2014-10-08October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 8, 2014, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from October 7, 2014. The regular night meeting was held at 6:00
p.m., in the Lane Auditorium, County Office Building.
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 4:05 p.m. by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Kate Acuff, Mr. Jason Buyaki, Mr. Ned Gallaway,
Mr. Stephen Koleszar and Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly, and Mr. Eric Strucko (arrived at 4:19 p.m.).
ABSENT: Ms. Pamela Moynihan.
SCHOOL STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent; Dr. Matt Haas, Assistant
Superintendent for Organizational and Human Resource Leadership; Mr. Dean Tistadt, Chief Operating
Officer; Mr. John Blair, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School
Board.
_____
2a. Total Compensation Report.
The executive summary forwarded to the Boards states that the School Board and Board of
Supervisors (the “Boards”) approved a Total Compensation Strategy in 2000 to target employee salaries
at 100% of an adopted market median and benefits slightly above market levels. See Attachment 1 for a
list of the localities included in the adopted market. Since that time, the Boards have continued to
recognize the importance of providing competitive salaries and benefits to attract and retain a high quality
workforce. To that end, the County’s total compensation has been designed and is continually adapted to
meet these objectives in an ever-changing labor market. This Executive Summary outlines staffs’ findings
and recommendations based on its annual compensation analysis for the Boards’ consideration as the
Boards provide direction to the County Executive and Superintendent in the upcoming FY 16 budget
process. It is noted that all final funding for the recommendations is subject to available revenues and
final Board direction.
The benefit programs are a significant component of Total Compensation in terms of cost,
employee satisfaction and well-being. Staff is proposing plan changes and premium adjustments to our
Medical and Dental Insurance programs, as well as modifications to our leave and disability insurance
programs to meet market, financial, operational and regulatory requirements. As regards the County’s
leave/disability programs, staff shared information with the Boards 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 the 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.
1) Compensation Strategies
The adopted strategy for total compensation is detailed in Attachment 2. In October 2013, the
projected salary increase to meet the Boards’ adopted strategy was an average overall pay increase of
2.00% in FY 15. However, due to budget limitations, this increase was reduced in the FY 15 adopted
budgets to a 1.00% general increase for classified employees and teachers.
The salary increases projected to meet the Boards’ compensation strategy, set out in Attachment
2, is for the Boards’ consideration in the development of the FY 16 budget. As detailed in Attachment 2,
the County’s FY 15 pay increase of 1.00% was less, on average, than actual pay increases in our
adopted market during the same period, resulting in a reduction in the County’s overall competitiveness
within the market for classified and administrative employees. Our loss of competitiveness within the
market further contributes to the problem of salary compression among existing employees. It is noted
that the majority of the County’s adopted market have fully implemented the required VRS employee
contribution of 5%, with only a handful still “phasing in”. As in previous years, the classified salary
increase and teacher salary scale data has been normalized for comparative purposes to address these
differences.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
2) Benefits Strategies
Medical and Dental
The Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC) is comprised of representative staff from several
departments in the School Division and Local Government, as well as members from other affiliated
organizations who participate in the County’s health and dental plans. The HCEC develops
recommendations for the County’s medical and dental plans to present to the Boards. A comprehensive
report on this information and recommendations on plan design and premium rate adjustments is detailed
in Attachment 3.
Leave
Effective January 1, 2014, VRS mandated a new "Hybrid Plan" for new employees which, among
other things, will not offer the option of disability retirement. Instead, Hybrid Plan members will receive
mandated employer-paid short-term and long-term disability coverage. At the December 12, 2013
meeting of the Boards, Standard Insurance was approved to provide the County’s short and long-term
disability coverage for Hybrid Plan members. Because the newly mandated benefits will create some
inconsistencies between the County’s current leave programs and those it must follow for Hybrid Plan
members, staff has assessed how best to administer benefits to all employees, regardless of which VRS
plan may apply. Human Resources staff has conducted a series of employee engagement meetings to
seek employee input on the various leave options. A comprehensive report on this information, options
reviewed and recommendation is detailed in Attachment 3.
This information is presented to the Boards for consideration in their preparation of the FY 16
budget. It is noted that all final funding is subject to available revenues and final Board direction.
Staff recommends approval of the following:
1. Based on the adopted Total Compensation Strategy, establish a budget target providing
a 3.00% salary increase for classified staff, administered through our pay for performance
program, and a 2.00% increase to fund teacher salary increases to maintain the top
quartile position. Final recommendations by the County Executive and Superintendent
will be based on the availability of adequate funding.
2. Medical insurance plan changes effective October 1, 2015:
a. Implement reallocated health insurance rates to more accurately reflect usage;
b. Implement spousal adjustment so that spouses would be ineligible for coverage if
they have affordable coverage elsewhere;
c. Implement the proposed plan design changes;
d. Plan for a 9.6 % increase in Board contributions and total employee premiums for
medical insurance. Actual premium increases for employees for the different
categories of coverage will be illustrated by staff during the presentation on
October 8th.
3. Plan for a 5% decrease in dental costs, effective October 1, 2015.
4. Implement one leave program for all benefits-eligible employees, to include employer-
paid short-term and long-term, disability benefits for all benefits-eligible employees.
_____
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Director of Human Resources, stated that this meeting would include staff’s
analysis of compensation and would also touch on some benefits. Ms. Gerome stated that maintaining
competitive salaries and benefits was critical to retaining and attr acting talented employees that are able
to provide high-quality service to the citizens and students of Albemarle County. She said she would
begin talking about the compensation and then provide an opportunity for the Board to ask questions.
Ms. Gerome reported that, in 2000, a large task force was convened to look at the County’s
compensation practices, and that group developed a proposed strategy along with a process to maintain
that strategy, and brought it to both Boards for approval. She said the County has used that strategy
since that time and, in general, it has served the County well. She stated that the compensation target for
classified staff is to be at market, which is measured by looking at the midpoint of a pay grade. Ms.
Gerome said the target for teachers is a bit different and was changed in 2005 because of the difficulty in
recruiting teachers and an inability to fill some positions so that target is now at the bottom of the top
quartile. She explained that there are 26 divisions in the County’s adopted market, so they need to be #7
in every point at which salaries are measured. She stated that the process was to survey the adopted
market, then analyze the data to see if the County is ahead of market, at market, or behind. She stated
that there are two separate processes for classified and teachers because they are paid differently. With
that data, she said staff comes to the Board in October with the discussion of trying to project what needs
to be built in for salary the following year. Ms. Gerome said it is really too early to compare the market, so
staff uses data from World at Work, a compensation association which surveys many, many employers,
however, the County uses local government and education so that it is like industries, then uses that
information to project increases for both classified staff and teachers.
Ms. Gerome presented some information about World at Work and how its projections have
performed in comparison to market actualities. She said, for 2007-08, the figures were within one-half
percent but, in 2009-10, the County did not increase salaries and World at Work was projecting about 3%.
She said, in 2013, they got a little bit closer with World at Work projecting a bit over 2.5%, and the market
moving 2%. Ms. Gerome said, last year, the County started at market with classified salaries and
received a 1% salary increase; the market moved 2% according to the summer market survey analysis.
She stated that World at Work is projecting 2.75% so, based on the Board-adopted process, the number
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
is 3.75% since the County started 1% behind. Ms. Gerome said, given that data, staff is presenting to the
Boards a proposal for a 3% increase for classified employees.
Ms. Gerome said she wanted to talk about how the County pays classified employees and share
some of staffs’ concerns. She said every classified employee is on a pay grade and there are 28 different
pay grades in the organization, with the market rate being the midpoint. Ms. Gerome said part of the
Board-adopted strategy has been to try to get employees to that midpoint quickly because they want to
pay them a competitive salary, and that has been built into the merit matrix – although they have not been
able to fund that except one time since 2008, so they have not been able to follow the strategy. Because
of this, she said there is compression within the system . She explained that employees hired in 2008,
2009, and 2010 are all at the same pay rate. Ms. Gerome said the second concern is the County may
want to hire someone from the outside who has several years of experience, but they are making a salary
which is close to or above the salaries of existing employees who have more experience. She stated that
part of the strategy has been to honor internal equity, as they do not want to bring employees in from
other organizations and have them leap frog over employees who have shown loyalty to the County and
the School Division. Because of this, she said the County has lost some excellent candidates on both
sides after going through the recruitment process and making offers. Ms. Gerome said the merit program
has that accelerator piece built in, and it is important that whatever increase is offered be run through the
pay-for-performance system. She noted that the pay-for -performance system measures employees on
eight different competencies including teamwork, communication, customer service, innovation, ability to
do their job, functional expertise, and five different ratings that a supervisor can differentiate. Ms. Gerome
said this helps employees feel motivated to perform at higher levels and rewards those that do.
Ms. Gerome presented a slide showing how the pay-for-performance matrix works when they are
able to use it. She said, based on the performance rating, an employee would get an increase dependent
on their score so, if an employee met all the high areas of expectation and was currently below the
midpoint, they would get whatever increase is the market rate, plus one. She said , if an employee is
above midpoint, they would get the market increase because they are already being paid a fair-market
wage.
Ms. McKeel asked what employees have been getting if the County has not been using the pay-
for-performance mechanism. Ms. Gerome explained that they have been getting the flat market raise, but
the County has continued with performance evaluations although it is not tied to pay.
Ms. Mallek said the County has implemented bonuses in the past. Ms. Gerome confirmed that
they had, adding that they did use the merit pool in 2012-13.
Mr. Boyd said he recalled funding for that in the budget.
Mr. Koleszar said, with a 1% raise or less, the system does not really work so they need to have
a 2 or 3% raise to use the system.
Ms. McKeel asked for clarification of the merit pool use and the bonuses. Ms. Gerome explained
that they did the merit program in 2012-13 and also did the performance incentive bonus on the local
government side. She said the only other bonus would be for employees and teachers who are at the top
of their grade, but was not tied to performance so it did not help moving people to midpoint.
Mr. Boyd said they have been taking targeted departments such as police and emergency
services and adjusted them to the market, so that is another tool they have been doing for employees
which should help with recruitment. Ms. Gerome agreed that it helped, especially with public safety. She
said that strategy was part of their classification review whereby they use their market data to determine
which departments or positions m ight not be at market, do the analysis around that and make
adjustments as necessary for everyone in the department. She said, at that time, it is not looking at
where employees should be in the pay grade, it is looking at the salary scales. Ms. Gerome noted that
they have only used bonuses one year for local government.
Ms. Acuff said there were two years when they did not use the performance matrix. Ms. Gerome
confirmed that it was not used in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013.
Ms. Palmer they have used flat increases, but not merit. Mr. Foley said there were several years
where there was no raise and, in one year, they used the bonus but the matrix has not been applied for
quite some time.
Mr. Boyd said the reason they put the performance matrix back in for FY13 is because they had
not used it for so long.
Ms. Acuff clarified that it was five years without the performance matrix, and two years without
any kind of raise.
Ms. Mallek asked if a flat rate was used on the school side. Mr. Koleszar and Ms. Gerome said
that was not the case, and Ms. Gerome confirmed that school classified also receive the 1%. Ms.
Gerome said the way they pay teachers is entirely different and uses a step scale that has a minimum
and a maximum with teachers moving up a step every year. She noted that the scale is crafted b ased on
the market data and World at Work projection data.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Koleszar said, in the years the County gave no raise, people did not get a step because, even
though they climbed one step, the levels went down.
Mr. Boyd commented that, in general, the overall market did the same thing. Mr. Koleszar
agreed.
Ms. Palmer asked if those people at the top of the classified scale did not get the 1%. Ms.
Gerome said they get it as a lump-sum bonus.
Ms. Palmer asked if teachers were the same way. Ms. Gerome said they were.
Mr. Koleszar said teachers max out at 30 years, and they get $200 per year of service.
Dr. Moran stated that, if a raise for teachers is projected at a certain percentage, the competitive
market determines, by step, whether a teacher is going to get less than that or more than that, but there is
nothing tied to a performance matrix; that is only for classified staff.
Mr. Boyd asked if they arbitrary increase all steps at the same level. Ms. Gerome said they did
not, as that was all market based. She said the Human Resources (HR) Office receives many calls from
teachers when they receive their contracts because they hear the scale is going to be built around 2% but
that number is going to vary.
Ms. McKeel said Ms. Mallek’s comment illustrated that the perception in the community was that
the control of the average increase is administrative when, in reality, it is not.
Mr. Boyd said it is not performance-based, it is scale-based.
Ms. Gerome stated that staff looks at salary scales from all divisions in their adopted market, and
then lines those up to see which division has the highest salary to level. She said the top quartile
includes the top seven divisions with Albemarle reaching its target at the bottom of the top quartile, but
just barely. She said the variances at the top of the scale are huge, and it becomes narrow at the bottom
where they have to compete.
Ms. Palmer commented that there are teachers who have been teaching for 30 years who are
making $100,000 per year.
Mr. Strucko said that is true somewhere in the market.
Mr. Koleszar specified that it was in Virginia, and said there was a list of all the divisions to which
Albemarle compares.
Mr. Sheffield asked if, at some point, Board members could get a chart showing how many
teachers are in each category of years taught: 0-5, 5-10, etc.
Mr. Boyd said that is usually in the HR annual report, and Ms. Gerome agreed that it was.
Dr. Moran clarified that the quartile represents the top seven school divisions in their competitive
market, from the lowest one to the highest one, and the dark blue line in the information presented shows
where Albemarle is in each of the top 25%.
Mr. Strucko noted that at, 30 years, Albemarle is at the 75th percentile. Ms. Gerome said the goal
is to be at the bottom of the top quartile, so the County is meeting that goal.
Dr. Moran clarified that, for classified, the target is the median of the market which is a much
lower benchmark for classified staff.
Ms. Gerome said the market used for comparative purposes is the same.
Mr. Koleszar mentioned that the selected market includes all of the adjoining counties, so there
are a lot of low-pay divisions in that market. He said, as Ms. Gerome said, they changed from 50th
percentile to the 75th percentile because they found the applicant pool to be drying up.
Ms. Gerome summarized the compensation targets, stating that the County is below market with
classified staff by 1% and is at market with the teacher scales. She said World at Work is projecting
2.75% based on historical data as to how that information has performed relative to the actual market and
the County is putting out for consideration a 3% increase for classified administered through pay for
performance, and 2% to build the teachers scale.
Mr. Foley said the difference is the County has fallen behind for classified, but not for teachers.
Mr. Boyd stated that he, Mr. Koleszar and Ms. Gerome had all served on the committee that was
formed in 2000 and a lot has changed since then, with the Affordable Care Act, teacher salary
adjustments, the new VRS hybrid systems, etc. He suggested reconvening a smaller group to evaluate
whether that same strategy still m akes sense.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Koleszar said it would be very appropriate for staff to look at that but, from his perspective,
the system has worked very well although it may need some tweaks. Compared to the disagreements
they used to have where they did not agree with the numbers, he said they now argue about
compensation but do it within the context of knowing what the numbers are.
Mr. Boyd said it could be the outcome of that committee is that the system is still viable, and he
would not rule that out.
Mr. Koleszar said staff should look at putting that together.
Ms. McKeel said she would be interested in discussing how police and safety officers are
compensated and has wondered, at times, about moving them outside of the typical classified pool and
providing them with their own scale.
Ms. Mallek said the reclassification was just done two years ago. Ms. Gerome said she thought
Ms. McKeel was referring to forming an entirely different pay structure for public safety, which has come
up in the past, but the recent restructuring did increase their pay grade.
Mr. Boyd said they also identified education background and other factors.
Ms. Mallek noted that the restructuring covered a lot of different elements.
Mr. Boyd said Chief Sellers had brought this to the Board’s attention several years ago, and they
adjusted it to where someone could be paid more depending on their skill sets.
Mr. Foley said staff could outline an approach to a study which would include all of these
elements, and the Board could sign off on that direction.
Regarding benefits, Ms. Gerome reported that the Boards’ adopted strategy is to be slightly
above market, and that is a bit harder to quantify. She said benefits are changing, and the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) is requiring the County to look at its health plan in a different light, with the Healthcare
Executive Committee making formal recommendations to the Boards. Ms. Gerome explained that the
County’s plan is self-insured, adding that there are a variety of partners which serve on the committee,
including representatives from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC), the
Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail, Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center, the Albemarle County
Service Authority, etc. She said they all work together with these goals in mind: to keep healthcare
affordable, to meet that strategy at slightly above market, to offer choices that can meet the needs of
families or individuals, to target reserves at 25%, and to be in compliance. Ms. Gerome said, every year,
the committee spends some time looking at claims, which helps to develop the plan design
recommendation, getting employee feedback on plan design options, looking at the reserve balance, and
gathering market data on the plan design including co-pays, deductibles, premiums and Board
contributions.
Ms. Gerome said the Affordable Care Act was presenting a challenge for them because the
Cadillac tax was looming for 2018. She explained that there was a 40% excise tax on amounts above
$10,200 that the organization has to pay if the County is not able to make some changes. Ms. Gerome
said the current total cost for individual coverage was slightly over $8,000, and that is what the Cadillac
tax considers in terms of the Board contribution and the employee share. She said the County is not far
away from that $10,200. She said, while they are currently at $8,000, this is 2014-15 and those costs
would continue to increase. Ms. Gerome said the committee is making a recommendation not only to
avoid the Cadillac tax but to reallocate rates so they are reflective of the claims usage and reflective of
trends in the market to use as a benchmark. She said Albemarle’s total cost for an individual was $8,400
with the market average at $6,900. Ms. Gerome said the family cost for Albemarle was just over $11,000
whereas the market average was over $18,000, which shows that premiums are not aligned with market
or claims usage.
Mr. Koleszar pointed out that actual claims, family versus individual, are not $8,349 but actually
less than that.
Mr. Boyd said that is the way it is supposed to be.
Ms. Gerome said the healthcare committee would like to make it reflective of the actual claims
and one strategy is to reallocate those rates. She said one of the consequences of this, however, is the
impact on part-time employees. She said, because of the way they currently handle those contributions,
it is a pro-rated amount based on the FTE percentage they work. Ms. Gerome said, if a teacher works at
.72 of full-time equivalency, they get .72 of the Board contribution so, when they are changing the
amounts in the family tier, the impact on those employees is significant. She stated that the committee
strategized ways to address this, with most of those on the school side, and they came up with a banding
structure to replace the prorated FTE approach, and rounding up to the higher contribution level. Ms.
Gerome said, while there are less than 200 part-time employees, they are vital to the School Division and
the County wants to continue providing healthcare benefits for them, with the possibility in the future of
having the healthcare exchanges be more attractive. She said this does not include bus drivers because,
no matter what the FTE percentage is, they get the entire Board contribution which must have been a
recruitment and retention tool.
Ms. McKeel said confirmed that it was.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Gallaway asked if the Cadillac tax amount does not adjust up from the $10,200. Ms. Gerome
said they may adjust it, but that is not known yet.
Mr. Davis noted that it is not until 2018.
Ms. Gerome said the next thing the Healthcare Executive Committee looked at was the cost for
spouses on plans. She said there are new fees from the Affordable Care Act that are based on the
number of people on insurance, not the number of employees and are fairly significant fees per member.
She said, in analyzing the spouse claims data, those are currently 20% higher than employees. Ms.
Gerome said the proposal from the committee is that, if a spouse is eligible for affordable health
insurance with their employer, they would be ineligible for the County’s health insurance. She noted that
this would not impact anyone who was self-employed or anyone who was retired, just those who are
working and can get insurance through their employer.
Mr. Strucko asked what “affordable” was in this context. Ms. Gerome said they would follow the
definition under the Affordable Care Act, which includes a calculator based on percentage of income.
Ms. Acuff asked how many people this would affect. Ms. Gerome said they do not know that
figure, but confirmed that they do not know if the increased utilization is due to unemployed, skilled
spouses.
Mr. Boyd asked if it was based on a percentage. Ms. Gerome said the fees are based on actual
members, so the County has to pay a $63 “patient outcome fee” per member, through the Affordable
Care Act. She mentioned that Lexis-Nexis, UPS and UVa have all implemented surcharges to offset this,
but the County wants to maintain an affordable plan for employees and be able to mitigate rate increases
for employees. Ms. Gerome said the committee considered implementing a surcharge, but felt it could
unfairly penalize lower-paid employees. She noted that it is an annual fee.
Ms. Palmer asked what the point of that tax was. Ms. Gerome explained that there were some
patient outcomes which were funded through the Affordable Care Act, and this fee is supposed to fund
those research-based studies. She stated that they ha ve just over 6,000 people covered in the plan. Ms.
Gerome said their benefits consultant estimated that about 25% of spouses would come off of the plan if
the County implemented this. She reported that, at the University of Virginia, about 33% of spouses
came off of their plans with many of them coming onto the County’s plan. She stated that, if they did no
plan changes and kept things as is, in order to keep their reserves solvent, they would have to ask the
Board for a 21% increase as well as an employee increase of 21% for next year.
Ms. Mallek asked what that would translate to in terms of dollars. Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County
Executive, stated that, for a 21% increase, it would be an approximately $4.2 million increase in employer
contributions for schools and local government.
Ms. Gerome said the Healthcare Executive Committee looked at some plan design changes that
would keep the County in line with their market, and it includes increasing the deductible to $500,
increasing co-pays, increasing prescription co-pays, all of which would keep the County above market.
She said, if they implemented the proposed plan changes, the increase would come down to 16.9%, and
does not include eliminating spouses. Ms. Gerome said the last item is the Healthcare Executive
Committee’s recommendation to implement the proposed plan changes and the spousal adjustment,
which brings the Board contribution down to 9.6%, and employee increases ranging from $0-40.
Mr. Boyd asked what the 9.6% translated to in dollars. Mr. Letteri said it would be $2.2 million.
Ms. Mallek said, over the last several years, it is been about an 8% increase, except for one year
in which money was taken out of reserves. Ms. Gerome emphasized that the County has been able to
maintain a very good health insurance plan for employees, and is something it would want to maintain.
She said, even with these changes, the County will continue to have a good health plan, and the market
is continuing to move also.
Mr. Koleszar said, when they go from 21% to 16.9%, the difference is the out of pocket expenses
for employees, as they have higher deductibles and co-pays. Ms. Gerome said that is correct, as it is
cost-sharing at the service point.
Mr. Koleszar asked if some of that increased cost would lead to les s usage. Ms. Gerome said it
would not because of the way the plan is structured.
Mr. Strucko asked who held the County’s plan. Ms. Gerome said it was Coventry, but the County
is technically self-insured. She stated that staff is proposing a $500 deductible for next year, with co-pays
going toward that amount.
Ms. Claudine Cloutier, Program Manager-Benefits, explained that the deductible applies to non-
co-pay based services so, when the deductible kicks in beginning in January, it will be $250. She said,
when someone sees a PCP or specialist, they would pay their normal co-pay with the deductible applying
for major medical which is paid first and then a person pays their coinsurance. She said, given that these
co-pays would not be applicable to that deductible, it should not stop anyone from seeking services they
need.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Palmer asked if the family plan under the new structure would be a $500 deductible total, or
for one person who may need major surgery. Ms. Cloutier said the deductible is applied at the individual
level at $500 per person, but the most a family would ever be responsible for is a $1,000 deductible.
Mr. Strucko said he did not want to lose sight of the fact that they are increasing co-pays and
deductibles by 100%. Ms. Gerome said they use market data to determine those levels and is based on
other institutions and localities.
Mr. Strucko said it is probably easy for UVa and State Farm to increase their co-pays. Ms.
Gerome said they generally get their benefits data from the public sector, adding that it is harder to get
that information from the private sector.
Mr. Strucko commented that it is an additional financial burden on a teacher making $40,000 a
year to have a deductible go from $500 to $1,000.
Mr. Boyd asked what the threshold was for the $63 per year fee and if the County would be totally
under that. Ms. Gerome said the County must pay those fees, regardless of the number of people in the
system. She stated that the County is self-insured and continues to focus on wellness by offering a
variety of programs which are advantageous to employees.
Ms. Gerome said, last year, VRS mandated that the County provide a different leave structure for
employees hired as of January 1, 2014. She explained that staff has been working on this for the past
year and a half with the major concern being consistency between current employees and hybrid staff.
She said the newer employees have a better benefit in most circumstances adding that there are also
administrative and communication challenges as well as different management of sick leave. Ms.
Gerome said staff did some preliminary work, gathered some market data and solicited a great deal of
employee feedback through focus groups and surveys. She said staff has developed a recommendation
which would implement one leave program for all benefits-eligible employees that would provide
employer-paid short and long-term disability, avoid the complexities of administering two different
programs and would provide a more consistent, predictable leave for employees. Ms. Gerome said the
second option would be to retain the current leave for current employees, and offer the required short and
long-term disability for new employees with the concern, again, being that employees will receive different
benefits. She noted that the County would have about 300 hybrid employees by the end of this fiscal
year and, in five years, the majority of the workforce would be in the hybrid program. Ms. Gerome added
that having two different leave systems would also be confusing to the managers out in the field when an
employee needs to be out.
Ms. Gerome presented a comparison of two employees; one on the hybrid plan and one on the
current plan. She emphasized that an employee hired before January 1, 2014 would have about half of
the sick leave time available from the bank as an employee under the new plan.
Mr. Boyd asked if employees could carry over unused sick days under the current plan and also,
if an employee had a lot of built-up sick days, could he/she actually lose those. Ms. Gerome said about
one-third of employees have a lot of leave; the other two-thirds do not so, if an employee had a great deal
of leave, it could be capped, however, anyone with a leave balance could keep it and use it to supplement
if necessary.
Mr. Boyd asked if the current policy allowed an employee to cash in sick leave at retirement. Ms.
Gerome replied that the current policy does not have a cash value. She said, in explaining the new
hybrid plan to employees, the response was very positive.
Ms. Gerome summarized that the compensation considerations were to do the 3% increase for
classified employees administered through pay for performance, and to do the 2% to fill the teachers’
scale which reflects market movement. Ms. Gerome noted that her recommendations are always
contingent on available revenues, and to also provide direction to Mr. Foley and Dr. Moran as they build
their budgets.
Mr. Strucko asked about the dollar value of the 3% and 2%. Mr. Letteri said 3% for both schools
and local government would be about $4.5 million, including 2% for teachers.
Mr. Strucko said, with just the decisions made today, the Boards would be increasing the overall
budget by $6.7 million for next year to cover compensation increases plus the change in cost for health
insurance. Mr. Foley said staff is suggesting this be set as a target; however, the County is in the
process currently of doing the five-year financial plan and projecting revenues to see what the County can
actually afford. He added that the bottom-line contingency on revenues is very critical to this discussion.
Mr. Strucko said he was not trying to shock anyone with dollar amounts and did not feel these
figures are market-based rational recommendations, however, as the Boards make assumptions for next
year’s operating budget, it should be understood that the amount is $6.7 million and he wanted to make
sure everyone was comfortable with that amount.
Mr. Koleszar said, last year in this process, the Boards made recommendations to Mr. Foley and
Dr. Moran that they base their budget on the Boards’ recommendations. He said it seems more
appropriate that the Boards make that recommendation after seeing the five-year plan.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd agreed and stated that, last year, the Boards approved a 2% increase but it was
decided that compensation was not the highest priority so the increase was dropped back to 1%.
Mr. Koleszar said revenues were basically not available.
Mr. Boyd said they knew what the revenues were going to be, it was a projection.
Mr. Koleszar said, last year, the Boards provided recommendations to Dr. Moran to build her
budget without taking into consideration what the five-year plan was telling it. He said, this year, as the
five year plan is being looked at, the Boards may decide the revenues will not be available but, in building
the five year plan, the Boards would use those projected numbers.
Mr. Foley said staff typically asks if the Boards are comfortable with this as a target and if that is
not the case, staff would probably just use this data to develop a budget since it is consistent with the
strategy, however, staff may come back and say the County can only afford 2%. He said, within three
weeks or so, staff would have to bring the Board a proposal which is balanced and uses some figure.
Mr. Strucko said he felt these were reasonable targets.
Dr. Moran said the reality is, even though the employees have received raises on paper, every
one of those has been counter-balanced by other impacts and benefit costs which have taken away those
gains in their paychecks. She said what ends up happening are employees that would potentially have a
salary increase offset by an increase cost in benefits.
Ms. Palmer said it concerns her that the County is handling these deductibles the same way for
the highest and lowest paid employees. She said a teacher in her district told her that if she had one
more child in the household, she would qualify for free and/or reduced lunch.
Mr. Buyaki said that is reflective of society in general.
Ms. Palmer agreed but said the County would be doing the same thing to everyone in the local
system.
Ms. Gerome said she was not sure the County has the systems that would support that
sophisticated kind of breakdown in terms of having different deductibles for different levels of income.
Ms. Cloutier said, in looking at the Plus plan versus the Basic plan, there are 579 employees in
the Basic plan and 2,400 that are in the Plus plan. She said the upper tiers – employee plus spouse,
employee plus family coverage – could move down to the Basic plan which would save them quite a bit of
money each month. Ms. Cloutier stated that she tries to explain in open enrollment that it is not cost
effective on the Plus plan, but it is difficult to make the case to employees because it is an extremely
emotional decision. She said employees do have choices, but are hesitant to move to lower-cost plans
which could save them money.
Ms. Palmer said it would save them money if they stay healthy. Ms. Cloutier said the difference
between the Plus plan and the Basic is only $500 for an individual, $1,000 for a family, however, the
difference in premiums is $1,300 annually. She emphasized that most people do not even come close to
hitting an out-of-pocket maximum.
Mr. Boyd said last year was the first year the County did away with the differences between the
two plans. Ms. Cloutier said the County offered three plans originally which were slightly different but the
middle plan was very similar to the high plan, so now there are two somewhat different plans.
Mr. Foley stated that staff would be doing a lot of work to educate employees on choices, which
would be necessary this year because of all the changes that are going on . He said the two things staff
would like to accomplish at today’s meeting were to get the target on the salaries and to get the Board’s
feedback on benefits strategies. He noted that this would be an ongoing discussion.
Ms. Gerome presented the Health Care Executive Committee’s recommendations about health
insurance: the reallocation of rates, the banding for part-time employees, implementing the spousal
adjustment if spouses have affordable coverage through their own employer, and implementing the
proposed plan design changes.
Ms. Acuff asked what the reason was for doing this next year. Ms. Gerome explained that
reallocation of the rates is the right thing to do because it is reflective of the claims usage and, as a side
benefit, it helps the County avoid the Cadillac tax and it is also aligned with the market. She said all of
the other changes are consistent with the County’s market strategy and/or are related to the cost
pressures of the plans themselves.
Mr. Foley asked if Supervisors were comfortable with the recommendations as presented.
Mr. Boyd said he was not comfortable with it, but it is a good starting place.
Mr. Foley said staff had a lot of debate and discussion about this, with the spousal change alone
being a $1 million difference.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Koleszar said he was comfortable moving forward, but felt it would be appropriate for the
School Board to hold a work session on health care and dig a little deeper than what it has time to do at
these joint board meetings.
Ms. Dittmar expressed concern about having information circulating about this discussion in
terms of potential salary increases prior to the Board evaluating where property tax revenues end up and
the reality of doing something less. She said ‘contingent on available revenues’ was not an easy thing to
communicate, and perhaps the message should be 1-3% so the message does not start out wrong.
Mr. Boyd suggested staff build the budget on a tiered approach.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that would be feasible.
Mr. Foley said the Board could say it is looking in the 1-3% range, depending on what the County
is able to afford in the year ahead, which would send less of a message that the County is certain about
the amount.
Mr. Buyaki said he liked that approach much better.
Ms. Mallek said she was much more in support of that than advertising the 3% because, in the
previous six years, there was more of an ability to understand this was not already decided but, last year,
it became a battleground because the original amount had been 2%.
Mr. Buyaki said it sets the level of false expectations, adding that there are seven months of
budget work ahead before the numbers can be finalized.
Mr. Foley said staff would go forward with the financial planning process using this general kind of
feedback from the Boards.
Dr. Moran stated that staff has had to deal with the fact that salary has been a moving target over
the last seven or eight years.
Mr. Buyaki said a carefully worded press release would help the Boards communicate that to the
public, because there have been these problems in years past.
Mr. Foley said staff would do a good job communicating so unreasonable expectations are not
set going forward from both Boards.
Mr. Boyd said 1-3% was a good compromise to publicize.
Ms. Gerome asked for feedback on the other benefits changes. Mr. Boyd said the Boards would
have to look at the revenue picture.
Ms. Gerome asked if Board members wanted to keep the short and long-term disability where it
was. Mr. Koleszar said he appreciated the need to have one plan for all employees. He said continuing
to have two plans was a recipe for disaster because, at some point, the County would have to deal with it.
Mr. Letteri said one of the options would be to consider deferring it for one year.
_____
Item No. 2b. Goal Setting for Five-Year Plan.
Ms. Lori Allshouse addressed the Board, stating that the Boards were about to embark on the
five-year financial planning process and would be doing it differently this year as there is a lot of
involvement with the School Division, and said she looked forward to a good experience. Ms. Allshouse
emphasized that this is a plan, not a budget, so it is really important to consider that this is a five-year
adopted plan. She said the plan will inform staff on how to build their budget, with assumptions becoming
clearer as the annual budget time draws closer. She said the five-year plan brings the whole picture
together so both Boards can look at the components of how all of these factors play out in financial
planning. Ms. Allshouse stated that five-year planning was a critical process for a AAA-bond rating, as
bond raters look for this kind of activity, and she feels Albemarle County is best in class in this regard.
She said staff would present a balanced plan for the Board to consider in November and December and ,
this year, staff would bring several scenarios so the Board can determine what the best fit is for the
County at this time. Ms. Allshouse said this creates a framework for the annual budget which is
completed by early December and, by January, staff is building the budget. She emphasized that the
plan is based on assumptions, and are the best assumptions at the time, however, numbers do change
over time.
Ms. Allshouse said there are a lot of long-range plans which are heading toward the five-year
plan, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the strategic plans with the citizen engagement piece going on
concurrently and more citizen engagement included in the five-year planning process this year. She
stated that the plan would have revenue assumptions and expenditure assumptions, and staff would also
talk about the proposed use of fund balances as part of the budgeting process and five-year planning
process. Ms. Allshouse said the Board would talk about guiding principles which will provide good
direction for staff as the plan is being put together. She stated that the School Board is involved earlier in
the process, there is increased citizen engagement, and there are three scenarios prepared for
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
consideration. She stated that staff would be bringing their first set of assumptions and first scenarios for
consideration on November 5; on November 12, the School Board would present its draft budget to the
Board, although staff is working with the schools ahead of this time period to stay apprised. She stated
that, on December 3, the Board would have a work session and, on December 10, staff would ask the
Boards to adopt one of the plans which would enable staff to development the budget.
Mr. Matt Haas, Assistant Superintendent of Albemarle County Schools, addressed the Board.
Mr. Haas said the School Division has developed nine guiding principles for the Board to consider
adopting as it considers the five-year financial plan. He stated that staff is looking for some high-level
feedback, not necessarily word-smithing, and asked School Board members to pair up with a fellow
Board members to discuss which items resonate with each member, which items it cannot live with, and if
there are any that have been left out.
Board members met in teams of two with fellow School Board members to discuss the items.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, stated that school and local government staff
collaborated to come up with what they thought they had heard over the last several months as common
ground, adding that this was an opportunity for the Boards to evaluate the items identified. She asked the
Boards if there were specific things which stood out as priorities to be achieved.
Ms. Mallek said fiscal infrastructure was a top priority, as they needed to focus on classrooms
and buildings which have been put off for three years.
Mr. Strucko agreed with that as a top priority.
Mr. Koleszar said the priority he identified was the need for a shared understanding, as both
Boards need to agree on what the facts are rather than debating the policies and consequences because
Board members do not want to have contradictory and confusing stories out there.
Ms. Dittmar said she would add that it is important to clarify assumptions being drawn from those
facts.
Ms. Acuff said changing demographics in the urban ring was a huge factor as it impacts the
composition of the student body and instructional costs.
Ms. Mallek said, on the other side of the age spectrum, local government would need to address
transportation needs and other amenities for the elderly.
Ms. McKeel stated that she was not sure the wording was strong enough, and would like to see it
strengthened.
Ms. Palmer suggested a clarification of what “prevention” means because it could pertain to bad
things, not prevention in general.
Ms. McKeel said compensation and benefits should be worded differently, because it says the
County should continue to maintain salaries and compensation but that is not being done now. She said
the County did not maintain its market and agreed-upon plan last year. She said the County is starting off
already behind this year.
Mr. Gallaway stated that the item which stuck out to him was “shared understanding of mandates
and obligations,” and asked if the Boards had a complete level of understanding of how those impact
local resources on each side: schools and local government. He said he cannot say he has the same
level of understanding needed as someone who is working through a budget process and said he should.
Ms. Mallek said staff did their best to shrink staff capacity when that was mandatory, at least on
the local government side, and perhaps on the school side as well, but now there are many people trying
to do too many tasks. She said the Board needs to focus on filling those staffing gaps in order to be able
to deliver the service the County is telling citizens they are providing.
Mr. Buyaki said he felt that “build” was the wrong word and “maintain” was more appropriate
because it neither implied growing nor shrinking.
Ms. Catlin asked if there were any items missing.
Mr. Boyd said one thing that was missing was any kind of indication that taxpayers and
constituents were not a big cash cow. He stated that the Boards cannot say it is going to spend all of this
money without some guiding principles as to how much it is willing to tax constituents to meet that. He
said, in reading between the lines, there are a lot of expensive things here, and there is nothing which
says the Board needs to maintain a reasonable impact on taxpayers. He said there is no mention on the
revenue side, just on the expenditures.
Mr. Gallaway said there is nothing here related to finding additional resources so elected officials
do not have to keep going back to taxes.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Boyd said, after exhaustive research in that area, the County has found it is very limited in
that respect, but what it can do is grow the economy and perhaps that is what the whole economic
development initiative is about.
Ms. Dittmar asked if inclusion of “fiscal responsibility” might address those concerns.
Mr. Boyd said he did not want to wordsmith it at this point.
Ms. Mallek said, at the top of the page, the mission includes a sentence about “available means”
and conveys that the County is trying to deliver really good service for the very best, responsible financial
effort.
Mr. Foley said the statement is, “prudent use of resources.”
Mr. Buyaki said the County needs to recognize that taxpayers are the primary driver of both the
local economy and the revenue stream.
Mr. Boyd said changing demographics were mentioned, adding that there is a growing population
here of people on fixed incomes.
Mr. Strucko suggested including, “provide quality government services within a reasonable tax
burden on Albemarle County citizens.”
Mr. Koleszar said this always brings the discussion back to the “bad guy” in the equation, and that
is the state. He said a perfect example is the state raising the SOL standards and expecting greater
performance educationally while providing less funding for K-12 education.
Mr. Strucko said, in reading the principles and what the five-year plan should include, both
Boards should also keep track of the rating standards which keeps the County AAA, what the County’s
debt capacity is, what the current outstanding debt is, when the County would be retiring some of that
existing debt, and what the cost of capital is.
_____
Item No. 2c. Work Groups Report-out
1. Legislative
2. Communications
Mr. Gallaway stated that most of the work groups have already met and, if they have not met,
they would be meeting soon. He added that some of those work groups have already provided their
summaries.
Ms. Dittmar said the official report-out to the Boards would happen at the next Board-to-Board
meeting, scheduled for November 12, 2014 although that agenda already includes CIP and five-year
planning discussions.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Closed Meeting.
At 5:59 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. 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. 4. Call to Order Night Meeting. Ms. Dittmar called the meeting back to order at
6:34 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4a. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 6:35 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 4b. Appointments.
Ms. McKeel moved to make the following appointments:
appoint Mr. Randy Layman to the Long-Range Solutions Advisory Committee, with said term to
expire November 30, 2015.
appoint Mr. Martin Silverman to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Board of Directors, with said
term to expire September 30, 2016.
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. 5. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar said, at the Board’s meeting the previous evening, an item had been added to the
final agenda for this meeting, and she has put it under Item 17c – Resolution Regarding Berkmar Drive
Alignment.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the final agenda as amended. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek reported that Mr. Henry Chiles had received a national award, “Apple Packer of the
Year” from the U.S. Apple Association. She said Mr. Chiles’ peers talked about his good humor and his
leadership as an employer, adding that he has had a tremendous impact on agriculture in Albemarle
County.
_____
Ms. Dittmar reported that, on the previous Saturday morning, a dedication ceremony was held for
the James River Boys and Girls Club at the community center in Scottsville, which is owned by the
County and leased to the Club. She said the Judy and Jim Brown family were honored because they
were instrumental in launching the effort. She said Senator Kaine and his wife, Secretary of Education
Ann Holden, were also in attendance. Ms. Dittmar said she attended herself along with Ms. Palmer to
represent the Board.
Ms. Dittmar announced that Fire Department Chief, Dan Eggleston, and Director of Social
Services, Kathy Ralston, were able to secure a $100,000 grant to work on prevention, focused particularly
on low-income families. She noted that national statistics show that 63% of residential fires happen in
low-income residential areas, and 100% of fatalities.
_____
Ms. Palmer added that, on October 23, she would be at Yancey Elem entary School for a town
hall and will help students and faculty celebrate the award of their 21st Century grant to support Club
Yancey. She said, after the celebration, representatives from the Fire Department plan to talk about the
grant. She said there are several area residents in the Porters area of Scottsville who would be
participating in the program for fire prevention. She added that she plans to also talk about issues related
to speeding problems and the County’s solid waste initiatives.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. Recognitions.
Item No. 9a. Commonwealth of Virginia Innovation Technology Symposium (COVITS) First Place
Award, Crystal Rejonis.
Ms. Dittmar recognized Ms. Crystal Rejonis on behalf of the County for receiving first place at the
Governor’s Technology Awards ceremony held at the Virginia Innovation Technology Symposium in
September. She said Albemarle County received first place in Information Technology in the “Efficiency
Driver – Government to Government” category. Ms. Dittmar said Ms. Rejonis is the County’s Information
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Technology Training Specialist, and Ms. Rejonis was recognized in the state for her design of online
training courses so people could train from home and not have to drive to a stationary location. Ms.
Dittmar said the first on-line course was offered on a financial application, 200 people trained and it was
viewed over 600 times in the first two weeks.
Ms. Rejonis thanked the Board, the Innovation Committee, and the Information Technology
Department for their support of the project, stating that it had been an exciting adventure she was proud
to be a part of.
__________
Item No. 9b. Muscular Dystrophy Association - Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Department
Annual Fill the Boot Campaign.
Mr. Boyd said the Albemarle County Fire & Rescue (ACFR) Department holds an annual “Fill the
Boot” campaign on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), and he introduced Andrea
Shaffer, Executive Director of the MDA in Central and Southeastern Virginia.
Ms. Andrea Shaffer addressed the Board and said the MDA is thrilled to share the success of the
Fill the Boot program by ACFR and Albemarle County Professional Firefighters Local 4007, which had its
best year ever in 2013, raising $20,000. For 2014, Ms. Shaffer said the goal was $13,000 but ended up
raising $26,475 which helped MDA exceed $100,000 total raised for the last seven years in Albemarle
County. She said all of the money raised stays to help local families in the community who are affected
by muscular dystrophy, and mentioned the efforts of the Board, the County, Chief Eggleston, Robbie
Gilmore, Gilbert Monroe, Rob Schlottenmeier, and L.J. White. Ms. Shaffer introduced Michelle Miles, the
goodwill ambassador for ACFR for the last seven years, who would be leaving for college in summer
2015 and would be passing the torch to a new ambassador.
Ms. Michelle Miles addressed the Board, stating that she started doing this when she was nine
years old. She said working with the firefighters has given her great confidence, and the effort has helped
her family tremendously and has helped her connect to other young people with disabilities throughout
the community.
Ms. McKeel asked where she was going to college. Ms. Miles said she would attend the
University of Virginia.
__________
Item No. 6c. Proclamation recognizing Proclamation Recognizing October 2014 as Disability
Employment Awareness Month.
Ms. McKeel recognized the presence of Mr. Michael Peoples, Albemarle representative to the
Disability Services Board, and Ms. Naomi Adkin, Counselor/Manager of the Department of Aging and
Rehabilitative Services. She then read the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
Disability Employment Awareness Month
WHEREAS, every year since 1945 the President of the United States has proclaimed a National
Observance in October to promote the employment of individuals with disabilities, and
this tradition continues in October 2014 with “Expect. Employ. Empower.” as the theme
for this year’s National Disability Employment Awareness Month; and
WHEREAS, nearly one in five Americans have some type of disability, making people with disabilities
the nation’s largest minority; and
WHEREAS, work is fundamental to identity, providing the opportunity to lead a more independent,
self-directed life for all people; and
WHEREAS, we recognize that disability is a natural part of the human experience and affirm that
disability in no way should limit a person’s ability to make choices, pursue meaningful
careers, or participate fully in all aspects of life; and
WHEREAS, workplaces welcoming of the talents of all people, including people with disabilities, are a
critical part of our efforts to build an inclusive community and strong economy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby proclaims October 2014
as Disability Employment Awareness Month in the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, and
conveys the message that people with disabilities are equal to the task throughout the
year.
Signed and Sealed this 8th day of October, 2014.
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:
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
AYES: Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Adkin addressed the Board, stating that her job is to help people go to work, adding that the
Department of Rehabilitative Services has been doing vocational rehabilitation in this community for m any
years. Ms. Adkin said they are co-located at the Workforce Investment Center on Hydraulic Road and
noted that, for Planning District 10, the agency has put over 172 people to work who stayed employed for
over three months. She said the agency has worked with between 500-600 people in the community.
__________
Item No. 6d. Crozet Library Fundraising Team.
Ms. Mallek read the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING THE CROZET LIBRARY FUNDRAISNG TEAM
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors strives to provide lifelong learning
opportunities for all our citizens, invest in critical infrastructure that improves the capacity to serve
community needs, and engage citizens so that local government reflects their values and aspirations; and
WHEREAS, the Crozet Library Fundraising Team of volunteers has been meeting monthly sin ce
February 2012 to develop ideas and materials to inform the citizens of western Albemarle of events,
promotions, and opportunities to support fundraising for the new library; and
WHEREAS, the team mailed over 66,000 brochures to citizens in the library service area, and
sent over 125 proposals to foundations, corporations, individuals, and state agencies ; and
WHEREAS, the team raised over $1.1 million for the Crozet library, including over 850 individual
donations from private citizens and three grants of over $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the demonstrated teamwork, dedication and the team’s can-do attitude of hard work
has resulted in every item in the new library being paid for in full, with all future donations being used to
purchase programs to aid literacy and books to reach a goal of 75,800 books in circulation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,
do hereby honor and congratulate the Crozet Library Fundraising Team
John Halliday, Jane Kulow, Jackie Loach, Nola Miller, Brenda Plantz, Wendy Saz,
Bill Schrader, Tim Tolson, David Wayland, Krista Weih, and Leslie Burns
and urge all residents of Albemarle County to visit the branches of the Jefferson Madison
Regional Library and to support this and other volunteer service efforts in the County.
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.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Bill Schrader addressed the Board and referenced a fact sheet which the Board had received.
He stated that: over 2,100 new library cards issued since the Crozet Library opened, there have been
over 150,000 visitors in 12 months and 21,000 items have been checked out per month on average at the
library with a 13% circulation increase from month to month. Mr. Schrader stated that Jefferson Madison
Regional Library (JMRL) Director, John Halladay, has produced a library that is successful and
recognized around the country and, while launching the Crozet Library, he has also been planning for
Northside. He said the County has a winner in Mr. Halladay and is hopeful the County will recognize that
for the future. He said that next steps for the library team are continuing to build the library fund and, with
efforts underway, they will come very close to the $75,800 goal including what the JMRL system would
put into a new library. Mr. Schrader said the last step for the Board would be to approve the build-out of
the empty downstairs space at Crozet Library, adding that they would like to convert it into a video
production room/conference room so they are not tying up the big community room upstairs.
__________
Mr. Matthew Wade addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Harrisonburg but
represents Virginia Clean Cities, a nonprofit dedicated to improving Virginia’s air quality through reducing
petroleum uses. Mr. Wade said he was before the Board to talk about how Albemarle County might
benefit from electric vehicles (EV) and electric vehicle chargers, either for government, private residents
or businesses. He said these vehicles are much cleaner than standard internal combustion engines,
provides all the functionality but operates cleaner and is less costly over its lifespan. Mr. Wade said one
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
study showed they save $17,000 in fuel costs and maintenance costs over the life of the vehicle. He
stated that many municipalities find the vehicles to be very useful because Virginia has cheap electricity
which is, on average, about 11 cents per kilowatt hour or $1 per gallon adding that EVs do not require
engine maintenance. Mr. Wade said EVs help clean the air, reduce pollution such as nitrous oxide,
carbon monoxide and dioxide, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. He said if there is a concern about
battery life, EVs can lease for less than 60 months and can be traded in before the battery experiences
any problems. He stated that Albemarle County can be a leader in EV charging, adding that EV charging
stations are easy to afford and install: a level two 240-volt charger can cost about $500, with $2,000 to
install; chargers will charge a Nissan Leaf in about 4-6 hours. He said a DC fast charger, which requires
three-phase 480-volt power, are more expensive and can cost up to $30,000 which is why finding a
private partner to help install them is a good idea. Mr. Wade said Virginia law allows localities to resell
electricity at any price point so electricity costs and service fees can be recouped. He said his
organization is currently working with a partner to install level two and DC fast chargers on the I-64 and I-
81 corridors, but many areas are still neglected. He said Albemarle County is a prime area for these
types of chargers to encourage EV driving, and a lot of the businesses in the area can capture revenue
from outside the area from EV drivers that may not be able to make it to Charlottesville because there is
no infrastructure currently existing between here and D.C., or Culpeper or Lynchburg. Mr. Wade said
there are plenty of places in the County where these could be installed.
Ms. Mallek said she was glad to know Clean Cities was still operating, adding that she was
present for the ribbon cutting at Newcomb Hall Parking Garage for the plug-in there.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda.
Ms. McKeel moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 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. 11.1. Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013 and February 24, 2014.
Ms. Dittmar had not read the minutes of November 13, 2013, and asked that they be pulled and
carried forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer had not read the minutes of February 24, 2014, and asked that they be pulled and
carried forward to the next meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the minutes were pulled and carried forward to the next
meeting.
_____
Item No. 11.2. ZMA-2004-00024. Old Trail – Special Exception to Authorize Variations from the
Code of Development.
The executive summary states that Old Trail Village was rezoned to Neighborhood Model District
with an associated Application Plan and Code of Development (COD) on September 14, 2005. Nineteen
(19) variations to the Plan and/or COD have previously been granted. The developer is currently
proposing development within three different blocks that requires additional variations from the COD
before building permits can be approved by staff.
The following summarizes staff’s analysis of the relevant factors for each variation request. The
attached staff report (Attachment A) provides additional details for each request.
Block 15:
Variation #20: To allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five foot building setback by
up to one foot. The variation will enable larger buildable area for each lot and more flexibility in
the design of each unit without impacting health, safety and welfare. The proposed change is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the co mprehensive plan, does not increase density,
and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved zoning in Old Trail .
Blocks 28/29B:
Variation #21: To allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five foot building setback by
up to one foot. The variation will enable larger buildable area for each lot and more flexibility in
the design of each unit without impacting health, safety and welfare. The proposed change is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, does not increase density,
and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the approved zoning in Old Trail .
No impact will result from this special exception.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to approve the
special exception to vary the setback in the approved Old Trail COD for Block 15, Block 28, and Block
29B.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve the
especial exception to vary the setback in the approved Old Trail COD fo r Block 15, Bock 28 and
Block 29B:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, March Mountain Properties, LLC (“March Mountain”) is the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 055E0-01-00-000A1 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, March Mountain filed an application to amend the code of development approved in
conjunction with ZMA 2004-00024, Old Trail Village, to allow roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the
five-foot building setback within Blocks 15, 28, and 29B, as those blocks are depicted on the pending site
plan for Block 15 and the pending subdivision plat for Blocks 28 and 29B under review by the County’s
Department of Community Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the
executive summary prepared in conjunction with the applic ation, and its supporting analysis included as
Attachment A thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code
§§ 18-8.5.5.3(c) and 18-33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special
exception to authorize the roof overhangs and eaves to encroach the five-foot building setback within
Blocks 15, 28, and 29B, subject to the following condition:
1. Roof overhangs and eaves shall not project further than one (1) foot into the five-
foot building setback.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2014-00009. Castle Hill Cider (Signs #20&21).
Rivanna Magisterial District.
PROPOSAL: Special use permit amendment to remove expiration date for farm winery events
on 310.47 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
LOCATION: 6055 Turkey Sag Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04900-00-00-018B1, 04900-00-00-018B2.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29, 2014.)
Mr. Scott Clark, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that this is a special use permit
request for events at a farm winery, through the amendment of an earlier permit. Mr. Clark said Castle
Hill Cidery is located on Route 231 at Turkey Sag Road in Cismont, and he presented an aerial view of
the property, noting the entrance and the large event barn building. He presented an inset view of the
conceptual plan for the use that was previously approved which shows the event barn building. Mr. Clark
said, in February 2013, the Board approved a special use permit for eight events per year of up to 350
attendees, and one event for up to 1,000 attendees, in addition to the unlimited number of 200 -person by-
right events. He said, among several other conditions applied to the perm it, there was one condition
which imposed an expiration date of December 31 of this year because of concerns over noise and traffic
management. He said the intent was to provide a period in which the applicants could show they could
address those concerns. Mr. Clark said the current proposal from the applicant is to rem ove that
expiration date so the use can continue indefinitely. He reported that, since the approval, the applicants
have held 37 by-right events of 200 people or fewer; three events of up to 350 people, and one 1,000-
person event, which was their annual cider festival. During that time, the County has received no
complaints about noise or traffic. He said the applicants held a community meeting in June with
attendees at that meeting expressing no concerns about noise, traffic, or th e use continuing. He said, at
its recent public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this SP amendment, with
one change from the additional conditions of approval which would eliminate the condition that stipulates
an expiration date.
Ms. Mallek asked if the community meeting included all of the people who had been involved in
previous discussions. Mr. Clark said the list provided to the applicants provided notice to all of the
adjacent property owners, properties nearby on Route 231, and along Turkey Sag over to Route 20. He
said it was an extended list.
Mr. Boyd said he was unable to attend the most recent meeting, but his emails were a lot lighter
than previously.
Ms. Palmer asked if there had been any complaints on this. Mr. Clark responded that the County
has received no complaints about this use since it was approved.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Ms. Mallek asked if the reporting from the permanent sound meter is sent to the County on a
regular basis. Mr. Clark said it was.
Mr. Boyd said Castle Hill has done a very good job in mitigating the sound, adding that they have
spent a lot of money to accomplish that, with the enclosure of the barn and other measures.
Ms. McKeel said she was impressed to learn that the general manager at Castle Hill Cider,
Trevor Gibson, felt the Commission and the Board had done a great job on the special use permit
recommendations which really mitigated the impact on the neighbors. She said it was a real compliment
to how the process worked and the outcome.
Ms. Mallek said it was a long road to get there, but they did achieve the high-performance bar,
and that should be the poster child going forward.
Mr. Trevor Gibson, Castle Hill Cider CEO and General Manager, addressed the Board, stating
that he took over that position about 18 months earlier and was not involved in the crafting of the original
requirements but was born and raised in Charlottesville. Mr. Gibson stated that farming was still the
second-highest economic grossing industry in the state.
Ms. Mallek noted that agriculture was actually #1.
Mr. Gibson said this type of business is a real positive and is a way to preserve the rural
environment while stimulating economic vitality. He said the cidery employs about 15 people; they are
getting ready to plant another 7,000 trees in a high-density fashion, and is becoming the first in the state
that is producing cider apples exclusively to produce hard cider. Mr. Gibson said there are many farms in
conservation easement, which is fantastic, but there is no access for the community to enjoy those
properties once they are under conservation easement. Through the efforts of the Board and also the
efforts of private agri-businesses, he said Castle Hill Cidery is trying to create an environment where
people can enjoy the rural properties but are also protected through noise and traffic mitigation.
Ms. Dittmar then opened the public hearing for further comments from the public. There being no
further comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Boyd said he has a frequent email correspondent who contacted him about this particular
application which indicated that “this is one that works,” so the County can be proud of the fact it has put
together a win/win situation for the neighbors.
Mr. Boyd moved to adopt the proposed resolution to approve SP-2014-0009 with the attached
conditions. 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.
(Note: The adopted resolution and conditions are set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-09 CASTLE HILL CIDER
WHEREAS, Route 231, LLC (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 04900-
00-00-018B1 and 04900-00-00-018B2 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed an application to amend Special Use Permit SP 2012-00001 Castle
Hill Cider to remove Condition 11, which imposed a two-year duration on the special use permit, and the
application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-00009 (“SP 2014-09”); and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-09 with the conditions recommended by County staff;
and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2014-09.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2014-09 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing,
and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18 -33.8, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2014-09, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
*****
SP-2014-00009 Castle Hill Cider Special Use Permit Conditions
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Special Use
Permit for Castle Hill Cider,” labeled “Index Title: CP1,” prepared by Dominion Engineering, and
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
dated 8/28/12, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in
general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following ce ntral features essential to
the design of the development:
Location of the structure (labeled “Event Barn”) used for the events;
Location of the entrance and exit (labeled “New Entrance Road” and “Existing
Entrance”);
Location of parking;
Location of “Event Vicinity”;
Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the central features above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Up to eight (8) single-day farm winery events, weddings or wedding receptions (hereinafter,
collectively, “these events”) for more than two hundred (200) persons may be held per calendar
year, with a maximum total daily attendance of three hundred fifty (350) persons. Attendance at
these events shall be by prior reservation, ticket sales, or invitation only.
3. One (1) single-day farm winery event for three hundred fifty-one (351) to one thousand (1,000)
persons (hereinafter, “this event”) may be held per twelve (12)-month period or calendar year:
a. This event shall not be held without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of a traffic-management plan for the intersection Virginia Route 231 and
Turkey Sag Road. This plan shall require, and the permittee shall provide, police officers
or other trained personnel approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation to be at
the intersection of Virginia Route 231 and Turkey Sag Road to direct arriving and
departing traffic if this event’s attendance may exceed five hundred (500) persons based
on reservations received or tickets sold. This approval shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator no less than three (3) weeks before the scheduled date for this event.
b. The permittee shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance by the Zoning Administrator
prior to holding this event. The permittee shall apply for the zoning clearance no less than
three (3) weeks prior to the date of the event. Approval of the zoning clearance will be
contingent upon the Zoning Administrator determining that all conditions of this speci al
use permit have been satisfied.
c. Admission to this event shall only be by prior reservation or ticket purchase.
4. Before commencing any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery
event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-
5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11) (hereinafter, collectively, “event subject to this condition”) at which there
is amplified sound, the permittee shall submit, and thereafter comply with, a sound management
plan which has been prepared by an acoustical consultant and approved by the Zoning
Administrator. This plan shall include a plan for monitoring amplified sound levels at the property
lines of the site, including one or more permanent sound meters providing a date and time record
of the sound, and for immediately adjusting amplification equipment to reduce sound levels to no
more than the allowed maximum provided in this condition. As part of the implementation of this
plan, no event subject to this condition shall comm ence before the screened openings on the
northeast side of the Event Barn are replaced with glass panels approved by the acoustical
consultant. Sound levels at the property lines of the site shall not exceed an average of fifty-two
(52) decibels (dBA) for any five (5) - minute period, or a more restrictive applicable maximum
sound level established in the Albemarle County Code. At any event subject to this condition, the
sound at the source of the amplified music shall not exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA) and
the volume shall be monitored by an on-site sound meter. The sound limit for any band shall be
limited by contract to not exceed ninety-five (95) decibels (dBA). The glass panels on the
openings of the Event Barn shall remain closed while amplified sounds are produced.
5. Outdoor amplification systems shall not use amplifiers with more than two hundred (200) watts
RMS output, and shall not be used after 6:00 p.m. All other amplified sound systems shall be
contained within the Event Barn.
6. At any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event, wedding,
wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or
(11), traffic-management personnel shall be on site at the exit to direct traffic eastward to Virginia
Route 231. These personnel shall be in addition to the traffic-management personnel required
under Condition 3(a) above. All departing traffic shall be directed to go eastward on Turkey Sag
Road, except for those vehicles whose occupants reside westward on Turkey Sag Road.
7. The permittee shall provide prior notification of each event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3
above or for any farm winery event, wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right
under County Code § 18-5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), to all owners of properties within one-half (1/2)
mile of the Event Barn and to the Zoning Administrator. A notification letter shall be sent by mail
at least fourteen (14) days before each event. The letter shall include:
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
1. The date, starting and ending times, and expected number of attendees for the event
2. A telephone number at which the permittee may be contacted during the event
3. The County’s zoning complaint hotline telephone number (434-296-5834) and identify it
as such.
8. No parking for any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above shall be permitted within two
hundred (200) feet of any stream.
9. Any new outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than
0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or her designee for approval.
10. In order to ensure the Event Barn doors remain closed while amplified sound is being produced
within it during any event permitted under Conditions 2 and 3 above or any farm winery event,
wedding, wedding reception, or other event allowed by-right under County Code § 18-
5.1.25(b)(2), (10) or (11), the permittee shall install and m aintain an air conditioning system in the
Event Barn, together with fans, insulation, and other measures (hereinafter, collectively, the
“system”). The system shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, who shall
approve it if she determines that the system’s cooling load design is adequate to serve the Event
Barn.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. PROJECT: ZMA-2013-00017. Spring Hill Village (Signs #74&75).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 090000002800.
LOCATION: 1776 Scottsville Road. Approximately 2000 feet north of the intersection of Avon
Street Extended and Route 20.
PROPOSAL: Rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 Residential zoning district which allows residential
uses at a density of 1 unit per acre to NMD Neighborhood Model District zoning district which
allows residential at a density of 3 – 34 units/acre mixed with commercial, service and industrial
uses. A maximum of one hundred (100) units proposed for a density of 7.7 units per acre.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
SCENIC BYWAYS: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01-34 units/acre);
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office, and service uses in
Neighborhood 4 of the Development Areas.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29, 2014.)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that on August 19, 2014, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Spring Hill Village rezoning request. The Commission,
by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of ZMA2013-00017, provided that technical revisions were made
to the proffers, the code of development, and the application plan, as recommended by staff and
described in the staff report (Attachment E), prior to the Board of Supervisor meeting, and amended as
follows:
1. That language be added to Proffer #4 regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and
Avon Street Extended that specifically include the additional provision of a potential
retaining wall (which is subject to ARB review with attention provided to material and
design) to avoid erosion and/or cutting further into the property of Mr. Schickedantz at
1858 Scottsville Road, and
2. Urge VDOT to consider a 45 mile per hour speed limit from Mill Creek to the Avon Street
Extended/Route 20 intersection.
In response to the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant has provided the
following:
Application Plan
The application plan has been revised and all outstanding technical issues with the
application plan have been addressed. (See Attachment A)
Code of Development (COD)
The COD has been revised and all outstanding technical issues with the COD have been
addressed. (See Attachment B)
Proffers
The proffers have been revised to address all outstanding technical issues identified by staff.
Proffer #4 describes the improvements the Owner needs to make to Route 20 and Avon Street to
install the proposed entrances. The applicant has now added language to the proffer to provide that, if
a retaining wall is needed to address erosion and other impacts to adjacent property along Route 20,
the retaining wall will be subject to Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. This change addresses
the recommendation of the Planning Commission. (See Attachment C)
With regard to considering a 45 mile per hour speed limit, suggested by the Planning
Commission, between Mill Creek and the Avon Street Extended/Route 20 intersection, unless otherwise
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
directed by the Board of Supervisors, staff will discuss this further with VDOT and advise the Board of the
results of the discussion at a later date.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment D) to approve ZMA
2013-00017, Spring Hill Village, including Sheets 1-3 of the Application Plan, dated October 21, 2013,
Sheets 1 and 3 last revised August 29, 2014 and Sheet 2 last revised July 7, 2014; the Code of
Development, dated October 16, 2013, last revised August 28, 2014; and the Proffers, dated September
29, 2014.
_____
Ms. Claudette Grant, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that Spring Hill Village is
located at 1776 Scottsville Road, in the southern portion of the County, approximately 2,000 feet north of
the intersection of Avon Street Extended and Route 20. She said the property is zoned R-1 residential,
which allows one unit per acre, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this property urban-density
residential, which allows residential 6-34 units per acre supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses. Ms. Grant said the proposed Comprehensive Plan land
use draft designates the property for office, research and development, and flex-light industrial uses. She
said the applicant is requesting to rezone 12.99 acres from R-1 residential zoning district to Neighborhood
Model district, for a mixed-use development with a maximum of 100 residential units and 10,000 to
60,000 square feet of non-residential uses. She said the proposal has frontage on Avon Street Extended
and Scottsville Road and noted the location on a map, stating that this is divided into seven blocks
labeled A-G. She said the proposal is inclusive of a maxim um of 100 residential units which could be a
mix of townhouses, apartments, and single-family residential units. She stated that three of the seven
blocks, which are blocks A, B and C, could include 10,000 to 60,000 square feet of non-residential uses
and roads would be a mix of public and private streets as well as alleys.
Ms. Grant said a variety of open space and amenities is proposed, including a central park that is
a little over one acre in size, with four smaller pocket parks located throughout the development. She
stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 19 of th is year for the subject
project and voted unanimously for approval, providing that technical revisions were made to the proffers,
the code of development, and the application plan as recommended by staff with the following
amendment: that language be added to Proffer #4 regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon
Street extended that specifically include the additional provisio n of a potential retaining wall which is
subject to the ARB review, with attention given to material and design to avoid erosion and further cut-in
to the property of Mr. Shickedantz at 1858 Scottsville Road. Ms. Grant said the Commission also asked
that the County urge the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to consider a 45 mph speed limit
from Mill Creek to the Avon Street Extended intersection with Route 20. She stated that the application
plan and code of development have both been revised and all outstanding technical issues have been
addressed. She stated that the applicant has now added language to proffer #4 to provide that a
retaining wall is needed to address erosion, and other impacts to adjacent property along Route 20. She
said the retaining wall would be subject to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and this change
addresses the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Grant said, with regard to considering
a 45 mph speed limit, unless otherwise directed by the Board, staff would discuss this further with VDOT
and advise the Board of the results at a later date. She stated staff recommends adoption of the
ordinance provided in the Board’s packet to approve ZMA 2013-00017 Spring Hill Village. She provided
motions for the Board’s reference.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the Commission had discussed any crossings between Avon Park and this
development. He said it appears as though a sidewalk is built for the south side of the street but there is
not one on the north side of the street. Ms. Grant said there was a plan which did show some crosswalks
on Avon Street Extended and VDOT requested those be removed for safety purposes.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the curve there is a fairly blind turn, and stated that the speed limit
should be lower than 45 mph since they are putting a residential entrance in on both sides.
Ms. Palmer asked if VDOT had to evaluate the traffic situation first and what process they would
follow. Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, said staff would get with VDOT and Mr. DeNunzio to figure
out what the appropriate process is, and whether there is justification given the existing road conditions to
look at traffic, or whether it is better to wait for future conditions.
Mr. Sheffield said he was disappointed VDOT took the crossing off the table because it was going
to happen one way or another. Mr. Benish said the sidewalk was only across the frontage of the site, and
there is no sidewalk across the street. He explained that VDOT typically wants sidewalks on both sides
of the street. He stated that the County has a capital project which is extending the walkway down to
Avon Street so, once that is extended, crosswalks would be installed at that site.
Mr. Sheffield said the frontage stops right where Avon Park sidewalks come out, and there is an
almost ideal connection which could be made there. He stated that the whole idea of Avon Park is family
living, and there would be a lot of crossing back and forth. Mr. Benish said staff could further explore
crossings there adding that VDOT would probably install those once there is a more complete pathway
system, which is a capital project currently under design.
Ms. Mallek asked if it would be more appropriate to have the developer put it in now as part of
this project. Mr. Benish said, as he understood it, VDOT will not accept it at this point in time and would
not approve the installation of it on the state street.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Mr. Boyd said he had a similar situation in Forest Lakes, and VDOT would not connect it to a trail
there until the intersection was completely done and it was a very dangerous situation across Powell
Creek Drive and Ashwood Boulevard.
Ms. Mallek said she could understand the excuse if there is no landing pad for the person to get
onto the sidewalk, but there would be sidewalks on both sides of the street there. Mr. Benish said staff
would pursue it as much as possible with VDOT, and it could be addressed at the site plan stage, with the
potential that, if VDOT would permit it, the applicant could install it then.
Mr. Sheffield asked if it was possible to at least put a ramp at the southwest corner. Mr. Benish
responded that the ramp was actually there because of the sidewalk’s termination point, but that may be
a possibility.
Ms. Mallek said it would need to be written down as a condition.
Ms. Dittmar said she has spoken with Mr. DeNunzio about the entire portion of Mill Creek down to
Route 20, looking at speed limits, crosswalks, and citizen safety and she is concerned about that.
Mr. Boyd asked if the property was zoned Light Industrial now.
Ms. Mallek said it is zoned R-1, but the applicant is hoping it would be LI in the new
Comprehensive Plan.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vito Cetta, the applicant, addressed the Board, stating that it is a long process to get any
project approved and, once it moves through engineering, it takes about a year to get a per mit. He stated
that, during that year, a lot of things can happen so there is additional time to modify it. Mr. Cetta said he
agreed with staff’s recommendation, adding that Ms. Grant does a wonderful job. He said he has
developed 10 projects in the County and he and Ms. Grant have spent a few hours driving around to see
what they can learn from them, most of which are Neighborhood Model developments with affordable
housing and cash proffers. Mr. Cetta said the County increases by about 2,000 people per year which is
a lot of people and, if you go on this site and drive to Scottsville, it looks the same as it did 40 years ago,
because of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that most communities in the country would not have that
open area, and stated that the County was looking terrific because of the focus on density in the urban
ring. Mr. Cetta presented images of the site, noting the location of Avon Street joining Route 20 and
Biscuit Run Park, which would be an enormous park. He said, in looking to the west and the north, it is
developed almost all residential with a portion in light industrial on the flatter piec e of land. Mr. Cetta said
his plan calls for about 90 units, with room for some commercial and a central park. He stated that some
of the property slopes downward, but the grade can be absorbed by the small elements of townhouses
and single-family homes, whereas light industrial would require enormous retaining walls so it is not really
the right site for light industrial. Mr. Cetta presented a video showing the plans for the site.
Mr. Cetta said the project would be contributing over $1.3 million in cash proffers and would be
building the affordable housing right in the center of the project, which is probably the most prominent in
terms of location.
Ms. Linda O’Connor of the Scottsville District addressed the Board, stating that she is President
of the Avon Park Homeowners Association. Ms. O’Connor said Mr. Cetta has been very kind and has
really listened to residents’ concerns. She said when they discussed the Comprehensive Plan and the
master plan for the Southern Area District, she was a little taken aback because it seem ed there was an
impression the Commission had approved language in the Comp Plan and then had gone back on its
word and approved this. She said, on May 28, 2013, the Comp Plan was being reviewed by the
Commission and, at that time, Ms. Echols talked about the fact there was a fair amount of controversy
associated with the Parham lot with respect to the residents nearby and offered that Mr. Cetta might have
a solution, which was this particular concept plan. At the end of that meeting, she said the Commission
said the Parham property could be designated for a mixture of uses but not include retail, or it could be all
office-R&D/flex-light industrial for target industries. Ms. O’Connor said there was a mixed-use possibility
as well as LI. She stated that, on July 30, 2013, the Commission approved the plan and specifically said
no changes were recommended at this tim e to the Southern Master Plan other than to clearly state the
expectations for the Parham lot which were provided on the May 28 date. She stated that the master
plan specifically states that the Parham parcel h as a higher set of expectations and, currently, an
undeveloped parcel could be developed solely for office and LI use, and contain a mixture of uses
including residential but not retail. Ms. O’Connor said the uses got switched from mixed uses to LI, and
then from LI to mixed uses.
Mr. Roger Shickedantz addressed the Board, stating that he was very happy when Mr. Cetta
came forward with a request for residential and also supports a mix of small-scale office, light industrial
and retail. He said he and some other neighbors are interested in having a small neighborhood café on
this site, so they would hope retail would not be excluded entirely. Mr. Shickedantz stated that he is
concerned that, if the speed limit is left as it is now and the project is built as it is, they would have to cut
back the easement in his front yard which would require the retaining wall that has been discussed, as
well as relocation of a stone stair that is currently along the street. He asked if there was any way to get
VDOT to review this now before the plan gets built, to avoid all of that and avoid triggering Proffer #4. He
said the land is a tall bank, almost 10 feet high at that point with trees planted along it, and it would
expose him much more to the street if it were cut back. Mr. Shickedantz said the speed limit is too high
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
now, stating that there are a lot of driveways at the crest of the hill where his driveway comes out, and it is
very hard to see despite the signage there. He noted that one of his neighbors was hit, thinking that a
mail truck was slowing down to let her cross, which it was not, and she survived but is over 80 years old.
Mr. Shickedantz said the code of development for the project allows for three 60,000 square foot office
buildings which could be 65 feet tall on parcels A, B and C and those are adjacent to his property, on the
front of the property near Scottsville Road. He said the only reason that was included was to mollify the
Planning Commission and the Board should the new land use go in effect with the Comp Plan . He stated
that Mr. Cetta has said he did not really want to build out all the office space and would prefer to stick with
the plan he presented. Mr. Shickedantz said he is concerned that, if the plan gets approved as it is and it
goes to another developer, a precedent has been set that would then be difficult to reverse. He stated
that he supports the project as it is but is very much opposed to the potential that it could turn into
something very objectionable, with big office buildings along Route 20. He would prefer the plan not be
approved until it can be revised in the code of development.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Mallek said she thought the 60,000 square feet was to be spread across the three blocks.
Mr. Benish said it was a total, requiring a minimum of 10,000 and a maximum of 60,000 adding
that Mr. Shickedantz may be misinterpreting the code. He noted that the building heights were limited to
four stories.
Ms. Grant said the code stipulates a maximum of 50 feet.
Ms. Dittmar asked staff to clarify the approval process someone would go through to get that
space built up. Mr. Benish said it would be part of the site plan process as a next step in the rezoning, as
long as what is submitted is consistent with this code of development which provides the zoning. He said
those three blocks permit the office buildings, up to a maximum of 60,000 square feet. Mr. Benish stated
that the County cannot condition rezonings in the same way as a special use permit, but the parameters
are governed by the code of development, the application plan and proffers. He noted that the code of
development provides requirements for the form and density of development.
Mr. Foley commented that it is as if this property had its own zoning ordinance.
Ms. Palmer said she simply wanted to understand what would happen if this particular
development did not go through, and somebody else came along and wanted to do something else with it
such as putting up very large buildings which Mr. Shickedantz is concerned about. Mr. Benish said page
8 and 9 of the code of development indicate the maximum non-residential growth square footage is
60,000 square feet, and it must be developed in the form of the application plan which is before the Board
and is governed by these conditions within the code and the proffers that are provided. He stated that the
code of development indicates there is a maximum of 60,000 square feet, a minimum of 10,000, and
building heights for blocks A, B and C are a minimum of one and m aximum of four for blocks A and B,
and a maximum of three stories in Block C with a maximum height of 50 feet.
Ms. Palmer said the core of Mr. Shickedantz’s concern is correct because it could be developed
by somebody else if this project did not happen.
Ms. Mallek said an applicant would have to come back and get the code of development
modified, and could redefine the proffer element so it is more closely aligned to what Mr. Cetta wants and
is more specific, so that it does not come back at the site plan stage as something completely different.
Ms. Dittmar asked where the opportunity would be for residents of that area to have input if they
find something along the way to be objectionable.
Mr. Benish said, as long as the next developer builds consistent with what is in the code, the
application plan and the proffer, there is no next step and it becomes a by-right development. He said if
they wanted to do something different, in many cases that requires a rezoning. He said if it is very minor
changes, it may be subject to a variation but the types of changes being discussed would require a
rezoning. He emphasized that it is not possible for there to be three 60,000 square foot buildings on
these blocks, and explained that the maximum amount of non-residential square footage is 60,000 square
feet total. Mr. Benish added that it is his intent is to work with Mr. DeNunzio on the speed limit and the
Board can request a speed study but he had planned to do some background work on that prior to it
going forward.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Cetta to comment on Mr. Shickedantz’s concerns.
Mr. Cetta said the current Comprehensive Plan designation is primarily residential with some
mixed-use elements, and that is what he has in mind for this development because it will work best with
sm all pieces. He stated that he really pacified the County by offering commercial, and is prepared to
reduce it. Mr. Cetta said Susan Stimart has brought several people to the site, but no one has come
forward with a plan for commercial there. He said he is prepared, if necessary, to reduce the height and
the footage. He explained that what is being proffered is a block plan. He further stated that, two years
earlier, it was a concept plan that was approved, however, if there were any changes, they would have to
come back to the Board so this is much more flexible.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Ms. Dittmar asked how Mr. Cetta came up with the 60,000. Mr. Cetta responded that Ms. Elaine
Echols of the Planning staff and Ms. Grant guided him in that decision and his intent is not to develop that
much commercial but, if the right business came along, he would consider a way to accommodate it.
Ms. Mallek said going from a concept plan to a block plan is very helpful from his perspective, but
it also increases the anxiety of everyone around because of the uncertainty as to what it is going to look
like.
Ms. Dittmar said it is more the siting that is the issue, and she wondered if there were checks and
balances which might address that. Mr. Cetta said the commercial currently does not back up to Mr.
Shickedantz’s parcel, but the plan is flexible when compared to a project like Out o f Bounds, which
cannot be changed.
Ms. Grant pointed out on a map the possibilities for non-residential and noted that it loops around.
Mr. Benish said he was trying to think of a multi-story building that was 60,000 square feet, and
said that the Joyner building in Crozet was about 40,000 squ are feet for all three floors. He said a
grocery store now runs about 60,000 square feet. He stated that it could be one tall building with all the
square footage, but this also gives them the option of a combination of buildings.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would have control over that. Mr.
Cetta said the ARB would, because both roads have Entrance Corridor designation.
Ms. Palmer said the County cannot protect for everything, but this sounds pretty reasonable to
her.
Mr. Boyd asked if the proffers exclude retail the way they are written now. Ms. Grant responded
that the proffers do not.
Mr. Benish said the proffers provide for various retail including restaurants.
Mr. Boyd commented that it was wise for the Board to change the process and pr ovide some
flexibility because it created a lot of work for everyone to have to bring these back just to change minor
aspects of the development, such as the Old Trail item on the Board’s Consent Agenda earlier.
Ms. Mallek said this development did have a good public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Ms. Palmer said the new method creates more uncertainty on the part of the neighbors.
Ms. Dittmar said it may be the lack of communication that does not come from having a
streamlined process, not the vagaries of what someone might do.
Ms. Mallek said the issue which continues to arise is what constitutes compliance, i.e., accord,
general accord, and significant accord and what has been the most problematic is with general accord.
Ms. Dittmar moved that the Board adopt Ordinance No. 14-A to approve ZMA 2013-00017,
Spring Hill Village, including Sheets 1-3 of the Application Plan, dated October 21, 2013, Sheets 1 and 3
last revised August 29, 2014 and Sheet 2 last revised July 7, 2014; the Code of Development, dated
October 16, 2013, last revised August 28, 2014; and the Proffers, dated September 29, 2014.. Ms.
Mallek seconded the motion.
Ms. Dittmar commented that she was reassured because of the ARB’s scrutiny and also her
observations of Mr. Cetta’s ability to work with neighborhoods.
Roll was then 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.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 14-A(3)
ZMA 2013-00017
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBER 09000-00-00-02800
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000-00-
00-02800 (the “Property”) is identified as ZMA 2013-00017, Spring Hill Village (“ZMA 2013-00017”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Residential (R-1); and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2013-00017 proposes to rezone the Property to Neighborhood Model District
(NMD) with proffers, an application plan, and a code of development, to allow a mixed -use development
that is primarily residential in character; and
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2013-00017, provided that technical revisions were made to the proffers,
application plan, and code of development and, more specifically, including the recommendation that
Proffer 4 be amended regarding improvements to Scottsville Road and Avon Street Extended; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on ZMA 2013-00017.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the executive summary and staff report prepared for ZMA 2013 -00017 and their
attachments, including the proffers, the application plan, and the code of development, 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 2013-00017 with the proffers dated September 29, 2014, Sheets 1 through 3 of the
application plan entitled “NMD Rezoning Application Plan Spring Hill Village Albemarle County, Virginia,”
Sheets 1 and 3 last revised August 29, 2014, Sheet 2 last revised July 7, 2014, and the code of
development entitled “Spring Hill Village ZMA # 2013-00017,” last revised August 28, 2014, and the
zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000-00-00-02800 is amended accordingly.
(The proffers are set out below:)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
_____
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
(Application Plan, Sheet 1-3 are set out below:)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
(Code of Development set out below:)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Update on meeting with Planning Commission leadership.
Ms. Dittmar said she and Ms. McKeel met with the Chair of the Planning Commission to learn
about the Hollymead project and to potentially work on ways to better coordinate projects. She stated
that Mac Lafferty, Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission, attended along with County staff Wayne
Cilimberg and Greg Kamptner. Ms. Dittmar said the Sinclair decision required the Planning Commission
to function in a role that is solely advisory in cases where the Board makes the final decision. She stated
that the group also looked at the theoretical relationship between Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors as it is taught in public administration classes. She stated that, in a textbook she has, it says
if a Planning Commission is not weighted with so m any things to consider, that is a wonderful place to
germinate creative ideas and also for Board members to pass ideas to, to help formulate and potentially
have a public process. Ms. Dittmar said the question was posed as to when the Planning Commission
should become involved, i.e., the pre-application stage, post-application, a week before, or when an
applicant shows up at a Commission meeting but that is for Supervisors to decide, although
Commissioners are actually interested in hearing what the Board thinks about the timing of its
involvement. Ms. Dittmar said discussion on the timing at which the Board should get involved was also
brought up. She suggested Supervisors discuss what the comfort level is and reflect on what is being
asked of the Planning Commission as far as its role, and solicit input from long-time Board members, Ms.
Mallek and Mr. Boyd.
Ms. Dittmar asked fellow Supervisors at what point Supervisors felt most comfortable getting
involved in a project with an applicant.
Ms. Mallek said it varies from project to project, because there are projects she has heard about
over the last several years which still have not come forward because they are still in the idea stage. She
said the word will get out and people get worried, so they contact their Supervisor, and she will follow up
and ask questions of the potential applicant. Ms. Mallek said she will often talk with her Planning
Commissioner, Tom Loach, because he knows what is going on.
Mr. Boyd said his interaction is also determined on a case by case basis, but his philosophy has
been to not overly influence his Commissioner, adding that he looks to the Planning Commission as a
good sounding board. He stated that the Board has held joint meetings with the Planning Commission
and the ARB in the past in which roles have been discussed so this is another Groundhog Day for him to
go through this process again. Mr. Boyd said he understands that new Board members have not been
through it, but it has been discussed before. He stated that the last time this type of meeting was held,
there was more strife between the ARB and the Planning Commission at the time, but each group is
independent in its role. Mr. Boyd said he values those opinions and felt it was good to have the process
in place and to have public hearings, but it is pretty common for people to want to appeal it to the Board
as it has been the Board’s role in the past to be the appeal level and the decision-makers. He said the
Sinclair case related to an agency which tried to establish in Northern Virginia, but lost in a court case
because it was determined that they were a non-elected body that could not make legislative decisions.
Mr. Boyd said he does not try to influence what his Commissioner, Cal Morris, decides and then he
weighs what he says and makes up his own mind as the elected official. He stated that he tries not to
influence Mr. Morris by getting involved in projects which are going to the Planning Commission, but
sometimes he does because the applicant will request him to do so.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
Ms. Mallek said, at that stage, it is just a matter of looking at plans and not weighing in.
Mr. Boyd said, in his 11 years on the Board, it is very rare that he ever went back to Mr. Morris
and instructed him to vote one way or another.
Ms. McKeel said, as a new Board member, she is most comfortable letting the process work
through the Planning Commission first. She noted that she meets with Mac Lafferty once a month to chat
about projects and share information, which has been very valuable to her. Ms. McKeel stated that she
reads the Planning Commission minutes very thoroughly and prefers that Commissioners see projects
before she gets involved.
Mr. Sheffield said his experience with Bruce Dotson has been that they do not really talk about
projects and he does not try to influence a decision until after the fact when it is coming to the Board to
review what the Commission has already seen. He stated that, when they do meet, they tend to talk
more about general philosophy and direction and policy. He stated that he tries to ensure that he is
looking at the same thing his Planning Commissioner has looked at so he is being advised on the same
materials the Board is seeing.
Ms. Palmer said her Planning Commissioner, Karen Firehock, is a professional planner and
formerly served on the City Planning Commission so she has a lot of experience. Ms. Palmer said she
relies heavily on Ms. Firehock’s opinion, and they have talked a lot about the Comprehensive Plan. She
said they do not meet every month but have met more than once and frequently have email
conversations. Ms. Palmer said she finds land use planning to be challenging sometimes, and relies on
the Planning Commission because the Board cannot do everything. She added that her decisions are
much better having been vetted by the Commission, and she looked specifically for a Commissioner who
was a professional so she could rely on them.
Mr. Boyd said Cal Morris is a neighbor, and they used to meet a lot when they were walking their
dogs but he never really tried to influence him.
Ms. Dittmar said, after she was elected, she met with Mr. Cilimberg and asked him what the
appropriate place would be for her to interject herself into the process. She said his advice to her was to
be cautious about revealing enthusiasm for a project, so it cannot be couched as support for the project
before it is brought forth. Ms. Dittmar said she met with her Commissioner, Rick Randolph, and decided
that the best place for her to start would be at a community meeting in which s he would listen. She said
she has only been to one Planning Commission meeting, but it was for a huge project for which she
wanted to hear everything said and how it was said, not just reading about it in the minutes. Ms. Dittmar
said the only influence she has tried to exercise is telling Mr. Randolph to ensure that people who are
impacted by a project be included in the process.
Ms. Dittmar stated that there are four general ways in which the Planning Commiss ion might treat
a project: the Commission does not approve which lets the applicant know there is currently not enough
to fix it at the Commission level, and there are a lot of things they might need to do; the next level is that
the project is generally good, but there are a few things which are not quite right and perhaps need to be
changed before it goes to the Board; the third level is a project that is so good it will get unanimous
approval and should go forward as is. Ms. Dittmar said the two in between are situations the Commission
wants the Board to explore because, if the Commission suggests a lot of conditions and the applicant
decides to take his chances and appeal it to the Board without changes, the question is how the Board
will react to that. She said another question is whether the Commission should be specific ab out the
changes, or whether it should give the applicant objectives to satisfy, ask them to work with staff and then
have them come with what the changes should be, and also ask staff to explain to the Board how things
got from one point to the next. She asked how the Board felt about these two situations with applicants.
Ms. Mallek said the applicants come to the Board regardless, and the Board studies and
evaluates and makes a decision because the Commission certainly works very hard but it is not their job
to decide. She said, over the last seven and one-half years, there have been several projects that have
been tremendously improved between the Commission and the Board levels, and were able to move
forward; however, some have failed at the Board level even though they were overwhelmingly a pproved
at the Commission level and that would never change in her mind. She said the Board should not expect
to look at every single change that comes along in between the Commission and the Board, because that
would be redundant and overly taxing to the applicant. Ms. Mallek said she has no prediction whatsoever
about what the Board would do about anything, even things she thought were a done deal ended up
going down in flames. She said there are things learned at the Planning Commission level which give
neighbors a warm-up to learn the story of the project and be able to practice their view before coming to
the Board for its involvement.
Mr. Boyd said, in 2002, before he was sworn in as a Supervisor, North Point languished at the
Board level for a very long time and never went back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said North Point was referred back to the Commission twice in its lifetime, but the
last time it was with the Board, it was there for quite a while.
Mr. Boyd said Biscuit Run is another example of a development which took a long time, and most
of those proffers were worked out at the Board level, not at the Planning Commission. He said he agreed
with Ms. Mallek that the judiciary has said the Commission is not the ultimate decision-maker, the Board
is.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
Mr. Sheffield said his own position may have been misinterpreted because he is really looking to
the Planning Commission to weigh in on information that he would be weighing in on, and it disturbs him
that an application is changing when it comes to the Board. He said he looks to his Commissioner for
advice on the complete package and, if an applicant wants to make the changes that the Commission
recommends, he expects it to go back to the Commission to make sure it is meeting expectations. He
stated that, if the applicant decides to go forward without making recommended changes, then that is fine
as well.
Ms. McKeel stated that, in the meeting she and Ms. Dittmar had, it was determined that there is
some middle ground somewhere, and she liked the idea of having some guidelines to differentiate what
constitutes substantive changes so, if there are specific changes that need to be addressed, the applicant
would have to go back to the Commission before coming to the Board. Ms. McKeel said Mr. Cilimberg
and Mr. Kamptner suggested there be a list of what those substantive changes might be, and she liked
that idea because it addresses Mr. Sheffield’s concerns and, at times, is fine for the Board to go ahead
and see it.
Ms. Palmer said she is not a planner and, using Hollymead as an example, the congestion issue
was not addressed and she was unable to tell if the change the builder made corrected the problem
because she does not have the expertise to make that determination. She said a congestion issue would
be substantive in her mind, and she would feel a lot more comfortable if those substantive cases went
back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Dittmar said, with the Hollymead situation, the Commission was very specific on how to fix
what needed to be changed, and usually they would be more general and the specificity of the request
be handled with staff and the Planning Commissioner of record in between, so the comfort level may be
sufficient for the Board to move forward. Ms. Dittmar said that lets the applicant know if there is major
concern on the part of the Planning Commission. She said she respects the Planning Commission’s
expertise collectively enough that, if the applicant moves forward to get a Board vote without addressing
the issues, there is great risk of it being returned. She stated that sh e was under the impression the
Commissioners did site visits, but has found out that some never go onsite. She said, when she learned
that Commissioners did not do site visits, it lessened the weight of its comments in her mind.
Mr. Boyd said his day started at 5:00 a.m., and it was almost 9:00 p.m. which is when the Board
had said it would wind up the discussion.
Ms. Dittmar said the Board is not only having this discussion for themselves and the Commission,
but for the applicants so there can be clarity in moving forward.
Ms. McKeel said Mac Lafferty and Cal Morris had stated very clearly that their current workload
allowed lots of opportunities, and they would be more than happy to review anything the Board would
send back to them.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board took the Commissioners up on that at its meeting the previous night.
Ms. Dittmar said the Commission also recommended that new Board members understand the
streamline process which was adopted two years ago. She said Supervisors may want to take a project
in their district to see how it works in practice. She said she would summarize what the Board discussed
here, and get it back to the Board before sharing it with the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission would talk the following Tuesday, so any notes the Board
would have by then would be good.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Establishment of Economic Development Office.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the FY15 Budget includes
funding for the establishment of an Economic Development Office to include a new full time Director
position and a new half time administrative support position in addition to the existing Economic
Development Facilitator position. On August 13, 2014, the Board discussed overall direction for the
program, high level priorities, and desired initial outcomes for the Office prior to beginning the hiring
process for the new Director position. The Board also directed staff to proceed with holding a
stakeholders roundtable in September to obtain additional input on the high level priorities. Feedback
from the Board and from the community stakeholders has been incorporated into the revised program
component priority list, which will be presented to the Board for final direction on October 8th.
Staff provided a preliminary prioritization of major program components of the Economic
Development Office for the Office’s first two to three years to the Board on August 13, 2014. Board
members provided comments, which have been incorporated into the revised program in the following
ways:
Agribusiness has been removed as a separate program component and is included
under Existing Business Retention/Expansion, specifically mentioned as part of the focus
on target markets.
Real Estate Development/Redevelopment is added as a program component to create
additional emphasis on the importance of this work.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
Some potential goals and strategies have been added to the program component
descriptions to provide preliminary thought as to how the Office work plan will be shaped
when the new Director is in place.
A complete summary of the roundtable is provided as Attachment A. While there was no
direction from the group that the priority areas should be changed or the percentages adjusted,
comments from the group are recorded and will be incorporated in future planning for the Office as
appropriate, including comments related to the desired skill set for the Director.
Revised Economic Development Office Priority Program Components:
The revised program components are set forth in Attachment B. Considering the feedback of the
Board and the stakeholders' roundtable, staff proposes the following allocation of emphasis (represented
by the indicated percentages) during the first 18 – 24 months after the Office is established:
Existing Business Retention/Expansion - 50% of office focus
New Business Start Ups - 25% of office focus
Workforce Development - 10% of office focus
Real Estate Development/Redevelopment - 10% of office focus
Business Attraction - 5% of office focus
Key Director Skill Sets:
As part of the initial steps of the Economic Development Director hiring process, a number of key
skill sets were identified and shared with the Board during earlier discussions. This list is being provided
for any further guidance from the Board.
Ability to articulate clear vision for economic development that is compatible with
County’s character/ priorities as established in the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan familiarity
Financial expertise including construction financing, loans, business pro formas, incentive
packages, etc.
Knowledge of and sensitivity to environmental considerations
Successful formation of public/private partnerships
Demonstrated track record in existing business retention/expansion
Significant real estate development and redevelopment experience
Familiarity with entrepreneurial environment, business start-up culture
Ability to build consensus among diverse groups and individuals
The FY15 Budget provides an increase of $155,000 to establish t he new Economic Development
Office for a total budget amount of $262,089.
Staff recommends that the Board provide final feedback on the recommended prioritization of the
program components and the proposed key Director skill sets.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin addressed the Board, stating that, in August she, came before the Board to talk
about the establishment of the Economic Development Office, the overall direction for the program, high-
level priorities, and desired outcomes for the office as well as the hiring process. She said, at that point,
the Board directed staff to have a discussion with stakeholders and, as a result, staff received good
feedback on the process. Ms. Catlin said she would provide that feedback into what is being presented
now: the Board talked about agri-business being removed as a separate program component because it
was more of a sector than a component, and that is being rolled under the existing business retention and
expansion area specific to the County’s focus on target markets. She said Supervisors mentioned that
real estate development/redevelopment should be added as a program component because, while it is
implied in both the existing business and business attraction area, it is such an important element that it
needed some additional em phasis. Ms. Catlin said the Board also gave staff some feedback on potential
goals and strategies, which staff has added to the program component descriptions, to provide some
preliminary thought as to how the work plan will be shaped once the new director is in place. She said a
summary of the roundtable was attached to her report adding that it was a very good group with diverse
perspectives, adding that they added a lot of value to the discussion and were engaged in the topic. Ms.
Catlin said, while there was no specific direction from the group which caused staff to change the priority
areas or the percentages, there was no consensus from the group that anything was “wrong” in that way
and the comments captured from them would be very important in the future planning for the office, such
as director skill set.
Ms. Catlin reported that business retention and expansion was the bulk of what this office would
do, and the stakeholders felt this was something which needed to be in the forefront of the discussion of
economic development and, as such, 50% was felt to be a reasonable level of focus for the office. She
said new business startups also generated a lot of discussion, and there was recognition that that is an
area for which there is real asset opportunity with at least 25% of time to be spent on helping new
ventures grow into successful local businesses, and to develop a more focused partnership with UVA and
other entrepreneurial entities which would help new companies start up, take root and stay here as they
grow. She said the next area of focus was workforce development, which was second after existing
business in terms of discussion at the stakeholder roundtable and has been a topic in the community and
at the recent Chamber of Comm erce Job Action session. Ms. Catlin said the Board also talked about this
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
topic at its last meeting, and felt workforce was a really important foundational component. However, she
reported that the stakeholder group felt that area did not require more than 10% of the Economic
Development Office’s time because there were already a lot of efforts underway in the community, so the
role of the office would be more of facilitator and catalyst.
Ms. Catlin said staff added a new category, based on discussions with the Board that were
reinforced by stakeholders: identifying and positioning appropriately zoned land to support business
expansion and relocation, which was deemed to be really critical to the success of existing businesses
and any new enterprises that are appropriate to come into the County. Ms. Catlin said redevelopment
and repurposing of existing land and buildings is another important part of this. She stated that previously
developed properties – especially commercial and industrial – can be affected by outdated or run-down
structures, environmental contamination, and other development constraints. She noted that the
application from Mr. Cetta is an example of how complex this is, as the site was something promising as
an LI site, from an economic development perspective with criteria such as the surrounding environment
being somewhat compatible with an industrial profile, proximity to the interstate interchange, and
neighbors with competing interests. Ms. Catlin emphasized that, as the County thinks about the reality of
LI in the development areas – which is where it wants to be – that is what the County will face, so it will
need the expertise and skill set to work through those complexities. She noted that , in looking at many
different site possibilities, there were many landowners who were not interested in being re-designated,
and there were sites that the Commission found to be unacceptable for one reason or another , so this is
not easy, quick stuff to do. She said identifying the fact the County needs to have a focus on the
assessment of existing sites, buildings and new options is important. Ms. Catlin said business attraction
was not intended to be a major focus of this office, but the County cannot ignore the fact that it is
important for it to be on the radar for prospects that meet the criteria the County feels are acceptable, and
fill the gaps when companies close or leave.
Ms. Catlin referenced the director’s skill set in the Board’s executiv e summary, noting that staff
have talked with stakeholders about this as well. She said the priority skills identified were: a clear vision
for economic development that is compatible with Albemarle County’s character and priorities as
established in the Comprehensive Plan; Comprehensive Plan familiarity; financial expertise; knowledge
and sensitivity to environmental considerations; successful formation of public and private partnerships; a
track record in business retention and expansion; real estate development and redevelopment skill set;
familiarity with an entrepreneurial environment; and the ability to build consensus and partnerships. Ms.
Catlin thanked those in the audience who were part of the stakeholders group and said she appreciated
their involvement. She said the hiring process milestones were: August 13, the Board provides some
initial guidance on the priorities; September, stakeholder roundtable and public education session;
October 8, final guidance from the Board; October and November, advertisement and initial review
process as a first sort as to who met the minimum criteria; early December, initial interviews with a team
consisting of both County staff and outside individuals – Helen Cauthen, John Lowery, Morgan Butler,
and the Chamber of Commerce; early to mid-January, finalists visit and meet with business
representatives as well as Assistant County Executives; formal interview of top two candidates with
County Executive; late January, recommended candidate meets with Board Chair and Vice-Chair; early
February, Board will take action on the recommended candidate.
Mr. Boyd said he was not sure about the list of assets on the website. He said he was not sure
the subset of County attributes and assets were being presented well and would like that to be a focus of
the office.
Ms. Palmer said she did not have any problem with that, but it was for attracting businesses to
the area, and that was 5% of this individual’s job.
Mr. Boyd said existing companies would also look at this in terms of employment opportunities
and workforce.
Ms. Mallek said when existing companies want to expand, which Rivanna Station representatives
talked about, they still have to persuade people to move here and work for them, or to relocate from
another installation.
Ms. Mallek asked what the Economic Development Office would do with a situation like the
ACME site in Crozet, which has been under remediation for 10 years, to become usable. Ms. Catlin said
the office would need to have discussions with the property owner regarding what they wou ld be willing to
see on the property, what the property would be conducive for as a site, what assets are nearby, what
industries are looking to expand in the timeframe that the property is going to come on, and whether there
is utility or transportation work that needed to be done prior to the site being usable.
Ms. Mallek said one of the factors has been that startups get purchased by a bigger company,
and relocate elsewhere. Ms. Catlin said that is a good point. She added that they also leave because the
workforce is not here so the workforce piece is crucial in not having them leave and go to Richmond or
another area.
Board members agreed that they were ready to move forward.
Mr. Foley said staff has gone through an extensive process in getting to this point, so they have
gotten good direction and had enough to move on.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
Ms. Mallek said she would prefer the closed meeting with the candidate involve the full Board, not
just the Chair and Vice-Chair.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC) Transfer Station Viability.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that at its regular meeting on August
6, 2014, the Board considered three possible scenarios regarding the near -term continued use of the Ivy
Materials Utilization Center (MUC) for waste disposal (Attachment A). One of those scenarios, requiring
the transfer of property control from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) to the County, was
eliminated from further consideration by the Board at that time. The remaining two scenarios left open
the question of whether the Ivy MUC would continue to be operated as a transfer station or would instead
be converted to a convenience center. A significant distinction between the two options is that a t ransfer
station requires a permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) while the operation
of a convenience center does not.
The current transfer station is operated by the RSWA under a permit issued by the DEQ. The
facility is out of compliance with regulations governing transfer stations and DEQ has directed RSWA to
either bring the facility into compliance by July 1, 2015 or otherwise submit to DEQ for review and
approval a written plan detailing how the RSWA (and/or the County) intends to achieve compliance with
respect to all relevant solid waste regulations. Such plan must be submitted to DEQ no later than April 1,
2015.
In April, 2014, the Board created a Long Term Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee and
established its Charge (Attachment B). While the Charge is broad in nature, it expressly excludes the
Committee’s consideration of current disposal practices at the Ivy MUC.
At its meeting on September 23, 2014, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee approved the following motions:
The Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee requests that County staff
develop a draft Scope of Work for consulting services necessary to support the
Committee in satisfying the Charge approved by the Board of Supervisors. It is the intent
of the Committee to review and approve a draft Scope of Work before sending it to the
Board of Supervisors for consideration and action.
The Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee requests that County staff
develop a draft Scope of Work for consulting services to support staff and the Committee
in the identification of possible locations for a future Transfer Station and/or Clean
Material Reclamation Facility in the County and/or region. The evaluation of potential
locations should focus on the cost/benefit to haulers, the tipping fee assumed necessary
for the facility to be self-supporting, the tipping fee assumed necessary to compete
effectively for material volume (tonnage) within the region, and other appropriate
considerations of compelling importance. It is the intent of the Committee to review and
approve a draft Scope of Work before sending it to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration and action.
Because the Committee would require some time to develop and recommend draft scopes of
work as requested in its two motions, and with the approaching April 1, 2015 deadline for RSWA to
submit to DEQ a plan for regulatory compliance, the Board’s liaison to the Committee has indicated an
interest in expediting an evaluation of the economic viability of operating an upgraded transfer station at
the Ivy MUC specifically and identifying the primary factors that must be considered in the evaluation.
This evaluation could help the Board decide whether to continue the operation of the Ivy MUC as a
transfer station or convert the facility for use as a convenience center. A scope of work has been provided
by Draper Aden Associations for consideration by the County. (Attachment C).
Based on the proposal provided, it is anticipated that the work would not exceed $4,500. If
approved, funding for this project would come from the Ivy Landfill Remediation project in the Capital
Program Fund.
If the Board supports the use of a consultant for the purposes set forth in the attached scope of
work or as otherwise modified, staff recommends that Draper Aden Associates (DAA) be retained as the
consultant to perform the work. DAA is already engaged with the County and possesses considerable
relevant information necessary to complete the work efficiently.
_____
Mr. Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that the County is
currently at a deadline for making a decision with regard to the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC), and
this is the short-term decision as to whether it should continue to opera te as a transfer station, or be
converted for use as a convenience center. Mr. Walker said the decision needed to be made in
conjunction with giving notice to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by April 1, of the
County’s intentions to bring it into compliance as a transfer station, if that is the direction the County
needs to go. He said, at the Board’s meeting in August, Supervisors were presented with three
scenarios: have the County control the property; have the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA)
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
continue to control the property and operate the transfer station; and have RSWA continue to control the
property and operate it as a convenience center. Mr. Walker said, at that meeting, the Board eliminated
the first scenario but kept the other two on the table. He said this is happening simultaneously with the
work of the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory Committee (LRSWAC) and that group has been very
active in working to satisfy its charge, has participated in making comments to the Board in the context of
its Comprehensive Plan which has now gone back to the Planning Commission, is getting ready to bring
the Board a draft of a proposed public engagement plan, and has most r ecently asked staff to help
develop two scopes of work for technical support it feels is necessary to flesh out the opportunities and
options which might be available for the long-term future of solid waste in the County. Mr. Walker said, in
the course of that, there is still the issue of the use of Ivy and finding the fine line between the short-term
issues and the longer-term issues has been a challenge. He said what has been offered to the Board is a
proposal to engage in a very specific additional study of the Ivy MUC to answer two specific questions
viewed as being helpful to the Board in making a decision about the short-term future of Ivy: is the Ivy
MUC economically viable as a transfer station; if not, what are the factors that inform that conclusion, i.e.
what is it about Ivy that makes it or does not make it viable. Mr. Walker noted that this analytical piece is
a bit different than the engineering analysis brought to them in August. He said the County is looking at
about $7,500 to take a specific look at the project for that purpose.
Ms. Palmer, who serves as liaison for the LRSWAC, stated that what she wanted to make sure
the committee did was to try to answer all the questions the Committee needs to have in order to make
the decision on the Ivy transfer station when it is brought back to the Board. She said the committee has
been very active in helping her come up with those questions. She said there are some bigger policy
issues that the Board has never discussed, and those have come out in the context of the committee
discussions, and this has driven the Committee to determine what the questions are. Ms. Palmer said the
Committee has the 2012 Draper Aden engineering report, but what they really need is more of an
economic analysis. She reported that there is a company that does that type of analysis – GBB – who did
the 2007 strategic plan for the RSWA. She noted that the committee is recommending Draper Aden
subcontract with GBB, with the two consulting firms working together to get these last questions
answered. She stated that she wanted very much to have the consultants sit down at a kick-off meeting
to talk with committee members, and noted that they have a subcommittee working to try to flesh out all
the questions and get those answered. She said, if they cannot get them answered in that amount of
time, with that much money, then they could determine what else it needs to know. She said what they
have now is a subcommittee that is more of a technical group to look at the transfer station issue , i.e., two
engineers from UVA, a retired hauler, a former RSWA employee and an industry professional. Ms.
Palmer said she is hoping to have Ivy transfer station operator, Mark Brownley, get involved to ensure
they have fleshed out these questions going forward. Ms. Palmer said she called GBB earlier to make
sure they are going over some of the changes and try to make sure they are answering the necessary
questions. She said the GBB Representative said he could do that within the new scope of $7,500. She
stated that, in November, there was an agenda item to discuss the committee and their consultant
services, and her hope was to get a discussion on the table for December regarding some of these bigger
policy questions. She noted that she did not feel the Board had properly assessed the impact of the
public interest.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Walker if staff was recommending use of Draper Aden at a cost of $4,500.
Mr. Walker said that was in the information provided; the recommendation is to use them because they
are already engaged and also because of the significant material they already have available. Since that
information went out, he said there has been further conversation between Draper Aden and GBB to
bring in an economic analysis component that would raise the cost from $4,500 to $7,000.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this would allow the Board to make a better short-term decision by the
deadline of April 1st. Mr. Walker said the information provided would be directly related to the decision the
Board needs to make about the near-term future of the Ivy transfer station.
Ms. Mallek said the Board was told that the question was the economic analysis at a cost of
$4,500 and she did not understand why GBB was going to be hired at the additional cost. She stated that
she thought GBB was going to be hired from the very beginning. Ms. Palmer explained that this is what
the Committee was working on and, when staff got it together, it did not come out with the economic
analysis. She said she had several discussions with a variety of people about what specifically was
needed, and the Committee was going to go with Draper Aden because they are already on retention.
Ms. Mallek asked if Draper Aden was not able to answer the Board’s questions. Ms. Palmer said
Draper Aden can answer some questions, but they work with GBB quite frequently. She said the
individual from GBB has said it is a good idea to have Draper Aden there to refer back to some of the
engineering questions. She explained that the Committee is trying to get all the questions on the table in
order to make a decision and to ferret out what the Board needs to know. She said, in the meantime, the
Board needs to have a policy discussion. Ms. Palmer said the long-term is a much bigger question, and
there are a lot of facets to that, but it is very hard to make a decision on the short-term without
understanding whether the Board wants a transfer station in the County. She said that is the policy
question which she would like to discuss in December, but the Board must know the cost of all these
things. She said the County does not want to invest a lot of money in Ivy and then turn around in a few
years and find out the Board is going to do something else.
Ms. Dittmar said she feels big pressure not to delay a decision, and asked what the timeline was
for getting a report back from Draper Aden and GBB. Mr. Walker said, if the Board approves this tonight,
it could be back at the Board’s meeting on November 5.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms. Palmer said the only thing that would change that is the timing of the meeting with the
consultant.
Mr. Walker stated that, if Committee comments drive the scope in a different direction, it would
have to come back to the Board.
Several Board members expressed confusion about that point.
Ms. Palmer said the Committee has not been able to meet with the consultant because they have
not been paid, which was not in the scope of service that was in the Board packets. She said there would
not be a change, but perhaps an addition, and that would come back to the Board.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the consultant was making the decision about economic viability, or if they
are simply providing the Board with information. Ms. Palmer replied that they were getting the information
for the Board to make a decision, adding that this is more about how far the Board wants to go with the
discussion but she is trying to get this on the table so the Committee can proceed.
Mr. Boyd said he was opposed to this particular approach and was not in favor of spending
additional money. He emphasized that he got all the information he needed from the last study, from the
last investment by the Board and from staff. He said he believes the previous Board’s decision was still
valid. Ms. Palmer said she was also hoping that the Board could get a discussion on the table in
December which included policy issues that were not discussed in the past.
Mr. Boyd said he predicted hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in expenditures with
this line of thought.
Ms. Mallek said it depends on what the operations model is, because the Board has not been
able to think outside the box on that.
Mr. Boyd said he knows Ivy has outdated equipment and facilities, and moving ahead with the
transfer station at Ivy would cost $2-3 million in the long run.
Ms. Dittmar said if the Board gets this back in November, it can make a decision in December.
Mr. Walker said the action would be to approve the work of Draper Aden as indicated in the
scope presented, along with additional work by GBB to complement the work.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board would then be able to make a decision in December.
Ms. Mallek said Supervisors may have a recommendation to discuss in November, but may want
time to stew about it.
Ms. Palmer said she would prefer the Board take the time to stew about it, so she has time to
present some of the policy issues which the Board has never discussed.
Mr. Foley said, if the decision is limited to the short-term solution, the Board can probably make a
decision in December. He said, however, if it gets tied up in a longer-term discussion, it may take longer.
Ms. Mallek said all previous thoughts have been based on cost and that is how the decision was
made. She noted that she would be very frustrated if it turned out to be the sa me information the Board
has received in the past.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she would not mind having the ability to discuss implications along with
making a decision.
Mr. Boyd said the only new information he has heard from the previous discussions concerns
dead animals, and he would hate to base a multi-million dollar decision on how the County disposes of
dead animals.
Ms. Palmer said there are much larger issues than the disposal of dead animals.
Ms. Palmer moved to approve the allocation of funds of up to $7,500 to Draper Aden for
additional studies for the Ivy MUC. 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.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Route 29 Matters.
a. Consideration of Ashwood Boulevard and Hollymead Connectors.
b. Best Buy Ramp, wall treatment.
c. Resolution regarding Berkmar Drive alignment.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board, stating that he did
not have any information on the Best Buy Ramp. He indicated that Board members had seen the wall
treatment so he would only need confirmation as to what the Board prefers.
Ms. McKeel moved to support the sound wall treatment as presented in the depiction by Joel
DeNunzio of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) with color matching the project at McIntire
Road. 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.
_____
Mr. Graham stated that the one resolution he needed was for the Berkmar alignment which is to
be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).
Mr. Boyd moved to adopt the proposed resolution regarding the alignment of Berkmar Drive. 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.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
FOR BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENDED – ALIGNMENT A
WHEREAS Albemarle County included an extension of Berkmar Drive from Hilton Heights Road
to Town Center Boulevard in its Comprehensive Plan as a priority road improvement with the Places 29
Master Plan; and
WHEREAS the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved a Route 29 Solutions Package
on June 18, 2014, which included this extension of Berkmar Drive; and
WHEREAS the Virginia Department of Transportation received public comment on a preferred
alignment for this extension of Berkmar Drive as part of a location public hearing held on September 18,
2014; and
WHEREAS the public comments received by the Virginia Department of Transportation on the
location for the extension of Berkmar Drive overwhelmingly supported “Alignment A” of the three
presented alternatives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby fully endorses and supports Alignment A, as presented by the Virginia Department of
Transportation, for Berkmar Drive Extended;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
respectfully requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to approve Alignment A for design and
construction.
_____
Mr. Graham stated that consideration of Ashwood Boulevard and Hollymead connectors is a
follow-up from the previous week when the Board was prepared to direct MPO members to support the
connections with Ashwood and Hollymead to Berkmar extended. He provided a copy of a memo to Mr.
Foley outlining staff’s analysis and recommendation, which is to make the connection a multi-purpose
path. He said he left it as vehicular access because that is what the master plan calls for, but with the
option of going to a path connection.
Mr. Sheffield said, based on input from town hall meetings over the last week, his only concern is
there seems to be some other ancillary issues – Berkmar/Rio, Hillsdale/Rio – and he is concerned that
this project might take money away from those potential projects.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could propose it as a road or alternatively a multi-purpose path. Ms.
Mallek said, at the one meeting she attended, there was no interest in a street but huge interest in a bike
and pedestrian trail. She stated that the bike-ped path for Ashwood could go right under the feet of radio
towers and connect those travelers on the east side on the multi-modal trail across and get them to
Berkmar so they can move more safely down to Rio and down the parkway to town.
Mr. Boyd said his impression was the exact opposite, with lots of interest in a street and a
minority who opposed it.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
Ms. McKeel said she attended a meeting there and did not hear a huge outcry, adding that the
Board has a letter from the Forest Lakes Community Association in which they do not support a street.
Mr. Boyd said he cannot put a lot of stock in what the Association’s President, Scott Eliff, says,
and he wonders if there was even a vote taken on that.
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Sheffield’s issue is very important as those high-traffic interchanges would
need to be dealt with.
Mr. Sheffield said people have been starting to question these ancillary issues which are being
unaddressed by VDOT at this time; the primary one being Berkmar and Rio. He said there was growing
concern that the Rio intersection is not going to be able to handle the traffic flow. He said there is
concern about traffic falling onto Hillsdale and Rio, and the Board needs to take stock on some of these
incomplete traffic functions and pieces which need to be investigated before the County can move
forward. Mr. Sheffield said he has identified 11 roads which are cut-through roads, with nine of those not
intended to be. He stated that Four Seasons and Earlysville Road are problem roads but were intended
to be cut through, and there were other ones which would need investment in order to be mitigated,
whether its Rt. 29 projects, a bypass, or anything else. He said if the County can get additional money
from VDOT, he would like to address some of the problems the County now has before creating any
more. Mr. Sheffield said, as a transportation person, he can see this working, but he is trying to prioritize
where those investments are made now. He added that he is not objecting to the projects themselves.
Mr. Graham said Mr. Sheffield is going beyond staff’s analysis of what the Comprehensive Plan
currently calls for into a policy question of where the County should prioritize its limited resources for
transportation.
Mr. Sheffield said he is frustrated because, in just the Rio District, the County needs to get its
hands around that prioritization. He said some of these projects are so small, they seem to have fallen
through the cracks of VDOT’s process, and the County has not had the resources to get its hands around
them.
Ms. Mallek said the Board could raise the County’s revenue-sharing investment to $10 million, in
addition to $10 million from the state, and start working down the list of projects.
Ms. Mallek suggested adding language in support of pedestrian and cyclist crossing, and perhaps
a sentence about a multi-use trail which would connect to Berkmar.
Mr. Boyd asked if she was proposing a change to the Comprehensive Plan, because what staff is
quoting here is the Comprehensive Plan’s call for that connection.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to see that some day, but there is not a demand for large numbers
of cars.
Mr. Boyd said he hears that a lot of people in Forest Lakes believe the Board does not speak for
them.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Supervisors could perhaps table this discussion for another time.
Mr. Sheffield agreed, adding that he was not looking to shoot it down; he is simply trying to get his
hands around things that have popped up within the last week.
Mr. Graham said there was no urgency; it is whenever the Transportation Improvement Plan
(TIP) goes back.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is not in the TIP at all. Mr. Sheffield said his other concern about a multi-
use path is VDOT’s willingness to fund those types of things. He said, with House Bill 2, VDOT is not
going to fund things like multi-use paths and those would fall to the County.
Ms. Mallek said the road would not be built as part of the Route 29 Solutions package, however, if
the connection were built, the trail section is much more likely to be done within County resources than
lots of the other projects which are higher priority.
Ms. Palmer asked if it could be stubbed-out. Mr. Sheffield said the cost would be insignificant for
them, so VDOT would have to redo it five years from now if the County were to build the road now.
Ms. Dittmar said listening to this from the perspective as a representative of the Scottsville District
and hearing that this would take money away from other things, she said the eastern side of the County
has been pretty quiet and she feels she cannot represent those constituents well if the County is going to
suck all the money out to other roads. She said this is not urgent, adding that the Board does not need to
make a decision about this tonight. She suggested the Board make a decision on it when it comes up in
the six-year plan.
Mr. Sheffield said the Board should discuss how it wants to prioritize some of these things at
some point, adding that Ashwood may very well make it to the top.
Ms. Dittmar said it would be helpful for everyone to have the bigger picture.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
Ms. Mallek said the Hollymead connector has never been discussed in the visioning plan of the
MPO, and it goes right through the middle of property that is being avoided by the current layout of
Berkmar. She stated that she would not vote in favor of putting that at the top of any list.
Mr. Sheffield emphasized that he was not looking to add anymore contention into the
transportation discussion in this community. He said he would continue to defend the County’s current
projects, however, at some point; he needed to shift his focus to the 11 roads in his district which need
attention.
Ms. Dittmar agreed that Supervisors need to prioritize, and asked Mr. Foley for some direction on
how to proceed.
Mr. Sheffield commented that the County cannot really rely on the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) as much as Supervisors might think, because the MPO is focusing on I-64
interchanges, big picture items, etc.
Ms. Mallek stated that a donated right of way would be a very easy trail to build.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar said she would be sending a survey out through Ms. Jordan to solicit feedback on
proclamations.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Supervisors are approaching town hall season, and encouraged everyone
to provide input to Ms. Catlin on their intentions.
Mr. Sheffield reported that there have been a lot of informal discussions about Supervisors
holding joint meetings, so he would be in touch with Ms. Catlin about those.
Ms. Mallek said she had finalized her dates.
Ms. Catlin said she has been working with staff to develop a ‘package of support’ which staff
could offer the Board, adding that it would be helpful to have some of the town hall meetings bundled.
_____
Mr. Sheffield stated that there are parts of the community that want investment in their areas, and
perhaps an interesting idea would be to establish a fund in which the community areas could make
application. He said, for example, there are only nine houses on Wakefield Road yet they are unable to
agree on simple ideas.
Ms. Mallek said she regrets the change in taking petitions from communities first, because if
those communities could not get it together in year one, the County should not be wasting its time on it
unless a safety issue is identified.
Mr. Foley said staff could take Mr. Sheffield’s idea and look into it. He said perhaps that is best
suited for a five-year plan discussion.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley reported that staff has invited representatives from the Thomas Jefferson Health District
Office and from the University of Virginia to the Board’s November 5 meeting to provide an overview of
what is being done to prepare for the Ebola virus in the event of a public health crisis.
Mr. Foley reported that the Joint Community Safety Advisory Committee formed by the University,
the County and the City in response to the Hannah Graham case has met recently and was planning to
meet in the next week to talk more about the charge of the c ommittee and the scope of its work. Mr.
Foley said the three executives from each entity have met and are making three appointments each with
public safety and community development staff to clarify the charge and determine the scope of the work.
He said there will be some updates in the future and those will be shared with Board members. He stated
that the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) meeting in November would also be getting an
update. Mr. Foley said there will be three appointees to that committee.
Mr. Sheffield said he may not make the PACC meeting because of the US 29 meeting.
Mr. Foley said he was just made aware of that conflict.
Ms. Dittmar mentioned that there were two potential meetings coming up before the November 5
meeting, and asked Mr. Davis how the Board should adjourn.
Mr. Foley said the business assistance meeting is similar to a VDOT gathering and is not
considered a formal meeting.
October 8, 2014 (Adjourned Meeting and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 63)
Mr. Davis said, as long as there is not an assemblage of three Board members for any
discussion, it would be a non-meeting and would, therefore, not be considered a conflict.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 06/10/2015
Initials: EWJ