2014-10-01October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count y, Virginia, was held on
October 1, 2014, at 1:00 p.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 1:03 p.m., by Ms. Dittmar.
Ms. Dittmar introduced staff present and announced that the Board has implemented a new
meeting schedule in order to accommodate working people who wished to attend.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Mallek said that she has several items for discussion to see if the Board wants to move
forward with them. Ms. Dittmar suggested that she report on them during Brief Announcements from the
Board.
Ms. Dittmar stated that at the end of the day, the County Executive will discuss the community
response to Ms. Hannah Graham’s disappearance.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll
was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that on October 9, 2014, 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., the CBIC-sponsored Tech
Tour for middle school students interested in science will be held and she will be chaperoning one of the
groups. Ms. Susan Stimart can provide additional information for anyone who may be interested in
chaperoning.
Ms. Mallek said that she participated in the Boys & Girls Club Cycling Challenge, which included
many teams from companies and neighborhoods. She encouraged people to consider entering a team
next year.
Ms. Mallek announced that the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program is
accepting applications, and interested landowners should contact County staff member Mr. Ches Goodall
prior to October 31, 2014. She said that there will be a new round of applicants processed through the
winter for deliberation and possible purchase about a year from now.
She congratulated the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) and the Solarize Cville project, who
have signed up 1,000 County and City residents to get solar hot water in their homes and businesses.
Ms. Mallek said that at the end of the day she wants to discuss a possible ban on standing water,
as it can perpetuate mosquito-borne illnesses. She stated that she also wants to discuss possible State
legislation for a bottle deposit, and consideration of a ban on plastic bags.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to have a future discussion regarding decibel levels and
sound for amplified music. She added that she will also have a report on the courts at the end of the
meeting.
_____
Ms. Dittmar reported that the legislative roundup, now called Festivus, will be held by the
Chamber of Commerce on October 9, 2014 at Old Trail, and legislators at every level will be invited.
She stated that the Scottsville Founders Day was a wonderful community event despite the rain.
Almost all former Supervisors attended – including Peter Way, Forrest Marshall, Lindsay Dorrier and
Petie Craddock.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Dittmar reported that the Commonwealth Planning and Zoning Conference will be held in
Short Pump October 12-14, 2014 and will feature a session on broadband.
She stated that the Boys & Girls Club of James River will be dedicated on October 4, 2014. She
added that Senator Tim Kaine is scheduled to be present.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Board received information on the Virginia Freedom of Information Act,
Virginia Conflict of Interests Act and the Virginia Public Records Act, and asked the County Attorney to
brief Board members on the changes to insure they are in compliance.
_____
Ms. McKeel thanked Colonel Steve Sellers, the Police Department and others who attended the
forum held at Monticello High School on September 29, 2014 to discuss outreach from police
departments into the community, prompted by the recent incidents in Ferguson, MO. She stated that
there were about 50 attendees, and a seven-member panel that included Pastor Alvin Edwards, Dr. Rick
Turner, Dr. David Boyd – who has experience with Homeland Security, Capt. Pete Manzier, Lt. Chris
Beck - the Police Department’s Training and Professional Development staff person, Sgt. Greg Davis of
Police Internal Affairs, and Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Elliot Casey. She said that it was a very
positive discussion, and she learned a lot.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked if Mr. Jake Washburn could fill Board members in on what is happening locally
to try to assist Virginians who are registered to vote but do not have driver’s licenses so that they can get
the proper identification in order to vote.
Ms. Dittmar said that she would have Mr. Washburn speak about that during Matters from the
Public.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Recognitions.
Item No. 6a. Proclamation recognizing October 6, 2014 as World Habitat Day.
Ms. Dittmar read and presented the following proclamation recognizing World Habitat Day. She
asked Mr. Peter McFaren, Habitat’s Chief Development Officer, to come forward:
PROCLAMATION
WORLD HABITAT DAY
WHEREAS, the world’s housing situation is a crisis in need of attention and action, with 1.6
billion people living in inadequate shelter; and
WHEREAS, on World Habitat Day, October 6, around the world, individuals, organizations
and government officials are raising awareness, educating and mobilizing to take
action on the current global housing crisis while working together to ensure
adequate housing for all; and
WHEREAS, as the international community seeks to meet critical shelter needs, affordable
housing and neighborhood revitalization initiatives best occur within the
framework of a comprehensive local strategy and a development plan supported
by the local government and its citizenry; and
WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville addresses the causes and
systemic issues that perpetuate poverty housing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on this 6th day of October, 2014, the County of
Albemarle officially joins Habitat volunteers, homeowners, partners and
supporters around the region in recognizing World Habitat Day and is
committed to increasing opportunities for affordable housing for all.
Signed and Sealed this 1st day of October, 2014.
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt the proclamation. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said that he will abstain from voting on this item . W hile he values Habitat for Humanity
and feels it is a great organization, he thinks that the proclamations are becoming “a dime a dozen” for
the Board.
Ms. Dittmar said that this particular proclamation has come before previous boards, and as a
member of Habitat for Humanity’s Advisory Board, she feels it is an important recognition because of the
mission and work the organization is doing.
Ms. Mallek confirmed that it is not new, and has come before the Board in previous years.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd said that with that information, he will vote on the item.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Peter McFerrin said that he moved to this area a few months earlier from a city in Egypt of 30
million people. He thanked the Board for its support on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He said that the
Board’s support is critical for what they are doing in Southwood and the 500 people who live there –
which they hope will grow and prosper into a multi-income community in the coming years.
__________
Item No. 6b. Proclamation recognizing October 2014 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Ms. Palmer read the following proclamation recognizing Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Ms. Palmer said that even though no one was present to accept the proclamation, it is important to read it
because so many people are affected daily by domestic violence:
PROCLAMATION
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups
of people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal
indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity,
security, and humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and
economic control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging; and
WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic
violence on their own—we must work together to educate our entire population about what can
be done to prevent such violence, support victims/survivors and their f amilies, and increase
support for agencies providing services to those community members; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the Albemarle County
in addressing domestic violence by providing 24-hour hotline services to victims/survivors and
their families, offering support and information, and empowering survivors to chart their own
course for healing; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 35th year of providing
unparalleled services to women, children and men who have been victimized by domestic
violence;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the important work being done
by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, that I, Jane D. Dittmar, Chair of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of
October 2014
as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by
the Shelter for Help in Emergency, and to work toward the elimination of personal and institutional
violence against women, children and men.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of October, 2014.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proclamation as presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item No. 6c. Proclamation recognizing October 3-12, 2014 as American Craft’s Week’s Fifth
Anniversary.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing American Craft Week’s Fifth Anniversary:
PROCLAMATION
AMERICAN CRAFT’S WEEK FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, the culture of the Virginia artisan inspires appreciative audiences for its unique
work and distinctive way of life; and
WHEREAS, the production and use of handmade arts and artisan agricultural products invoke
an intimate lifelong relationship of value and appreciation for the work of highly
skilled individuals; and
WHEREAS, the state of Virginia currently hosts 27 community-connected and developing
artisan trails representing 40 counties and 11 cities across the Commonwealth
that are strengthening our economy through a connective community Artisan Trail
Network; and,
WHEREAS, artisans and agricultural artisans contribute significantly to strong local and
creative economies and is an effective avenue toward entrepreneurial
opportunities and the diversification of local economies undergoing transition; and
WHEREAS, artisans and agricultural artisans are integrated into every aspect of life in Virginia
-- strengthening the economy, enriching civic life, driving tourism, and exerting a
profound positive influence on the education of our children;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,
do recognize the week of October 3-12, 2014 as Virginia Artisan Week and
encourage all citizens to join in this event.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of October, 2014.
Ms. Mallek added that the Monticello Artisan Trail was the very first developed in Virginia , is
holding its fourth anniversary this year and has been a huge success for the artisans in Albemarle and
Nelson.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the proclamation as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 6.d. Proclamation recognizing October 2014 as Virginia Wine Month.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation recognizing October 2014 as Virginia Wine Month,
noting that the first recognition was in 2010, at which time the Governor came to King Family Vineyard in
Crozet to sign the bill.
PROCLAMATION
VIRGINIA WINE MONTH
WHEREAS, from modest beginnings in colonial times, Virginia has become a nationwide
leader in the wine industry, now fifth in the nation in wine production and number
of wineries with wine sales growing 26 percent since 2010, to 6.25 million bottles
of Virginia wine sold worldwide in fiscal year 2014; and
WHEREAS, wines from the Commonwealth, including those from Albemarle County, are
winning national and international awards and recognition for their elegant
qualities, imparted by skilled vintners and Virginia’s terroir; and
WHEREAS, many of Albemarle’s 35 vineyards, most with wineries on site, are run by families
as strong agricultural enterprises that can be passed on to future generations,
providing economic benefit for winery owners and employees and for other
Albemarle ventures supported by the patronage and purchasing power of winery
visitors, including farming of heritage and heirloom crops, restaurant cuisine
committed to selling local where possible, and tourism focused on sustaining the
land and the local culture; and
WHEREAS, in 2013 Albemarle County had the most bearing acres of grapes of any area in
the state--568 acres, or 18.4% of the state's total bearing acres which is an
increase of 26% from 2010 -- and is part of the central region of Virginia which
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
produced the most tons of grapes -- 2849 tons, or 41.5% of the total in the state
in 2013; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County values our wineries’ stewardship, keeping their land producing
and protected in agricultural uses, preserving scenic vistas, historic sites and
other amenities which make Albemarle wineries ideal places of entertainment,
culture, enjoyment and social engagement that enrich Albemarle County’s quality
of life and culture of hospitality;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, does
hereby recognize Albemarle County wineries and their contribution to the Virginia
wine industry’s success and encourage County residents and visitors to visit a
winery or purchase local wines through local restaurants and shops du ring
October 2014, Virginia Wine Month.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of October, 2014.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proclamation as presented. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Dittmar commented that Virginia is tied with Texas fifth in the nation for wine production,
sharing that position with Texas, and Governor McAuliffe has made a commitment to break away from
them.
Ms. Mallek commented that it costs tens of thousands of dollars per acre to plant grapes, and
more growers are needed. She said that Mr. Jeff Sanders, President of the Monticello Wine Trail,
planned to attend the meeting but is busy with harvesting. She added that she will deliver copies of the
proclamation to each of the 12 wineries located in the White Hall District.
__________
Non-Agenda Item. Mr. Boyd said it is his honor to recognize the County Executive, Tom Foley,
who has served the County for 15 years. Mr. Foley joined the County in 1999 as Assistant County
Executive. Mr. Foley initiated and led the County’s first Fire and Rescue, General Services and Facilities
Development Departments. Mr. Foley initiated and led the consolidation of three departments into the
Department of Community Development. The Board appointed Mr. Foley as County Executive in 2011.
Before joining Albemarle County, Mr. Foley was Chief Administrative Officer of Caroline Coun ty Virginia
from 1994 to 1999 where he coordinated the development of the County’s first strategic planning process,
developed the County’s first five year financial plan and finance policy, coordinated the development of
the County’s first capital improvements program. From 1991 to 1994, Mr. Foley served as Cumberland
County’s first County Administrator where he developed their first budgeting system and finance policy,
coordinated the development of its first capital improvements program, developed its f irst personnel and
procurement policies and procedures, and coordinated the automation of its fiscal records.
Mr. Foley also served as a staff associate for the Virginia Association of Counties and a research
associate for the Center for Public Service at Virginia Commonwealth University. Mr. Foley is an
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Credential Manager, a member of the ICMA
and Virginia Local Government Management Association (VLGMA), graduate of Virginia Tech’s Institute
for Economic Development and Certified Planning Commissioners’ Program, and has a Bachelor of
Business Administration from Marshall University and Masters of Public Administration from Virginia
Commonwealth University. In addition to serving as the County Executive, Mr. Foley serves on the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Airport Authority, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development and the Planning and
Coordination Council in conjunction with the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board is happy to recognize Mr. Foley for his 15 years of service, and
presented him with a Certificate of Appreciation.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Mr. Foley for his service and work.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Jake Washburn, Albemarle County Voter Registrar, and Samuel Miller resident, said that he
wants to explain the new photo ID law and the County’s efforts to help individuals who do not have
acceptable identification for voting. The law went into effect July 1, 2014 and will be in effect for the
upcoming November 4, 2014 general election. There are several forms of acceptable ID which include a
Virginia Driver’s License, U.S. passport, employer photo ID, or a student ID with a photo, among others.
He said that for those individuals who do not have an acceptable ID, through a program coordinated
through the Department of Elections, all of the voter registrar offices in the state are equipped with
cameras and signature capture pads. Voters may use any office – not just the one in their home
jurisdiction, and a photo ID can be made. Mr. Washburn encouraged the Board to help get the word out.
He said that even if voters arrive at the polls on Election Day without an acceptable ID, the day after the
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
election they can come into the Registrar’s office and get a temporary photo ID so their provisional ballot
will be counted by the Electoral Board. He mentioned that they have started putting notices into the
mailings of new voters’ voter cards that alert them to the fact they will need a photo ID.
Ms. Palmer noted that he have made some renovations to the office and changes to ensure that
this process goes efficiently. Mr. Washburn said that the renovations are not complete. Funding for the
renovations is a part of the Board’s current Consent Agenda that night. If funded, the renovations will
take place in January, 2015 and February, 2015.
Ms. Mallek noted that seniors are particularly impacted by the change in law because many of
them no longer drive, and asked if there is any specific outreach to those populations such as bus trips to
the Registrar’s office from residential senior areas to get IDs made. Mr. Washburn said that his staff goes
out to all eldercare facilities in the County and offers both voter registration opportunities and absentee
ballots. He stated that if the person is registered in Albemarle County and is not a first time voter, he or
she can do an absentee ballot without a copy of an ID in the envelope that is returned to the Registrar’s
office. He said that anyone over 65 who does not have a photo ID can do an absentee ballot, and they
are also encouraged to come to the Registrar’s office. He added that the Registrar’s office does not have
the capability to take their services mobile, although the State Department of Elections is working on
establishing an internet connection to the statewide database.
Ms. Mallek said that residents can also get a photo ID through the “DMV on the Go” bus.
__________
Ms. Clara Belle Wheeler, Chair of the County’s Electoral Board, said Albemarle County is
fortunate to have Jake Washburn as its Registrar. Mr. Washburn is an attorney and keeps everything
running smoothly. She said that they have been working to get more space for the Registrar’s office.
She said that they process a lot of regular ballots, absente e ballots and walk-ins, and they definitely need
more space. Ms. Wheeler said that they have cut their funding request down to about one -third of the
original estimate. The Registrar’s office will be a nice place to come on vote – also providing security for
absentee ballots. She stated that while the Washington Post recently reported that there were more than
450,000 voters in Virginia who did not have photo identification, but that was proven wrong by the State
Board of Elections; the correct total is less than 45,000. Ms. Wheeler said that a photo ID can be a
driver’s license, a photo ID issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, Military ID, school or college ID,
employee ID, etc. Ms. Wheeler said that the Board of Elections works to educate voters , and elderly
persons are not permitted to use Medicaid or Medicare without a photo ID, in an effort to eliminate fraud.
She quoted former Atlanta Mayor and United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young, who thanked the
legislators of Georgia for passing the law and giving a photo ID to every citizen of that state because it is
impossible to participate in mainstream America without it. The General Assembly of Virginia has done
the same thing so everyone in Virginia can have a free photo ID.
__________
Mr. Bob Toplin, a resident of the Rivanna District, said he was present to urge the Board not to
edit the current language in the cell tower ordinance when they consider it later in the meeting. Mr. Toplin
said that while some of the proposed adjustments appear small, the word changes have significant
consequences and make it too easy to place cell towers in residential communities. He stated that
current rules and practices make Albemarle County one of the most permissive counties in the
Commonwealth of Virginia regarding the placement of large towers in established neighborhoods . It is
time to create a broader plan that affords greater protection to citizens. He stated that many comparable
cities and counties in Virginia provide much greater protection for neighborhoods through ordinances and
practices. These rules in Virginia’s other local governments establish more substantial setback
requirements. Albemarle officials should study other counties’ pra ctices and create new ordinances that
provide neighborhoods with greater protection. T he need here does not relate to any specific
neighborhood in the County – but relates to all neighborhoods in the County.
__________
Ms. Ellen Dudley addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of the Rivanna District. She
said that when they were doing research on the way other comparable localities in Virginia address
setbacks, they heard emphatic responses from those they spoke with – professionals in zoning, planning,
law and community development – and they were amazed that tower placement in neighborhoods was
considered an appropriate practice in Albemarle. She noted that their names are identified in the
document provided for the Board. A Roanoke County administrator commented that he could not
imagine someone trying to put up a tower in an established residential neighborhood and another said
they do not allow them at all. Ms. Dudley said that the Town of Vienna’s planner said his city does not
have a cell tower in a neighborhood, and said that residential neighborhoods are totally excluded. She
said that administrators in both Culpeper and Warrenton said they could not think of any such placement
in established neighborhoods. The James City County Attorney said that the Supervisors there enacted
an ordinance that prohibits towers in residential neighborhoods. She stated that towers are not allowed in
Fredericksburg residential neighborhoods, and a Loudoun County zoning planner said that they not on ly
disallow cell towers in residential neighborhoods, but also require that any tower be placed at least 750
feet from the border of an area zoned residential.
__________
Ms. Diane Ritter, of the Rivanna District, said that the main issue with the cell tower policy is
setbacks – rules about the required distance between a cell tower and the property line of a neighbor.
Ms. Ritter said that other jurisdictions require broader setback standards than Albemarle, and they do
more to protect residential communities. She presented a graphic depiction of how other localities handle
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
setbacks. Under the proposed change, Albemarle County establishes the setback in terms of the height
of the wireless communications tower – which in one example would be about 101 feet versus 200 in
Fluvanna, which also requires a 500-foot setback from a dwelling. She stated that Culpeper and Greene
Counties require two times the tower’s height for the setback, so the 101-foot tower would have a 202-
foot setback; Chesterfield County requires a setback of 300 feet for towers over 100 feet in height. Ms.
Ritter said that Loudoun County has a 750-foot required setback. She emphasized that Albemarle needs
more substantial regulations.
__________
Mr. John Clem, a resident of the Rivanna District, said that small editing changes to the cell tower
ordinance can be more serious than first apparent. Changes in a word or two can further weaken
protection for residents – such as striking the word “facility” in Article II b(2) and replacing it with the word
“monopole” or “tower.” Mr. Clem said that the replacement of this one word has major implications. Until
now, he said, the word “facility” gave Albemarle neighborhoods slightly broader setback protection, and if
it is removed that protection disappears. He presented a picture of a communications tower, noting the
presence of a platform alongside it of approximately 25 feet in width, and pointed out a diagram included
in the present ordinance that references “facility” as the raised metal pl atform with equipment situated in
the drawing near the bottom. Mr. Clem said that under the current ordinance, all parts of the facility must
be kept further away from neighboring lot lines than the tower’s height when calculating the setback, so
by counting the platform also, residents are offered slightly larger setback protection – roughly 25 feet,
representing the width of the platform. He said that removing the word “facility” would allow for even
tighter cramming of towers into Albemarle County neig hborhoods and would weaken the requirements.
Mr. Clem stated that residents are asking the Board to keep the existing setback protections and consider
other additional means that encourage cell companies to locate their towers outside of residential
neighborhoods.
__________
Ms. Carolyn Dawson, of the Rivanna District, addressed the Board, stating that the proposed
changes to the cell tower policy create many problems – with setbacks being the main issue. Ms.
Dawson stated that currently, Albemarle setback rules for towers are weak, and provide minimal
protection for citizens in established residential neighborhoods. She said that the proposed changes in
language would make the setback standards even weaker. The suggestion to replace the word “facility”
with “tower” or “monopole” in practice reduces the protection neighborhood citizens now receive. Ms.
Dawson said that the Planning staff’s executive summary that was presented to the Planning Commission
on June 24 include changes that were intended “to address changes requested by the industry,” which
means that the proposed adjustments as considered by the Board originated with the communications
industry. She emphasized that as County leaders, they also have the responsibility to balance industry
concerns with those of the public. Ms. Dawson asked the Board to addre ss the changes requested by
Albemarle citizens to conduct research and put in place more protective setback rules for cell towers. If
setbacks are based on the height of the tower, regulations should have the setback two to three times the
height of the tower. She said that it would be even better if the Board were to adopt the practice of
disallowing cell towers in established neighborhoods, as other localities have.
__________
Mr. Tim Leroux addressed the Board, stating that he is before them as President of the
Hollymead Homeowners Association, to support what has been said about cell towers. He added that he
is not sure why this would even be proposed as the majority of the County is not residential.
__________
Mr. David VanDerWorf, a resident of the Samuel Miller District and resident of the Bellair
Subdivision, said that he was before the Board to echo what other speakers have said. He said that the
County should consider very carefully what protections it provides to those in residential areas and
undertake efforts to increase them. He said that Bellair Subdivision has one of the earliest treetop towers
established in Albemarle County, and it has grown in its use and intensity over the years. He said that
the setback is a key issue to control the future placement and ongoing enlargement of these facilities,
which present both visual and operational impacts to the neighborhoods and residents in which they are
placed.
__________
Ms. Jennifer Greeson addressed the Board, stating that she is also a resident of the Bellair
Subdivision and wants to speak about the drastically insufficient protections for R -1 zoned landowners
under the current and proposed wireless ordinances. Ms. Greeson reported that the treetop facilities in a
single backyard in Bellair were originally allowed in 2002-2003 by special use permit, which came with
significant restrictions on operation and development of the towers: no visual impact and minimal
maintenance disruptions restricted to a monthly visit by a technician. She stated that under the wireless
ordinance changes approved by the Board the previous years, all of the permits were declared null and
void at the request of the industry – so the Bellair towers are currently being governed by the general
ordinance, which has no special protections for R-1 districts. Ms. Greeson said that the growth of these
towers seems inexorable, and the County seems to have no power to modulate or regulate the ongoing
intensification of use. She noted that the towers were designed as m onopoles to fill in a cell phone gap
on the Route 250 bypass, and now the industry has decided that they need to be LTE data hubs – which
means they need to broadcast in the TV and cellular range, need additional antenna arrays and
dedicated underground cabling. Ms. Greeson said that the disruption in their neighborhood has been
extreme and is ongoing. The driveway of the lot in question was collapsed into a wetland area by a 120-
foot boom truck; the state road cul-de-sac that she lives on has been blocked for weeks at a time by
staging of heavy equipment, including blocking emergency vehicles and a school bus. She stated that
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
they currently have two miles of front yards being torn up in the neighborhood, and beautiful 50-year-old
trees that line the streets are having their root systems undermined just to run a dedicated cable system
to the towers. Ms. Greeson said that the County has indicated they have no power to intervene in this
ongoing development – and staff even seems to imply that the intensification of use may be desirable
from a planning perspective, but her feeling is that any policy that does not allow for intervention needs
more work.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner, of the Piedmont Environmental Council, said that the Board has a good cell
tower policy, but it needs to be revised to prohibit towers in residential neighborhoods. He presented
images of large tower arrays on Route 15 in Haymarket and on I-64 in Waynesboro, as well as one near
Mount Jackson that is almost 300 feet tall. He urged the Board not to let Albemarle become one of those
places.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum , addressed the Board, stating that the photos
Mr. Werner presented relate directly to the information provided regarding setbacks. He said that it has
been the policy of Albemarle County to have more small towers rather than a few large ones, and about
every speaker who came before them had a wireless device in their pocket. Mr. Williamson said that the
cell towers are attempting to cover the area and serve the people in safety and economic development,
and if Albemarle wants to have large towers that cover more area it would be a significant shift – and
would require additional, larger setbacks. He stated that the regulations being pro posed are not severe
relaxations; they are part of a rational approach to covering the County and keeping citizens connected.
Mr. Williamson noted that it took three years for these to come forward, and there are more on the way.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to pull Item 8.4 for a separate vote and he has questions on
Items 8.5 and 8.14.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that the Board takes his questions and then vote on everything but Item
8.4
_____
In terms of Item 8.5, Mr. Boyd said that he serves as liaison on the Lewis & Clark Center. A year
or so ago the Board decided to loan the Center $130,000 in conjunction with what the City did, for a total
of $260,000 to complete building their facility. Mr. Boyd said that he has spoken with Mayor Huja about
this on the City side, and said that he would like to have the Board consider forgiving this loan – as has
been done with Fire & Rescue and other departments in the past. He said that he does not want to do it
without some research done by staff, including the financial impact, but the Center is an asset to the
community and always will be.
Mr. Foley said that staff could bring information back to the Board after talking with the City.
Ms. Palmer said that it seems to her that it should be evaluated along with other nonprofits, since
there is a budget process in place for considering those.
Ms. Mallek said that in the information that comes forward, there needs to be a disclosure of
assets already provided by the Lewis & Clark Center as improvements to the Park.
Mr. Boyd said that it will be an asset to the community and will help with tourism in attracting
people to come here, with programs already in place. He noted that forgiveness of the loa n would not be
unlike what the Board did for the Crozet Pool a couple of years ago.
Mr. Fran Lawrence, of the Lewis & Clark Center, said that the Center has already built a lovely
building that the City and County owns, and they would be willing to work on this.
Mr. Boyd said that the Board still needs to approve the loan extension.
_____
With regard to Item 8.14, Mr. Boyd said he does not know why it is on the agenda, because if a
Board member wants to write letters to the Governor it does not need to be on the Consent Agenda; it
can just be copied to other Supervisors.
Ms. Dittmar said that she always includes her letters in the “For Information” section of the
Consent Agenda so that everyone stays in the loop.
Ms. McKeel said that she and Mr. Sheffield just wanted Board members to know they were
sending the letter, as a courtesy.
Mr. Boyd said that he appreciates the courtesy, but he does not like the impression that it gives,
because he is not in support of the Route 29 Solutions package. He does not support approving a
consent agenda with this as part of it.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. Dittmar said that the Board is not approving the “For Information” portion when they vote to
approve the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that a majority of the Board has voted several times over the last six
months or so to send repeated letters to the state requesting quick resolution to the sale of right of way in
this neighborhood, because of damage to the property values there. She noted that they were votes held
during the open meeting.
Mr. Boyd said he cannot recall those letters being a part of the consent agenda.
Ms. McKeel said that she and Mr. Sheffield felt that it is important to keep everyone in the loop
that they are sending this letter.
Ms. Palmer said that she appreciated it.
Ms. Dittmar said that perhaps they could structure the Consent Agenda differently.
Mr. Boyd said that he just wants to express his opposition to this even if it is for informational
purposes only.
_____
Ms. Dittmar asked about Item 8.4.
Mr. Boyd said that he wants to pull that item for separate vote.
_____
Ms. McKeel moved to approve Items 8.1, as read, through 8.6, and removing Item 8.4, and to
accept the remaining items as information. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd (prefaced his vote by stating that his opposition is to Item 8.14.)
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013, February 24, March 12(A), March 12(N),
and June 16, 2014.
Ms. Dittmar asked that her minutes of November 13, 2013 be pulled and carried forward to the
next meeting.
Ms. Palmer asked that her minutes of February 24, 2014 be pulled and carried forward to the next
meeting.
Ms. McKeel read the minutes of March 12(A), 2014 and found them to be in order.
Mr. Sheffield read the minutes of March 12(N), 2014 and found them to be in or der.
Ms. Mallek read the minutes of June 16, 2014 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read.
__________
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 $24,335.15. 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.
The Strategic Plan mission is to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through
the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
This request involves the approval of three (3) appropriations as follows:
One (1) Appropriation (#2014118) totaling $3,279.44 for reconciliation of the debt funds.
This appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
One (1) Appropriation (#2014119) totaling $24,185.25 for reconciliation of the Capital
Improvement Program projects; and
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
One (1) Appropriation (#2014120) totaling $149.90 to appro priate $149.90 for the
Metropolitan Planning Organization Grant.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2014118, #2014119, and #2014120 for general
government and school division programs and projects as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2014118 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County budget.
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $(3,279.44)
Gen. Gov’t Capital Fund fund bal. $3,279.44
This request is to finalize the reconciliation of the County’s Debt Service fund s that was originally
submitted under Appropriation 2014-114 and approved on August 6, 2014. This request will not increase
the total County budget.
Specifically this request is to appropriate $3,279.44 in general fund transfer to the School Debt Service
fund and equally decrease the appropriated revenue budget for the interest reimbursement for the
Qualified School Construction Bond (QSCB). The County was notified after the budget was adopted that
the interest reimbursement would be less than initially budgeted.
This interest reimbursement revenue reduction also requires the County to reduce the general fund
transfer to the General Government CIP and to increase the use of General Government CIP Fund fund
balance by an equal amount.
Appropriation #2014119 $24,185.25
Source: Borrowed Proceeds $24,185.25
Stormwater Management Program $3,000.00*
*This portion of the request does not increase the total County Budget.
This appropriation request is to reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures of the Capital Improvement
Program as follows.
Reconcile FY 14 revenues and expenditures by appropriating $3,000.00 from the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) Stormwater Management Program to the CIP Dam Break Study
project. The Dam Break Study was anticipated to have been completed in March 2014,
therefore, the remaining balance was returned to the Stormwater Management Program
pursuant to appropriation 2014-083 approved on April 2, 2014. Subsequently, an
unexpected regulatory interpretation by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation regarding dam safety required additional work on the Dam Break Study
project be completed at the cost of $3,000. This request does not increase the total
County Budget.
Appropriate $24,185.25 in FY 15 borrowed proceeds to the School Security
Improvements Capital Project to support the start-up expenses incurred in FY 14. This
project was approved and included in the Adopted FY 15 Capital Budget, however, the
project incurred expenses in FY 14, as it was necessary for School construction work to
start in mid-June to ensure that work would be completed before the start of school in late
August.
An appropriation request to equally reduce the FY 15 project budget and supporting
revenue is included as Appropriation 2015-043 in the FY 15 Budget Amendment and
Appropriations being presented to the Board for approval on October 1, 2014.
Reconcile FY 14 appropriated State Transportation Revenue Sharing Program revenues
to revise the initial estimated state revenues described in Appropriation 2014-005
approved on July 3, 2013 to reflect the state revenues currently approved to be applied
for each project. This reduced the state funding for the South Pantops Drive/State Farm
Blvd. Sidewalk project by $31,850.00 and increases the funding for the Hydraulic Road
and Barracks Road Sidewalk Project by the same amount. This does not increase the
total County Budget.
Appropriation #2014120 $149.90
Source: MPO Grant Fund Balance $149.90
This request is to reconcile the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Grant fund by
appropriating $149.90 of grant fund balance for reimbursed Community Development Department staff
salaries based on actual FY14 expenditures and revenues. The MPO Grant provides funding support for
the County’s participation in the MPO. An estimated amount for this grant is included in the initially
appropriated budget each fiscal year.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2014118, #2014119, and
#2014120 for general government and school division programs as set out below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2014118 3-9900-33900-333900-330063-1006 -3,279.44 SA2014118 Reconcile-Debt
2014118 3-9900-51000-351000-512004-9999 3,279.44 SA2014118 Reconcile-Debt
2014118 4-1000-93010-493010-930003-9999 3,279.44 SA2014118 Reconcile-Debt
2014118 4-1000-93010-493010-930010-9999 -3,279.44 SA2014118 Reconcile-Debt
2014118 3-9010-51000-351000-512004-9999 -3,279.44 SA2014118 Reconcile-Debt
2014118 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 3,279.44 SA2014118 Reconcile-Debt
2014119 4-9100-82047-482040-312350-9999 3,000.00 SA2014119 Reconcile: Dam Break Study Fr.
Storm. Manag. Program
2014119 4-9100-82040-482040-800975-9999 -3,000.00 SA2014119 Reconcile: Dam Break Study Fr.
Storm. Manag. Program
2014119 4-9000-69985-466730-800605-6599 24,185.25 SA2014119 Reconcile: School Security
Improvement
2014119 3-9000-69000-341000-410530-6599 24,185.25 SA2014119 Reconcile: School Security
Improvement
2014120 3-1208-51000-351000-510100-9999 149.90 SA2014120 App Fund Balance
2014120 4-1208-81309-481200-110000-1008 149.90 SA2014120 Salaries
TOTAL 48,670.30
__________
Item No. 8.3. FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriation.
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 15 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $ 1,957,248.17.
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.
The Strategic Plan Mission is to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through
the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
This request involves the approval of twelve (12) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2015035) to re-appropriate $572,090.82 for various General
Fund projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015036) to re-appropriate $404,200.54 for various internal
service funds, grants, donations, and seized asset accounts;
One (1) appropriation (#2015037) to appropriate $119,002.92 for various school division
programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015038) to re-appropriate $170,748.46 for various Capital
Improvement Program projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015039) to appropriate $25,358.00 from the Training Pool to
various departments for training and professional development. This appropriation will not
increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015040) to appropriate $94,478.00 for a Fire/Rescue
Prevention and Training grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2015041) to appropriate $172,187.00 to a Capital Improvement
project from the Department of Environmental Quality. This appropriation will not
increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015042) to appropriate $583,897.95 in funding for various
General Government Capital Improvement Program projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015043) to reduce the appropriation of funding for two School
Division Capital Improvement Program projects ($53,126.52);
One (1) appropriation (#2015044) to appropriate $53,467.00 for various Police
Department grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2015045) to appropriate $5,000.00 in donations to the Fire
Rescue Department; and
One (1) appropriation (#2015046) to re-appropriate $7,489.00 for the Emergency
Communications Center.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2015035, #2015036, #2015037, #2015038,
#2015039, #2015040, #2015041, #2015042, #2015043, #2015044, #2015045, and #2015046 for general
government and school division programs and projects as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2015035 $572,090.82
Source: General Fund fund balance $560,024.64
Local Revenue $2,129.16
State Revenue $1,158.00
Federal Revenue $8,779.03
The following requests are to re-appropriate FY 14 funds to complete projects that were started but not
completed in FY 14, to provide funding for purchase orders (POs) initiated in FY 14 but delivered in FY
15, and to move FY 14 funding forward to meet ongoing or anticipated needs in FY 15. These requests
are planned to be one-time expenditures.
Finance:
o Requests the re-appropriation of $5,804.88 for temporary personnel to assist with
moving the storage in the existing warehouse to the new warehouse that will be
co-located with the Northside Library.
o Requests the re-appropriation of $60,000.00 for the pay process review study.
Human Resources: Requests the re-appropriation of $991.15 in unexpended tuition
reimbursement program funding;
Registrar:
o Requests the re-appropriation of $11,970.00 to replace back-up emergency
power batteries in 70 voting machines;
o Requests the re-appropriation of $4,700.00 for the purchase of replacement
equipment;
General District Court: Requests the re-appropriation of $1,350.00 for furniture planned in
FY14 and delivered in FY15;
Commonwealth’s Attorney: Requests the re-appropriation of $6,440.00 for furniture
planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15;
Sheriff:
o Requests the re-appropriation of $2,884.85 of the balance remaining in
fingerprinting fees to purchase volunteer reserves’ uniforms, equipment, and
other miscellaneous items.
o Requests the re-appropriation of $3,483.37 of unexpended grant funds from the
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) Drug Court Grant.
o Requests the re-appropriation of $4,745.73 in contributions that were received
during FY14 to support the Sheriff’s volunteer reserve programs and an
additional $2,129.16 in donations received during FY15 for a total appropriation
of $6,874.89. These contributions will support the various reserve programs such
as Project Lifesaver, TRIAD, Search and Rescue, child fingerprinting, and any
other programs/activities that the Reserves are involved in within the community.
Police:
o Requests the re-appropriation of $82,070.06 for traffic safety programs from the
net revenues in prior years related to the PhotoSafe Program. These revenues
are intended to only fund traffic safety programs/operations and not for general
local government operations;
o Requests the re-appropriation of $99,010.50 for equipment and vehicle
purchases planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15; and
o Requests the re-appropriation of $35,000.00 to hire a consultant to assist with an
update of the department’s policy manual.
Fire Rescue:
o Requests the re-appropriation of $30,000.00 to hire a consultant to create a best
practices manual to support administrative volunteers. This proposal has been
reviewed by the Fire and EMS Board.
o Requests the re-appropriation of $29,828.42 for volunteer advertising and
marketing efforts appropriated in FY14 that will be expended in FY15;
o Requests the re-appropriation of $15,787.00 for turnout gear and uniforms
planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15;
o Requests the re-appropriation of $11,830.00 to complete security improvements
at fire rescue stations to meet Virginia Board of Pharmacy regulations; and
o Requests the re-appropriation of $5,516.00 to complete a renovation assessment
for the Rescue 8 building.
Inspections and Building Codes: Request the re-appropriation of $482.00 for furniture
planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15;
Social Services:
o Requests the re-appropriation of $15,272.50 for purchase orders and furniture
that were planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15;
o Requests the re-appropriation of $15,000.00 for training; and
o Requests the re-appropriation of $1,158.00 for the State-funded Strengthening
Families program.
Parks and Recreation: Request the re-appropriation of $27,543.00 for parks maintenance
equipment planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15;
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Community Development: Requests the re-appropriation of $1,914.74 for furniture
planned in FY14 and delivered in FY15;
Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH): Request s the re-
appropriation of $7,500.00 to complete the work under a Request for Proposals (RFP)
issued by the City of Charlottesville in co llaboration with the County of Albemarle. This
request was originally appropriated in FY14 on February 5, 2014;
Innovation Fund: Requests the re-appropriation of $79,510.49 that was undesignated at
the end of FY14. This re-appropriation, combined with the $50,000.00 approved as part
of the FY15 adopted budget, totals $129,510.49 for additional Innovation Fund projects.
In addition, this request is to re-appropriate the balance of $1,428.97 in the Anytime,
Anywhere Innovation Fund project at the end of FY14 to complete the project in FY 15.
Training Pool: Requests the re-appropriation of $8,760.00 of unexpended Training Pool
funding in FY14 to be combined with the Training pool funding currently appropriated in
FY15 for use in FY 15.
Appropriation #2015036 $404,200.54
Source: Federal Revenue $9,425.00
Grant Fund Fund Balances $394,775.54
This request is to appropriate and re-appropriate funding associated with Special Revenue Funds,
including seized asset accounts, performance bonds, grants, donat ion funds, and internal service funds.
The funding requested for re-appropriations has not been expended as of June 30, 2014 and is expected
to occur in FY 15.
This request is to re-appropriate $1,084.24 from a private donation to support the work of
the Natural Heritage Committee (NHC). This private donation was originally appropriated
in July 1, 2009 and was made to specifically support the work of the NHC. The Chair of
the NHC has requested the donated funds be re-appropriated so the committee can use
the funds to support its mission, which is to maintain and restore the County's native
biological diversity and provide a healthy environment for the citizens of Albemarle
County.
This request is to re-appropriate $393,691.30 of Seized Asset Monies received from
State and Federal Agencies for the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Police
Department. These monies will be used to fund office supplies, furniture, training, and
temporary help.
This request is to re-appropriate $9,425.00 from Grant #2013-DJ-BX-0650 awarded by
the U.S. Department of Justice to assist in funding overtime hours of current officers in
support of reducing crime and improving public safety.
Appropriation #2015037 $119,002.92
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $1,316.57
State Revenue $19,734.85
Misc. School Grant Fund Balances $97,951.50
This request is to appropriate the following School Division requests approved by the School Board on
August, 14, 2014:
Summer Enrichment Funds: This request is to appropriate $400.00 in donations
received for the Summer Fine Arts Academy.
Community Public Charter School: This request is to appropriate $916.57 in donations
and $19,734.85 in State Funding for a total of $20,651.42 to the Community Public
Charter School. The mission of the Community Public Charter School is to provide an
alternative and innovative learning environment, using the arts, to help children in grades
six through eight learn in ways that match their learning styles. Seeking to serve students
who have not succeeded in school, the program will assist in closing their achievement
gap by offering a balance of literacy tutorials and an arts-infused curriculum.
Miscellaneous School Grants: This request is to re-appropriate fund balances totaling
$97,951.50 for various school grants that had unexpended fund balances at the end of
FY14. The Miscellaneous Grant fund is used to track competitive grants that are typically
$5,000.00 or less. The funds received are primarily from local organizations and
occasionally from State or Federal subsidiaries.
Appropriation #2015038 $170,748.46
Source: General Gov’t. Capital Fund Balance $170,748.46
This request is to re-appropriate FY 14 funds for the following Capital Program projects:
Police Radio System: This request is to re-appropriate $80,748.45, the remaining FY 14
balance of the Police Radio System project that has not been completed. This supports
the purchase of dual band radios and portable radios for Police officers. The portable
radios were ordered in May 2014. The dual band radios, which allow officers to have
radio communications state-wide and provide the ability to communicate with other
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
agencies, could not be purchased in FY 14 as anticipated because the vendor did not
release the current version of the radio in time for testing to be completed prior to the end
of FY 14.
Police Mobile Data Computers: This request is to re-appropriate $90,000.00, the
remaining FY 14 balance of the Police Mobile Data Computers project that has not been
completed. This supports the purchase of the cellular amplifiers that were unexpectedly
unavailable for purchase due to legislation changes mandated by the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC). The FCC recently adopted new rules to improve the
design of the devices to reduce interference with public carrier networks. Manufacturers
were forced to recall their existing products and submit them for certification with the
FCC. Manufacturers have now submitted their products to the FCC for certification and
newly approved amplifiers are now available for purchase.
Appropriation #2015039 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Training Pool $25,358.00
This request is to appropriate $25,358.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for approved
training opportunities and professional development. The Board approved a training pool of $50,000.00 in
the FY15 budget. After this appropriation, $24,642.00 will remain in the Training Pool. Appropriation
#2015035 includes a request to re-appropriate $8,760.00 in Training Pool balances remaining at the end
of FY 14. If both requests are approved, the balance in the training pool will be $33,402.00.
Appropriation #2015040 $94,478.00
Source: Federal Revenue $94,478.00
Grants Leveraging Fund* $4,972.00
*The Grants Leveraging Fund component of this appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
This request is to appropriate $94,478.00 of grant funding from the Department of Homeland Security to
the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Department, as well as the local match of $4,972.00 from the grants
leveraging fund, for a total of $99,450.00. This Fire Prevention and Safety grant will provide funds to
purchase smoke detectors and to conduct the prevention program utilizing community partners and
existing staff in an extra duty capacity. The goal is to reach a quarter of the at risk target households in
approximately one year.
Appropriation #2015041 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: State Revenue $172,187.00
This request is to appropriate $172,187.00 in State grant revenue for the Church Road Basin Retrofit
project. The grant funding is through the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ’s) Stormwater
Local Assistance Fund, a new funding program for stormwater pollution reduction efforts related to Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The Church Road Basin Retrofit project consists of various
enhancements to an existing regional stormwater management facility designed to improve its ability to
remove pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) from stormwater runoff. This will help the County
meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Chesapeake Bay watershed and local streams. T he
project is being designed by Kimley-Horn and is expected to be out to bid in late January 2014.
This appropriation will not increase the budget because the planned use of Stormwater Fund fund
balance will be reduced by an equal amount.
Appropriation #2015042 $ 583,897.95
Source: Proffer Revenue $228,000.00
State Revenue $270,897.95
General Govt Capital Fund Bal $85,000.00
Current Projects $2,901,538.09*
*This portion of the appropriation will not increase the total County Budget.
This request is to appropriate various General Government Capital Projects:
Voter Registration Renovation: This request is to appropriate $85,000.00 to the
Department of Voter Registration and Elections from the CIP fund balance for the Voter
Registration Renovation capital project and to RE-appropriate $9,660.00 for associated
project management services from funding currently appropriated for Parks Maintenance
projects, which will not require the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) assistance, to
the Voter Registrar Renovation Project, which will require OFD assistance.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Specifically, this request is for the construction portion of the project, which was
described in Appropriation 2015-013 and approved by the Board on July 2, 2014.
Appropriation 2015-013 funded the design services of this project. The project is the
expansion and limited re-design of the Voter Registration and Elections office suite at the
County Office Building located on 5th Street Extended. The project will expand the office
suite from 1,140 square feet to 1,373 square feet, an increase of 233 square feet,
including a modest expansion for storage into the existing Office of Housing and floor
plan redesign of the suite to addresses space needs identified that are critical to meeting
State and Federal requirements. The renovation will maximize functionality, optimize
work flow process, and alleviate congestion during absentee voting. Contributing to the
space needs are: (a) the dramatic increase of County voters voting absentee ballots
during the statutorily-mandated 45-days prior to every election; (b) an increased number
of registered voters in the County, adding to voter registration record-keeping
responsibilities; and (c) the need for a new voting machine and the new Photo ID
requirements mandated by State law.
Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk Safe Routes to School (SRTS): This request is to
appropriate $103,000.00 of various proffer revenue to support the Crozet Elementary
School SRTS Sidewalk and Crossing Improvements project. This request will increase
the project budget by $103,000.00 for a total project budget of $293,000.00. The proffer
revenue includes: Grayrock West proffer totaling $61.384.02, Grayrock proffer totaling
$946.96, Haden Place proffer totaling $20,669.02, and Wickham Pond II proffer totaling
$20,000.00.
This is an active project currently funded by a Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) awarded SRTS Grant to improve walking and bicycling routes to Crozet
Elementary School for students from residential neighborhoods by funding the design
and construction of curb and sidewalk on the west side of Crozet Avenue from Ballard
Drive to the school. The improvements also include the installation of a manually
activated crosswalk warning system at the pedestrian crossing to the school. There was
no match required for the grant.
The County bid the project in October 2013, but the low bid of $328,000.00 exceeded the
available funds and a "No Award " letter was issued in December 2013. The primary
cause of the high bids was a significant and unanticipated waterline relocation. The plan
had to be redesigned to comply with VDOT requirements before it could be re-advertised.
Staff is also now aware of the additional costs associated with the full-time inspection,
testing and documentation required by VDOT for locally administered projects that were
not included in the SRTS grant application and award. Although design changes have
been identified to reduce the construction cost, the current project budget estimate of
$292,560.00 still exceeds the available funds without the approval of this $103,000.00
appropriation. If approved, the project will be advertised this fall and constructed over the
winter or early spring depending on weather conditions.
This request is to appropriate the projects approved for funding from the State’s
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program. In June 2013, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board approved the County’s request for FY14 Revenue Sharing Program
funds totaling $750,000.00, and in June 2014, the Commonwealth Transportation Board
approved the County’s request for FY15 Revenue Sharing Program funds totaling
$1,000,000.00. This request is to (a) appropriate $125,000 of proffer revenue to support
the County’s match; (b) appropriate $270,897.95 of additional State reimbursement
revenue to support the State’s match; (c) reallocate $106,223.96 from existing
appropriated projects to support the County’s match; and (d) reallocate $2,891,878.09
from existing appropriated Transportation Revenue Sharing Program funding to support
the County and State’s match. The total County budget will increase by $395,897.95.
The projects and budgets are described below.
o Old Lynchburg Road Asphalt Walkway upgrade – This project supports
pedestrian safety by providing improvements to the existing asphalt walkway
(patching, resurfacing or replacement) on Old Lynchburg Road, from Fifth Street
to the Region Ten building (750 ft). This walkway will become increasingly
important as the new Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) bus route will not stop at
the Region Ten building, but will provide a stop on the corner of Old Lynchburg
Road and Fifth Street.
The total revenue sharing project budget is $250,000.00 for this project and will
be reallocated from the County's Transportation Revenue Sharing Program
current budget. The State match total is $125,000.00 with an estimated VDOT
project expense of $15,000.00 for a net reimbursement to the County of
$110,000.00. This amount will be designated for this project from the existing
State reimbursement currently budgeted. The County’s match is
$125,000.00. This portion of the appropriation will not increase the total County
budget.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
o Rio Road, Avon Street, US Route 250 West - This project supports pedestrian
safety by providing improvements along Rio Road, Avon Street, and U.S. Route
250 West-Crozet. These three projects are under one VDOT Unified Project
Code (UPC) and considered one project in the Revenue Sharing Program. The
Rio Road sidewalk improvement project will connect Stonehenge, a fairly dense
residential neighborhood, to the Meadowcreek Parkway and Rio Road sidewalk
system. The Avon Street walkway/crosswalks improvement project (Phase 1) will
extend the existing sidewalk/asphalt walkway from Mill Creek Drive north to
Peregory Lane (1950 ft) and from Stoney Creek Drive southward to Arden Drive
(1000 ft), and will construct crosswalks to Cale Elementary School. The U.S.
Route 250 West-Crozet project will consist of construction of sidewalks,
crosswalks and street lighting from Cory Farms to the Cloverlawn commercial
area and Blue Ridge Shopping Center. The total revenue sharing project budget
is $1,250,000.00.
Of the total $1,250,000.00, the supporting revenues are $75,000.00 in Avinity
proffer revenue and the balance is from currently budgeted projects with
supporting revenues. The State match total is $625,000.00 with an estimated
VDOT project expense of $15,000.00 for a net reimbursement to the County of
$610,000.00. The existing revenue budget for State reimbursement to the
County will be designated for this project and will provide $625,000.00 from the
County's Transportation Revenue Sharing Program. The County’s match totals
$625,000.00 and will be supported by (a) $75,000.00 in Avinity proffer revenue,
(b) reallocation of $70,992.22 from the Avon Street sidewalk project including the
supporting Avon Park proffer totaling $64,596.33, (c) reallocation of $35,231.74
from the street lights project, and (d) reallocation of $443,776.04 from the
County's Transportation Revenue Sharing Program. This portion of the
appropriation will increase the total County budget by $75,000.00 in the amount
of the Avinity proffer funds.
o Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road Sidewalks - This project supports pedestrian
safety by making sidewalk improvements along Barracks Road and Hydraulic
Road. The Barracks Road sidewalk improvement involves: 1) the construction of
approximately 1,000 feet of sidewalk from the Barracks West apartm ents on the
north side of Barracks Road to the existing sidewalk west of the Georgetown
Road intersection; 2) the construction of crosswalks and two segments of
sidewalk (650 ft. total) on the south side of Barracks Road between the
Georgetown Road intersection and Westminster Road, and between S.
Bennington Road and the 29/250 Bypass ramps; and 3) the construction of a
crosswalk at Chaucer Road to serve an existing bus stop. The Hydraulic Road
sidewalk improvement involves the construction of approximately 1,700 feet of
sidewalk on the north side of Hydraulic Road.
The current project budget is $837,000.00 and is supported in part by
$253,150.00 in State match reimbursement and $235,700.00 from the Stonefield
proffer. This request will increase the project budget $694,000.00 for a total
revenue sharing project budget of $1,531,000.00. The increase of $694,000.00
will be reallocated from the County's Transportation Revenue Sharing Program
current budget. The revised State match totals $653,150.00 with an estimated
VDOT project expense of $15,000.00 for a net reimbursement to the County of
$638,150.00 increasing the State match reimbursement revenue to the County
by $385,000.00. This amount will be designated for this project from the existing
State reimbursement currently budgeted. The County’s revised match totals
$653,150.00 for a net increase of $294,000.00. This portion of the appropriation
will not increase the total County budget.
o Ivy Road (Rt. 250 West ) – This project supports pedestrian safety by providing
sidewalks, bike lanes, curb and storm drainage system improvements, street
trees and pedestrian lighting from the former Kluge Rehabilitation Center
site/University of Virginia (UVA) Police Office area to the City line. This project
will connect the commercial and surrounding residential areas along Ivy Road to
the existing sidewalk system in the City.
The total revenue sharing project budget is $1,200,000.00 for this project and is
supported by $50,000.00 of Willow Glenn proffer revenue and $270,897.95 of
State reimbursement, and the balance will be reallocated from the County's
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program ’s current budget. The State match
totals $600,000.00 with an estimated VDOT project expense of $15,000.00 for a
net reimbursement to the County of $585,000.00. Of the $585,000.00,
$314,102.05 will be designated for this project from the existing State
reimbursement currently budgeted and $270,897.95 will be appropriated. The
County’s match totals $600,000.00 and is supported by $50,000.00 of Willow
Glen proffer revenue and $550,000.00 reallocated from the County's
Transportation Revenue Sharing Program current budget.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Appropriation #2015043 $(53,126.52)
Source: Borrowed Proceeds $(24,185.25)
School Capital Program Fund Bal. $(28,941.27)
This request is to appropriate various School Division Capital Projects:
School Security Improvements: As the counterpart of Appropriation Request #2014119,
this request is to reduce the amount of borrowed proceeds to support the School Security
Improvements Capital Project by $24,185.25 for the start-up expenses that were incurred
in FY 14. This project was approved and included in the Adopted FY 15 Capital Budget,
however, the project experienced expenditures in FY 14, as it was necessary for School
construction work to start in mid-June to ensure that work would be completed before the
start of school in late August.
School CIP Maintenance Program: This request is to reduce the School CIP Maintenance
Program and supporting revenue, School Division Capital Fund fund balance, by
$28,941.27, and the supporting revenue, School CIP Fund fund balance, which was re-
appropriated from the remaining balance of the VMF Lifts project in a previously
approved appropriation (Appropriation 2015002) on July 2, 2014. This reconciles the
amount re-appropriated with the funding amount that is available after the year-end
reconciliation. While the VMF Lifts project was completed prior to the end of the fiscal
year, the expenditures had not yet been accrued to the project when the appropriation
was requested.
Appropriation #2015044 $53,467.00
Source: Federal Revenue $53,467.00
Grants Leveraging Fund* $2,894.00
*The Grants Leveraging Fund component of this appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
This request is to appropriate the following Police Department Grants :
$15,732.00 of grant funding from the Department of Justice to the Albemarle County
Police Department, The purpose of this grant is to assist in funding overtime hours of
current officers in support of reducing crime and improving of public safety through more
"Community Policing." There is no local match.
$27,735.00 of grant funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia-Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Police Department, as well as the local match of $2,126.00, for a total of
$29,861.00. There is also an in-kind match of $12,738 that will be covered by the Traffic
Unit's Supervisor's time for traffic safety operations and administration. The primary
purpose of this grant is to reduce motor vehicle accidents through DUI enforcement, as
well as other traffic safety enforcement, including speeding and safety restraint usage.
This will be accomplished through approximately 650 grant-funded, overtime hours for
DUI-focused enforcement.
$10,000.00 of grant funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia-Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Police Department, as well as the local match of $768.00, for a total of
$10,768.00. There is also an in-kind match of $4,231.55 that will be covered by the
Traffic Unit's Supervisor's time for traffic safety operations and administration. The
primary purpose of this grant is to reduce motor vehicle accidents through increased
speed enforcement but may also include other traffic safety enforcement including DUI
and safety restraint usage. This will be accomplished through approximately 235 grant
funded, overtime hours for speed enforcement.
Appropriation #2015045 $5,000.00
Source: Fire Rescue Donations Fund balance $5,000.00
This request is to appropriate $5,000.00 from the Fire Rescue Donations Fund to the Department of Fire
Rescue. These donations support various efforts including the car safety seat program, public education
and one-time equipment or station furnishing purchases.
Appropriation #2015046 $ 7,489.00
Source: ECC Fund balance $7,489.00
The Emergency Communications Center (ECC) requests that the County, acting as fiscal agent for the
ECC Management Board, re-appropriate $7,489.00 from ECC fund balance to provide a more enhanced
maintenance agreement with a vendor to cover the generators operated at the ECC and various tower
sites. This request was approved by the ECC Management Board at its August 19, 2014 meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2015035, #2015036,
#2015037, #2015038, #2015039, #2015040, #2015041, #2015042, #2015043, #2015044, #2015045,
and #2015046 for general government and school division programs and projects as set out
below:
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2015035 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 560024.64 SA2015035 App Fund Balance
2015035 3-1000-24000-324000-240110-1005 1158.00 SA2015035 state revenue
2015035 3-1000-33000-333000-330020-1005 8779.03 SA2015035 federal revenue
2015035 3-1000-51000-351000-512020-9999 2129.16 SA2015035 Transfer from Fund 8408
2015035 4-1000-21020-421020-800201-1002 1350.00 SA2015035 Furniture replacement-General
District Court
2015035 4-1000-31013-431010-601011-1003 35599.00 SA2015035 Ammunition
2015035 4-1000-31013-431010-800500-1003 25855.00 SA2015035 Motor vehicles
2015035 4-1000-31013-431010-800101-1003 6349.95 SA2015035 MACH & EQUIP-REPLACEMENT
2015035 4-1000-31013-431010-310000-1003 35000.00 SA2015035 Policy Review Consultant
2015035 4-1000-31013-431010-690010-1003 82070.06 SA2015035 Photosafe
2015035 4-1000-31013-431010-601100-1003 31206.55 SA2015035 Holsters and accessories
2015035 4-1000-32016-432010-360000-1003 29828.42 SA2015035 Advertising
2015035 4-1000-32015-432010-601104-1003 5787.00 SA2015035 turnout gear
2015035 4-1000-32015-432010-312210-1003 16086.00 SA2015035 Security access / Rescue 8
renovation assessment
2015035 4-1000-32015-432010-601100-1003 10000.00 SA2015035 uniforms
2015035 4-1000-32016-432010-392000-1003 30000.00 SA2015035 Volunteer Best Practices Manual
2015035 4-1000-32015-432010-332200-1003 1260.00 SA2015035 Security access monitoring
2015035 4-1000-53010-453010-550100-1005 24237.50 SA2015035 Training PO to carry forward
2015035 4-1000-53010-453010-800200-1005 6035.00 SA2015035 Furniture
2015035 4-1000-53013-453010-570811-1005 1158.00 SA2015035 Strengthening Families
2015035 4-1000-34050-434050-800200-1003 482.00 SA2015035 inspections furniture
2015035 4-1000-71012-471010-800101-1007 11846.00 SA2015035 Parks - machinery and equip
2015035 4-1000-71012-471010-800502-1007 15677.00 SA2015035 Parks - extra vehicle equipment
2015035 4-1000-81021-481020-800200-1008 1914.74 SA2015035 CDD furniture
2015035 4-1000-59000-459000-566603-1005 7500.00 SA2015035 TJACH
2015035 4-1000-22010-422010-800200-1002 6440.00 SA2015035 Filing cabinets
2015035 4-1000-99900-499000-999978-9999 79510.49 SA2015035 Innovation Fund
2015035 4-1000-12200-412200-600000-9980 1428.97 SA2015035 Anytime, Anywhere
2015035 4-1000-99900-499000-999984-9999 8760.00 SA2015035 Training Pool
2015035 4-1000-12145-412140-130000-1001 5360.81 SA2015035 Warehouse Manager
2015035 4-1000-12145-412140-210000-1001 444.07 SA2015035 Warehouse Manager
2015035 4-1000-12141-412140-310000-1001 60000.00 SA2015035 Pay Process Study
2015035 4-1000-12031-412030-382000-1001 991.15 SA2015035 Tuition Reimbursement
2015035 4-1000-13020-413020-331607-1001 11970.00 SA2015035 Voting Machine Batteries
2015035 4-1000-13020-413020-800100-1001 4700.00 SA2015035 Rolling Carts and Refrigerator
2015035 4-1000-21070-421070-301235-1002 2884.85 SA2015035 Fingerprinting
2015035 4-1000-21078-421070-130000-1002 3098.00 SA2015035 Grant reappropriation
2015035 4-1000-21078-421070-210000-1002 155.27 SA2015035 Grant reappropriation
2015035 4-1000-21078-421070-600800-1002 230.10 SA2015035 Grant reappropriation
2015035 4-1000-21070-421070-301230-1002 6874.89 SA2015035 Reserve Programs
2015035 3-8408-18110-318000-181117-9999 2129.16 SA2015035 Donations
2015035 4-8408-93010-493010-930009-9999 2129.16 SA2015035 Transfer to GF
2015036 3-8407-51000-351000-510100-9999 1084.24 SA2015036 Reapp-National Heritage
Committee
2015036 4-8407-79000-479000-568755-9999 1084.24 SA2015036 Reapp-National Heritage
Committee
2015036 3-1234-51000-351000-510100-9999 53322.88 SA2015036 Reapp - Fund Balance
2015036 4-1234-22010-422010-320000-1002 23322.88 SA2015036 Temp. Help
2015036 4-1234-22010-422010-550100-1002 7000.00 SA2015036 Travel/Training
2015036 4-1234-22010-422010-600100-1002 3000.00 SA2015036 Office Supplies
2015036 4-1234-22010-422010-800200-1002 5000.00 SA2015036 Furniture
2015036 4-1234-22010-422010-800700-1002 15000.00 SA2015036 Technology Equipment
2015036 3-1235-51000-351000-510100-9999 645.27 SA2015036 Reapp - Fund Balance
2015036 4-1235-39000-439000-580905-1003 645.27 SA2015036 State Drug Seizures
2015036 3-1236-51000-351000-510100-9999 308479.40 SA2015036 Reapp - Fund Balance
2015036 4-1236-39000-439000-580905-1003 308479.40 SA2015036 State Drug Seizures
2015036 3-1237-51000-351000-510100-9999 13531.80 SA2015036 Reapp - Fund Balance
2015036 4-1237-39000-439000-580902-1003 13531.80 SA2015036 Machinery & Equipment
2015036 3-1238-51000-351000-510100-9999 17711.95 SA2015036 Reapp - Fund Balance
2015036 4-1238-31013-431010-800100-1003 17711.95 SA2015036 Machinery & Equipment
2015036 3-1242-33000-333000-300001-1003 9425.00 SA2015036 Grant Revenue - Federal
2015036 4-1242-31013-431010-120000-1003 8755.00 SA2015036 Overtime Wages
2015036 4-1242-31013-431010-210000-1003 670.00 SA2015036 FICA
2015037 3-3300-63300-316000-161104-6530 400.00 SA2015037 Summer Fine Arts Academy
2015037 4-3300-63300-465304-601300-6530 400.00 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 3-3380-63380-318100-181080-6599 916.57 SA2015037 Community Public Charter School
Donations
2015037 3-3380-63380-324000-240806-6599 19734.85 SA2015037 Community Public Charter School
State Support Grant
2015037 4-3380-63380-461101-132100-6280 2438.45 SA2015037 PT/Wages-Teacher
2015037 4-3380-63380-461101-152100-6280 12540.63 SA2015037 Sub/Wages-Teacher
2015037 4-3380-63380-461101-210000-6280 1145.92 SA2015037 FICA
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
2015037 4-3380-63380-461101-312700-6280 1870.00 SA2015037 Prof. Ser. Consultants
2015037 4-3380-63380-461101-601300-6280 2656.42 SA2015037 Educ. & Recreation Supplies
2015037 3-3104-63104-651000-510100-6599 97951.50 SA2015037 Revenue-Fund Balance
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6101 1000.00 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-420100-6104 1222.00 SA2015037 Field Trips
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6104 5132.13 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-312500-6105 2092.46 SA2015037 Prof. Services - Instructional
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6105 2100.00 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6107 4869.12 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6109 4105.29 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6112 1351.05 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6116 3051.99 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6115 1600.49 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6117 3418.81 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6251 10030.56 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6252 24996.12 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6253 1484.73 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6301 1000.00 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6302 1350.00 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6304 7646.75 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-460700-601300-6530 10050.00 SA2015037 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015037 4-3104-63104-461311-580500-6599 11450.00 SA2015037 Staff Development
2015038 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 170748.45 SA2015038 Reappropriation - Use of Fund
Balance
2015038 4-9010-31010-431010-800305-3110 80748.45 SA2015038 Reappropriation - Police Radio
System
2015038 4-9010-31010-431010-800317-3110 90000.00 SA2015038 Reappropriation - Police Mobile
Data Computers
2015039 4-1000-99900-499000-999984-9999 -25358.00 SA2015039 1st FY15 Distribution
2015039 4-1000-32012-432010-550100-1003 9500.00 SA2015039 Training Pool Distribution
2015039 4-1000-12040-412040-550100-1001 750.00 SA2015039 Training Pool Distribution
2015039 4-1000-81021-481020-550100-1008 2500.00 SA2015039 Training Pool Distribution
2015039 4-1000-53010-453010-550100-1005 5000.00 SA2015039 Training Pool Distribution
2015039 4-1000-31013-431010-550100-1003 7608.00 SA2015039 Training Pool Distribution
2015040 4-1000-93010-493010-930200-9999 4972.00 SA2015040 Transfer from General Fund
2015040 4-1000-99900-499000-999974-9999 -4972.00 SA2015040 Grants Leveraging Fund
2015040 3-1602-51000-351000-512004-9999 4972.00 SA2015040 Transfer from Grants Leveraging
Fund
2015040 3-1602-33000-333000-330001-1003 94478.00 SA2015040 Federal Revenue
2015040 4-1602-32015-432010-120000-1003 17418.00 SA2015040 Overtime
2015040 4-1602-32015-432010-210000-1003 1332.00 SA2015040 FICA
2015040 4-1602-32015-432010-350000-1003 2500.00 SA2015040 Brochures/handouts
2015040 4-1602-32015-432010-360000-1003 8500.00 SA2015040 Media ads
2015040 4-1602-32015-432010-601300-1003 57200.00 SA2015040 Smoke alarms, Buzz E house
2015040 4-1602-32015-432010-800700-1003 12500.00 SA2015040 Panasonic Tough Pads
2015041 3-9100-24000-324000-240052-1008 172188.00 SA2015041 DEQ Revenue
2015041 3-9100-51000-351000-510100-9999 -172188.00 SA2015041 Use of Capital Stormwater Fund
Bal
2015042 4-9010-13020-413020-800604-1170 75000.00 SA2015042 Voter Reg COB5 Renovation
2015042 4-9010-13020-413020-800200-1170 10000.00 SA2015042 Voter Reg COB5 Renovation
2015042 4-9010-13020-413020-312366-1170 9660.00 SA2015042 Voter Reg COB5 Renovation
2015042 4-9010-71020-471020-312366-7100 -9660.00 SA2015042 Voter Reg COB5 Renovation
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-510100-9999 85000.00 SA2015042 Voter Reg COB5 Renovation
2015042 3-8523-51000-351000-510100-9999 946.96 SA2015042 Grayrock Proffer Trf to Crozet Ave
North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 4-8523-93010-493010-930010-9999 946.96 SA2015042 Grayrock Proffer Trf to Crozet Ave
North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-8549-51000-351000-510100-9999 20000.00 SA2015042 Wickham Pond II Proffer Trf to
Crozet Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 4-8549-93010-493010-930010-9999 20000.00 SA2015042 Wickham Pond II Proffer Trf to
Crozet Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-8576-51000-351000-510100-9999 20669.02 SA2015042 Haden Place Proffer Trf to Crozet
Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 4-8576-93010-493010-930010-9999 20669.02 SA2015042 Haden Place Proffer Trf to Crozet
Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-8577-51000-351000-510100-9999 61384.02 SA2015042 Grayrock West Proffer Trf to
Crozet Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 4-8577-93010-493010-930010-9999 61384.02 SA2015042 Grayrock West Proffer Trf to
Crozet Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-512063-9999 946.96 SA2015042 Grayrock Proffer Trf to Crozet Ave
North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-512085-9999 20000.00 SA2015042 Wickham Pond II Proffer Trf to
Crozet Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-512086-9999 20669.02 SA2015042 Haden Place Proffer Trf to Crozet
Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-512087-9999 61384.02 SA2015042 Grayrock West Proffer Trf to
Crozet Ave North Sidewalk (SRTS)
2015042 4-9010-41350-441200-950514-9999 103000.00 SA2015042 Crozet Ave North Sidewalk
(SRTS)
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-512088-9999 75000.00 SA2015042 Avinity Proffer to Rio Rd Avon St
Rt 250
2015042 3-9010-51000-351000-512089-9999 50000.00 SA2015042 Willow Glen Proffer Trf to Ivy
Road (Rt. 250 West) Sidewalk
2015042 3-9010-24000-324000-240231-1004 270897.95 SA2015042 VDOT TRSP Reimbursement for
Ivy Road (Rt. 250 West) Sidewalk
2015042 4-9010-41020-441200-950081-9999 -2891878.09 SA2015042 TRSP for multiple projects
2015042 4-9010-41350-441200-950524-9999 250000.00 SA2015042 Old Lynchburg Walkway
2015042 4-9010-41350-441200-950525-9999 1250000.00 SA2015042 Rio Rd. Avon St. Rt 250
2015042 4-9010-41350-441200-950511-9999 -70992.22 SA2015042 Rio Rd. Avon St. Rt 250 From
Avon St
2015042 4-9010-41026-441200-800960-9999 -35231.74 SA2015042 Rio Rd. Avon St. Rt 250 from
Street Lights
2015042 4-9010-41350-441200-950509-9999 694000.00 SA2015042 Hydraulic & Barracks Rd
2015042 4-9010-41350-441200-950517-9999 1200000.00 SA2015042 Ivy Road (Rt. 250 West) Sidewalk
2015042 3-8548-51000-351000-510100-9999 75000.00 SA2015042 Avinity Proffer Trf to Rio Rd. Avon
St. Rt 250
2015042 4-8548-93010-493010-930010-9999 75000.00 SA2015042 Avinity Proffer Trf to Rio Rd. Avon
St. Rt 250
2015042 3-8575-51000-351000-510100-9999 50000.00 SA2015042 Willow Glen Proffer Trf to Ivy
Road (Rt. 250 West) Sidewalk
2015042 4-8575-93010-493010-930010-9999 50000.00 SA2015042 Willow Glen Trf to Ivy Road (Rt.
250 West) Sidewalk
2015043 4-9000-69985-466730-800605-6599 -24185.25 SA2015043 FY14 Reconcile: School Security
Improvement
2015043 3-9000-69000-341000-410530-6599 -24185.25 SA2015043 FY14 Reconcile: School Security
Improvement
2015043 4-9000-69980-464600-301210-6522 -28941.27 SA2015043 FY 14 Reconcile for VMF Lifts
balance
2015043 3-9000-69000-351000-510100-6599 -28941.27 SA2015043 FY 14 Reconcile for VMF Lifts
balance
2015044 3-1527-33000-333000-300001-1003 15,732.00 SA2015044 Grant Revenue - Federal
2015044 4-1527-31013-431010-120000-1003 14,613.00 SA2015044 Overtime Wages
2015044 4-1527-31013-431010-210000-1003 1,119.00 SA2015044 FICA
2015044 3-1603-33000-333000-330011-1003 27735.00 SA2015044 Grant Revenue - DMV Federal
2015044 3-1603-51000-351000-512004-9999 2126.00 SA2015044 Transfer From - Grant Leveraging
Fund
2015044 4-1603-31013-431010-120000-1003 27735.00 SA2015044 Overtime
2015044 4-1603-31013-431010-210000-1003 2126.00 SA2015044 FICA
2015044 3-1604-33000-333000-330011-1003 10000.00 SA2015044 Grant Revenue - DMV Federal
2015044 3-1604-51000-351000-512004-9999 768.00 SA2015044 Transfer From - Grant Leveraging
Fund
2015044 4-1604-31013-431010-120000-1003 10000.00 SA2015044 Overtime
2015044 4-1604-31013-431010-210000-1003 768.00 SA2015044 FICA
2015045 4-1000-32013-432010-601300-1003 5000.00 SA2015045 Donations
2015045 3-1000-51000-351000-512008-9999 5000.00 SA2015045 Trs. From Contribution Fund
2015045 4-8405-93010-493010-930009-9999 5000.00 SA2015045 Trs to General Fund
2015045 3-8405-51000-351000-510100-9999 5000.00 SA2015045 App Fund Balance
2015046 3-4100-51000-351000-510100-9999 7489.00 SA2015046 App Fund Balance
2015046 4-4100-31048-435600-332100-1003 7489.00 SA2015046 ECC re-app
TOTAL 4,400,486.64
__________
Item No. 8.4. One Virginian 2021 Redistricting Resolution.
Note: This item was pulled for separate discussion and vote.
__________
Item No. 8.5. Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Loan Extension.
The executive summary states that the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center (“LCEC”) leases
property jointly owned by the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville located at Darden Towe
Park for the purpose of establishing the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. The LCEC was awarded
grants totaling $800,000.00 from the Transportation Enhancement Fund Program (“VDOT Enhancement
Program”) administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) to provide funding (to be
combined with other funds to be raised by the LCEC) for the construction of an educational building, an
access road and parking area, and a connecting trail network at Darden Towe Park. The LCEC’s
application for the VDOT Enhancement Program required the County to be responsible for accepting the
grant from VDOT. The County was required to enter into a Project Agreement with VDOT to ensure
VDOT’s requirements for funding eligibility were met. The County then entered into a separate Pass -
Through Agreement with LCEC that, in turn, passed along all of the County’s responsibilities under th e
VDOT Enhancement Program to the LCEC, including holding the County harmless from any liabilities
created by the County’s acceptance of the VDOT Enhancement Program grants.
The LCEC advised the County that its fund-raising efforts had fallen short of its goal and by letter
dated March 19, 2013, requested that the County and the City provide funding assistance in the form of a
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
short-term loan to ensure the project would be completed and all requirements related to the
enhancement grant would be met. The total shortfall was estimated at $260,000. In order to assist the
LCEC and ensure that the grant requirements would be met, the Board, at its April 3, 2013 meeting,
approved an appropriation of $130,000 to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the purpose of
the EDA providing a short-term loan to the LCEC. The City of Charlottesville contributed the other
$130,000 required to make up the $260,000 shortfall. The EDA loan agreement and note were executed
on April 17, 2013, and pursuant to the loan agreement and note terms and conditions, the $130,000 loan
was due and payable to the EDA by October 17, 2013.
Unable to raise all of the funds ($130,000) by the repayment deadline, LCEC has twice before
requested and obtained six-month extensions. With the current repayment deadline of October 17, 2014
approaching, LCEC requested in a letter to the EDA dated September 4, 2014 (Attachment A) another
six-month extension to April 17, 2015.
The County-EDA agreement allows for the extension if it is approved by the Board and the EDA.
The EDA-LCEC promissory note also allows for extensions, also subject to prior Board approval. As part
of its analysis of LCEC’s second request for an extension approved by the Board on April 2, 2014, staff
recommended that any subsequent extension be approved only if LCEC agreed to a partial repayment
plan. Staff spoke to LCEC’s president regarding a partial repayment plan, who stated that such a plan
would be appropriate.
Given the LCEC’s progress on the project, staff recommends approval of the LCEC’s third
extension request. The LCEC is nearing substantial completion of the project, and will require all of its
current funds to finalize the project and begin operating the facility. Therefore, staff recommends that the
six-month extension be conditioned on the LCEC making a payment to the EDA in lieu of interest in the
amount of $1,250, which would be due on January 17, 2015, instead of a partial repayment plan. With
the extension, the full amount of the loan to the LCEC is due on April 17, 2015. Without the extension,
the LCEC will be in default on the note on October 17, 2014. If the extens ion is approved and the LCEC
cannot repay the loan in full by April 17, 2015, no additional extensions should be entertained. At that
point, staff would recommend that new terms and conditions should be negotiated by the EDA to assure
repayment of the loan.
There is no impact to the budget for this extension, as the funds have been previously
appropriated. Upon repayment, the $130,000 would be returned to the County’s Capital Reserve.
Staff recommends that the Board: (1) approve the LCEC’s requested deadline for repayment of
the loan to April 17, 2015, subject to the condition that the LCEC make a payment in lieu of interest to the
EDA of $1,250 due on January 17, 2015 unless the EDA determines that such a payment would pose an
obstacle to the LCEC fully completing the project; and (2) request that the EDA extend the date by which
the loan is due and payable and amend the promissory note as necessary to allow the extension to April
17, 2015 and to require the payment in lieu of interest as recommended.
(Note: Separate discussion on this item is set out above.)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the LCEC’s requested deadline for
repayment of the loan to April 17, 2015, subject to the condition that the LCEC make a payment in
lieu of interest to the EDA of $1,250 due on January 17, 2015 unless the EDA determines that such
a payment would pose an obstacle to the LCEC fully completing the project; and requested that
the EDA extend the date by which the loan is due and payable and amend the promissory note as
necessary to allow the extension to April 17, 2015 and to require the payment in lieu of interest as
recommended.
__________
Item. No. 8.6. ZMA-2013-00004. Hollymead Town Center (Block VI). (Deferred from September
10, 2014).
The executive summary states that at the Board of Supervisor’s public hearing on September 10,
2014, the Board, by a vote of 4:2, referred ZMA2013-00004, Hollymead Town Center, Blocks IV and VI
back to the Planning Commission, to determine whether the applicant’s amended application plan
addressed the Planning Commission’s expectations expressed in the Commission’s action on July 29 th.
After the Board public hearing on September 10th, the applicant submitted a revised application plan for
review by the Planning Commission. On September 16, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the
revised application plan submitted by the applicant after the September 10th Board public hearing.
Development Areas:
Attract quality employment, commercial, and high densit y residential uses into development areas
by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while
protecting the quality of neighborhoods, and
Economic Prosperity:
Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax
revenues that support community goals
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
After reviewing the revised application plan (See Attachment A), the Commission concluded by a
vote of 7:0 that the plan, dated March 18, 2013, and last revised September 09, 2014, satisfied the
Planning Commission’s conditional recommendation following the July 29 th public hearing on this matter.
Revenues from property taxes generated by townhouses; expenditures for public costs
associated with townhouses.
Staff recommends that the Board approve ZMA 2013-00004, Hollymead Town Center – Area C,
Blocks IV and VI, and adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment D).
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved ZMA 2013-00004, Hollymead Town Center
– Area C, Blocks IV and VI, and adopted the following ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 14-A(2)
ZMA 2013-00004
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER 03200-00-00-041L0
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-
00-041L0 (the “Property”) is identified as ZMA 2013-00004, Hollymead Town Center – Block VI (“ZMA
2013-00004”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Planned Development – Mixed Commercial (“PD-MC”),
subject to the proffers, an application plan, and a code of development, all of which were adopted on
August 6, 2003 in conjunction with ZMA 2001-00020; and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00004 proposes to amend the proffers, the application pl an, and the code
of development applicable to the Property in order to allow townhouse units to be established where a
parking area is authorized in Block VI shown on the existing application plan, and to eliminate the
required minimum square footage of non-residential uses in Block IV shown on the existing application
plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2013-00004, provided that technical revisions were made to the proffers
and changes were made to the pending application plan in order to accomplish a more effective open
space system and to reduce crowding and congestion unless alternate circulation was provided on the
pending application plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly
noticed public hearing, after which the Board deferred acting on the application and directed the Planning
Commission to determine whether the revised application plan achieved the effecti ve open space and
reduced crowding and congestion that it recommended on July 29, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the revised
application plan and concluded that the revised application plan provided effective open space and
satisfactorily reduced crowding and congestion.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the executive summaries and staff report prepared for ZMA 2013 -00004 and their
attachments, including the proffers and application plan revised after the Planning Commission public
hearing, the information presented at the public hearing, the material and relevant factors in Virginia Code
§ 15.2-2284, and for the purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practices, the Board hereby approves ZMA 2013-00004 with the proffers dated September 18, 2014, the
application plan entitled in relevant part “Zoning Map Amendment for Hollymead Town Center Block C -6
General Development Plan,” last revised September 9, 2014, and the amended code of development
entitled in relevant part “Revised Application Booklet for Code of Development Revised ZMA 201300004,”
revised September 18, 2014, and the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 03200-00-00-041L0 is
amended accordingly.
.*****
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
__________
Item No. 8.7. VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, October 2014, was
received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.8. County Grant Application/Award Report, 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 five grant awards received during the
time period of August 14, 2014 through September 12, 2014.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant.
This report is for information only.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
__________
Item No. 8.9. Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Second Quarter Operations and Ridership
Report, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.10. 2014 Second Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the
Department of Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during the second quarter of 2014, 100 certificates of occupancy were
issued for 100 dwelling units. There were five permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an
exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of $12,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the
conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
__________
Item No. 8.11. 2014 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of
Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during the second quarter of 2014, 119 building permits were issued for
119 dwelling units. There were three permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange
rate of $2,500, for a total of $7,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a
condominium.
__________
Item No. 8.12. Regional Firearms Training Center Project Update, was received for
information.
The executive summary states that at its May 7, 2014 meeting, the Board received an update on
the architectural/engineering (A/E) procurement process and project design work, the implementation of
the Community Engagement Plan, and the status of the Operat ing Agreement and Land Lease. The
Board was advised that Clark Nexsen from Roanoke, Virginia was selected to provide A/E services for the
project due to the firm’s experience of having completed relevant and related public safety indoor firearms
range projects. The Board was also provided a copy of the Public Engagement Plan that was developed
and intended to guide the dissemination of information about the project and the engagement of the
broader community in dialogue as the project moves forward.
As additional background, the early estimates for the project based upon the conceptual work
totaled $4.9 Million, which included soft costs and design fees of $700,000. $2.9 Million of this total is
funded through an asset forfeiture award from the Office of the Attorney General, with the balance shared
proportionately among the three jurisdictional partners (the County, the City and UVA). Clark Nexsen,
along with the Regional Partners design team, has further engaged the Training Center’s users and the
public, conducted multiple design meetings, held two public meetings, developed schematic drawings
(Attachment A), and refined the project cost estimate which, based on the refined project needs and
design, is now estimated at approximately $6.2 Million for the construction, with a total estimate of
approximately $6.8 Million for the project. The main cost drivers of the project from the conceptual
estimate are changing market conditions, the utilization of concrete plank construction to improve both
noise and environmental controls, and the enclosure of the HVAC units as part of the building structure.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
This Executive Summary is intended to provide an update on the project, provide feedback from the two
public engagement meetings, and update the status of the Operating Agreement and Land Lease.
The design team, including the Police Department chiefs, met on several occasions after
receiving the schematic design and cost estimate to review the project scope and building elements that
may be candidates for adjustment or elimination to help bring the project back within the original budget
while still meeting the stringent sound and environ-mental design constraints on the project. There is
consensus among the chiefs to build the current scope as proposed in the schematic design, which
includes two, eight-lane, fifty-yard long ranges, the supporting administration building and site plan. It is
worth noting that the scope of the project has been reduced from the original open range concept of
three, twelve-lane ranges, to the initial indoor range concept of twenty to twenty-four lanes, down to the
now-proposed sixteen lanes. The design team has evaluated several potential phasing options but feels
strongly that what is being designed will meet the needs of the partners and recommends proceeding
forward. There are some options for cost reduction that could be considered as bid deduct ions,
specifically a reduction of one range by twenty-five yards that would be used only for qualification
(approximately 70% of overall training requirements) and reducing the side wall bullet traps by twenty-five
yards. The expected savings of these deductions is believed to be approximately $400,000-$500,000.
An executive meeting with fiscal management staff from the County, the City, and UVA was held
on August 15, 2014 to review the project scope, status and cost estimate. The conclusion of this meeting
was an agreement to establish a not to exceed (NTE) total project budget of $6 Million, with each
jurisdiction returning to their respective approval authorities to recommend an increase in the current
budget to cover the additional costs.
The project was presented to and approved by the Virginia Art and Architectural Review Board
(VA AARB) on August 1, 2014. Staff has met with the UVA Architects Office and Landscape Architect to
ensure shielding elements have been included on the site plan. The sound study was completed in
August (Attachment B) and shows that the project is in compliance with the County’s noise ordinance
using the loudest condition possible for the modeling source. The project has proceeded to Design
Development, which is scheduled for completion and delivery to the design team for review in mid -
September. The Preliminary Site plan has been submitted and is under review. The Planning
Commission has approved the project for its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan at the September
16, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Additional noise monitoring will take place in September to
sample background noise.
The following provides the high Level schedule:
• Design Phase: April 2014 – December 2014
• Site Plan Approval: Jan/Feb 2015
• Bidding Phase: December 2014 – Feb 2015
• Construction Phase: Feb/March 2015 – Nov 2015 (Attorney General award money must
be spent by 12/18/2015)
The first public engagement (community) meeting was held on May 22, 2014 at the East Rivanna
Fire Station. This meeting was to formally introduce the project scope and schedule, as well as the
architect and project team, to the community. Approximately 25 members from the community attended
the meeting. There were some concerns raised regarding the amount of traffic the facility will generate
and the parking lot lighting and sound (noise) that will be emitted from the building. The second public
engagement (community) meeting was held on July 17, 2014, also at the East Rivanna Fire Station.
There were only a few residents in attendance, and most seemed satisfied with the schematic design, the
results of the view shed analysis from Glenmore that shows the building being only partially visible in
winter, and the anecdotal information from the design team that had just recently visited the indoor range
in Winston Salem, North Carolina, that is of similar design and construction. The team communicated the
status of the sound study that was in progress and promised to publish the results to the County’s website
once it was completed, which was done in late August.
The County, the City and UVA continue to work together to prepare the Operating Agreement that
will govern the on-going day-to-day operation of the facility, including a funding formula according to an
agreed upon ratio of sworn officers of each jurisdiction utilizing the range for capital contributions and
annual operations. The draft terms are now under review by the respective partners. As proposed, the
Land Lease will be a lease between UVA, which owns the property, and the County. The County, as
fiscal agent, will have the responsibility for the construction and operation of the facility, with costs shared
pursuant to the operating agreement ratios.
Construction of the facility is programmed in the FY15 CIP and the cost is offset by an asset
forfeiture award of $2.9 Million from the Office of the Attorney General. The total cost for an indoor, two
eight-lane range firearms training facility on the Milton site is estimated to be approximately $6.8 Million
based on the schematic design. The senior executives on the project recommend a cap of $6 Million on
the project to be shared between the County, the City and UVA proportionately based on the number of
full time sworn police officers. The county’s share based on the NTE cap would be a total of $1,50 2,094
and reflects an increase in obligation of $581,784 (Attachment C). The County’s share of operating costs
will be similarly shared but is based proportionately on the number of sworn officers, including full time
and part time Sheriff’s deputies and excluding volunteers.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
This executive summary is intended to provide an update on the project and no action is needed
by the Board at this time. Staff will continue to work with the regional partners to move the design forward
and complete Construction Drawings to maintain the schedule to meet the asset forfeiture award deadline
while the agreements are finalized. Staff will return to the Board to request the approval of the operating
agreement and lease once they are finalized and with an appropriation re quest to fund the County’s
additional share of a NTE $6 Million project.
__________
Item No. 8.13. Copy of letter dated September 4, 2014, to Mr. Peter Pitsiokos, from Mr. Ronald L.
Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrator, re: LOD-2013-00004 – OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 136, Parcels 27&27D
(property of Peter Pitsiokos/Judith Williams) Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for
information.
__________
Item No. 8.14. Copy of letter to Governor McAuliffe and Secretary Layne, from Supervisor
Diantha McKeel and Supervisor Brad Sheffield, re: right-of-way purchased for Route 29 bypass, was
received for information.
(Note: Separate discussion on this item is set out above.)
“Dear Governor McAuliffe and Secretary Layne:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors appreciates the progress your administration has
made in moving forward solutions to traffic congestion in the Route 29 corridor. As you know, the Route
29 Project Solutions Package has the support of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the
Charlottesville City Council, the Charlottesville/Albemarle MPO and the Commonwealth Transportation
Board. We look forward to working with VDOT on the shared goal of improving the flow of both local and
through traffic on Route 29. We would, also, be remiss not to thank you both for supporting a new model
of transparency and community involvement as reflected in the work of Mr. Philip Shucet and the two
advisory panels.
As the two Supervisors whose magisterial districts contain the vast majority of the land impacted
by the now defunct Route 29 Bypass proposal, we would like to remind you of one important outstanding
issue. VDOT’s ownership of portions of the right-of-way continues to undermine efforts to move forward
with the Rt. 29 Solutions. As long as this land is held by VDOT there will be recurring efforts, both
publically and behind the scenes, to revive this outdated and ineffective bypass proposal. We believe th e
sale of the currently held right-of-way will only solidify support for the Route 29 Solutions plan.
Just as important is the issue of fairness to citizens in the affected neighborhoods, who have
suffered for over 25 years under the Bypass “threat”. This threat continues to reduce their property
values as well as negatively impact the County’s tax base. While we appreciate VDOT’s recent attention
to the maintenance of these properties, VDOT’s ownership of the land and the threat that carries with it
remain a blight on the neighborhoods. Please address the concerns of our citizens who are now
questioning why VDOT has not begun selling the right-of-way so that this issue can be brought to its long
overdue conclusion.
We, therefore, respectfully request that you direct VDOT to immediately begin selling the
“Bypass” right-of-way so that our community can move forward with effective solutions for the Route 29
corridor. We have attached two previous letters from our Board making this same request.
We look forward to hearing back from you regarding this most important request. Thank you,
Sincerely,
Diantha H. McKeel Brad Sheffield
Supervisor, Jack Jouett District Supervisor. Rio District”
__________
Item No. 8.4. One Virginian 2021 Redistricting Resolution.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the One Virginia 2021 Redistricting Resolution. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said that when this was first sent out he was opposed to it. He believes that it is a
political move always done by the party not in power at the time. This has been brought up before and he
does not have all the information he needs to say it is the best approach. He, therefore, cannot support
the resolution.
Ms. Mallek said that she will send the very conservative leader of this movement to meet with
him. She added that she supports the resolution completely.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Mr. Boyd said that he has spoken with him many times, but still does not feel it is the right thing to
do.
Ms. Mallek said that characterizing it as partisan is not accurate.
Roll was then called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strives to promote and support ideas
that improve the democratic process and citizens’ representation and engagement in civic life; and
WHEREAS, the organization OneVirginia2021 supports the belief that Virginia’s his torical
practice of redistricting by the majority party in each legislative chamber is an outdated practice that stifles
political competition, discourages compromise and ensures continued control by the party in power; and
WHEREAS, the current redistricting process has rendered up to 90 percent of Virginia General
Assembly and Congressional districts uncompetitive, including those held by both parties representing
parts of Albemarle County, and
WHEREAS, OneVirginia2021 believes that Virginia’s state and congressional districts belong to
its citizens and not to any legislator, interest group or political party; and
WHEREAS, OneVirginia2021 believes that the redistricting process should not be a tool used by
those in power to protect and bolster their power, but should be designed for the best interests of
Virginia’s democracy and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the need is critical to restore trust, compromise and fair competition to Virginia
politics;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors fully
supports the goals of OneVirginia2021: Virginians for Fair Redistricting, to depoliticize the redrawing of
legislative district lines with an approach that advocates for fairn ess, transparency and accountability, and
which keeps the citizens’ interests in mind, encourages healthy debate and participation by the public in
the process.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Regional Legislative Program, David Blount, Legislative Liaison, Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, said that the Regional Legislative Program for 2015 is
before the Board for review and approval. The draft program includes the top priority and request of
equalized revenue authority, as discussed at numerous levels throughout the region. Mr. Blount said that
part one of the program also includes five other priority positions including state mandates and funding
obligations, public education funding, transportation funding and devolution, water quality and land use
and growth management. He stated that part two of the program includes a new structure of “legislative
positions and policy statements,” which represents ongoing concerns of the region. Mr. Blount said that
this section contains different position statements on 10 different policy areas; some are more detailed
positions related to the priorities; some are on other topics of interest to local governments; and others
are requests that have come in for positions made by individual localities in the region. He stated that the
new look groups those position statements into subheadings and different groups in an effort to make
them easier to find and easier to read.
Mr. Blount said that the top priority in legislative requests offers a suggestion and an option for
the legislature to try to help localities diversify their revenue base and reduce dependency on the real
property tax; and it provides a basis for dialog with state policy makers in terms of what the tax system
looks like moving forward in light of a changing economy. He stated that the timing is good in terms of
this legislative request given the current budget situation, the state of the economy, and what’s driving
that – which is the pull-out of federal defense dollars as well as changes in the composition of the state
workforce.
He stated that the program maintains the priority position opposing unfunded mandates and cost
shifting, includes some new statements in regard to the current budget situation to urge that the state
preserve the current funding formulas, and asks the legislature to undo the reduction in aid to localities for
the current budget and the upcoming FY16 budget. Mr. Blount said that the transportation priority
remains focused on restoring formula construction allocations, which have not been in place for the past
four or five years, and also expresses the regions ongoing opposition to the devolution of road
responsibilities from the state to localities. He stated that the priority on water quality has been revised to
be more general in nature – more focused on federal and state funding and technical assistance;
whereas in the past, it specifically addressed the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Watershed Improvement
Plan. There are some other water quality and environmental quality issues addressed in the second part
of the program’s policy statement.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Blount said that this Board is the first step in the process of approval for the program . He will
be taking it to all of the other local governing bodies over the course of the next several weeks to get it
approved. Once that happens, he said, the program will be finalized and disseminated to those boards,
to the state legislators, and others. He will then take the priority items and put them into a summary, with
some design and graphics added to make it more appealing.
Mr. Blount said that the program will be the basis of the Legislative Forum, which will be held on
October 29, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., in the Albemarle County Office Building – 5th Street. He stated that Mr.
Jim Regimbal with Fiscal Analytics, a local and state fiscal expert who spent a lot of time with the Senate
Finance Committee, will also be present on October 29 to make a presentation. He asked for the Board’s
approval of the plan.
Ms. Palmer stated that she and Ms. Mallek had a brief email exchange regarding the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and expansion of the Bay areas, and she would like more background
for the Board since it has been in the legislative agenda since 2003. Mr. Blount said that some initial
pushback to state legislation was introduced in the mid -2000s.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Mr. Blount could send the Board some background material. Mr. Blount
agreed to send some information, including the past bill numbers.
Mr. Foley mentioned that Mr. Steve Koleszar will represent the School Board at the Legislative
Forum. M. Blount said that school boards and superintendents from throughout the region are being
invited.
Ms. McKeel thanked Mr. Blount for capturing the state’s withdrawal of education support in the
program, and asked if she could borrow that passage. Mr. Blount agreed.
Ms. McKeel said that she would like more information in the future about the Comprehe nsive
Services Act regarding how it is funded at the local level, specifically in other counties. She asked if
funding is split with school system or funded entirely by local government. Mr. Blount said he would get in
touch with her about the funding.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the Regional Legislative Program as presented. Ms. McKeel
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
2015
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program
Representing the Local Governments of:
Albemarle County
City of Charlottesville
Fluvanna County
Greene County
Louisa County
Nelson County
October 2014
Allen Hale, Chairman
Chip Boyles, Executive Director
David Blount, Legislative Liaison
EQUALIZED REVENUE AUTHORITY
The Planning District localities urge the governor and legislature to equalize the revenue-raising
authority of counties with that of cities.
Background:
Over the years, national economic conditions, increased federal and state requirements, declining aid to
localities and increased taxpayer resistance to local levies have challenged local government ability to
generate revenues, appropriate funds and set priorities in an attempt to meet the service needs of local
citizens. Despite political hurdles, many localities have increased existing taxes and fees, or adopted new
ones. Local governments also have taken significant actions to control spending, to include deferring
maintenance and capital outlays and reducing their workforces.
TOP PRIORITY and LEGISLATIVE REQUEST
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Rationale:
A number of State-level studies, dating back as far as the early 1980’s, have noted that the differences
between city and county taxing authority exist due to historical distinctions in the levels of services
provided, and that they should be eliminated. This distinction has become less prevalent with increased
urbanization and suburbanization, as a growing number of counties now provide levels of services similar
to cities. In fact, the State requires cities and counties to deliver, to participate in the delivery of or to fund
many services in the areas of education, the environment, human services, public sa fety, courts and
judicial administration, and election administration, among others. Levels of funding, the degree of service
responsibility and standards related to delivery of such services often are topics of debate between the
State and localities.
Virginia’s localities utilize a revenue base that relies largely on the real property tax, which of late, is
providing a smaller percentage of local resources (due to slow growth or decline in assessments) and
which in the future, likely will not grow commensurate with the needs of the locality. Also affecting the real
property base is the extent of tax-exempt property (both government and non-government) within local
boundaries.
This proposal essentially removes the caps that currently apply to county authority to levy the meals,
lodging and amusement taxes, as well as the requirement that meals taxes in counties be subject to
approval by referendum. It stands to help diversify an d broaden the revenue base of counties by further
reducing dependency on the real property taxes. We further believe that, at a minimum, equalizing
revenue authority for counties should be on the table as Virginia examines modernizing its tax system to
comport with the realities of a global, information-driven economy, which will rely less on federal and
other government spending and more on new, private sector business models. State laws, local
ordinances, tax structures, and licenses and regulations will have to be re-evaluated and likely re-shaped
without sacrificing the overall quality of government services, including education, public health and public
safety.
STATE MANDATES AND FUNDING OBLIGATIONS: The Planning District localities urge the
governor and legislature to 1) not impose financial or administrative mandates on localities; 2) not
shift costs for state programs to localities; and 3) not further restrict local revenue authority.
Locality budgets continue to be challenged by slowly-recovering local revenues, stagnant state
funding and additional requirements. While state general fund appropriations have increased by $2 billion
since FY09, state assistance to local government priorities has been taking a bac kseat to fast growing
state Medicaid and debt service expenditures. As the State faces another budget shortfall in the current
biennium, we urge policymakers to preserve existing funding formulas rather than altering them in order
to save the state money and/or shift costs to localities. The State should undo the across -the-board
reductions in aid-to-localities that are helping to balance the state budget.
We oppose unfunded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that occurs when the state
fails to fund requirements or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. Doing so
strains local ability to craft effective and efficient budgets to deliver services mandated by the state or
demanded by residents. The State should examine how services are delivered and paid for in the future
as a different economy takes hold in Virginia. Finally, the State should not alter or eliminate the BPOL and
Machinery and Tools taxes, or divert Communications Sales and Use Tax Fund revenues intended for
localities to other uses. Instead, as stated in our top legislative priority, the legislature should broaden the
revenue sources available to localities.
PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING: The Planning District localities urge the State to fully fund its
share of the realistic costs of the Standards of Quality without making policy changes that reduce
funding or shift funding responsibility to localities.
The state will spend about $5.55 billion on public education in FY15, about 32% of its general
fund budget. The level of state funding for FY15 represents a $250 million increase from FY14, though
state per pupil expenditures for FY15 of $5,035 are still well below the FY09 high of $5,274 per pupil.
Meanwhile, local governments boost education funding by spending over $3.5 billion more per year than
required by the state.
Reductions in state public education dollars the last four to five years have been accomplished
mainly through policy changes that are decreasing the state’s funding obligations moving forward. The
State also made policy changes to the Virginia Retirement System (mandatory teacher 5% for 5%) that
increased local costs and did nothing to reduce a $15 billion unfunded teacher pension liability. Education
expenditures are expected to continue increasing, as the percentage of at-risk students continues to rise
(they have risen from rom 26% in 2007 to over 33% in 2013) and VRS contribution rates for teachers,
which jumped 24% this biennium, experience additional, albeit smaller, hikes in the coming years.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING and DEVOLUTION: The Planning District localities urge the State to
find additional revenues for secondary/urban construction and for unpaved roads. We oppose any
OTHER LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
legislation or regulations that would transfer responsibility to counties for construction,
maintenance or operation of current or new secondary roads.
We urge the state to restore formula allocations for secondary/urban construction and for
unpaved roads, and we support stable and increasing dollars for cities and to wns to maintain their roads.
Previous legislative changes (2012) authorize $500 million off the top for Commonwealth Transportation
Board priorities before funds are provided to the construction fund. Accordingly, construction funding for
secondary and urban roads, suspended in 2010, has not been restored and will continue to be elusive
given recent reductions in revenues. State revenues for the current Six -Year Improvement Program are
expected to be down nearly $500 million from the previous plan, which it self fell by more than $900
million.
We believe that efficient and effective transportation infrastructure, including the secondary road
system, is critical to a healthy economy, job creation, a cleaner environment and public safety.
Accordingly, we oppose shifting the responsibility for secondary roads to local entities, which could result
in vast differences among existing road systems in different localities, potentially placing the state at a
competitive economic disadvantage with other states when considering business and job recruitment, and
movement of goods.
WATER QUALITY: The Planning District localities support the goal of improved water quality, but
as we face mounting costs for remedies, we believe major and reliable forms of financial and
technical assistance from the federal and state governments is necessary if c omprehensive
improvement strategies for local and state waters emptying into the Chesapeake Bay are to be
effective.
As local governments are greatly impacted by federal and state initiatives to reduce pollutants
into state waters, it is imperative that aggressive state investment in meeting required milestones for
reducing Chesapeake Bay pollution to acceptable levels occurs. This investment must take the form of
authority, funding and other resources to assure success, and must ensure that cost/benefit analyses are
conducted of solutions that generate the greatest pollution reductions per dollar spent. This includes costs
associated with stormwater management, for permitted dischargers to upgrade treatment plants and for
any retrofitting of developed areas, and to aid farmers with best management practices.
We also believe that implementation of the Nutrient Trading Act to allow exchange of pollution
allocations among various point and nonpoint sources should contain such exchanges within a particular
watershed, so as to improve the health of local waters.
LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT: The Planning District localities encourage the state to
provide local governments with additional tools to manage growth, without preempting or
circumventing existing authorities.
In the past, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use provisions.
Some have been helpful, while others have prescribed one-size-fits-all rules that hamper different local
approaches to land use planning. Accordingly, we support local authority to plan and regulate land use
and oppose legislation that weakens these key local responsibilities.
Current land use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced
growth in ways that protect and improve quality of life. Therefore, we believe the General Assembly
should grant localities additional tools necessary to meet important infrastructure needs. These include
the following: 1) impact fee and proffer systems that are workable and meaningful for various parties,
without weakening our current proffer authority; 2) impact fee authority for costs for facilities other than
roads; 3) authority to enact adequate public facility ordinances for determining whether public facilities
associated with new developments are adequate; and 4) state funding and incentives for localities, at
their option, to acquire, preserve and maintain open space.
EDUCATION:
The Planning District’s member localities believe that state funding for K-12 education in Virginia
should be realistic and recognize actual needs, practices and costs; otherwise, more of the funding
burden will fall on local taxpayers.
School Division Finances:
• The State should not eliminate or decrease funding for benefits for school employees.
• We support establishment of a mechanism for local appeal of the calculated Local
Composite Index to the State.
• We believe that unfunded liability associated with the teacher retirement plan should be a
shared responsibility of state and local government.
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS and POLICY STATEMENTS
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Literary Fund:
• The State should discontinue seizing dollars from the Literary Fund to help pay for
teacher retirement.
• We urge state financial assistance with school construction and renovation needs,
including funding for the Literary Loan and interest rate subsidy programs.
FINANCE:
The Planning District’s member localities believe the State should refrain from establishing local
tax policy at the state level and allow local governments to retain authority over decisions that determine
the equity of local taxation policy.
Local revenues:
The State should not confiscate or redirect local general fund dollars to the state treasury, as was
done in 2012 when it directed to the Literary Fund, a portion of fines and fees collected at the
local level pursuant to the enforcement of local ordinances.
Fiscal Impacts:
We support reinstatement of the “first day” introduction requirement for bills with local fiscal
impact.
TOT:
The State should ensure the appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes from online
transactions.
TRANSPORTATION:
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that state leaders took a big step in 2013
toward addressing transportation infrastructure needs by approving a transportation funding package that
is expected to generate nearly $800 million per year by 2018, with funding targeted primarily for road
maintenance, rail and transit. We urge the State to 1) remain focused on providing sufficient revenues to
expand and maintain all modes of our transportation infrastructure; 2) provide more dedicated revenues
for transit and rail operations and capital in order to keep pace with growing public needs and
expectations; and 3) provide additional authority to establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-
transit projects in our region.
Transportation and Land Use Planning:
• We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate transportation and land use
planning, and urge state and local officials to be mindful of various local and regional
plans when conducting corridor or transportation planning within a locality or region.
• While we opposed closing of VDOT’s Louisa residency facilities and support its
reopening, we also support the option for the locality to purchase the property if available.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and
assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services
responsibilities carried out locally.
Funding:
• We urge the State to make Compensation Board funding a top priority, fully funding local
positions that fall under its purview. It should not increase the local share of funding
constitutional offices or divert funding away from them, but increase money needed for
their operation.
• We support restoration of state funding responsibility for the Line of Duty Act.
• We urge continued state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program (in accordance
with Code of Virginia provisions).
• The State should increase funding to the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act
program, which has cut in half the number of juvenile justice commitments over the past
decade.
• We support funding for mental health and substance abuse services at juvenile detention
centers.
Jails:
• The State should continue to allow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset and
restore the per diem payment to localities for housing state -responsible prisoners to $14
per day.
• The State should not shift costs to localities by altering the definit ion of state-responsible
prisoner.
Offender Programs and Services:
• We support continued state funding of the drug court program and the Offender Reentry
and Transition Services (ORTS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
• We support continued state endorsement of the role and authority of pretrial services
offices.
• We support authorization for the court to issue restricted driver’s licenses to persons
denied them because of having outstanding court costs or fees.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT:
The Planning District localities urge the State to be partners in containing costs of the
Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) and to better balance CSA responsibilities between state and local
government. Since the inception of CSA in the early 1990’s, there has been pressure to hold down costs,
to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match levels and to make the program
more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs.
CSA Administration:
We request increased state dollars for local CSA administrative costs, as localities pay the
overwhelming majority of costs to administer this shared program. State dollars for administration
have not increased since the late 1990’s, while at the same time , administrative costs have
jumped due to additional data collection and reporting requirements.
Pool Expenditures:
• The State should provide full funding of the state pool for CSA, with allocations based on
realistic anticipated levels of need.
• The State should establish a cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local
costs for serving mandated children, costs often driven by unanticipated placements in a
locality.
• Categories of populations mandated for services should not be expan ded unless the
State pays all the costs.
Efficiency:
• The State should be proactive in making residential facilities and service providers
available, especially in rural areas.
• In a further effort to help contain costs and provide some relief to loca l governments, we
recommend that the State establish contracts with CSA providers to provide for a uniform
contract management process in order to improve vendor accountability and to control
costs.
ECONOMIC and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce
training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies and additional
state funding that closely link the goals of economic and workforce development an d the state’s efforts to
streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources, and to align workforce supply with
anticipated employer demands. We also support state efforts to clearly define responsibilities of state and
local governments and emphasize regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism
development.
Planning District Commissions:
• We support increased state funding for regional planning district commissions.
• We encourage opportunities for planning districts to collaborate with state officials and
state agencies on regional program and projects, and support funds for the Regional
Competitiveness Act to initiate and sustain such efforts.
Economic Development:
• We support increased state funding for the Industrial Sit e Development Fund, the
Governor’s Opportunity Fund and tourism initiatives that help promote economic
development.
• We support legislation that dedicates income and sales tax revenues generated by
corporations and limited liability companies within an economic development project to
such locality in cases where the locality has expended local funds for such project and
state grants funds or incentives were not involved.
Broadband:
We encourage continuing state incentives and support for expediting deployment and reducing
the cost of broadband technology, particularly in underserved areas.
Agricultural Products and Enterprises:
We encourage state and local governments to work together and with other entities to identify, to
provide incentives for and to promote local, regional and state agricultural products and rural
enterprises, and to encourage opportunities for such products and enterprises through a
balanced approach.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental quality should be funded and
promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste
management, land conservation, climate change and land use policies. We are committed to protection
and enhancement of the environment and recognize the need to achieve a proper balance between
environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities within the constraints of
available revenues. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter -jurisdictional nature
of many environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts.
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act:
We oppose legislation mandating expansion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act’s coverage
area. Instead, we urge the state to 1) provide legal, financial and technical support to localities
that wish to comply with any of the Act’s provisions, 2) allow localities to use other practices to
improve water quality, and 3) provide funding for other strategies that address point and non-point
source pollution.
Water Supply:
The State should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development and should
work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, including investing in regional
projects.
Alternate On-Site Sewage Systems:
We support legislative and regulatory action to 1) ensure operation and maintenance of
alternative on-site sewage systems in ways that protect public health and the environment, and 2)
increase options for localities to secure owner abatement or correction of system deficiencies.
Biosolids:
We support legislation enabling localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to designate
and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to speci fic areas within the locality,
based on criteria designed to further protect the public safety and welfare of citizens.
Program Administration:
The State should not impose a fee, tax or surcharge on water, sewer, solid waste or other local
services to pay for state environmental programs.
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES:
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to
developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the
elderly, can achieve their full potential. Funding reductions to community agencies are especially
troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more costly services later. The delivery of health
and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies.
Funding:
• We oppose changes in state funding or policies that increase the local share of costs for
human services. We also oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from
the State to localities.
• The State should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards (CSBs)
to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care, including
maximizing the use of Medicaid funding. We believe children with mental health needs
should be treated in the mental health system, where CSBs are the point of entry.
• We support increased investment in the MR waiver program for adults and young people
and Medicaid reimbursement for children’s dental services.
• We urge full state funding to offset any increased costs to local governments for
additional responsibilities for processing applications for the FAMIS program.
• We support sufficient state funding assistance for older residents, to include companion
and in-home services, home-delivered meals and transportation.
Social Services:
We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match federal dollars for the administration
of mandated services within the Department of Social Services, and to meet the staffing
standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law. We believe the
current funding and program responsibility for TANF employment services should remain within
the social services realm.
Prevention:
We support continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs,
including school-based prevention programs. This would include the state’s program for at-risk
four-year-olds and the Child Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs, as well as Part C
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (infants and toddlers).
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Childcare:
The legislature should provide full funding to assist low-income working and TANF (and former
TANF) families with childcare costs. These dollars help working-class parents pay for supervised
day care facilities and support efforts for families to become self-sufficient.
HOUSING:
The Planning District’s member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to
afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The State and localities should work to expand and preserve
the supply and improve the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, disabled, and low - and moderate-
income households. Regional planning and solutions should be implemented whenever possible.
Affordable Housing:
We support the following: 1) local flexibility in the operation of affordable housing programs and
establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances; 2) creation of a state housing trust fund; 3)
grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings; and 4) the
provision of other funding to encourage affordable housing initiatives.
Homelessness:
We support measures to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
Historic Structures:
We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
Green Buildings:
We encourage and support the use of, and request state incentives for using, environmentally
friendly (green) building materials and techniques.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take
place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the
freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities.
Local Government Operations:
• We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government
authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees;
matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting
ordinances.
• We support allowing localities to use alternatives to newspapers for publishing various
legal advertisements and public notices.
• We oppose attempts to reduce sovereign immunity protections for localities.
Freedom of Information Act:
• We request that any changes to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) preserve
1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session, 2) the list of records
currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and 3) provisions concerning creation of
customized computer records.
• We support changes to allow local and regional public bodies to conduct electronic
meetings as now permitted for state public bodies.
Quality of Life Issues:
• We oppose any changes to state law that further weaken a locality’s ability to regulate
noise or the discharge of firearms.
• We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. FY 15 – FY 17 Strategic Plan.
The executive forwarded to Board members states that the Board of Supervisors has formally
engaged in the County’s strategic planning efforts since 2001. On June 10, 2014, the Board held its
annual retreat to consider and clarify its top priorities to ensure that staff’s work is aligned with Board
priorities. At its August 6th meeting, the Board formally endorsed the draft aspirations crafted from the
retreat discussions, as well as the draft Year One priorities recommended by staff. At that time, the Board
asked staff to present a more formal strategic plan later in the fall for the Board’s consideration.
Consistent with best practices, a formal strategic plan includes clear language, consistent
structure and consideration of needed resources. At the direction of the Board, staff has prepared a draft
of the Year One priorities, set out in Attachment A, for the Board’s approval. That document also includes
planned/possible actions for informational purposes. Attachment B includes the Board’s original language
from the retreat for reference. Given the significance and time-sensitive nature of these identified items,
staff has continued to advance these Year One priorities even as the draft language is finalized. Staff
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
plans to bring back the proposed final language for Year Two and Year Three priorities to the Board in
December.
As the formal strategic plan is finalized, staff recommends that the document refer to “goals” and
“objectives,” rather than “aspirations” and “priority items” to be consistent with best practices in strategic
planning.
Board priorities and the Strategic Plan provide direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan
and annual budget processes.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the final language for the Year One strategic
objectives, with any changes the Board feels are necessary, as set forth in Attachment A.
_____
Ms. Louise Wyatt, Organizational Development Manager, stated that the Board has received an
outline of the work from its June retreat, with additional work having been done in August to identify
priorities. Ms. Wyatt said that in August, staff indicated that it would come back with some final proposed
year one priority language – and that is the intent of this meeting. She noted that there is a complete list
of the possible actions as well as some preliminary resource considerations . Staff does plan to do a more
thorough assessment to determine whether sufficient resources exist or if it needs to come back to the
Board with a request.
Ms. Wyatt reported that under the goal of “Citizen Engagement,” the year one priority is to
increase opportunities for citizen engagement, with actions ranging from ensuring there are protocols and
resources to engage citizens from diverse circumstances to improving interactive mapping capabilities for
citizens.
Mr. Foley stated that staff plans to come back to the Board with a proposed strategic
communications plan to include consideration of a follow-up item on video streaming meetings and other
previous discussions.
Ms. Wyatt said that the next goal area is related to “Critical Infrastructure .” There are three
proposed year one priorities under that goal – with the first action being to determine the near term use of
Ivy as a transfer or convenience center, which will then determine the next steps to take. She stated that
the second priority pertains to the long-term solid waste plan. The Board is in the process of completing
its appointments to the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee, as well as a public
engagement approach that will help develop the solid waste plan. Ms. Wyatt said that the third priority did
not come up at the Board retreat, but staff is recommending the addition of a priority around the courts –
with actions to include conclusion of discussions with the City on a colocation decision, and finalizing
negotiations along with launching an RFP process in year one.
She reported that the next goal relates to the Development Areas . The Board has already
established a review schedule for the Comprehensive Plan, which is a year one priority along with the
review of the Rural Areas.
Mr. Sheffield suggested adding a bullet to encourage them to revisit the whole concept of
development areas. Things have changed considerably in the County because of the recession and they
might want to revisit what they really want the d evelopment area to embody. He added that he does not
think the issue will be resolved in the next year, but he would like to set up the framework for the
discussion.
Ms. Mallek said that she hopes Mr. Sheffield will bring up those concerns next week when the
Board reviews the Development Areas chapter of the Comp Plan, rather than waiting two years.
Mr. Sheffield said there are pieces that are just not coming together which he is still grappling
with, in particular the Neighborhood Model.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board can let the discussion the following week help inform the two and
three year priorities and expand on that a bit. Staff intends to reach out to Board members to engage
them in the priority-setting discussion – and both the Rural Areas and Development Areas discussions of
the Comp Plan will help in that regard.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would like to add this to their strategic plan discussions. Ms. McKeel
and Ms. Mallek concurred.
Ms. Wyatt stated that in the next goal area of “Economic Prosperity,” the top priority is
establishment of the Economic Development Office. In the next week there will be some discussion with
the Board regarding the focus of this office along with plans for public engagement and community
education.
She said that the next goal areas around educational opportunities focus on potential
improvements and funding strategies for K-12. Some of the considered actions include a blue ribbon
committee, evaluating existing funding guidelines and policies, and identifying and pursuing potential new
funding sources. Ms. Wyatt said that for the second priority, there is a staff working group with school,
local government and community members looking at both short and long-term funding and in-kind
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
support for preschools, best approaches for leadership and management, and actions that can be taken
to enhance services through the existing network . She added that Ms. Kathy Ralston, from the
Department of Social Services, is helping to lead that group.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the group was formed recently, because the Board does not know anything
about it. Mr. Foley said that staff will ensure that the group provides an update on its work to the Board.
Ms. Dittmar said that she would like for staff to send an email to the Board with more background
on this group: who serves on it, when it was formed, and its charge, etc., because this is of interest to the
Board.
Ms. Wyatt said she will work with Mr. Doug Walker and Ms. Ralston to get that information to the
Board.
Ms. Wyatt reported that under the “Natural Resources” goal area, the first priority relates to water
quality. The Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee has been established, with expectation for a
report to the Board in year one that will allow it to make some decisions around desired level of services
and funding solutions that will feed next year’s five-year plan. She said that the second priority is one the
Board raised at its retreat regarding implementation of the storm water management program, and staff’s
recommendation is that it not be included as a strategic priority because it should be considered as an
operational issue.
Mr. Foley said that this fits into the County’s overall water quality improvement efforts, and it is
the part of meeting the mandate that they have already started implementing.
Ms. Wyatt reported that the next goal is around operational capacity. They are in the process of
five-year planning to include recommended staffing needs, which will come before the Board in
November. She said that the second priority relates to the Board’s transportation priorities, and staff will
be seeking clarification on the needs and expectations for additional staffing as well as funding
alternatives to address that need.
Ms. Mallek said that the Board had determined the need for some of this already, and wondered
when they might be ready for action. Mr. Foley said that staff could bring it to them in November, but
included the deadline of January just to be safe.
Ms. Wyatt stated that the goal for the Rural Areas review is the same as for Development Areas –
finalizing the review of the Comp Plan and adopting that as a significant year one priority. She said that
staff is recommending approval of the final priority language with any necessary changes. Staff plans to
come back to the Board at the December meeting to look at priorities for year two and three of the plan.
Ms. Dittmar asked if year one was the beginning of the fiscal year . Ms. Wyatt confirmed that it
was. Mr. Foley said that most of this is already underway, but staff felt it was important to clarify the
language of what they were trying to get at.
Ms. Mallek commented that the Rural Areas goal does not show any resource consideration,
perhaps because the staff person might be reflected in the existing capacity, but one of the things she
plans to bring up later in the meeting is the impact of noise, road use, etc. because of the increase in
winery activity.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board had identified three specific positions at its retreat and will see all
of those addressed within the five-year plan or sooner, so perhaps they can give some more direction in
the planning process in terms of priority funding.
Mr. Boyd said that he has some feedback on the “Economic Prosperity” section. He stated that
he is not interested in sitting down as a Board and defining the scope of work for this person – as it ought
to be the individual’s charge. He stated that th e Board should look for someone with a great deal of
experience in economic development and charge them with coming back with a plan as to how to
proceed.
Mr. Foley said that staff has been trying to engage with the Board and the public as to the
ultimate direction with this office. As an example, staff could be very aggressive in attracting new industry
in the County or focus on existing business. He said that staff is trying to provide some general direction,
and then hire someone. If the Board’s focus is to bring large companies to the County and be very
aggressive about it, they would want to hire someone with that type of skill set. Mr. Foley said that staff’s
intent is to focus for the first three years more on business retention and expansion, and get the program
started from the ground up. Staff plans to come back to the Board next week for approval.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not have a problem with setting that basic structure and big picture
view.
Ms. Mallek said that it is important to clarify their philosophy though.
Mr. Foley said that staff is hoping to take the Board’s direction and move forward with the
framework for the job, but staff would not typically discuss the level of job description with the Board.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. Sheffield moved to approve the Year One strategic objectives as presented. Ms. McKeel
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
1. Citizen Engagement:
Successfully engage citizens so that local government reflects their values and aspirations
Proposed Year One Priority:
A. By June 2015, increase opportunities for meaningful citizen engagement.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Develop annual strategic communication plan to guide communication and engagement
actions.
Establish protocols and improve resources and technologies that reach and respond to
citizens from diverse circumstances.
Restructure County Executive’s Office to improve support for elected official meetings
with constituents and coordination of ombudsman activities.
Develop and implement a plan to support Five Year Plan and budget town hall meetings.
Develop an interactive mapping option that enhances the geographic information that is
available to citizens.
Resource Consideration(s):
Additional investments in technology resources.
2. Critical Infrastructure:
Prioritize, plan and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and
improves the capacity to serve community needs
Proposed Year One Priorities:
A. By June 2015, establish and implement a 3-5 year plan for the use of the Ivy Material
Utilization Center as a waste handling and recycling facility.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Determine the near term use of the Ivy MUC as either a Transfer Station or Convenience
Center.
If transfer station is desired, submitted required plans to DEQ.
Start construction planning process as required.
Establish necessary agreements with Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
Resource Consideration(s):
None identified at this time.
B. By October 2015, establish a long-term solid waste plan, with an emphasis on reducing,
reusing, and recycling.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Appoint Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee.
Evaluate the need for consultant assistance for the committee.
Approve a Public Engagement Plan to support the work of the committee.
Adopt the solid waste section of the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Committee delivers report to Board with recommended alternatives to meet long term
needs.
Approve a long term solid waste plan.
Resource Consideration(s):
Possible funding for consultant assistance.
C. Proposed additional priority: By June 2015, establish direction and begin the design
process to meet the long-term needs of the Circuit and General District Court operations.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Conclude discussions with City on decision to co-locate General District Courts.
Finalize negotiations on cost-sharing, property disposition, parking solutions, and facility
development option.
Initiate RFP process for design firms.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Resource Considerations:
Possible design consultant assistance if decision is made to co-locate the County and
City General District Courts.
3. Development Areas:
Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas
by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while
protecting the quality of neighborhoods
Proposed Year One Priority:
A. By June 2015, complete Comprehensive Plan Review and adoption.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Monthly Board meetings to review each Comprehensive Plan chapter.
Final public hearing and adoption of the Plan.
Resource Consideration(s):
None identified at this time.
4. Economic Prosperity:
Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investment and tax
revenues that support community goals
Proposed Year One Priority:
A. By June 2015, establish an Economic Development Office to achieve the County’s
economic development mission and goals.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Complete Board and public engagement regarding the focus and priorities of the Office
for the first three years.
Complete hiring process for the new Director.
Complete a three year action plan for the Office that reflects the County’s economic
development focus and priorities and measures of success.
Educate the community about the importance of economic development, what it will look
like and how it will serve as an important resource for Albemarle County.
Resource Consideration(s):
Consideration of expanding support staff to 1.0 FTE.
5. Educational Opportunities:
Provide lifelong learning opportunities for all our citizens
Proposed Year One Priorities:
A. By June 2015, in partnership with the school system, identify potential improvements in
funding strategies for K-12.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Consider a blue ribbon committee to explore funding methods.
Evaluate existing funding guidelines and policies.
Identify and pursue potential new sources of funding.
Resource Consideration(s):
None identified at this time.
B. By June 2015, a collaborative work group, which includes members of the School Division,
Local Government and community members, will identi fy possible short- and long-term
solutions to maintain, and possibly increase, the current availability of quality pre -school
opportunities.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Determine best approach to maintain funding and in-kind support for existing pre-school
classrooms.
Determine best approach for overall leadership and management of pre-school services
for Albemarle County.
Identify actions that can be taken to enhance services to Albemarle residents through the
existing pre-school network of services and develop cost estimates to achieve those
actions.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Develop a long-range plan to ensure universal access to Evidence Based or Evidence
Informed Practice pre-school services for Albemarle residents including cost estimates.
Resource Consideration(s):
Facilitation costs for collaborative workgroup.
6. Natural Resources:
Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and natural resources in both
the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and future genera tions
Proposed Year One Priorities:
A. By October 2015, establish direction and funding for a program to improve water quality.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Establish a Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee.
Hire consultant to support the committee.
Committee delivers report to the Board.
Board approves desired level of service and selects funding solution for Five Year Plan.
Resource Consideration(s):
None identified at this time.
B. Successfully implement the County’s stormwater management programs.
NOTE: The County’s stormwater management program has moved to an operational status
through the hiring of inspectors to meet State mandates and achieve the County’s stormwater
management goals. Continued implementation of the stormwater management plan will be
incorporated in the County’s overall water quality improvement efforts.
7. Operational Capacity:
Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community
priorities
Proposed Year One Priorities:
A. By December 2014, complete review of staffing needs through consideration of the Five
Year Financial Plan.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Staff development and presentation of the proposed Five-Year Financial Plan.
Proposed Plan will include consideration of Water Resource Manager and Rural Planner
positions.
Board review and adoption of the Plan by December 2014.
Resource Consideration(s):
No additional resources needed for development and review of the Plan.
B. By January 2015, identify and propose staffing resources needed to meet the Board’s
transportation priorities.
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Clarify needs and expectations for additional staffing.
Evaluate and identify organizational alternatives to addres s transportation needs.
Evaluate staffing and funding alternatives to address identified needs.
Resource Consideration(s):
Possible mid-year addition of 1.0 FTE.
8. Rural Areas:
Preserve the character of rural life with thriving farms and forests, traditional crossroad
communities and protected scenic areas, historic sites, and biodiversity
Proposed Year One Priority:
A. By June 2015, complete Comprehensive Plan Review and adoption.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
Planned/Possible Action(s):
Monthly Board meetings to review each Comprehensive Plan chapter.
Final public hearing and adoption of Plan.
Resource Consideration(s):
None identified at this time.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. FY 14 Unaudited Annual Financial Report (UAFR) and FY 14 Annual
Economic Indicators Report (AEIR).
Due to time constraints the Board moved this item to later in the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Total Compensation: Medical Insurance and Leave Program.
Due to time constraints the Board moved this item to later in the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. FY16 Agency Review Process.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that during the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) budget debrief conversations with Board members this past spring,
Board members stated that: 1) the arts and cultural agency funding requests should continue to be
reviewed in a separate process from the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process and be based on
a separate criteria; and 2) information regarding the ABRT human services funding categories, including
the priority criteria and methodology, should be provided to the Board prior to the beginning of the FY 16
budget development process.
Over the years, the County has collaborated closely with the City of Charlottesville on these
processes. The City sends out the funding application requests to agencies on behalf of both the City and
the County. The City released the FY 16 agency funding application requests on August 27, 2014. Staff
provided information to the Board by e-mail to the Board in August (prior to the City’s release of the
application requests) regarding the FY 16 agency application and review processes.
The ABRT consists of City and County staff and community members. The ABRT reviews human
services agency applications. The ABRT scores the applications based on an established criteria and
makes overall recommendations to County staff. County staff reviews the ABRT’s scores and provides
funding recommendations, which are included in the County Executive’s Recommended Budget for the
Board’s consideration.
The ABRT also reviews the arts and cultural agency applications for City funding, and through FY
14, reviewed those applications for the County as well. In FY13 and FY14, although the ABRT reviewed
those applications for County funding, those approved for funding were forwarded to the CACVB for
funding. Due to Board concerns regarding the process, a team comprised of County staff reviewed and
made recommendations for the arts and cultural agency requests for County funding in FY 15, which
were included in the County Executive’s Recommended Budget.
Attached are three documents outlining the ABRT human services review process and selection
criteria proposed for the FY 16 budget development process. These documents include: 1) the ABRT
Application Narrative (Attachment A); 2) the FY 16 ABRT Instructions (Attachment B); and 3) the ABRT –
Human Services scoring matrix (Attachment C). Also attached is the County’s FY 16 Recommended
application review process and criteria for arts and cultural agency submittals (Attachment D).
Community agencies provide important services to the community, and the County’s contributions
to those agencies often leverage outside funding.
Staff recommends that the Board review the attached information regarding the community
agency funding processes and provide any further guidance to staff regarding the FY 16 arts and cultural
agency review process.
_____
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board and
introduced Ms. Gretchen Ellis, City Human Resources Planner, who manages the ABRT process. Ms.
Allshouse stated that she will review the arts and cultural agency application review process , the CACVB
funding process, and seek guidance from Board members on the processes. She said that there is about
$18 million in funding in the current budget for agencies, categorized in three sections. The first process
is an internal review of contractual agencies such as the Regional Jail, JAUNT, CAT, the Health
Department, etc. – budgeted at more than $16 million. The second process is the ABRT, which is the
human services process overseen by Ms. Ellis for agencies such as the Boys & Girls Club, United Way,
AHIP, MACAA, the Charlottesville Free Clinic, and others. She said that the current budget for the ABRT
is approximately $1.6 million of agency budgets. Ms. Allshouse reported that the final category is the
cultural and arts process, which covers agencies such as the Municipal Band, Ash Lawn Opera, Festival
of the Book, and the Film Festival; this category is approximately $42,000. She said that during the
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
budget development debrief, when she spoke with Board members about processes staff can do to
improve, Board members asked for more information about the ABRT review process, and she provided
that via email prior to the application information sent out in late August. Ms. Allshouse said that the
Board’s direction was to continue to look at arts and cultural agency funding separate from the ABRT.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the ABRT team consists of City staff, County staff and approximately 17
community members. This type of process has been in place since the 1980s, evolving over the ye ars,
and in 2001 they started incorporating some outcome-based criteria; in 2004, they added a point-based
evaluation rubric to it; and in 2011, the process was modified to increase efficiency and improve results.
She reported that currently the ABRT reviews human service agency applications for the County and the
City, and the arts and cultural applications just for the City. Ms. Allshouse stated that the ABRT provides
evaluation scores to the Office of Management and Budget offices in both the City and the County, and at
that point the staff provides the actual dollar amount recommendations, based on the information
received. She said that the arts and cultural process has evolved over time, and until FY13 staff reviewed
those applications in-house. In FY13 and 14, she said, under the Board’s direction the arts and cultural
agency applications for County funding were received by ABRT but submitted to the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau for their consideration on behalf of the County. Ms. Allshouse
said that the City proceeded differently, with operations funding submitted to the City for funding;
marketing and tourism funding for those agencies submitted to the CACVB. She said that the County’s
approach was not to break it up, and overall this became confusing for the applicants.
Ms. Mallek commented that the County did not provide operations funding, and the CACVB just
did marketing and tourism funding.
Ms. Allshouse said that the last process brought it back in-house and moved it back to a staff
team, but agencies can still apply directly to the CACVB. She stated that the County team includes staff
members Lee Catlin, a Board member of CACVB; Ron White, a member of ABRT, Doug Walker, Andy
Bowman, senior budget analyst, Kristy Shifflett, County grants specialist, and herself. She explained that
the applications will still come into ABRT for City and County funding, and the ABRT will keep the City
applications for arts and cultural but forward the County ones to the in-house review team. Ms. Allshouse
referenced a list of criteria presented as Attachment D, and said that they plan to use the same criteria as
the previous year. She said that the team also consults with the City and others with relevant expertise
and knowledge as the recommendations are made. She said that the recommendations are made and
provided to the County Executive and then included in the recommended budget. Ms. Allshouse said that
last year they did “tiered funding,” but this year they will base the recommendations on history and need.
Ms. Palmer asked what specifically drove staff to change the methodology to emphasize history
and need. Ms. Allshouse explained that the County ha s funded agencies in the past at a certain dollar
amount, but when staff went to the tiered approach it did not work as well for the agencies because those
agencies are submitting a certain application for certain funding for a reason – and the tiered approach
did not take other important considerations into account.
Ms. Mallek said that sometimes the bigger events have more resources available to them, so
impact for impact may not be fair. She noted that the review team does not seem to include anyone from
the arts, and perhaps someone from the Piedmont Council for the Arts or another entity would be helpful.
Ms. Allshouse said she thinks the team would be fine with that suggestion.
Ms. Mallek said that she has heard some rumblings in the past that people on the ABRT were
also applicants, and it affects how they rank everyone. Ms. Ellis said that she has heard those comments
as well, but it is very difficult to find 15 or 20 volunteers who are willing to give up about 40 hours of time
in November and December, who have not at some time been involved with an organization. Ms. Ellis
said that in an attempt to address this issue, this year the review team has been divided into four
separate groups that will not be reviewing each other’s work. There will be a team related to youth
programs, a team related to health and safety, a team related to self-sufficiency and housing, and a team
related to the arts. She said that people who may be involved with an organization will not sit on a team
that looks at any of their applications.
Ms. Mallek asked what category working with seniors would fall under since the United Way does
not do it anymore. Ms. Ellis said that the team does not review any senior services agencies at this point.
The Jefferson Area Board for Aging has assumed many of those services.
Mr. Boyd said that JABA shifted to an agency several years ago and does not fall under this
review team’s purview.
Mr. Foley clarified that they are in the second group, which is the largest amount of funding
provided.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Ellis how they can ensure that members of the review teams are using the
scoring mechanism, and asked if they are required to come up with a specific score. Ms. Ellis said that
they are absolutely required to use the scoring mechanism . She explained that they receive the
applications at the end of October, with the first meeting 10 days later with the expectation of having read
and scored all applications – which looks to be about 20 programs for each team – and they will bring the
score sheets to each meeting. She stated that it is a lot of work, and team members take it very
seriously.
Ms. Mallek said there is no question as to the value this process provides.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Allshouse stated that the CACVB will also take direct applications for tourism-oriented
funding for different agencies. The CACVB’s basic process is that a team scores the applications
according to criteria, which includes an agency’s ability to secure commitments to overnight lodging,
whether it attracts visitors to the greater Charlottesville-Albemarle area, and whether the marketing plan is
detailed. She said that the team then makes recommendations to the full CACVB Board for approval.
They also have a semi-annual tourism sponsorship program for one time special events that is managed
through a similar process.
Mr. Foley pointed out that the key to this funding is “tourism promotion.” The CACVB limits its
review to just marketing initiatives, not to pay for operating expenses of agencies and other costs.
Ms. McKeel commented that they are not applying to both with the same criteria. Ms. Allshouse
said that an agency can apply for funding just for the marketing/tourism part of their work, and then to the
County and City for operating funding.
Ms. Dittmar asked who serves on the CACVB teams. Ms. Allshouse said that there are sub-
teams comprised from the CACVB Board members.
Ms. Allshouse summarized her report by stating that there are three agency review processes:
the internal review of primarily contractual agencies; the ABRT team with Ms. Ellis; and the arts an d
cultural process, which they can amend to include an arts representative. She added that the CACVB
has a separate process for marketing and tourism funding.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. Allshouse for a great explanation of the process.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Board-to-Board Report.
Mr. Ned Gallaway, School Board Chairman, stated that one of the things the School Division is
most proud of is the on-time graduation rate, of which they were able to increase this year. The details
are included in the report provided to the Board (copy on file). He said that this is a significant
benchmark, and reflects the efforts put in by the schools to increase the rate.
Mr. Gallaway stated that they now have advanced manufacturing labs in all the middle schools.
There are efforts to spread the grant money and some of the programs followed at Sutherland Middle
School around to the other middle schools – with Burley Middle School and Henley Middle School coming
on board this year. He said that his report also contains information on standards of learning scores and
accreditation. There are four schools that are identified “focus schools” that contain student populations
needing a bit more focus. Mr. Gallaway said that the School Division believes that the shift to project-
based learning and project-based assessment and not standardized testing preparation is what will finally
help close the gaps. He reported that Club Yancey will hold its open house on October 23, 2014 and the
Maker Faire will take place on October 4 2014 at Monticello High School.
Ms. Mallek said that she attended the Robotics Club kick -off event at Western Albemarle the
previous evening, and that school has three teams of 15 students – with teams at each of the three main
high schools. She added that January 4, 2015 is the next big local competition.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she recently visited a few County schools, and she spent a good deal of
time with Sharon Wilcox at Scottsville Elementary. In addition, she toured Murray High School and the
Community Charter School housed on the first floor of Burley Middle School – which is a model in the
state. She said that she also visited the Enterprise Center, and Post-High School, which helps students
with various disabilities prepare to hold jobs.
Ms. McKeel mentioned that the students at CATEC actually built the Post -High building. She
noted that they build a house every year.
Mr. Gallaway said that two years ago the Enterprise Center was housed ou tside in trailers. They
were able to build the Post-High facility through CIP funding.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. JAUNT Report.
Note: Mr. Sheffield filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement with the Clerk which stated that
he is employed as the Assistant Director of JAUNT, a regional public transportation provider owned by
the City of Charlottesville and the counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, Buckingham and
Amherst located at 104 Keystone Place, Charlottesville, Virginia, and ha ve a personal interest in JAUNT
because he receives an annual salary from JAUNT that exceeds $10,000 annually. He then removed
himself from the discussion and left the room at 3:13 p.m.
Ms. Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director of JAUNT, thanked the Board for its support and for
the opportunity to present the JAUNT annual report. Ms. Shaunesey stated that JAUNT’S ridership has
decreased over the past few years, primarily due to human services agency transportation cutbacks and
Medicaid reductions. She said that in considering just the trips people pay for themselves, JAUNT’s
ridership has been increasing – particularly in Albemarle, which surpassed Charlottesville in 2007 and is
continuing to increase. In looking at overall revenues, she said, JAUNT took in almost $6 million just for
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
operating costs, not for capital projects. Local money makes up the bulk of JAUNT’s budget at 41%. Ms.
Shaunesey said that most of their funding goes to public operations, and some of their costs such as
vehicle insurance, are required by the state to be listed as administrative. She stated that Albemarle
provides the largest portion of JAUNT’s funding and contributes about one-half of JAUNT’s income,
followed by Charlottesville, then Louisa, and Nelson – which also includes some commuter routes to
Wintergreen that are shared by other localities. Ms. Shaunesey said that the Albemarle’s local share is
even larger, because there is less federal support for urban transportation than there is for rural. She
said that JAUNT has an obligation under federal law if there is a fixed route service to provide
complimentary para-transit, which means that people who qualify as having a disability can ride on a
service like JAUNT and cannot pay more than the City bus fare, and must operate during the same hours
with the same kinds of restrictions. She stated that several years ago, Albemarle made the decision to go
beyond the required part of ADA – which is within three-quarters mile of a bus route – and cover the
entire urban area. Ms. Shaunesey said that during times of budget stress they have checked to see if
they can reduce that, but hardly anyone lives more than that distance from a bus line.
Ms. Mallek asked if that is a different program from what runs out in the rural areas and takes
people to work. Ms. Shaunesey confirmed that it is entirely different, and noted that JAUNT provides
50% discounts to seniors and those with disabilities in the rural areas. Regarding rural services, she said,
it is fairly evenly divided between routes. If people cannot get to Charlottesville, they probably cannot get
to a bus stop. She said that routes are a more efficient way to go in terms of service because more
people can fit on a bus, but JAUNT also does some demand-response service to accommodate locations
and schedules. Ms. Shaunesey said that the demand-response trend line is down, while holding their
own on routes, which is positive because it means they are effectively getting people onto routes when
possible and thus are operating more efficiently.
She reported that JAUNT got its start as a coordinated human service agency provider, and later
added the public although now that is completely reversed. JAUNT tries to be as responsive as possible
for agencies to help continue that coordination. Ms. Shaunesey said that the agencies pay JAUNT $51
per hour, or occasionally .50 cents a mile if their driver goes through the JAUNT training process. She
stated that Medicaid used to be a much bigger percentage of what JAUNT did, and programs like the
Boys & Girls Club and Head Start comprise a much larger percentage. Service started for the Blue Ridge
PACE Program in March 2014 and is anticipated to increase going forward. Ms. Shaunesey said that
one of JAUNT’s most interesting partnerships is with JABA; when they have a need they get together and
try to brainstorm as to how to address it. She stated that JABA provides a match to JAUNT’s state and
federal funding, and one of the biggest needs is transportation to shopping for healthy food. Ms.
Shaunesey said that the senior apartments at Woods Edge are served by a small shuttle bus to meet the
CAT bus, because the hill to the bus stop is very steep, with limited sidewalks. She said that in Crozet,
there were many people at Mountainside Senior Living who could not afford the fares there, and JABA
provided matching funds for a senior grant that pays for Mountainside reside nts to ride for free. Ms.
Shaunesey noted that the route has been very popular and also provides opportunities for Crozet
residents to ride, and they hope to have the grant again in FY16. It also saves the County money
because funding does not have to go through the regular channel.
Ms. Shaunesey stated that JAUNT has started reaching out to the Hispanic community, and
JAUNT Mobility Analyst Lucas Lyons – a fluent Spanish speaker – converses in Spanish with many
people who are calling about rides. She said that they have been replacing vehicles, and JAUNT pays for
them with their funds and with some federal grants. She said that their safety record has always been
great and got even better in FY14. W ith some additional state funding they were able to expand services
throughout the area – including the Boar’s Head/Farmington route, which has been helpful for
International Rescue Committee workers who work there. Ms. Shaunesey said that the Head Start
program had some cuts that eliminated transportation, and JAUNT was able to use additional state
money to start service for those children, with just a small fare. She stated that JAUNT started some new
commuter routes in outlying counties, which also benefits Albemarle riders along those routes. Ms.
Shaunesey said that their nonprofit organization, JAUNT Friends, distributed 1,600 tickets to people in
need this year.
Ms. Shaunesey said that JAUNT will soon cross its eight-million trip mark in October 2014, and
next year will celebrate its 40th anniversary. She mentioned that Mr. Sheffield will be taking over as
Executive Director of JAUNT when she retires in February 2015, and his position will then be filled by
Karen Davis, who’s been JAUNT’s community relations person for the last five years. Ms. Shaunesey
said that she anticipates having a very smooth transition after her retirement. Since this is her last
presentation to the Board, she thanked Board members for their wonderful support of JAUNT and its
services over the years. She stated that she feels certain they will continue to look out for the County’s
bottom line while addressing the needs of the people JAUNT serves.
Ms. Mallek said that she has worked with Ms. Shaunesey beginning in 2000 when they were
both appointed to the CHART Committee, which then became CTAC under the MPO; addressing
transportation issues. She stated that the JAUNT safety course driving exam is very difficult, and has
been able to use a JAUNT van for the last 18 years for her summer kids’ camp. Ms. Mallek commented
that a lot of Earlysville residents rely on the JAUNT vans to get to work every day, and that is true all
across the region.
Ms. Mallek then read and presented the following recognition honoring Ms. Shaunesey for her 30
years of service for JAUNT, including 18 years as Executive Director:
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
On behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors and local government,
I would like to honor and recognize
Donna Shaunesey
for her outstanding efforts during the past 30 years at JAUNT, of which she served 18 years as
Executive Director. As one of the first four Certified Community Transit Managers in the country,
Donna oversaw the implementation of a variety of initiatives involving regional transportation
which
had a positive impact on the quality of life of many residents in our community.
In recognition of her numerous contributions to the community and as a champion of JAUNT’s
mission to safely, courteously and promptly provide public and specialized services to meet
community mobility needs, Donna was awarded the 2014 Helen Poore Distinguished Service
Award
and Unsung Hero Award.
During her tenure with JAUNT, Donna has been active in statewide and local organizations
focused on the betterment of our community, including past chair of the Community
Transportation Association of Virginia, the Virginia Transit Association, Charlottesville-Albemarle
Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Association of Providers of Rural Independent Living.
We, as a community, are strengthened by the contributions and commitment of citizens
such as Donna Shaunesey whose dedication, professionalism and advocacy in meeting
community mobility needs make Albemarle County a better place in which to live and work.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of October, 2014.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. Shaunesey for her service and success, and congratulated Mr.
Sheffield on his new position effective March 1, 2015.
(Note: Mr. Sheffield returned to the meeting at 3:30 p.m.)
_____
Item No. 15a. Recognition: Clifford Buys for 17 years of service on JAUNT Board.
Mr. Sheffield recognized former JAUNT Board member, Clifford Buys, and read a proclamation in
his honor. Mr. Sheffield said that he deeply respects Mr. Buys and is honored to make this recognition.
Mr. Sheffield said that Mr. Buys served on the JAUNT Board for 17 years. He has been a force in the
financial arena. He served on the Financial Committee almost his entire time on the Board; serving as
Treasurer and Vice President. His financial literac y has been a boom to JAUNT and his input invaluable
in dealing with the auditors and its many different financial situations. Mr. Buys humor and dedication to
JAUNT has made him an institution. As an employee he is happy to have someone of Mr. Buys stature
and experience helping to keep JAUNT solvent and forward thinking. He then asked Mr. Buys to come
forward and presented him with a Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Buys came forward to accept the award and thanked the Board for the recognition.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Total Compensation: Medical Insurance and Leave Program.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that In November 2000, the Board of
Supervisors and School Board (Boards) approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target employee
salaries at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above market levels. Medical
insurance and the Virginia Retirement System are the largest components of the benefits piece of that
strategy. The benefit programs are a significant component of Total Compensation in terms of cost,
employee satisfaction and employee well-being. Recent Federal and State mandates require changes to
the County’s medical insurance structure, and to the County’s leave benefits for newly hired e mployee.
Information regarding the medical insurance issue was presented to the Boards on May 14, 2014,
including the fact that modifications may be necessary to avoid the “Cadillac Tax” (effective January
2018) as required by the Affordable Care Act. The Boards directed staff to evaluate additional policy
modifications.
Staff shared information regarding the newly-mandated short and long-term disability coverage
the County is now required to provide to VRS Hybrid Members effective January 1, 2014 at th e October
10, 2013 and December 12, 2013 joint Board meetings. Given this mandated change in benefits to new
employees and the inconsistencies and administrative burdens that managing an additional State-
imposed benefit change creates, the Boards directed staff to explore options for potential revisions to the
County’s current benefits for all employees
Staff will provide an overview of the Health Care Executive Committee Memorandum (Attachment
A) and Leave Considerations Report (Attachment B) to the Board on October 1, 2014 as background and
preparation for the joint meeting with the School Board on October 8th. These attachments are for the
Board’s information regarding the issues and options.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
A budget analysis will be provided to the Board on October 8, 2014 as part of staff’s
recommendations.
This report is for information only. Staff will provide recommendations for Board consideration at
the October 8, 2014 meeting.
_____
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, introduced Mr. John Gray and Ms. Claudine
Cloutier from the Human Resources Department. Ms. Gerome said that in the past when Human
Resources have come before the Board to talk about benefits, they provide information in October about
compensation – with a market analysis and recommendations, as well as projections on what benefit
increases might be on things like medical insurance premiums. She stated that to allow the Board more
time to make decisions in terms of total compensation, and to allow staff more time to communicate with
employees, they are bringing forth not only compensation recommendations but benefit recommenda-
tions for next year. Ms. Gerome stated that this information was presented to the School Board last week
because there is a great deal of information to share and they wanted to have time to answer questions
from both of the entities. Ms. Gerome said that the County’s benefit strategy is to be slightly above
market. Benefits are changing – with federal and state mandates requiring the staff to look at benefits in
a different way. She stated that two workgroups have been working on the health insurance and the
leave issues over the past year and a half, and have done some good work thus far that will come to the
joint Boards the following week. Ms. Gerome said that the County’s goals have always been to have
affordable health insurance for employees, offer some choice, mainta in reserves at a target amount,
remain in compliance, and reach the Board’s target to be slightly above market.
She stated that the Affordable Care Act has caused the staff to rethink how the County is doing
its health insurance. There are a number of recommendations that will be coming forward next week, but
one of those considerations is the “Cadillac tax.” Ms. Gerome explained that the tax looks at the total
premium costs for an individual only, not what the employee or employer pays. The threshold is a little bit
over $10,000, going into effect in 2018. She said that the County’s current total cost is just over $8,000 .
The individual premium cost is high and not reflective of what the claims actually are, and family costs are
lower. Ms. Gerome said that the Healthcare Executive Committee is proposing to re-allocate those rates
so they are more appropriately aligned with the claims usage, it would allow the County to avoid the
Cadillac tax, and it would bring them in line with the market.
Mr. Boyd asked for clarification as to what she meant by “low” for individual and “high” for
dependent coverage. Ms. Gerome explained that that’s the total premium cost; employee premiums are
actually low in both categories.
Ms. Palmer asked who is paying the 40% tax. Ms. Gerome said that the County will be paying it
if it is subject to the tax, but they are hoping to avoid it by being fiscally prudent. It is not the individual
paying it; it would be the County. She stated that one of the side effects of doing that is the impact on
part-time employees, and because of the way part-time premiums are structured now they are pro-rated
to full-time equivalency (FTE) percentage – which is very complicated to administer and communicate.
Ms. Gerome said that the Healthcare Executive Committee is proposing to go to bands, so that instead of
that exact percentage, they would get a 50-65% contribution. She stated that the County has just under
200 part-time employees on health insurance currently, most of whom are School Division employees,
but it is important to have that benefit available to them.
Ms. Mallek said that her concern about “bands” in general is the perception that some employees
will be paying for others who work fewer hours, and that is the tradeoff for convenience of management.
She asked if school bus drivers are covered under this. Ms. Gerome said that historically, bus drivers
have received the full Board contribution regardless of hours driving because it has been an important
recruitment and retention tool – and that would remain the same under the new structure.
Ms. Gerome said that the Committee has also been reviewing the spousal eligibility criteria. Last
year the County was surprised at the impact of UVA’s decision to say that if spouses have insurance they
would need to come off the UVA plan, and other large employers such as UPS and Lexis Nexis are
making similar changes. Ms. Gerome said that the Committee is bringing forward some options, each
with different cost implications to inform the Board’s decision. The information will be available to the
Board prior to their discussion of this item next week.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board will be given the cost implication data in a vacuum, or in the context
of the five-year financial plan. Mr. Foley said that staff has some assumptions built in on insurance
coverage rates that will be factored into the five-year plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board will be asked to make a decision next week. He added that he is
concerned about the overall impact of the five-year plan.
Ms. McKeel commented that they were all caught by surprise the previous year, and
acknowledged that it is hard to anticipate.
Mr. Foley said that staff will try to get as much information as possible to the Board prior to them
having to make a decision.
Ms. Mallek stated that she was very unhappy about this “race to the bottom” that is happening
with UVA and other entities, and she hopes the County will be the one not to bail on this.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Ms. Gerome said that the Healthcare Executive Committee tried to take a strategic look at this
and think about what will be best for employees in the long run, and how the County can maintain a
health plan that is affordable with all these new cost pressures.
Mr. Boyd said that staff is just seeking direction at this point. Last year the Board gave direction
of 2% but ended up with 1% - so this is not a final vote.
Mr. Foley said that staff will share with the Board some of the assumptions that will be impacted
with these changes.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, stated that the Healthcare Executive Committee looks
at the reserve balances in the healthcare fund, which is looked at over a five-year period to ensure that
what premium adjustments and projected claims will maintain the fund balance.
Ms. Dittmar commented that offering solid benefits makes Albemarle a more attractive employer,
and asked if the Board has to make a decision next week or will it have time to contemplate a decision.
Mr. Foley said that there are some items staff would like to have direction on for budget planning
purposes in the five-year plan, but the Board can make the final decision in the annual budget.
Ms. Mallek noted that it gets harder later if the Board changes things around.
Mr. Boyd said that given the amount of changes in benefits and VRS, he wondered if it might be
time to reconvene the prior committee to take an overall look at everything, because it has been a long
time.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that the Board bring it up at the joint School Board meeting the following
week.
For clarification purposes, Ms. McKeel said the changes made by UVA refers the spouse of a
UVA employee. If the spouse can get insurance through their employer, UVA’s expectat ion is that the
employee go on that insurance plan and not UVA’s plan. Ms. Gerome said that is correct, and UVA used
the term “affordable coverage”.
Ms. Gerome reported that another area where the County has seen a lot of change is with VRS
benefits. Last year upon implementation of the hybrid plan effective January 1, both retirement and
disability coverage changed – with a mandate for localities to provide a short and long-term disability to
the hybrid employees. She said that the County had to make a decision last fall as to whether it would
opt in or out of the state plan. The County opted out and chose standard for the benefits. Ms. Gerome
stated that the challenge of having different benefits for employees is difficult. They are also concerned
about morale issues. The benefits for new employees are actually more robust than what is offered to
current employees. She said that there are also communications and administration issues, as well as
management of sick leave. The work group has assessed what do to with this and is looking at making
some modifications to the current leave program. Ms. Gerome stated that the committee is
recommending that the County provides the short and long-term disability benefit to all employees, and
has gathered market data. She said that most localities are waiting to see what others are doing, but
Spotsylvania has moved ahead with that benefit offered. She said that they have also put a lot of focus
on talking to employees and getting employee feedback on the benefits, with numerous focus groups and
a custom-made video that had a survey attached. The feedback has been positive once employees
realize the possibility of offering the plan. Ms. Gerome noted that there was a major concern around the
excess amount if they were going to cap leave, and staff’s recommendation would be to honor accrued
leave and not take away leave from any employee.
She stated that the two options that staff would be presenting to the Board in more detail the
following week would be first, to implement one leave program for all benefit-eligible employees, which is
a benefit enhancement in cost but eliminates the complexities of managing two leave systems. Ms.
Gerome said that data shows that in about six years, the majority of the workforce will be hybrid
employees. She stated that the second option was to retain the current leave policies for current
employees and the mandated benefits to hybrid employees, which results in two different systems and
can lead to confusion and morale issues. Ms. Gerome said that the reason staff wanted to bring the
benefits information to the Board now is so that when they are having the compensation discussion, the
changes can be viewed in a package to meet the Board’s strategy of meeting market for compensation
and being slightly above with benefits.
Mr. Boyd asked if the second option for leave is what UVa did, because his wife is employed
there and was in a similar situation, and he recalls some controversy when that happened. Ms. Gerome
said that she knew they had done that with retirement benefits, but was not aware that they did it with
leave.
Ms. Mallek asked if a long-term employee would keep the leave they already accrued, but as of a
certain date would not be able to continue carrying over new leave that they earn. Ms. Gerome confirmed
that was the case, and said that staff is looking at July 1 as the start date of the new policy. If the long
and short-term disability is adopted, there would be no need to have unlimited sick accrual so the y would
be implementing a cap.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a bank that people can share for catastrophic illness. Ms. Gerome
said that there is a sick leave bank in place already.
Ms. McKeel confirmed Mr. Boyd’s earlier question about UVa’s change in policy.
Mr. Foley noted that the County’s change is a direct result of the changes in the VRS system.
Ms. Gerome said that they will receive a lengthy Board report prior to their next meeting.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any further thought on reconvening the panel to discuss the overall
system, adding that in the year 2000 they were way behind on paying competitiv e teachers’ salaries –
and that is why they provided enhanced benefits at 105% of salary.
Ms. Dittmar said that that’s why she mentioned having that conversation with the School Board.
Mr. Foley said that it has evolved a bit over the years, and staff will provide that background.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. FY 14 Unaudited Annual Financial Report (UAFR) and FY 14 Annual
Economic Indicators Report (AEIR).
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the attached Unaudited Annual
Financial Report (UAFR) (Attachment A) provides preliminary information about the County’s General
Fund operations and Fund Balance as of June 30, 2014. The attached Annual Economic Indicators
Report (AEIR) (Attachments B through D) provides an overview of general economic conditions in the
County in FY 14.
The UAFR supports the County’s Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all
citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of
public funds. The AEIR supports the Aspiration/Goal of Economic Prosperity.
The UAFR reflects year-end data through June 30, 2014, the end of FY 14. The revenue
information in the attached UAFR is organized in a way that is consistent with the revenue section of the
County’s budget document. Expenditure data is presented following the format of Exhibit 12 of the
County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Line item titles in the UAFR match the line
item titles in these two documents. The columns in the UAFR show FY 14 Adopted Budget revenues and
expenditures, Revised Budget revenues and expenditures, as well as Year End actual revenues and
expenditures. Each of these Year End figures subsequently is expressed as a dollar difference from, as
well as a percentage of, the amount of the relevant dollar amount in the FY 14 Revised Budget.
Highlights of the attached report include:
Revised Budget $233,370,796 Revised Budget $233,370,796
Actual Revenues 231,623,131 Actual Expenditures 230,311,481
(including Transfers In) (including Transfers Out)
Amount Over (Under Budget)($1,747,665)Amount Over (Under Budget)($3,059,315)
% Difference -0.75%% Difference 1.31%
FY2014 Revenues FY2014 Expenditures
Details of the significant revenue and expenditure variances are found on pages 2-4 of the UAFR.
FY14 Fund Balance & Use of FY14 Fund Balance
The General Fund estimated FY14 ending fund balance will be approximately $36,915,374. After
reserving fund balance to establish and maintain the County’s 10% fund balance policy and future
approved/planned uses of fund balance, $3,391,990, which is equal to 1.45% of the FY 14 General Fund
budget, will be available for capital projects.
The School Division’s estimated FY14 ending fund balance will be transferred to the General
Fund-School Reserve in accordance with the County’s fund balance reserve policy. The $2,024,333
estimated fund balance is below the 2% maximum reserve and will be available for School Division
purposes subject to appropriation by the Board of Supervisors.
The FY 14 Annual Economic Indicators Report provides an overview of general economic
conditions in Albemarle County at the end of the fiscal year and presents a preliminary glimpse of the
expected state of the economy in FY 15. Table I allows a multiyear comparison of data, while Table I(a)
provides supporting information that was used in the construction of a portion of Table I. Highlights from
the report include:
General economic activity, as measured by tax revenues in six representative streams,
appears to have occurred at a modest rate. Changes in these streams ranged from -
0.13% in Consumer Utility Tax to +8.87% in Other Development Fees. The information
in Table I suggests that the County’s overall economy grew at a modest pace in FY 14.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Albemarle County’s average monthly unemployment rate declined from 4.75% in FY 13
to 4.33% in FY 14. This 0.42 percentage point (pp) drop in the rate, while encouraging,
still did not bring down the County’s unemployment rate to the 3.0% rate that staff
currently considers to be the “frictional” unemployment rate. In FY 15 the average
monthly unemployment rate is expected to be 3.94%.
The average monthly total number of jobs in Albemarle County appears to have
experienced a slight decline between FY 13 and FY 14. The County is estimated to have
lost 397 positions between the two years, going from 50,495 in FY 13 to 50,098 in FY 14.
Note that the FY 14 total jobs number is an estimate because final numbers are not yet
available from the VEC, and the nature of the jobs data is such that the total figures do
not necessarily reflect a decline in full-time, permanent positions. The projection for FY
15, furthermore, is that the County will experience a net gain of 654 jobs, resulting in a
total jobs base of 50,752. Note, also, that jobs data is by place of employment while the
unemployment rate, discussed previously, is by place of residence. The two numbers
can sometimes move in the same direction.
Revenue and expenditure data contained in the UAFR reflects the state of the County’s
budget-to-actual performance as of June 30, 2014. After reserving $29,210,963 in order to establish
and maintain the County’s fund balance policy level of 10% for FY15, the preliminary estimated
unassigned fund balance available for capital projects will be approximately $3.4M, or 1.45% of the
General Fund budget.
Data shown in the AEIR reflect economic variables that impact the County’s current and
future revenues and expenditures.
This report is for information only and no action is required by the Board.
_____
Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, introduced Mr. Jacob Sumner, the County’s newly hired
Chief of Financial Management, who would present the unaudited FY14 financial report.
Mr. Jacob Sumner thanked the Finance Department, Office of Management and Budget and the
School Division’s Fiscal Services staff for assistance in putting the report together. Mr. Sumner said that
they will present the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the CAFR, at the Board’s
December 3, 2014 meeting. He stated that the report he would present today was only focused on the
School Division’s operating fund and the County’s general fund – and does not include any debt service,
capital projects or special revenue funds, which would be presented in the CAFR on Decembe r 3. Mr.
Sumner said that it was important to keep in mind that the figures are unaudited and could change after
auditing over the next several weeks.
He reported that the County’s general fund finished the fiscal year with $1.3 million net revenue
over expenditures. W ith a budget of $233.4 million, the County collected $231.6 million, which is three-
quarters of a percent or $1.7 million under budget. He said that expenditures came in at $230.3 million,
or 1.3% or $3.1 million below budget. Mr. Sumner stated that both revenues and expenditures are within
the +/- 5% range, with forecasting as recommended by GFOA. He reported that in looking at revenues,
the County saw growth in real property tax and in the clerk -fee revenue streams, due largely to the 3.3-
cent increase in the real estate property tax and modest improvements in the real estate tax market. He
said that the real estate tax revenue was 4.5% or $5 million above budget due primarily to the increase;
clerk court fees increased by approximately 30% or $500,000. Mr. Sumner said that collection of
personal property tax, delinquent tax collection, and motor vehicle licenses were below budget. This year
the County implemented its new revenue and billing collections system, and thus had to put so me of the
billing and collection for certain personal property taxes on hold. He stated that they would be billing
personal property owners for those revenues in FY15, so they would be collected but are just delayed.
On the expenditure side, he reported, the County realized savings from reduced worker’s compensation
costs in the Fire/Rescue Department, Countywide vacancy savings, and retention of budget
contingencies. Mr. Sumner reported that the FY13 audited General Fund fund balance was $35.6 million,
and as a result of this year’s operations, the County added $1.3 million to that total. After they set aside
$29.2 million to satisfy the 10% fund balance reserve policy and $4.3 million of previously approved uses
of fund balance, it is anticipated that there will be approximately $3.4 million additional cash available for
future cash funding of capital projects.
Mr. Sumner reported that for the Schools main operating fund, they had a budget of $156.6
million; on the revenue side, they were only .04% or $65,000 off – but on the expenditure side they
realized $2 million in savings, due largely to vacancy and operational savings in the transportation and
billing maintenance departments, as well as uses in technology, fuel and building maintenance
contingenc y reserves. He stated that the School Division’s audited fund balance in reserve at the end of
FY13 was $3 million; of which $2.8 million was appropriated in FY14, but due to expenditure savings of
$2 million, they only had to use $800,000 of it. Mr. Sum ner said that they have since appropriated
$200,000 of that for the FY15 budget, which brings their fund balance down to $2 million. He noted that
this amount is below the 2% policy maximum, and would be set aside in the general fund to be used for
school purposes subject to appropriation by the Board.
Mr. Foley said that one of the bottom line results of this is that staff will come back to the Board
with a proposal for transfer to the capital fund. W hen looking at the fund balance report there is $3.4
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
million available to go to capital – with assumptions for potential revenue downturn and other variables.
He stated that these things would come back to the Board in review of the five-year plan, and it does
create the basis for that financial plan.
Ms. Palmer asked how much was projected in the last fiscal year for the balance anticipated to be
available for capital projects. Ms. Burrell said there may have been an anticipated amount, but nothing
was actually budgeted as a use of the excess fund balance towards capital. She added that OMB uses a
certain process because they would have an out of balance budget if the Board appropriated the use of
that excess for capital. As the Board looks at the capital five-year plan, there will be a “0” in the first year
of the plan because that only comes to fruition once the audit has been completed and the Board makes
the mid-year appropriation.
Mr. Foley said that the last number the Board talked about was $2.5 million going to capital,
which was based on the actual audit in FY13, and that amount has been transferred to capital. He stated
that the County is now in a whole new cycle and are projecting $3.4 million for transfer next year – but
they are not going to budget for it until the real number is known from the audit.
Ms. Mallek commented that the Board’s goal had been to have $2 million, but perhaps that was to
be there at the end of the five-year cycle. Mr. Foley confirmed that it was the goal for the end of the five
years, and it was actually stronger than that – but the Board would see it again soon with the five-year
plan and those pieces would start to come together, with the audit coming forward in December.
Mr. Steve Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis & Forecasting, Department of Finance,
addressed the Board, and suggested that he forego reading the report since it is included in their packets.
He said that he would discuss how the County’s economy performed over the last fiscal year in
comparison with previous years, and would highlight revenue streams that capture general economic
conditions in the County; then he would discuss the County’s unemployment rate and job market. Mr.
Allshouse reported that “reflective revenue streams” are taken as a group to mirror changes in regional
gross domestic product (GDP), which is the total dollar value of goods and services produced in the
region in any given year. He said that the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis publishes regional GDP
figures going back about 10 years, and he has been able to compare revenue streams against those
numbers. Mr. Allshouse said he would talk about sales tax, consumer utility, and food and beverage tax.
During the five-year time period, the County had fairly robust growth in sales and food and beverage, but
not in consumer utility tax because it is impacted to a great extent by diminished telecommunications tax
– as people are shifting over to cell phone usage and Skyping, which are not subject to taxation. He
stated that sales tax has done well for the last few year s, and he is projecting a 5% increase in FY15;
food and beverage has also grown well and was expected to continue increasing. Mr. Allshouse said that
the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was anticipated to increase over the next year, as well as inspection
fees that are related to development, and other development fees that are more closely tied into things
like rezonings are also expected to increase in keeping with the current trend. He said that he is
expecting continued steady growth in the County’s economy.
Mr. Allshouse presented a graph showing unemployment rates in the County, state, and the U.S.,
and while the rate has decreased fairly steadily over the last several years, the County is not at the 3%
“frictional” rate that would indicate a strong s cenario whereby everyone who wants a job has a job. He
said that in the late 1990s, the County had an unemployment rate of 1%, which was a labor shortage, and
the current rate is projected at 3.95% for FY15.
Mr. Boyd said that there is a lot of discussion at the national level that these figures do not reflect
those people who are completely out of the employment market, and asked if that was the case locally
since those numbers do not show up in the Virginia Employment Commission reports. Mr. Allshouse said
that it is difficult to gauge locally. The problem with the unemployment figures is that they relate only to
people who are actively looking for work. He said that you can look at the size of the labor force because
that is where the unemployment numbers are calculated from, and the local workforce seems to have
contracted – but it is not clear whether those people have withdrawn from the market or have found jobs.
Ms. Mallek commented that some of those workers may have gone back to school to finis h
training, graduate school or a GED program or something. Mr. Allshouse agreed.
Mr. Allshouse then reported on the total number of jobs, noting that a few years ago the question
was posed as to what percentage of jobs were taken up by the private sector. He said that in FY10 that
number was 67%, in FY14 it was just over 67%, and in FY15 it is anticipated to be about 68% and seems
to be inching upward. Mr. Allshouse said that job sectors that have gained between FY10 and FY14
include healthcare and social assistance; professional, scientific and technical; and administrative and
support service jobs. He stated that sectors that lost include manufacturing, mirroring a national trend;
arts, entertainment and recreation; and construction, despite sev eral major projects. He noted that all
figures come from the VEC quarterly census of wages, and said that what surprised him was that in
FY14, the jobs base seemed slightly flat. Mr. Allshouse said that the VEC includes all full -time, part-time,
temporary positions and permanent positions, and despite the retraction his projection for FY15 is a
modest gain in the number of jobs in the County.
Ms. Dittmar noted that the Rivanna Station employees are not being counted in the County’s job
numbers, as they are being counted in Maryland and other places. Mr. Allshouse said that one of the
glitches in the job numbers is that they are counted where the home office is located, such as Washington
D.C. He stated that while the numbers are not perfect, they are the only ones available.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Mr. Allshouse stated that the economy grew modestly and he expects that to continue in FY15,
with no “breakout year” anticipated – as the recovery has been underway for about five years. He added
that the jobs base took a pause in FY14, and he will continue to monitor the situation in the coming year.
Ms. Dittmar said that part of the dip could be related to sequestration. Mr. Allshouse agreed,
adding that UVa has a lot of research and development money tied into sequestration, as well as the
impact of having many students from Northern Virginia whose families have been affected by it.
Mr. Boyd said that in doing some research for a group he addressed the previous week, the
CAFR report shows that four-year figures now are still not reaching the levels where the County was in
2004 in terms of revenue and jobs. Mr. Foley said they could include some of those graphs in the five -
year plan to show some of that information.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Mr. Allshouse for the report. She added that she recently served on a panel
with him, noting that he is a great resource for analytical information. She mentioned that the Board had
received a letter from Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Chamber of Commerce President Tim Hulbert,
as there is a desire to ask Virginia legislators to move the cap on business property tax back up to $250.
Ms. Dittmar said that while she supports that individually, she can not speak for the County and they may
need to consider it as a Board.
Mr. Foley said that the legislative program is scheduled to come to the Board in November, so
they may wish to take a formal position at that time.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there would be additional revenue assumptions included.
Mr. Boyd said that he had already sent a letter as an individual to Delegate Rob Bell requesting
that they include that in their legislation, and Mr. Davis had put together what a legislative change would
have to look like in order to do it.
Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer said that it would be helpful for Mr. Boyd to share that information
with them, perhaps in the “For Information” section of the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Foley said that staff could provide a summary of the situation as part of the November
discussion, and the Board could consider a formal position.
Ms. Palmer said that she is not certain the Board would have any data because of the grace
period. Ms. Burrell said that she is not sure how much empirical data the staff could provide on revenue
generation based solely on that $250 threshold, but if there is any means by which they can extract that
data she will certainly try to work with staff to get it.
Ms. McKeel said it would be good to just get general background information for the discussion.
Ms. Mallek said that her concern is spending $350 in staff time to realize $35 in savings.
Mr. Foley said that staff was not sure it was worth the work to track all that, but they could
certainly bring back that information for the Board’s evaluation.
Ms. Dittmar mentioned that Ms. Allshouse has put in the Board’s Dropbox her analysis of each
tax revenue source that the County has, which will lend some information for the Board when meeting
with legislators on October 29 about what the City can tax and what the County cannot tax. She said that
this information also includes what a penny on the tax rate is worth and could possibly fund.
_______________
Due to time constraints the Board moved Agenda Item No. 16 and Agenda Item No. 17 to the
afternoon portion of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Closed Meeting.
At 4:25 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments; and
under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding a specific legal
matter requiring legal advice relating to a storm water utility fee. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 5:13 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments.
Ms. McKeel moved to appoint the following individuals to boards and committees:
appoint Mr. Jon McKeon, Ms Alice (Lisa) Marshall and Ms. Susan Munson to the Crozet
Community Advisory Council, with said terms to expire March 31, 2016.
appoint Mr. Jesse Warren to the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Panel, with
said term to expire November 30, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Work Session: Wireless, ZTA-2014-4.
In a memorandum dated September 22, 2014, from Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects,
Community Development, it states that in 2012, the Board directed staff to work on ordinance
amendments to update the requirements for personal wireless services facilities (PWSF). The
amendments served two purposes. Phase 1 brought the County’s ordinance into compliance with recent
changes to Federal regulations and was adopted by the Board in May 2013. Staff believes the current
ordinance now complies with Federal requirements. Phase 2 is intended to improve the County’s
processes and possibly relax some standards. Staff started work on Phase 2 following completion of
Phase 1. Subsequently, Phase 2 was split into two parts to simplify the considerations. The attached is
the first part of Phase 2 which includes minor changes to process and submittal requirements. The
second part of Phase 2 will be brought forward at a later date, as requested by the Board.
On June 24, 2014 the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments addressing the
Phase 2 PWSFs. The Planning Commission’s executive summary, resolution of intent, proposed
ordinance, comments received from the public, and draft minutes of the meeting are attached.
At the meeting on June 24, 2014 the Planning Commission took the following actions:
- Recommended approval of the modification of submittal requirements and how tree
information is submitted.
- Recommended approval of provision to allow the requirement of photo simulations.
- Recommended additional evaluation of modification of the critical slope regulations to
allow the tower and base station without a special exception.
- Recommended approval of modification of the critical slope regulations to require the
access road to require a special exception.
- Recommended additional evaluation of modification of method of reducing setback to
include a letter of authorization from the abutting owner.
- Recommended approval of modification of allowing base station equipment to be closer
to the property line.
- Recommended approval of provisions for temporary facilities with modifications to the
time limit.
- Recommended denial of removal of requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The purpose of the October 1, 2014 Board of Supervisors work session is to discuss the
proposed amendments and determine the next steps in the amendment process. Specifically, the goal is
to:
- Identify those provisions that the Board can support as proposed.
- Identify changes that would allow the Board to support a provision.
- Identify those provisions the Board cannot support regardless of revisions to the
language.
If, at the conclusion of the work session the Board is satisfied with the ordinance, it would be
appropriate to direct staff to schedule a public hearing to receive formal public comment prior to
consideration for action.
_____
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Fritz addressed the Board, stating that a number of speakers have expressed concern about
the wireless ordinance, and the comments made address not only the provisions being discussed in this
work session, but also broader changes to the ordinance. He said, over the years, staff has heard from a
wide range of interested parties and, as a result of those meetings and conversations, staff developed a
list of topics for further discussion, which were presented to the Board in April. He said the scope of
those topics is extremely broad and complex, and addresses not only the comments made at this meeting
but many other topics of concern to various interested parties. Mr. Fritz stated that the Board directed
staff to bring forward only a small portion of the topics identified back in April, and it is only those topics
being discussed today, although staff remains prepared to bring back any additional topics which the
Board desires. He said the changes included in the proposed ordinance at this meeting include:
modification of submittal requirements and how tree information is submitted, provisions to allow
requirements of photo simulations, critical slope regulations, how setbacks are determined, use of
temporary facilities (formerly called COWS), and the certificate of appropriateness for the Architectural
Review Board (ARB). Mr. Fritz said each of these topics can be acted upon a la carte, and they are all
independent of one another. He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of
how the tree information is subm itted, approval of the amendment to the ordinance for photo simulations,
a mixed recommendation on the applicability of critical slopes, a mixed recommendation on the setback
item, recommended approval for inclusion of temporary facilities in the ordinance, and recommended
denial of removal of the requirement for certificate of appropriateness.
Mr. Fritz reported that the tree submittal information, under the current ordinance, requires all
trees within 50 feet of a proposed tower be surveyed with the height, caliper and species . He said the
proposed ordinance would only require that the reference tree be surveyed, and require s submittal of
photographic information of the site’s characteristics. He said the ordinance would also allow staff to
require this information be submitted, if it were determined to be necessary. He stated that the change is
based on staff’s experience that the inclusion of detailed survey information on all trees within 50 feet
generally does not aid in the review. He explained that field visits and photographs are much more useful
in the review. Mr. Fritz noted that the proposed ordinance retains the ability to require all that information
be submitted in a particular case, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of this
amendment. He stated that the current ordinance does not allow the County to require photo simulations
and, although staff has never had a request for a photo simulation turned down, staff believes it should
be added so staff can require it He said the Commission recommended approval of that amendment.
Mr. Fritz said the County has routinely approved and never denied a request to disturb critical slopes for
the construction of personal wireless service facilities, and putting a tower on a critical slope currently
requires a special exception. He stated that the areas disturbed are typically very limited due to the
limited footprint of the facility, and disturbances allow the site to be located in ways that minimize tree
impact and reduce visual impact of the facility. Mr. Fritz said the proposed ordinance would allow the
critical slopes to be disturbed by right, provided that performance standards are met. He stated that the
proposed ordinance would modify how the access road is addressed. He said, currently, the existing
ordinance exempts the access roads from critical slope regulations if there is no reasonable alternative
location for the road, and the proposed ordinance would remove that exemption. He explained that the
tower itself would become exempt from the regulations but would have to meet performance standards
while the access road would become subject to regulation through special exception.
Mr. Fritz reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the Board have additional
conversations on whether or not to amend the ordinance to allow the tower to be located on critical slopes
without a special exception. The Commission recommended approval of the change to the ordinance to
require the access road be subject to critical slope regulations.
Mr. Sheffield asked if a property cannot be accessed and the Board does not provide that
exception, the project would be null. Mr. Fritz said that was correct. He said, if the facility was not located
on critical slopes but the access was and the applicant did not get a special exception, the project would
not be approved.
Mr. Sheffield asked if it would be possible for the applicant to get access from another point if
they can get an easement from the property owner. Mr. Fritz said it is possible, providing they would not
impact critical slopes. He said the way staff deals with it now is to look at these things as facilities, from
the point at which those come off of the public road to the top of the tower. Mr. Fritz said there are times
when putting the access road on the critical slopes actually minimizes the visual impact, and avoiding
them may mean the road is longer and has to wind longer thus increasing the view of it. He stated that
the current ordinance requires the base station equipment located next to the tower meet the same
setback as the tower. He said, under the proposed ordinance, only the tower would have to meet that
setback. Mr. Fritz said staff feels this will allow for better siting of the facility.
Regarding determination of setback, Mr. Fritz stated that the setback is currently 100% of the
tower height and base station, whereas the proposed ordinance would only have the tower subject to the
100% setback. He said, currently, the ordinance allows a reduction in the 1:1 ratio if the abutting owner
grants an easement or if the Board authorizes that. He said , under the proposed ordinance, the Board of
Supervisors could grant a special exception to reduce it, they could get an easement, and the County
would add a letter of authorization. Mr. Fritz explained that the reason for that provision is because, in
some cases, an abutting landowner may be willing to grant an easement, but they would be unable to
because there is a mortgage on the property and cannot add the easement to the property. He said the
Board has not had to act on any of these but, in some cases, the Planning Commission has reduced the
1:1 setback. Mr. Fritz stated that, if a 100-foot tower wanted to go in 50 feet from a property line and the
abutting owner did not grant an easement, the applicant could request the Board to grant the reduction,
which could be done if the Board felt it was appropriate. He said he cannot think of an incident where the
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
abutting owner said no and the Planning Commission said yes. He stated that the Co mmission
recommended approval of the change in measuring setback, that it would apply only to the tower and not
the base station equipment, and recommended the Board have additional conversations regarding
allowing a letter of authorization in addition to an easement.
Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission recommended inclusion of temporary facilities, adding
that the County currently has a polic y which allows these to happen, however, staff feels it is important to
have it in the ordinance. He stated that the Commission suggested a change to allow up to 120 days for
maintenance and repair of an existing facility, which is included in the information before the Board.
Regarding removal of the requirement for a certificate of appropriateness, Mr. Fritz said the Board
previously authorized the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to establish criteria for a countywide
certificate of appropriateness, which means the ARB would establish guidelines and, if those were met,
staff would administratively approve the certificate of appropriateness without it going before the ARB.
He stated that staff would ask, if the Board does not support this amendment, it either reaffirms the
decision to allow the ARB to develop criteria for a countywide certificate of appropriateness or reverse the
prior decision to allow it.
Mr. Fritz said, in summary, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the modification
of how tree information is submitted and recommended approval of the amendment to require photo
simulations. He said the Planning Commission was not able to reach a decision on removing the
requirement that the tower and base station be subject to critical slope regulations.
Ms. Dittmar asked about the status of the item Commissioners could not decide on. Mr. Fritz
explained that, when the item came to the Board, the Commission was looking to the Board to have
additional conversations and provide some direction. He said the Commission was unable to reach
consensus to approve or deny, adding that the Board could send it back to the Commission, act on it, or
indicate that it was something the Board did not want to do. Mr. Fritz stated that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the modification to require the access road to be subject to critical
slope regulations. He said the Commission was unable to reach a decision on the letter of authorization
to allow a reduction of the setback. He said the Commission did recommend approval of the modification
to allow the base station to be located closer to the property line than t he height of the tower,
recommended approval of the temporary facilities with the modifications as made, and also
recommended denial of the removal of the requirement for a certificate of appropriateness which meant
Commissioners wanted to require the certificate of appropriateness to continue. Mr. Fritz said staff is
asking the Board to do one of the following: identify those provisions it can support, as written; identify
changes that would allow the Board to support a particular provision; and to identify those provisions it
cannot support regardless of any revisions to the language.
Ms. Dittmar said staff came to the Board in April with a number of items to discuss, and these
process-oriented changes would allow for administrative review rather than a path through to the Board.
Mr. Fritz said, at the April meeting, the Board directed staff to look at only those items contained
in the work session which did not affect the design or appearance of the facility. He said it was more
about processing of the facility and how special exceptions were done. He stated that it is important to
note that some of the changes came from Board work sessions, some from citizens, some from the
industry, some from staff, and some from Board members.
Ms. Dittmar stated that it would be helpful to understand some of the comments made earlier
about Albemarle County having a very permissive wireless ordinance, whereas others have said the
County has a model ordinance. She said she is having difficulty reconciling those two things.
Mr. Fritz said he has heard that other jurisdictions do not allow wireless facilities to be in
residential districts or have greater setbacks but, in his research, there are many other localities in
Virginia and other states that have greater setbacks or prohibit towers in residential districts but have very
lax regulations as to where those facilities go elsewhere in the community. He stated that what this
results in is nothing in the residential district but, on the commercial property at the entrance to that
district, there is a 150-foot tower which would never be approved in Albemarle. Mr. Fritz emphasized that
every community tries to protect its citizenry in different ways, but still wants to provide the service.
Mr. Boyd said it seems the County has been tweaking the cell tower ordinance for years now, and
he thought the latest set of adjustm ents was driven by federal guidelines to turn things around in a certain
amount of time.
Mr. Fritz said the last set of amendments, done in 2013, was a series of amendments which
brought the County into compliance with new rules by the Federal Communications Center (FCC) and the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which had a significant impact on wireless regulations. He
stated that there was another amendment which changed some of the processing of wireless applications
and made some of those administrative, as well as the change of the timelines.
Mr. Boyd said he is trying to determine why the Board is going through this latest set of changes
to the ordinance.
Mr. Fritz explained that, many years ago, the Board asked staff to look at the County’s wireless
regulations, so several roundtables and work sessions were held and a list of concerns were developed,
some being technical concerns necessary to comply with federal law and court decisions, and some were
design changes that were desired, i.e. not allowing facilities in residential districts up to allowing them by-
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
right in some districts and in some places. He said staff broke those into two pieces: the first phase was
the technical and processing phase, and the second part was the design phase which is what staff
brought to the Board in April and now, staff has carved out a small set of changes from that meeting.
Mr. Boyd said it seems to solve the problem that he is hearing from residents and neighborhoods
which is to restrict these towers from going into residential neighborhoods adding that the Board has the
capability of doing that. He stated that this would give providers the direction they need coming in and
could also avoid a situation similar to Key West. He said the biggest question is how to define what a
neighborhood is. Mr. Fritz said that is a much broader conversation, adding that staff could do that but, at
the same time, staff would need to look at the impacts of doing so in order to ensure the County is not
prohibiting service to stay in compliance with the 1996 law.
Ms. Mallek stated that other counties have already dealt with this so, obviously, it is not a
constitutional or statutory issue. Mr. Fritz said those localities have lax standards which allow for taller
facilities outside those areas.
Ms. Dittmar said this is a technical issue, and neighborhoods are going to require some way to
communicate if towers are not allowed. She said, as content and wireless use increases in the urban
area, there is not going to be coverage because the capacity will be outrun. She stated that she is not
advocating for anything by making that comment, but said the Board must understand the technical
consequences of some of these decisions. Ms. Dittmar said the values the Board are supporting is
aesthetics, and the way to solve having huge towers is to have many extra towers that provide service.
She stated that, if these were prohibited in neighborhoods, she is concerned about a situation in the
future when those residents are trying to stream content and do not have service.
Mr. Boyd stated that these have evolved from being just cell towers to 4G and data transmission,
which requires people to put in fiber optics. He asked if these companies have the right of condemnation.
Mr. Fritz said, with the Bellair situation, those two towers were originally approved prior to the
current wireless ordinance. He said one of those towers was the first “treetop tower” ever approved in the
County. He said how those were done is different from how those would be done now, adding that some
of the review is different. He stated that the construction being done now is all within the VDOT right of
way, only needing a permit like any other developer, and then they must negotiate with the landowner on
whose property the tower is to come from the VDOT right of way to the tower itself. Mr. Fritz said there is
nothing in the ordinance which prohibits that activity.
Mr. Boyd said if the County begins to move into data and other devices, this is going to be
happening everywhere. Mr. Fritz said there is absolutely no question the direction of the industry is data-
driven, and is moving toward using LTE technology. He said virtually every site is going to be linked by
fiber; some will be linked by microwave connections, but most will be linked by fiber. He stated that , if the
Board is talking about not allowing facilities within residential districts, one of the things Supervisors need
to consider is the technology of distributed antenna systems . He said, while those are not conventional
towers, they are wireless facilities which offer a way to put a node near the people who are using it, and
substantially increase the capacity of the network. Mr. Fritz said these are used in areas that have high
demand, and tend to be areas where a lot of people are such as neighborhoods. He stated that, in urban
areas, those are often found on lampposts and sometimes traffic signals but sometimes will require their
own towers or utilize residential power lines. Mr. Fritz said if power lines are underground, then a vertical
attachment point of some kind would need to be identified.
Regarding the Bellair tower, Ms. Palmer said the application for upgrades is currently before staff
but has not been reviewed. She asked if the upgrades are governed by the same rules that newer towers
would have to comply with. Mr. Fritz responded that there is a building permit pending on one of the two
towers on that particular property and, prior to the changes made to the ordinance in 2013, the building
permit would have been issued administratively by now. He said, because of the changes made in 2013,
it has to go through a more comprehensive review and essentially becomes a Tier II facility which
requires notification of the abutting owner and some enhanced reviews. He said the applicant has not
provided all of the necessary information for the application to be considered complete. Once that is
done, he said staff can do the notifications and move forward with it and that is for changes right at the
tower itself. He confirmed that changes at the tower itself must comply with re gulations. Mr. Fritz said the
current building permit is only to add a generator at that site, not to change the antenna but, even that
would require a Tier II analysis. He stated that the facilities are subject to the County’s noise ordinance,
and the generators are only used when the power is out and solely as a backup.
Ms. Mallek said when the Bellair tower was permitted about 10 years ago, it had much stricter
regulations about what would be allowed there, but somehow those prescriptive measures got washed
away. Mr. Fritz said the speaker who mentioned this situation may have been referring to special use
permits that had a condition which essentially said the antennae were limited to the ones that were shown
on the application. He said, with the changes to the ordinance which were mandated in part by the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act to allow collocation, the ordinance was amended so that an
applicant did not have to come back and amend their special use permit to get additional antenna. He
added that a tower must meet the ordinance in terms of how the antennae were designed and mounted,
etc.
Ms. Dittmar said another speaker emphasized the need to study other counties, and she has also
heard that other counties used Albemarle as their example. She asked if staff had looked at best
practices elsewhere and through the lens of the County’s values.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
Mr. Fritz stated that he belongs to two statewide organizations and one national organization
where they talk to each other all the time and share information. He said no type of facility is prohibited in
Albemarle County; an applicant may ask for any kind of facility, however, it is reviewed to determine what
its impacts are. Mr. Fritz said a Tier II is done administratively and is a treetop tower, but if someone
wanted to apply for a 200 or 300 foot tower, they could apply for it and, if it was determined to be
acceptable and/or meet some goal of the County, it could be approved.
Ms. Mallek said there are three towers to the north of I-64 halfway up the mountain which are
very tall but nearly invisible.
Ms. Dittmar asked if it was fair to infer that shorter towers would mean having more of them and,
if there are more of them, staff would have more applications to process. Mr. Fritz said the County
processes more applications than most localities do because there are more facilities than most localities
of this size have.
Ms. Mallek said that is because the companies want to be here and it is a good market for them.
Mr. Fritz said it is because the County has incentivized the Tier IIs and each Tier II facility covers a
smaller geographic footprint, which has led them to need more sites than comparable localities. He noted
that, if there were a duplicate Albemarle County with a different set of regulations, the industry could
serve that county with fewer towers than what Albemarle has because the towers would be taller.
Ms. Mallek mentioned a recent article in the Wall Street Journal that said the future of this
technology is the smaller systems which hang on the side of water towers and buildings. She stated that,
having the distributive in the copper in the ground is certainly viable and happening all over the place with
other phone companies for data. She stated that she did not want the broadband issue to get swept into
this because there are so many alternatives and it is not just a wireless matter.
Mr. Fritz said there is nothing in these regulations that has anything to do with the broadband; it
really facilitates deployment. He said the setback for the base station equipment is a modification of the
current standards, and staff feels it does not have adverse impacts because staff would still be looking at
all of those sites to determine whether it has an adverse visual impact and deny it on t hat basis. Mr. Fritz
said having that flexibility without having to go through a special exception process makes the processing
of the applications easier.
Mr. Boyd said the reason he wanted to revisit this is because Supervisors have received
correspondence from people indicating that, if the Board approved the majority of the changes, the Board
would be abdicating some of its work back to staff and he was confused as to whether this was intended
to speed up the process or serve some other purpose.
Mr. Fritz stated that some of these changes shift some of the review from the Board to staff: the
critical slope regulations, the modification of setbacks to allow it to be a letter of authorization, and the
base station equipment.
Mr. Foley said the changes move the application through the process more quickly, rather than
scheduling Board meetings and so forth. He stated that the way the industry h as changed and the desire
of the public has caused the Board of Supervisors to want to reevaluate this, which is what happened a
few years ago when there was a desire to look at the process so the industry could get through the
process more quickly. Mr. Foley said staff has been following the Board’s direction because of the desire
to improve coverage and accelerate the process of review before it got to the bigger items, which is
mostly what the Board and staff have discussed at this meeting. He stated that all of that would come
back to the Board, however, what is before the Board now is this set of five specific things. Mr. Foley said
all of this is the result of the Chair’s frustration about improving service.
Mr. Boyd said, based on what Mr. Foley is saying, the County is connecting the dots between
broadband and cell service.
Ms. Mallek said that is the trap which she was worried about.
Ms. Palmer asked about the comment that staff could always ask an applicant for additional
information when it is needed and, if an applicant is asked for more information, a lot of times they get
frustrated with the process. She stated that it may be more straightforward for the applicant to have it all
in writing up front so they do not go through a lot of back and forth.
Mr. Fritz said this issue came up during the roundtable discussions, and staff brought this up to
the applicants and indicated that, in some cases, there might be questions. He said the applicants said
that kind of exchange was acceptable to them even though it might slow down the review process.
Ms. Mallek asked what makes additional questions of an applicant necessary. Mr. Fritz said
there are two things staff did not do additional work on with this set of amendments because they wanted
to see what the Board was going to do. He said staff did not prepare a letter of authorization, so they do
not know exactly what the letter would say. Mr. Fritz said staff has also not prepared all the standards yet
for what would need to be submitted and how that would be done. He said, if Supervisors were to adopt
the ordinance amendment, the applicant would still need to provide tree information within 50 feet of the
facility until the guidelines are formally developed. He stated that the reason s are so staff could hear the
concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the Board, and there may be situations where the
photographic information is unclear because of the physical location. Mr. Fritz said there may be a
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
situation where the trees are vital to ensuring the facility is not going to be visible, so the physical survey
will indicate where those trees are so they can be identified in the field, identified when the grading pan is
done, and identified when the inspector goes out that the trees are actually there.
Ms. Dittmar asked how the County could protect neighborhoods from the type of disaster that
happened in Bellair.
Ms. Palmer noted that the Bellair neighbors are still suffering because there is no access road
when they come in to service the facility.
Mr. Fritz said the access to that property is from public roads which are in the neighborhood, and
there is a driveway which serves the two facilities. He said the towers would be handled differently under
the current ordinance in terms of setbacks, and might not meet the 1:1 setback. Mr. Fritz said tree-cutting
has come up as an issue in the past, and evaluation is done differently than it had been in the past in
terms of analysis of tree preservation. He stated that the Bellair towers were done 13 years ago, and the
County has amended its ordinance to do things differently now.
Ms. Palmer said one of her concerns is transferring this information to new property owners. She
said, if the Board talks about trees and photographs, she wants to be certain that the adjacent property
owner and the new property owner have a very clear information exchange as far as what their
responsibilities are.
Ms. McKeel said that is what happened in Bellair.
Ms. Mallek said there was nothing in the deed and, because no one told them that their property
was the buffer, the trees were cut down.
Ms. Palmer said the trees had to be cut down because it was their septic field.
Ms. Mallek stated that, if you own the buffer, then you own the buffer and you should not be
allowed to not own the buffer and get something.
Ms. Palmer said it also pertains to the tree coverage because it involves how that information is
transferred to the next owner.
Ms. Dittmar said this does not address transferring of deeds.
Ms. Palmer said the Board still needs to think about it though.
Mr. Boyd said this gets the Board back to the age-old problem of clearly defining the limits of
staff’s discretion in this case.
Ms. Mallek said that is hard to do because every site is different. She said one size does not fit
all.
Mr. Fritz commented that phase one, which has already been adopted, included things that
needed to be done in order to be compliant. He said none of the changes presented at this meeting are
required; it is work the Board directed staff to do to try to improve the quality of the wireless policy. He
said the one exception is the temporary facilities because, currently, those are only permitted by policy
and really should be in the ordinance. Mr. Fritz stated that Albemarle County adopted its policy long
before anyone else did and he did a lot of research on it, noting that it matches what a lot of other
localities have in their ordinances.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to deal with the COWS item first. She said she did not realize
those were used for services other than special events like Foxfield and during emergencies like the
derecho. She stated that its primary use is for the convenience of the companies when they have a
failure, when they are transferring equipment, etc.
Mr. Fritz said there has only been one of those, adding that m ost of them are for emergencies or
for events like Foxfield. He said the one temporary facility needed was the Rivanna water tank when they
had to take all of the equipment off in order to do maintenance on the tank.
Mr. Boyd asked about staff’s recommendation on the temporary facilities. Mr. Fritz said short
term would be seven days maximum, twice per calendar year, so Foxfield could have two for seven days .
He said temporary facilities could also be used for emergencies and could be defined in the ordinance.
He stated that, if there were maintenance and repair of an existing facility, it is up to 120 days with an
initial 60 days then, by request, an additional 60 days as long as they demonstrate a good faith effort and
need additional time.
Mr. Foley said the Board will see ordinance language before it is adopted.
Ms. Palmer asked if this is what the Planning Commission had suggested for approval. Mr. Fritz
said the Planning Commission suggested that the current 60 days granted be expanded, so that is what
staff did.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms. Mallek asked if it is in the Bellair neighborhood, for example, a generator would be running
24/7 for a few months. Mr. Fritz said the temporary ones may have generators and the emergency ones
probably will; the maintenance ones probably will not because the facilities are already there. He stated
that the temporary units are now called “COLTS” – Cell on Light Trucks – which are trucks that have
everything included.
Ms. Mallek said she was concerned about the noise from the generator. She said, at the
Heritage Festival, there were generators called “Whisper Jets” which could not be heard at all. She
stated that she was also concerned about the ordinance provisions to limit the noise, as it would be very
disruptive for someone to have a generator running next to their house at 65/55 decibels around the
clock. Ms. Mallek noted that technology is available to reduce the impacts.
Mr. Fritz reviewed the items for consideration, stating that the first would be modification of how
tree information is submitted as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said, currently, staff gets
detailed information which is fairly complicated to acquire, and staff goes out into the field and takes
photographs. Mr. Fritz confirmed that he thought the mapping is required for trees which are of 6” caliper
or greater, but he would verify that.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this information was valuable to staff in their evaluation.
Ms. Mallek said the reason it was important to her is because it was a detail that staff person
could take to the site and, in five years when there is different staff, orient with a compass to see where
things are supposed to be. She stated that the County will be getting a better product with this
requirement, especially if it is fairly large caliper trees. Ms. Mallek said foresters do this frequently,
making tree surveys, so it is not a big deal.
Ms. Dittmar commented that it is not for approval but more for historical purposes.
Ms. Mallek said it would be for approval to ensure the County is getting delivered what was
promised to be delivered.
Ms. Palmer said it is also for historical purposes adding that she has had several questions arise
about transfer from one owner to another. She also asked what the stipulations would be with regard to
how the photographs are done. Mr. Fritz said staff would develop all that.
Mr. Boyd said he relied more on photo simulations and the balloon tests.
Ms. Mallek said that was a different category.
Mr. Boyd asked what the reason was for mapping all the trees as opposed to just the photos.
Ms. Mallek said it is because there is a stipulation about protecting everything except the bare
minimum that has to be removed and, unless staff knows what that is, staff cannot possibly enforce it.
Ms. Palmer said the comments she has received indicate that it is harder to orient oneself with a
photograph, and she was not sure if there was some happy medium as opposed to measuring a tree
every fifty feet or so.
Mr. Fritz said staff was proposing the ordinance be amended which would allow staff to do that,
but still require all the information if they felt it was necessary in a particular case. He noted that the
reference tree will always be surveyed.
Ms. Palmer said, during a visit to the site at Murray School, there were many, many trees within a
50-foot distance all at least six inches. Mr. Fritz said staff could develop something in between, but they
have not gone in that direction because they were not sure the Board wanted to and, if it has a desire to
do so, staff would then develop those standards.
Ms. Dittmar said it does not sound like it is necessarily needed for approval, however, the value
would be the historical context received from the site visit. Mr. Fritz said staff could craft something and
bring it back to the Board.
Ms. McKeel said she had concerns similar to Ms. Palmer’s, and asked how that situation could
have been avoided. Mr. Fritz said the Bellair situation was a completely different issue relating to the tree
conservation area far beyond the 50 feet, within the 200-foot zone, and this does not affect that.
Ms. Mallek read a paragraph from an email sent to the Board regarding removal of the
requirement for documentation of trees. She said, for many reasons, it has been very valuable to do a
tree inventory and the difficulty of doing so is overblown.
Ms. Dittmar asked how Board members felt about the different options.
Mr. Sheffield said he was somewhat indifferent and felt that, while he sees the value of the
information for historic record, if he has to make a decision, he would want the requirement to stay. He
stated that there would be a record of this when a site plan is submitted.
Ms. Mallek said this is the record, and is the information they get for the site plan.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Boyd said there are a lot of qualified applicants out there, and perhaps the Board should hear
from them.
Ms. Mallek noted that they have all attended the formal roundtables as well as their own private
roundtables, and now it is up to the Board.
Mr. Boyd said it is up to the Planning Commission to approve this. He added that he would like to
know how the County would use the data. He asked what would happen if one of the reference trees
dies and falls down and whether or not the applicant would be required to take the tower down.
Ms. Dittmar said Mr. Boyd’s concern is how the County would use that data.
Ms. Mallek stated that, if there is a site she has not been to and sees lots of trees around that will
contribute to the screening, she would be able to support that a whole lot better than a site that had only a
few trees and would lose the necessary screening if the trees come down.
Mr. Boyd said staff could do that with a site visit.
Ms. Palmer asked if the ARB should be asked about this, as one of the provisions in this proposal
is to eliminate the certificate of appropriateness. She said, if the Board is going to recommend denial,
perhaps the Board should just ask the question of the ARB.
Mr. Sheffield said, if someone wants to build a house on their property and wants to tear down a
tree to put the house in the perfect place, he does not think it is the Board’s purview to stipulate whether
they can or cannot tear down the tree.
Mr. Boyd said that is what happened in Bellair.
Ms. Palmer said the property owner did not know in Bellair.
Mr. Sheffield said just because it is a private utility does not mean the Board has the right to say
what is preserved and what is not preserved. He said the requirement seems to put the Board into the
position a bit more than it should be.
Ms. Mallek said it is what Supervisors have been used to doing for the past 20 years.
Ms. Palmer commented that they have to maintain the easement anyway.
Ms. Dittmar asked where the idea had originated, and whether it was related to expense or time.
Mr. Fritz responded that it is an expense for the industry but is also staff looking at what it needs to assist
in the review.
Ms. Dittmar asked how often staff actually uses this information. Mr. Fritz said staff is looking at
the reference tree, then uses the plan when they are out in the field. He stated that staff does not need
full detailed information on a particular tree which the ordinance requires when they are doing the field
visit. He said there are some occasions where knowing the height of other trees is important but, most of
the time, staff can get that from the field visit and that is the simplest way.
Ms. Palmer said she recalled the industry representatives stating that it was not the cost, it was
the time. Mr. Fritz said that was discussed in the broadband meetings, and it was the time for review as
the kicker for them more than anything else. He said the cost was a much smaller factor.
Ms. Dittmar asked where Board members were in its considerations.
Mr. Boyd said he favored the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Ms. McKeel said she was leaning towards retaining what the County currently has.
Ms. Palmer said she did not like what was presented – one tree – and perhaps there is a
compromise that could be found. She stated that she would like to hear from the ARB as to wheth er they
are fine with the photographs.
Ms. Dittmar said, if Supervisors feel some modification might work, the Board could indicate it
would not support the Planning Commission’s recommendation without some additional work on this such
as toning down the detail with the goal of preserving a historical inventory but not for the initial approval
process.
Board members agreed.
Ms. Mallek said what the Board would be doing would be bringing in alternatives to compare side
by side, along with keeping it the way it is now.
Mr. Fritz asked if Supervisors were in favor of moving forward with the provision to allow the
requirement of photo simulations.
Board members concurred.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 61)
Mr. Fritz asked if the Board was in favor of modification of the critical slope regulations to allow
the tower and base station without a special exception.
Ms. McKeel asked who makes the determination of where the base station goes or how far away.
Mr. Fritz said it is determined by physics; it goes as close as possible to the tower because they want it to
be as short a run as possible. He said, occasionally, if it is located on a power line, the power company
may stipulate that it be located farther away but, in general, they want it as close as possible.
Ms. Palmer stated that what she really wants to do is protect the adjacent property owners from
the worst-case scenario and, if the tower has a setback, they are really just talking about a few feet most
likely. Mr. Fritz said staff is talking about the critical slopes but Ms. Palmer’s assessment of the setbacks
is correct.
Ms. Mallek said regarding the critical slopes and a comment in some of the staff reports saying
that “these are always granted,” the reason they are granted is because there is a process and, therefore,
applicants do a much better job of siting because they know they have to meet requirements and a
process than they would if it was all by right. She said it is a good thing if the County is getting
applications it can always approve because it means they have done the right approach by asking the
right questions and getting the right answers. She added that she did not understand why the special
exception would be discarded.
Ms. Palmer agreed, stating that she has no interest in getting rid of this one.
Mr. Sheffield said he was fine with making the change.
Mr. Boyd asked about the Planning Commission’s decision.
Mr. Fritz said the Commission was seeking Board direction.
Mr. Boyd and Ms. McKeel said they would like to keep it in.
Mr. Fritz asked about the addition of the requirement to meet the 25%, stating that the Board had
made that specific request of staff to add it to the ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said the County should absolutely require the access road fall under special
exception.
Mr. Fritz asked about the letter of authorization, noting that the Planning Commission stated the
same concerns as the Board had about it being recorded where easements were recorded.
Ms. Mallek said even having the easement recorded did not protect the [Bellair] neighbors,
because they were never informed that their trees were the buffer.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that there was no easement, and the property owner on which the towers are
located does have an easement for those towers, however, there is nothing for the 200 feet and that was
for the tree preservation, not for the fall zone i.e. the 1:1 setback. He emphasized that the issue in the
Bellair case was the tree clearing, which is a separate issue that was brought back in April but not in this
series of revisions.
Mr. Boyd said if this particular feature is put in, the people building the house in Bellair would not
have been able to build it because they could not have taken the trees down.
Ms. Mallek said they would have known before they bought the lot that a septic field needed to be
approved. She said the situation there was the result of many different parties and regulations not
communicating with one another. She stated that they were victimized by not having the information in
the right place and, in order to get a septic field, they would have to cut down all the trees. She stated
that they should have been informed that there was a cell tower next door and had that as a
consequence.
Mr. Fritz explained that this proposed amendment stipulates that, if you want to locate a tower
less than the height of the tower from the property line and want to put in a 100 -foot tower, 80 feet from
the property line, you would currently have to get an easement from the adjoining property owner, or the
Board of Supervisors would have to appro ve the reduction. He said what staff is proposing is to have the
adjacent property owner give a letter of authorization, which essentially means the owner acknowledges
that the setbacks were put in place to protect him, and is OK with the setback being reduced.
Mr. Sheffield asked how that transferred to the new property owner.
Mr. Fritz said that was the concern the Planning Commission had, and the reason why it was left
as a good idea which had some continuing concerns.
Mr. Sheffield said his rationale was the fact that the County already has issues of people buying
property and not being fully aware of the impacts.
Mr. Fritz said the next issue was allowing the base station to be closer to the property line than
the height of the tower.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 62)
Ms. Mallek said her companion question to Ms. McKeel’s earlier question is whether there is a
setback for the ground equipment.
Mr. Fritz clarified that it would still need to meet a minimum six-foot setback, adding that the base
station equipment is frequently smaller than a shed which can be six feet from the property line.
Ms. Palmer said the Board saw a picture of a base station earlier in the meeting that was
considerably larger than a shed, and she continues to feel that the County should err on the conservative
side until it can really examine the issue of how to protect residential neighborhoods. She said she could
see lots of situations where this would be fine out in the country on a bigger lot, but she is concerned
about smaller lots in residential sections.
Ms. Dittmar asked how often the issue had arisen where the industry wanted to move it to the
other side, and runs into an issue.
Mr. Fritz said it has only happened a few times, and is not a common occurrence.
Ms. Mallek said it was the deciding factor for the one that did not go into the middle of Mr. Boyd’s
neighborhood because, before the precipice, they did not have room to put all of it there and keep it there.
Ms. Palmer said she would rather err on the very conservative side and keep it there for now or
have the Planning Commission look at it again, however, they recommended the Board do this. She said
her concern was ensuring protection of residential neighborhoods. She noted that she understands that it
would not typically be a problem, but she does not know what the atypical situation is.
Ms. Mallek said, even if someone lives in the country, she does not think the industry should be
able to place the tower near a yard just because someone else does not want it to be in their yard.
Ms. Dittmar noted that it only seems to apply to a few situations.
Mr. Boyd agreed with Ms. Palmer that the County needs to find a way to protect neighborhoods,
and leaving this out may help in that regard.
Ms. McKeel said she was in favor of taking small steps.
Mr. Fritz stated that the last issue would be removing the need for a certificate of
appropriateness.
Ms. Palmer said this seems to be the one place where citizens can weigh in.
Mr. Fritz said it goes to the Site Review Committee and, if it is a Tier II, they are talking to staff; if
it is a Tier III, it comes before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He noted that both
processes involve notification of abutting property owners.
Ms. Mallek said, in considering changes a few years ago to the special exception, with staff and
Planning Commission recommendation, it would come to the Board’s Conse nt Agenda. She said one of
the most important elements of that was the information from the ARB and, without that, it would be
difficult for her to evaluate.
Ms. Dittmar asked why staff was recommending this. Mr. Fritz said it is because the Board
previously authorized the ARB to issue a countywide certificate of appropriateness. He said, in speaking
with ARB staff, they indicated there is nothing for them to be looking at because the ordinance already
has such strict design standards. He noted that the ARB’s review is limited to the Entrance Corridor
district while staff’s analysis is everything and, by no means, would the designer planners be taken out of
the review process.
Ms. Dittmar said she was trying to recall where, in the Planning Commission minutes, she had
read that it was not a good idea. Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission did not really talk about it much;
it was more a general concern of having another set of eyes on it.
Ms. Mallek said she was still very comfortable keeping the ARB in the process.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the ARB process added expense and time to this and, if so, how much. Mr.
Fritz said it does add expense to the County because the County does not recover all the costs for
review. He said it did not add to the review time because staff is still operating within the shot clock time
period. He noted that there is an expense to the applicants for the information they must prepare and
submit to the ARB.
Ms. Palmer asked if the Planning Commission comm ented on where the certificate of
appropriateness should be. Mr. Fritz said Commissioners were silent on that issue adding that it was an
issue more for the Board so it did not come up at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the
Board would need to consider the issue of whether it wanted to authorize the ARB to grant countywide
certificates of appropriateness.
Ms. Dittmar said, if the ARB seems to be saying that the ordinance itself is more detailed than
their review and sees no value in it, she does not see the value in it either.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Boyd said if it is in the Entrance Corridor (EC), it is a Tier III cell tower. Mr. Fritz confirmed
that it could be a Tier II, and the EC is not an avoidance area.
Ms. Palmer asked if the Planning Commission had articulated its reason for denial. Mr. Fritz said
Commissioners did not.
Ms. Palmer asked if the Board could ask the Planning Commission to articulate that as she would
like to know. Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission did not talk about it that much, and it was getting
late in the meeting.
Ms. Dittmar suggested Mr. Fritz bring it back when he brings back the other items.
Mr. Fritz clarified that, for the tree survey, the Board wanted staff to develop some more
information; the photo simulation is acceptable as proposed; the exemption of the tower from 25% critical
slopes requirement is off the table; the access to meet the 25% requirement should be included; the letter
of authorization is off the table; the base station closer to the property line is off the table; the temporary
facilities is OK; and the certificates of appropriateness needs to go back to the Planning Commission for
further review. He said staff would go back to the Commission on the certificates of appropriateness and
would develop the standards, and bring the ordinance back to the Board.
Ms. Dittmar thanked staff for their report, and thanked industry experts for attending. She said
the Board had clarified in this discussion that, theoretically, the broadband focus was not connected to the
County’s wireless policies, but that will not be true in the future as the Board attempts to provide full
coverage countywide.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Workforce Training/Mid-Skills
Item No. 23a. Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC).
Item No. 23b. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC).
Item No. 23c. Aging workforce.
Ms. Dittmar reported that this agenda item has come from Board discussion since January, but
also from attendance at the jobs conference and learning about what the County needs to do in terms of
workforce training.
Mr. Bruce Bosselman, Interim Director of the Charlottesville Albemarle Technical Education
Center (CATEC), addressed the Board and presented information on some of CATEC’s program s, which
serve both high school students and adults. He said there are students from both Albemarle County and
Charlottesville City schools who attend CATEC for a half -day. He said the adult programs are offered in
the evening along with apprenticeship programs. Mr. Bosselman said CATEC offers credentialing for
high school students who become licensed or credentialed in their trades if they complete the programs.
He presented a list of programs under the certification umbrella.
Mr. Bosselman reported that, last year, CATEC embarked on creating a new strategic plan and
presented a description of the plan. He said the strategic plan sets up five training institutes at CATEC,
which can be easily adapted to workforce changes, employer needs and includes employer commitment
and a connection to Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) to feed from CATEC along career
paths to PVCC. Mr. Bosselman said the strategic plan was approved by the CATEC Board in 2013, and
the five institutes set up include: skilled trades, health science, customer service, manufacturing,
information technology, and early childhood education. Under those categories, he said several of the
existing CATEC programs would fit, e.g., skilled trades, automotive tech and building trades. He stated
that, under health science, there is EMT, nurse’s aide,, dental assistant, etc. and under customer service,
there is the culinary and cosmetology programs. Mr. Bosselman said those are the five institutes which
have been set up, and the outcomes of those include industry-level certification, and feeding into the
programs at PVCC, apprenticeship programs, post-secondary education, or the workforce. He presented
the links between County and City schools to CATEC, with links to PVCC, and input from local, regional
and state employers. He stated that a big part of this plan is feedback from local employers adding that
CATEC looked at several ways of creating this system to ensure employer input. Mr. Bosselman
explained that this is in the form of advisory councils that are to be shared between CATEC and PVCC,
which is different than what they have had in the past, but makes the most sense going forward.
Mr. Bosselman reported that they currently have dual enrollment classes with PVCC and would
continue to do that with the goal of expanding on that effort. He said there would be collaboration on
course development to ensure that CATEC’s courses are in line with PVCC. He said there will be
internships at CATEC as well as apprenticeships beyond CATEC, and are looking at possible shared
space with PVCC on college property. Mr. Bosselman said, regarding the implementation of this plan,
CATEC would begin with one or two institutes, use those to develop an implementation model, add new
courses and programs beyond what is currently being available and then evaluating its effectiveness
once those are set up.
Ms. Mallek asked if CATEC has chosen which institutes would be the pilots. Mr. Bosselman said
the current plan is to start with health and medical sciences; the second would possibly be skilled trades.
Ms. McKeel asked if the two boards had agreed on the relocation of the facility. Mr. Steve
Koleszar, School Board Member, said that is still in the approval stage, and CATEC is waiting for PVCC
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 64)
President, Dr. Frank Friedman, to make sure he has all the approvals he needs to support that although
he has indicated there is general consensus of his Board.
Dr. Frank Friedman, President of Piedmont Virginia Community College, addressed the Board
and said PVCC is very interested in the concept and feels that a shared facility would make a lot of
sense, especially as they are collaborating much more than in the past. He said PVCC feels it is the right
thing to do for the taxpayers, so they are not paying for duplicated efforts such as advanced
manufacturing labs located at both CATEC and PVCC . Dr. Friedman said, for example, PVCC could
have one lab serving high school students during the day and adult students at night adding that it is
possible to have older students and adults in a classroom together. He stated that it makes a lot of sense
as it would help both entities collaborate better, help the curriculum jive better, and would be a win for the
taxpayer.
Ms. McKeel agreed, but said one of the big impediments for students going to CATEC was
verified credits and only being there half a day. She asked if the recommendation was to make it a full-
day program. Mr. Koleszar responded that some students would be able to do a full day, especially if
they are seniors and taking AP or equivalent courses. A student could be taking regular courses at
PVCC and then going over to take technical courses at CATEC. He said other courses, like cosmetology
for which there are fewer advanced courses, may still mean they are on a half-time schedule. Mr.
Koleszar added that it is still too preliminary to work out those kinds of details.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the operating and capital portions would be big challenges. Mr. Koleszar
said the operating should not be because the money follows the student, so CATEC’s budget would go
up, however, the onsite high school needs would be lessened. He said the bigger challenge would be the
capital portion.
Ms. Dittmar stated that CATEC addresses adult education as does PVCC, and asked if there was
a blurring of lines with that. Dr. Friedman said a division of missions is the right approach and, in many of
the communities he has lived in, there were vocational high school systems that served high school-age
students, and the community college’s responsibility was to serve those beyond high school-age. He
stated that, in Virginia, it is not as clear because Virginia allows a mixed model. Dr. Friedman said his
approach has been that PVCC does not want to compete with CATEC because they are both on the
same team. He added that it is not worth turf battles as to who is going to educate the adult students. He
stated that PVCC would like to see the responsibility for adult education shift to PVCC, but they do not
want to hurt their partner in education and cripple CATEC by competing for funding so they would work
that out together.
Mr. Koleszar said a great example is that PVCC used to have an auto mechanics course, but
CATEC also had an auto mechanics lab so PVCC got rid of its course and referred interested students to
CATEC.
Mr. Sheffield said his impression was that CATEC students go over the mountain to Waynesboro
or Harrisonburg to finish their auto mechanics programs. Mr. Bosselman responded that there are some
programs at Valley Voc-Tech in Fishersville that some students go to, and said that welding was an
example of a program that they do not offer at CATEC for adults. He said many of the programs offered
in the evening are not currently offered at PVCC and probably would not be, specifically the
apprenticeship programs. He stated that he is the apprenticeship coordinator for the region so most
people who take construction trades such as electrical, carpentry, HVAC or plumbing, come to CATEC.
Mr. Bosselman said it is not a huge number of students, with approximately 150 apprentices currently in
the program. He stated that this is one area that PVCC is not involved in and it does not make any sense
for them to be involved. Mr. Bosselman said there are a few areas in which there is overlap, such as the
nurse’s aide program, but there is enough of a market that they both need to be offering it, and those
efforts are coordinated. He stated that CATEC also offers a pharmacy tech program, and PVCC is
looking to expand this program in the coming years. Mr. Bosselman said he would be meeting with
Health Sciences Dean, Kathy Hudson, to ensure they are not competing.
Dr. Friedman said the idea is to create a “one community pathway” to middle-skills jobs, those
that require more than a high school education but less than a bachelor’s degree. He stated that the data
is quite clear nationally: the middle-skilled job will be the biggest growth area in jobs in the U.S. over the
next decade; 30% of all jobs will be in that category in just a few years. He said there are 11 million
unemployed people in the country, with 4 million middle-skill jobs that are unfilled, so there is clearly a
skills gap in between the public and what is needed to be employed in those middle-skills areas. Dr.
Friedman said, in looking at workforce development, it seems clear that they need to focus on those
middle-skills jobs, as that is where the growth is going to be and where the region needs to focus. He
stated that the institutes that Mr. Bosselman described try to get in those middle-skills areas and,
nationally, the biggest ones are healthcare, information technology, advanced manufacturing, and skilled
trades. Dr. Friedman said the Charlottesville area is a bit of an anomaly in that it does not have much in
advanced manufacturing or even IT, but it does have a lot in retail and hospitality so it makes sense to
tailor the institutes to local needs, not just the national picture. Dr. Friedman said, as the Board considers
its economic development goals and initiatives for the future, Supervisors should look at the middle-skill
areas where the community lacks jobs in comparison to the rest of the state and nation, especially in the
manufacturing and IT areas. He stated that the idea behind this effort is for PVCC and CATEC to stop
acting like separate entities and start acting like one institution by providing one educational pathway to
get a student on a course of their choosing, whether that means going to Monticello High School or
CATEC and how they would move into PVCC and what degree level they would need. Dr. Friedman
added that they can actually shorten the educational timeframe by making sure that students in 11th and
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 65)
12th grade are taking the courses they need to qualify for what they will take on the post-secondary level.
He said programs that now take students two or three years at PVCC may be shortened to one or two by
behaving as one institution with one curricular pathway. He said accompanying that must be very strong
career planning and counseling for students and stated that, in the healthcare arena, students probably
do not know that PVCC has at least ten other programs besides nursing. Dr. Friedman said it is important
to convey to students what these middle-skill jobs are, what the opportunities are, and what kind of
money can be made with a one or two-year degree.
Mr. Sheffield asked Dr. Friedman to talk about the “Growing Opportunities” partnership with the
City, which includes training to be bus drivers. Dr. Friedman said there are a number of programs done in
tandem with the City, including “Plugged in Virginia,” which takes individuals that do not have their GED
and gets them through that program and through a career readiness certificate program which helps them
gain the soft skills that employers seek. He said the ones they have done so far have been in retail
because that is where the jobs are in the community which do not require a long-term education. He said
most of the programs take only about six months so they are a fast track to get someone on the first rung
of the employment ladder.
Mr. Sheffield said it is an interesting concept because it is only a two-month process for them to
go to PVCC, but really prepares them for employment with CAT and other entities. He said, currently,
someone in that program has to be a City resident, because the City is funding it but it really does help
establish a base skill set for being a reliable and good em ployee.
Ms. Mallek said there is a larger community conversation happening which is to leave behind the
tunnel where the only focus is going to college, adding that it is a parents’ tunnel as well as a guidance
tunnel. Dr. Friedman agreed, stating that changing culture is a very difficult thing to do and a very long-
term process. He said this area is a very academic community with very high educational standards and
goals, and there is a more pervasive attitude here that students must get an advanced d egree. Dr.
Friedman said that starts to come out with middle-skills jobs and the amount of money one can make. He
said, while there is more to education than just earning a living, it is important to look at the outcome of
education and the job opportunities. He stated that, if the community can provide enough middle-skills
jobs and the community can provide a pathway to get the student there efficiently, it is a win for
everybody.
Ms. McKeel said, as CATEC and PVCC make that connection and it becomes clearer to the
community, it will really help change that culture. Dr. Friedman said that is part of the genius of what
CATEC has put together and what their consultant has put together and they see the benefit of working
together. He said, if a facility is on a college campus, it really elevates the status and prestige of the
school.
Mr. Boyd asked if it is still going to be possible to do this without collocation, given the challenge
the County has with the capital improvement budget for the next several years. Dr. Friedman said it could
definitely move forward without the collocation, and Mr. Bosselman agreed.
Ms. Mallek commented that it would be expensive to run busses back and forth.
Ms. McKeel said it seems like a good time to garner some public/private partnerships, as it is
good for businesses too.
Ms. Dittmar said, if there is a product, businesses will be on board.
Ms. Mallek said investments have happened in other communities, so the businesses in this area
need to step up.
Ms. Dittmar said that may be starting to happen.
Dr. Friedman stated that, as they move forward, they will visit some places which have already
done this such as Wayt County outside of Raleigh, N.C., to see how they did it and how it is working.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board has been talking about lifelong education and the role of local
government as partners with education experts and providers, and it is helpful to have this update as part
of that continuum.
Mr. Peter Thompson, Executive Director of The Senior Center, Inc. addressed the Board, stating
that “aging” is not a separate issue but how it is integrated into the conversation about everything, i.e.
education, workforce, transportation, or anything else. He said the Senior Center is very fortunate to
have the many resources in that regard, and to serve as resources for the County Board and staff. Mr.
Thompson said they have talked a lot about this within the Senior Center, with members and staff, and
they communicate a lot with their national network as well as talking with the Jefferson Area Board for
Aging (JABA) and a few things have come across universally in these conversations. He stated that
people need to work longer now, as they do not have fixed pensions, have longer life spans or they
simply want to work longer to have purpose and productivity. Mr. Thompson said the aging of the
population also presents some work opportunities such as nursing aide, and health care. He said, for a
long time, retirement planners talked about a three-legged stool of retirement: your pension, social
security, and savings. Mr. Thompson said a lot of people lost the pension leg of the stool, but now there
is the fourth leg of the stool, which is continued work. He stated that estimates range from 40 -70% of
baby boomers that do not have enough money for retirement and are not going to unless they continue to
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 66)
work. He said, by the year 2019, 40% of Americans over 55 will be in the workforce, representing 25% of
the overall workforce, which is double the percentage it was in 1999.
Mr. Thompson said there is a growing trend toward “encore careers” – people who are looking to
make transitions in their work to find more meaning in what they do. He stated that these trends are not
just for lower income people; it is true for middle and upper-income families also. Mr. Thompson said one
key point is the need to be flexible in thinking about workforce training for older adults, and more and
more people are considering phasing in retirement, seasonal work, part-time work, and other options. He
stated that one of the biggest barriers to this is ageism and, while society has grown in a lot of ways,
ageism is still rampant in the workplace with older workers finding it harder to get employment, training,
advancement and retention. Mr. Thompson said one statistic shows that seniors who lost their work in
the beginning of the great recession have found it twice as hard to find new employment as younger
workers. He stated that there is a lot of opportunity in all of this, and that requires supply and demand.
Mr. Thompson stated that the U.S. Department of Labor talks about some of the biggest areas of need
being healthcare, human services, education, nonprofit, and environmental employment . He said the
number of people in encore careers wanting to do that kind of meaningful work is a perfect meshing of
supply and demand. He emphasized that they need to leverage the wisdom and experience of older
adults to fill some of those needs, to address education, the environment, healthcare, homelessness and
a lot more. Mr. Thompson said entrepreneurship needs to be considered in thinking about workforce
development for older adults, due in part to where boomers are in their lifespan, and also because the
tight labor market means that seniors have to create jobs for themselves. He said the Department of
Labor found that, in 2012, about 25% of new businesses were founded by adults over 55.
Mr. Thompson said older adults are lifelong learners, adding that boomers were raised in an
educational system that focused on continued learning and advancement and that has not gone away.
He stated that it may take older adults a bit longer to learn things, especially technology, but formal
education is a component, and older adults learn better from hands-on experience so internships are also
relevant for older workers. Mr. Thompson said technology is a key component of this. He said the Senior
Center computer center is getting busier all the time – not just for fun in learning, but for people who are
looking for jobs, working on their resumes, networking, and trying to keep their technology skills honed.
He stated that a group of community leaders and individuals are reviving the 2020 Community Plan on
Aging with the launch of the Action 2020 Plan. He added that this is an opportunity for the County to think
about what it is doing to retain and recruit older workers. He said the County’s career centers should also
be trained on how to help older adult workers. Mr. Thompson said programs like CATEC, SCORE,
PVCC, UVA, 1CIC, or the Small Business Development Center can work together to look at jobs at all
levels. He stated that customer service opportunities can also be fruitful for older workers, as there is a
lot of need for healthcare workers to help people as they age. He stated that a lot of communities are
developing the concept of “encore fellowships,” to help people who are semi-retired or who want to phase
out of successful executive positions to enlist them to mentor nonprofit or for-profit business people. Mr.
Thompson said, at The Big Think, the speaker focused on the importance of entrepreneurship as a
possibility at any age.
Ms. Dittmar said, in talking with Phil Wendell at ACAC, he indicated that a lot of people quit going
to certain classes because their learning styles and physical abilities had changed, and asked if there was
a plan to focus on this from education providers.
Mr. Thompson said it always makes sense to integrate with entities like PVCC and CATEC, but
there are also needs to separate that; it could still be at Piedmont, or at SCORE, or at the Small Business
Development Center, the County career center, the Senior Center, JABA or the Jefferson School. He
stated that the idea at this point was just incubating.
Ms. Mallek said when her daughter was 17 and took classes at PVCC, she loved the fact there
were older students in her class. Mr. Thompson said certain classes are a good opportunity for all ages,
but certain technical education and hands-on learning may not be as good an environment for that kind of
age gap.
Ms. Dittmar said a lot of trade jobs are better suited for younger people, given the physical
demands, so there are seasons for certain types of employment. Mr. Koleszar stated that one of the
great changes in education is the increase in individualism, so they now have some high school students
going to the evening program with adults, and post-high graduates taking some courses with day
students.
Dr. Friedman said nationwide trends currently show that 65-70% of high school graduates will go
on to post-secondary education, and we need to stop using the term “going to college.” He stated that
the differentiation they need to adjust are bachelor’s degrees and higher, versus the middle skills areas
requiring post-high school also being treated as post-secondary education. He said 30-40 years ago,
auto mechanics coming out of high school knew everything they needed to know, however, that is not the
case today. He said coming out of a high school program will only get a person one or two rungs up the
ladder, and someone must go on to a post-secondary program somewhere to become certified and
develop the skills needed to get a good job as a mechanic.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 22. Brief Update on Broadband.
Mr. Michael Culp, Director of Information Technology, addressed the Board, stating that he would
provide an update on broadband services. He announced that there would be another work session on
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 67)
this same item on November 5th. Mr. Culp said the FCC has delayed the grant application deadline for
the broadband grants which are funded at $100 million across the U.S. He added that the County has at
least one provider who is considering submitting an application. He stated that staff is also working on a
number of updated maps, the FCC has provided census block updates, which shows coverage in blocks,
and Elise Hackett is working on putting the maps together which will be presented to the Board in
November. Mr. Culp said staff is updating the infrastructure inventory, and one of the fellows, Matt
Reges, would present data on regional efforts around the state as well as the country. He reported that
he, Bill Letteri, Pat Groot, and Chip Boyles from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) attended a workshop in September and would provide an update on what they learned there .
He said Vince Schivert from Albemarle County Schools would also provid e an update. Mr. Culp said staff
would provide a Broadband Task Force recap and would then talk about solutions, as well as re gional
efforts and additional recommendations.
Mr. Foley said the task force effort is pretty well finished, and the County is now at the stage of
figuring out next steps. He stated that staff would start to identify where the gaps in coverage are, as
some of the solutions would have to be geared to where the gap is instead of some general solution. Mr.
Foley said there has been a change in the grant process which eliminates the match requirements.
Mr. Culp clarified that a community can put funding in as part of a cooperative agreement with an
applicant, and it has to be an established telecommunications carrier which is required by the grant
guidelines. He stated that, as a community, if the County implements an agreement with a carrier, there
is a much better likelihood of receiving the grant funds. He said, because the FCC has delayed the
application deadline, there is more time to figure out whether or not to submit something.
Ms. Mallek asked where the information for the census block came from. Mr. Culp responded
that it comes from the providers.
Ms. Mallek said this does not solve the problem for areas like Greenwood, which the industry
says are covered. Mr. Culp agreed, stating that the block is overstated but it gives a better idea of where
the gaps are because it goes into more detail. He said the FCC released a new FAQ about the
application process, and one of those questions was whether they would provide exact addresses and
they said no. He stated that Ms. Hackett was working to divide up those parcels to show the exact
percentage based on how many are unserved or underserved, and it is a big improvement over what they
have now.
Ms. Mallek said staff would have to get citizens to ground-truth it and report back on whether it is
accurate or not.
Ms. Palmer stated that some communities have identified those smaller areas which are not
covered well, and hired someone to go door to door to survey, so that is a possibility. She said a lot of
these places are not really neighborhoods, they are rural areas.
Ms. Dittmar said the school has a map of where their students cannot take computers home. She
said Scottsville Elementary has a parent portal where families can sign in online. She said there are only
21 parents out of 187 who are able to access the portal.
Ms. Mallek said that could be confirmed with what is being presented, and is a great idea in
helping to identify who really has service.
Ms. Dittmar said she and Ms. Mallek had spoken with some neighboring localities that fund the
TJPDC, and it seems that everyone is working on their own to solve the same issue rather than
collaborating.
Ms. Mallek said they all have access to different grants, especially given the rural nature of those
counties.
Mr. Chip Boyles, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, said
they attended a regional broadband discussion hosted by the Central Shenandoah Valley PDC in early
September. He said the discussion was so good that he came back and began working on one for this
region which is now scheduled for November 14, with invitations to all counties in the region.
Ms. Palmer asked if this would include neighboring localities from other planning districts, such as
Buckingham. Mr. Boyles said he would be glad to invite other localities, which is how he ended up
attending the Shenandoah Valley meeting.
Ms. Mallek suggested that he at least invite the PDCs surrounding Albemarle County.
Mr. Boyles noted that the Central Shenandoah Valley meeting became rather long because
everyone got very passionate and wanted to explain why they were there. He said, for the TJPDC
meeting, they would need to limit the length of speaker comments which would make the meeting more
manageable.
____________
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 68)
Agenda Item No. 16. Route 29 Project Delivery Advisory Panel Update.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board and referenced the
handout, adding that he tried to differentiate the items which are new and the items that are carryover.
He said there was a location public hearing held for Berkmar, but he had not yet received a summary of
comments. He stated that the item is scheduled to go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)
on October 15.
Mr. Sheffield mentioned that the comment period ended on October 29.
Mr. Graham stated that funding for the Hillsdale right of way acquisition is now in hand for the
City, and are starting that process with no estimate on how long it would take. He said the Route 29/250
Best Buy ramp project would include sound walls, which was just confirmed a few days ago, and the
specs are calling for a smooth, beige-colored wall.
Ms. Mallek asked if a smooth wall would cause the sound to bounce around considerably.
Ms. McKeel said the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has indicated it may be able
to offer the same stone type wall used for the Meadow Creek Parkway, but that is a City decision.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is City residents who would hear the echo.
Mr. Graham said the City had a design group that worked on this and, from what he understood,
they said white was good enough.
Ms. McKeel said she was not sure the City committee was aware of the stone option. She said
she sent an email to Philip Shucet with some of that information. She noted her concern that there is
already a long, tall concrete wall on Barracks Road which is a draw for graffiti because it is smooth, long
and white. Ms. McKeel said a VDOT representative told her there would be no room for any trees or
plantings to soften the wall because it will be right by the road, and their access will actually be behind it.
Ms. Palmer asked who was on the City’s design team.
Ms. McKeel said she was not sure of its makeup but she is hopeful that, if there is a discussion at
the advisory panel level, the group would have some input as to what would be available besides the
concrete wall.
Mr. Graham said there is very limited time to get this done, adding that VDOT is still trying to put
this out for bids in December. He confirmed that this is not part of the October 14 design public hearing.
He stated that the three design construction teams are receiving the RFP which is scheduled to come out
on October 2 and is for the three projects: Berkmar Extended, Route 29 widening and Rio Road
interchange. Mr. Graham said there is a planned addendum for the RFP on November 6 and, hopefully,
the comments VDOT receives from the design public hearing can be incorporated into that. He stated
that the County has an internal staff team which he has been using to try to consolidate the comments
with respect to those designs and make sure they are raising any issues, such as Mr. Sheffield’s concern
about public safety during the period that Rio Road is closed. Mr. Graham said VDOT is going to have a
temporary signal at Berkmar and Route 29, and there are also school issues as to how students get to
Agnor-Hurt on the busses among other issues. He said, currently, it is just a right in/right out and VDOT
has committed to putting in a temporary signal there, primarily for emergency service providers.
Ms. Mallek said there would also be a permanent crossing, north turn, for fire engines only.
Mr. Graham said this issue is being worked on by staff, and he offered to get all the comments
together for the Board prior to the October 24 deadline for public input.
Ms. Mallek said if there were issues Supervisors felt were important, it would be helpful for the
Board to send those to staff so those could become part of the public input.
Mr. Sheffield suggested that Mr. Graham send the consolidated comments out to Supervisors via
email and allow Board members to respond individually.
Mr. Graham said Ms. Susan Stimart and Ms. Lee Catlin have a business engagement discussion
scheduled for October 23rd at Jack Jouett Middle School at 4:00 p.m., for those businesses located
around the Rio interchange.
Mr. Foley noted that Ms. Catlin had recently sent an update regarding several separate
components of this effort, and staff would report on that at a future meeting.
Ms. Palmer said she has been getting a lot of questions about a possible pedestrian crossing at
the Rio Road interchange and asked Mr. Graham for input.
Mr. Graham said there have been several discussions on this issue with several iterations
including one that had no way to cross on the south side of Rio Road across Route 29. He emphasized
that it is not a very convenient pedestrian crossing, and there are some traffic movements he was still not
feeling certain about, particularly the frontage road on Route 29 south of Rio Road. Mr. Graham said this
was still a concern and is still being looked at, but the County does not have all the answers at this point.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms. Palmer asked for a ballpark cost of a pedestrian bridge overpass. Mr. Graham estimated the
cost at $5-15 million.
Ms. Mallek said the City was estimating one at Hydraulic at $4-5 million. Mr. Graham said the
cost depends on a number of things such as grades and whether it can be done without extensive ramps,
whether it would need elevators, how long a span would be needed to make the bridge cross, etc.
Ms. Palmer asked if the lights on either side of the intersection would have some kind of
enhanced crossings for pedestrians. Mr. Graham responded that he has been told that, but it is still a
question because the signal timing for the vehicles has been very difficult for VDOT to reach the des ired
level of service. He said he had asked VDOT about this and, while VDOT has looked at it, they do not
have all the answers yet. He stated that the pedestrian signal timing can affect the timing on the vehicle
because people do not walk across the road as fast as a car goes across so it takes a lot longer.
Ms. Mallek said there is no plan for the “sweet corners” to hold traffic back while people crossed.
She explained that the short intervals would work fine to the safety zones as long as they stop the traffic
for the small amount of time it takes to get someone across.
Mr. Boyd said there was an offer made by VDOT to extend Ashwood Boulevard over to Berkmar
Drive Extended, adding that it must go through a process with the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) to have it included in the long-range transportation improvement plan. He stated that, at the
meeting held at Baker-Butler, he felt people were in favor of doing so. Mr. Boyd said concerns were that
opening up that road would encourage more development, but simply extending Berkmar would provide
that possibility. He stated that, if that could not be done, perhaps the Board should consider a multi-
purpose path, which would require crossing Route 29. He said he would rather go for the connection first
if the Board was willing to direct the MPO to add it to the Transportation Improvement Plan.
Ms. Mallek said VDOT had offered to design it, but had raised a number of issues related to going
around the towers that are permanent there. She said that is what prompted the idea of the multi-use
path initially until it could be turned into a street at some future point. She asked if such a path would be
on the east side of Route 29 and if there would still be a traffic light at Ashwood. Mr. Graham confirmed
that it would.
Ms. Mallek said it could be a southbound Ashwood Blvd. to Route 29 segment which would allow
bicycles to cross.
Mr. Sheffield said the concern about putting a multi-use path on the east side of Route 29 is that it
ends at Polo Grounds Road and has a de-facto dead end because, even though the drawing shows it
going up to the intersection, it really does not, because the project limits are where the current three lanes
start. He said the Board needs to reach some consensus as to where it should direct VDOT because, if
the County is going to go with a lighted intersection, it needs to be brought up now. He said the path
would also need to be planned away from the cemetery. Mr. Sheffield said, on the south side when it hits
the bridge, there are no bike lanes on either side, so people are coming south on the eastern side of
Route 29 and, when they hit the bridge, they come into opposing traffic so they would have to be able to
cross over at Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. Boyd said crossing at Ashwood Boulevard would provide the opportunity to get to Berkmar
Extended.
Ms. Mallek said that is what the bicycle advocate had said, i.e., get bikes across to Berkmar
which would have bicycle lanes.
Mr. Sheffield said that was, indeed, the idea because getting to Berkmar is safer for cyclists
traveling both north and south.
Ms. Mallek said it would be helpful if VDOT would investigate a road way between Ashwood Blvd.
and Berkmar Drive and perhaps, if the Board started with a multi-use path there and use some of the
funds not being spent on asphalt to do the connection by the cemetery, they would have a complete
route.
Mr. Boyd asked if a multi-use path would have to go through the MPO.
Mr. Graham said it would probably be County funding because it would not be associated with a
road.
Mr. Sheffield stated that Berkmar is state funded, so VDOT could utilize state money to do that.
Mr. Graham agreed and said one of the things staff has said regarding the design public hearing
is that, with the contract to design and build Berkmar Extended, VDOT should at least do the preliminary
engineering for the connection on Ashwood and Hollymead between Berkmar and Route 29, so the
County can at least see how it would work and figure out what was needed to make these things happen.
Mr. Graham said, in order to have this comment relayed to VDOT, the Board would need to request that
the design for Berkmar Extended include the preliminary engineering for the connectors at Ashwood and
Hollymead. He said VDOT has been very clear it would not build these as part of this project, but the
County can at least make sure that what VDOT builds will work for those future projects. Mr. Graham
clarified that VDOT would support these connections being put into the constrained long-range plan, if the
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 70)
MPO put it forward, but it would be a separate funding source than what has already been identified for
the project.
Ms. Mallek said the County might get it, or it might not, but would not get it at all if the Board does
not deal with it at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level now.
Mr. Sheffield said it is worth getting the MPO putting some information together, but the County
should not be figuring it out. He said there will be some controversy with it, so the Board should probably
separate itself a bit and have the MPO deal with it.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there should be some action on this, because she did not know enough
about it.
Ms. Mallek said MPO representatives would like some direction in order to take it to the full MPO.
Mr. Sheffield said the Board could always take it to a vote the following week so there is adequate
public notice, and then take it forward by the end of the month.
Ms. Mallek said the October 14 deadline would not be met.
Mr. Graham said that would not matter because this is what the MPO would include in next year’s
long-range constrained plan which would then go to the CTB.
Ms. Mallek said she was hopeful to at least make an attempt to have it added into the project
because, if the County does not even ask, then there is no chance of having the project included.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the next steps should be.
Mr. Sheffield said the Board should ask the MPO Policy Board to give the MPO direction to
explore this connection as a road as well as a multi-use path.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Supervisors preferred to deal with this issue tonight or at a later date.
Ms. Mallek suggested the Board deal with it now.
Mr. Sheffield asked if this would require a vote.
Mr. Davis said, under the Board’s amended by-laws, if there is unanimous consent, an item may
be added to the agenda.
Mr. Sheffield suggested that Mr. Graham clarify the steps which should be followed and vote on it
at the Board meeting the following week. He said the advantage of having this in the process is that,
when VDOT goes to the design and the build, it can accommodate whatever the County is looking to do.
He added that there are certain things to be accommodated which would cost more at a later date. Mr.
Sheffield indicated that he was not picking up and carrying this particular item . Ms. Mallek said she would
carry it forward.
Mr. Graham said staff would put together the process of how to get this considered.
Mr. Boyd noted that people on Polo Grounds Road are concerned about the one-lane underpass
under the railroad tracks. He said, back when VDOT had to close the Proffit Road bridge, VDOT put in a
temporary traffic light there which helped greatly. He said, at their annual picnic recently, residents were
adamant about having the temporary light put back up there.
Mr. Graham said that was a great point. He said, after the meeting at Baker-Butler, he was not
sure if residents were asking for a temporary light during the construction period or a permanent light.
Mr. Boyd said the residents there would love to have it permanently, but they would be happy to
have it as a temporary feature during the widening of Route 29 if nothing else.
Ms. Mallek said the light should be permanent.
Mr. Boyd said he has fought for it very strongly in the past, and VDOT has refused to do it.
Ms. Mallek said VDOT has given in to places like Farmington, adding that this has been a thorn in
the side of the Polo Grounds area for a long time with many associated safety issues.
Mr. Boyd said he has been given many excuses such as there is no power to that location,
however, he did not mind taking it up again.
Mr. Sheffield mentioned that the meeting he and Mr. Boyd had at Baker-Butler Elementary was
very well attended with about 100 guests. He said the meeting with Ms. Mallek had about 25 people; and
the meeting he has with Ms. McKeel will be held in her district on October 2.
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Sheffield has done an excellent job of describing the plans.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 71)
Mr. Sheffield stated that the drawings and maps have improved considerably, and VDOT is trying
to make them more user-friendly.
Ms. Dittmar noted that VDOT has been increasingly positive in the way it is dealing with
constituents’ concerns. She said a member of the public, who did not agree with Mr. Sheffield, spoke
very highly of his professionalism.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the notice which came out late was in contrast from what VDOT typically
did versus what it is doing now, which is a more thorough, drawn-out process.
Mr. Boyd said, given the outcome of that, should the County begin to question the utility relocation
at Rio Road.
Mr. Graham said that issue has already come up and VDOT had to back up because it realized
there had not been enough advanced notice to property owners.
Mr. Sheffield said there has been some misunderstandings that VDOT would push forward with
the utility easements for property owners, and have quickly redirected on that so that those are to be put
under the right of way.
Ms. Mallek said she is hopeful property owners would think long-term, because they will have an
opportunity to get huge improvements to their properties as part of this project. She said it is unfortunate
to see people dismiss it without realizing its benefits.
Mr. Graham said this is a great opportunity for the community, the County in particular, to learn
about the difficulty of redevelopment, which has a whole separate and complicated set of associated
issues.
Ms. McKeel said the community has not had any major road construction for 20 or more years, so
it is new and is different for them.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Action: Letter to Governor McAuliffe, re: FY16 Funding for Stormwater
Local Assistance Fund (SLAF).
Ms. Mallek moved that the Chair, on behalf of the Board, send the proposed letter to VDOT .
Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The letter is set out below:)
“The Honorable Terry McAuliffe
Office of the Governor
Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor
1111 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Governor McAuliffe:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requests that the General Assembly
increase appropriations to the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) during the 2015
session.
The SLAF was created by the General Assembly in 2013 to provide matching grants to
local governments for the planning, design, and implementation of stormwater best management
practices that contribute to the reduction of water quality pollutant loads to State waters. This fund
offers much-needed assistance to local governments facing the significant costs of new State
mandates related to total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) standards, or cleanup plans, for local and
regional waters, including the Chesapeake Bay.
Of the $35 Million made available as part of the 2013 SLAF program, the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) awarded approximately $23 Million in funding to localities. The
demand for this funding was significant – eligible funding proposals requested a total of $31
Million – despite localities having only enough time to submit projects that were, for the most part,
already in the planning or design phase. Albemarle County is thankful to have received funding
for one of the three projects it submitted for consideration.
Approximately $28M has been made available through this year’s program. It is possible
that this amount may be enough to fund the most competitive submitted projects. However, the
Board believes that subsequent years will likely see a significant rise in localities’ nee d for funding
assistance. Localities are currently focused on preparing required action plans for the
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 72)
Chesapeake Bay TMDL and applicable local TMDLs, which are due to the DEQ in October 2015.
This time next year, many localities will have identified a long list of projects they will need to
implement over a period of 10 to 12 years and will also have developed a sense of the costs they
will face.
Localities are grateful for the funding assistance that is available through the SLAF
Program. It is reasonable that the State has begun providing financial support for local project
implementation which, in turn, supports Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation
Plan and Virginia’s general obligation to restore State waters under the Federal TMDL program .
However, the monies necessary to implement locality projects – and, subsequently, the need for
funding assistance – will increase dramatically in the next few years. So, too, should the available
SLAF funds.
We ask that you please champion a significant increase in SLAF funding to keep up with
future locality needs.”
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Sheffield reported that he and Ms. McKeel would be talking with the Free Enterprise Forum
on October 14 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and invited Mr. Foley to join them.
Mr. Sheffield reported that, with the Branchlands project underway, the water authority has issues
with fences being built on sewer lines and the easements associated with that . He asked if there could
be exceptions made for things like that because, where the fence is now, it is not allowed to be there so
the fence would have to be moved onto the property line, which is closer to the homes of the people who
are concerned. He said, just through that infill process, those residents would have a sense of lost land
or property because of the fence encroachment. Mr. Sheffield said the Branchlands developer would like
to plant shrubbery, so the developer would move the fence closer to his property, but the shrubbery would
help soften that.
Ms. Palmer asked if this was a Rivanna line or an Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
line. Mr. Sheffield said he thought it was a Rivanna line.
Mr. Boyd said Rivanna has certain types of shrubs with shallow roots that could be planted.
Mr. Sheffield said he would ask Rivanna and report back to the Board.
Ms. Mallek said she thought the developer had done that research and had presented it to the
neighbors.
Ms. Palmer said she thought it was an ACSA line, given the location, and other Supervisors
agreed.
Mr. Sheffield agreed to look into it.
Mr. Foley said, if it is an ACSA line, he could follow up with Mr. Gary O’Connell about it.
_____
Ms. Palmer said she had failed to announce publicly that Wood Hudson was the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) liaison to the Long-Range Solid Waste Advisory
Committee.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that a courts project meeting was held earlier in the week and the group was
making small steps forward. She said the group is still talking about getting more information to the City,
and staff is helping put together some scenarios as far as what co-location would look like. She said the
City has not taken a vote or held public discussion as a whole, but did express an interest in co-location.
Ms. Mallek said the City Manager has indicated use of the current court space for other th ings, but the
details still need to be worked out. She noted that the next meeting would be held October 27.
Mr. Boyd asked if one of the outcomes was to get some fairly solid numbers on the two
approaches, noting what had happened with the firing range. Ms. Mallek said, in order to get real dollar
numbers, it would require spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for design. She said she did not
anticipate they would have exact numbers but have a good idea of the per square-foot cost, based on lots
of current building which is going on of a similar type.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the County representatives’ task was to meet with their City counterparts
to see if they could come back to the Board with an option which satisfied the parking issue, and that
encouraged a hard discussion about staying downtown. She said, since then, the City and County
conversations have included the possibility of co-location which is an additional idea that would save the
County money and might open up some different financing options.
Mr. Boyd said that was new information to him.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 73)
Mr. Foley said the City was trying to figure out the scope of the cost that it has not planned yet,
and staff can do that from the earlier studies which have been done in terms of total square footage, and
then extrapolate it on a per square foot cost.
Ms. Mallek said, on the parking side, City representatives have been adamant that they have
control of 250 spaces and all sorts of accommodations could be made immediately and/or short term to
serve the County’s customers of the court. She stated that this was the first time she had heard
something that serious, and she was pleased.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board will need to have more specifics adding that the County
representatives must get at least that far, and will continue to talk about future direction. She said the
group has been meeting every two weeks but canceled the next meeting to give staff an entire month to
get more details together.
Ms. Mallek said, regarding the standing water issue, she had sent a letter to Mr. Davis several
weeks ago inquiring as to whether the County has the same enabling authority that the City does in order
to pass this regulation.
Mr. Davis responded that cities and towns have specific enabling authority to let them regulate
stagnant water – and counties do not – but there is general enabling authority to control nuisances, so
there may be the ability for the County to adopt something under that provision. Mr. Davis said he has
found a number of ordinances that cities and towns have adopted, and not many counties have adopted
these types of ordinances but staff needs to research this a bit more. He stated that the additional issues
this raises is who would enforce it, how it would be enforced, etc. adding that the County does not have
the types of public works departments that would enforce these things. Mr. Davis said staff believes an
ordinance could be crafted under its nuisance authority if the Board wants to explore it.
Ms. Mallek said this is a health issue, and protecting the health and safety of citizens is about the
only thing the County is entitled to do adding that this is a small measure. She said this could be a
complaint-driven mechanism, as is the case with other zoning matters, and zoning personnel could cite
people for violations which would bring about a change in behavior. Ms. Mallek said people want to
comply, however, if there is no rule at all, the County is never going to get anywhere in improving this.
Ms. McKeel said she would be very interested in moving forward with this. She said, in her
district, there have been several times when swimm ing pools have been abandoned and that standing
water is a health issue.
Ms. Mallek said, if Supervisors are in support of this, the Board could ask the County Attorney’s
Office to proceed and come back to the Board with possibilities and a draft ordinance.
Mr. Davis clarified that the Board would have to adopt a new ordinance, his office would need to
draft it, and the County Executive’s Office would need to propose a plan for how it would be administered.
Mr. Foley said, if the Board was interested in pursuing this, staff would coordinate a response and
put it on an agenda for follow-up.
Ms. Dittmar said it needs to be called something other than “standing water,” as that may mean
different things to people.
Ms. Mallek said “stagnant water” would be the accepted term. Mr. Davis agreed.
Ms. McKeel said she is talking about preventable situations.
Ms. Dittmar said it is pertaining to man-made stagnant water.
Ms. Palmer said, in her neighborhood, people neglect to clean out their culverts, and that can
facilitate standing water. She said, in the rural areas, it may be difficult to deal with because there is not
sufficient staff to enforce this.
Ms. Mallek said all that what would be necessary would be to tell people to fix it, and most of will.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would do some research on the various models available to them,
along with some initial investigation.
Ms. Mallek asked about a possible bottle deposit bill, which had been taken to the legislature
numerous times in the 80s and 90s. She said she would like to take this to the TJPDC as part of the
legislative agenda.
Mr. Foley said this legislation has been introduced numerous times in consecutive years, and
noted that there are lots of items currently in the Board’s program.
Mr. Boyd said the Board recently went through a process to narrow down the amount of items for
legislators, and the number of requests would overwhelm them.
Mr. Foley said staff could send this to the Board via email and, if there is sufficient interest, it
could be moved forward.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 74)
Ms. Mallek said, with all that is going on, the legislature might look kindly at something that does
not cost them anything and would make them look good.
Mr. Foley said this has been introduced many times in the past and it always gets defeated.
Mr. Boyd asked who pays the deposit. Ms. Mallek said the customer pays it, and it goes into the
grocery stores’ coffers until they must account for it.
Ms. Mallek said she recently learned that more than 90% of wine sales occur onsite and pointed
out that the rural roads are not equipped to deal with the traffic impact, nor are the communities prepared
for the noise that winery activities create. She said the decibel level permissible at 65 seems too high to
her, and she asked if anyone was interested in lowering the present decibel level.
Ms. Palmer said her home had been affected the previous evening with loud music being played
by a neighbor located a half-mile away, because of the hilly terrain, and she would be interested in
addressing the decibel level issue.
Ms. Mallek said there are ways to address this, and it has made a huge difference to neig hbors
who were abutting a property where the sound level was lowered to 45 decibels.
Ms. Palmer announced that there would be a Dropbox folder designated “CIP,” which would
include a map that shows how the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) process would work differently
this year, and she asked that information related to the CIP be put in that folder.
Ms. Mallek said that would be a helpful structure for the water resources funding committee also.
Mr. Foley said there would be a separate website for that, which would include the minutes of
those meetings.
_____
Ms. Dittmar stated that she and Ms. Mallek had met recently with representatives from Nelson,
Fluvanna, Louisa and Buckingham, and the Town of Scottsville and had an informal information -sharing
lunch.
Ms. Dittmar reported that she and Ms. McKeel had been invited by Planning Commission
Chairman, Calvin Morris, and Vice-Chair, Mac Lafferty, to sit down with Deputy County Attorney, Greg
Kamptner, and Director of Planning, Wayne Cilimberg, to talk about their processes and how they work
together. She said the Commissioners would be taking this information back to the full Commission on
October 8, and she encouraged Board members to check in with their respective appointees to see how
they like to work together and how they best communicate.
Ms. Dittmar commented that the crime prevention seminar put on by Chief Sellers and the Crime
Prevention Council was excellent.
_____
Ms. Palmer reported that she and Mr. Boyd held their first joint meeting with the City on river
planning.
Mr. Boyd said he did not feel they accomplished a lot other than what the ground rules were and
what they were going to talk about, but they did talk to the City about the possibility of revitalization from
across the river. He added that the group agreed they would like to get the people who were building
along the corridor to meet with them and talk about what they are doing, particularly the one that runs
right along the river and the property that runs from the Goodwill down to the river. He said the group
wanted to go down the full length of the Rivanna, including the tributaries that feed into it, and the general
consensus was to break it down into separate sections rather than the entire corridor with one section
being Sugar Hollow, one being the Rivanna River, etc. Mr. Boyd said the group agreed to talk with the
Pantops ecological group that he is sitting on for the Board, because they are considering another
crossing for the river.
Ms. Mallek said there are built-up sections, agricultural sections, and recreational access
sections.
Mr. Boyd agreed, stating that Sugar Hollow has become quite a recreational area with posted “No
Fishing” and “No Swimming” signs which are being ignored.
Ms. Mallek said people are also driving their cars right through the ford at the river.
Mr. Boyd said one thing that came out of the meeting is acknowledgement that people were
parking right in the stream, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is considering putting a
big boulder or some other deterrent there.
Ms. Palmer said Mr. Tom Frederick had mentioned at the Rivanna meeting that the water quality
was not showing any difference but said that a reservoir is a great collection spot so, when they measure
it coming out of the reservoir, it does not measure all the dirt that might be coming in and settling from the
runoff. She added that it does not really indicate what is going on in the reservoir.
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 75)
Mr. Boyd added that having a bunch of people swimming is not necessarily a good thing for the
water supply.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that, on the 4th of July, there were 300 cars beyond the gate and beyond
the dam-keeper’s house, all the way up to Blue Hole, with no emergency ingress or egress.
Mr. Boyd said, at the last Jail Board meeting, the Colonel mentioned how much he enjoyed going
up there and swimming in the river.
Ms. Palmer said she was at the North Fork swimming hole early one morning, and saw several
campers full of people taking a bath in the stream, fully lathering with soap. She said it is the “wild wild
west” and there needs to be some management.
Ms. Mallek said she and Ms. Palmer were going to meet with the Shenandoah National Park
Superintendent to get their cooperation with regard to those connections into the park.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley said the Albemarle County Police Department was working closely with the City and the
University on the Hannah Graham search, particularly in heading up the search in the County as well as
providing some assistance with the investigation itself. Mr. Foley said the County has made itself
available for help, adding that the County’s public information staff was working with the City and
University to provide back-up due to all the national media coverage. He stated that the County has been
working with the City throughout the process, and there have been some initial meetings between the
City, County and University to talk about how they could work together on efforts toward safety in the
community and what kinds of solutions they might add to the cooperation currently in place. Mr. Foley
said he and Ms. Dittmar had attended a meeting with the Mayor, the City Manager, the President and
Executive Vice President of the University earlier in the week. He said a press release would probably
come out soon about those efforts.
Mr. Foley noted that the five-year plan would likely dominate the Board’s time over the next two
months. He said the Board’s work sessions were full of joint meetings with the School Board, other
meetings with general government, etc., and staff was looking at several scenarios for the Board to
consider. Mr. Foley said some of these represent ambitious ideas, whereas others just reflect natural
growth in revenues, and another in the middle that is realistic yet helps to move the County forward. He
stated that this is more about policy setting and getting direction from the Board than about the numbers.
He said it is the Board’s chance to have the biggest influence on the direction of the County, because the
one-year budget process only gets them so far if it is not within a broader frame. Mr. Foley said, with the
Board’s proposed town hall meetings schedule, there are 18-21 meetings in a two-week window, and that
is going to be nearly impossible so staff is going to reach out to the Board with some ideas about how to
consolidate some of those. He stated that the five-year planning process is the best time for the Board to
have town hall meetings, because it focuses on the direction of the County as a whole, not just the tax
rate for the subsequent year. Mr. Foley said he would probably ask for some input from Supervisors
individually as to where things like the blue ribbon committee for school funding should fit in, and he
would also be soliciting feedback on how to proceed with some of those items. He stated that almost
every project being tracked is linked to the strategic plan, and staff is trying to keep track of the major
things going on and re-double the notices given for meetings.
Ms. Mallek said it has been fun to do the “over the border” town hall meetings and, since her
district runs a long length of the County, she does one in the south, one in the north, and one in the
middle so it is appropriate to hold town hall meetings with neighboring districts.
Ms. Dittmar commented that first responders from the County and City, the police force at the
University, and other law enforcement agencies working with the community have been working around
the clock on the Hannah Graham search. She complimented all of the volunteer search and rescue
personnel and the businesses that have provided food, water and even chairs. Ms. Dittmar said these
organizations have all operated as one big family in this effort, including the University’s support of Ms.
Graham’s family.
_______________
October 1, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 76)
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 08/05/2015
Initials: EWJ