is a great
way to get the word out to people quickly and easily, and increase their participation. She also said that
the Board needs to come back and deal with the reference in Section 105-17 to “wild animals” as being
“companion animals,” because it is a great mistake.
Ms. Palmer asked Lt. Reeves how often they get calls for dogs killing livestock or other animals.
Lt. Reeves said that according to animal control officers, once or twice per month, for either livestock or
dogs on dogs.
Ms. Palmer stated that she spoke with Police Chief Sellers about doing a ride-along with him and
Lt. Reeves, and asked to get the best days and times to give her an idea of what they are dealing with.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
No public comment was offered, and the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matte r
before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out in full below).
ORDINANCE NO. 14-4(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, ARTICLE 1, IN GENERAL,
ARTICLE II, DOGS, DIVISION 1, IN GENERAL, DIVISION 2, LICENSES, ARTICLE III, IMPOUDNMENT,
AND ARTICLE IV, RABIES CONTROL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
4, Animals and Fowl, Article I, In General, Article II, Dogs, Division I, In General, Division 2, Licenses,
Article III, Impoundment, and Article IV, Rabies control, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4-100 Definitions
Sec. 4-105 Care of companion animals; penalty
Sec. 4-106 Noise from animals; penalty
Sec. 4-107 Abandonment of animal; penalty
Sec. 4-201 Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry--Generally
Sec. 4-202 Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs
Sec. 4-209 Amount of license tax
Sec. 4-302 Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry—Impoundment and
disposition
Sec. 4-303 Disposition of unlicensed dogs; running at large
Sec. 4-401 Rabid animals
Sec. 4-403 Inoculation for rabies at animal shelters
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
4-100 Definitions
The following words as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings:
(1) Abandon. The term "abandon" means to desert, forsake, or absolutely give up an animal
without having secured another owner or custodian for the animal or by failing to provide the elements of
basic care as set forth in Virginia Code § 3.2-6503 for a period of five (5) consecutive days.
(2) Adequate care or care. The term "adequate care" or "care" means the responsible practice
of good animal husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering,
protection, shelter, transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age,
species, condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to
prevent suffering or impairment of health.
(3) Adequate exercise. The term "adequate exercise" or "exercise" means the opportunity for the
animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and m ass for the age, species, size, and
condition of the animal.
(4) Adequate feed. The term "adequate feed" means access to and the provision of food which
is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each
animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of
each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by
excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the
animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring
states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.
(5) Adequate shelter. The term "adequate shelter" means provision of and access to shelter that
is suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for
each animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rai n, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the
adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is
properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species;
and, for dogs and cats, provides a solid surface, resting platform, pad, floormat, or similar device that is
large enough for the animal to lie on in a normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner.
Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or slat floors (i) permit the animals' feet to pass through the
openings, (ii) sag under the animals' weight, or (iii) otherwise do not protect the animals' feet or toes from
injury are not adequate shelter. In addition, the following are also deemed to be ina dequate shelters: (i)
metal or plastic barrels, (ii) airline crates or carrying crates, (iii) dog houses with no floors.
(6) Adequate space. The term "adequate space" means sufficient space to allow each animal to
(i) easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal
position for the animal and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is
tethered, "adequate space" means a tether that permits the above actions and is appr opriate to the age
and size of the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness
configured so as to protect the animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming
entangled with other objects or animals, or from extending over an object or edge that could result in the
strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at least five times the length of the animal, as measured from
the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, and terminates at both ends with a swivel, and weights no more
than 1/8 of the animal’s weight, and if multiple animals, each animal shall be on its own tether, except
when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of
movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal
according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate
space. When an animal is on a pulley or running line, “adequate space” me ans a pulley or running line
that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the animal; is attached to the
animal by a properly applied collar and is at least fifteen feet in length and less than seven feet above the
ground and configured so as to protect the animal from injury, and prevent the line from becoming
entangled with other objects or animals or resulting in strangulation or injury of the animal, and if multiple
animals, each animal shall be on its own tether.
(7) Adequate water. The term "adequate water" means provision of and access to clean, fresh,
potable water of a drinkable temperature which is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and
at suitable intervals, but at least once every twelve (12) hours, to maintain normal hydration for the age,
species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by
naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean,
durable receptacles which are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination
of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally
accepted husbandry practices.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
(8) Adoption. The term "adoption" means the transfer of ownership of a dog or cat, or any other
companion animal, from a releasing agency to an individual.
(9) Agricultural animals. The term "agricultural animals" means all livestock and poultry.
(10) Ambient temperature. The term "ambient temperature" means the temperature surrounding
the animal.
(11) Animal. The term "animal" means any nonhuman vertebrate species except fish. For the
purposes of Article IV, Rabies Control, animal shall mean any species susceptible to rabies. For the
purposes of section 4-109, animal shall mean any nonhuman vertebrate species including fish captured
and killed or disposed of in a reasonable customary manner.
(12) Animal control officer. The term "animal control officer" means any person employed,
contracted, or appointed by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision for the purpose of aiding in the
enforcement of any other law or ordinance relating to the licensing of dogs, control of dogs and cats,
cruelty to animals, or seizure and impoundment of companion animals and includes any state or county
police officer, animal control officer, sheriff or other employee whose duties in whole or in part include
assignments which involve seizure or taking into custody of any dog or other animal.
(13) Boarding establishment. The term "boarding establishment" means a place or establishment
other than a public or private animal shelter where companion animals not owned by the proprietor are
sheltered, fed, and watered in exchange for a fee.
(14) Clearly visible sign. The term “clearly visible sign” means a sign that is (i) unobstructed from
view, (ii) contains legible writing, and (iii) may be read by any person without assistance while standing
ten feet away from the sign.
(15) Collar. The term "collar" means a well-fitted device, appropriate to the age and size of the
animal, attached to the animal's neck in such a way as to prevent trauma or injury to the animal.
(16) Commercial dog breeder. The term “commercial dog breeder” means any person who,
during any twelve (12) month period, maintains thirty (30) or more adult female dogs for the primary
purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
(17) Companion animal. The term "companion animal" means any domestic or feral dog,
domestic or feral cat, non-human primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit not raised for human food or fiber,
exotic or native animal, reptile, exotic or native bird, or any feral animal or any animal under the care,
custody, or ownership of a person or any animal which is bought, sold, traded, or bartered by any person.
Agricultural animals, game species, or any animals regulated under federal law as research animals shall
not be considered companion animals for the purposes of this chapter.
(18) Emergency veterinary treatment. The term “emergency veterinary treatment” means
veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, prevent further disease
transmission, or prevent further disease progression.
(19) Enclosure. The term "enclosure" means a structure used to house or restrict animals from running at
large.
(20) Euthanasia. The term "euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal
accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a
method that involves anesthesia, produced by an agent which causes painless loss of consciousness,
and death during such loss of consciousness.
(21) Foster care provider. The term “foster care provider” means a person who provides care or
rehabilitation for companion animals through an affiliation with a public or private animal shelter, home -
based rescue, releasing agency, or other animal welfare organization.
(22) Hearing dog. The term “hearing dog” means a dog trained to alert its owner by touch to
sounds of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond.
(23) Injury to a person. The term “injury to a person” means any superficial cut, scratch, scrape,
or minor tear to the skin, or any bruise to bone or skin area resulting from an unfriendly encounter. An
injury shall be presumed to have occurred when a dog knocks a person to the ground or tears that
person's clothing or any possession on his or her person.
(24) Kennel. The term “kennel” means any establishment in which five (5) or more canines,
felines, or hybrids of either are kept for the purposes of breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying,
boarding, selling, or showing.
(25) Leash. The term “leash” means any rope, strap, chain, or other material not exceeding four
(4) feet in length, being held in the hand of a person capable of controlling the dog to which it is attached.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
(26) Livestock. The term "livestock" includes all domestic or domesticated: bovine animals;
equine animals; ovine animals; porcine animals; cervidae animals; capradae animals; animals of the
genus Lama; ratites; fish or shellfish in aquaculture facilities, as defined in Virginia Code § 3.2 -2600;
enclosed domesticated rabbits or hares raised for human food or fiber; or any other individual animal
specifically raised for food or fiber, except companion animals.
(27) Owner. The term "owner" means any person who: (i) has a right of property in an animal,
(ii) keeps or harbors an animal, (iii) has an animal in his care, or (iv) acts as a custodian of an animal.
(28) Person. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, firm, joint-stock company,
corporation, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.
(29) Poultry. The term “poultry" includes all domestic fowl and game birds raised in captivity.
(30) Primary enclosure. The term "primary enclosure" means any structure used to immediately
restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, cage, compartment, or
hutch. For tethered animals, the term includes the shelter and the area within rea ch of the tether.
(31) Private animal shelter. The term “private animal shelter” means a facility that is used to
house or contain animals and that is owned or operated by an incorporated, nonprofit, and
nongovernmental entity, including a human society, animal welfare organization, society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent
adoptive homes for animals.
(32) Properly cleaned. The term “properly cleaned” means that carcass, debris, food waste and
excrement are removed from the primary enclosure with sufficient frequency to minimize the animals’
contact with the above-mentioned contaminants; the primary enclosure is sanitized with sufficient
frequency to minimize odors and the hazards of disease; and the primary enclosure is cleaned so as to
prevent the animals confined therein from being directly or indirectly sprayed with the stream of water, or
directly or indirectly exposed to hazardous chemicals or disinfectants.
(33) Public animal shelter. The term “public animal shelter” means a facility operated by the
Commonwealth, or any locality, for the purpose of impounding or sheltering seized, stray, homeless,
abandoned, unwanted, or surrendered animals or a facility operated for the same purpose under a
contract with any locality.
(34) Releasing agency. The term “releasing agency” means (i) a public animal shelter or (ii) a
private animal shelter, humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty
to animals, or other similar entity or home-based rescue that releases companion animals for adoption.
(35) Serious injury to a person. The term “serious injury to a person” means any bodily injury for
which medical attention was sought and obtained, having a reasonable potential to cause death, or any
injury other than a strain or sprain which involves a serious laceration requiring stitches to more than one
puncture wound, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impa irment of bodily
function, or which is serious in the opinion of a licensed physician.
(36) Service dog. The term “service dog” means a dog trained to do work or perform tasks for
the benefit of a mobility-impaired or otherwise disabled person. The work or tasks performed by a service
dog shall be directly related to the individual’s disability or disorder. Examples of work or tasks include
providing nonviolent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a
seizure, alerting an individual to the presence of allergens, retrieving items, carrying items, providing
physical support and assistance with balance and stability, and preventing or interrupting impulsive or
destructive behaviors. The provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship shall
not constitute work or tasks for the purpose of this definition.
(37) Sterilize or sterilization. The term "sterilize" or "sterilization" means a surgical or chemical
procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that renders a dog or cat permanently incapable of
reproducing.
(38) Treatment or adequate treatment. The term "treatment" or "adequate treatment" means the
responsible handling or transportation of animals in the person's ownership, custody or charge,
appropriate for the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal. When any such animal is being
transported in an open-bed truck or similar vehicle, such carrier shall be secured to the vehicle so as to
be immovable, and shall permit normal postural movements of the animal. The following shall not be
deemed “adequate treatment”: (i) tethering of a dog six months old or younger; (ii) the tying up or
tethering of a female dog in heat; (iii) transporting an animal in the back of an open -bed truck or similar
vehicle in an unsecured carrier and/or tethered to a collar.
(39) Veterinary treatment. The term "veterinary treatment" means treatment by or on the order of a duly
licensed veterinarian.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
(Code 1967, § 4-4; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09; Ord. 11-4(1),
2-2-11; Ord. 13-4(1), 7-3-13)
State law reference—Va. Code §§ 3.2-6500, 6528.
4-105 Care of companion animals; penalty
A. Each owner shall provide the following for his companion animal:
1. Adequate feed;
2. Adequate water;
3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;
4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal
depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;
5. Adequate exercise;
6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and
7. Veterinary care when needed or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.
The provisions of this section shall also apply to every public or private animal shelter, or other releasing
agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding
establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.
B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of
subdivision A1, A2, A3, or A7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of
subdivision A4, A5, or A6 is a Class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09; Ord. 10-4(1), 9-1-10)
State law reference—Va. Code § 3.2-6503.
4-106 Noise from animals; penalty.
A. Noise from animals. It shall be unlawful and shall be a nuisance for an owner or
custodian of an animal to harbor or keep any animal within the county which frequently or for a continued
duration howls, barks or makes other excessive, continuous or untimely sounds which are audible on the
property of a complainant in the county; provided however, this section shall not apply to any animal
located on property zoned Rural Areas District of five (5) acres or more, to any animal in a public or
private animal shelter or commercial kennel as defined in chapter 18 of the zoning ordinance, or to
sounds caused by livestock or poultry. For the purposes of this section, “excessive, continuous or
untimely sounds” shall mean any howling, barking or other animal noise which continues for thirty (30)
consecutive minutes or more with no cessation of such sounds for time periods greater than five (5)
minutes during the thirty (30) consecutive minutes.
B. Complaints of animal noise. Notwithstanding section 4-101 of this Code, no person shall
be charged with a violation of this section unless the complainant appears before a magistrate and
requests a summons to be issued. However, when a violation is committed in the presence of an animal
control officer or police officer, he shall have the authority to initiate all necessary proceedings.
C. Penalty for violation. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a class 3
misdemeanor, and any owner or custodian of an animal found guilty under this section shall be required
to abate the disturbance. Upon a third conviction within twelve (12) months of any offense under this
section involving the same animal, in addition to imposing a fine, the court shall order the animal to be
removed from any area of the county covered by this section. If the owner or custodian of the animal fails
to comply with such order within two (2) weeks, the animal control officer shal l seize the animal and offer
the animal to a public or private animal shelter for adoption in a home outside of the area of the county
covered by this section.
(Ord. 08-4(1), 6-11-08, § 4-601, § 4-602, §4-603; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
4-107 Abandonment of animal; penalty.
No person shall abandon or dump any animal. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a
class 3 misdemeanor. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the release of an animal by its
owner to a public or private animal shelter, or oth er releasing agency.
(Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference—Va. Code § 3.2-6504.
ARTICLE II. DOGS
DIVISION 1. IN GENERAL
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Sec. 4-201 Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry--Generally.
A. It shall be the duty of any animal control officer who may find a dog in the act of killing or
injuring livestock or poultry to seize or kill such dog forthwith, whether such dog bears a tag or not. Any
person finding a dog committing any of the depredatio ns mentioned in this section shall have the right to
kill such dog on sight, as shall any owner of livestock or his agent finding a dog chasing livestock on land
utilized by the livestock when the circumstances show that such chasing is harmful to the live stock. Any
court shall have the power to order the animal control officer or other officer to kill any dog known to be a
confirmed livestock or poultry killer, and any dog killing poultry for the third time shall be considered a
confirmed poultry killer. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian, or
harborer of the dog to produce the dog.
(Code 1967, § 4-9; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-203; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 3.2-6552.
Sec. 4-202 Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs.
Any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or injured by any dog not his own shall be
entitled to receive as compensation the fair market value of such livestock or poultry not to exceed seven
hundred and fifty dollars ($750) per animal or ten dollars ($10.00) per fowl if: (i) the claimant has
furnished evidence within sixty (60) days of discovery of the quantity and value of the dead or injured
livestock and the reasons the claimant believes that death or injury was caused by a dog; (ii) the animal
control officer or other officer shall have been notified of the incident within seventy-two (72) hours of its
discovery; and (iii) the claimant first has exhausted his legal reme dies against the owner, if known, of the
dog doing the damage for which compensation under this section is sought. Exhaustion shall mean a
judgment against the owner of the dog upon which an execution has been returned unsatisfied.
Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference—Va. Code § 3.2-6553.
DIVISION 2. LICENSES
4-209 Amount of license tax.
A. Dog license taxes shall be as follows:
1. Spayed Female/Neutered Male.
One year tag: Five dollars ($5.00)
Two year tag: Ten dollars ($10.00)
Three year tag: Fifteen dollars ($15.00)
2. Unspayed Female/Unneutered Male.
One year tag: Ten dollars ($10.00)
Two year tag: Twenty dollars ($20.00)
Three year tag: Thirty dollars ($30.00)
3. Kennel license. Fifty dollars ($50.00) per block of ten dogs
B. No license tax shall be levied on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a
blind person or that is trained and serves as a hearing dog for a deaf or hearing impaired person , or any
dog that is trained and serves as a service dog for a mobility-impaired or otherwise disabled person.
(Code 1967, § 4-20; 12-20-73; 80-11-76; 2-13-85; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-23; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-
303; Ord. 08-4(2), 9-3-08, § 4-304; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference-- Va. Code § 3.2-6528.
ARTICLE III. IMPOUNDMENT
4-302 Dogs killing, injuring or chasing livestock or poultry--Impoundment and disposition.
In the event any animal control officer or other person has reason to believe that any dog is killing
livestock or committing any of the depredations mentioned in section 4-201, and a warrant or summons is
issued by a magistrate of the county, as set out in section 4 -201, the alleged killer dog may be seized or
impounded by the animal control officer until such time as the owner or custodian thereof shall provide
evidence of the adequate provisions to be made to protect livestock or poultry from such dog, which
provisions may include, but not be limited to, securing of such dog on the premises of the owner or
custodian, with defined limitations of access. Any dog released under such conditions shall be kept under
such securing provisions, and any person failing to keep such dog so secured shall be deemed in
violation of this section. The owner or custodian redeeming such dog from impoundment as provided
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
above shall also furnish the license(s) and pay the fee(s) as provided by sections 4 -205 and 4-208,
respectively. If the court finds such dog is not a livestock killer or has not committed any of the
depredations mentioned in section 4-201, any dog not re-deemed within ten (10) days of disposition of
the original charge by the court shall be dealt with by the animal control officer in the same manner as
provided for the disposition of unlicensed dogs in section 4-303.
(5-2-79; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-9.1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-204; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
4-303 Disposition of unlicensed dogs; running at large.
A. The animal control officer shall have the authority to capture, euthanize or turn over to a
public or private animal shelter any dog of unknown ownership found running at large on which the
license tax has not been paid.
B. Any dog captured and confined pursuant to this section, shall be kept for a period of not
less than five (5) days, such period to commence on the day immediately following the day the animal is
initially confined in a public or private animal shelter or facility, unless sooner claimed by the rightful
owner thereof. The animal control officer and/or the operator of the public or private animal shelter shall
make a reasonable effort to ascertain whether the dog has a collar, tag, license, tattoo, or other form of
identification. If such identification is found on the dog, the dog shall be held for an additional five (5)
days, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner. If the rightful owner of the animal can be readily
identified, the animal control officer and/or the public or private animal shelter shall make a reasonable
effort to notify the owner of the dog’s confinement within the next forty-eight (48) hours following its
confinement.
If any dog confined pursuant to this section is claimed by its rightful owner, such owner may be
charged with the actual expenses incurred in keeping the animal impounded.
If the dog confined pursuant to this section has not been claimed upon expiration of the
appropriate holding period as set-forth above, it shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of
the county or the public or private animal shelter.
Following the appropriate holding period set forth above, the animal control officer or other officer
may deliver such dog to any person in the county who will pay the required license fee on such dog, with
the understanding that should the legal owner thereafter claim the dog and prove his ownership, he may
recover such dog by paying to the person to whom it was delivered by the animal control officer the
amount of the license fee paid by him and a reasonable charge for the keep of the dog while in his
possession.
Any person, animal control officer or other officer euthanizing a dog under this chapter shall
cremate, bury or sanitarily dispose of the same. Prior to disposition by eutha nasia or otherwise, all the
provisions of Virginia Code § 3.2-6563 shall have been complied with.
C. All drugs and drug administering equipment used by animal control officers or other
officers to capture dogs pursuant to this section shall have been approved by the state veterinarian.
(Code 1967, § 4-10; 8-11-76; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 4-10; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-205; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-
8-09)
State law reference - Va. Code §§ 3.2-6546 (c); 3.2-6562.
ARTICLE IV. RABIES CONTROL
4-401 Rabid animals.
Any dogs or cats showing active signs of rabies or suspected of having rabies that is not kno wn
to have exposed a person, companion animal, or livestock to rabies shall be confined under competent
observation for such a time as may be necessary to determine a diagnosis. If, in the discretion of the
director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department, confinement is impossible or impracticable,
such dog or cat shall be euthanized by one of the methods approved by the state veterinarian as provided
in Virginia Code § 3.2-6546. The disposition of other animals showing active signs of rabies shall be
determined by the director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department and may include
euthanasia and testing.
Every person having knowledge of the existence of an animal that is suspected to be rabid and
that may have exposed a person, companion animal, or livestock to rabies shall report immediately to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department the existence of such animal, the place where seen, the
owner’s name, if known, and the signs suggesting rabies.
Any dog or cat, for which no proof of current rabies vaccination is available, and that may have
been exposed to rabies through a bite, or through saliva or central nervous system tissue, in a fresh open
wound or mucous membrane, by an animal suspected to be rabid, shall be isolat ed in a public or private
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
animal shelter, kennel or enclosure approved by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department for a
period not to exceed six (6) months at the expense of the owner or custodian in a manner and by a date
certain as determined by the director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department. A rabies
vaccination shall be administered by a licensed veterinarian prior to release. Inactivated rabies vaccine
may be administered at the beginning of isolation. Any dog or cat so bitt en, or exposed to rabies through
saliva or central nervous system tissue, in a fresh open wound or mucous membrane with proof of current
vaccination, shall be revaccinated by a licensed veterinarian immediately following the exposure and shall
be confined to the premises of the owner or custodian, or other site as may be approved by the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department, at the expense of the owner or custodian, for a period of
forty-five (45) days. If the director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department determines that
isolation is not feasible or maintained, such dog or shall be euthanized by one of the methods approved
by the State Veterinarian as provided in Virginia Code § 3.2 -6546. The disposition of such dogs or cats
not so confined shall be at the discretion of the director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health
Department.
At the discretion of the director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department, any animal
that may have exposed a person shall be confined under co mpetent observation for ten (10) days at the
expense of the owner or custodian, unless the animal develops active signs of rabies, expires, or is
euthanized before that time. A seriously injured or sick animal may be euthanized as provided in Virginia
Code § 3.2-6546.
When any suspected rabid animal, other than a dog or cat, exposes or may have exposed a
person to rabies through a bite, or through saliva or central nervous system tissue, in a fresh open wound
or mucous membrane, decisions regarding the disposition of that animal shall be at the discretion of the
director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department and may include euthanasia as provided in
Virginia Code § 3.2-6546, or as directed by the state agency with jurisdiction over that species. When
any animal, other than a dog or cat, is exposed or may have been exposed to rabies through a bite, or
through saliva or central nervous system tissue, in a fresh open wound or mucous membrane, by an
animal suspected to be rabid, decisions regarding the disposition of that newly exposed animal shall be at
the discretion of the director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Department.
When any animal may have exposed a person to rabies and subsequently expires due to illness
or euthanasia, either within an observation period, where applicable, or as part of a public health
investigation, its head or brain shall be sent to the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services of the
Department of General Services or be tested as directed by the Charlo ttesville/Albemarle Health
Department.
Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 1
misdemeanor.
(Code 1967, § 4-37; Code 1988, § 4-40; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-502; Code 1967, § 4-38; Code 1988, §
4-41; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, § 4-503; Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09; Ord. 10-4(1), 9-1-10)
State law reference—Va. Code § 3.2-6522.
4-403 Inoculation for rabies at animal shelters.
Dogs and cats being adopted from a public or private animal shelter during the period an
emergency ordinance is in force, as provided in section 4-401 may be inoculated for rabies by a certified
animal technician at such shelter if the certified animal tec hnician is under the immediate and direct
supervision of a licensed veterinarian.
(Ord. 09-4(1), 7-8-09)
State law reference—Va. Code §3.2-6523.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2014.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend section 15-1601 of Chapter 15,
Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance would clarify the meaning of real
property exclusively used for religious worship for purposes of property tax exemptions. The proposed
ordinance would conform County Code § 15.1601 with recent amendments to Virginia Code § 58.1-3606.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 2014.)
The executive summary states that the 2014 General Assembly amended Virginia Code § 58.1-
3606 to clarify the meaning of “real property exclusively used for religious worship” for purposes of tax
exemptions. The amendment also expanded the description of the “real property” under exemption.
Following an amendment to the Virginia Constitution in 2003 that shifted tax exemption authority
to localities, the County adopted its own tax exemption ordinance (County Code § 15-1601 and § 15-
1602). Where possible, the County ordinance has attempted to track the equivalent provisions in the
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Virginia Code. The proposed ordinance is intended to harmonize the County Code with a recent
amendment to the Virginia Code.
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment A) to amend County Code § 15-1601, Property
exempt from taxation by classification. The proposed ordinance would:
exempt property used for outdoor worship activities;
exempt property used for ancillary and accessory purposes as allowed under Chapter 18
of the County Code (the County zoning ordinance), the dominant purpose of which is to
support or augment the principal religious worship use; and
exempt property used by religious bodies as required by federal, state or local law.
Staff anticipates limited additional tax exemptions of properties exclusively used for religious
worship, and therefore, anticipates a minimal budget impact.
Staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance
(Attachment A).
_____
Mr. Bob Willingham, Real Estate Assessor, addressed the Board, stating that the purpose of this
amendment is to bring the County Code into conformance with State Code changes. It is redefined from
what was “land and buildings” to “real propert y” and it includes areas that are used for outdoor worship,
auxiliary uses that support the church or religious purpose, and requirements that meet State and Federal
Codes.
Ms. Mallek said that she received a lot of calls about this item, with concern about encroachment
and the profit-making parking lots and facilities that can be rented out Monday through Saturday. She
added that there is no definition for auxiliary uses. She asked if some process has to happen to get this
tax-free status, or if it is automatically granted to churches.
Mr. Willingham explained that an exemption under “classification” is a determination made by the
County Assessor. The properties owned by exempt entities such as churches and religious organizations
that are used by taxable entities pay taxes on what is known as a lease/hold interest. He said that using
a parking lot or a social hall for something to offset the operating costs of the church or religious
organization is still exempt, if that cost is nominal. Mr. Willingham stated that the auxiliary uses w ould be
a church office on a separate parcel, for example, or a place for choir practice – and the Code states
“dominant use,” so his interpretation is that it also must be routinely used, exclusively used. He said that
there are only two or three churches that own additional property, such as Spring Hill Baptist Church –
which owns a big tract of land next door, but only part of it is exempt because they use a certain amount
of acreage and a structure for bible study and church-related uses. Mr. Willingham noted that the land is
still taxable. He said that the County requires that the organization put in writing a request for exemption,
and staff goes out and personally reviews the property to see if it is being used as stated.
Ms. Palmer asked how often staff does that. Mr. Willingham said that they do it when the request
is made, and while they are doing routine field work staff will check to see if the property is being used for
that purpose – much as they do with land use assessments.
Ms. Palmer said that does not happen very often as the applicant is just signing a form every two
years. She asked if churches have to reapply to reinstate the use. Mr. Willingham stated that there is no
County ordinance requiring that, but there may be enabling auth ority to require people to requalify for
their exempt purpose.
Mr. Davis said that he would need to look at it further.
Ms. Palmer asked how they would define “profit,” and whether it must be used regularly or a
dominant use – because anything could be used to offset the cost of running the church. Mr. Willingham
said that typically the property would not be used by the church or any exempt organization at any time,
and would only be used for that profit-making operation.
Ms. Mallek said that she does not understand why it qualifies as a religious operation if it is not
the sanctuary, the classrooms, etc.
Ms. McKeel asked what the process would be if there is a church that has a large parking lot, and
they are renting out spaces from their parking lot to students because of a school next to it. Mr.
Willingham said that if the County is aware of it and the dominant or primary use of it is not for the
religious purpose, then staff would put it on the tax rolls as taxable.
Mr. Willingham said this is something that they as assessors discuss and debate throughout the
state, and it is a practice that is followed with 99% of tax officials. Mr. Willingham said that if it is just used
on occasion and they do not want to push the envelope that it is not taxable, because there would be
more and more people calling the Board.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Ms. Mallek said this is a discussion that needs to be held because there are citizens who have
had enough. There are already soccer fields and other parking lots bringing in income.
Mr. Boyd asked where they distinguish between income and contributions because if it is used for
nonprofit use, he is not sure why the County would want to tax that.
Ms. Dittmar said that what she’s hearing is an unsettled feeling about the ambiguity a nd the
oversight. There are a lot of unknowns because right now the y don’t know what religious institutions are
doing with their property or if this expands their ability to use it for commercial purposes if they are
defining it as “primary.”
Mr. Davis stated that the Virginia Constitution sets out several categories of tax-exempt property,
and one of those categories is for property owned by churches or religious bodies – and that is a
constitutional exemption. He said that the Constitution allows the Virginia General Assembly to define
what that exemption includes. Prior to 2003 the classification exemptions were completely controlled by
the General Assembly with no local discretion in how they would be interpreted or defined. In 2003, he
said that was changed to allow going forward for properties that were not already exempt to have some
more regulation by local ordinance. Mr. Davis stated that what is before the Board today is part of a
comprehensive change to the local ordinance that defined tax -exempt classifications locally, and what the
Board did at that time was to accept the State definition for exempt classifications so that there would be
no differential treatment between pre-2003 properties and post-2003 properties. He said that has been a
very important administrative aid to staff, because having two different standards would be very confusing
and hard to administer. The State added more clarity from the General Assembly’s perspective as to
what constituted property exclusively used for religious purposes.
Mr. Davis stated that County staff’s analysis of this is that the changes the General Assembly
made would not cause that much of a difference, and to avoid confusion going forward that would allow
post-2003 properties that get exemption as compared to pre-2003 properties, staff wanted to conform
them. He said that the Board is raising some great points about compliance and process, but that is a
different set of issues that they need to deal with – including some zoning issues such as using parking
lots for adjacent high schools. Mr. Davis stated that regardless of those issues, he feels the Board should
adopt the language in the ordinance, with the other items addressed separately.
Ms. Dittmar asked how many religious properties were located in the County. Mr. Willingham
said that he does not know but he could get them that information.
Ms. Mallek said that would be good study information going forward.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not want to open up a Pandora’s Box with this and create a bunch of
extra work for staff. He asked where Board members are going to stop with this – Bingo games, bake
sales, and other nonprofit activities.
Ms. Dittmar said that the work the General Assembly did cited a case where a proposed
retirement home decided to be a church so they could have exempt status. She said Board members are
looking to make sure that they do not have exemptions for significant for-profit uses. She noted that she
attended a church for a long time that leased its space to a preschool during the week that was not
affiliated with the church, so that is a major use that deserves scrutiny. She added that she does not
think this refers to Bingo games.
Mr. Boyd said that of all the issues before the Board to deal with, he wondered where this one fell
in terms of allocating staff time and research, etc.
Ms. Dittmar said that she is interested in this for several reasons, one of them being the fact that
the General Assembly has decided to impact a revenue stream through its work, and the Board will soon
be meeting with legislators. She said that another reason is that citizens do not like supporting things like
land use when there are other exemptions that are not really being used appropriately.
Ms. Palmer said that she agree but does not want to bring this up right now. She said that she
gets regular emails about situations that have not been checked, and there are a lot of citizens in the
County that feel that the taxation is not fair. She stated that at some point she wants to understand how
often staff physically checks on these things, because there is a limited amount of staff and she wants to
understand the whole issue.
Mr. Sheffield said that this will likely come up with the stormwater utility fee, religious entities
versus homeowners.
Mr. Boyd stated that the case Ms. Dittmar referred to is a specific unusual situation, not
determining what activities should be classified as taxable or non -taxable. Mr. Boyd said that he has
never had a constituent ask him about the issue of churches not paying their fair share, but that has just
been his experience.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Foley said that staff can follow up on this discussion in a more comprehensive manner, as it
has raised some flags for Mr. Davis as far as zoning issues, and come back with a timeframe in which to
review it.
Ms. Mallek stated that nonprofits are currently paying taxes on their buildings, but it seems that
will change under this new legislation. Mr. Davis said that this is only dealing with religious-affiliated
owned properties and does not impact other nonprofits.
Ms. Mallek said that she also wants to be watchful that a rental of $25,000 to a church is not
couched as a “donation.”
Mr. Willingham encouraged the Board to contact him with any specific questions or concerns.
Ms. Mallek asked if this also impacts vehicles and personal property. Mr. Davis said that it does
affect personal property to the extent that those are dominantly used by the churches for religious
purposes, they would be exempt.
The Chair then opened the public hearing.
No public comment was offered, and the Chair closed the public hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the proposed ordinance. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted ordinance is set out in full below):
ORDINANCE NO. 14-15(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XVI, PROPERTY EXEMPT
FROM TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
15, Taxation, Article XVI, Property Exempt From Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 15-1601 Property exempt from taxation by classification
CHAPTER 15. TAXATION
ARTICLE XVI. PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION
A. Pursuant to the authority granted in Article X, Section 6 (a) (6) of the Constitution of
Virginia to exempt property from taxation by classification, the following classes of real and personal
property shall be exempt from taxation:
1. Property owned directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth, or any political
subdivision thereof.
2. Real property and personal property owned by churches or religious bodies,
including (i) an incorporated church or religious body and (ii) a corporation mentioned in Virgin ia Code
§ 57-16.1, and exclusively occupied or used for religious worship or for the residence of
the minister of any church or religious body, and such additional adjacent land reasonably necessary for
the convenient use of any such property. Real proper ty exclusively used for religious worship shall also
include the following: (a) property used for outdoor worship activities; (b) property used for ancillary and
accessory purposes as allowed under Chapter 18 herein, the dominant purpose of which is to sup port or
augment the principal religious worship use; and (c) property used as required by federal, state, or local
law.
3. Nonprofit private or public burying grounds or cemeteries.
4. Property owned by public libraries, law libraries of local bar associations when
the same are used or available for use by a state court or courts or the judge or judges thereof, medical
libraries of local medical associations when the same are used or ava ilable for use by state health
officials, incorporated colleges or other institutions of learning not conducted for profit. This paragraph
shall apply only to property primarily used for literary, scientific or educational purposes or purposes
incidental thereto and shall not apply to industrial schools which sell their products to other than their own
employees or students.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
5. Property belonging to and actually and exclusively occupied and used by the
Young Men's Christian Associations and similar religious associations, including religious mission boards
and associations, orphan or other asylums, reformatories and nunneries, conducted not for profit but
exclusively as charities.
6. Parks or playgrounds held by trustees for the perpetual use of the general public.
7. Buildings with the land they actually occupy, and the furniture and furnishings
therein belonging to any benevolent or charitable organization and used by it exclusively for lodge
purposes or meeting rooms, together with such additional adjacent land as may be necessary for the
convenient use of the buildings for such purposes.
8. Property of any nonprofit corporation organized to establish and maintain a
museum.
9. Property owned by hospitals conducted not for profit but exclusively as charities
(which shall include hospitals operated by nonstock corporations not organized or conducted for profit but
which may charge persons able to pay in whole or in part for their care and treatment), provided such
property is either occupied or used (i) as a general licensed inpatient hospital or (ii) as a licensed
outpatient hospital immediately adjacent to a general licensed inpatient hospital that has qualified for tax
exemption pursuant to this section. Any portion of the property owned by such hospital that is either
leased to a third-party or not used for hospital purposes shall not be exempt from taxation under this
subsection.
B. The real and personal property of an organization classified in Virginia Code §§
58.1-3610 through 58.1-3622 and used by such organization for a religious, charitable, patriotic,
historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purpose as set forth in Article X, Section 6
(a) (6) of the Constitution of Virginia, the particular purpose for which such organization is classified being
specifically set forth within each section, shall be exempt from taxation, so long as such organization is
operated not for profit and the property so exempt is used in accordance with the purpose for which the
organization is classified.
C. Property which was exempt from taxation on December 31, 2002, shall continue
to be exempt from taxation under the rules of statutory construction applicable to exempt property at the
time such property became entitled to exemption.
D. Exemptions of property from taxation granted under this section on or after
January 1, 2003 shall be strictly construed in accordance with Article X, Section 6 (f) of the Constitution of
Virginia.
(Ord. 04-15(1), 9-1-04, effective retroactive to January 1, 2003; Ord. 06-15(2), adopted 11-1-06,
effective 1-1-07)
State law reference—Va. Code § 58.1-3606.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2014.
_______________
Recess. The Board recessed at 10:38 a.m., and reconvened at 10:46 a.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. FY 15 Resolution of Appropriations and Discussion of State Budget.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members that that the County’s FY 15 Operating and
Capital Budgets were adopted by the Board on May 7, 2014, together totaling $351,989,970. The
attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2015 provides the
authority from the Board to spend those funds, effective July 1, 2014.
This comprehensive resolution appropriates the total County budget, including both general
government and school operating and capital funds, School Se lf-Sustaining and Other General
Government Fund appropriations in a single resolution.
Staff recommends approval of the Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 15 (Attachment A)
that allocates a total of $351,989,970 to various General Government and School Division operating,
capital improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 15.
This appropriation totals $351,989,970 and is made up of the following major funds:
General Fund $241,479,450
School Fund 160,437,310
School Self-Sustaining Funds 16,052,319
Other General Government Funds 21,192,976
Capital Projects 40,073,189
Debt Service 18,770,378
SUBTOTAL $498,005,622
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Less Inter-fund Transfers ($146,015,652)
TOTAL (new appropriations) $351,989,970
In accordance with the funding plan presented in the Capital Budget, staff also recommends
approval of the attached Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a
Borrowing (Attachment B). This would allow the County to use up to $29,630,686 in bond proceeds to
reimburse capital program expenditures.
_____
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated that she will share
some information about the state budget and the impact it may have on the County. She said that as of
that day, the State has still not passed a budget, which is unprecedented.
Ms. Mallek noted that it has happened once before, with a budget finally passed on June 29.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff has been monitoring the situation. There is a potential reduction in
funding from the State to localities. She reported that there is $76.3 million in projected State funding in
the Board’s current FY15 budget, which is a $1.8 million or 2.4% increase over the FY14 budget,
reflecting all funds – general fund, schools, etc. Ms. Allshouse stated that VML and VACO have
suggested to localities that they consider their current budget as a possibility of where it might land when
the State finalizes its budget. She said that most of the funding goes into the School Division, with $29.3
million coming to general government, with one-half being personal property tax relief, and some State
funding for the police department, support of constitutional officers, and social services. Ms. Allshouse
said that there is $2.1 million in the capital budget, with about $1 million of that being school-related
projects and $1 million being general government.
Mr. Boyd asked if the funding for constitutional officers is just pass-through dollars coming
through the County, or if they get direct funding as well. Ms. Allshouse said that they get money that
comes into the County that pays partly for constitutional officers.
Mr. Davis explained that it is a revenue source from the Commonwealth; salaries for
constitutional officers are set by the Compensation Board, and that amount of money is then provided to
the locality – which makes up part of the total compensation package.
Ms. Allshouse said that this delay not only affects the County, but may impact many partners and
agencies in the community, who may also receive State budget reductions – such as the Regional Jail,
Blue Ridge Detention Center, Region Ten, CAT, JAUNT and others.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County would have to supplement all of that from local funds if the State
doesn’t pass a budget. Ms. Allshouse said that the delay will cause a cashflow impact, because the
assumption is that the County will continue to fund everyone until the State makes its decision on the
budget – but after those decisions do happen from the State, the County may need to relook at the
budget and plan to pick up more or make further adjustments.
Mr. Boyd said that is what he is asking about, because the Board does not want the
Commonwealth’s Attorney and courts to stop working.
Mr. Davis stated that the worst case scenario could be an expectation that the County pay for
those services, but what staff is hearing is that “essential services” w ill still be funded in some way
through the State – so that is the more likely scenario. In the worst case scenario the only available funds
could be local funds.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is the possibility of having to pay the constitutional officers o ut of local
funds and getting reimbursed from the State later. Mr. Foley stated that they would have a revenue line
item with $100 in it, and they would not get that money, so the County would continue to fund those
offices and have a revenue shortfall. He said that the County would have to come up with those local
dollars or ask for cutbacks in those services, but staff expects that there will be a State budget – although
the probability is there will be a revenue shortfall on the horizon even when a bud get does get adopted.
Mr. Foley stated that there has been some discussion that the schools will be protected, but the State has
not even defined “essential services” yet, according to VML. He said that it is looking like the State may
cut $1 billion over the biennium, or $500 million each year including FY15. Mr. Foley said there are many
unknowns now, but this gives the Board a sense of what is in the County budget as things stand today.
Mr. Sheffield said that this is compounded by the Highway Trust Fund issue at the federal level,
which has been a stalemate, and it is projected that the fund will be depleted by August or September –
which impacts CAT and JAUNT and may require local support.
Mr. Foley stated that the Regional Jail will be more of an immediate impact, because they must
have local dollars to pay if the State does not, which would be determined through the Jail Board. He
said that if CAT or JAUNT were cut, they would probably come ask the County to help, as would other
agencies. That has happened in the past when there have been State reductions.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Ms. Allshouse said that not having a budget and not being able to get reimbursements from the
State impacts cashflow. Finance did an analysis that shows that the County can continue without State
funding for up to 90 days, presuming that the state reimbursements would be imminent for expenditures
that occur during this period. She stated that some jurisdictions do not have this advantage, and smaller
ones may be affected much more immediately.
Mr. Foley noted that some of that has to do with the County’s available fund balances and its
AAA-bond rating, and other localities may not have met some of those thresholds.
Ms. Allshouse stated that staff would like to ask the Board to adopt the proposed resolution to
urge legislators to approve a State budget, which VML and VACO are asking all localities to do, as an
updated version of the request to the State that they did in April. She said that the second request is to
approve the FY15 annual resolution of appropriations, and to request the other item regarding borrowing.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff would like the Board to approve the full annual budget. She then pointed out
the following clause in the resolution stating, “All appropriations are maximum, conditional and
proportionate, and are only in the event that the aggregate revenues are sufficient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.” She said that this would alert those who receive the appropriations that they are
subject to this clause.
Ms. Allshouse reported that staff would like to consider a delay in filling new and vacant positions
on a case by case basis, until they get clarity from the State. Staff will also delay any non-urgent CIP
projects and expenditures – but would move forward on the school projects, which need to begin in the
summer. She said that they have talked a lot about the $2.5 general fund fund balance from FY13 that
was audited, and their plan was to move that over to capital – but they could delay that transfer in case
there is a challenge that might require use of that. Ms. Allshouse said that they also have a $500,000
revenue contingency with fund balance monies they are holding at this point, which could also be
delayed. She stated that staff likes for the CIP balance to stay at $2 million or more, and if the Board
does not move the $2.5 million over, the balance in the model will be $1.9 million partially due to the tax
rate change, however moving it will put the balance at $4.4 million. Ms. Allshouse said that staff does
recommend that the funds be eventually moved, but wants to be cautious at this time until the S tate’s
actions are known.
Ms. Mallek asked if the fund balance is based on the Board not starting the court project in five
years. Ms. Allshouse responded that the project is partially in there, but this doesn’t take it to the level
whereby they would be expending the funding – and they would need to add more.
Ms. Palmer asked if they staff does postpone CIP projects because they are non-urgent that staff
send the Board what those are, in the event there are constituents involved in those projects. Ms.
Allshouse said that she does not believe there are any projects getting started that would be held back,
as it is mostly school projects now.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, said that the delayed items will
likely be some design projects, a PBX replacement project in IT, and a few others that could be pushed
out a bit. The important priority is to get the school summer maintenance projects underway and under
contract as soon as possible. He said that staff could provide Board members with a list of any other
projects that could be delayed beyond that. He added that what’s in the CIP for courts is money that
would start design for the downtown option. In the five-year plan is money for a courts project, with
additional funding in year six.
Ms. Mallek noted that that’s with future tax increases in years three, five and six. Mr. Henry said
that is correct.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff is recommending that the Board take action on this now, and once
staff knows what the revenues are after the State adopts its budget, they will come back and make
County budget adjustments as needed.
Mr. Boyd said staff recommendation about the $2.5 million is very prudent, and asked if it is
factored into this appropriation to not move it over. Ms. Allshouse said that it is not part of this
appropriation, so if it were to be moved over to capital that could happen in August instead of July.
Ms. Mallek said she has no problem with that recommendation, but wants to make sure it is as
hard as possible for staff to use the funds for something else. Mr. Foley said that this could all look
different a month from now, and staff will have more certainty as to recommended adjustments.
Ms. Palmer said that staff’s recommendations were fine with her.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of the “Martha Jefferson Health Grant Fund,” “other government
general funds,” and the “Tourism Enhancement Fund.” Ms. Allshouse explained that the Martha
Jefferson fund is a $5,000 grant the County received from the hospital for dental care for low-income
children, and it is a pass-through that is completely offset. She stated that the tourism funding is the
same, but staff segregates it because they want the tourism money that is obligated to be sent to tourism-
related items to be in a separate area.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Ms. Dittmar said that she is deeply disappointed in the General Assembly for failing to do their
business in a timely way, comparing it to the County’s ability to pass its own budget after many hours
invested by the Board and staff. She stated that all around the Commonwealth, localities are having to
meet to come up with strategies to address the State’s problems, which is taking a lot of energy away
from their regular responsibilities. Ms. Dittmar said that she supports staff recommendations as
presented.
Mr. Boyd asked that these be voted on separately – the resolution versus the appropriations.
Mr. Davis said that there are three different resolutions before the Board – one dealing with the
budget, one dealing with the annual appropriation, and the third being the resolution of intent to
reimburse. Each resolution should be voted on separately.
Mr. Boyd moved to adopt the proposed resolution to urge legislators to adopt a State budget. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolution is set out in full below).
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, as of June 4, 2014 the Virginia General Assembly has not adopted the State budget;
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
WHEREAS, the County fulfilled its obligation to timely approve its FY 15 Budget, by approving its
FY 15 Budget on May 7, 2014, and
WHEREAS, the County’s FY 15 Budget includes $76,340,716 in state revenues based on earlier
estimates received from the State to support essential public services such as Schools, Police, and Social
Services; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2014, the County received notice that the State is now anticipating a
significant revenue shortfall, which is anticipated to result in budget reductions that will affect every
locality, further complicating a locality’s ability to provide essential governmental services to its citizens.
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 State budget before July 1 would disrupt the ability of Virginia’s
businesses and public agencies, including the County of Albemarle, to operate effectively.
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 and FY 2016 budget by June 30; 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.
_____
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 15 that allocates a
total of $351,989,970 to various General Government and School Division operating, capital
improvement, and debt service accounts for expenditure in FY 15. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd stated that he will vote against this because he did not support the budget based on his
disappointment that the Board did not compensate staff more.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Roll was then called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
(Note: The adopted resolution is set out in full below).
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015; to prescribe the provisions with
respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all previous appropriation
ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Fund 1000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL FUND to
be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
Board of Supervisors $645,873
County Executive $1,143,506
Human Resources $638,297
County Attorney $1,032,166
Finance Department $4,970,735
Management and Budget $351,043
Information Technology $2,770,869
Voter Registration/ Elections $577,014
$12,129,503
Paragraph Two: JUDICIAL
Circuit Court $100,664
General District Court $40,501
Magistrate $4,550
Juvenile Court $117,359
Public Defender's Office Contingency $74,049
Clerk of the Circuit Court $835,915
Sheriff's Office $2,256,532
Commonwealth's Attorney $1,061,028
$4,490,598
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Department $16,063,943
Fire/Rescue Department $10,070,966
Volunteer Fire/Rescue $2,193,187
Thomas Jefferson EMS $19,257
Fire/Rescue Tax Credit $70,000
City Fire Contract $186,715
Inspections and Building Codes $1,303,995
Forest Fire Extinction $23,929
Emergency Communications Center $2,167,176
Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail $3,216,696
Community Attention Home $60,149
Juvenile Detention Center $840,216
Foothills Child Advocacy Center $30,385
Offender Aid and Restoration $157,042
SPCA Shelter Contribution $549,446
Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control $52,231
$37,005,333
Paragraph Four: GENERAL SERVICES / PUBLIC WORKS
Facilities Development Department $198,465
General Services $3,838,874
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority $450,000
$4,487,339
Paragraph Five: HUMAN SERVICES
Department of Social Services $11,579,069
Bright Stars Transfer $799,787
Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $2,730,527
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $965,000
Health Department $640,217
Region Ten $704,083
Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) $14,207
AIDS/HIV Services Group $3,600
Boys & Girls Club $20,000
Charlottesville Free Clinic $116,390
Children, Youth & Family Services $74,490
Computers 4 Kids $13,379
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) $307,678
Jefferson Area CHIP $301,500
Jefferson Area United Transit Network $1,151,711
Legal Aid Justice Center $38,700
Madison House $9,900
Piedmont CASA $9,270
Piedmont Workforce Network $13,805
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) $20,000
Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) $85,514
Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH) $15,500
United Way $117,100
$19,731,427
Paragraph Six: EDUCATION
Piedmont Virginia Community College $24,024
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE
Department of Parks & Recreation $2,527,114
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Regional $918,409
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Charlottesville-Albemarle $2,152,219
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Crozet Library $383,173
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Scottsville Library $153,895
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Extension Services $217,193
African American Festival $2,700
Ashlawn Highland Festival $3,800
Literacy Volunteers $25,287
Municipal Band $5,000
Piedmont Council of the Arts $10,000
Virginia Festival of the Book $10,000
Virginia Film Festival $10,000
Visitor's Bureau $725,098
$7,143,888
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Department of Community Development $4,273,714
Housing Office $478,536
VPI Extension Service $183,346
Soil & Water Conservation $103,910
Office of Economic Development $262,089
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) $400,000
Charlottesville Area Transit $868,988
Central Virginia Small Business Development Center (CVSBDC) $10,000
Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) $63,200
MACAA CARES Program Contingency $18,650
Piedmont Housing Alliance $34,500
Planning District Commission $124,024
Streamwatch $10,380
$6,831,337
Paragraph Nine: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
Revenue Sharing Agreement $16,466,981
Paragraph Ten: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS:
Refunds and Abatements $163,500
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
Transfer to School Fund - Recurring $109,807,126
Transfer to School Division Debt Service $12,553,845
Transfer to School Division Capital Projects $1,680,497
Transfer to General Government Debt Service $5,954,373
Transfer to Water Resources Fund $1,093,594
Disability Reserve $50,000
Economic Development Fund $250,000
Grants Leveraging Fund $100,000
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Innovation Fund $50,000
Fellowship Fund $150,000
Fuel Contingency $105,750
Training Pool $50,000
Reserve for Contingencies $414,371
Salary Reserve - Reclassifications $120,000
VERIP Program $625,964
$1,866,085
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: $241,479,450
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $209,748,429
Revenue from the Commonwealth $23,300,611
Revenue from the Federal Government $4,747,448
Transfers In from Other Funds $2,485,553
Use of Fund Balance $1,197,409
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: $241,479,450
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND (Fund 2000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for SCHOOL purposes
herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
Instruction $122,370,231
Administration, Attendance, and Health $7,060,728
Pupil Transportation $9,638,750
Operation and Maintenance $15,194,598
School Food Services and Other Non-Instructional Services $0
Facilities $160,000
Debt Service and Fund Transfers $3,312,843
Technology $2,700,160
Contingency/Reserve $0
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: $160,437,310
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $109,807,126
Revenue from Other Local Sources $2,110,107
Revenue from the Commonwealth $44,429,342
Revenue from the Federal Government $3,004,498
Transfers $875,000
Use of Fund Balance $211,237
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30,
2015:
$160,437,310
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein
specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
Instruction $6,856,143
Administration, Attendance, and Health $0
Pupil Transportation $918,437
Operation and Maintenance $216,650
School Food Services and Other Non-Instructional Services $7,186,089
Facilities $0
Debt Service and Fund Transfers $875,000
Technology $0
Contingency/Reserve $0
Total OTHER SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: $16,052,319
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $8,477,053
Revenue from the Commonwealth $489,431
Revenue from the Federal Government $4,973,705
Transfers $1,800,053
Use of Fund Balance $312,077
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Total OTHER SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: $16,052,319
SECTION IV: OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER PROGRAM
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS
Commonwealth Attorney Commission Fund (Fund 8150) $60,000
Victim-Witness Program (Fund 1225) $121,604
Police Department State Asset Forfeiture Fund (Fund 1236) $971,167
FEMA-Safer Grant (Fund 1595) $507,079
Criminal Justice Grant Programs (Fund 1520) $758,815
Water Resources Fund $1,093,594
Facilities Development (Fund 1925) $973,090
Charlottesville/Albemarle Joint Health Center Fund (Fund 8550) $48,960
Courthouse Maintenance Fund (Fund 9150) $35,000
Old Crozet School Operations (Fund 8610) $82,337
Vehicle Replacement (Fund 9200) $1,041,859
Bright Stars Program (Fund 1553) $1,210,787
Comprehensive Services Act Program Expenditures (Fund 1551) $8,974,179
MJ Health Grant (Fund 1563) $5,000
Darden Towe Memorial Park (Fund 4200) $247,466
Tourism Enhancement (Fund 1810) $1,453,305
Proffer Funds (Funds 8537, 8540, 8547, 8549, and 8575) $493,832
Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding (Fund 1208) $9,902
Economic Development Authority (Fund 6850) $80,000
Housing Assistance Fund (Fund 1227) $3,025,000
Total OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2015:
$21,192,976
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $2,730,824
Revenue from the Commonwealth $5,988,314
Revenue from the Federal Government $3,582,254
Transfers In from Other Funds $7,208,216
Use of Fund Balance $1,683,368
Total OTHER SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: $21,192,976
SECTION V - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9010)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein
specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: COURTS
Court Facilities Addition/Renovation $2,462,683
Court Square Maintenance/Replacement $396,532
Old Jail Facility Maintenance $19,189
Sheriff's Office Maintenance/Replacement Projects $22,000
$2,900,404
Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY
ECC Integrated Public Safety Technology Project $6,203,791
Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-Program $2,871,258
Fire Rescue Mobile Data Computers Replacement $22,000
Seminole Trail VFD Renovation/Addition $25,760
WARS Bay Upgrade $20,000
Regional Public Safety Firearms Training Center Transfer $485,584
County 800Mhz Radio Replacements $533,230
Police Patrol Video Cameras $165,695
$10,327,318
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS
City/County Co-Owned Maintenance/Replacement $14,038
County Facilities Maintenance/Replacement $1,060,903
Ivy Landfill Remediation $523,000
Moores Creek Septage Receiving $109,441
$1,707,382
Paragraph Four: COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Crozet Streetscape Phase II $29,785
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Sidewalk Construction Program $65,205
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program $2,002,536
$2,097,526
Paragraph Five: HEALTH AND WELFARE
Health Department Maintenance/Replacement $49,604
$49,604
Paragraph Six: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
City-County Owned Parks Maintenance/Replacement $62,576
Parks Maintenance/Replacement $587,230
$649,806
Paragraph Seven: LIBRARIES
City/County Branch Library Repair/Maintenance $254,114
County Library Facilities Repair/Maintenance $54,278
Rio Property-Library/Storage $32,200
$340,592
Paragraph Eight: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS
County Server/Infrastructure Upgrade $437,268
Increased Redundant Internet Services $28,000
PBX Replacement $500,000
$965,268
Paragraph Nine: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (ACE)
ACE Program $640,759
Paragraph Ten: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
Capital Program Reserve $111,298
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
$19,789,957
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $111,298
Revenue from Local Sources (Other Transfers) $108,960
Revenue from Other Local Sources $957,659
Revenue from the Commonwealth $1,081,018
Borrowed Funds $12,186,427
Use of Fund Balance $5,344,595
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
$19,789,957
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9000)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the SCHOOL DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
Administrative Technology $261,000
Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation $4,522,663
Contemporary Learning Spaces $270,608
Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition Only $2,247,366
Instructional Technology $575,000
School Bus Replacement $1,525,000
School Maintenance/Replacement $5,991,474
School Security Improvements $519,320
State Technology Grant $752,000
$16,664,431
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2015:
$16,664,431
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer) $1,569,199
Revenue from Local Sources (Proffer Fund Transfer) $493,832
Revenue from Other Local Sources $62,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth $1,052,000
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Borrowed Funds $13,245,582
Use of Fund Balance $241,818
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2015:
$16,664,431
SECTION VII: STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND (Fund 9100)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: STORMWATER PROJECTS
Church Road Basin $25,760
Hollymead Dam Spillway Improvement $100,000
Multi-Facility Maintenance $3,220
$128,980
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2015:
$128,980
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Stormwater Fund Transfer) $48,980
Borrowed Funds $80,000
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2015:
$128,980
SECTION VIII: REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY FIREARMS TRAINING CENTER FUND (Fund 9050)
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the STORM WATER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: PUBLIC SAFETY FIREARMS TRAINING CENTER
Regional Firearms Range Facility $3,489,821
$3,489,821
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2015:
$3,489,821
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $1,744,910
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfers from Other Funds) $1,456,751
Borrowed Funds $288,160
Total STORM WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2015:
$3,489,821
SECTION IX: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the function of DEBT
SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the
SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9900)
Debt Service - School Division $12,816,005
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30,
2015:
$12,816,005
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $12,553,845
Revenue from Other Local Sources $262,160
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year ending June
30, 2015:
$12,816,005
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND (Fund 9910)
Debt Service - General Government $5,954,373
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year ending $5,954,373
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
June 30, 2015:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General Fund) $5,954,373
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2015:
$5,954,373
GRAND TOTAL - DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $18,770,378
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2015
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I General Fund $241,479,450
Section II School Fund $160,437,310
Section III Other School Funds $16,052,319
Section IV Other General Government Funds $21,192,976
Section V General Government Capital Improvements Fund $19,789,957
Section VI School Division Capital Improvements Fund $16,664,431
Section VII Storm Water Capital Improvements Fund $128,980
Section VIII Regional Public Safety Firearms Training Center Fund $3,489,821
Section IX Debt Service $18,770,378
$498,005,622
Less Inter-Fund Transfers ($146,015,652
)
GRAND TOTAL - ALBEMARLE COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS $351,989,970
SECTION X: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the EMERGENCY
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND for the purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015:
Paragraph One: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND
Emergency Communications Center $5,375,450
Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2015:
$5,375,450
To be provided as follows:
Albemarle County $2,167,176
City of Charlottesville $1,697,772
University of Virginia $615,879
Revenue from Other Local Sources $320,434
Revenue from the Commonwealth $560,825
Revenue from the Federal Government $13,364
Total EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2015:
$5,375,450
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County Executive is hereby authorized to administratively approve budget
transfers of unencumbered funds of up to $50,000.00 per fund in the fiscal year from one classification,
department, or project to another within the same general governmental fun d.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer monies from one
fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation resolution.
SECTION XI
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through IX are appropriated upon
the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and those
set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Betty Burrell) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W.
Jordan) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be maximum,
conditional, and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in
the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and
available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the
appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum
of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be
available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not included in its
estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be
expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed
a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services for any purpose may be
incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors
except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items exempted by the
Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual
services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall
be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County Attorney, and
the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be responsible for securing such
competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency, or
individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be
awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures prescribed in the Albemarle County
Purchasing Manual shall not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance
shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County departments, bureaus,
or agencies under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official
duties shall be paid at the rate established by the County Executive for its employees and shall be subject to
change from time to time.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by
the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be and the same
are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and fourteen.
_____
Mr. Davis explained that the third resolution is the resolution of official intent to reimburse
expenditures with proceeds of borrowing, which allows the County to advance monies for CIP projects
and then reimburse itself once bond revenue is received. W ithout adopting this resolution, federal law
would prohibit tax-exempt financing for being used for this purpose.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is usual and customary, and has nothing to do with the State
budget situation. Mr. Foley and Mr. Davis agreed.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the proposed Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse
Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolution is set out in full below).
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Virginia (the “Borrower”) intends to
acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own
funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and
to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax -exempt bonds or taxable debt, or
both.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the “Bonds”) or to
incur other debt to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed
$29,630,686.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower
for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior
to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse
the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a)
of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles
(determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure); (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the
Bonds; (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues; or (d) a grant to a
party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any
obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation
by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an
Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the
Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which
the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary
expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on
the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five
years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this Resolution confirms the “official intent”
within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.
6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
*****
Exhibit A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BOND FUNDED PROJECTS
FY 2014/15
Schools Amount
Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation $ 4,138,901
Contemporary Learning Spaces 250,000
Henley Middle School Auxiliary Gym Addition 2,137,296
School Bus Replacement 1,225,000
School Maintenance/Replacement 5,026,997
School Security Improvements 467,388
Schools Subtotal $ 13,245,582
General Government Amount
County 800Mhz Radio Replacements $ 479,907
County Server Infrastructure Upgrade 393,541
County-Owned Facilities Maintenance/Replacement 573,673
Court Facilities Addition/Renovation 2,462,683
Hollymead Dam Spillway Improvement 80,000
ECC Integrated Public Safety Technology 5,287,491
Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-Program 2,539,132
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Regional Firearms Training Center 288,160
PBX Replacement 450,000
General Government Subtotal $ 12,554,587
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – FY 2014/15 PROJECTS $25,800,169
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED PROJECTS TO BE BOND FUNDED
School Amount
Agnor Hurt Elementary Addition/Renovation $ 383,601
Murray High School Phases 1-2 Addition/Renovation 567,390
Telecommunications Network Upgrade 675,000
School Subtotal $ 1,625,991
General Government Amount
Fire Rescue Apparatus Replacement-Program $ 1,516,725
Regional Firearms Training Center 687,801
General Government Subtotal $ 2,204,526
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE – ALL PROJECTS $29,630,686
______
Ms. McKeel said that it might be good for the Board to let the School Board know about this
resolution, as they may want to consider passing a similar resolution regarding the State budget.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff worked with Mr. Dean Tistadt and others in the School Division, and
it is supposed to be presented to the School Board on June 12.
Mr. Foley commented that staffsat down with the schools to talk about strategies prior to bringing
this forward.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly Update.
The following written update was received from Mr. O’Connell:
“Thank you once again for the opportunity to have time at your Board meeting on June 4th to
update you on ACSA issues and projects. Below are some updates for review:
1. Wastewater Cost Allocation Agreement - With the approval by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors on April 22nd, the Wastewater Cost
Allocation Agreement has been signed and finalized. This follows approvals by City
Council and the ACSA Board of Directors. This concludes a negotiation that has been
ongoing for over two years. The agreement provides for an objective formula (sewer
meter flows) that resolves the cost allocation for all the active RWSA wastewater projects
that total nearly $80 million. The agreement also provides a method for future RWSA
capacity related wastewater projects. This is a fair agreement and good for ACSA County
customers, with an immediate cost savings in year one, effective July 1st
2. Budget and Rates - The overall Fiscal Year 2015 operating budget of $28.5 million is
increasing by 4.8%, primarily driven by the increased cost for the RWSA advanced water
filtering process (GAC – granular activated carbon) at all the water treatment plants. The
rates that are proposed are to cover increased expenses; especially RWSA's purchased
water costs. The ACSA average residential customer using 4,000 gallons a month will
see a water and sewer bill increase of $4.31 per month. About 75% of our customers are
single-family residential customers. The ACSA has actually had small rate decreases for
two of the past five years for our average residential customer (see attached chart). The
five year average increase has been less than one percent each year. The ACSA Board
of Directors will be holding a public hearing on the budget and rates on June 19th. The
attached flyer explaining the rate increase is being sent to all our 18,000 customers with
their monthly utility bill, and additional information is on our website:
www.serviceauthority.org. Even with a rate increase next year, a gallon of ACSA water
costs less than 1/3 of a cent. I have also included a chart related to rates that compares
an ACSA residential customer bill being 18% less than a City customer bill.
3. ACSA 50th Anniversary - We celebrated our 50th anniversary in April providing water
and sewer service to Urban Albemarle, Crozet and Scottsville.
4. Capital Projects - The ACSA has over 20 active water and sewer projects throughout
our service area, see the attached map for locations. Many of these are waterline
replacement projects for older, deteriorating parts of our system. Below are som e
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
highlights on current capital projects, and new projects proposed in next year's Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). Our CIP Program is $5.5 million per year.
• Crozet Building Renovations - We operate a satellite maintenance facility near
the Crozet Water Treatment Plant, which is in need of a roof and garage repairs.
Adjacent to the site, RWSA is planning the expansion of the water treatment
plant to construct the new facility for the advanced water treatment process. The
plan is currently under site plan review by the County Planning staff.
• Western Ridge - Foxchase (Crozet) Water Connection – This project is to
install a looped water main for emergency connection and water quality. Project
is under construction.
• Key West Water Main Replacement - A water replacement project of aging and
deteriorating lines, and for increased fire protection. Completing property owner
agreements and easements, to ready for bid; design is complete.
• Ashcroft Water Improvements - Installation of replacement waterlines and a
new storage tank are complete. A major rebuild of an existing water pump station
is under design.
• Michie Tavern Water Main Replacement - Replacement of a deteriorating 70
year old waterline. Field surveying and initial design work underway.
• Crozet Water Main Replacement Phase 2 - Part of a phased, several year
waterline replacement program , replacing aging, undersized and weaker water
mains in the Crozet system. Project bids to be received late May. Waterline
replacements planned on Tabor Street, High Street and Hilltop Street.
• Glenmore Water Tank Project - The Glenmore and Village of Rivanna area is
served by a single water main of over 4% miles. A new tank will allow for creating
backup redundancy in the water system to deal with emergencies, a policy goal
of the ACSA. This project provides for a water storage tank at a high point in
Glenmore, adjacent to the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department. We are at
the 50% design stage in the project.
• Ivy Road - Flordon Water Connection - Another of the emergency redundancy
projects - to have an alternate source of water, in this case to the West Leigh
area. Final design underway.
• Ednam Sewer Rehabilitation - This sewer system (area – Ednam Village,
Ednam Forest, 250 West to Volvo dealership and Farmington) rehabilitation has
been completed including manhole rebuilding/sealing, pipeline repairs,
replacement and relining. The private Farmington sewer system needs
rehabilitation. This is another of the projects to remove rainwater/groundwater
(infiltration and inflow, 1/1) from the sanitary sewer system.
• PVCC Sewer System Study - Another of the comprehensive sewer system
reviews for infiltration and inflow reduction. Study work is underway, with
completion early July.
• Jackson Street (Scottsville) Water Main Replacement – This was an aging
and undersized waterline. All pipeline replacement work has been completed,
paving the last task that needs to be completed.
• Hollymead Water Main Replacement - Waterline replacements have been
completed, with Maiden and Derby Lanes the final two streets. Paving was
completed within the last week. Two valves for emergency shut-off will be the
final installation.
• Berkeley Water Main Replacement - A new project proposed for 2015. This line
has been experiencing increased failures and leaks, and is nearing 60 years in
age. Design work, and easement acquisition are planned for the next year.
• Westmoreland Water Main Replacement - Another older, deteriorating
waterline that needs replacement. Design work in 2015, with construction
planned for the following year.
• Orchard Acres (Crozet) Water Main Replacement - Another of the systematic
approach to replacing aging and deteriorating waterlines. A new project with
design work planned in 2015.
• West Leigh Water Main Replacement Phase 3 - The third phase of this project,
planned for 2015, to replace aging waterlines along six roads in West Leigh
(Sheffield, Croydon, Cornwall, Suffolk, Wendover and Devonshire).”
_____
ACSA Executive Director, Gary O’Connell said that they have held a number of discussions on
this previously and are in the process of developing a wastewater cost allocation agreement between the
Service Authority and the City. He said that it has been finalized, with all approvals made, and the
agreement will go into effect July 1. Mr. O’Connell noted that this covers nearly $80 million of wastewater
projects, Rivanna projects that were not allocated in cost – including the Rivanna pump station, and future
wastewater projects. He said that the hope is that this will serve as a long -term agreement that will
prevent them from having to go back to the table and negotiate again for future projects. In c ombination
with a long-term water supply and wastewater agreement, they should be in good shape regarding those
partnership agreements between the ACSA and the City over time – which is significant. He thanked the
Board for their participation, particular ly Ms. Palmer, who was involved in the negotiations. From a
Service Authority customer standpoint, he said, this is a fair agreement and a good agreement for the
Authority financially, and it is fact-based through putting meters in the field and actually measuring sewer
flows.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
Mr. O’Connell reported that the ACSA’s proposed budget for FY15 was presented to their board
in April. They spent a number of months looking at rates in detail – historically and projections for the
future. He stated that the budget is $28.5 million, a 4.8% increase, with a rate increase of any
significance for the first time in several years – driven primarily by the community decision to use
granular-activated carbon (GAC), and while it was a more expensive approach it will yiel d higher water
quality. Mr. O’Connell said that about 75% of customers are single-family residential, and the average
residential customer using about 4,000 gallons per month will see an increase of $4.31 on a combined
water and sewer bill, and as use increases, the size of the bill will also go up. He said that he included a
chart in his report that covered the previous five years, and that average is less than a 1% increase, with
several years having a decrease in rates. Mr. O’Connell stated that he has provided comparisons of
ACSA’s rates to other utilities in the state, and they continue to be below the statewide average. He said
that they also did some work in looking at a comparable bill between a City water and sewer customer
and an ACSA customer, and the Service Authority’s bill is 18% less on average. Mr. O’Connell said that
the ACSA Board will hold a public hearing on June 19, at which time it is hoped that the Board will
consider adoption of the budget. He stated that in context, a customer is paying less than one-third cent
for a gallon of ACSA water that is delivered to someone’s house and is safe and reliable.
Mr. O’Connell noted that the ACSA celebrated its 50th anniversary in April (1964-2014).
He reported on ACSA capital projects, noting that he has given the Board a listing along with a
map. He said that some of the projects are still in the planning stages. Mr. O’Connell stated that the
ACSA program about $5.5 million per year for capital projects, and at this point there are ab out 20 active
projects with $4.5 million dedicated to waterline replacements in Ashcroft, Key West, Crozet, Michie
Tavern, Berkeley, Westmoreland, Orchard Acres and West Leigh. He said that other areas in the capital
budget are for redundancy – emergency backup, second feeds to try to improve water quality, Western
Ridge, Fox Chase interconnect, Ivy/Flord on interconnect, and the emergency backup in the Glenmore
tank project. Mr. O’Connell said that the final capital projects are sewer line rehabilitations in Ednam and
the Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) drainage basin.
Ms. Palmer said that she is concerned about fluctuating water prices. She said that she is hoping
that in the future they won’t see a reduction one year and then a big increase the following year, because
it is better for individuals to be able to plan their bills for the future. Mr. O’Connell said that part of the in-
depth discussion took place over several months with the ACSA Board trying to look at the rates from a
historical perspective, and that any increase be steady over time. He stated that the ACSA has had an
unusual circumstance this year with the GAC coming online, which had been planned for but not to the
extent of money being set aside, and that is not typical. Mr. O’Connell said that they also try to look
forward five years in terms of rates and 20 years in terms of major capital projects, so they can keep rates
steady.
Ms. Palmer said that they knew the GAC was coming on board. Mr. O’Connell stated that the
GAC project debt service costs will be reflected in the rates that start July 1. The Service Authority’s
water rate is exactly the same as the wholesale rate at Rivanna – and that is what’s driving that particular
part of the rate.
Ms. Palmer said that it reflects the 0-3,000 gallons the first year, but they have the ability to adjust
the other tiers and gradually increase prices. Mr. O’Connell stated that they are using some of those
reserves to try to help keep down the overall rate, with their rate to Rivanna increasing 10.6% and water
rates to customers increasing about 8%. The same applies on the sewer side.
Ms. Palmer said that she always likes to use this opportunity to talk about how good the water is
here, and to encourage people not to drink out of plastic water bottles. Mr. O’Connell said that people
spend a lot of money they do not have to on expensive bottled water.
Ms. Dittmar said that the ACSA has a wonderful reputation in the southern part of the County,
and thanked him for the way their staff resolved a hook-up problem for a business in that area.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Quarterly Update.
The following written report was received from Mr. Frederick:
“I am preparing this in advance of scheduled quarterly briefing to the Board of Supervisors and
City Council for June 2014. I can cover whatever topics Supervisors or Councilors are interested in, but
will start with the following outline:
1. Schenks Branch Interceptor Easements: As Supervisors and Councilors are now aware,
RWSA needs the support of elected officials to obtain easements to replace a section of
RWSA' s Schenks Branch Interceptor within the McIntire Road valley between Preston A
venue and Harris Street. This is the last off our segments to replace the entire length of
this 1950s interceptor with a new pipe adequate in size to reasonably provide for wet
weather flow, with the first three segments now completed. The preferred route is on
property owned by the City (Schenks Greenway) and the County (County Office Building
and baseball field), adjacent to and just beyond the shoulder of McIntire Road. The road
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
shoulder is already congested with multiple utilities, making excavations to depths
required for the sewer not practicable. A second option is under the road, but workplace
public safety would thereby demand the road be closed and traffic detoured during
construction work of several months, and City staff has expressed significant concerns of
the effect of road closure on the City, particularly the business in the downtown area.
RWSA's proposed replacement of this interceptor is a part of its master plan initiated in
2006 to upgrade its system to minimize wet weather sewer overflows, and this plan was
restated in a Consent Order with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
in 2011. The Order requires RWSA to provide a milestone schedule by June 30, 2014
carrying the project through construction if RWSA receives easements from the County
and City by June 17. Otherwise, the submission of a milestone schedule is extended to
September 30, 2014, but requires RWSA to identify alternative routes that avoids the City
or County properties. Alternative routes would be much more expensive; therefore, we
strongly believe the public's best interest is served by finding a way to an agreement to
allow the preferred route.
Negotiations for an easement on the County property, which is part of the preferred route,
have recently evolved into issues that can only be resolved by direct negotiation between
the County and City. We encourage elected officials to find a "win-win" as soon as
possible, further recognizing that completing this project is also a "win" for the aquatic
environment.
2. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: GAC facilities for the
Crozet and Scottsville Water Treatment Plants is currently out for bids with a contract
award occurring as soon as June 24, 2014 and completion expected by February 2016.
Final design of the GAC facilities for the Urban Water Plants is expected in August with
bidding this fall and the beginning of construction by the end of 2014. As discussed with
the public during the drinking water symposium and public hearing held in June and July
2012, before the GAC decision was made, GAC technology will require an increase in the
cost of drinking water, but is excellent advanced technology which will provide our
citizens a quality of drinking water unmatched in all but a "handful" of communities
throughout the country. We are also "blessed" by the decision which proudly originated
from our own citizens to "stay within our own watershed" with our long-term water supply,
as we were reminded by the railroad crude oil spill in the James River near Lynchburg a
few weeks ago.
3. Ragged Mountain Dam: Construction of the earthen dam is expected to be completed in
early June, with miscellaneous activities, clean-up, and final punch list items extending
into July. The new water release structure for the Moorrnans River is also presently under
construction at the base of the Sugar Hollow Dam and will be completed in July. Staff is
presently reviewing with the RWSA Board of Directors possible dates for a dedication of
the new dam in September.
A date for beginning the initial till of the new reservoir has not yet been established.
Concurrence from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Dam Safety
Unit is required, and Thalle Construction may be continuing to use a haul road at
elevation near the current pool level for some of the clean-up effort in the weeks following
dam completion. Our best current estimate is that the initial fill will begin by sometime in
July.
I know all elected officials are aware, whether in support or opposition to this project, that
the completion of this project is a major milestone for this community, culminating efforts
to provide a long-term sustainable supply of water that started with ideas about a Buck
Mountain Reservoir as far back as the late 1970s and endured the major drought of
2002. Although public comments at our meetings regarding water conservation have
waned significantly since it was clear this new construction would proceed, we believe it
remains a very important community objective that we use water wisely and sustain our
new supply for as far into the future as we can. Public education on conservation will
continue to be coordinated by joint efforts of the ACSA and City.
R WSA staff has begun work on revising our Drought Response and Contingency Plan,
originally adopted in 2007, to develop new milestones for drought declarations that take
into account the ·new storage. We expect this revision to be adopted later this year and
be effective with the "dry season" in 2015.
4. Cost Share Agreements: An important milestone was achieved in March with approval of
a Wastewater Projects Cost Allocation Agreement by the City and ACSA. The
Agreement, negotiated over approximately two years, provides formulas by which R WSA
will allocate costs of wastewater projects in its present and future CIPs between the
ACSA and City.
5. Ivy Materials Utilization Center: The RSWA and County presently have an executed
contract, as amended, extending the operation of this facility through June 30, 2015.
There is no current agreement for this facility with the City. RSW A and County officials
met with DEQ in February whereby DEQ is making it a legal condition that a narrative
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
plan meeting specified criteria be developed and submitted by April 1, 2015 or DEQ will
require that the existing transfer station close on July 1, 2015. A Letter of Agreement
addressing these conditions is attached. The plan must clearly define what publicly
provided solid waste services the Board of Supervisors wishes to continue to provide
within its jurisdiction, which agency will provide these services, and a milestone schedule
to complete infrastructure to provide these services. The infrastructure may be improving
the existing transfer station to include enclosing the facility, a new t ransfer station, and/or
one or more convenience centers. Our Board of Directors recognizes the June 30, 2015
deadline as firm unless there is a written narrative plan approved by at least the County
Board of Supervisors before next April 1, and we are aware the County has taken the
lead on developing this narrative plan and is actively discussing this matter.”
_____
RWSA Executive Director, Tom Frederick, addressed the Board, stating that he has provided an
update on GAC, focusing on the timetable. The Crozet and Scottsville water plants are currently out to
bid – with the urban plants scheduled for bid in September/October. Mr. Frederick said that for the urban
plants, the risk reduction plan – using powder-activated carbon – is an interim step to get the stage two
rules met which go into effect in 2015, and that process begins November 1. Mr. Frederick said that staff
is working hard to get the equipment in place to be able to conduct that. Staff fed powdered carbon
before, for taste and odor control of drinking water, but it is not at the level that they are going to have to
feed it for the risk reduction plan. He said that with the exception of the Observatory plant, the current
equipment is not big enough and will need to be upsized. Mr. Frederick said the RWSA Board had a
presentation by their laboratory director along with personnel from the Service Authority and the City
recently, talking about efforts on taste and odor control of drinking water. He stated that the three staffs
have been working together quite cooperatively, and there is a panel that tastes the water and has their
palate trained to make assessments.
Mr. Frederick said that the last schedule submitted by the contractor for the Ragged Mountain
Dam two weeks ago indicated that they would have the dam topped off by June 4, which is that day, and
he will hear later as to whether that was actually achieved or not. He said that if they do top off the dam,
they have some cleanup and miscellaneous work to make sure there is grass planted, erosion and
sediment control, etc., before those devices are removed – but they are extremely close to getting the top
layer of earth on the new dam. Mr. Frederick stated that RWSA is hoping to have the dam dedication in
September, and they are looking forward to celebrating with the community.
He reported that Rivanna has also started revising its drought response and contingency plan,
with the “watch,” “warning,” and “emergency” declarations – and those will be updated to new storage
levels in the reservoirs and the new stream flow release requirements. He said that the plan will not need
to be implemented until the following year, but they are already working on getting it done. Mr. Frederick
mentioned that the new release structure for the Sugar Hollow Dam is in construction and should be
finished in the next few weeks. He thanked the Board for their work on the wastewater cost-share
agreements, and said that his hope is that the Rivanna Board of Directors can focus more on their
fiduciary responsibilities to the customers of this community with less attention to who is paying what. Mr.
Frederick said that most of the wastewater system has been refurbished over the years, and they are well
on their way to being “world-class,” but there are ongoing issues such as odor control for which he really
wants to engage citizens.
Mr. Frederick stated that he has provided a summary of information on the Schenks Branch
interceptor, noting that the County is still negotiating with the City on this and encouraging them to reach
a solution that is amicable and allows the project to move forward. He said that many citizens are hoping
for a solution that does not involve closing McIntire Road for a lengthy period. He said that he feels
confident that the community does not want a solution that is numerous times more expensive than the
most economical one – especially involving a pump station in downtown Charlottesville just because they
have to pump around the jointly-owned property. He referenced a letter of agreement signed with the
Department of Environmental Quality on solid waste, stating that the commitment the RWSA Board
clearly understands is that absent a narrative plan due April 1, 2015 that includes a list of things that DEQ
wants, the Ivy plant will close to the public on July 1, 2015. He said that it may not have to close on that
date if a sufficient plan is submitted, and cautioned the Board that this is not a simple solution – with the
political solution not necessarily being the one that will work or be economical. Mr. Frederick encouraged
the Board to talk with people in the solid waste industry, as they have used consultants in the past.
Ms. Dittmar commented that Mr. Frederick has an easier job because he does not have to look at
it from the political side, but the Board was sent to look at it from that side in addition to “filtering
community value” as far as fiscal responsibility. Mr. Frederick acknowledged that he does not have that
burden, but said that he try to plan ahead.
Mr. Foley said that staff is on schedule to bring forth the Ivy item in July and will be working with
Mr. Frederick, consultants, and others to present some alternatives for the near -term option at Ivy.
Ms. Palmer stated that the advisory committee is also working on a long-term solution and agree
with the need to engage outside help.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Mr. Boyd said that later in the meeting the Board will discuss the Natural Resources section of the
Comp Plan, including conservation of water resources. He recalled a presentation regarding the capacity
issues of the water system in which the community were #2 in the country in conservation in per-capita
use of water.
Mr. Frederick stated that this is testing his memory a bit, but he recalls a table in that report that
included 10-15 communities, and Charlottesville/Albemarle was the second-lowest in consumption per
capita. He said that the consultant who prepared that report indicated that one of the contributing factors
is that the community is low in industry but high in institutional, compared to many other communities –
but it is still an excellent reflection on how the community takes conservation seriously.
Ms. Mallek said that the study was done in the mid-2000s, at the end of a four-year drought, and
people forget very quickly – so they must always be mindful of impending shortages and conserving head
of time rather than later, because the effects on the groundwater are bad if they run the reservoir down
low.
Ms. Palmer said that there are numerous conservation reports done and the ACSA and the City
public works have gotten together to do a few reports, but she is not sure if they are done on a regular
basis or as requested. Mr. O’Connell said that the reports are updated annually.
Ms. Palmer said they have done an excellent job and they were trying to correct for the effect of
the drought. It looks as though they were continuing on with low per-capita consumption.
Ms. Mallek commented that the tiered rate structure has made it painfully aware for people who
have made mistakes.
Board members thanked Mr. Frederick and Mr. O’Connell for their quarterly reports.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Dominion Power Report, Susan King, External Affairs Representative/State
& Local Affairs/Dominion Virginia Power.
Ms. Susan King said that she will provide a report on transmission and substation projects, which
refer to the whole grid of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Ms. King said that the
Hydraulic substation is a $4 million substation that they built behind the Dominion office on Hydraulic
Road which provides four new circuits in this area. She stated that they are currently working on the
rearrangement of those circuits, some of the existing circuits and the new circuits which will provide much
more opportunity to shift loads during the peak summer months and to prevent any outages due to peak
loads, and for service restoration to limit the time customers are without power. Ms. King reported that
the new lines and substation were energized in mid-May for the new substation at Hollymead, and that
serves Hollymead as well as Rappahannock Electric Coop. She stated that they are in the last 10 miles
of the 43 miles of the Dooms to Bremo transmission line project, which is the most challenging section
because it is the most mountainous. Ms. King said that they are waiting for a permit from the National
Park Service, which is expected in late August, to allow them to complete the project by the fall.
She reported that Dominion Power is not just investing in transmission and substation work but in
the entire distribution system, and they continue to add more projects to improve reliability. The
distribution lines come out of the substations to feed homes and businesses. Ms. King said that fusing
projects and reclosing projects are intended to put in some proactive devices in order to limit outages, the
number of customers affected, and the time. She stated that when lights blink or dim, that is probably a
“recloser,” which opens the circuit to clear a temporary fault without causing an outage, and then closing
back in. She said capital asset rebuild and circuit reconditioning involve going in and identifying circuits
that are having issues, with replacement of poles, transformers, fuses, etc. in order to further harden that
system. Ms. King stated that strategic undergrounding is typically on the main line, not the distribution
lines, and those are very expensive projects that often provide a lot of benefit for the investment. She
said that those can be challenging because of easements, but typically residences and businesses are in
agreement with it.
Ms. King reported that the goal of Dominion’s distribution undergrounding tap-line project is to
reduce restoration time, especially during major events. Typically tap-line outages happen in
neighborhoods and take the longest to restore. She said that the SCC has looked at undergrounding in a
variety of ways, and it is prohibitively expensive to do the whole system. In 2004, the SCC estimated that
the cost to underground the system for all utilities across the state at about $83 billion, which is a cost
borne by customers. Ms. King said that the storms over the last few years have been very detrimental, so
Dominion has focused on how to make great gains in improving reliability and preventing outages during
major events, as well as reducing the amount of restoration time. She said that their recommended
strategy is to underground about 20% of their worst-performing tap lines, which they estimate will reduce
repair locations by about 60% – as those are the hardest repairs to make, often taking the longest. Ms.
King noted that research has shown that undergrounding some of those lines will reduce restoration tim e
by about 50%. The program will take about 10 years to complete with challenges in that overhead
easements will have to be converted to underground easements. She said that they are also working
with other utility partners that are on the poles to get t heir buy-in to go underground to get rid of the poles
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
in people’s backyards. Ms. King stated that this program is not based on the number of customers but on
performance, adding that their worst-performing circuit is in east Richmond, serving two customers. They
will be attending homeowners’ associations meetings, etc., to gain some neighborhood buy-in.
Ms. King reported on Dominion’s restoration and recovery strategy, stating that she included with
her report a map and a press release about hurricanes and summer storm season, which they consider
starting on June 1. She explained that to restore power, they start at the transmission level then go to the
substation, the main circuit, critical services such as 91 1 centers, hospitals and pumping stations, and
working down to individual customers. Ms. King urged the Board to encourage their constituents to call
Dominion at 1-866-366-4357 (DOM HELP) anytime they have an outage, or see a line or a tree down.
She said this is also accessible from mobile devices. She stated that Dominion also has a new feature,
text alerts, which is sent out in a broadcast message for things like severe weather pending, restoration
progress, and other pertinent important information. Ms. King said that this may become more interactive
in the future, such as power status checks, but this provides some information on mobile devices.
Ms. Mallek thanked her for Dominion’s more aggressive approach for tree trimming, despite initial
public objection, noting that one wooded lot in Earlysville caused a five-day outage in the area because it
happened to be the feeder line. She said that the Supervisors can help these efforts by explaining that
tree removal will help prevent major outages and other damage. Ms. King said that undergrounding lines
makes perfect sense because in heavily treed areas, Dominion can trim in every two or three years, but
still have tree-related outages. She added that most tree-related outages are from trees that com e from
outside of the right of way – 30-foot right of way, 40-foot pole, 100-foot tree.
Ms. Mallek asked what kind of closure will come to the roadway that is built for transmission line
work from Forest Lakes to Keswick, because sometimes people will use those paths for four-wheelers.
Ms. King stated that she is not certain if a final plan has been established yet, but she will check on it and
get back to her.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. King for the report and the map, which shows work being done in
particular districts and where Dominion operates in those areas.
Ms. King said that for security reasons they do not issue the location of substations, but said that
if Board members have specific questions they could contact her.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Closed Meeting.
At 11:52 a.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees,
and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments; under subsection
(3) to discuss the acquisition of real property for court facilities because an open meeting discussion
would diversely affect the bargaining position of the County; under subsection (7) to consult with and be
briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice relation to: 1. The
negotiation of easements on the County Office Building property; 2. An employment agreement; and 3.
The Fair Labor Standards Act; and under subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel
and staff regarding probable litigation concerning: 1. A violation of a subdivision agreement because a
public discussion would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County; and 2. An employment
benefit compensation claim because a public discussion would adversely affect the litigation posture of
the County. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 1:35 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 meeti ng
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Mr. Boyd seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Non-Agenda Item. Resolution – Disallowing Claim.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the proposed Resolution to Disallow Claim. Ms. Mallek seconded
the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution in full is set out below.)
RESOLUTION TO DISALLOW CLAIM
WHEREAS, Joseph Pace, by counsel, has asserted a claim against the County of Albemarle as
set forth in the letter dated April 10, 2014 from David W. Thomas to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors for the payment of retirement compensation which exceeds the amount authorized under the
Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (“VERIP”); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that Mr. Pace has been paid all benefits due to him
under VERIP; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the claim is not supported by the facts or by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia disallows the claim of Joseph Pace for additional payment of VERIP retirement compensation.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Ms. McKeel moved to appoint/reappoint the following individuals:
appoint Ms. Katharine Welch to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee
(CTAC), with said term to expire April 3, 2017.
reappoint Ms. Elizabeth Russell, Mr. Jared Loewenstein and Mr. Jeff Werner to the
Historic Preservation Committee, with said terms to expire June 4, 2017.
reappoint Mr. Peter DeMartino to the Region Ten Community Services Board, with said
term to expire June 30, 2017.
appoint Supervisor Liz Palmer to the Solid Waste Committee as the BOS Liaison with
said term to expire December 31, 2014.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. County Fire Rescue - Career firefighters serving as volunteers within the same
jurisdiction.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that at the Board of Supervisors
meeting on October 2nd of 2013, Albemarle County Fire Rescue (ACFR) Chief Dan Eg gleston provided a
presentation on the Fair Labor Standards Act and its impact on ACFR Career Staff volunteering within
the County. At the conclusion of that presentation there were questions raised by volunteer chiefs from
Crozet and Scottsville about the extent of the information provided. The Board requested that Chief
Preston Gentry from the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company work with staff to provide the Board additional
information regarding this issue.
ACFR staff worked with Chief Gentry to produce the attached memo (Attachment A), which was
presented to the FEMS Board at its April 23, 2014 meeting. The FEMS Board took no position on
whether the County policy to not allow career personnel to volunteer should be changed and passed a
motion to forward the memo to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a federal labor law of general and nationwide application,
including overtime, minimum wages and child labor protections and the Equal Pay Act. The FLS A
generally does not permit an individual to perform hours of volunteer service for his or her employer when
such hours involve the same type of services that the individual is employed to perform. Specifically, the
Department of Labor's position is that a career firefighter working for a fire department cannot volunteer
without compensation for the “same department.” The "same department" can include a volunteer
department if it is determined for FLSA purposes to be the same employer as the locality that employs the
career firefighter.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Unless exempt, employees covered by the FLSA volunteering for the same employer must
receive overtime pay for normally scheduled hours worked at a rate not less than one and one-half their
regular rate of pay. Albemarle County career fire fighters volunteering their time for a volunteer
department within the County, if deemed to be the same employer, would be required to be paid for
overtime. Therefore, it has been the County’s policy not to allow career firefighters to volunteer their time
as a firefighter with any of the volunteer fire or rescue departments serving Albemarle County.
Some Virginia localities allow their career firefighters (i.e., employees of the jurisdiction) to
willingly volunteer their time without compensation to volunteer departments within the same jurisdiction
in which they work. At the Board’s direction, staff surveyed other peer and like-sized localities within
Virginia and asked two specific questions:
1. Do you allow career firefighters to volunteer with other volunteer departments within the
same jurisdiction?
2. If you allow career firefighters to volunteer within the same jurisdiction, what policies are
in place to govern the process?
Staff surveyed 18 Virginia localities, including Albemarle’s peer localities (listed be low in bold with
asterisk), localities surrounding Albemarle County that employ career firefighters, and other jurisdictions
that use a combination of volunteer and career personnel for fire and rescue services. The results were
as follows:
Of the localities surveyed, 11 of 18 did not allow their career firefighters to volunteer within the
same jurisdiction, including all of Albemarle County’s peer localities.
2. If you allow career firefighters to volunteer within the same jurisdiction, what policies are
in place to govern the process?
Of the 7 localities that allow their career firefighters to volunteer, two of them (James City County
and Rockingham County) pay their employees overtime for time worked when they respond to calls as a
volunteer but do not pay employees for stand-by or administrative time worked as a volunteer. James City
County and Rockingham County do not have policies that govern the pay-for-volunteering process.
The remaining 5 localities that allow their career staff to volunteer (Augusta County, Campbell
County, Loudoun County, Louisa County, and Orange County) allow career staff to volunteer with certain
conditions, which are set forth in Attachment B.
The budget impact cannot be determined at this time.
Staff recommends that the Board make no policy change in this matter because County Policy is
consistent with the County’s peer jurisdictions operating similar combination departments utilizing
volunteer and career personnel for fire and rescue services and the current policy is prudent to protect the
County from potentially significant FLSA claims.
_____
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Chief Dan Eggleston addressed the Board, stating that he was
before them to present some additional information regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act and its impact
on Albemarle County career staff volunteering within the same jurisdiction. He said that Chief Preston
Gentry of Crozet Fire Department, who is also Vice-Chairman of the FEMS Board, was at the meeting to
answer questions. Chief Eggleston reported that at the request of the Board, staff researched and
developed a presentation on this issue, which was delivered to the Board in October 2013, with
information on how the County interprets the Fair Labor Standards Act and how that interpretation
impacts the County’s decision not to allow career staff to volunteer. He said that the interpretation as
applied to the County’s system structure means that if non-exempt employees were to volunteer their
time at a station, they would be paid time and a half, and therefore the policy has been to not allow them
to volunteer.
He said that in the staffs report in October, they presented information from a survey of 18
localities in Virginia that have both volunteer and career member s, and that survey showed that 11 of 18
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
localities did not allow career firefighters to volunteer within the same jurisdiction – including all of the
Albemarle peer localities. Chief Eggleston said that of the seven localities that allow career staff to
volunteer, they did have some policies that govern the process, as included as an attachment to the
executive summary. He said that after the October 2 meeting, there were some questions raised by the
chiefs from Crozet and Scottsville about the extent and depth of the information that was provided, so the
Board directed staff to work with the chiefs to further research the topic and come back with some
additional information – and that’s also included in their executive summary. Chief Eggleston said that
staff worked with the chiefs, and the information was gathered then summarized in a letter from Chief
Gentry addressed to the FEMS Board. He stated that the FEMS Board reviewed the information,
discussed the topic, and approved the letter as presented at their April 23, 2014 meeting, and the letter is
also in the summary.
Chief Eggleston said that in that process, they looked at the detailed information about the
policies that govern the process of allowing career staff to volunteer, and the seven localities that allow
career staff to volunteer have lengthy and in-depth policies, with limits prohibiting career staff from
working in the same station in which they worked. He stated that if that same concept was applied in
Albemarle, it would be limited to Crozet, Scottsville Fire, and North Garden Fire. Chief Eggleston said
that Loudoun went to the extent of having preapproval by the locality to volunteer, and Orange County
limited the work hours that people could volunteers to address issues related to e mployees being
overworked. He stated that most localities do not allow career staff to hold corporate office or officer
position within the volunteer organization, to reduce any conflicts of interest. Chief Eggleston said that
more complex issues such as accident insurance or worker’s compensation would require further review
should the Board decide to change its policy.
Ms. Mallek said that the report mentions workmen’s compensation and accident insurance, but
she thought that the volunteers were already covered by injury insurance when they’re on the scene –
whether they’re volunteer or paid staff, so that dichotomy wouldn’t exist in Albemarle. Mr. Davis said that
it is not worker’s comp.
Chief Eggleston said that volunteers are covered under a separate accident and injury program.
Mr. Davis said that the benefits are similar, but also different. He explained that they would not
be covered by worker’s compensation.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be a decision volunteers would have to make when considering
whether to volunteer, and stated that when this was presented to the FEMS Board, staff had emphasized
that this was all very comparable in terms of coverage.
Chief Eggleston stated that in terms of coverage, there are certain downfalls to workmen’s comp
and certain advantages to the Provident insurance, and the feedback staff has received is to keep it the
way it is. He said that they are still concerned about the catastrophic type injury and whether a volunteer
would be covered under that, because right now there’s a cap. Chief Eggleston said that right now the
goal is to keep the coverage the same, with workmen’s comp for the career staff and Provident for
volunteers.
Ms. Palmer asked if the three stations that could use this the most would be the all-volunteer
stations, and if the County had this policy then they could allow career firefighters to only be in those
three fire stations.
Chief Eggleston said that would be one approach, and some localities have chosen it just to avoid
any conflict and potential issues surrounding having a person working the same station at which they
volunteer, so Scottsville, Crozet and North Garden would be applicable.
Ms. Palmer asked Chief Gentry how this might benefit his station. Chief Gentry stated that
Crozet has lost a total of 13 members to County career staff, and having them back would mean many
more volunteers. He said that when a person applies for a County position, they k now they must give up
their volunteer position in the community, and if Crozet had not lost the13 members they would be in
better shape.
Ms. Palmer said that they were lost because those members wanted to have jobs with the
County, and asked if he thought they would still volunteer with him. Chief Gentry said that he had
interviewed several of the members, who said they would like to come back and volunteer.
Ms. Dittmar said that she had a conversation with a battalion chief in either Chesterfield or
Henrico, who told her that the way it works for them is to hire first from their volunteer pool – and that has
enabled them to recruit more volunteers because it’s considered a dress rehearsal for a career job, if
that’s where they head. She said that they considered it to be a positive thing, and asked Chief Gentry if
he saw that as a possibility for Albemarle.
Chief Gentry said that career and volunteer staff are trained under the same system, so if a
person is hired by the County he’s already trained, and they have to do an orientation for the career
department, but they are ready to go when they come out. He stated that the problem they have from the
volunteer standpoint is that they take the time to send them to training and get them prepared, but when
they go to the County the volunteer stations doesn’t see them anymore, unless it’s on the scene.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Ms. Dittmar said that there is a balance between the department having a strong volunteer
recruitment effort so that people were coming to volunteer, and then having to volunteer for a minimum of
a couple of years before they were considered a candidate. She stated that those other localities were
sending the people who really want this to be a career from the volunteer side, but were replenishing the
system over and over again with new people.
Chief Gentry said that Crozet has put so many people into the career division, their flow of
volunteers has slacked a bit as there’s only a finite number of people wanting to be a firefighter. He said
that he has been on both sides of the fence and understands the situation, but Crozet, Scottsville, North
Garden and Western Albemarle Rescue don’t have career staff – so if the County wants to use them as a
pilot program that’s fine, and they would like to have the privilege of having volunteers at the station,
either career or newcomer.
Ms. Dittmar said that the County was still searching for a way to make that happen but hadn’t
found it yet, and asked if Congressmen had been asked to tweak the legislation to exclude fir efighters
from the FLSA provisions. Chief Gentry stated that they could approach it that way, but it would be a long
process and he wasn’t sure that it would end up allowing the leniency.
Mr. Davis said that in 1985, the FLSA was amended to allow volunteers to do work for a public
agency employer that they’re paid to do, as long as it wasn’t the same position – and prior to that, a
person couldn’t volunteer at all for their public employer. He said that currently in private employment,
you can’t volunteer to do any volunteer work for your private employer even if it’s a different job function
than what you’re hired to do. He stated that the FLSA has a lot of policy issues that localities have
problems with, and there have been many attempts since the 1980s to fix those problems, but it has been
very difficult to accomplish at the national level because of a lot of special interest in the policy itself.
Mr. Davis stated that the County would love to have an exemption that would allow firefighters to
volunteer, but the way the law is established, the FLSA “requires payment for hours worked if the
volunteer volunteers to do the same work for his public agency employer that he is paid to do.” He said
that it creates a challenge in making sure that a volunt eer that is volunteering for Crozet isn’t doing the
work for the County, and that’s an issue of risk. Mr. Davis said that the second risk is to determine
whether the employee is truly volunteering or not. He stated that the Fair Labor Standards Act focus es
on those two issues, and that’s where the County’s concerns lie. Mr. Davis said that staff understands
Chief Gentry’s position on this and would love to be able to support it, but that risk factor is something that
most similar jurisdictions that have considered this issue have not found that it can be supported from a
risk/liability standpoint.
Ms. Palmer said that she is very interested in supporting a situation where they are narrowing it
down just to the volunteer stations, and asked why a County employee who’s a firefighter and is
volunteering with the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department would be considered volunteering for the County.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s a bit tricky because of the sentence the Board adopted “with our system”.
Mr. Davis explained that there are a number of factors that would be considered to determine if it was the
same employer – the governance structure, which in Albemarle County is a coordinated system; funding;
policies and procedures; and a number of factors that would be considered to determine if there are really
two employers or an umbrella of one employer. He emphasized that in a system like Albemarle’s, that’s
not crystal clear, and it may change over time – so that creates a risk because it becomes a factual
determination as to whether or not it’s one employer after a lawsuit is filed. Mr. Davis said that he would
love to answer the question more clearly, but there is a range of factors and considerations that would be
taken into effect based on what someone alleges the facts to be in a lawsuit, and that’s where the liability
and risk begins. He said that the labor department has issued opinions in the past that says if there’s
clearly a separate employer – in this case, an independently organized volunteer department – and no
complicating factors, then it may be something that the risk is reduced in. He said that in a system like
Albemarle’s that is more complicated than that, it becomes difficult to give a definitive answer.
Ms. Palmer asked if Mr. Davis had written anything up on this in the past, in previous
consideration of the matter. Mr. Davis said that he has avoided providing a written opinion on this in the
past, but there is information he could provide to the Board.
Ms. Palmer said that she would like for this not to die.
Ms. Mallek said that this is further than they’ve made it on this issue in a long time. She asked
Chief Gentry if he saw any problems with the limitations that other localities impose, such as always being
at a different station from where a firefighter is assigned for his job, having work hour separations
between volunteer time and staff time so there is a seam between service, and limiting paid staff from
serving in volunteer officer positions.
Chief Gentry said that all of the localities that were contacted said that they had been doing it for
a number of years – five at a minimum – without any problems, and they all agreed that stations would
need to set their standards or operating procedures before initiating the policy. He said that they have not
had any lawsuits, and Loudoun County indicated that if they did, they would probably cut the program out.
Chief Gentry emphasized that everyone seems to work with the system well, and there have not been
any problems.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
Ms. Mallek said that she became aware of someone from Crozet who had been offered a post in
Albemarle took one in Augusta instead because they did not want to be forced to give up volunteering at
the Crozet station. Chief Gentry said that he has had several members who have gone to other localities
because they didn’t want to give up the ability to volunteer in their own communities.
Ms. Mallek said that she really liked the idea of hiring the apprenticeships through the volunteers
as the gateway to the fire service, and felt that people would stay longer because they would come from
within the system.
Ms. Palmer said that she had spoken with Chief George Stephens from the North Garden fire
station, and he echoed what Chief Gentry has said. She said that he also has a friend who is the chief in
Shenandoah County and they have not had any problems.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Chief Gentry and Chief Eggleston for coming to the meeting today and
providing input, and stated that the Board is very open-minded about finding a solution for this – whether
it’s within the system or talking to Congressmen about this – and it’s a work in progress.
Chief Gentry thanked the Board for being open-minded and for not shutting the door on this.
Mr. Foley said that staff has worked hard over the last several years to structure a fire/rescue
advisory board to the Board of Supervisors, and have done a lot with a new ordinance to establish that
advisory board. He said that it was important for Chief Eggleston to clarify that this issue did go before
that group and what their position was on the issue.
Chief Eggleston said that Chief Gentry’s letter did come before the FEMS Board in April, and they
did have some discussions about it, with the chiefs understanding the complexity of th e issue. He stated
that the position they took was just move it forward to see where it would go.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s difficult for the chiefs to take a position on this, because it does not apply
to all the stations equally.
Ms. Palmer said that if they limit it to the volunteer stations, it seems to take out a lot of the issues
of concern, and the remaining question would be who the employer is.
Mr. Davis stated that that’s part of the issue but it is more complicated than that because when
there are joint responses and there are volunteers in Crozet who are working in conjunction with other
paid staff on a call, that creates some instances where there would be potential liability. He said that the
more limited they make it, the more they reduce the breadth of the risk – but they can never reduce the
risk entirely.
Ms. Palmer said that’s the same with everything – essentially, that’s life.
Ms. Mallek agreed.
Chief Eggleston said that one of the issues that has been discussed in depth was training, with
minimum expectations of staff to train and develop programs, and if a career staff person is required to do
that – but is volunteering their time to do the same thing at a volunteer station, the question is where the
career portion of that ends and the volunteer part of that pick up. He stated that it’s not all related to the
actual responses, but also to non-operational duties, and that’s where it gets very cloudy.
Mr. Davis said that the benefits of having a coordinated fire department unfortunately make this
particular issue more difficult, but the joint staffing and training, joint protocols and policies and funding –
all of those positive things – make the Fair Labor Standards Act issue more difficult.
Ms. Mallek said that perhaps there is clarification that can be added to the system ordinance that
says for all the things they spoke about to enhance the delivery of service to citizens, but this doesn’t
detract from the fact these are independently chartered fire stations with state charters that have their
own governance and operate on their own.
Mr. Davis said that staff tried to make that distinction in the ordinance and recognize the
independence of volunteers to the extent they can throughout the system, bec ause that’s important.
Ms. Mallek said that she was referring to including that from a legal standpoint, and what Mr.
Davis has said was more on the moral and ethics side of the standard.
Chief Gentry asked if the Fair Labor Standards Act directly addressed scheduling, because when
a person goes off duty they sign off and are on their own time. Mr. Davis said that there are requirements
for record-keeping of time.
Ms. Mallek said that it seems that would address Chief Eggleston’s concerns about training. She
thanked the chiefs for their participation.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
Mr. Boyd said that he has great respect for Chief Gentry and all the volunteers, and wished there
was a way to work this out, but he wasn’t willing to put the County at risk. He stated that he thought he
heard a solution to the problem though, and that was to have volunteers to pursue career jobs in another
locality – Augusta, Buckingham, and the City of Charlottesville, or other jurisdictions.
Chief Gentry said that there are very limited places that hire career firefighters, and since they’ve
been trained under the system and know everyone in the system, it isn’t fair to say to them that they can’t
go back to their communities and volunteer.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Courts Project Follow-up.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that on April 9, 2014, the Board held
a work session with stakeholders from the Court system. Stakeholder representation at the work session
included three judges, the County’s Commonwealth’s Attorney, the County’s Sheriff, the County’s Circuit
Court Clerk, the City of Charlottesville’s Mayor, and representatives of the County/City Public Defender’s
office and the Charlottesville Albemarle Bar Association. The purpose of this work session was to discuss
the two basic Courts Project options under consideration by the Board (Downtown Renovation/Expansion
and County Courts Complex Concept).
During the work session, staff presented primary factors and considerations associated with the
Downtown option and the concepts of relocating all Courts functions to the County at either a Greenfield
site or urban infill/redevelopment site. The primary purpose of the work session was to provide the Courts
stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback directly to the Board regarding the options and impacts
of both options.
The Courts stakeholders reaffirmed their support of remaining Downtown as the preferred option
in order to avoid significant disruptions to court functions and inefficiencies they believe would occur if any
portion of the courts were to be relocated to the County.
Staff is now seeking Board direction on next steps. The primary consideration is whether or not
to continue to pursue both options in parallel or focus solely on one as the preferred option. Based on
that direction, staff will develop a list of major milestones and a general timeline for one or both of the
options for review with the Board. At the same time, staff will begin the initial steps to pursue the option
or options identified to assure progress continues. Should the Board determine the Downtown
Renovation/Expansion is still under consideration, staff will develop a proposed development strategy and
term sheet to address property acquisitions, interim facility improvements and possible parking scenarios
for the Board’s consideration. Should the Board decide to continue to pursue the option of a County
Courts Complex, staff will explore public/private partnership opportunities and develop and recommend a
public engagement plan for County citizens to provide input, as this option would require a referendum to
move the County seat. As part of this option, staff would further develop an interim solution to
accommodate current space and use needs of both courts while the County option is vetted further. Staff
will be prepared to answer questions stemming from the April Courts Complex Stakeholder meeting.
The total CIP request for the Courts Project is approximately $43 Million over a 7-year period and
is based on the Downtown Renovation/Expansion option.
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff regarding whether or not to continue to pursue both
Court expansion options in parallel or focus solely on one as the preferred option.
_____
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, addressed the Board, stating
that this was a follow-up to their April Board meeting where they met in a work session with court
stakeholders, with excellent representation from judges, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, the Bar
Association, the Public Defender, the City. As an outcome of that meeting, staff was directed to schedule
this work session so as to provide an opportunity for the Board to discuss what they heard – and as lead-
up to that discussion they reviewed the two options that are on the table – the option to remain downtown
and utilize the Levy Building, and they also had a presentation on what a relocatio n to Albemarle County
might look like. Mr. Henry noted that the FY15 budget includes approximately $2.3 million for some
design funds for the courts project, but they won’t spend anything until the Board provides some direction.
He said that the hope today is to answer questions and get direction as to whether to pursue one option
as a preferred option or parallel process.
Mr. Foley said that the central question is whether to pursue parallel downtown and out in the
County options, or to focus almost exclusively on one, after their discussion with stakeholders.
Ms. Mallek said that she found the discussion with stakeholders compelling for many reasons,
and has found the parking issue to be real – even as an able-bodied walker – to find a place and be able
to stay for two, three or four hours. She stated that there is no way disabled or elderly people can walk
uphill three blocks from the garage to the courts, and she hoped they could get some help from the City to
enable the courts to stay downtown and have it be reasonable.
Ms. Palmer said that she shared that opinion, and had double-parked downtown before to help
her elderly mother get somewhere safe so she could find a parking lot. She stated that the comments
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
made in the stakeholder meeting about parking “not being that bad” downtown was ridiculous, and they
need to have a discussion with City Councilors about it.
Mr. Sheffield said that for him the overriding issue is the cost, and he is not convinced that the
costs will be the same and was not sure what resources were necessary to get a better understanding of
the comparative costs. He stated that he planned to take it out into the community so they are aware of
the money that would be spent on this, and to try to give them understanding what the $50 million
investment would be – and what the return on that investment would be. Mr. Sheffield said that he
typically finds parking spaces downtown in the court area, although those spots do have a two -hour limit,
and to keep it downtown they must have a very serious solution to parking before making any investment.
Ms. McKeel agreed with fellow Supervisors, stating that the only thing she would add is that they
are talking about the situation as it exists now, and if they spend $40-50 million on a new court system,
that needs to last for a long time, so they need to consider parking for the future.
Mr. Boyd stated that Martha Jefferson Hospital had a very similar situation, and moved their
facility from downtown out to Pantops, which has worked out well for them but initially had some of the
same problems. He said that the County had not yet looked at a greenfield site where the infrastructure
was already in place, and he would like to pursue that as well as possible public/private partnerships –
such as those Worrell Enterprises has done at Pantops. Mr. Boyd stated that in their meeting with the
judges and Commonwealth’s Attorney they mentioned measures taken to secure the building, including
building a tunnel between the two courts – and asked if staff had really compared what the additional
costs would be to set up the kind of security needed in a modern day court system.
Mr. Henry said that he didn’t recall anything about a tunnel.
Ms. Mallek said that the sally port was intended to provide some of that security. Mr. Sheffield
stated that in the discussion with stakeholders, someone had mentioned a “secure tunnel” type of
approach.
Mr. Foley said that if they were to build new, they could build in state of the art security, but they
can’t quite get there with the downtown system and the most modern, secure facilities would be done with
a new facility. He noted that the consultant felt that they could provide adequate security with the
downtown model.
Mr. Boyd said that in the joint meeting they had, there was discussion of measures that could
make it adequately secure in a downtown location – and they need to look at whether that would add
significant additional cost.
Mr. Foley said that they would need to make some kind of assumption for that, and would need to
talk to the sheriff about what he would envision to get to that level, before being able to estimate a cost.
Mr. Henry said that the study for the downtown option that includes the Levy Building
renovation/addition, and the renovation of the existing historic courthouse does assume additions to
security and improvements such that it would be a secure facility. He added that he didn’t recall any
mention of a tunnel.
Mr. Boyd said that one of the constitutional officers had mentioned the tunnel. Mr. Foley said that
a state of the art, tunnel-type of solution was not a cost factor or assumption in the study.
Ms. Dittmar stated that task for the Board was to give guidance on whether they were selecting
one site or the other, or whether they need to keep a dual track. She said that they might be looking at a
public/private partnership or a public/public partnership with the City, and they would be meeting with the
City on July 1st so that would be a good time to discuss this further – with more work needed on the
public/private approach.
Mr. Foley said that if the consensus is that staff should continue to look at the out of county
options along with downtown and working on the parking, they’ve talked among staff about how to
proceed on the County option – and the first step would be to go out to the community and share the
same kind of presentations with stakeholders, and inform them that there is a big decision the Board is
considering and the options they are thinking about to solicit feedback. He stated that staff’s thought was
to do this with the advisory councils, since it is unknown still where the facility would be located. Mr.
Foley said that the idea is to develop a public engagement plan around the court decision and sha re the
basic information that’s been presented to the Board, then solicit feedback from the public.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees with that approach, but he thinks that anyone that uses or has used the
courthouse should be a prerequisite for providing input, because anyone who has had to use the
downtown courts or records office has had to deal with the parking issues that anecdotally mean
something.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
Ms. Dittmar said that she works a lot downtown and rarely has trouble finding parking in the
garage, and she doesn’t know why the County doesn’t stamp for parking as the City does. She said that
perhaps the occasional visitor has the most trouble with this because they aren’t used to navigating it.
Ms. Palmer stated that she has been to parking garages several times downtown when they were
closed, and once even asked the City to pay the ticket because she was in a City-County negotiation
meeting and could only find a two-hour space. She said that you can’t go out in the middle of a meeting
after two hours to move your car, and the reason she had gotten stuck was because the parking garages
were completely full.
Ms. McKeel said that she had experienced similar problems.
Ms. Dittmar said that Mr. Bob Stroh had mentioned that he had traffic information about that, but
wasn’t sure if he had presented it in any written form.
Ms. Mallek said that she hadn’t seen anything, but the City officials at the meeting seemed to
rebuff the County’s concerns rather than acknowledging them, and it doesn’t make sense to continue to
pursue a downtown option if they can’t get a partnership with the City to help them stay downtown.
Ms. Palmer stated that there are different times when it is busier, such as afternoons.
Ms. Mallek said that’s when the General District Court docket is underway, and that has the
largest number of people.
Ms. McKeel said that even if it didn’t happen much now, they are planning for a facility that’s
going to have to last a long time.
Mr. Foley stated that this courts complex would have to last them 40 or 50 years, and having the
flexibility beyond this one revision is the other issue with being downtown. He said that perhaps video
conferencing might minimize that need, but they didn’t know that yet. Mr. Foley said that the initial
timeline horizon in the study was 30 years, and if there was Board consensus to continue on a parallel
track, staff would come back with a public engagement plan and clarify next steps and timelines for the
downtown option so they can see how those would go in parallel and what the critical path is. He stated
that staff would envision general community meetings, and then pursuit of a public/private partnership of
some sort – even for the greenfield site. He said that staff would probably release their Mind Mixer public
engagement tool to help get some feedback on the court process, and Ms. Catlin would discuss it with
them the following week when reviewing the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that hopefully soon after their meeting with the City, they would know something
about their inclination.
Mr. Foley said that they may not know right after that meeting, and based on previous experience
they would have to see what kind of negotiation might have to take place.
Ms. Mallek asked if a staff person would need to present at each advisory council meeting, or if
Board members could handle it.
Mr. Foley said that staff should be present, but it would be helpful to have Board members
attending to answer questions and reinforce points. He stated that Ms. Catlin would start this
coordination process immediately.
Ms. McKeel asked if a time had been determined for the joint meeting with the City on July 1.
Mr. Foley said that it was 12:00-4:00 p.m., and the location would be PVCC.
Mr. Henry said that Ms. Catlin had suggested a public meeting as a kickoff to this discussion, and
had suggested avoiding July since it’s the worst month of the year for public participation. He stated that
they were looking at August for that meeting, with advisory council meetings to follow, and the y would
also need to work on some interim solutions to the court space needs that exist downtown now.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would clarify a path for that as well.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Communication with Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding the
Route 29 Recommended Concept Solutions Package.
Ms. Dittmar said that the Board had a draft letter addressed to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board in advance of their June 18 meeting, and she wanted to make sure the content was acc eptable.
Ms. Palmer said that in the bullet points, the letter says “Hillsdale Drive project extended to
Holiday Drive,” and she thought the extension was to Route 250.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Ms. Mallek stated that this is where VDOT had it for the time being, but at the MPO it was
discussed that they were still working on the engineering as to whether getting to 250 is in the first phase
– so it would be part of the renovation of the interchange at the end of Hydraulic, and as part of the
US29/H250 study, all the interchanges around that triangle were to be worked on to create coherence.
She said that part of it is the 29/250 Bypass interchange, part of it is the extension of Hillsdale, and part of
it is the Hydraulic interchange – and what’s before them is what came out in Mr. Shucet’s
recommendations.
Ms. Dittmar said that in the last panel meeting, he had said “all the way to 250.”
Ms. Mallek said they could certainly add that to the letter, but it is an ongoing project that hasn’t
been designed yet to get all the way to 250.
Ms. Dittmar asked for clarification as to what the Board passed and what the MPO had approved.
Mr. Foley said that his understanding is that this where the recommendation landed, and this is the exact
wording of that – with this making a reference to that package.
Ms. Palmer stated that she wanted to make sure the County was matching it to Mr. Shucet’s
recommendations.
Mr. Sheffield said that at the MPO level, they passed a resolution that the second item was
Hillsdale Drive Extended to Holiday Drive, and those recommendations were put together with that in
mind.
Mr. Boyd stated that the old drawings of that extension showed the 250 extension going right
through Dominion Power, and they just spent $4 million building a big transfer station behind th at.
Mr. Sheffield said that it actually goes through Kroger and Dominion.
Mr. Foley said that the intent is to match the exact language, and if necessary they can change it
if it doesn’t.
Mr. Sheffield said that on VDOT’s website for the Route 29 panel it says “Hillsdale Drive
extension, Hydraulic Road to Holiday Drive, $10 million.” Mr. Foley said that he thought that was correct.
Ms. McKeel said that the only other issue she had was that the sale of the right of way purchase
for the bypass is really important in the Rio and Jack Jouett districts, and Mr. Shucet has indicated that
this should be done “quickly,” and asked if it would be possible to strengthen the language in the bullets
to make it more immediate.
Ms. Mallek suggested using “expedite” the sale.
Mr. Foley said they could say “expeditious sale of right of way.”
Ms. McKeel said that Mr. Shucet had reinforced that point, and Ms. Mallek said that the CTB
members had also.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to have a vote on this, because he is opposed to it.
Mr. Sheffield moved to approve the letter with revisions as discussed. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
(The letter is set out below:)
Commonwealth Transportation Board
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond, VA 23218
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to express our endorsement
of the Route 29 Conceptual Solutions package presented to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) by Philip Shucett on May 13, 2014.
Following a well-attended public hearing held in Albemarle County on May 27, our Board, by a
vote of five to one, directed our Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) appointees to support
the package in its entirety.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Specifically, our Board supports the package’s elements as follows:
Best Buy Ramp Project (Route 29 and US 250 Interchange)
Hillsdale Drive Extended Project (extended to Holiday Drive)
Route 29 Widening Project (extended to Polo Grounds Road)
Adaptive Signal Time Improvements in the Albemarle/Charlottesville Route 29 Corridor
Berkmar Drive Extended Project (extended to Airport Road)
Route 29/Rio Road Grade Separated Intersection (study, design and construction)
Route 29/Hydraulic Road grade separated Intersection (Preliminary Engineering Study)
Additional Train AMTRAK Regional Service (Fund 25% of an additional Train set)
Sale of the right-of-way purchased for the Route 29 western bypass as expeditiously as
possible
Our Board’s position is in complete alignment with the City of Charlottesville’s deliberations on the
package as well as the MPO resolution approved on May 28, 2014. We strongly encourage the
CTB to approve this at their June meeting so we may proceed.
Many thanks for the resource you provided to execute a thoughtful and comprehensive process
that generated solutions for a contentious and many-year effort to find a solution to congestion
and compromised mobility along the 29 corridor in Albemarle County.
Once CTB approval is obtained, we intend to be a model in the Commonwealth for the execution
of comprehensive traffic improvements coordinating closely with the Virginia Department of
Transportation to ensure as smooth a construction phase process as possible.
_______________
Consent Agenda Item 8.2 and 8.10. (deferred from earlier in the meeting).
Mr. Foley stated that Mr. Greg Harper, Water Resources Manager, would be joining the meeting
to discuss the grants and spillway project issue as raised by Ms. Mallek, and the only other items were
appropriations.
Ms. Mallek said that those were revenues, not expenditures as she had thought.
Mr. Foley said that those were resolved, as was the finance item, leaving the spillway question.
He said that Ms. Palmer had raised the issue about the VRS percentages, and local governments have
their own pool in terms of the percentages and estimates as to what it would take to pay the retirement of
all those employees over time. He said that they have a separate actuarial calculation by the state that
says how much they need to put in, but they allow localities to put in less than what’s recommended
should they so choose. Mr. Foley stated that the County always goes with what VRS has recommended
and does not take advantage of doing less, because they’re afraid they will be in the same place that the
General Assembly has put school teachers and state employees – and that’s why the recommendation
shows the higher percentage, which will fully fund the liability into the future for retirement.
Mr. Davis said that this is evaluated every other year when they set the r ates, so this would be a
two-year window where the rates would be lower, but two years from now they could come back and
require everyone to catch up, so instead of paying a 13% rate it might be a 17% rate, and they would
have no choice but to pay the higher certified rate.
Mr. Foley said that staff thinks this is the prudent decision, especially given what’s going on with
the General Assembly regarding funding of VRS, and state employees and teachers are in a totally
separate pool that the legislature decides on, and that’s why there are two pools.
Ms. Palmer asked how much employees pay into this. Mr. Foley said that the state has
mandated that employees pay 5%, and the employer pays another percentage that is higher – but that’s
set by the state as well.
Mr. Davis said that the employer share being certified for the next two fiscal years is 13.49%, and
on top of that there’s an employee contribution of 5%.
Ms. Palmer said that’s when they decided to increase employee salaries by 5% to make up for
that. Mr. Davis said that was required by the General Assembly, which mandated that the employer could
no longer pay the employee share, which was the practice throughout the Commonwealth. He noted that
they said that the employee’s share would be 5% – possibly phased in over five years – but at the end of
the five-year period, the employer had to increase the salary by 5%. Mr. Davis said that localities cannot
require a higher payment than 5% under the VRS system.
Ms. Mallek said that the reason they school one is 7.8% is because they’re in a different pool.
Mr. Foley confirmed that was the case.
Mr. Davis explained that the state shares in the payment of the standard of quality (SOQ)
employees, so there may be some “fudge factor” in what the rates are that are funded by the state, but
that is a different and larger pool than local government.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Greg Harper addressed the Board, stating that it was a good observation on this seeming
conflict between some new rules between the state Department of Conservation and Recreation and
some of the local initiatives. He said that the General Assembly passed a rule several months earlier that
requires DCR to look at its design criteria for dam spillways, and it’s all based on “probably maximum
precipitation” – which is around 36 inches of rain in 24 hours. Mr. Harper said that dam owners have
approached the state recently to say that this criteria is too extensive and to ask the state to review it, so
DCR has until December 2015 to study this number to see if it should be changed or not. He stated that
in the meantime, all dam operators and owners are scrambling to do dam break analyses and potentially
update their spillways, as what’s happening with Hollymead – and everything is based on this number.
Mr. Harper said that they recognize this is a bit of a challenge, but they need to wait until DCR has done
their study before finalizing anything, but in the meantime they would need to get started on what they
can because a lot of work can be done on dam break analysis prior to that. He stated that the County
had been granted some funding for this analysis by DCR, although they don’t yet know how much, and
staff intends to start the Hollymead spillway feasibility analysis – which is the first phase of three phases –
to get closer toward reconstruction of that dam spillway. Mr. Harper said that they would get started,
knowing that the number may change.
Ms. Mallek asked if they had already received adequate funding to do the first phase. Mr. Harper
confirmed that they had.
Ms. Mallek said that at the Agriculture and Environment Committee at VACO the previous
August, people were already aware of this, and small communities that were facing $5 million in
improvements were livid – so it’s no surprise that the measure went swiftly through the legislature.
Mr. Harper said that luckily they’re not too far along that it would affect anything greatly, and
they’ve already had a few dam break analyses done and completed.
Mr. Foley said that there was no action needed on that grants report from the Consent Agenda,
as it was for information only.
Mr. Davis noted that the Board needed to approve Item 8.2 and 8.10.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve Items 8.2, to approve appropriations #2014100 and #2014102 for
general government programs, and Item 8.10, to adopt Resolutions to 1) certify the County’s employer
contribution rate for General Government employees will be the VRS Board of Trustees’ rate of 13.49%,
which is the contribution Certified Rate by the VRS Board of Trustees f or the 2014-2016 biennium; and 2)
certify that it concurs with the School Divisions election to pay the VRS Board of Trustees’ Certified Rate
of 7.86% for the 2014-2016 biennium for the School Division’s classified/non-professional employees on
the Consent Agenda. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2014100 3-1000-22000-322000-220106-9999 637.80 SPCA sterilization fund
2014100 4-1000-39001-439000-565510-1003 637.80 SPCA sterilization fund
2014102 3-1000-24000-324000-240111-1005 14,010.00 State Revenue - Assistance
2014102 3-1000-33000-333000-330021-1005 11,651.00 Federal Revenue - Assistance
2014102 3-1000-24000-324000-240114-1005 56,070.00 State Revenue - Services
2014102 3-1000-33000-333000-330022-1005 69,376.00 Federal Revenue - Services
2014102 4-1000-53013-453010-119998-1005 -8,955.00 Salary lapse
2014102 4-1000-53012-453010-570200-1005 15,000.00 Auxiliary - Aged
2014102 4-1000-53013-453010-570600-1005 60,000.00 Aid to Dependent Children - Foster Care
2014102 4-1000-53013-453010-570610-1005 37,000.00 Adoption Subsidy
2014102 4-1000-53012-453010-571800-1005 8,000.00 Refugee Resettlement
2014102 4-1000-53013-453010-571101-1005 15,000.00 Companion Services
2014102 4-1000-53013-453010-110000-1005 12,362.00 Salaries - Services Dept
2014102 4-1000-53012-453010-110000-1005 6,700.00 Salaries - Benefit Dept
2014102 4-1000-53013-453010-571011-1005 6,000.00 Respite Care
TOTAL 303,489.60
_____
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
(Resolutions associated with Item 8.10:)
Employer Contribution Rates for Counties, Cities,
Towns, School Divisions and Other Political Subdivisions
(In accordanc e wit h the 2014 Appropriation Act Item 468(H))
Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby acknowledge that its contribution
rates effective July 1, 2014 shall be based on the higher of a) the contribution rate in effect for FY 2014,
or b) eighty percent of the results of the June 30, 2013 actuarial valuation of assets and liabilities as
approved by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees for the 2014-16 biennium (the “Alternate
Rate”) provided that, at its option, the contribution rate may be based on the employer contribution rates
certified by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees pursuant to Virginia Code § 51.1-145(I)
resulting from the June 30, 2013 actuarial value of assets and liabilities (the “Certified Rate”); and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it elects to pay the following contribution rate effective July 1,
2014:
(Check only one box)
X The Certified Rate of 13.49% □ The Alternate Rate of 10.79%; and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it has reviewed and understands the information provided by
the Virginia Retirement System outlining the potential future fiscal implications of any election made under
the provisions of this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Albemarle County 55101 are hereby authorized and directed
in the name of Albemarle County to carry out the provisions of this resolution, and said officers of
Albemarle County are authorized and directed to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to time
such sums as are due to be paid by Albemarle County for this purpose.
*****
Local Governing Body Concurrence with School Division
Electing to Pay the VRS Board-Certified Rate
(In accordanc e wit h the 2014 Appropriation Act Item 468(H))
Resolution
BE IT RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby acknowledge that Albemarle
County Schools has made the election for its contribution rate to be based on the employer contribution
rates certified by the Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees pursuant to Virginia C ode § 51.1-
145(I) resulting from the June 30, 2013 actuarial value of assets and liabilities (the “Certified Rate”); and
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that Albemarle County 55101 does hereby certify to the Virginia
Retirement System Board of Trustees that it concurs with the election of Albemarle County Schools to
pay the Certified Rate, as required by Item 468(H) of the 2014 Appropriation Act; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the officers of Albemarle County 55101 are hereby authorized and directed
in the name of Albemarle County to execute any required contract to carry out the provisions of this
resolution. In execution of any such contract which may be required, the seal of Albemarle County, as
appropriate, shall be affixed and attested by the Clerk.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said that she had forwarded to the Board information about the Workforce Investment
Act reauthorization in Congress, and encouraged fellow Supervisors to write letters to federal
representatives to vote for this.
Mr. Foley asked if that was something that they wanted to add to the next agenda as an item.
Ms. Mallek said yes if that’s necessary, or if a letter can be sent without a resolution then that’s fine too.
Mr. Davis said that if they’re just sending a letter that expresses the bullet points circulated in the
email, the Board could authorize the Chair to send that letter on their behalf.
Ms. Palmer said that she had not had time to read it, and asked if it was time sensitive and if it
could be done on June 11.
Ms. Mallek said she would think so, but it doesn’t say when it’s coming up for a vote.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Mr. Foley said that staff would move it to June 11 for action, and put it on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mallek asked if they needed to further discuss the library “café” plans, or just send a request
to library staff to fill them in. Mr. Foley said that he had that as a follow-up item with John Halladay, and
he would explain it to them via email.
_____
Ms. Palmer reported that there are four members of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee who are
working on the charge and will present it to the Board at their July meeting. He said that there are three
other individuals who are very interested in joining t he committee, one of which is a person that Diantha
would like to appoint from her district, and that puts seven total on the committee. She stated that
typically there is a member from each magisterial district, but in this particular case it’s not set u p that
way; and if these three members go on the committee, that will make two from Rivanna, one from Jack
Jouett, two from Scottsville, two from White Hall – and no one from the Samuel Miller District or Rio. Ms.
Palmer said that was OK with her, and she wanted to make sure it was acceptable to the Board. She
stated that she had spoken with the committee about these additions, and they were thrilled to get them
on, so the new members will apply and get information from the County, with the Board approvin g them at
their next meeting. Ms. Palmer said that the group was setting a goal to have their recommendation to
the Board by November, so it can be worked into the five-year work plan.
Mr. Boyd said that he was having trouble understanding what this comm ittee is going to do, and if
they’re deciding that for themselves he wondered if the Board was abdicating their responsibility as
elected officials to some new committee. He also wondered where the Planning Commission would fall
into this and how recommendations would be made, adding that he’s never seen a committee set up so
ad hoc like this.
Mr. Foley said that they had struggled with this issue a bit, and the thought was to bring some
citizens together to think about it – but the whole idea was that a charge needed to come back to the
Board for full consideration.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was a standing committee or an ad -hoc committee. Mr. Foley said that it’s ad
hoc, and that should be identified in the charge and they should look at it carefully to see if they’re
comfortable with it.
Ms. Palmer emphasized that it’s separate from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, and one
RSWA member serves on the committee, which is really focusing on long term solutions and the big
picture – with best practices in solid waste management, rather than single decisions such as what to do
with Ivy in a given year. She said that they’re very carefully writing their charge to narrow it to that.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was solid waste expertise on this committee. Mr. Palmer responded that
one of the members has professional experience with it, and the others are very knowledgeable and
extremely interested, with years of involvement in looking at the issue.
Mr. Boyd said that he was picking up on Mr. Frederick’s comments about seeking some
professional advice, particularly if they’re focusing on long-range stuff. He asked if they had removed that
kind of expertise since they had removed the experts that ran the transfer station.
Ms. Palmer said that one of the things that this committee put in their goals was to develop
relationships with professional groups or individuals who could help advance the discussion, so they’re
looking at that.
Mr. Boyd said he could wait until they came back with their proposal.
Ms. Mallek said that Rivanna staff sent a letter out to appointees saying that they wouldn’t be
meeting anytime soon, so that made things dead in the water.
Mr. Boyd said that the reason for that was there was no defined purpose for the committee.
Ms. Mallek said that the City didn’t appoint anyone, so the committee wouldn’t meet without full
participation.
Mr. Boyd said that’s because the City has backed out of everything except for recycling, and they
are moving in their own direction.
Ms. Dittmar said that they had talked about governance for Rivanna and it was going to come up
in June or July, but she wondered how they were going to go about looking at that.
Mr. Foley said that they were going to wait until the long-range solid waste committee got its work
underway, and out of that might emerge some discussion about whether the structure that’s in place now
makes sense or not – and this committee might feed some information in to help inform that decision. He
said that there wasn’t any definitive timeframe, but the thought was letting it come out of that discussion.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
Ms. McKeel asked if they were meeting once per month, or more often than that. Ms. Palmer
said they had met four times in the last six weeks or so, but they’re not planning to meet all the time and
are planning right now to meet as needed. She said that they recognize that this is a time crunch, and
have discussed the November deadline for getting this together.
Mr. Boyd said that the committee is appointed by the Board, so they need to keep m inutes and
keep their meetings open, as well as publicizing them.
Mr. Foley said that staff went over all of that with them at their first meeting.
Ms. Palmer said that those minutes were available for anyone who would like to see them.
Mr. Sheffield said that the only reservation he has is the lack of representation from the Rio
District, and there are some different solid waste issues there.
Ms. Palmer said that two of the members are from Hollymead.
Mr. Sheffield said that the challenges are different there, but that’s just a reservation and not a
hesitation.
Ms. Mallek said there’s no reason why they can’t have more people on the committee to achieve
broader representation.
Mr. Sheffield said that Terry Kent of Better World Betty lives in the Rio District and has a grasp on
that aspect.
Ms. Mallek said that was the type of collaboration the group is working toward.
Ms. Palmer said that one of Ms. McKeel’s appointee considerations works with Ms. Kent, and
they’ve thought about how to involve her – either sitting on the committee or not.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would like to move this forward next week so they can join the next
meeting.
Mr. Foley said that they would add to the agenda the appointments to the solid waste committee,
and it would be established before the charge, which they would work on.
Ms. Dittmar said that they would also learn about short-term options in their following meeting.
Mr. Foley said that both near-term and long-term would come forth in their July 2 meeting.
_____
Ms. McKeel stated that she wanted to make sure that the Board receives the information Mr.
Foley has gathered regarding help for the business community related to the 29 projects, and wondered
when that would be on the calendar.
Mr. Foley said that it would be on the June 11 agenda, and the County had just received
information from John Lynch at VDOT providing examples of what they’ve done in other places, which
would be helpful as they move forward.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Chip Boyles had said something about MPO support for community
engagement.
Mr. Foley said that the County would definitely reach out to see how they can help, because the
City is impacted by these projects as well and Mr. Boyles has indicated his intention to help.
_____
Ms. Dittmar stated that they have several meetings coming up that they need to prepare for,
including their retreat next Tuesday, which would be held at the Monticello Fire Station with the time
ending at 5:00 p.m. She said that they were meeting with the School Boar d the following week before
their regular night meeting, and after that meeting they would address with legislators previously identified
concerns.
Ms. Dittmar mentioned that they had hired a facilitator for the joint meeting with the City to be held
July 1, and asked if the facilitator would take the ideas they’ve prioritized to establish the agenda.
Mr. Foley said that the City has taken the lead on the coordination with the facilitator, and Mr.
Jones is trying to get a joint conversation with the facilitator for them to bring back to the Chair and the
Mayor prior to a final agenda being developed. He said that they want to get his input based on what
they’ve talked about regarding how this would be facilitated.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
Ms. Dittmar stated that she and Diantha had attended a conference in Roanoke the previous
Monday and were briefed on public/private partnerships, including concerns about “giving away the farm”
for a project but also some amazing success stories. She said that they’re putting together a loose
association for the state of localities interested in partnerships that have done them well, and they would
be contacting Mr. Foley about that.
Mr. Foley said that they have a potential great opportunity depending on where the court project
goes, because that’s the type of unique project that should involve public/private partnership if possible.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would like more information about those types of partnerships, maybe
in conjunction with the City, and Councilor Kathy Galvin had said that several of her colleagues might be
interested in more information about public/private partnerships.
Ms. Dittmar said that she had heard Chip Boyles say that he would like to convene regional
meetings of interest, so if the City was interested they c ould move forward with them, and perhaps
include other surrounding municipalities.
Mr. Foley said that he could follow up with Mr. Boyles on that.
Ms. Dittmar said that they are working through the process for public projects and planned to
come up with a protocol that mirrored what private developers are put through.
Mr. Foley said that was on the agenda to come up in the next several months.
Ms. Dittmar stated that it would be helpful to have a protocol for reaching out to people who are
impacted by a particular ordinance, especially with new technologies available – utilizing media outlets,
etc.
Ms. Mallek said that recent ordinances have all been preceded by roundtables with stakeholders
and lots of discussions at work sessions, but it wasn’t done with the animal control ordinance because it
was primarily housekeeping – wording and terminology.
Mr. Foley said that they’ve put a lot of effort over the past six to eight months into doing
formalized public engagement plans, and there’s obviously a diff erent effort for an ordinance change than
for a solid waste decision, for example – but what he’s hearing is that the minimums are not enough
anymore, and perhaps they can expand that going forward.
Ms. Dittmar stated that people’s attention is also captured at different times, so it’s helpful to
engage people in a number of different ways.
She said that the Board has also discussed the management for the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Convention and Visitors Bureau, and she wasn’t sure how they would start th at conversation.
Mr. Foley said that it’s in his follow-up report, and he really wasn’t sure how they wanted to
proceed with that or the timeframe for it, but since Ms. Catlin is on the CACVB board now they’ve
discussed it with a plan to bring back to the Board the structure and bylaws as an agenda item and what
steps they’d like to take for the future. He noted that it’s a joint board with the City, so any change would
require approval from both jurisdictions.
Ms. Mallek stated that they need to have this well underway so if there are changes in the funding
structure, this is done before the next year.
Mr. Foley said that last time they brought it up, it wasn’t too late but the decision was made to go
about it differently.
Mr. Davis said that the timeframe is around the termination of the agreement, not amending it –
so if there’s concurrence by the City and County to amend it, that time constraint isn’t relevant. He stated
that if the County should decide to terminate that agreement, there was a notice requirement that must be
in place before one party can terminate it without the concurrence of the other.
Mr. Foley suggested that they put it on the July agenda for discussion, which may lead to some
appropriate direction.
Ms. Mallek said that perhaps they should hold off on appointments until they get that, because
the structure would be important to know prior to making those.
Mr. Foley said that the quickest staff could get it to the Board was July 2, but staff could email it
out earlier if necessary.
Board members suggested that they go ahead and distribute the information now for review.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
Mr. Boyd said that he wasn’t certain what they were doing with this, and whether they were
seeking information, changing governance, making suggestions or all of the above.
Ms. Mallek said that it was all of the above for her, and she would like to know what they’re
getting for their $700,000.
Mr. Boyd said they had just been through that.
Ms. Mallek stated that the issue at that point was the $500,000 in unsp ent funds, and her concern
was whether the CACVB would be mindfully and carefully – with benefit to Albemarle County – using all
of the extra revenue from the transient occupancy tax (TOT), or whether they should be keeping more of
it in-house to accomplish some other particular initiatives related to tourism. She said that the first
discussion would be whether Board members want to discuss this further, and if so then to discuss it with
their appointees on the CACVB.
Mr. Foley said that during the budget work sessions, staff provided a financial analysis about
projections for revenues and expenditures based upon work with the CACVB board, and that showed that
if the Board agreed with the projected expenditures for the future – including support of the new
marketing efforts, then the revenue didn’t outstrip the operational expenses.
Ms. Dittmar stated that there are private sector entities in the tourism arena that believe the
County could be doing a much more effective job generating more dollars, so she approached it from that
angle – but now that she’s on the Board, she is looking at lodging tax and meals tax as a potential source
for the general government budget.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was necessary for the entire Board to get involved, or if it was som ething that
Ms. Dittmar could just seek out by talking with staff or members of the CACVB board.
Ms. Mallek said that she has found the single Supervisor approach to be ineffective, because she
has talked with them since 2009 about this, and there is no impetus for them to change anything.
Mr. Boyd said that this observation doesn’t align with his, but that’s OK.
Ms. Dittmar said that the authorities need to be looked at periodically even if they’re functioning
absolutely beautifully, and in this case they need to see if they are doing enough, and if not then why
that’s not happening.
Mr. Foley agreed to provide background information on this within the next several days.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley stated that his monthly report would always be put in the Dropbox around the same
time they get their Board packet, in a separate folder, and Ms. Jordan would send out an email alerting
them when it’s added. He noted that the date of the current report was May 29.
Mr. Foley reported that there are four sections to it: the tentative two -month agenda planner,
Board follow-up issues, Board priorities and review schedule/annual work plan, and County Executive’s
monthly project status report.
He said that the two-month plan includes the In-Synch traffic light item on the agenda, which has
been moved by VDOT every month, and originally there were a lot of questions about the project and its
cost, and there were conversations with staff about changes in cost, so they put it off. Then, he said,
VDOT expressed concern about the process with the advisory panel and felt it was better to put it off, but
hopefully in July the report will actually come forth and the recommendat ion from the panel will be enough
to address the cost. Mr. Foley said that they aren’t totally sure about this, and neither is the City because
they are waiting to get final information from VDOT. He stated that in the follow-up report he was going to
mention the meeting in the City, and he hoped to have more of an agenda put together with the facilitator
so staff can get it out in advance. Mr. Foley said that there is good news with the annual plan – the
annual budget process is complete, as is the CIP review, the stormwater ordinance development of fees
approval, expansion of EMS billing with Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, and the Fire contract. He
said that Doug Walker, Larry Davis, himself and others feel really good about getting some things
checked off, knowing that there are other important items to be done. Mr. Foley said that after the recent
community meeting there was a request to come back to the Board about the regional firearms training
facility, and staff is planning to bring an update to them in July and check back in August after the final
community meeting.
_______________
Recess. At 3:57 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 5:04 p.m.
_______________
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
Agenda Item No. 22. CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment, to begin with public
comments and possible Board direction
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Planning Commission’s
recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014 and
previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf
Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions
have also been identified for the Board’s consideration. This work session is the third in the series of
detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which
can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151
At this work session, the Board will review a draft Vision statement provided by staff in response
to the Board’s comments at its May 7, 2014 work session. Following the discussion on the Vision
statement, the Board will review Chapter 4: Natural Resources, including the Planning Commission’s
recommendations and focused topics and information provided since the Commission’s actions.
At the Board’s direction for additional concepts and a reordering of topics, the staff has developed
the following vision statement:
Albemarle County envisions a community with:
abundant natural, rural, historic, and scenic resources
healthy ecosystems,
active and vibrant development areas,
a physical environment which supports healthy lifestyles,
a thriving economy, and
strong educational programs
for current and future generations.
The Board is asked to approve this statement as presented or with any agreed upon changes.
Chapter 4: Natural Resources
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/04_Chapter_Natural_Resources_final_1-23-14.pdf
The Natural Resources chapter provides information on the importance of:
Protecting surface and groundwater (pages 4.5 – 4.20)
Protecting air quality (pages 4.20 – 4.21)
Preserving mineral resources while recognizing economic benefits (pages 4.21 – 4.22)
Protecting the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the County (pages 4.23 – 4.29)
Retaining mountain resources (pages 4.29 – 4.30)
Protecting wetlands, rivers, and streams by retaining land cover (pages 4.30 – 4.33)
Protecting residents and properties from natural hazards (pages 4.33 – 4.36)
The Goals, Objectives, Strategies, Implementation Priorities, Measures of Success, and list of
Appendices and Reference Documents are found in a single document at Attachment A.
The Appendix, found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/A.4_Appendix_Natural_Resources_Final_1-23-14.pdf contains
the Mountain Contour List that relates to Figure 10 – the Mountain Protection Map. This list relates to the
text on page 4.29 of the Plan Draft that notes the important contours for preservation. The Appendix also
provides the regional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Reference Documents, found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/Reference_4_Natural_resources_Final_1-23-14.pdf contain the
list of river basins and home watersheds, the Biodiversity Report from 2004, and the Mountain Protection
Plan which is in the current Plan, but has not been retained in the draft Plan. In addit ion, the Reference
Documents contain information on StreamWatch Stream Degradation Potential and the Rivanna River
Corridor Plan – Draft Concept and Framework. The Reference Document Section should also include the
Rivanna River Basin Commission 2012 Rivanna Watershed Snapshot
http://www.rivannariverbasin.org/Rivanna-snapshot.php and the one page StreamWatch report entitled,
“Streamhealth Follows Land Use,” which may be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0mzqgszwgcyiv45/Stream%20Health%20Follows%20Land%20Use%20-
%20Highlights%20one-pager%20revised%202013Apr2.pdf.
A table comparing the existing and recommended Comprehensive Plan regarding Natural
Resources is provided as Attachment B. Four topics have been identified for particular focus:
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 77)
Protecting surface and groundwater (see pages 4.5 – 4.20)
Staff comment: A number of comments and recommendations have been made by
various groups and individuals on the need for stronger language related to surface and
groundwater protection. Some individuals have criticized the Commission’s
Comprehensive Plan recommendations due to the cost of new or reinstated programs.
Staff believes this section of the Plan should tie more closely into the discussions held by
the Board of Supervisors last summer on new State regulations. Attachment C discusses
the issues and makes recommendations.
Preserving mineral resources while recognizing economic benefits (pages 4.21 – 4.22)
Staff comment: After the Planning Commission acted on the Comprehensive Plan
recommendations, several residents of the Schuyler area of the County became
concerned with Strategy 3a on page 4.22 of the Plan which says, “Consider expanding
the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District to cover areas near Schuyler where
soapstone has historically been quarried.” Attachment D explains the issues of concern
to those residents as well as describes the Planning Commission’s deliberation on this
topic and staff’s recommendation.
Protecting the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the County (see top of page
4.24)
Staff comment: Staff and Supervisor Mallek have received recommendations from Lonnie
Murray, Chair of the Natural Heritage Committee, that additional information be provided
on how biodiversity efforts are different in the Rural Area than in the Development Area.
Attachment E contains information on this and staff’s recommendations. Attachment E
also contains recommendations related to priority sites in the Rural Area and staff’s
response to those recommendations.
Protecting residents and properties from natural hazards - Modification of floodplain
recommendations, based on recent work on Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD)
regulations (see pages 4.34 and 4.35)
Staff comment: Early in 2014, the Board approved updates to the FHOD regulations to
comply with federal requirements. At that time, staff identified for the Board additional
flood plain considerations for which the updated Comprehensive Plan can provide further
policy guidance. Attachment F contains recommendations for several areas of floodplain
policy for the Board’s consideration.
Recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan Draft include recommendations for future capital
improvements and operations.
The Board is asked to identify any substantive changes to the recommendations herein
presented and concur on those changes, focusing on content rather than wordsmithing. Staff will then
make any necessary changes and bring them back to the Board for its approval prior to its public hearing.
_____
Ms. Elaine Echols, County Principal Planner, reported that there were two goals for this review
session – to finalize the vision that the Board had been working on for the past several months, and to get
direction on the Natural Resources Chapter of the Comp Plan. She said that the sooner they can get the
Comp Plan finished, the sooner they can start working on identified actions. Ms. Echols stated that the
structure for this meeting is to talk about the vision first and make any decisions needed, then take public
comment on natural resources. She said that staff would give them a review of the Natural Resources
chapter, with four specific areas that the Board had selected for further discussion.
Ms. Echols asked the Board to look at the proposed vision statement and the action memo
referencing actions taken at prior meetings, and to indicate whether this effectively captures what they’d
said.
Ms. Palmer said that she felt it captured what they had said, and her only questio n was how well
the vision statement at the top of each page would fit the format. Ms. Echols said that staff would find a
way to make it fit.
Ms. McKeel said that she was a bit concerned that the educational piece was the last bullet, and
she didn’t feel that “programs” effectively captured the concept of a “strong educational system.”
Ms. Mallek said that someone had indicated they didn’t like the word “system.”
Ms. Dittmar said that vision is about what they want to look like and how they want others to view
them, but a system is a functioning piece – and there are multiple programs.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 78)
Ms. Mallek suggested that “opportunities” might be a better choice of words.
Ms. McKeel said that she would say, “world class educational system,” but would be willing to
compromise – although “programs” doesn’t really capture it.
Ms. Mallek suggested, “strong educational opportunities for all ages.” Ms. Echols suggested just
using “strong education.” Mr. Davis suggested, “A strong educational emphasis.”
Ms. McKeel said that any of those would be better than what they have.
Ms. Palmer asked if there were better adjectives that could be used, and suggested that Ms.
McKeel seek some input from school staff and others, then come back with some recommendations.
Ms. McKeel agreed to do that as quickly as possible.
Ms. Echols stated that staff would work with Ms. McKeel, then incorporate their final
recommendation.
The Chair then asked for public comments.
Mr. Villum Pieters addressed the Board, stating that he is living in an area that is subject to
mining rights, near the soapstone manufacturer in Schuyler. Mr. Pieters said that he hoped all of the
issues would be considered in a systematic way so they would be attached to any decision the Board
might make in the future, including the impact from a health, environmental and economic standpoint. He
stated that such mining activity would have impact on the value of properties that would be affected in the
future, so that should be considered as well.
Ms. Nancy Flynn addressed the Board, stating that she is not against mining and has friends who
work in the soapstone factory, but they need to take into account the possibility of strip mining and the
presence of asbestos in the area. Ms. Flynn said that she didn’t think industrial and residential property
should be zoned together, and the County could add onto laws that the Department of Mining already has
– such as not being allowed to mine anything less than 20 acres. She stated that she has a two -acre lot,
which is nowhere near big enough for a mining operation and its associated trucks. Ms. Flynn asked the
Board to come up with some good laws and regulations to guide this, and asked if this impacted the
entire Schuyler area or just certain pieces of property.
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Echols and Mr. Davis what area this would affect. Ms. Echols said that it’s
the general area near Schuyler where soapstone is mined, and that’s as specific as they have the
information – and there is no intention to proactively rezone any areas.
Ms. Karen Yates of the Charlottesville League of Women Voters addressed the Board, stating
that staff had indicated they hadn’t received details in the letter submitted in March.
Ms. Echols said that she had not received it, but perhaps the Board did.
Ms. McKeel said that the Board had received that information.
Ms. Yates thanked the Board for continuing to give the public opportunities to participate in the
planning process, and stated that the League’s March 12 letter to them contained background material
explaining what changes were suggested to the Planning Commission for the Comp Plan and why they
felt those changes were justified. She said that those changes were submitted to the Board. Ms. Yates
said that for the strength of the overall plan, the League is strongly supportive of adding a statement that
will indicate the information contained in the narratives is intended to be used in the implementation of
that strategy, and addition two items that are descriptive also should be re garded as potential actions.
She said that since some of the valuable statements from previous versions are delegated to the
narratives, the League urges them to make sure that the plan’s wording guarantees their legal standing
and continue to guide County actions. Ms. Yates stated that they were equally supportive of the staff’s
recommended changes to the plan regarding water resources, especially the addition of developing a
countywide resources plan. She said that it was expected that a water resource s plan would take several
years to complete, but they very much look forward to the addition of developing that plan with well-
coordinated County water management, a database system to support them, and cooperation between
groups. Ms. Yates said that the League recommends that the County have a person or a committee that
will have an overview of the activities and responsibilities of all water-related programs in the various
County departments. She stated that all of this could be done with a new strategy, or by incorporating
some of the editing changes suggested in their March letter. Ms. Yates said that the League is
encouraging the Board to consider an additional statement that makes distinctive their plan from the state
and federal requirements in case further administrations lower their standards.
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District in
the Schuyler area, and was speaking on behalf of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population
(ASAP) to present a series of remarks regarding the Natural Resources chapter of the Comp Plan. He
said that on page 4-3, in relationship to the vision, there’s no acknowledgement that natural resources are
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 79)
required for human life; also on page 4-3 in the introduction, paragraph one includes the statement:
“Ecological functions are ways in which nature meets and fulfills human needs,” and the usual term is
“ecosystem services,” which are a general property of ecosystems – not a feature that exists to support
human life. Mr. Olivier said that on page 4-22, strategy 3A calls for reconsideration of expanding the
soapstone extraction overlay district in the Schuyler area, which is home to valuable biological resources
and other natural resources as well as many concerned residents, and these resources could be
damaged by soapstone extraction. He stated that no justification for considering an extraction zone
expansion is presented in the draft, and ASAP recommends that strategy 3A simply be dropped. Mr.
Olivier said that two areas of omission deserve comment, and neither this chapter nor the plan as a whole
consider the impacts of climate change on planning concerns, and the new plan should call for an
examination of the implications of climate change to County planning. He referenced a recent article in
the Washington Post from June 1, which indicated that much of Norfolk could be under water by the end
of the current century. Mr. Olivier said that several years earlier, ASAP had researched the links between
the local human population and local natural resources, and Albemarle County paid for part of the costs
of this research. One of the studies modeled the impact of human population growth on ecosystem
services generated by the Albemarle/Charlottesville landscape, and a short version of the paper had been
published in the journal of ecosystem services, and 650 copies had been downloaded by last January.
Mr. Olivier said that ASAP urges that this research report be referenced in a Natural Resources chapter,
and they are aware that there’s a need to strengthen the systematic database maintenance for
information on natural resources – including both water and biodiversity resources.
Mr. Fred Oesch addressed the Board, stating that he had moved to Schuyler in 1997, and in 2000
he founded the Quarries Ecovillage, which encompasses about 350 acres of what was formally company
land. Mr. Oesch said that from what he’s heard from many in the community, there is general non -
information or misinformation about the mining issue, and there is no one central clearing house of
accurate information as it applies to this overlay district. He stated that even the Comp Plan meeting had
misinformation about when this meeting would occur, and it was not updated on the website. Mr. Oesch
said that the common thread of residents in the Quarries Ecovillage is concern for the environment, and
they have very strict covenants related to conservation. He encouraged the Board to keep the community
informed with accurate information about this very complex issue.
Ms. Gwen Goodkin addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of the Samuel Miller
District and owns property on the Rockfish River in Schuyler. Ms. Goodkin stated that there is a project
proposed to rehabilitate the old W alker Mill Dam, and downstream from the dam one side of the river in
Nelson and one in Albemarle, so rehabilitation efforts in Nelson will impact Albemarle County residents
also. She said that she would like the County to keep an eye on that project, noting that there would
need to be an inundation plan and stating that it would also impact wildlife on the river.
Ms. Bonnie Harden addressed the Board, stating that the Natural Resources chapter sets a rule
that allows mining to be more easily imposed, and the Schuyler quadrant in 3A is off of an old mining
map, and lies mostly in Nelson County but was developed by Albemarle County as residential – having
previously been ag/forestry property for 60 years. Ms. Harden said that there were a few select areas
that were mined, but the developed area was brought to the County explicitly as residential. She stated
that the Department of Mines has a lot of laws, but has a bypass to the mining by changing the name of
the company every two years – which means they don’t have to perform reclamation; they can even
change mine numbers to get around it. Ms. Harden said that the County needs to coordinate with the
Department of Mines so that it’s not as easy to mine on residential property that was brought to the public
with no mention of it, so it doesn’t show up in a title search or by zoning.
Mr. Glen Brom addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District and
is representing the Friends of Schuyler. Mr. Brom said that the question residents there have is what
happens if nothing changes in the way they do things now, in terms of mining. He said that there should
be no additional mining in the Schuyler area, and their interest is to maintain their quality of life, the trees,
the water, the views, the property values – and said that Schuyler is a lifestyle choice for many people.
Mr. Brom said that their interest for the Board is to balance the needs of the many against the needs of
the few, and in that regard, the Board and/or the County are pretty clear in not wanting to do broad
sweeping rules that affect everyone adversely. He said that they also have an obligation to look out for
economic benefits, and there is very little for the average person, possibly some for an out-of-county
organization, and the profits most likely going outside the U.S. Mr. Brom stated that even by-right, there
would be typical mining impacts from excavating, grinding, sorting, and stockpiling – and by special use
permit there could be concrete dashing plants, asphalt mixing plants, mining and milling of uranium and
radioactive materials. He said that extraction of oil and natural gas, coal mining, and fracking were also
possibilities. Mr. Brom said that it has been stated that they would be selective with the mining overlay,
but they understand from the Department of Mines and Minerals that once mining is allowed for one thing,
it must be allowed for everything. He stated that Friends of Schulyer requests that the Board considers
this likely impact and takes a stand tonight by removing the consideration for expanding the overlay from
the Comp Plan. Mr. Brom said that their position is clear – they want no additional mining in the Schuyler
area.
Mr. Travis Pietila addressed the Board, stating that he represents the Southern Environmental
Law Center (SELC) and expressing their appreciation for staff’s work up to this point to capture the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the public, as the Natural Resources chapter has
clearly improved as a result of these efforts. He said that one important topic that is largely missing from
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 80)
the plan is climate change, likely due to efforts of the prior Board to deemphasize this issue – including
rescinding the resolution in support of the Cool Counties commitm ent to reduce countywide greenhouse
gas emissions by a specific amount over a specific period of time. Mr. Pietila said that they can no longer
hide from this issue, and a recent White House report on the projected and existing effects of climate
change, both nationwide and regionally – as well as Governor McAuliffe’s renewal of statewide climate
change planning efforts – highlight the fact that this issue is not fixing itself. He stated that if anything, it is
becoming more important as time goes on, and its effects on short and long-term County planning make it
essential to address this in the Comp Plan. Mr. Pietila said that the SELC strongly urges them to add at
least two new strategies in the Natural Resources chapter: commit to revisiting the Count y’s goals related
to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, which would fit well in the air quality section; and commit to
developing mitigation measures and strategies to address potential hazards resulting from climate
change, which would fit well under objective seven regarding natural hazards. He stated that at a recent
planning conference in Charlottesville, there was a panel discussion entitled “Comp Plan 2025” that
focused on prediction of the key planning issues for that year, and many on the pane l highlighted climate
change impacts and the need for hazard mitigation planning as one of those key issues. Mr. Pietila said
that knowing what they already know today, they so no good reason to wait until 2025 to take this on.
Ms. Tina Twitchell addressed the Board, stating that she bought her property in Schuyler about
seven years ago, and found out two years ago about the mining and the fact that the property beside her
home was the way they planned to enter and exit. She said that the dust alone from this process would
be unhealthy, and there has been asbestos found – with previous mining shut down because of it. Ms.
Twitchell said that the whole area would be under attack from asbestos if the mining operation resumes,
and this is changing a lot of people’s lives.
Mr. Calvin Bryant addressed the Board, stating that he lives in the Esmont area bordering
Schulyer and commenting that they have taken far too much out of their ecosystem – and it’s time to put
something back. Mr. Bryant said that he has had a garden for five years and is worried that his children
will not have that opportunity if the land is ruined by mining. He stated that it’s time to stop and grow up –
so that our children can.
Ms. Laura Emerick addressed the Board, stating that she l ives in Schuyler on Walton’s Mountain
– which is in the historic registry as a place of interest for tourism. She added that they have a beautiful
way of life in Schuyler, and the mines have been dormant for 80 years now.
Ms. Dittmar asked if they should reach out to Nelson County regarding the dam that was
mentioned during the public comments portion.
Ms. Palmer stated that she had a lot of information on the dam that she would send to staff along
with contacts, and she has spoken with Ms. Goodkin about this. Ms. Palmer said that there are no plans
to raise the current height of the dam, as this is a rehabilitation of the dam.
Ms. Dittmar said that those were the two unrelated issues to Natural Resources, and asked Ms.
Echols if they were proceeding to the section on mining resources.
Ms. Echols asked if it would be acceptable to the Board to set that up and just gave them the
overview of the chapter – then go straight to the mineral one when they get to the topics.
Ms. Palmer asked if staff would also explain the draft Comp Plan process. Ms. Echols agreed,
stating that there is some confusion between what the Comprehensive Plan is and what Zoning is. She
stated that the Comp Plan is a guide to decision-making in the future, and it is the basis on which the
Board makes many decisions. Ms. Echols said that it provides guidance but is not legally binding, and in
Albemarle they use the Comp Plan regularly so it is a very strong document that supports the actions of
the Board of Supervisors. She stated that Zoning Administrator Amelia McCulley was before them to talk
about any zoning aspects, but there is no proposal on the table right now to do any rezoning of any
properties, and the only discussion of rezoning takes place in the development areas la ter on down the
path.
Ms. Palmer asked her to make the distinction between what they’re doing in this review and the
current lawsuit. Ms. Echols explained that there was a request made by several property owners to find
out if their property is nonconforming, and Ms. McCulley can answer questions on that when they get to
that section.
Ms. Palmer said that she just wanted to make sure that the distinction was made.
Mr. Boyd said that he is confused about this whole issue, because he is hearing that the m ines
are closed and grown over – yet people are concerned that they’re going to start operating again.
Ms. Echols asked Ms. McCulley to come up and explain the situation. Ms. McCulley, Zoning
Administrator, said that the zoning that is needed to mine, the natural resources extraction overlay district,
in the Schuyler area, does not exist, and it is not on the maps. She stated that it’s in four areas as
mentioned in the staff report, but not in this area, and historically there had been quite a bit of min ing of
soapstone in the area, and there are four or five mine locations with different names. Ms. McCulley said
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 81)
that some of the mines ceased operation and have not restarted. She explained that if you don’t have
natural resources extraction overlay zoning, the only way someone can legally mine the property under
local ordinances is if there’s a finding that they have a legally nonconforming right to that mining activity –
but you must meet state requirements with the Department of Mines. Ms. McCulley sa id that they would
either need to have the zoning in place or a finding in the zoning determination that there is a legally
nonconforming right, and that would be based on a use that would begin before zoning was enacted and
continuing up until the present without interruption.
She stated that historically, there have been hundreds and hundreds of acres in southern
Albemarle mined for various things, including lots of soapstone. Ms. McCulley explained that there was a
determination submitted by Vance Wilkins – the holder of many of the mineral rights and much of the
surface rights associated with mining, which extends into Nelson County, which is where the soapstone
plant is located. She said that Mr. Wilkins submitted a determination request and Deputy Zoning
Administrator Ron Higgins rendered a determination in August 2012 that a total of 316 acres of Mr.
Wilkins’ properties have legally nonconforming rights for mining. Ms. McCulley said that this
determination did not include some of the lots that have been subdivided off for residences, which are
inhabited by many of the people who have spoken to the Board. She stated that at least two of the
speakers have requested a determination for their own protection that on their lots they are “extinguished
rights” – no legally nonconforming rights for mining. Ms. MsCulley said that even if someone gets a state
permit at a local level, they would not be able to mine on these properties, and she is currently in the
process of making that determination, but there is over 600 pages of material as well as many meetings
and 45 years of information to go back over. She stated that it’s very complex case law, and she’s in the
middle of making that decision, which will impact at least two of those speakers who have t wo-acre lots –
but some of the properties behind them are part of the decision that was made in August 2012 that the
316 acres has legally nonconforming rights to continue mining.
Mr. Boyd said that from what she is saying, this is similar to the Rockydal e Quarry situation where
it is set up next to a residential neighborhood. Ms. McCulley stated that the difference here is that
Rockydale has the zoning for mining, and in this area there is no zoning that you would need to mine so
the only way you could m ine under the local ordinances would be a finding that a legally nonconforming
right remains on that property.
Mr. Boyd said that he understood her to say she had found that. Ms. McCulley stated that there
are many hundreds of acres involved, and 316 acres owned by Vance Wilkins or legally under his control
were already determined to be legally nonconforming, and what’s before them now is three of the two -
acre lots on which some of the company homes are built – and she has not made a decision on those
properties yet. She said that they have invested over $1 million as a result of that August 2012 decision,
and there may be mining activities already getting started there.
Mr. Sheffield said that he assumes this can happen regardless of expanding the nat ural
resources extraction area. Ms. McCulley confirmed that was the case, stating that this is unrelated as to
whether there is zoning on the property, and one or the other needs to occur in order for someone to
have the right to mine.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there is nothing recommended in the Comp Plan that changes that, and
the plan is simply a guide for future decision making. He said that’s not before them, and it doesn’t affect
Ms. McCulley’s determinations.
Ms. Palmer asked for confirmation that there was nothing legally the County could do about those
316 acres. Ms. McCulley said that the determination made was a final decision.
Ms. Mallek said that the neighbors would have to appeal the decision. Ms. McCulley stated that
the appeal period has expired.
Ms. Mallek said she didn’t understand how it could qualify for “nonconforming,” because it doesn’t
seem to meet those requirements. Ms. McCulley stated that it was a very complex decision, and case
law provides that many factors must be considered – not just continuous active mining. She said that it’s
one of the most complex decisions you make in zoning and in land use, as an attorney.
Ms. McKeel asked if the decision had been made in the courts. Ms. McCulley said that the
determination was made by the deputy zoning administrator in the course of his regular duties, and was
made according to a great deal of information at both the local and state levels.
Mr. Boyd asked if the appeal would have had to have been made to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
and that was not done. Ms. McCulley confirmed that was the case.
Ms. Mallek said that that’s because nobody new, and those property owners weren’t notified.
Ms. Palmer said that the assumption would be that whatever way she ruled on the three two-acre
lots, that would be where this would go. Ms. McCulley stated that any aggrieved party who has standing
has a right to appeal that, and that would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals first and then to the Circuit
Court.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 82)
Ms. McKeel noted that there was a timeline once a determination was made. Ms. McCulley said
that was correct, and the appeal would need to be made within 30 days of the decision, and that hasn’t
been rendered yet – and several of the property owners with the smaller lots were informed of the
decision with the acreage behind them, because initially they were mistakenly included in the decision,
then excluded from the decision.
Mr. Sheffield said that it begs the question as to why they have strategy 3A if the nonconforming
legal right exits on the 316 acres. Ms. Echols said that when this was initially put in, it was attempting to
recognize an existing business industry in the County that was unique to the County, and the Planning
Commission thought that was important. He stated that at the time, there was no one from the public who
spoke to the Commission about the situation, so there were determinations going on concurrent to what
the Planning Commission was doing – so they didn’t know there was any issue.
Ms. Palmer asked about the Polycore company’s small area that they already own and would like
to mine, and asked if they were advocating for this overlay district. Ms. Echols said that she didn’t know,
but they had people who were interested in having them add the Comp Plan, and they took it to the
Planning Commission – where there was no opposition to it, and so they made their decisions very
carefully to limit it just to that particular business in an effort to support it.
Ms. McCulley said that her understanding of the situati on is that the mineral rights are held by
Vance Wilkins, and he leases those rights to the operator of the quarry but is no longer a quarry operator
himself.
Ms. Mallek asked how much of the 316 acres that were approved were already in the mine
operation that is currently co-owned with Polycore. Ms. McCulley said that her understanding is that it’s
all within the state permit that would allow them to mine, and there were a lot of stockpiled materials. She
said that the 316 acres have been mined at some continuous part of the past from 1969 through the
present.
Ms. Mallek said that “continuous” means it never stopped happening. Ms. McCulley said that’s
not how the law looks at it, and there can be a cessation for up to two years, and there is also
consideration of other things within a two-year period – and there has to be intent to abandon a
nonconforming use. She added that soapstone is not blasted and is a very soft material, using a wedge
similar to splitting wood.
Ms. Dittmar asked if a property owner would be notified if a close neighbor wanted to get a
determination about something. Ms. McCulley said that they always try to notify adjacent landowners,
and if there’s something that staff feels would impact the others, then they notify others. She stated that
this is a very rare instance whereby staff is making a determination that would have offsite impacts.
Ms. Dittmar said that if she was interested in something happening nearby and wanted to appeal
a determination finding, she would have to know about it to appeal it. Ms. McCulley stated that they are
required to notify adjacent owners, and they try to consider if other interested parties would also be
impacted, and if they were aggrieved they could appeal.
Ms. Dittmar asked staff to let the Schuyler residents know if there are other determinations made.
Ms. McCulley said that two of the speakers are applicants for this determination, so they would be the first
to know what the decision is.
Ms. McKeel said that 30 days is really short. Ms. McCulley stated that it’s straight from the
Virginia code.
Ms. Mallek said that she understood a speaker from several months ago to say that the owner of
the mineral rights would have the right to condemn her property to put in a driveway right beside her
house to access his other property. Ms. McCulley stated that she would be shocked if that were the case,
but she is not a lawyer and thus doesn’t feel qualified to answer that question.
Ms. Palmer said that if there were easements on that property, the access would be there. Ms.
Echols said that when they get to that, they will bring back the relationship of the Comp Plan to the zoning
and discuss what options they have with the Comp Plan. She stated that staff members were present to
address water resources, air, minerals, biological diversity, mountains, land cover, and protection from
hazards – and each topic has objectives. She suggested that before doing anything with the Natural
Resources section, she thought it would be helpful for them to look over the goal, and once they’re clear
on what that is they can skip over to the mineral resources section.
Ms. Palmer said that she felt this was slightly vague and didn’t encompass everything she wanted
to see in a goal, and she distributed a totally new one: “Albemarle’s ecosystem and natural resources will
be thoughtfully protected and managed in both rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of
life of current and future generations.”
Ms. Mallek commented that she liked the fact it was muc h more specific, and said that people
would have no confusion about what that means.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 83)
Ms. Dittmar asked if “rural and development areas” needed to be listed at all, since they were
both included.
Ms. Palmer said that there were several comments from the public on incorporating the
development area, because their goal was to protect the rural areas and encourage people to live in the
development areas – and in order to get them into the development areas, they need to be a wonderful
place to live. She said that there are differences in the development areas with regulations for things
such as critical slopes, as staff has developed, but she felt that it was important to name them specifically
as they’ve talked a lot about green spaces and corridors in the development areas.
Ms. McKeel said that she was appreciative of the designation and actually mentioning both.
Mr. Boyd said that what he’s concerned about is staff’s interpretation of what this means, and if
this means they wouldn’t have the kind of density needed in the development areas in order to maintain
the 5% rule. He stated that staff has said that this document is their “guidepost,” so their interpretation of
it is very important to him. Mr. Boyd said that there is also a lot of reference to new committees, which
will require staff support, and it seems to me to be a very expensive undertaking.
Ms. Echols explained that this particular goal relates to the areas that have been master planned
that have been designated for parks and green systems, and staff has identified in the development areas
all the places they think are the most important environmental areas for preservation. She said that the
density relates to the developable land in the development areas, so that is the relationship that w ould
exist here.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t have any problem with that interpretation, but they are already
running into issues in places like Rivanna Village, where residents in that area feel that the intensity of the
development being requested by staff is way too high. He stated that he was just trying to figure out how
the plan would relate to something like that, as staff is always seeking the highest density.
Ms. Mallek said that the balance would have to be with the existing neighborhoods in th ose
areas, because the people in Crozet felt exactly the same way – especially with Old Trail, coming out of
the master plan.
Mr. Boyd said that it had evolved that way because the developers didn’t want to live up to the
density that staff had proposed for them.
Ms. Echols asked the Board if they were in general agreement with the alternate goal as
presented.
Board members stated that they were. Mr. Boyd agreed based on his understanding of Ms.
Echols’ interpretation.
Ms. Echols stated that one of the topics already selected by the Board based on the concerns
expressed was to look at the preservation of mineral resources while recognizing the economic benefits.
She said that the reasons for review have also been expressed, and there have been concerns raised
about mining on residential property, and concerns from people in the Schuyler area that additional
mining might take place that might affect them. In the Comp Plan draft, she said, they have objective
three – “Preserve the County’s mineral resources while recognizing their economic benefits,” and two
strategies regarding putting the natural resources extraction overlay on properties near Schuyler, and
providing educational materials to property owners in overlay districts. Ms. Echols said there i s no
commitment in the Comp Plan to do this proactively, and the natural resources overlay extraction district
with all zoning – except for some industrial properties in the development areas – is owner-initiated. She
stated that the only way they believe the overlay would be put on properties would be if a property owner
asked for the overlay to be put on properties, which is different than what was just discussed about the
nonconforming use. Ms. Echols emphasized that it would be a proactive decision that would have to be
made by the Board to put the overlay district on specific pieces of property.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that this would be applicant-driven by those who own property or are entitled
to make application on property, and it would be subject to the same review as a rezoning that any other
rezoning would be – which would include the potential for proffers.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that whether they include this statement in the Comp Plan or not, that option
would be available to anybody to request a zoning change.
Ms. Palmer said that she’d like to offer a different objective to the objective three.
Ms. Echols asked her to hold onto that for a moment. She stated that in Chapter 13 of the plan
draft, the most important strategies were identified in August by the Planning Commission, and the
previous evening they had also taken an action to try to pare that down to the new or enhanced programs
that should be explored by the County first. In Chapter 13, she said, the Planning Commission thought
this should be a very high priority, but they didn’t put it at the top of the list. Ms. Echols stated that the
Commission had difficulty streamlining the 27 strategies from the natural resources section, reducing
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 84)
those priorities to 14 and then deciding to just identify three primary strategies. She said that the
recommendation in the Comp Plan is to consider expanding the extraction overlay for these areas, and
the Board has the option of retaining it, modifying it, or removing it – but that’s the question in terms of
what they want to say about mining activity in Schuyler.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the pluses and minuses are of doing this, and what’s gained versus
what’s lost. Ms. Echols said that when they have a statement in the Comp Plan that’s specific a bout
providing support for something, that provides guidance to the Board, and more specific guidance in their
decision-making should a question come to them to make a decision. Without this statement in the plan,
she said, they would be evaluating based on all of the same general issues that they evaluate anything
else on. She added that there are some pretty specific criteria in the natural resource extraction overlay
district, and things the Board would have to find to be true about impacts on adjoinin g properties. Ms.
Echols said that with or without this statement in the plan, someone can make application to have the
overlay on their property, and it will be evaluated. She said that there might be more strength to an
application if they have this particular language in the plan, but they’re all looked at based on the specifics
of the location and the specifics of a request at the time it’s made.
Ms. Dittmar asked if having the language in the Comp Plan gave the Board more oversight power
or less. Ms. Echols said that it gives the applicant greater strength in making a case.
Ms. Mallek said that the applicant would be one step closer to approval, and without this they
would have to first apply for a Comprehensive Plan text or map amendment to get that use in. Mr.
Cilimberg said that wasn’t necessarily true.
Mr. Davis clarified that what’s important is whether or not there would be a basis to have a finding
of consistency with the Comp Plan, and when staff analyzes a rezoning application that’s one of the
primary determinations they make before the Board. He said that in the courts that’s an important
consideration, because if the Board acts in accordance with its Comp Plan then it’s more easy to defend
decisions of the Boards on a fairly debatable standard – which is the standard for defending legislative
actions and zoning matters. Mr. Davis stated that the Comp Plan was important in determining whether
or not an application that comes before them is consistent with the plan or not, and if it’s in litigation,
there’s strength in the decision made by the Board if the denial or approval is consistent with the Comp
Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that if it’s in there in an overlay district it would be more likely to be ruled
“consistent with the Comp Plan.”
Mr. Davis said that with the language that’s in there today, if someone applied for an overlay
district – and there’s a strategy that says they should consider overlay districts in this area – it would be
easier for staff and the Board to make a determination that is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Mr. Sheffield said that it would also hurt them if they said “no” to that.
Mr. Davis said that was true, and if there was a denial there would be greater opportunity for the
applicant to say that their application was consistent with the plan and the Board’s determination of denial
was inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
Mr. Boyd said it might be easier to understand the ramifications of what they put in the plan by
looking at the options. He said that they could be silent on it and omit any reference to mining overlay
districts; they could say that they won’t allow any mining overlay districts to be expanded in the Schuyler
area, or they can leave the language that’s in there now, which leaves the door open for it. Mr. Boyd
noted that all three of those things have different ramifications, and asked about a scenario whereby a
person owns a large tract and wants to have a mining operation. He said that if the Board says he can’t
do that, then the inconsistency with the plan works against him.
Ms. Mallek said that’s the higher standard that she would support.
Mr. Boyd said that if the Board wants to say they’re never going to allow anyone to take
advantage of mineral rights in that area, then that’s the way it should go in the plan.
Ms. Palmer said that there are already 316 acres that can be mined there, and the existing
soapstone factory is able to mine on that property – but most of the rest of that area is residential, and it’s
not compatible. She said that the current objective states: “Preserve the County’s mineral resources by
recognizing their economic benefits,” and suggested replacing it with, “Recognize the economic value of
the County’s mineral resources while giving due consideration to the potent ial harm mineral extraction
activities and byproducts can have on human health and property values.” She also suggested removing
the second part of the sentence starting with “The County’s geology is made up mostly of metamorphic
rock,” to eliminate “the only mineral resource which is recommended for further quarrying at this time is
soapstone.” Ms. Palmer said that she would also remove Strategy A, because she doesn’t think the
people in this area should be living under this cloud of concern. She stated that the Ecovillage is a really
interesting community with a path through the center that is an old railroad bed, and you can see all the
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 85)
old little mines along there. Ms. Palmer said that there are lots of houses in the neighborhood, which is
quite lovely, and when she drives around there she sees a residential area.
Mr. Boyd said that she did a good job of splitting the issues with the verbiage.
Ms. Mallek said that “recognize” means recognizing the assets of the mining operation as it exists
today, but not addressing any kind of expansion.
Ms. Palmer agreed, stating that it is important to recognize the economic value of the County’s
mineral resources and she didn’t know what would happen in the future – but at the same time they need
to be very clear about giving consideration to human health and property values in residential sections.
Mr. Cilimberg said that in light of what she’s suggesting – with the removal of reference to
soapstone, and the objective creating more balance with economic value and potential impacts – it will be
important to keep most of the second paragraph under Strategy 3A, which describes what the natural
resource extraction overlay district is. He said that that’s part of people being aware of whatever area
might be imposed or whatever kind of extraction might be taking place.
Ms. Mallek said that this doesn’t currently exist. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it does, and the overlay
district exists as a district in the zoning ordinance, and that’s what this part of the paragraph is referring
to. He emphasized that this is describing what an overlay district would do in any location, and it’s not
about this particular location – it’s about keeping some reference to the natural resources extraction
overlay district in the plan as a description of what that’s about in case any of the particular kinds of
mineral resources that get described in the prior paragraph might be sought for natural resource
extraction.
Ms. Palmer said they can just make it very clear that this exists in the County’s zoning laws and
they’re just explaining, because it’s not currently made very clear. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if they talk
about the potential resources that could potentially be extracted in any location, they want to talk about
the district under which that might happen.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of where the overlay districts currently are. Ms. Echols said that
there were four – Luck Stone, Rockydale Quarries, and two others that she could get for them.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he wasn’t trying to suggest whether or not any of these specific areas
are or aren’t appropriate, he was simply trying to make sure that they let people know what the overlay
district is as part of Strategy 3B, which addresses education.
Ms. Palmer said that under education they can just put the explanation of what it is.
Ms. Mallek agreed with moving it down to the education part and talking about it in general terms.
Ms. Echols clarified that the overlay district is near Keswick at LuckStone, west of Rio Mills Road
north of the reservoir, near North Garden, and southeast of Glenmore near the Fluvanna County line.
Ms. Mallek said that a speaker had mentioned before that “once mining is allowed for one
mineral, it has to be allowed for all,” and she is concerned about gas extraction and horizontal drilling and
other initiatives that have emerged in the state recently. She stated that Mr. Boyd had provided excellent
wording about how this is not something that would be consistent with the Comp Plan, and they should
find a strong way to state that. Ms. Mallek said that in other places around the state, the localities haven’t
found out until the very last minute that anything was going to happen. She stated that she didn’t have
the answer, but she hoped they would figure out a way to do something about it to protect themselves, as
a special use permit wouldn’t cut it if an applicant had already received a permit from the Department of
Mines, Minerals and Energy. Ms. Mallek said that DMME’s only job is to fost er extraction, and has
nothing to do with protection of environment or health, and she hoped the Board would take a strong
stand on that and thought this was the place to do it.
Ms. Palmer asked if this was the place to do it. Ms. Echols said that they have a statement in the
water resources section pertaining to groundwater protection, which includes a list of other activities
needed for groundwater protection. She said that it states, “Studying ways to assess the potential
impacts to groundwater resources from the practice of hydraulic fracturing or fracking.” She stated that
she has been told that the rock formations in Albemarle don’t lend themselves to that practice very easily,
and she knows for certain that the geology on the other side of the Blue Ridge is very different.
Ms. Palmer said that they never know when technology could be improved to make it so. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that the Board would want a clear statement that the extraction of natural gas would not
be consistent with our protection of natural resources.
Mr. Davis said that under current law, zoning would be required to be met before someone could
have gas extraction using fracking; and unless there’s a nonconforming natural gas operation, or if it was
approved by special use permit, it would be restricted unless specifically approved by this Board. He said
that’s no guarantee that the state law will not be changed in the future, and they have seen several
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 86)
examples of that – where state law has preempted local authority – but under current law, they are in
good shape to have a Board decision determine whether natural gas fracking would occur or not.
Ms. Mallek said that one of the points made at the conference in Hanover that VACO did last
month is that if localities had proactively addressed natural gas extraction and fraction in their ordinances,
they were much better off going toe-to-toe with energy companies, and were doomed if they were “late to
the party.”
Mr. Davis said that it’s been regulated by special use permit since 1982, and Albemarle has had
more foresight than most in this area, but if there’s a strong policy position of this Board that they do not
want to have fracking to occur, the more they say on it the better off they are.
Ms. Mallek said that she hoped other Board members would support that.
Ms. Palmer and Ms. McKeel stated their support.
Ms. Echols restated what she had heard from the Board – to change the objective to the wording
that Ms. Palmer had provided, removing strategy 3A, taking the information on what the overlay district is
and does out of that particular paragraph and putting it under education, and adding a clear statement
that natural gas extraction is not appropriate.
Ms. Palmer said that she’d also like to strike the last sentence in the narrative under objective 3,
which says the only mineral resources recommended for further quarrying at this time is soapstone.
Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t agree with including a statement on natural gas extraction, because
there’s just as much science that states fracking is not dangerous or harmful to the water.
Ms. Mallek said that if it’s the fracking that’s been used in Virginia for 50 years that’s only water,
that’s true, but the chemical procedures are brand new – and very uncertain.
Mr. Boyd stated that he does not want to include a finite statement that banned this forever and
ever, adding that there are good jobs that can be created from this industry, which the communities need.
Ms. Mallek said that the Comp Plan can be modified going forward.
Ms. Palmer said that as those technologies change and there is more information to say that it
truly is safe, they can strike the statement when they do the next Comp Plan review.
Ms. McKeel noted that they could review it at any time and make changes.
Ms. Echols presented the surface water and groundwater section under Natural Resources.
Ms. Palmer said that under the introduction there was something similar to the current Comp Plan
language, and in the very first paragraph it says “the most valuable features…20 years” and she would
like to add the statement, “Because natural resource protection is Albemarle’s highest priority, it is the
County’s intent that development and other human activities should adapt to the natural e nvironment
rather than unnecessarily modifying the environment with unknown consequences to our quality of life.”
Mr. Boyd asked if she would consider change it to “a high priority” rather than “highest priority.”
Ms. Palmer said that in a previous section they discussed this, and it states “highest” elsewhere
in the plan.
Ms. Echols clarified that the very first sentence in the plan says, “The most valuable features of
the County that contribute to the high quality of life of Albemarle County, citizens concur is the natural
environment.” She asked if it was something they wanted to change for the introduction to the Natural
Resources chapter.
Ms. Mallek said that in the interest of time, she would just send that recommendation out to the
Board for review.
Ms. Echols reported that the surface water and groundwater section is up for review is because of
interest by citizens, and when they were working on state stormwater regulations for conformity with those
regulations and realized it was important to look at a countywide plan for all the County resources so they
weren’t working at cross purposes. She said that there is one objective and seven different strategies
that relate to the restoration of impaired streams, water protection ordinance, the growth management
strategy, etc. Ms. Echols said that the Planning Commission’s recommendations for the highest priorities
for new programs or enhancements included four strategies – and beyond the mandates emphasized,
they focused on promoting water conservation. She stated that the plan in Chapter 13 has the priorities
they identified in August, and there are 14 of those for the whole chapter – and those don’t go away, the
Commission has just tried to provide some guidance as the most important programs.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 87)
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that Mr. Graham had spoken to the Commission about the work
program that the Board had seen and endorsed, and the question arose as to what would happen when
the Comp Plan was adopted in trying to decide what gets into the County’s w ork program. He said that
staff pointed out that the Comp Plan would be a major guide to that, and the Commission expressed
concern about the number of strategies so they suggested telling the Board which are the most important
for the County to be focused on most immediately, after the plan is adopted.
Ms. Dittmar said that the Board wasn’t thinking about priorities, they were adopting a plan. Mr.
Cilimberg stated that at the end of the process, the Board will have a real action plan as to how the Comp
Plan will be addressed through initiatives, and the Commission felt it was helpful to provide some
direction to the Board as to what the top priorities would be, that is essentially the follow-up to adopting
the Comp Plan. He clarified that they were just trying to advise the Board based on their best judgment
on what the Board may face down the road in terms of making decisions on initiatives that the County
would pursue.
Ms. Mallek said that she appreciated their effort, but disagreed because ACSA was working very
hard on conservation and the streams were incredibly impaired. Ms. Dittmar said this is why it’s important
for them not to address these now, while they are trying to adopt a plan.
Ms. Echols stated that what would be part of their decision m aking is what they want to do with
staff’s recommendations, because staff feels it’s very important to have a comprehensive water resources
plan and program, and it would cover the things that relate to surface water and groundwater, and water
supply in terms of coordination with the service authority and RWSA, as well as water conservation
education and collaboration with other agencies. She said that those are the things that would fall under
a comprehensive water resources plan, and that would be something that staff would recommend
changing in what the Planning Commission has already provided – because of the work that staff has
done since that time. Ms. Echols stated that another thing that was asked was to add water use as a
performance measure in terms how well they are doing with water conservation, and the last
recommendation was to improve the explanation of the relationship between water quality and land
development in the text.
Ms. Palmer said that another item that the League had brought up th at didn’t make it into this list
was the need to indicate that these were local goals, not state goals, and they should not be dependent
upon the state minimum.
Ms. McKeel added that it should also include federal.
Ms. Palmer said that their other recommendation was that the narrative should have the same
legal standing as the strategies, and there were some other places where there seem to be action items
in the narrative.
Ms. Echols stated that the language that the League was describing would take care of that, and
those particular strategies are ones that should be explored. She said that those were strategies that
were in place many years ago, and there may be others that better achieve those particular goals, which
is why in the narrative it describes strategies to achieve those goals.
Mr. Boyd said that he hadn’t really done wordsmithing on specific items, and he did have some
concerns about items in the chapter that direct them to establish new committees, support staff and
additional people – and if the Board approves this, he wanted to know if it was giving them the go -ahead
to start budgeting for those items and include staff members beyond what’s mandated by the state. He
stated that he doesn’t want to put something definite in the Comp Plan that precludes people from moving
forward from a particular activity, such as the mining in Schuyler, but instead allows them to address it by
individual application at the Board level.
Ms. Mallek said that the applicant would just be told that they needed to apply for a Comp Plan
amendment in order to start the process, and after that step they can move forward with zoning – so it
raises the performance bar to make it more protective of what the County has.
Mr. Boyd stated that’s fine as long as staff interprets it that way, and he’s heard stories of people
being turned away based on the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that staff tells them what the process is, and the reality is that they convey to
applicants that certain activities may not be allowed but if they feel strongly enough about it, they are
informed of the process as to how to change it. She said that they’ve had plenty of Comp Plan
amendments in the past, and this is how they get started.
Mr. Foley said that the key is finding that right balance.
Ms. Palmer stated that they would be meeting next week to establish their priorities in this regard,
so they would have this discussion about implementation, spending, etc.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 88)
Mr. Boyd asked how this would be balanced with other priorities such as emergency services,
police, educational needs, etc.
Ms. Palmer said that’s the whole thing – they have to decide that as a Board, and they can’t have
everything.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that the Comp Plan has had a provision for 20 years a recommendatio n
for a rural area planner that’s never been funded, so having it there is no guarantee that it will happen at
any time.
Mr. Boyd said that they have to couch it all in dollars and cents, in light of many competing
priorities and the potential for several tax increases.
Ms. Mallek said that happens at the zoning level.
Mr. Foley emphasized that they have lots of input coming from several different directions – the
CIP process, the Comp Plan, the schools, their retreat – and all of those things have to roll into their five-
year financial plan calculations, which is where the figure out what they can afford. He said that there are
a lot of things out there that are important that they cannot afford to pay for that get included in that plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that based on the experience in previous years of having strategies within
Comp Plans, if there is something the Board absolutely doesn’t think they want to pursue, then they
shouldn’t put it in – but having it in there doesn’t mean they’re necessarily going to do it. He stated that it
establishes an intent or importance to consider doing it, and they may or may not, so if it helps to have
the language say “consider,” rather than saying it’s absolute, that’s an adjustment staff can make.
Ms. Mallek said that fracking would be in that category for her right now.
Ms. Palmer asked if some specific discussion could be added on the Rivanna River impairment
and the TMDLs, perhaps under 4.8. Ms. Echols said that they are currently talking about TMDLs in very
general terms, but the first two strategies – especially the first one – talks about stream restoration. She
stated that the stream restoration and remediation activities for water quality relate to the TMDLs, and it’s
in there although it’s not as explicit to what Ms. Palmer is speaking to. Ms. Echols said that there are
several different things in the plan mentioned as they relate to surface water, but they’re not mentioned
together in one spot so they can understand that all these things are part of water protection. She said
that they are recommending being more explicit about what these activities are, including the TMDLs, and
having it under the umbrella of a single program.
Ms. Echols asked the Board if they wanted to continue discussing it, or pick it up next week, and
asked if there was more they wanted to say about water resources.
Ms. Palmer said that she wanted to make sure a few additional things were covered, but she
didn’t mind waiting.
Mr. Boyd said that he is philosophical about it and wouldn’t come out against clean water and
clean air, he just wanted to understand how staff would interpret this – and staff’s explanation of that was
acceptable to him.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff might want to tweak some of the strategy language so that it’s not an
obligation, but a consideration for the future.
Ms. Dittmar asked how many of Ms. Palmer’s comments about water resources were beyond
editing and were something that she would want to share with the Board in case there wa s a difference of
opinion.
Ms. Palmer said that she wants to be more specific, and she wants the strategies to be intentional
in terms of what the County plans to do, based on resources available. She stated that she would write
all of her suggestions up and would meet with staff about those, noting that she had also incorporated the
League statements into the different strategies.
Ms. Mallek said she had tried to do the same last fall, so perhaps they could share everything by
email.
Ms. Dittmar asked what was on their agenda for the following week. Ms. Echols said that it was
cultural, scenic and historic resources, and they only had one topic – which staff brought to them – and
there weren’t any other topics that had risen to the top. She said that staff wanted to discuss the
Monticello viewshed and the change in policy, so natural resources could roll into that meeting because
as long as they can wrap that up with the other resource discussion they will still be on track.
Ms. Palmer said that she would also like to include maps that name the rivers. Ms. Echols said
that staff has already acknowledged the need to include better maps.
June 04, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 89)
Mr. Cilimberg said that it would be helpful for staff to know if the Board was in agreement with the
points discussed at this meeting so they could be focus points for staff in finishing up the water resources
part of the plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to have a red-line copy. Mr. Foley said it’s difficult to
provide that between meetings.
Ms. Echols said that if they do a red-line version after every meeting to reflect everything the
Board has said, they may be rehashing it again at the next meeting – and staff was hoping to do a red-
line at the very end. She also said that staff wants to make sure t he Board is OK with the concepts
before providing wording.
Mr. Boyd said that they were asked to finalize the vision statement, yet they didn’t have a red -line
copy of that.
Ms. Mallek said that it was really a total substitution.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff had agreed at the Board’s direction to compile all of that and bring it
back in the draft document before going to public hearing, but if they spend time on the red-lining, they
may cut short the time they have preparing on the next item for disc ussion.
Mr. Boyd said he was just having trouble going through the process without being able to
compare it, but he was OK with moving forward as staff suggests.
Ms. Echols said that staff would ask that Board members get together with staff individually if it’s
only a matter of wordsmithing, but a change of substance should go before the whole Board.
Ms. Palmer asked if they could put “urban” or “public” before “water use as a performance
measure,” so that it wouldn’t impact people on wells in the r ural area. She said that ACSA has this type
of information, and she wasn’t suggesting monitoring of wells.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to have that monitoring of County wells.
Ms. Palmer clarified that that would be under “groundwater, data collection and analysis” – and
there are only a couple wells to monitor.
Ms. Echols said that the following week they would come back and finish up the Natural
Resources section, and she would work with Ms. Palmer on the suggested text changes.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to June 5, 2014, 5:00 p.m., Closed Meeting, Room 241.
At 7:08 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved to adjourn their meeting to June 5, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in Room
241 of the County Office Building. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
____________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/11/2015
Initials: EWJ