2014-12-03December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle Count y, Virginia, was held on
December 3, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m., by Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Ms. McKeel asked that everyone keep the family of Dr. William Bosher in their thoughts. Dr.
Bosher, who passed away on December 1, was a former State Superintendent of Education as well as a
friend to Albemarle County educators and government.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar introduced staff present. There were no changes to the agenda.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the final agenda. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek commented that she appreciated when she opened her tax bill seeing a note from the
Finance Department related to online tax information.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said that the Town of Scottsville has a new Town Councilor – Graham Pritchard, an
immigration attorney practicing in Charlottesville. She said that in March the town is planning to hold a
sesquicentennial celebration of the Sheridan raid during the Civil War, and they will be working closely
with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) and the County to make it a
stellar event. She said that the Town of Scottsville has revitalized its Chamber of Commerce, and its
business community hopes to continue flourishing in the southern part of the County.
Ms. Dittmar also mentioned information to be distributed soon through the Clerk from the
National Association of Counties (NACO) and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) regarding
meetings related to best practices, and learning about challenges and opportunities.
Ms. Dittmar reported that Board town hall meetings are proceeding. Each Supervisor has done at
least one, with the series concluding later in December.
Ms. Mallek encouraged Board members to sign up for a VACO and/or NACO committee, stating
that it is an important and easy way to have a bigger voice for Albemarle in the development of the
legislative program. She said that if Board members are interested in a NACO committee, they need to
contact Mr. Jim Campbell in order to represent Virginia.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6a. Recognition: 2014 Virginia Association of Counties/Virginia Municipal
League (VACO/VML) Go Green Virginia Challenge Award.
Ms. Mallek read a recognition in honor of the County’s seventh consecutive year of gold-level
certification in the “Green Government Challenge,” an environmental initiative started in 2008 by the
Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties encouraging participation by counties.
She stated that the competition among local governments encourages them to implement specific
environmental policies and actions that reduce carbon emissions and help to create a certified green
government. Ms. Mallek said that local governments earn green points in categories ranging from energy
efficiency and green buildings to land use and innovation. Albemarle earned gold-level certification in
areas such as energy efficiency waste management, water and air quality, educa tion and community
participation. She stated that there were innovation credits for supporting the Local Energy Alliance
Program (LEAP), which has signed up more than 1,000 people to do energy retrofits and improvements
under the “Solarize Charlottesville” campaign.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek said that the County also received recognition for its support and adoption of an
environmental management system, environmental stewardship strategic plan, and other public outreach
efforts such as the water resources regional educational partnership. She stated that it is all about
stewardship and doing their best for the environment, taxpayers and resource protection. Ms. Mallek
thanked Mr. Shadman and Mr. Lowe for their work in achieving this award.
Mr. George Shadman and Mr. Andy Lowe, from the Department of General Services, came
forward to receive the award.
Mr. Lowe thanked the Board for its support of programs and implementation. He then asked
General Services staff to stand and be recognized because they help implement the programs on a day-
to-day basis.
Mr. Shadman said that General Services has to depend on other departments and especially the
School Division in order to achieve these goals.
Ms. Mallek added that by doing this the County is a good example for other businesses in the
area.
Ms. Dittmar said that Supervisors learned of the award the previous month at the VACO annual
meeting, and Albemarle County was held up as an example to every other county in the Commonwealth.
She added that at the VACO meeting, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Foley, Mr. Letteri and herself, went
forward to receive the award. They were very proud to accept the award on behalf of the County. She
thanked everyone in the County who participated in making this happen.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Dr. Charles Battig, White Hall District, addressed the Board, stating that climate projections are
based on what computers say will happen in the future – but the future is not well-seen by computers. Dr.
Battig pointed out the average of approximately 73 of the climate-modeling computers versus what the
temperature has actually been doing, noting that the difference is striking as the computers have failed.
He stated that according to NOAA, since 1950 they have had fewer hotter days. Since 1895 there has
been no significant trend in the state’s summertime temperature; and in Virginia, there have been no
changes in maximum temperature average over 120 years. Dr. Battig said that at Newport, the sea level
is not rising, the land is sinking due to a meteor impact from hundreds of thousands of yea rs ago. He
stated that the Wall Street Journal on November 8, 2014 says that the FCC I s targeting rural areas to
“help schools keep pace with the internet age, particularly in rural areas.” Dr. Battig said that Strategy
10C in Section 12 – Community Services – of the Comprehensive Plan says, “… require compliance
reviews with the Comp Plan for requests for fiber optic extension to and through the rural area.” He said
that as carbon is the basis of life on earth, carbon pollution is nonsense.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda (for approval).
Ms. Palmer moved to approve Items 8.1 through 8.5 on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mallek
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: November 13, 2013.
Mr. Dittmar stated that she had read the minutes of November 13, 2013 and found them to be in
order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes of November 13, 2013.
__________
Item No. 8.2. SDP-2014-00063. Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge – Special Exception.
The executive summary states that the applicant proposes to construct a 3,808 square fast food
restaurant with associated parking and access aisles at Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center on Pantops
(Attachment A). This fast food restaurant includes a drive-through window, which was approved under
SP201400004. County Code §18-4.12.17(c)(2) requires that one-way access aisles be 12 feet in width.
The applicant proposes an 11-foot-wide drive-through lane and has requested a waiver from the 12-foot
width requirement for the one-way drive-through lane.
County Code § 18-4.12.2(c)(2) allows the design requirements of County Code § 18-4.12.17 to
be waived by special exception upon considering whether the proposed waiver would equally or better
serve the public health, safety, or welfare. The applicant’s justification for the wai ver request includes: the
proposed layout has the 11-foot-wide drive through lanes adjacent to and running in the same direction
as 16-foot-wide one-way parking aisles on each side of the building, which eliminates the hazard of
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
having the drive-through aisle adjacent to opposing traffic; 9-foot-wide parallel parking spaces would be
allowed by the County Code adjacent to the 16-foot-wide parking aisles; Bojangles’ new store
construction guidelines allow for 10.5-foot-wide drive-through aisles. The ARB expressed support for a
travelway width of as little as 10.5 feet during the Special Permit process (Attachment B). According to
the applicant, this proposed layout is safer than a standard 12-foot-wide drive-through aisle adjacent to a
24-foot-wide two-way parking aisle.
The County engineer has reviewed the plan and the request for the special exception and has no
objection to the waiver. Staff opinion is that the design of the drive-through aisle would equally or better
serve the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) approving the special
exception to allow an 11-foot-wide one-way access aisle for the drive-through window.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
special exception to allow an 11-foot-wide one-way access aisle for the drive-through window:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Rivanna Ridge Charlottesville, LLC is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number
07800-00-00-073A2 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-4.12.17(c)(2) requires that one-way access aisles be 12
feet in width; and
WHEREAS, Wilgo Bo Pantops, LLC filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SDP
2014-00063, Bojangles at Rivanna Ridge, to allow an 11-foot-wide one-way access aisle for the drive-
through window as depicted on the pending site plan for the property 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 application, the supporting analysis included in the executive
summary, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code §18 -
4.12.2(c)(2), the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to allow
an 11-foot-wide one-way access aisle for the drive-through window.
__________
Item No. 8.3. Schedule public hearing to consider adoption of Ordinance to amend County Code
Chapter 12, Article I, False Alarms.
The executive summary states that on August 3, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted the
current False Alarms Ordinance. After nearly three years of administering this ordinance, the Albemarle
County Police Department (ACPD) is recommending amendments to the Ordinance as set forth below.
Staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment A) to amend County Code Chapter 12,
Regulated Enterprises, Article I, False alarms. The proposed ordinance would:
Amend the definition of “False alarm” in § 12-101. Currently the definition of “false alarm”
states that “False alarms shall not include any alarms determined…to hav e been
triggered by…activity unauthorized by the alarm system user or activity outside the
control of the alarm system user.” The ACPD receives a number of appeals from
homeowners who cite weather or high winds as “activity unauthorized by the alarm
system user or activity outside the control of the alarm system user.” The ACPD
recommends amending the definition of “false alarm” by deleting the language “activity
unauthorized by the alarm system user or activity outside the control of the alarm system
user” from the list of alarms that do not constitute a false alarm due to the ambiguity of
the terms. However, the ACPD recommends amending the definition to provide that
weather-related events triggering an alarm do not constitute a false alarm. A weather -
related event is defined as “an event caused by weather conditions that results in either
a) a disruption of electrical service to the building for four (4) consecutive hours or longer;
or (b) damage to the building that would activate the alarm. The four-hour threshold is
based on the typical time that a back -up battery provides electricity, preventing a false
alarm from being triggered.
Amend § 12-102 to require that written notices issued by the ACPD to unregistered alarm
system users be mailed to the physical address of the alarm system. This would
establish a notice procedure for incidents in which the alarm system user is not present to
receive the notice at the site of the call.
Amend § 12-102 to eliminate the $300.00 service fee for third and subsequent responses
to an unregistered alarm system. Over the past three years, the ACPD has not found the
higher fee for third and subsequent responses to be a deterrent. Because the false
alarms ordinance is meant to be an enforcement tool rather than a revenue enhancement
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
mechanism, the ACPD recommends charging a $150.00 service fee for second and
subsequent responses.
Amend § 12-104 to increase the amount of time that an individual has to pay a false
alarm service fee from thirty to ninety days. The ACPD often responds to false alarms in
which the alarm system owner is out of town for an extended period of time. Allowing the
alarm system user more time to pay the service fee would make the process more
efficient. It would result in more alarm system users making their payments timely,
eliminating the need for staff to follow up with those system users.
Amend § 12-104 to eliminate the assessment of a delinquent payment fee equal to the
original fee of a false alarm when a service fee is not paid on time. The ACPD has found
that the delinquent payment fee has not been a deterrent to subsequent false alarm s.
Amend § 12-108 to eliminate the requirement that an appeal of a false alarm notice be on
a form provided by the ACPD The ACPD receives a number of appeals in writing that
are not contained on a ACPD form, and those appeals have been processed as a
courtesy to the citizens. This would clarify the current process of the ACPD and provide
a simpler process for citizens to note appeals.
Amend § 12-108 to increase the amount of time an alarm system user has to submit an
appeal to the chief of police, the fire and rescue chief and the county executive from ten
days to thirty days. This would provide more time for citizens to decide whether to file an
appeal.
The Department of Fire Rescue (FR) rarely responds to false fire alarms and has never issued a
notice. FR staff have reviewed this Executive Summary and the draft ordinance and agree with the
recommendation.
Please see the chart below for the budget impact if the Board adopts the attached ordinance
based on FY14 false alarm fees collected:
The County retains a private vendor to collect false alarm fees and pays the vendor 21.5% of the
fees collected by it.
If the Board adopts the attached ordinance, based on the FY14 false alarm fees collected, there
would be a $33,563.00 reduction in overall County revenues generated by false alarm fees per year, or a
24.15% reduction.
However, staff believes these changes will significantly improve the process and reduce staff time
spent enforcing the ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Board set the attached proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) for a
public hearing on January 7, 2015.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved setting the ordinance for public hearing
on January 7, 2015.
__________
Item No. 8.4. Proposed Revision to Personnel Policy §P-25.
The executive summary states that the General Assembly enacted Virginia Code § 15.2-1505.2
effective July 1, 2014 (Attachment A). This Code section requires localities to establish a personnel
policy covering the use of certain public property by the locality’s officers and employees for personal use
that interferes with the employees’ productivity or work performance or for political activities.
Staff proposes to amend Personnel Policy §P-25, Standards of Conduct, to meet this new
requirement. The attached Resolution (Attachment C) includes the proposed policy amendment, which
clarifies that the unauthorized use of County property includes, but is not limited to, the use of telephones,
computers, and related devices and peripheral equipment that are the property of the County if such
personal use interferes with an employee’s productivity or work performance, or if the use of County
property is for the purpose of engaging in political activities.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Political activities is a defined term in Virginia Code § 15.2-1512.2(C) (Attachment B) and
includes, but is not limited to, participating in the activities of, or contributing to, a political party, candidate
or campaign or an organization that supports a political candidate or campaign; soliciting votes or
endorsements on behalf of a political candidate or campaign; or expressing opinions on political subjects
and candidates.
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1505.2, this Standard of Conduct shall apply to the Board
of Supervisors as well as all other officers and employees of the County who utilize County property.
There is no budget impact related to this personnel policy amendment.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment B) to amend
Personnel Policy §P-25, Standards of Conduct.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to amend
Personnel Policy §P-25, Standards of Conduct:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy has been adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the definition of the unauthorized use of County property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby amends Section P-25, Standards of Conduct, of the County of Albemarle Personnel Policy,
as follows:
Section P-25 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
The Board requires that all of its employees will conduct themselves in a manner which reflects
favorably upon them as a representative of local government. To this end, the Board will establish and
maintain certain standards of conduct designed to:
1. Establish a fair and objective process for correcting and treating unacceptable conduct;
2. Distinguish between less serious and more serious misconduct and provide timely
corrective action.
The standards of conduct are intended to be illustrative but not all inclusive of the type of cond uct
expected of local employees.
At a minimum, the following standards are expected of all employees:
1. Timely and regular attendance;
2. Dependable application of time – employees are expected to apply themselves to their
assigned duties during the full schedule for which they are compensated except for
reasonable time provided for such things as personal hygiene;
3. Satisfactory work performance;
4. Appropriate attire;
5. Courteous and professional behavior toward the public and fellow employees.
The following are examples of unacceptable conduct:
1. Unsatisfactory attendance, performance, or excessive tardiness;
2. Abuse of County time such as unauthorized time away from the work area;
3. Obscene or abusive language;
4. Conviction of a moving violation or failure to notify supervisor of an accident while using a
County vehicle;
5. Failure to follow a supervisor’s instructions, perform assigned work or comply with
established County policy;
6. Leaving the work site without permission during work hours;
7. Failure to report to work without proper notification;
8. Unauthorized use or misuse of County property or records. Unauthorized use of County
property includes, but is not limited to, personal use of telephones, computers, and related
devices and peripheral equipment that are the property of the County to the extent that
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
such personal use interferes with an employee’s productivity or work performance, or the
use of such property to engage in political activities. Political activities shall be those
activities as defined in Virginia Code § 15.2-1512.2(C) and shall include, but shall not be
limited to, participating in the activities of, or contributing to, a political party, candidate or
campaign or an organization that supports a political candidate or campaign; soliciting
votes or endorsements on behalf of a political candidate or campaign; or expressing
opinions on political subjects and candidates. Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2 -
1505.2, this Standard of Conduct shall apply to all officers and employees of the County
who utilize County property;
9. Violation of safety rules to include negligent driving of a County vehicle;
10. Falsifying any records such as, but not limited to, vouchers, reports, insurance, time
records, leave records or other official records;
11. Willfully or negligently damaging or defacing records, County property, or other employee
property;
12. Theft or unauthorized removal of County records or property;
13. Gambling on County property or during work hours;
14. Threatening or coercing employees;
15. Indebtedness to the County;
16. Use of an employee’s work time or work environment to promote a political candidate;
17. Inadequate or unsatisfactory job performance; *
18. Acts of physical violence or fighting on the job; *
19. Reporting to work or any work or school related activity after any consumption of alcohol
or unlawful use of controlled substance(s); *
20. Possession or use of alcohol or controlled substance(s), unauthorized firearms, dangerous
weapons, or explosives on the job; *
21. Criminal convictions for acts of conduct occurring on or off the job which are plainly related
to job performance or of such a nature that to continue the employee in the assigned
position could constitute negligence in regard to the County’s duty to the public or its
employees. *
May result in immediate dismissal.
Individual departments may have additional standards of conduct as defined by the department head.
These standards should be in writing, and should be approved by the County Executive and shared with
the department’s employees.
Amended: August 4, 1993, February 1, 2002
__________
Item No. 8.5. SDP-2014-00054. Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank, Pump Station, and
Water Mains – Special Exception.
The executive summary states that the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) proposes to
install a 600,000 gallon ground storage water tank, pump station, and associated water mains adjacent to
the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company on property owned by Albemarle County and the Fire
Company within the proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore project. In order to construct these
improvements as proposed, a special exception to modify the required setbacks to the side and rear
property lines for the structure is necessary (Attachment A). County Code §18-4.10.3.1 requires water
tanks to have a 1 to 1 setback of their height to all property lines. The proposed ground storage water
tank is 35 feet tall, thus requiring a 35 foot setback to all property lines. Due to physical constraints of the
property that limit the options for locating the water tank (see Attachment B), ACSA requests that the side
property line setback be reduced to 32 feet and the rear property line setback be reduced to 20 feet.
Staff analysis of this special exception is provided in Attachment C. County Code §§ 18-4.10.3.1
and 18-33.5 authorize the Board to approve a special exception to modify or waive the requirements of
County Code § 18-4.10.3.1 if it determines that the public health, safety, or welfare would be equally or
better served by the modification or waiver. The water tank will provide a back-up water supply to the
Village of Rivanna in the event of a water main break along the supply water main. It will also provide
ACSA additional time to respond to emergency repairs to the water supply system, serve the needs of the
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
community, and promote public health and safety. With these pubic benefits, the noted limited options for
locating this water tank, and the landscaping and screening measures proposed, staff recommends
approval of this special exception.
No budget impact will result from authorizing this special exception.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving this
special exception to allow a 32 foot side setback and a 20 foot rear setback subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Albemarle County Service Authority (the “Authority”) shall obtain a landscaping
easement (the “Landscaping Easement”) on Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-
00400 in the location shown for the “Prop. 20’ Landscaping Easement” on the Site Plan –
Grading Plan and Landscaping Plan (the “Plan”), last revised November 4, 2014,
attached hereto, subject to the following:
A. Any tree shown on the Plan whose trunk is located within the Landscaping
Easement shall be preserved and maintained by the Authority;
B. If any tree within the Landscaping Easement dies, is removed, or is otherwise cut
so as to no longer provide the screening intended by this condition as determined
by the Director of Community Development, the Authority shall promptly submit a
landscape plan that complies with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and which
will provide screening as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7;
C. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and
thereafter maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan;
D. The Zoning Administrator may allow minor variations in the location of the
Landscaping Easement provided that the screening purpose of the Landscaping
Easement is satisfied; and
E. The deed of easement and easement plat for the Landscaping Easement shall
be subject to review and approval by the County before they are recorded in the
Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia.
2. If the Authority does not obtain the Landscaping Easement as provided in Con dition 1, it
shall:
A. Submit a landscape plat that complies with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9
and which will provide screening as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18-
32.7.9.7 to the equivalent extent practicable that would have been provided
under Condition 1, as determined by the Director of Community Development;
and
B. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and
thereafter maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving special
exception to allow 32 foot side setback and 20 foot rear setback subject to conditions .
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (the “County”) and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company,
Inc. (“ERVFC) are the owners of Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-00200 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”) filed a reques t for a special
exception in conjunction with SDP 2014-00054, Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank, Pump Station and
Water Mains, to allow a 35-foot tall water tank to encroach the 35-foot structure setback along the side and
rear lot lines as depicted on the pending site plan for the property 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 application, and its supporting analysis included as
Attachment C thereto, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in Albemarle County Code §
18-4.10.3.1, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exception to reduce
the side setback from 35 feet to 32 feet and to reduce the rear setback from 35 feet to 20 feet along the
respective property lines abutting Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1 -00-00-00400, subject to the
conditions attached hereto.
* * *
SDP 2014-00054 Glenmore Ground Storage Water Tank,
Pump Station, and Water Mains Special Exception Condition
1. The Albemarle County Service Authority (the “Authority”) shall obtain a landscaping easement
(the “Landscaping Easement”) on Tax Map and Parcel Number 093A1-00-00-00400 in the
location shown for the “Prop. 20’ Landscaping Easement” on the Site Plan – Grading Plan and
Landscaping Plan (the “Plan”), last revised November 4, 2014, attached hereto, subject to the
following:
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
A. Any tree shown on the Plan whose trunk is located within the Landscaping Easement
shall be preserved and maintained by the Authority;
B. If any tree within the Landscaping Easement dies, is removed, or is otherwise cut so as
to no longer provide the screening intended by this condition as determined by the
Director of Community Development, the Authority shall promptly submit a landscape
plan that complies with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and which will provide
screening as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18 -32.7.9.7;
C. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and
thereafter maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan;
D. The Zoning Administrator may allow minor variations in the location of the Landscaping
Easement provided that the screening purpose of the Landscaping Easement is satisfied;
and
E. The deed of easement and easement plat for the Landscaping Easement shall be subject
to review and approval by the County before they are recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia.
2. If the Authority does not obtain the Landscaping Easement as provided in Condition 1, it shall:
A. Submit a landscape plan that complies with Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9 and
which will provide screening as provided by Albemarle County Code § 18-32.7.9.7 to the
equivalent extent practicable that would have been provided under Condition 1, as
determined by the Director of Community Development; and
B. After the landscape plan is approved by the County, the Authority shall install and
thereafter maintain any landscaping shown on the approved landscape plan.
_______________
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Agenda Item No. 9. Consent Agenda (for information – no action required).
Item No. 9.1. County Grant Application/Award Report.
The executive summary states that pursuant to the County’s Grant Policy and associated
procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
The attached Grants Report provides information on grant activity between October 18 and
November 14, 2014. During this time period, one grant award was received.
The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant. This report is for information only.
The report is for information only.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY – October 17, 2014 through November 14, 2014
Applications were made for the following grants:
No grant applications were made during this time period.
Awards were received for the following grants:
__________
Item No. 9.2. Board-to-Board, December 2014, a monthly report from the Albemarle County
School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors , was received for information.
__________
Item No. 9.3. FY 15 General Fund Q1 Report; Revised FY 15 Revenue Projections Report; and
Quarterly Economic Indicators Report.
The executive summary states that the attached Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) (Attachment
A) provides information regarding the County’s FY 15 General Fund and School Fund performance as of
September 30, 2014. The General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (Attachments B and C)
includes projected General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 15. The Quarterly Economic Indicator
Report (Attachments D and E) provides an overview of recent general economic conditions in the County.
Quarterly Financial Report
The Quarterly Financial Report reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through September 30, 2014, the
end of the first quarter of FY 15. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is consistent
with Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most line item titles in
the QFR match the line item titles in the CAFR. Highlights from the QFR include:
Revenues – YTD Actual. YTD total revenues in Q1 FY 15 are $14,951,434, compared to
$14,755,234 in Q1 FY 14. In percentage terms, FY 15 YTD actual revenues as a percentage of FY 15
Revised Budget revenues was 6.18%, compared to 6.32% in FY 14. This result means that the rate of
revenue collection was essentially consistent between the two years.
Individual revenue streams performed fairly consistently in Q1 FY 15 when compared to Q1 FY
14. Only revenue from the Federal Government experienced significant year-to-year variance. For
additional information about this revenue variance, please see the analysis on page 2 of the QFR.
Expenditures – YTD Actual. YTD total expenditures in Q1 FY 15 are $61,199,925, compared to
$60,626,328 in Q1 FY 14. In percentage terms, FY 15 YTD actual expenditures as a percentage of FY15
Revised Budget expenditures was 25.31%, compared to 25.98% in FY 14. This result means that
expenditures essentially were consistent between the two years.
Individual expenditure streams performed fairly consistently in Q1 FY 15 when compared to Q1
FY 14. Six expenditure streams did experience significant year-to-year variance. These expenditure
streams include Public Safety: Police; Public Safety: Fire/Rescue; Public Safety: Volunteer Fire; Human
Development: Contributions to Agencies & Tax Relief; Parks, Recreation & Culture: Libraries; and
Community Development: Contributions-Community Development. For additional information about
these expenditure variances, please see the analysis on pages 2 and 3 of the QFR.
ACPS Quarterly Financial Report. The Albemarle County Public Schools Quarterly Financial
Report as of September 30, 2014 is included as a table on page 9 of the QFR.
Administratively-Approved Budget Transfers. In addition to the attached financial reports, the
Board has directed staff to provide a quarterly update of any budget transfers administratively approved
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Received
Match
Required
Match Source Department Purpose
Virginia
Department of
Emergency
Management
FY14 State
Homeland
Security Program
Grant
Federal $42,910.00 0 None Police This grant will be used to provide funds for
the replacement and/or repair of previously
grant-funded purchased equipment, as well
as the purchase of additional property, such
as protective gear, bulletproof vests,
thermal imager and digital video
enhancement system.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
by the County Executive. As of September 30, 2014, the County Executive administratively approved the
following budget transfers:
$6,840,963.37 reduction in the Capital Improvement budget for the following funds:
School Division Capital Fund, General Government Capital Fund, Regional Firearms
Training Center Capital Fund, and Stormwater Capital Fund. As authorized in
Appropriation #2015001 (capital project carry forward), the aforementioned capital
budgets were reduced to reflect the actual available project balances at the end of FY14.
General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report
The General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (GFRFPR) provides a streamlined
summary of forecasted revenues and expenditures. The GFRFPR indicates that by June 30, 2015,
revenues are forecasted to exceed appropriated revenues by $1.230 million. Expenditures are projected
to be $0.932 million below appropriated expenditures. The difference between appropriated expenditures
and forecasted expenditures is due primarily to savings associated with salary lapse and insurance.
Excess revenues and expenditures savings are projected to result in a net of $2.162 million additional
fund balance by the end of FY 15. Please note that this projected $2.162 million in additional fund
balance equals only 0.89% of the forecasted $ 241.414 million FY 15 expenditures and transfers; this
small percentage “buffer” reflects an extremely tight budgetary environment.
Quarterly Economic Indicators Report
The Quarterly Economic Indicators Report (QEIR) shows the state of the County’s economy. The
QEIR contains data taken from the most recently available quarter and compares this data with data from
the same quarter of previous fiscal years. General economic activity, as measured by six select revenue
streams, collectively grew between Q1 FY 14 and Q1 FY 15, although revenue in certain streams fell
while revenue in other streams increased. The unemployment rate in Albemarle declined slightly
between Q1 FY 14 and Q1 FY 15, dropping from 4.70% to 4.67%. This year-over-year decline, however,
was the smallest in the Q1 FY 12 to Q1 FY 15 period. Note that the County’s jobs base apparently
contracted between Q3 FY 13 and Q3 FY 14, the most recent quarter for which information is available;
this was the only year-over-year contraction in the jobs base during the Q1 FY 12 to Q1 FY 15 time
frame. The unemployment rate and jobs data suggests that the County might have entered an economic
slowdown, despite an improving U.S. economy.
Revenues and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s FY
15 budget-to-actual financial performance as of September 30, 2014. Year-end projections contained
in the GFRFPR are subject to change, based on the result of actual collections and expenditures
through June 30, 2015. Data shown in the QEIR reflects economic variables that impact the County’s
current and future revenues and expenditures.
These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the
content and presentation of these reports.
(Discussion: Mr. Sheffield said that Attachment D, the quarterly economic indicators, seem to
contain a numerical error listed as a “decline modestly from $42,000” should be “$49,000”. Mr. Foley said
that staff would get it corrected.)
__________
Item No. 9.4 Short-Term Pre-School Interim Report.
The executive summary states that there are four known separate local work groups engaged
in pre-school discussions in varying stages of development and with varying charges: 1) A School
Board and Board of Supervisors work group that has a focus on funding outside K-12 including funding
for pre-school; 2) A Community Summit on pre-school that is planned for the spring of 2015 to be
hosted by Charlottesville Tomorrow; 3) A community-wide work group with a City-County focus that is in
the planning stages; and 4) A work group focused on short-term solutions for Albemarle County public
pre-school established by the County Executive. The short-term work group will include
recommendations for leadership, management and process improvements for the County’s pre-school
services over the next one to two years. Today’s interim report is on the activities of the short-term
work group to date.
There is no budget impact at this time.
The executive summary is for information only and no action is required by the Board.
__________
Item No. 9.5. Copy of letter dated October 28, 2014, from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Principal
Planner, to Mr. Lindsay H. Kidd, re: LOD2014-00010 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF
RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 115, Parcel 27A (Property of Elsie K. Londeree,
Estate) – Scottsville Magisterial District, was received for information.
_______________
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
Agenda Item No. 10. FY 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that every year the Board of
Supervisors is presented a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for its review and
acceptance. .
Attached for the Board’s review is the recently completed FY 14 CAFR. As in previous years, the
Report contains a detailed accounting of the County’s financial operations for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
Highlights of the Report include:
The Transmittal Letter to the Board of Supervisors and the Citizens of Albemarle County
(pages vii – xiii) that provides a summary of the County’s geographic, demographic,
economic, and financial features. It also includes a discussion of current and future
County initiatives.
The Independent Auditor’s Report (pages 1 – 2) that notes that the financial statements
are “in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America”.
The Management’s Discussion and Analysis (pages 3 – 14) that provides a summary of
the County’s financial activity for the fiscal year, including tables and graphs that
accompany the summaries.
The remainder of the Report includes detailed information about the County’s financial activity for
the fiscal year, statistical tables providing historical economic and demographic information, and the
outside auditor’s Compliance Report.
The Report was presented to the County’s Audit Committee at its meeting on November 21, 2014
by the County’s external auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates.
There is no budget impact related to the presentation and acceptance of this Report.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY 14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
_____
Mr. David Hughes, of Robinson, Farmer and Cox, accounting firm addressed the Board, stating
that he would present the report on the County’s finances, prepared by the Finance Department. He
clarified that his firm’s job was simply to opine on the financial statements and perform procedures in
accordance with laws and regulations. Mr. Hughes said that they reviewed the report in detail several
weeks earlier with the Audit Committee, and his firm has three opinions: 1) one on basic financial
statements (pages 1-3); 2) one on internal controls with compliance over the financial reporting process
(page 143-144); and 3) one on federal compliance (pages 145-146). He stated that all of the reports are
unmodified, which is the cleanest opinion the firm can provide. The letter of transmittal in the introductory
section references the local economy, the County’s financial positions, the County’s major initiatives and
future initiatives. He encouraged Board members to read through the letter. The financial section
includes some management discussion and analysis, narrative overview of the financial statements
(pages 5-16). Exhibit 5, (page 27) is a statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance
of governmental funds. In terms of the budget, general fund, Exhibit 12 (pages 89-90) is the Board’s
original budget, the final budget, and the actual financial results. The statistical section includes a lot of
trend data over the last ten years. Mr. Hughes noted Table 5 reflecting changes in fund balance of
governmental funds for the last 10 years and Table 9 (page 134) illustrating tax collections over that time
period. He said that there were some changes in the financial report procedures this year in accordance
with the APA specifications, relating to the Virginia Retirement System. Mr. Hughes said that the
framework has been put in place by the Auditor of Public Accounts to report information to the state, and
next year there will be a requirement to record the unfunded pension obligation in Virginia Retirement
System in the County’s financial statements; Exhibit 13 (page 91) includes information regarding that for
County employees and nonprofessional school employees. The County’s entity-wide financial statements
will include some hefty numbers as an obligation, but they will not affect the County’s budget process. As
long as the County pays the rates as required it will be meeting all requirements of pension expenditure
accounting.
Ms. Mallek asked if someone in their firm had spoken with the AAA bonding agencies to find out if
this liability burden will affect communities in the Commonwealth going forward. Mr. Hughes responded
that the rating agencies have known that these liabilities are pending, although the exact numbers have
not been discussed. It is his firm’s opinion that the burden will have no impact on the County’s bond
ratings.
Mr. Boyd commented that he sits on the VACO Finance Committee, and their report on tha t same
question implied that it is really not yet known how the agencies will look at localities’ financial statements.
Mr. Hughes said that not many local governments will have an increase in their net position as a result,
but some small towns do have more assets than liabilities.
Ms. McKeel said that last year during the County’s budget process, there were rumors circulating
that the School Division has never been audited, which she wants to clarify before the Board gets into
another budget cycle. Mr. Hughes said that the School Board financial information is reported on pages
117-121, with a lot of the federal grant monies obtained from the School Board itself. The School Board
is an integral part of this process and their information is reported as consistently as the County funds are
reported.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Burrell if the Department was able to meet its previous year’s record and
have the CAFR done by October 31st. Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, responded that it is the draft
CAFR, and they are keeping pace with that and were able to meet the deadlines established by the state.
Mr. Boyd commented that in the past, the Board was not getting this report until the first of the
year, and it is remarkable that they are able to get it done as quickly as they do . Mr. Foley said that the
upgrade of the financial management systems and automation, with investment in Access Albemarle and
other modules, have helped the County to get to that place – along with great work by staff.
Ms. Dittmar asked Ms. Burrell to speak about the automation improvements. Ms. Burrell
explained that the Access Albemarle project started before she arrived . The FY2011 CAFR was the first
produced using Access Albemarle. They have stabilized the general ledger and purchasing/payroll
aspects of it. In February 2013, she said, the prior Board approved purchasing the last module, which
was the revenue administration module. Between February 2013 and July 2014, staff along with the
vendor – PCI – worked to implement that system. Ms. Burrell said that with those changes, customers
now have online access to their accounts that previously had not been available, so for residents wanting
to look up their real estate account they can access it from the County’s homepage or the Finance
Department’s page, as well as the “online services” link. She stated that a user simply enters their last
and first name to see what real estate accounts they have – both paid and unpaid – so this provides a
self-service option. Ms. Burrell noted that for personal property the information is protected, so the user
will have to input the last four digits of their social security number, their zip code, and their name. She
said that the goal is for taxpayers to be able to self-serve, get information, and pay online – using either
direct debit from checking account, credit card, or automated debits.
Ms. Palmer asked if there is a charge to pay online with a credit card. Ms. Burrell responded that
there is a convenience fee, but it is not a revenue generator for the County, it is just a pass-through cost
that has to be paid to the vendor who services the accounts.
Ms. Palmer said that she had a conversation with Ms. Burrell about account numbers being
changed without the taxpayer’s knowledge, and asked if there have been other complaints about account
numbers being changed. Ms. Burrell said that she is not sure why that was problematic for that customer,
because the account number is printed on the bill, so it is not something they would have to ask staff for –
but it is different from the account numbers in the past.
Ms. Palmer asked Ms. Burrell to explain to the Board what she had explained during the Audit
Committee meeting regarding changes in collection procedures and how that increased the collection of
delinquent taxes. Ms. Burrell stated that in 2011, the County had about $12.9 million in uncollected taxes,
which was a high number. At one point in a 10-year period, they had collected about 97%, but in 2011,
they were down to about 93%. She said that they immediately tackled that by doing a number of things –
sending delinquent notices through a series of letters beginning in January, with each one becoming
more serious in its tone. Ms. Burrell said that between June 2011 and June 2012, they were able to
increase the percentage of collections. As of 2014 they are back up to 96.44%, with $8.9 million in
uncollected taxes as of June 30, 2014. She stated that when considering that in absolute dollars in 2011
there was $149 million in taxes to collect, in 2014 there was $158 million to collect; so in absolute dollars,
they are collecting more and are collecting it faster. Ms. Burrell said that they do offer payment
arrangements for those who are unable to pay because of sickness, accidents, divorce, etc. – but
sometimes if a delinquent taxpayer is uncooperative, the County must try harsher tactics.
Ms. Palmer asked if the 96.44% was comparable to what’s seen in other communities. Ms.
Burrell said that 98% is considered stellar, and they intend to achie ve that and even better, but it is a slow
process – a cultural change to accelerate payment collection. She then recognized the Finance
Department staff and thanked Robinson, Farmer, Cox & Associates for their work on the audit. She
stated that the report makes it look like an easy process, but there is a lot of effort that goes into it.
The Board expressed thanks and applauded the Finance Department staff.
Mr. Boyd then moved to accept the FY2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Ms.
McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Dittmar commented that when she was running for office, she wanted to be reassured that
the time she spent on the Board would be useful in terms of looking at opportunities and challenges f aced
by County citizens, but she did not want to be involved in working with challenging financial policies,
procedures and behaviors. She said that it is very rare to have a completely clean opinion from auditors,
and it makes her exceedingly proud and reassured that there are good people as stewards of the money
citizens entrust to the County.
Ms. Dittmar added that she and Ms. Palmer serve as the Board representatives on the Audit
Committee. They have had a chance to briefly talk about the CAFR and review it, but have not had a
complete opportunity to thoroughly speak with Ms. Burrell and Mr. Letteri. They hope to have that final
conversation in January. As Board members get a chance to look at the report and if something stands
out, she asked that they share it with them.
_______________
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Agenda Item No. 11. Report on the Economic Viability of Using the Ivy Materials Utilization
Center as a Transfer Station and Consideration of Near Term Solid Waste Service Options .
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Ivy Materials Utilization Center
(MUC) is operated by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) under a permit issued by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). The facility is currently out of compli ance with regulations
governing transfer stations, and VDEQ has directed the RSWA to either cease its operation as a transfer
station by July 1, 2015, bring the facility into compliance by July 1, 2015, or submit to VDEQ for review
and approval a written plan detailing how the RSWA, in conjunction with the County, intends to achieve
compliance with respect to all relevant solid waste regulations. Such plan must be submitted to VDEQ no
later than April 1, 2015.
In April, 2014, the Board created a Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee and
established its Charge. While the Charge is broad, it expressly excludes the Committee’s consideration
of current disposal practices at the Ivy MUC. Nevertheless, the work of the Committee to develop
alternative implementation strategies for solid waste services for the future may be informed by the near -
term disposition of the Ivy MUC.
At its meeting on August 6, 2014, the Board considered three possible scenarios regarding the
near-term (3 to 5 year) continued use of the Ivy MUC for waste disposal (see Attachment A). One of
those scenarios, requiring the transfer of property control from the RSWA to the County, was removed
from further consideration by the Board at that time. The remaining two scenarios l eft 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.
At its meeting on October 8, 2015 the Board approved retaining Draper Aden Associates (DAA)
and Gershman Brickner and Bratton (GBB) to address two specific questions: 1) Is the Ivy MUC location
an economical place for an upgraded transfer station; and 2) What are the primary factors influencing the
determination of economic viability for this location?
Following the Board’s approval, DAA and GBB met with members of the Long Range Solid Waste
Advisory Committee to better frame the intended specific evaluation of Ivy MUC in the context of the long -
term charge of the Committee. Subsequent to that meeting, the consultant team began its work and has
provided its analysis in the attached Ivy Transfer Station Economic Viability Evaluation Final Report
(Attachment B).
The two firms intentionally approached the questions regarding the viability of the Ivy MUC as a
transfer station from different perspectives. For their part, DAA evaluated the viability of the facility and
site from a technical point of view; focusing primarily on the current facility, infrastructure and site
characteristics, and then on specific site alternatives for using the Ivy MUC location for a transfer station
and possible additional materials recovery facility (MRF). The conclusions identified in the Final Report
include capital cost estimates ranging from approximately $1 Million to $2 Million, and likely advantages
and disadvantages of each specific site/facility approach.
In complimentary contrast, GBB evaluated the economic viability of the Ivy MUC as a transfer
station from a more analytical perspective, focusing primarily on the general suitability of the location,
cost/benefit assumptions based on tonnage and fee revenue/tax subsidy, and marketability. Summary
conclusions offered by GBB include their opinion that the location of the Ivy MUC is not ideal for serving
the entire waste management needs in the County and that under current operating conditions it should
be assumed that the facility cannot be supported solely with tipping fees – meaning that the County will
need to continue to subsidize the use of the facility by self-haulers and small commercial haulers.
It is very important to note that in the course of this most recent work, the County learned that
VDEQ would allow Ivy MUC to continue to operate as a permitted transfer station if fully covered by a
roof structure to eliminate leachate from stormwater. Under this scenario, DAA estimates the total
capital cost at approximately $130,000. Staff notes the significant difference between this capital
investment and the alternative amount of approximately $600,000 provided to the Board in August for a
fully enclosed building. To the extent the planning timeframe for any interim solution at Ivy MUC is three
to five years, it may be reasonable to consider a smaller capital investment of about $130,000 to maintain
all current services at Ivy while the Long Term Solid Waste Advisory Committee completes its work and
the Board then considers solid waste management policy over a much longer planning timeframe.
It is presumed that the County’s obligation to pay RSWA for operating cost gaps will be
similar regardless of whether Ivy is operated as a transfer station or a convenience center in the three
to five year “near-term” timeframe. Estimated capital costs for work at Ivy range from near $0 for
simply converting the current site to a convenience center to approximately $2 Million for establishing
a new facility on an adjacent RSWA site. Currently, $857,949.45 is available in the Ivy Landfill
Remediation project in the County’s Capital Program Fund. This funding exceeds what is necessary
to meet the County’s current obligation to the RSWA and has accumulated over the past ten years as
a result of less than anticipated remediation expenses at the Ivy landfill. It had been anticipated that
some of this balance would eventually be applied to whatever solution the County pursued to meet its
solid waste management needs.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
If the Board prefers to maintain existing services at the Ivy MUC while the Long Range
Solid W aste Advisory Committee continues its work, staff recommends that the Board
commit to funding the construction of a roof structure on the existing facility for
approximately $130,000, thus allowing RSWA to notify DEQ by April 1, 2015 of its intent
to continue operating the facility as a permitted transfer station. Maintaining current
services would include use of the facility by commercial haulers.
If the Board prefers not to make further capital investments into the transfer station
function of the Ivy MUC facility while the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory Committee
continues its work, staff recommends that the Board request RSWA to take steps
necessary to convert the facility to a convenience center by July 1, 2015. This action
would preclude the use of the facility by commercial haulers.
_____
Mr. Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that he will discuss the
Ivy Materials Utilization Center and its continued operation as a transfer station versus alternative uses .
He said that he will also comment on the recent report completed at the Board’s direction regarding the
economic viability of using the Ivy MUC as a transfer station in the long term. He said that the consultant
team is present at the meeting and consists of Lynn Klappich of Draper, Aden and Associates, and
Harvey Gershman of Gershman, Brickner and Bratton – who combined to take a high-level evaluation of
the Ivy site.
Mr. Walker stated that they will review previous Board direction, identification of the two questions
asked in the scope of work, and response from the technical perspective of Draper Aden and analytic
perspective from GBB. He said that they will also cover recommended near-term alternatives and
identification of next steps in making decisions, p articularly in light of some upcoming deadlines with
regard to their requirement to comply with the DEQ letter of agreement. Mr. Walker said that this began
in January with the Board’s decision to suspend consideration of the convenience center sites pend ing an
evaluation of long-term solid waste strategies, which led to a conversation and decision in April that
directed staff to consider short-term alternatives at the Ivy MUC as well as created a long-range advisory
committee to study long-term strategies. He stated that in July, the Board approved the Committee’s
charge, membership and structure. In August there were extensive presentations regarding three
scenarios related to whether Ivy would remain as a transfer station or be converted to a convenience
center, and under whose control. At that meeting, Mr. Walker said, the Board took action to remove from
further consideration a transfer station operated by the County, and left on the table the other two
scenarios for further consideration: transfer station versus convenience center. He stated that in
October, staff brought forth a request for the Board to authorize a study of the economic viability of the Ivy
MUC as a location for an upgraded transfer station, and got more specific as to financial investment and
the long-term interest of the County. He noted that in November, the Board approved the Committee’s
public engagement plan.
Mr. Walker said that at this meeting, staff will present to the Board the two questions and the
answers included in the study scope: is the Ivy MUC location an economical place for an upgraded
transfer station?; and what are the primary factors influencing the determination of economic viability for
this location? He said that Draper Aden focused primarily on issues related to the facility itself at Ivy – the
current facilities, the infrastructure, the site characteristics, and some high-level evaluation of specific site
alternatives with respect to whether it is viable or feasible to construct new transfer stations at that
location. Mr. Walker said Draper Aden concluded that it could be done at a number of different sites that
were evaluated, and there were pros and cons presented – with capital construction costs ranging from
approximately $1.0 to $2. million. He said that Draper Aden identified three site alternatives and used
three different tonnage assumptions, with the maximum being 150 tons per day – which is the limit at
which the facility can operate under its current permit, and they then modeled lesser amounts of flow also
as part of a high-level evaluation. Mr. Walker noted that any further consideration of options would
benefit from a more detailed or granular evaluation of any or more options desired by the Board. He said
that the new transfer station options range in annual operating costs from $81.69 per ton to $57.00 per
ton, with more tonnage bringing the cost per ton down. Mr. Walker noted that there is a table (Table 4)
included in the report that provides detail using information from the Solid W aste Authority to help
determine how the operating costs are applied – which is the operating costs plus the disposal costs and
the transportation costs. He said that a new transfer station also assum es debt service for the building
and for new equipment, and that is for the municipal solid waste (MSW) operations only and does not
factor in the cost for current additional services – the mulching operations and the clean fill, specifically.
Mr. Walker said that during its work, Draper Aden – in its conversation with DEQ – uncovered a
new option, and that is if they put a roof over the existing operation, DEQ will allow R SW A to continue to
operate the transfer station without a change to its permit. He said that this could be seen as a short-term
option, and is attractive considering the numbers previously provided to the Board, although it would not
be a viable long-term option.
Mr. Boyd asked if this included recycling capacity in addition to the debt service on the building
and facilities. Mr. Walker responded that this is for municipal solid waste operations, and the transfer
station component of the operation does not contemplate other activities in these assumptions.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Walker stated that for the analytical piece, GBB focused on general suitability of location,
cost/benefit assumptions, consideration of tonnages available within the solid waste market in Albemarle
County, a reasonable fee structure, and subsidies that would likely be required to continue the current
operation as well as marketability of the site. He stated that GBB’s analysis concludes that the Ivy MUC
location is not ideal for serving the entire waste management needs of the County, due in part to its
location outside of the major population centers and the direction in which the waste stream generally
moves out of the County. Mr. Walker said that it should be assumed, in the opinion of the consultant, that
the current operating conditions, without flow control, cannot be supported solely with tipping fees and
would require some level of continued general fund subsidy – much like the current operation.
Mr. Walker said that recommendations included in the executive summary provides two options:
if maintaining the transfer station is preferred in the near term, then constructing the roof over the existing
transfer station at a cost of approximately $130,000 would be recommended for a short-term solution. He
said that an advantage is that it maintains the existing perm it for operation as a transfer station and
enables commercial haulers to continue to use the facility, which was an issue discussed at length with
the Board previously. Mr. Walker said that option two, if the Board prefers not to maintain the transfer
station, is to convert it to a convenience center. He said that this is the same option presented to the
Board previously and does not require a permit under DEQ and requires very little if any capital
investment, but it does preclude the use of the facility by commercial haulers. Mr. Walker stated that the
operating costs for the convenience center versus the transfer station in this particular scenario is roughly
the same, with the amount of personnel required being similar under either structure. He said that the
next steps are to determine the Board’s preferred option for Ivy in the near term. To continue the use of
Ivy as a transfer station operated by the Solid W aste Authority could include construction of a roof over
the facility as recommended, or could include pursuing a new facility at Ivy. He said that if the latter
option is what the Board wants to pursue, there will be a significant amount of work required for staff to
bring back to the Board about the cost assumptions before February, so that RSWA staff can be in the
best position to communicate to DEQ what the County’s actual commitments are in order to meet that
deadline. Mr. Walker said that the other option would be to convert Ivy to a convenience center, which
would require less work on the part of staff and the Board as it would be more of an operational transition
with the Solid W aste Authority. He stated that the final Board direction must be provided by February in
order for the RSWA to meet its obligation in satisfying the DEQ letter of agreement by April 1.
Mr. Boyd asked if the RSWA needed to be notified by the beginning or the end of February. Mr.
Walker said that the Board has two meetings in February, and by the second meeting Mr. Tom Frederick
needs to have some time in order to get that translated into the report that is acceptable to DEQ.
Mr. Foley said that it will also need to go to the Rivanna Board on the fourth Tuesday of February.
Ms. Palmer stated that she is the Board’s liaison to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee in trying
to address the issue, and has been working hard to understand the decision the Board has to make with
respect to the permit. She said that it has been an evolution, and she appreciates what the staff has
done – and while there was a point in time when the recommendation to put the cover over the old
compactor would have been a good solution for the near term, there is an opportunity to save the
taxpayers money with a different alternative. Ms. Palmer said that she would like to ask the Board to
direct staff to look further into the specifics of the western site, which is the lesser expensive of the two
options that the consultants have provided for Ivy, and also direct legal staff to work with community
partners through the RSWA to figure out the governance issues with respect to the County moving
forward in running a transfer station and accepting the cost of the transfer station . She stated that the
economic viability study revealed that if the County wants a transfer station that pays for itself and has no
tax dollars, the County needs a much higher volume and needs to have the transfer station near the
center of the population. Ms. Palmer said she was assuming that they would need that at one of the exits
off of I-64. The two engineers from the UVA Facilities Department ha ve provided the Committee with
information on the business aspects. She noted that Randy Layman, who has been in the business for
30 years and fully understands the economics of the hauling business, is also present at this Board
meeting. She stated that in looking at the exits off of I-64, they did not see a good place that was a safe
exit. Ms. Palmer said that in speaking with some of the Supervisors who had those exits in their districts,
she and fellow Committee members came to the conclusion that Ivy was the safest exit. In speaking with
Supervisors, they do not want to pursue a big transfer station that would require flow control. They really
want to provide an economic and efficient service to the community along with self-sufficiency.
Ms. Palmer said that the trash business is very competitive and ever -changing, and the
Committee does not know what it will look like five or ten years from now – so they need to make sure the
community has some sense of security with respect to solid waste management. She stated that the
Committee agreed that they needed to go with a transfer station, even if they are not pursuing a big one,
and contemplated establishing another site but it did not seem to make sense to do so when there was
already a good site. She stated that the western site was considered very carefully when it was chosen,
and it takes advantage of the natural topography and does not require a compactor – so there is less
equipment, a building on the hill, and a more efficient way to operate a transfer station. Ms. Palmer said
that it seems inappropriate to put a cover over something that they are not even sure will be working by
the time they get the cover over it. She stated that they also have the problem of what is underneath the
asphalt and whether they will be able to install footers. Ms. Palmer said that her recommendation is to
pursue the western site, although they need more details on the budget impact and the numbers, and
they need more information on the governance issue. She stated that her recommendation includes
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
having a Solid W aste Director, but that is a separate discussion. Today she would like the Board to direct
staff to proceed and look into the western site.
Ms. Mallek asked what “looking into” the request entails.
Ms. Palmer responded that they need to have better clarity on the cost of the facility. They have
had some questions about the entrance and the road, as reflected in the report, and while they have
answered some of those they are still looking at this from a high level. She said that they still need to
decide how big they want the pad of the site to be. They know that the Solid W aste Committee is looking
at the big picture of what will be done in the community with respect to recycling and collection centers.
Ms. Palmer said that she sees the Board promoting the work of the Committee by providing a focal point,
and they need to know more about the needed equipment and the cost figures.
Ms. Mallek said that another consideration would be whether the operation could be done by
contract, rather than operated by the County, as really tight contracts would solve the problem. She said
that there is a big knowledge gap about the next step. She said that she feels completely mired in the
repetitive aspect of this pursuit, and is not ready to move forward with the $130,000 cover until they get
more information.
Ms. McKeel asked when the information could be provided. Ms. Palmer said that she would like
to sit down with staff to fully understand what they need to know in order to give the Board clarity. She
said that she hopes it does not take until February to provide the information.
Ms. Mallek said that she would hope it is staff and not some outside person.
Ms. Palmer said that Mr. Walker indicated that staff does not feel comfortable recommending this
because they feel they need to get more granular in their approach. She stated that if they feel they are
going to have a transfer station at Ivy, they should be looking at it more closely and ensuring they are
making the right decision rather than punting by putting a roof over it and postponing the decision again.
Ms. Mallek said that she is not ready to make the decision because the Committee is not finished
with its work. The Committee was supposed to be coming back with an overall approach, so to leapfrog
into one thing seems to cut out the big picture. She added that she also does not want to be perceived as
galloping along and not doing the public process. She said that she is confused as to why it seems to
cost the same amount of money to operate if they are using a more modern approach. Ms. Mallek added
that she does not want to build something that is handling 500 tons per day, as the private sector is taking
care of huge parts of the area and hopefully the County can do other things in the growth area ring to
improve the delivery of service. She said she does not see how the County could double the 28 tons that
is coming in today even if it does invest $1.0 million. She said that perhaps information could be provided
as to why they would offer additional infrastructure without chasing people to come, and she is aware
from her constituents that there is demand for some kind of transfer system that can handle a variety of
materials including storm debris. Ms. Mallek added that she is not convinced that they need all of what is
being proposed here, and she needs more information to get there.
Ms. Palmer said that she sees this as helping the Committee pursue its charge because the
Board has to make a decision on the permit, and this is a core issue regardless of what the Committee
recommends for the entire solid waste management plan. She added that a building at Ivy is not a solid
waste management plan; it is a facility that will help the County with many aspects toward self -sufficiency.
Ms. Palmer said that private sector competition is the reason Ivy has lost a lot of business, but a big fact or
is also that the facility was built incredibly inefficiently to begin with – which is no one’s fault in particular.
She stated that if they can put something in there that is more efficient, those that are closer to the facility
will come back. Ms. Palmer said that if the Board is interested in keeping a transfer station and keep the
permit for Ivy, it needs to move forward as quickly as possible with getting the information along with
solving the issue of the governance.
Mr. Boyd asked that given where the Committee is now and the fact that they have done some
research and provided background for available options, what the timeframe is for the long-range plan.
Ms. Palmer said that she thought it was on the same trajectory.
Mr. Leo Mallek, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, said that the charge to the Committee is to
submit a report that can be included in the five-year plan, which means there would be a final report in
August so that it could be adopted in October. Mr. Mallek said that the Committee is in the process of
trying to frame the report so that in January when the RFP is issued for the new consultants, they will be
able to answer some of the questions necessary with solid statistics.
Mr. Boyd said that it seems that there are two options: a convenience center approach, or a
transfer station – or multiple transfer stations. Mr. Mallek responded that there are other options, such as
cooperation with the City and extension of the City’s contract for collecting waste to the more urban areas
of the County, along with development of other options that have been outlined in the current report and
prior reports that have been advanced by Draper Aden and GBB. The Committee is trying to look back
into data that has already been compiled to come up with a coherent plan that can be vetted.
Mr. Boyd said that from his standpoint, coordination with the City is off the table, as the County
has been trying to coordinate with them for years. Mr. Mallek said that one of the problems is that the
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Rivanna Board does not want to push coordination, and if they really wanted to they could start
cooperating again.
Mr. Boyd asked if he needed to remind him that the City did not pay the Rivanna fees for three
years, and ran up $3 million worth of fees and penalties.
Ms. Palmer said that she agrees with Mr. Mallek and Mr. Boyd, but the City has already said they
do not have a piggyback clause in their contract. What Mr. Mallek is talking about addresses a solution
for the urban area, but that still does not negate the need for a transfer station to take care of those who
do not have private haulers, or have smaller private haulers, or smaller specialty businesses that do
recycling. She emphasized that there is a whole population that is served by a transfer station that would
not be part of a contract with the City in an urban situation.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that it is very premature to assume there would be a partnership, and said
that it would be more reasonable to wait until there is something viable.
Mr. Mallek said that since the Board empowered a Committee to look at long-range solutions, and
the development of convenience centers in the County, he would recommend that the Board defer action
until the Committee has a chance to actually investigate it and look at the consultants’ reports, etc. He
stated that this has been contemplated for a long time, and if they have to ask DEQ for an extension, as
long as they have a plan in place it is possible the DEQ will extend the permit to allow them to consider all
the options.
Ms. Palmer said that if they go that route, they need to get consensus from the Committee. She
said that she has spoken to several individuals from the Committee and already has agreement .
Ms. Dittmar said that ultimately it is great to have advice from the consultants and the Committee,
but in the end the responsibility falls on the Board to make a decision – DEQ extension or not. She
added that she does not want the Committee to be hamstrung with any decisions made. She said that
she would like to keep all options open unless there are some that are completely off the table. The
Board asked for an interim solution to allow the Committee time to do a thorough analysis. Ms. Dittmar
said that her understanding was that the County had to have something into DEQ, not a request for delay
while it worked on a long-range solution.
Mr. Foley stated that the County has explored this with their engineers and others, and it does not
believe that DEQ is going to allow an extension past April. He said that the County has been operating
on the assumption that it needs to have some option – either to let the permit expire and do a
convenience center in the current location, or to come up with the least expensive alternative to maintain
the existing permit during the work of the Committee. Mr. Foley stated that the Board just adopted a
public engagement plan to involve them in this long-term decision. Perhaps there is some lack of clarity
on the charge of the Committee as to whether this part is on their plate. He said that the bottom line is
that April 1 is a real date unless they want to go to DEQ formally, but they already have that answer. Mr.
Foley said that the Board has before it a short-term solution to allow a long-term solution to be developed
and implemented, or it can let the permit expire and understand that if it decides that a transfer station is
the correct move in the future it will have to reapply for a permit. He noted that he is not sure the County
will not have to reapply for a permit on the current site anyway. Mr. Foley said that the Board had a pretty
good plan in place – to deal with the short-term issue and engage the public, and get good data on
alternatives, some of which may go beyond things they are talking about today. He emphasized that they
have been working on this for a very long time. They have had a regional authority that has not been
working very effectively for a variety of reasons. Mr. Foley said that given all that they have here and the
history of this issue – and the fact they are behind many localities – he feels that the County should do
this right now and engage the public. He said that it is premature to make a long-term decision today.
Staff does not want to recommend a $130,000 investment in a roof, and the County may be able to save
that money by taking the time to do it well. Mr. Foley emphasized that this is the collective opinion of
staff. He reiterated that the April 1 date is real and staff does not think that DEQ will allow the County to
wait for the Committee’s work. He said that the County either needs to let the permit expire or do
something to maintain it, and staff feels that the least expensive way to do that is the $130,000 roof
structure.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County would need a new permit anyway to move across to the west side
of the driveway. Mr. Foley responded that he is not sure if the engineers could answer that, but it is a
pretty important point.
Ms. Lynn Klappich of Draper Aden addressed the Board, stating that a western transfer station
will need a permit – whether DEQ looks at it as a major permit amendment or a brand new permit for a
new facility and operation. She said that both of those falls under the same structure from a permitting
perspective, both requiring public comment and an open dialogue with the community.
Ms. Palmer asked how long it would take to find out if it was an amendment or a new permit. Ms.
Klappich responded that she could find that out tomorrow, but in working with DEQ for 25 years now, they
like to modify permits if it is a modification to the existing facility and the same structure. She said that
when you start building new structures with a different operational system, DEQ often wants to put a
closure on the old one and open the new one.
Mr. Boyd asked what her thoughts were on whether the County could ask for an extension to the
timeframe for the permit. Ms. Klappich responded that in her discussions with Graham Zimmerman and
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Justin Williams at DEQ’s central office, she is not getting the sense that they would allow an extension to
accommodate a broader strategic planning effort – as opposed to a solid plan that elaborated on a
specific goal. She said that the County will not know unless it asks, but DEQ has been clear in their
instructions to the RSWA and their communications to her that the existing facility is long overdue for an
overhaul.
Mr. Boyd said that it is not really this Board’s decision that makes the difference, as the RSWA
Board holds the permit and the arrangement with DEQ – and one-half of Rivanna Board’s composition is
City Council.
Ms. Mallek said that is why the parallel needs to happen with the governance; otherwise the
County will have nowhere to go when it gets a new permit.
Mr. Foley said that it is important that if the Board wishes to proceed with the western location on
the Rivanna site, to recognize that if the decision is contingent upon the conditions that Rivanna would
put on the use of that site – such as a lease – or if the County were to purchase the site from Rivanna
and assess the site for environmental issues, those would all be part of a decision to move forward now
on a long-term strategy. He stated that he does not think the staff could get that all done by the second
meeting in February, because that involves some negotiation with Rivanna to understand the conditions
they might put on the County’s use of their property. It is more complicated than just getting some better
costs estimates of construction.
Ms. Palmer said that she had not known up to this point that the County would need a new permit
and would like to clarify that. She said that she still feels the Board is not usurping the Committee’s
charge – because a building at Ivy is not a solid waste management plan, which is what the Committee is
supposed to be doing. She stated that she does not think this county can go without a transfer station, as
it would be the only county their size without a transfer station or a landfill, and DEQ has been very clear
that this could create a problem. Ms. Palmer said that with the western facility, the County would be
using the same driveway and the same facility, and she would hate to let this go and to just put in a
$130,000 cover to bid time seems to be a waste of taxpayer money.
Mr. Davis said that the existing organizational agreement for the RSWA has a few provisions that
are relevant to this discussion, including one that stipulates that the Authority will be the sole provider of
any transfer stations in the City or the County. He said that any decision that would leave Rivanna to not
be the operator would require an amendment of the organizational agreement that has been in effect
since the Authority was created. Mr. Davis said that Section 4.3 of the organizational agreement
anticipated that there might be facilities that either the City or Count might want that the other locality
would not want, and that section of the agreement says that if one party determines they need additional
facilities, then RSWA shall provide those facilities solely at the cost of the requestor. He stated that that’s
where the authority for the existing agreement for Ivy lies. A lot of the governance and management
issues could probably be worked out through a more comprehensive Section 4.3 agreement requesting
the Authority to provide services – but if the real issue is whether the RSWA Board has to approve
legislative decisions such as fees, etc., it may require a more comprehensive revision of the whole
operating agreement, which is complicated. Mr. Davis said that the way to go forward with this could be
to make the governance and operational issues be covered by the Section 4.3 agreement and simply
request Rivanna to operate the facility at the County’s cost and to set up parameters and rules within that
agreement that would make the governance issues work. If that is not successful, he said, the Board
would have to go to the next level.
Mr. Foley said that the question becomes under what conditions the facility is operated and at
what cost, if Rivanna operates it. If the facility is moved to another location, Rivanna would have to
approve that, and there is a negotiation involved with the cost. He said that he wants to be realistic in the
timeframe needed by staff, adding that there are a lot of complications to the things Mr. Davis presented
in terms of the Board having everything it needs to make a long-term decision.
Mr. Boyd said that this is a parallel track they should be working on at the same time: how t o
decouple Rivanna, as one-half of Rivanna’s Board is from the City, has decision-making capabilities, but
is not contributing any money to the entity.
Ms. Palmer said they should be doing that anyway.
Mr. Foley said that going into that effort depends on what the Board wants to do.
Ms. Mallek said that it is a given that what the words in the agreement say are not happening, so
at the very least that must be fixed, and if there is a process that needs to be started in that regard she is
happy to propose that. She said that this is a cloud that hangs over all other decisions because it makes
this Board reluctant to get into agreements going forward.
Ms. Dittmar said that early in her tenure, Dennis Rooker said that the Board must look at the
County’s relationship with Rivanna, yet they have not done anything all year about it.
Mr. Foley said that there is the possibility that the long-range committee might suggest that the
County maintain the relationship regionally on certain services but not others, so their work is necessary
in order to figure out what the County might want to do regionally versus otherwise. He said that he is not
sure they know the direction, so once they start working on an operational agreement, the question might
be whether the City wants to work with the County regionally on recycling or composting, etc. Mr. Foley
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
said that his point is not to say whether that is the right thing or not, but whether the County can
immediately jump into changing the organizational agreement before they are sure what direction they
are going in.
Ms. Mallek said that the basic change must be made, and then they add on the layers as the
needs come along. She stated that the reason why they have gotten nowhere since 2008 is because
they have said they need to have all the answers before they start – but they have got to start in order to
get the questions, much less the answers.
Ms. Dittmar said that until the Board sits down and figures out some of the issues that have
caused the frustration, including autonomous decision making outside of the agreement, it is going to be
upset about these things. She stated that it is worth it to look at the global issue and why things are
broken so the Board can get them fixed.
Ms. Mallek said that if a party has an investment in the game, their vote should de pend on that
percentage – which is similar to what they have done with other agreements like the pump station.
Ms. Palmer suggested moving ahead with that to get some clarity, but also to get clarity on what
the permit would require so the Board does not lose the opportunity to make the decision about the
current Ivy MUC. She said that if the Board wants to keep the permit, they must do something – and if
this is a major amendment or complete new permit, that changes the landscape. Ms. Palmer said that it
seems the Board can have that answer soon, so at least this could be kept alive longer so they do not
spend public money for no good reason.
Mr. Walker said that Ms. Klappich can address the permit amendment process versus the new
permit process.
Ms. Klappich stated that transfer stations are permitted as a permit by rule, and this means if they
follow the rules they get their permit – which is a pretty simple process. She said that they file a notice of
intent with DEQ that states they are meeting local ordinances, then they file documents with DEQ for a
new facility, but DEQ waits until it is constructed before issuing the permit. With a major amendment, she
said, the same process is followed – notification of a major amendment and modification of documents.
Ms. Klappich said that she could easily contact the regional office and the central office to make sure that
her understanding would apply to this situation.
Ms. Palmer said that in speaking with Mr. Graham Zimmerman at DEQ, he said that the agency
was looking internally at the transfer permitting process to lessen it and make it more simplistic – perhaps
due to increased stormwater requirements and associated demands. Ms. Klappich said that she has not
heard that, and even at their November stakeholder meeting that was not a hot-button issue, although the
DEQ is always looking at ways to streamline because of their budget cuts. She stated that this could
include things like reducing the number of inspections per year are done, versus the process itself –
which is easy from their perspective. Ms. Klappich said that she will check with DEQ to be certain, and
will do so in writing.
Ms. Dittmar stated that it would be helpful for Board members to prepare their questions first to
make sure they get the information they want. It seems that Ms. Palmer has found they could save some
taxpayer money if the Solid Waste Committee was willing to say it was selecting Ivy and building a
structure. She asked Ms. Klappich if the interim solution at a cost of $130,000 would buy the County the
time needed to make a long-term decision and parallel track the relationships with other partners. Ms.
Dittmar said that the Board may want to go back to DEQ and say they would pull the trigger on this
interim solution while the long-range plans are established.
Ms. Palmer asked if it would be helpful to the Board to have some input from the Committee in
the next month or so, after their next meeting, to comment on whether or not they feel it would interfere
with their planning process.
Ms. Dittmar said that the interim solution and meeting of the deadline are the Board’s
responsibility and is not part of the long-term planning, and it is important to convey to DEQ that they
have that interim solution. She stated that they will have to stick to that solution, and DEQ may require
that they do something immediately rather than waiting until August.
Ms. Mallek said that is important to clarify.
Ms. Klappich said that she cannot speak to how DEQ would react to the question of whether the
County can have an extension with an interim solution while the long-range planning committee
completes its work in August – but if the Board is going to pursue the canopy, they would probably still be
in a position of asking DEQ for an extension because it is not likely that would be constructed by July 1.
She said that they could push it, but it might be worth proposing to DEQ so they can have a longer
construction timeframe. Ms. Klappich said that from her understanding, they need to ask DEQ the
following: 1) what the distinctions are between new permit and permit amendment, 2) how the canopy
process would impact permitting and process if it is not completed until August, and 3) how they perceive
the County’s position given its commitment to long-range planning. She stated that as Ms. Dittmar
suggested, they could demonstrate to DEQ that this Board is more proactive and real in its work – with
concepts for a western transfer station, a canopy, etc. Ms. Klappich said that DEQ might see their
technical information and understand that they are really trying to move forward, and she believes that it
is all worth exploring with them.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Ms. Palmer said that she would like to know the timeframe and process for a western transfer
station.
Mr. Walker stated that it is important to clarify that the April 1 deadline was to submit to DEQ the
plan for improvements for Ivy in order to come into compliance, not that they had to be completed by July
1. He said that putting a roof on the facility is much easier in terms of developing timelines, milestones
and budget – but providing detailed information about a more permanent transfer station on the western
site may crowd that deadline. Mr. Walker said that this is where the conversation with DEQ becomes
most important, if they are going to work both of these options simultaneously beyond today.
Ms. Dittmar said that the County could say to DEQ that in order to comply with the deadline, there
is an interim solution that would cost taxpayers $130,000, and they would prefer to wait for the report from
the long-range solid waste advisory committee in August.
Ms. Palmer stated that the question is whether they want to be a County without a transfer station
– and if they want to be a County with one, where are they going to put it. She said that if they want to
put it at Ivy, that is only one small part of a solid waste management plan, and the Board should not be
spending public money if it already knows that is what they are going to do. Ms. Palmer stated that the
committee’s plan will be big, and will require a number of different actions for solid waste.
Ms. Mallek said that the plan will cover a timeframe over a period of years, not everything done
by the end of the year.
Ms. Dittmar emphasized that the Board does not control its own destiny here, as an outside
agency has set the drop-dead date, and that is why they are in this decision-making mode now. She
asked if Board members concur with that direction.
Ms. Mallek said that she is happy with that direction.
Mr. Foley said they could defer the decision until getting more information from DEQ, hopefully by
the next week.
Ms. Dittmar said that they cannot go to DEQ and say they have an interim solution they like, but
say it is expensive and do not want to spend taxpayer money on it. She said that she has not heard
anyone say they actually liked the interim step.
Ms. Mallek said she has a few engineering questions. She asked if any borings have been done
in the area where this canopy will go that indicates the site is suitable for it.
Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, stated that the
existing transfer station has an outdoor concrete pad, and the canopy wou ld go over a portion of that pad
so it must have a column that is tied to the ground. He said that several years ago there was a sinkhole
developing on that pad, and Rivanna commissioned a geotechnical engineer to determine why – and they
found that solid waste had been buried under the floor of the transfer station, which did not show up on
any maps provided to the Authority when it was formed in 1990. Mr. Frederick said that the rules since
that time have been very clear that the County cannot bury trash where it does not have the ability within
its permitted authority to do. He said that he does not think the City or anyone else violated laws, as the
trash was likely buried there a long time ago before there were any rules. He said that that’s why they
have been careful to premise any proposals for the site as conditional upon further geotechnical
investigations, and while he does not think those findings would preclude construction, it may impact
costs.
Ms. Mallek asked what the timetable would be to find that out. Mr. Frederick said that there are
well-qualified firms in Charlottesville that could do that within a month. In addition to that work they would
need a structural engineer to evaluate the information and translate it into costs.
Mr. Davis said that this is Rivanna’s permit – not the County’s – and this project is being
requested by the County for them to do. The County has financial responsibility for the project, but it is a
Rivanna project.
Mr. Walker said that the County would need to pay for the geotechnical work.
Ms. Mallek asked if Rivanna would take that on. Mr. Frederick said that if the County is
requesting it and would pay for it, Rivanna would make it work. He said that he agree s with earlier
comments made regarding the 1990 agreement and the need to revisit it, as there are many provisions in
that contract that are being violated daily. He stated that for years there has been a feeling by the parties
Rivanna serves that they have not held up all the terms of the agreement, and how much of the
agreement is enforceable today is in serious question. Mr. Frederick said that if it helps the Board to get
the process moving, Rivanna can work with Ms. Klappich and proceed.
Ms. Mallek said that the County does not have the authority to go in and make those borings. Mr.
Frederick said that his understanding is that the Board has given him authority to make decisions to allow
a geotechnical firm working for the County to come in and do a boring, and he would be willing to make
that decision.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Palmer said that she disagrees strongly with this approach, and she does not understand
why they would keep the permit if they are going to continue operating it as an inefficient, crumbling thing.
She stated that it is “a mess” out there, and not because Rivanna has made it that way but because it is
antiquated.
Ms. Mallek said that the alternative is that after July 1 the County would not have a transfer
station until they got something else going.
Mr. Boyd said that some of this will depend on the response they get from DEQ as to whether this
is just a revision process or a whole new application.
Ms. Palmer reiterated that this is a permit by rule; it is not an extensive permitting process similar
to the dam. The Board may just want to go ahead and do the western option, if it decides it wants a
transfer station. The Board could ask for an extension to keep the other open as the new station is being
built.
Ms. Dittmar said that the Board cannot ask the consultant to approach DEQ with a request for an
extension unless it is offering some assurance that they are on track. She said the Board would like to
talk to partners about its ideas before they get too far down the line in any particular solution. She asked
if the Board wanted to select one of the options staff has suggested, in the event DEQ holds firm to its
deadline.
Ms. Mallek said that is fine, but she does not understand why the Board cannot get the answers
from DEQ, then it would have the information on which to decide.
Ms. McKeel said that she wants to make sure Ms. Klappich is comfortable asking the questions of
DEQ. Ms. Klappich responded that she is comfortable doing it, adding that over the past three to five
years, the DEQ has become much more responsive to the decision-making process of local governments,
and she will be presenting these things hypothetically to them. She said that a question she ha s not
considered until this meeting is whether they could still operate the existing transfer station during
construction of the new transfer station, which would probably be possible but needs to be confirmed.
Ms. Klappich said that her first question relates to the concept of a new permit versus a major permit
modification. She added that DEQ indicated to her that the canopy structure would not be a major
amendment because it is an improvement to an existing facility – so what they would really be asking
DEQ is a new transfer facility at the Ivy location. She said that the second question is a discussion of the
amount of technical work done to date and the exploration of various options, in the context of the
strategic planning committee’s schedule, which could impact the best alternative of taxpayer dollar
investment. In other words, a transfer station is only one part of a solid waste plan. Ms. Klappich noted
that the DEQ has been more willing to listen to that type of conversation. She said that she also wants to
address the construction timeframes as outlined in the letter to Rivanna.
Ms. McKeel asked if she was comfortable getting the information without a commitment from the
Board. Ms. Klappich reiterated that she will explore the hypotheticals with DEQ, so they can keep their
flexibility. If DEQ is not straightforward about the deadline extension or if they add caveats to it, she will
report that back to the Board.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks it would be helpful for Ms. Klappich to be the Board’s correspondent
with DEQ instead of various people so that she can report complete information back.
Ms. McKeel asked how the Board can move forward with the agreement with the City. Mr. Foley
said that it would help for Mr. Davis to provide a summary for the Board, explaining where they have been
in the past and where they are today, as well as the agreement itself – and that would be the basis for a
joint discussion with the City.
Ms. McKeel said that she would like to accelerate the process. Mr. Foley said that he wants to
make sure the Board is grounded in what the history is, and then they could plan for a meeting.
Ms. Mallek said that she is not really interested in revisiting everything that has happened in the
past. She would like to close the book on that and take the written agreement as a starting point.
Ms. McKeel agreed.
Mr. Foley said that the City will have a response as to why it has not fully participated in Rivanna.
Ms. Mallek said that she does not feel that is a necessary piece of information. She would like to move
forward with the Board saying it wants to make something that works because otherwise they will spend
six months arguing about the history, and it is a waste of time.
Mr. Foley said that the Board at least needs an executive summary on the agreement and its
history, not to create arguments or go tit for tat, but to provide a basis on which to go forward.
Ms. Dittmar said that she would like to know which parts of the agreement have been violated, by
both parties.
Ms. Palmer said that they should be focusing on what they want the agreement to say – and what
the agreement with the City is for the landfill – so they take things out but also put in their goals to make
this successful, which is much more complicated.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Ms. Mallek said they need to separate anything having to do with remediation.
Mr. Davis emphasized that Ms. Palmer is correct that if the big picture, long-term solution involves
cooperation between the City and the County, they already have a joint authority in place . The issue
would be how to tweak that authority to make it work for a long-term solution. He said that they almost
have to have a vision of a long-term solution before they can have a meaningful revision to the
organizational agreement. He also agrees with Mr. Frederick that the agreement has been largely
ignored because it was envisioned that the RSWA would deal with all solid waste for the City and the
County. Mr. Davis said that the initial plan was for both localities to be divorced from any authority over
solid waste, and obviously over the last 25 years that has not been the case. He stated that moving
forward in a regional way with solid waste could depend on a workable regional solid waste authority, or it
might not.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that they take small steps.
Mr. Foley said that staff would provide them with some background.
Ms. Dittmar asked how long that would take. Mr. Davis responded that it would depend on what
the scope of it would be; it could take a month or more.
Ms. Palmer said that she is still strongly in favor of the western option, but at this point they need
to hear from the DEQ. She said that she does not think that the Board will be changed by the
committee’s findings in terms of whether they need a transfer station in Albemarle County and where it
will be put. She acknowledged that there is some overlap with th ese decisions, but she does not see this
Board m putting a transfer station anywhere else – so the question is whether they want one in the
County, and if it is going to be at Ivy, why would they spend money on a canopy over a compactor that is
about to fall apart. Ms. Palmer said that the western site has been identified repeatedly as a likely
location.
Ms. Dittmar said that it leads the Board back to needing the answers from DEQ. She suggested
getting those answers back from the consultant, along with the report from the committee.
Ms. Palmer added that she will find out whether DEQ will allow the County to keep the compactor
site open if it does the western site.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Consideration to Support Legislation - DNA Database Expansion.
Sheriff Chip Harding said that he believes that if expansion of the DNA databank had been done
four years ago, Hannah Graham would be alive today – and every day they wait, they risk that someone
will be attacked by a serial predator, and an innocent person sits in jail who could be exonerated. Sheriff
Harding said that in 1988, Timothy Spencer was the first person convicted in this country with DNA
evidence, for rape/murder, and that was in Virginia. He said that same evidence freed Dennis Vasquez,
who had pled guilty because of overwhelming evidence against him, but not until he had been brutally
raped and victimized in a penitentiary for a number of years. Sheriff Harding said that Virginia was the
first state in the country to form a DNA databank, in 1989 for certain violent offenders; in 1990, the
General Assembly expanded that to all convicted felons. He stated that in 1997, the murder of the Lis k
girls in Spotsylvania prompted him to start researching why the U.S. was behind the U.K. in its use of
DNA, and he found out there were 140,000 samples sitting in the basement of a lab in Richmond
because the money had never been appropriated to add those profiles to the databank. He said that they
only had 10,000 profiles in the bank, and they were averaging two to three hits per year in Virginia.
Sheriff Harding said that he started a group called Citizens for DNA, who lobbied the General Assembly
and got bipartisan support and $11 million allocated for the effort – and within two years they went from
two to three hits per year to two to three hits per day.
He said that as you expand the number of profiles of known offenders, the likelihood of getting a
hit from a crime scene increases. Currently there are 77,000 cases in the state database of “unknowns”
which do not match to any existing profiles. Mr. Harding said that if they expanded the databank to
include misdemeanors in which people were subject to jail time, they would increase about 40,000 new
samples per year, and his prediction is that the h it rate would climb dramatically. He said that New York
was the first state to do this, and in five and one-half years of adding petty larceny they cleared 965
crimes including 51 murders and 222 sexual assaults. Sheriff Harding said that Jesse Matthew was
convicted of criminal trespass. In New York that addition cleared 30 homicides and 110 sexual assaults,
so the evidence suggests they need to expand, with the evidence in New York showing that the average
first-time felon has three previous misdemeanor convictions before he becomes a felon and gets caught.
He stated that if they could have legally taken Jesse Matthew’s DNA sample when he was convicted in
2010 for criminal trespass, it would have matched the 2005 rape in Fairfax when his DNA was left un der
the fingernails of the victim. Sheriff Harding said that if Mr. Matthew had been arrested and convicted, he
would be in jail at the time Hannah Graham was walking on the Downtown Mall. He stated that the
Charlottesville serial rapist first raped in W aynesboro, and he committed six more rapes in Charlottesville
over a 10-year period, while having committed a misdemeanor in between those times and thus would
have been caught before coming to Charlottesville. Sheriff Harding said that the evidence stron gly
suggests that catching repeat offenders for other crimes will save lives and prevent further victimization.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Sheriff Harding stated that he received a call to come before the Board on this matter, and he
would appreciate a resolution from them to elected officials in support of DNA databank expansion.
Mr. Sheffield asked for clarification of what is taken now from misdemeanor offenders. Sheriff
Harding said that all that was taken now is a fingerprint and photograph, and his recommendation is
taking a biometric fingerprint – as it is a lot more valuable to law enforcement than the regular fingerprint.
Mr. Boyd said that he was sold the first time this was brought forth. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Mallek
concurred.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there is legislation pending on this item. Sheriff Harding said that Delegate
David Toscano is having legislation written, and he has received calls from Mark Obenshain on the
Senate side.
Ms. Dittmar asked how the Board could be of help in supporting this. Sheriff Harding said that he
would encourage individuals to contact their elected officials, and the Board’s resolution to legislators
would also help. He stated that his concern is that awareness in Central Virginia is greater than the rest
of the state. He encouraged Board members to contact their representatives in the General Assembly.
Ms. Dittmar indicated that the Board was meeting with it legislative representatives on December
4th.
Mr. Sheffield asked where the pushback for this might be. Sheriff Harding said that there are
those who are concerned about “big brother,” but John Whitehead is actually coming around to the point
of view that the DNA databank might be something that could be expanded to include violent
misdemeanor offenders. He said that his argument has been that it is not just violent misdemeanors, and
the New York evidence shows that offenses like petty larceny or shoplifting also lead to arrests for more
serious crimes. Sheriff Harding said that his colleague, Brandon Garrett at UVA, is pushing a justice
commission to look at DNA exoneration cases and would argue that they first need to put money into
updating lab analysis nationwide. Sheriff Harding said that Linda Jackson, who directs the DNA lab
locally, said that they are not behind in processing violent crimes – and the offender database is up to
speed. He stated that if it is the first time the individual is in the system for a misdemeanor, they can
afford to pay a $50 fee to pay for it. Even considering 40,000 samples, at $50, for a total of $2 million,
that would save more than the Hannah Graham and Morgan Harrington cases alone cost law
enforcement.
Ms. Dittmar said that the County is very proud of Sherriff Harding’s efforts to move the DNA
databank forward. She said that the Board already has its legislative platform in place and does not have
particulars for this bill. She asked Mr. Davis what the Board’s options would be.
Mr. Davis said that at the legislative meeting tomorrow, the Board could express its support for
the legislation, and then if a bill is introduced in January, staff could bring a resolution forward to support
adoption of the legislation.
_______________
Recess. The Board recessed their meeting at 3:35 p.m. and reconvened at 3:50 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. VDOT Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio, Resident Engineer, addressed the Board, stating that VDOT begins preparing
for snow in August, and already mobilized snow units the previous week on Afton Mountain on Route
250/I-64 and on Route 33 in Stanardsville. He said that last year they mobilized a total of 26 times for
snow operations, and it looks as though there may be a similar winter this year. Since August, he said,
they have completed dry runs at each of the eight area headquarters and have inspected all snow
equipment. This year VDOT got one of the best reports to date on the condition of equipment. Mr.
DeNunzio stated that they are looking closely at their spreaders and salt use, and are calibrating
equipment and training drivers properly to ensure they get the right amount of calcium and salt down on
the roads. He noted that environmental concerns came up throughout the state last year, so they put
employees back through training with a mobile simulator training device and had all new and experienced
operators come in for training. In addition they ensured that all vehicles had the proper charts for
application rates depending on the amount of snow.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that last year VDOT was at 100% capacity and were concerned that they
could not find enough salt, and actually ran out in a couple of instances – so this year they are completely
stocked and feel they will only need to reload one time this year. He said that southern states like
Georgia were ordering salt and competing with Virginia now, so there is a possible nationwide salt
shortage. Mr. DeNunzio noted that they have about 300 pieces of equipment ready to go for throughout
the winter this year.
Referring to the monthly report, Mr. DeNunzio reported that Route 703 – Pocket Lane – is the
next rural rustic road to complete. VDOT recently completed Midway Road; Doctor’s Crossing in Keswick
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
is next, but they will have to look at available funding. He stated that they have three bridge projects that
have either recently been advertised or will be advertised as of December – Route 677, 637 and 616 –
which will all be replaced during spring construction.
Mr. DeNunzio said that in the last few monthly reports, they have included the Route 29 Solutions
section. He stated that they are concentrating on the design phase of the utility work, especially at Rio
Road. They have a design utility field inspection scheduled for the following day. He said that the utilities
must be moved before VDOT start construction. Mr. DeNunzio said that they held their second round of
proprietary meetings with the three design-build teams. VDOT puts out the Request for Proposals (RFP)
detailing what they want in the projects, then the firms submit questions and come in to ask questions.
He noted that based on that, VDOT revises the RFP – which they have done twice now – and the second
revision, the addendum to the RFP, will go out on December 5. He stated that after that, the design-build
teams will be working on their proposals, the technical and price proposals, which they will submit in
January, and VDOT will make the selection in February or March.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the adaptive signal construction is underway and continues with night
work. VDOT is closing down lanes on Route 29 between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. He said that will continue
through December for the work between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road with upgrading of the signals and
new loops to ensure the fiber is in. VDOT will skip the Rio Road intersection during the Christmas season
and will start again after January 2015. Mr. DeNunzio stated that the Best Buy ramp project was
advertised and construction will start in spring, with completion slated for May 21, 2016.
He said that the Route 29 communications have become very important. VDOT launched a new
website in the past few weeks, and he encouraged Board members to provide feedback on it. Mr.
DeNunzio reported that they have been doing a lot of contact visits, with Lou Hatter going into businesses
on Rio Road and talking with business owners. Mr. DeNunzio encouraged Board members to have
businesses talk with him and the project team about general information or traffic patterns. He said that
Lou Hatter recently presented at the Boar’s Head, and they are also keeping Lynchburg staff up to date
on progress.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that he emailed the Board VDOT ’s transportation update about a month
earlier. He added that in a meeting with VDOT personnel, the Commissioner brought up the
www.virginiaroads.org website, which is GIS-based and has all map-based data including pavement
conditions, projects, bridge conditions, traffic cameras, etc.
Ms. Dittmar commented that the www.virginiaroads.org website helps people determine what
route numbers correspond with road names.
Mr. Boyd asked when VDOT might be done with the scoping on Doctor’s Crossing. Mr.
DeNunzio said that he would like to get that project done in 2015. In this year’s residency, VDOT did
seven rural rustic roads in 2014 throughout the four counties and are currently drilling down into the
financial data to see what those projects cost. He said that they used only state forces to build those
roads, and he anticipates more cost savings this year. Once he determines what funding is left they may
be able to accomplish Doctor’s Crossing in addition to Pocket Lane. He should have that information in
another month or so.
Ms. Palmer thanked him for working with the Ivy Nursery individuals. She said that she is trying
to determine whether a community that wants a low speed limit put on un -posted rural dirt roads can do
that, as the normal speed limit is 35 mph. Mr. DeNunzio explained that the statutory limit is 35 mph on all
gravel roads, as of July 1, 2014, and in Albemarle the Board passed a resolution a few years ago that set
that same limit. He said that he will check with traffic engineers to see if they can be posted at 25 mph.
He suggested Ms. Palmer make a request that VDOT do a speed study to consider posting at 25 mph,
and the traffic engineers will make that decision.
Ms. Mallek asked if the Best Buy ramp bids received were within the budget. Mr. DeNunzio said
that bids will be received in the coming weeks, and he will know at that point.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a pool of funding for gravel roads where new businesses have come
in, such as the new wineries – Fox Mountain and Clark, which each have a big hill. She said that both of
these businesses expanded, but no one knew about the industrial road application that could have
provided some road improvements. Mr. DeNunzio said that perhaps she means the Economic Access
Funds, and other than six-year secondary or revenue-sharing monies, he is not aware of any funding that
would bring the roads up to standard or make them hard-surface roads.
Ms. Mallek asked if VDOT still has funding to do limited paving on hills only to reduce their
maintenance costs. Mr. DeNunzio said that maintenance paving is not to exceed 500 feet, and is usually
done on hills, effective to the end of the pavement. They have seen some success on White Mountain
Road in rebuilding the berm there.
Ms. McKeel thanked Mr. DeNunzio for addressing the salt inconsistency, because it was obvious
in driving around there was a problem.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a policy about chemicals being used over waterways, because the
bridges must be treated as they are more dangerous than roads. Mr. DeNunzio said there is not in
Virginia. In northern states they have prohibited chemical use over some waterways – but he is not sure
how he feels about that due to safety reasons. He said that the salt use in Virginia is much less than the
northern states. Virginia has actually been proactive in rebuilding mixing pads and ensuring that runoff is
all contained within salt ponds. They pump the salt ponds throughout the winter and properly disposes
the materials.
Mr. Sheffield thanked Mr. DeNunzio and VDOT staff for attending the town hall meetings, and
addressing questions. Mr. DeNunzio reiterated that if anyone wants either Lou Hatter or himself to attend
a town hall meeting, to contact them.
Mr. Sheffield also expressed thanks to staff for all their work with the town hall meetings; they
have gone above and beyond. Ms. McKeel also expressed thanks to staff.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Route 29 Solutions Project.
Item No. 14a. Project Update.
Mr. Foley stated that the team that was formed to help coordinate this effort with Route 29 work,
led by Chip Boyles of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, will be providing the Board
with a monthly report. He said that the reporting will focus around the work of three subcommittees –
communications, led by Lou Hatter; business assistance, led by Lee Catlin; and neighborhood
assistance, led by Doug Walker. Mr. Foley said they are meeting on a monthly basis now, and Mr. Boyles
will compile a monthly report that he will attach to the County Executive’s monthly report.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, stated that the proposal currently issued
for Rio Road, Berkmar Drive and Route 29 North included closing Rio Road in the summer of 2016 or
2017, but that closing will only be in 2016 with no option for closure in 2017. He stated that VDOT has
also incorporated all architectural standards requested, including the Virginia dry-stack style walls, and
pedestrian lights with the Crozet streetscape lights as a model. He said that Mr. DeNunzio ha s already
covered the Fashion Square traffic issue and avoidance of conflict during the holiday season.
Mr. Graham said that in working with the Advisory Panel, there was some confusion as to how
these projects came to be on the list, and he has provided, for the Board, a chronology of Places 29 and
the US 29 North transportation study – and it was surprising how many people thought this had just been
dreamed up this year as opposed to being long-term plans. He said that there were questions about
Hydraulic Road, and he informed them that it was part of the plan and that there is an official map that
was adopted by the County for a grade-separated interchange there. Mr. Graham stated that there is a
need for education in the community so that people understand that these are o’t new projects that have
just popped up over the last year.
Mr. Sheffield said that it is also important to remind people that documents like Places 29 filter
into the long-term transportation plan, which is the narrowing of projec ts that will possibly get funded, and
then go further to the CTB.
Ms. Mallek stated that throughout the early 2000s, the Chart Committee – which is now called
CTAC at the MPO – had about 50 community meetings to work on the long-range plan.
Ms. McKeel asked if that information had been placed on a “frequently asked questions” type of
document. Mr. Graham said that he is working on that, and his answer to that was too elaborate for the
public so he will need to shorten it.
Mr. Boyd said that all of those things were in the bypass planning too, but were considered to be
a detriment and deemed not to be relevant because they were from 20 years ago.
Ms. Mallek commented that they just did the modeling. She said that Mr. Denunzio had held a
review with the three chosen businesses, and she asked to know a bit more about what the changes
were related so as to that to ensure they were just process refinements as opposed to specific measures.
Mr. DeNunzio said that the changes were mostly clarifications and things that were not written
properly. A lot of the addendum includes the architectural treatments, lighting treatments and things they
did not get in the first version. He stated that what usually happens in the proprietary meetings is that the
contractor will come in and say that while something meets requirements, they would rather take a
different approach – so they ask VDOT if that is acceptable. Mr. DeNunzio said that when VDOT says,
“grade separated at Rio Road,” if they do not specify Route 29 going under Rio Road, the contractor
could take it over Rio and build it higher, which is what happened at the PDAP meeting, and what Philip
Shucet ended up having to clarify.
_____
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Item No. 14b. Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program.
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Board has expressed a strong
desire to consider strategies and develop a business assistance program for businesses in the Route 29
construction areas. Staff has researched various communities in Virginia and across the country to see
what types of assistance programs were used in similar circumstances. In addition, the County has
provided a number of different opportunities to solicit feedback from businesses in the Route 29 corri dor
regarding strategies they think could be beneficial before, during and immediately after construction. A
list of assistance ideas generated from staff’s research and from stakeholders’ feedback will be presented
to the Board at this meeting for its initial reaction and discussion. Based on the Board’s direction, staff
will conduct a more detailed assessment of the potential strategies and will prepare recommendations for
the Board’s consideration in March 2015.
The following opportunities were provided for stakeholders to provide feedback regarding their
suggested strategies:
October 23, 2014 Open House – two mailings and door to door invitations issued;
attended by over 100 business representatives
October 30, 2014 Stakeholders Meeting – individual invitations hand-delivered and
emailed; attended by 17 businesses representing all four quadrants of the Route 29/Rio
Road intersection
Drop-In Meetings – four on-site meetings held; attended by representatives from 14
businesses
Engage Albemarle – a question regarding business assistance strategies was online for
two weeks
A list of strategies resulting from staff’s research and from stakeholders’ suggestions is attached
(Attachment A), broken down into the following categories:
Technical Support
Wayfinding and Signage
Marketing
Communications
Financial and Regulatory
Staff will provide a brief overview of the listed strategies, giving background where necessary on
several of the suggestions.
There is no immediate budget impact related to this agenda item. Budgetary impact analysis will
be provided when the recommendations are presented to the Board in March 2015.
Staff recommends that the Board provide its initial reaction and feedback regarding business
assistance strategies, as well as direction to staff in its preparation to conduct a more detailed
assessment of potential strategies.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, said this is an opportunity to provide an initial
reaction and discussion to all the suggestions that have come forward; it is not the intent to take any
action. For the last several months staff have communicated with the business community to try to bring
forth strategies that would be helpful to them before, during and immediately after construction of the
Route 29 Solutions projects. She said that they held an open house in October where there were over
100 representatives present; the Board hosted a stakeholders’ meeting that included 17 businesses
representing all four quadrants of the Route 29/Rio intersection. Ms. Catlin said that they did some drop-
in meetings, and Susan Stimart spent time in each of the four quadrants with 15 business people coming
in and talking with her. They also had a question posted on Engage Albemarle to solicit feedback, and
staff has been doing a lot of research into other communities in-state and nationally to see what
measures they took during this type of major construction. She stated that a lot of comments came
forward in the open house and the stakeholders meeting that were more appropriate for VDOT or the
Advisory Panel, so those were forwarded to Philip Shucet. Staff focus today are on the suggestions that
relate to actual business assistance strategies. Ms. Catlin stated that the staff divided the strategies into
categories: technical support, ideas about toolkits and business counseling, and way-finding and
signage. She said that while staff is not asking for any direction at this meeting and will be coming back
to the Board with recommendations, it may be that prior to March they come back with a resolution of
intent to look at temporary signage – which does not obligate the Board to do anything but does start the
process.
Mr. Sheffield asked Mr. Davis if the Board is able to create exceptions to the sign ordinance. Mr.
Davis responded that there are ways to deal with temporary signs . The question is whether the signs will
be outside of the right of way – because if they are in the right of way, they will be regulated by VDOT.
Mr. Sheffield said that his concern is that if the Board plans to change the ordinance, it should
start that now. Ms. Catlin said that is why the resolution of intent will be coming to the Board. She added
that the Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, is present to address that.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, stated that the temporary sign provisions are really
set up for grand openings and special sales, which means that they are limited in duration to 15 days per
permit or 60 days per year, and that is insufficient for these purposes. Staff would like to come back soon
with a resolution of intent to address a time period that is geared to the construction, to let people know
that businesses are open and how to get to their entrances. She confirmed that it would not affect the
rest of the sign ordinance and would be treated separately. She added that Ivy Nursery is in a similar
situation for which the staff would use a similar measure with the replacement of the bridge on Route 250.
Ms. Dittmar asked how long it would take to get this through the public process. Ms. McCulley
said that it would depend on what type of process the Board wanted. Right now they were talking about
signage during construction, and it is pretty easy to craft language that addresses that, with anything
more significant requiring a public engagement process.
Ms. Mallek commented that it would still require going to the Planning Commission and then
coming back to the Board. Ms. McCulley replied, “yes”.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there are any other ordinances the Board needs to be working on. Ms. Catlin
said that the other area requiring more extensive work would be the financial and regulatory area, so what
they were hoping to get from the Board their initial reaction and thoughts, and some direction as to what
to bring back in March.
Ms. Dittmar said that if there is a critical path that means the Board needs to start something
earlier, it would be helpful for staff to identify that by January. She said that apparently there is an
opportunity for businesses along the two corridors to provide input as to things they would like to change,
and asked Mr. Sheffield how that would fit in.
Mr. Sheffield said that it probably would not fit into this particular process, but most of the
businesses on the panel – while opposed to the project itself – are productively adding to the
conversation, so it would be great to see that extended to just about any business. He stated that there
may be businesses that have had trouble with things like the width of their entrance, for example, and
now is the time to try to get that as VDOT will be rebuilding the curbs and having a wider radius. He
added that if Board members are receiving those types of comments from residents or businesses, they
should pass them onto Mr. Graham so that he can share them with VDOT and the Advisory Panel.
Ms. Catlin said that at the stakeholders meeting, there were people who followed up with Mr.
Hatter and Mr. DeNunzio, and staff has been encouraging businesses through communications to do
that. Staff can certainly make a special outreach to let the businesses that now is the time to get their
input in.
Mr. Sheffield said that it would probably be the summer when the contractor’s designs are
presented, and that would be when the businesses need to provide input.
Ms. Mallek said that it would be better to do it even sooner, because then it can be fed to the
contractors so they would not have to go back and change it.
Ms. Catlin reminded Board members that they had asked staff to include an insert into the BPOL
mailing, and they have redone the tax insert to include some of the maintenance of traffic information
about the Rio Road/Route 29 interchange, and that would be a good opportunity to include something
that stipulates how they should follow up and get engaged to ensure their needs are being reflected.
Ms. Mallek said that putting in an extra sheet of paper that can be folded over and returned to the
County would give businesses an opportunity to provide input, because people forget.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff was working on the specific items for which they are requesting input,
such as the economic impact study, because that was an important consideration for a lot of people. Ms.
Catlin responded that after hearing the Board’s input today, staff will go back in consultation with business
partners and bring back what they would recommend as a package for the Board to adopt in March. She
said that this does not mean that everything will be included, but it is important for staff to know what the
Board is interested in pursuing and what they are not.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to include the economic impact study as one of those items.
Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Boyd to help her understand what that would entail, because there is no
way to predict what is going to happen. Mr. Boyd said that they could observe what is happening in other
areas and apply a percentage.
Mr. Sheffield said that they could find examples for this scale of project, because the challenge
with an economic impact study is what outcome they are looking for.
Mr. Boyd said that you could look at meals or retail taxes and see what the decline was in those,
such as a 5% or 10% decrease.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Mr. Foley said that staff will be coming back with what items they are interpreting as being
desired, and the pros and cons are of those things – as well as estimated costs – and then ask the Board
if they want to move forward.
Ms. Mallek said that the other question is what the Board will do with the information once they
get it. Mr. Foley said they would assess that too, and perhaps that could help them establish what a
financial package might look like.
Mr. Sheffield said that it also might help the Board establish what is needed to retain the
patronage of those businesses, in an effort to protect from decline.
Mr. Boyd said that this will also impact County revenues if there are reduced meals and sales
taxes, as that will affect their long-range forecasts.
Mr. Sheffield said that this is the displacement issue they were talking about.
Ms. Mallek said that it may be that they shop in a different neighborhood temporarily.
Mr. Foley stated that this is an item that staff will need to do a little more research on in terms of
cost and benefit, and to understand the Board’s objective.
Mr. Boyd said that he is surprised that an economic impact study has not been done before.
Mr. Foley said that they have certainly been done in the past.
Ms. Mallek said that the cost for one in Crozet was estimated to be $30,000, with more defined
terms, so it is not simple.
Mr. Boyd said that he is OK with what Mr. Foley is proposing.
Mr. Sheffield said that it will be interested to see where House Bill 2 goes in terms of economic
impact as one of their weighed components, although the Board will not know that for years. He said that
he would also like to understand any legal ramifications pursuant to relaxing the sign ordinance, as
someone further outside of the area may claim an impact, and he does not want the County to set itself
up to be sued. He would like to know about any precedent the Board may be setting in creating a policy
as it moves forward.
Ms. Mallek stated that Mr. Davis had mentioned previously that the Board would need to get
legislative approval to do some of these anyway. Mr. Foley said that staff will be looking at that and
bringing the information back to the Board.
Ms. Mallek asked who would do a baseline vacancy rate. Ms. Catlin responded that it would
probably be incorporated into an economic impact study. Ms. Mallek said that it is important to know
where you start.
Mr. Foley said that construction is slated to start in May 2016, and anything the Board wants to
get started on could be brought sooner than March, such as a resolution of intent for signage.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he does not want the Board to go down a path that the businesses feel is
not acceptable to them, so he hopes they get a feel for that. Ms. Catlin commented that staff will still
maintain a dialogue with the businesses.
Mr. Sheffield said that he envisions that they would have to change their signage ordinance for
this project. Ms. Mallek said that any project that meets the criteria would fit under this.
Mr. Sheffield said that staff would figure that out, but he does not want to be proposing solutions
that the business community does not want. Mr. Foley said that staff will engage with the business
community so that does not happen.
Ms. McKeel said it is also important to dove-tail with VDOT.
Ms. Palmer asked about the tap fees, and said that the County does not control these and there
is nothing in their regulations to allow a waiver of those. If the County can do something like that, it would
need to pay for those. Mr. Foley said that if that is something the Board is interested in, they would run
through the EDA.
Mr. Sheffield asked the Chamber of Commerce Director, Mr. Tim Hulbert, if he had anything to
add.
Mr. Tim Hulbert said that the only thought he has was that the Board should be talking to the ARB
now – because his experience has been that sometimes boards of supervisors and architectural review
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
boards are not on the same page. He stated that as effective as signs are, human behavior is pretty
ingrained.
Ms. Dittmar asked if Ms. Catlin could provide a sentence or two as justification for why specific
items were left in or taken out. Ms. Catlin said that staff will provide this list back to the Board, with
clarification as to the status of all the ideas – and if they have not made it in, the rationale as to why.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Closed Meeting.
At 4:41 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments;
under Subsection (1) to discuss the annual performance review of the County Executive; under
Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters
requiring legal advice relating to the negotiation of easements on the County Office Building property; and
under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation
concerning purchasing issues because a public discussion would adversely af fect the litigation posture of
the County. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 5:12 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeti ng
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments (deferred to later in
meeting).
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Five-Year Financial Plan.
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that she would provide a recap on where the Board is with the five-year plan. She noted that there
would be a panel discussion later in the evening. After that, she said there would be a brief overview of
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) financing options including general obligation bond referendums
and service districts as well as a discussion of inflation-adjusted wages and Board reflections with the
next steps discussion to follow. Ms. Allshouse said this was the third five-year financial plan work
session, with one more scheduled for December 10 if needed. She reported that, in October, the School
Board and Board of Supervisors came together and provided guiding principles for general government
and school staff. She said the first principle is a shared understanding that they would all work together
on basic facts, clarified assumptions, processes and needs; consideration of mandates and ob ligations;
maintenance of compensation in accordance with identified market commonality; consideration of
strategic plans and physical infrastructure; consideration of changing demographics; prevention; public
engagement and involvement; fiscal responsibility and adequate staff capacity.
Ms. Allshouse stated that staff presented two scenarios for consideration: a balanced scenario
with one line addressing revenues and expenditures, taking into account the current tax rate and natural
growth, and revenue assumptions at the time the plan was put together. She said the five-year plan was
put together with revenue assumptions from October, and those change as more information comes in.
Ms. Allshouse stated that scenario one provides all funding for operational mandates and obligations,
increases in the costs associated with healthcare, and provided full year of funding for all positions funded
before or during this fiscal year. She said scenario one fails to provide market salary increases for
existing staff over the five-year period, and fails to provide for any additional staffing to meet current
needs or future needs which means no new teachers or police officers. Ms. Allshouse said, if the tax rate
did not change over the five-year period, it would not fund the current adopted CIP. She said it would
reduce the CIP plan by $70 million over five years, core maintenance would be slightly reduced and it
could not include state transportation revenue sharing, Pantops fire station, school security improvements
or Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE), and the scope of the courts project would likely be
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
reduced. She stated that there would be a significant change to the CIP if there were no tax rate
increases in the out years, and this scenario did not adequately support core agencies nor did it provide
any increases to human services agencies or cultural agencies. Ms. Allshouse said staff provided a
second scenario to the Board, with the bottom line depicting revenues and, for this version, it did include
dedicated pennies to CIP up to three cents starting in FY17. She stated that scenario two aligns with the
Board’s guiding principles, funds all mandates and obligations, and provides salary increases for
employees within Human Resources’ recommended range. Ms. Allshouse said scenario two assumes
the dedicated three penny tax rate increases in the out years to support the CIP, provides more adequate
funding for agencies, and begins to address current service level needs and staff ing shortages as well as
providing staffing to keep pace with anticipated population and enrollment growth over the five-year
period.
Ms. Allshouse presented a slide depicting the overlap of scenario one and scenario two, noting
the difference related to the three cents put into the CIP. Ms. Allshouse said there would still be an $8.1
million gap in FY16 but, in the out years, the gap would be larger when considering the natural revenue
growth and expenditures.
Mr. Foley stated that this is the truest picture of the gap without any change in taxes dedicated to
capital.
Ms. Allshouse said, when the Board met on November 5, it discussed the fact that neither of
these scenarios address some of the longer-range quality of life issues, such as the master plan
implementation, regional transit increases, School D ivision initiatives, capital projects such as Woodbrook
Elementary School modernization, fire/rescue training facility, police training academy, athletic
improvements, new parks, etc.
Ms. Allshouse reported on staffing changes on the general government side by categor ies over
the years, noting the ‘catch up’ and ‘keep up’ numbers in scenario two. She introduced panel members:
Ms. Robyn Bolling, Principal, Greer Elementary School, Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director, Department of
Social Services, Chief of Fire and Rescue, Dan Eggleston, and Chief of Police, Colonel Steve Sellers and
explained that each would speak for approximately five minutes, with follow-up time for Board members
to ask questions.
Ms. Robyn Bolling addressed the Board, stating that the slides the Board has seen before
pertained to enrollment, economically disadvantaged statistics, and the increase in English as a Second
Language (ESOL) population. She presented a new slide showing som e of the transients across the
Division, noting that the cohort of kindergartners in 2009-10 was 995 students and, in 5th grade, that same
cohort now has 34 students less. Ms. Bolling pointed out that same number of students had moved into
the cohort during that time, which shows there are the same number of students moving in and out. She
presented a snapshot of Greer Elementary School which showed the languages spoken in the school,
and stated that, in addition to ESOL students served, they serve 46 refugee students from International
Rescue Committee (IRC) families, as well as homeless students and those in shared/transition housing.
Ms. Bolling said the School Division also had an increase in economically disadvantaged students, with
the total at Greer now at 76.6%. She mentioned that there were many students who needed additional
intervention and enrichment, including ESOL services, reading services or math services in addition to
the classroom or more. Ms. Bolling said she has also calculated the number of students that have
enrolled after the official start of school, stating that Greer had 89 students who had come new to the
school with about 95% of them not meeting any Albemarle benchmarks and thus immediately requiring
intervention services. She stated that there are more students coming than going at this point and, at the
end of last year, they had 110 to enter over an entire year’s time versus 89 already this year. Ms. Bolling
stated that teachers embrace changes in student demographics, but schools must look at existing
resources and figure out a way to accommodate those resources which does stretch them further to meet
the needs of an increasing ESOL population. She said there are extreme cases, such as a young first
grader with cerebral palsy coming from Nepal, but the reality is that the schools continue to figure out a
way to meet every child’s needs. Ms. Bolling said they also strive to have a balance in classrooms so the
teachers continue to meet the needs of all the students.
Ms. Kathy Ralston addressed the Board, stating that, in 2008, the Department of Social Services
(DSS) caseload increases became more evident due to the recession, and there has been a continued
upward trend since that time. She noted that, although they have leveled off somewhat, they have stayed
at a high level. In addition, she said, during that same time period, there have been increased mandates
from state and federal government translating into time and money for the Department. Ms. Ralston said
the workload measures, which is the standard established by the state for caseload management,
indicates that the Department is about 23 positions understaffed and is working at 163% beyond the
recommended capacity, noting that figure has ranged from 20 to 25 for the last several years. She stated
that the impact for DSS staff has been a 94% increase in paid overtime since 2009, a significant increase
in family medical and sick leave days which translates into lost work time and impacts capacity, an
increase in turnover rate, and key performance indicators not being met in a lot of the critica l areas. Ms.
Ralston said the Department was targeting those families at the highest risk in the child protection area,
and they do not have the capacity to serve those at moderate risk unless they are in the elementary
schools where the family support and Bright Stars programs are in place. She st ated that the other issue
related to growth was a spillover to other departments so, as DSS workload increases in case numbers,
that spills over into the County Attorney’s Office, Information Technology (IT) Office and HR Department,
creating a ripple effect throughout the entire organization. Ms. Ralston said poverty is one factor in the
increase and, while Albemarle County does not have a tremendous increase in poverty, it has a higher
number of children in poverty than any other county in its peer group. She said the increasing aging
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
population, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), multi-cultural changes and mandated training have also driven
up the numbers. Ms. Ralston presented information about new mandates which were starting to hit the
Department, such as ACA enrollment in year two, adult protective services right-to-review appeal
process, new court plan requirements, increased visits for child protection and foster care, etc. She
emphasized that she did not want to end on a sour note, as there have been wonderful success stories
such as placement of severely abused children in adopted homes, school interventions that have resulted
in students going into the gifted program or onto college, families moving off welfare and into jobs, and
elderly people whose life savings have been preserved after risk of exploitation. Ms. Ralston said there
are some wonderful success stories, but the stress on the Department is currently quite intense.
Chief Dan Eggleston addressed the Board, stating that the community is changing: an aging
population, growth in the community and decline of certain neighborhoods, combined with deferment of
basic fire/rescue services, all of which has created a critical situation for the Department and its capacity
to provide basic public safety needs. Chief Eggleston stated that it is his responsibility as chief to paint an
accurate picture of the Department’s ability to provide these essential services, however, he is concerned
that if they continue to defer some of these basic resource requests, they may reach a point that would be
difficult to recover from. He said the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department (ACFR) has outlined the
basic needs for the next five years, and those are truly just basic needs to catch up and keep up with the
demands placed on the system. Chief Eggleston stated that the County has an outstanding combination
system, which others often look at to model after, and a great group of people who are dedicated to this
on a daily basis but the growth and changes in the community have created a gap in terms of ACFR’s
ability to meet these minimum needs, and the gap is widening. He said the Department has done
everything possible to recruit and retain volunteers, and have secured grants and built community
coalitions, as well as optimizing career staff, all in an effort to be extremely efficient and good stewards of
taxpayer money; but the cost per capita is at the bottom of the list when compared to five peer localities.
He noted that there was a $3.2 million difference between the Fire/Rescue budget of Hanover County and
Albemarle County’s budget. Chief Eggleston stated that there are three primary driving factors in looking
at addressing these needs over the next five years: lack of basic resources to conduct the b are minimum
mitigation activities, with a 50% increase in demand for required fire inspections since 2012, but staffing
levels remaining the same; missing critical fire inspections and an inability to get certain businesses to
issue inspection permits. He said they also lack resources to reach and engage with the County’s most
vulnerable population and, as a consequence, civilian fire deaths are almost twice that of the state
average.
Chief Eggleston said the second issue is that firefighting remains a high-risk endeavor, and they
do a good job of training people when they come in the door but they do not have the capability to provide
that on an ongoing basis. He emphasized that it is important to train consistently on low-frequency, high
risk jobs like firefighting, and individual multi-company training activities are basic needs for all
departments. Chief Eggleston said they have about 60% turnover in volunteer chiefs’ ranks, which is not
unusual as that is a very tough job, but they do not have a consistent way to provide leadership training to
affect the retention rate on a long-term basis. He stated that the third and most significant driving factor in
the five-year plan is the Pantops Fire/Rescue Station, which has been in the Comprehensive Plan for
about 20 years and has been reaffirmed by the Board on numerous occasions as well as by independent
analysis. Chief Eggleston stated that Pantops is the highest risk development area in the County,
primarily because of its density and the age of its population. He referenced a ‘hot spot map’ created with
GDF’s help, with Pantops as a high call-volume area, and said that they continue on outlying stations to
serve this area, which has created a big gap in coverage. Chief Eggleston said, in basic terms, they have
rural stations responding to the development area, which is counter to what the la nd use policy is. He
said a consequence of this added call volume is that the strong volunteers in East Rivanna a re strained,
and that station’s leadership is concerned about the impact on volunteer membership over time. Chief
Eggleston said the Pantops Station is needed on a number of levels, and it is really critical that it be
placed in service by 2018. He stated that there are people working hard every day to make this system
work, but the County needs to continue to invest in it to produce a safe environment for the community.
Chief Sellers stated that what the Board is hearing from all of the speakers is that Albemarle is
changing and that change is putting pressure on all parts of government – school, public safety, and
support agencies like HR and IT. Chief Sellers said the Police Department bases its staffing model on
four principles: safety, accountability, workload and benchmarks. He said safety, which includes both
community and officer safety, is informed by data such as response times, backup times, minimum
staffing levels and victimization rates such as crime rates, accident data, etc. Chief Sellers noted that
crime increased by double digits the previous year, and there were 15 fatal crashes in Albemarle County,
typically ranking between 5th and 7th place as the most dangerous places to drive per population. He
stated that accountability includes having the capacity to permanently assign patrol officers to fix ed
neighborhoods and communities to improve police community relations, to have consistent supervision of
patrol officers, and to be able to incorporate problem -solving and community policing techniques. Chief
Sellers said workload includes dispatch calls for service which accounts for 52% of an officer’s time; 48%
of an officer’s time is self-initiated work or discretionary time, with about 1/3 of time spent on paperwork;
37% spent on traffic; 13% spent on proactive patrol which falls into the geo-policing model. He stated
that to be caught up means having the capacity to increase this portion of the officers’ time to include
activities like community policing, more traffic enforcement, problem-solving and criminal enforcement.
Chief Sellers said, like the Department of Justice’s Census on U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies and the
Virginia State Police “Crime in Virginia” report, local benchmarks allow the Department to compare
against peer agencies, and catch-up for the Albemarle County Police Department would currently mean
27 more police officers. He stated that the urban area of Albemarle is truly a city around Charlottesville,
with its population greater than the City’s but its level of police service at less than half of what the City
provides for the same population. Chief Sellers said calls for service in the urban ring rob the rural areas
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
of the County from adequate coverage, similar to what Chief Eggleston mentioned. He stated that the y
are considering dividing the current ‘sector one’ into two smaller sectors and putting another officer in.
Ms. McKeel asked him to clarify what ‘sector one’ is. Chief Sellers replied that sector one is
around the Hydraulic Road area and Four Seasons, up to the north of the mall. He said the area south of
the City contains University Place and is near a police station, as well as Southwood Mobile Home Park,
another area of increasing workload, drawing officers out of the south end of the County. He said ‘catch
up’ and ‘right-sizing’ the Police Department means proactive criminal enforcement, having a problem-
oriented policing team, more efforts towards addressing organized crime and internet crimes against
children, and cold-case investigation. Chief Sellers reported that there has been a number of shed
larcenies beginning in July 2014, whereby lawnmowers, weed-eaters, chainsaws, etc. were being stolen;
well over 30 had been reported stolen, but the Department did not have the capacity to put detectives on
that case as it did not rise to the level of their investigations section. He said it took them a few months to
put a team together to begin to work that case on their days off and, as of the week before, they arrested
four individuals in connection with those burglaries. Chief Sellers said having the capacity to immediately
address community problems is what a right-size police department should have, and Albemarle County
does not have that currently. He stated that the searches for Bonnie Santiago and Hannah Graham
required 1,300 hours of overtime, and all of that was done on officers’ days off. Chief Sellers said
capacity also means better basic and in-service training, and Albemarle County’s officers get 17 weeks of
basic training. He said this provides all of the basics of how to defend themselves, how to protect
themselves, how to drive and how to shoot, but does not teach anything about how to deal with people,
community policing and problem-solving. He said most Police Departments in Virginia get 26 weeks of
basic training, noting that the average in the country is 30 weeks of basic training. Chief Sellers
emphasized that the Department needs capacity to be able to have that level of training, and a right-size
police department has the ability to do all of these things and gives officers the time to maintain positive
police-citizen relationships within diverse communities. He stated that Albemarle County is very lucky to
have a Police Department with world class employees, but it cannot begin to say it has a world class
Police Department until it is properly staffed.
Ms. Palmer asked Ms. Bolling if all of the students entering Greer needed intervention. Ms.
Bolling explained that the most transient students have changed schools multiple times, and their families
have been unable to pay rent so some of the children are out of school for weeks or months at a time.
She said some of the partnerships they have with DSS help them meet basic needs that families have,
but they also have to look at the academic needs, and every school in the division has an expectation for
public measure so it is their job to immediately know what deficits the children are carrying, and to figure
out how to mitigate it. Ms. Bolling stated that every student coming in undergoes a practical assessment
to measure reading level, and to identify strengths and gaps. She said the school has differentiated
staffing and does have some resources for intervention teachers through federal funds in Title I and also
the School Division. She explained that, although those resources have continued, those are set at one
period of time so there are teachers that have caseloads greater than what would be considered a best
practice.
Mr. Boyd asked if the School Division had ever gone through an exercise to determine how much
a special needs or gifted student costs versus the average. Ms. Bolling responded that she does not
have that level of detail with her, but the cost per pupil and staffing is calculated down to the i ndividual
child. She said the funding allocated to the schools enables them to meet the needs of schools as they
can project adequately through enrollment, but what they are starting to see are outliers that are
complicating that. Ms. Bolling stated that they cannot plan for the additional students, so teachers cannot
get more resources and teachers end up working longer hours and the child protective services hotspot
area mirror those in the schools. She noted that every time there is a family in crisis and a C PS call goes
out, schools are also having to respond.
Mr. Sheffield asked Ms. Ralston what kind of services were being provided to the aging
population. Ms. Ralston responded that it is primarily benefit programs, with Medicaid being the biggest
driver, food stamps or SNAP being second, and the auxiliary grant program for assisted living facility
placement being third. She stated that, on the service side, it is driven largely by Adult Protective
Services, and the biggest driver in that is exploitation of the elderly and disabled.
Chief Sellers said the Police Department is seeing a significant increase in victimization for fraud,
and that places demands on the Investigative Division to spend time with those victims as well as put
some efforts toward prevention. He said the Investigative Division has not been expanded since 2001,
despite the rise in many new crimes such as internet-based crimes.
Ms. Palmer said her mother was a recent victim of fraud and, while the police were called quickly,
there was nothing that could be done about it. She noted that the officer said they received
approximately four to six calls per day.
Chief Eggleston stated that the two main driving factors for ACFR are Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) due to the aging population and those who are below the poverty line, which combine to
greatly increase their risk of being injured or killed in a fire. He stated that there are lots of elder care
facilities that are driving the demand on the system and those are usually critical EMS-type calls.
Ms. Dittmar asked for more specifics on the overtime and associated impacts necessitated by
mandates. Ms. Ralston said she did not know if she could provide a breakdown by how much each
mandate costs because those just add more time to a workload and, without doing a time study, it would
be hard to come up with a cost. She said she did some brainstorming about how many new mandates
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
DSS has had over the past several years, and came up with twelve new mandates, including adoption
assistance, training, the decreased foster care timeline which has gone from 13.5 months to 11 months,
monthly visits for high-risk families which has increased to four times per week and would likely not be
met, and family partnership meetings.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County was supposed to be reimbursed by federal dollars for the Affordable
Care Act because DSS administers the Medicaid prog ram. Ms. Ralston said federal dollars were used for
the creation of a new state automated system at the state and, when a new automated system is put in, it
does not usually work well for the first year so those dollars were targeted to create that system; there
were none allocated for staff time. She said the state office found some money to provide DSS for
overtime and temporary help, as agencies are so far behind on their Medicaid reviews because of the
workload and the system, but that is a small amount of money in the $10,000-$15,000 range.
Mr. Boyd asked how other communities were dealing with these increased mandates. Ms.
Ralston responded that a lot of communities were struggling with this at the local DSS level, and all of
those localities were saying the same thing.
Ms. McKeel asked how the School Division goes about identifying homeless students. Ms.
Bolling responded that they will sometimes self-identify by coming to school and saying they do not have
a place to live; sometimes they will go to DSS and say they do not know what to do; for students who do
not speak English, sometimes parents will come to school as a first step. She said sometimes they find
out because of truancy, and she spends a lot of time trying to find out where a child is and, if they know a
family is having a crises, the various agencies will rally around and help find resources. Ms. Bolling said
there is a special challenge with shared housing, and the agencies rally around them to help minimize the
gap in school attendance.
Ms. McKeel noted that Ms. Ralston had identified Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) funding
changes as being on the horizon and asked if that was a reference to the typical fluctuation or something
else. Ms. Ralston responded that it is not related to the general increases, but related more to the Office
of Comprehensive Services, which has told DSS that they would no longer reimburse for certain services:
medical records for a foster care child, expert witnesses in Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)
hearings, court reporting that the legal office needs unless the guardian ad litem requests the payment.
She said those are dollars that DSS must come up with in its budget in order to pay for those things.
Ms. McKeel asked Chief Sellers and Chief Eggleston to comment on their ability to hire paid
personnel currently, their salary challenges, compression, etc. Chief Eggleston stated that they have
been successful in recruiting but there are significant compression issues across the County, which has
created problems among employees. He said, as the economy begins to recover, there will be
movement in other areas which will create competition for Albemarle County, so they are concerned
about that possibility.
Chief Sellers said he currently had seven vacancies, but they would likely be filled within the next
two months.
Ms. McKeel said that was not a good sign either. Chief Sellers agreed, stating that compression
is one of the biggest issues in terms of recruiting. He explained that, when they bring in experienced
officers who have been trained in other areas, the County just cannot compete.
Ms. McKeel asked if the Police Department could provide its retention rates, as it costs money to
have turnover. Chief Sellers said his turnover is 6%, half of which are retirements, and that is within an
acceptable range.
Chief Eggleston said other County departments have taken some ACFR employees and, with a
huge investment in employees, they want them to choose Albemarle County as a long-term career so
remaining competitive in terms of salary and benefits is a top priority.
Ms. Palmer asked how they arrived at the 60% turnover rate for the volunteer chiefs. Chief
Eggleston explained that it is how much turnover there has been in the last three years, adding that it is a
difficult and demanding job with shortened life expectancy for fire chiefs. He said any deficiency in that
role would have a ripple effect across a department in terms of retaining volunteers.
Ms. Ralston reported that the DSS turnover rate is 13%, up from the rate in 2008, with the state
average at 16%. She said her department does a really good job with retention and puts a lot of time and
effort into that, but exit interviews show that people just cannot do the work anymore. She agreed that
the compression issue was a factor in recruiting.
Ms. Dittmar asked why the DSS Department relies on overtime rather than adding staff. Ms.
Ralston responded that her department is adding people as the Board allows it to and, when factoring in
benefits, the amount of overtime only adds up to two positions. She said DSS is currently down 23
positions.
Ms. Bolling said she could not speak for the School Division as a whole but, in hiring 16 new
teachers this year, she had some specific criteria needing experience with highly diverse schools, and
had a very deep pool from which to choose. She said, however, the demands of the job are getting
greater, and teachers are starting to talk a lot more about salaries, the ir quality of life, and the time they
spend working.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Ms. Mallek asked Chief Eggleston to share what he had mentioned about the integral role played
by the Pantops Station in terms of relieving gaps which are happening with the three other stations
nearby. Chief Eggleston said Pantops is the second busiest area of the County and, because of that,
they are drawing stations in from outlying areas to assist with particular concern for East Rivanna. He
stated that they recently reviewed the calls, and one out of every five calls for East Rivanna must be
answered by another station because they are already tied up, with the absolute maximum usually at
10%. Chief Eggleston said it is a busy area, and is the last piece of the puzzle to provide adequate
coverage for the development areas.
Mr. Boyd said he and Chief Eggleston attended a meeting before the Pantops master plan was
approved, and explained to the community how they would have a new fire station at Pantops and that
was over five years ago.
Ms. Dittmar stated that East Rivanna is in her neighborhood, and there was a bad fire there in
January 2014, and she reassured residents that the fire agreement with the City allows them to answer
the calls because they are closer than East Rivanna. Chief Eggleston said the City does respond to
those critical calls but, even with the agreement in place, they still have a gap in coverage. He stated that
they recently had a series of major accidents on I-64, and companies from as far as Ivy responded, which
depletes resources. Chief Eggleston emphasized that the County is at a size now where they cannot
have huge gaps uncovered. He said fire/rescue has developed a few options on to how to solve this, and
he hoped to have some discussions in the near future as to what those are.
Ms. Dittmar said several fire/rescue members plan to address constituents at her upcoming town
hall meeting with Mr. Boyd. She noted that the Rivanna Village Citizens Advisory Committee has made
that a focus topic for that event.
Ms. Mallek said she wanted to reaffirm comments made by both Police and Fire/Rescue about
training, because the leadership seems to be generational and that sometimes leaves a gap at the
stations. She stated that they were doing some leadership training that was well received a few years
earlier, and asked if there was just too much demand to offer it again.
Chief Eggleston said one-time funding was used to kick it off, and it was very successful so
people have asked for it again, and ACFR would like to continue it. He emphasized that they are trying to
model it to fit the needs, and retaining volunteers begins at the leadership level because they affect the
entire membership.
The Board thanked panel members for their participation.
Ms. Allshouse stated that Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, would talk about CIP
financing and service districts.
Mr. Letteri said, in a previous five-year plan presentation, there was a slide outlining a series of
strategies and potential approaches to the challenges going forward, including possible financing options
with a focus on general obligation bonds and possibly doing a referendum; the other part of the
discussion focused on service districts. He stated that his goal for this presentation was to talk about
what the differences in options are and under what circumstances the Board may want to consider certain
types of financing or service districts. Mr. Letteri said his presentation would not necessary be a work
session, but would just try to highlight and discuss the differences in approach. To the extent the Board
wants staff to pursue any of these items in particular, he said staff could bring that analysis forward at a
future date.
Mr. Letteri stated that CIP financing options are a major part of the County’s capital program, and
a critical and necessary component of building the program. He said, as the Board contemplates $170-
$180 million in projects to be done over the next five years, approximately 70% would be debt financed.
He stated that, as staff presents those plans to the Board, staff does a careful analysis of how much debt
to issue versus how much cash and equity to have in these programs, all of which are guided by a series
of financial policies that the Board has endorsed. Mr. Letteri said there are a number of different types of
debt that a county like Albemarle can consider that is authorized by statute, including lease-revenue for
projects like libraries and non-educational projects. He stated that there is a difference between these
debt forms as it relates to what a rate is likely to be, and that is an important consideration. With a
collateralized lease revenue bond, he said the County would put forth an asset or building that is held in
collateral against the loan and, in those cases, the County would get the best possible rate under the
lease revenue program. He said, if it is uncollateralized, the rate would not be quite as good.
Mr. Letteri said the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) program is a state sponsored
program is a pooled bond program, which are general obligation bonds backed up by the state. He said
there is usually a pool of localities involved in the bond issue. He stated that this has been a major part of
the program over the last several years, with the majority of the County’s debt issued through the VPSA.
Mr. Letteri clarified that those funds can be used for buildings and major capital renovation projects. He
said VPSA bonds are a relatively easy process, with bonds issued by the state and low up-front costs,
however, the rate might not be as good as it would be for a single AAA locality because the County would
be pooling with other localities that may have a lower rating. Mr. Letteri stated the other form is a general
obligation bond, which cities can do without referendum, but counties are required to hold a referendum
and does require voter approval. He said this form of financing would result in the best possible rate
because there is full faith and credit of the public, and it is not subject to a n on-appropriation. He said,
technically, a locality could decide not to appropriate the funds necessary to make debt payments, but
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
that is not true of a general obligation bond. Mr. Letteri said the general obligation bond provides the best
rate, followed by lease-revenues collateralized or not, with the spread at about 2/10s of a percentage
point. He said he has spoken with the County’s financial consultants about issuance costs, but their
opinion is that there is not much material difference between a general obligation bond and/or a lease-
revenue bond in terms of issuance cost; they are about equal and, in both cases, the County would be
seeking a rating and preparing a prospectus, etc.
Ms. Dittmar asked if referendum language usually specifies which projects and initiatives would
be covered under a general obligation bond, and would also require increasing the tax rate by a certain
amount to cover the interest. Mr. Davis stated that the question itself would not reference a tax rate or a
tax rate increase; it would simply reference either a category of projects or a specific project that would be
funded by the general obligation bond. He said the tax rate information could be provided in public
information leading up to the bond referendum so the County could educate the public as to what the cost
of the bonds would mean in terms of debt service and tax rates but that would not appear on the question
itself.
Mr. Letteri said, with the general obligation bond, the County might not want to put necessary or
critical projects which are mandated on the referendum, as the referendum might fail.
Ms. Dittmar asked for an example of a mandated project. Mr. Letteri said a court may approach
that, as it might absolutely need to expand the courts, so the County may not want the public to turn down
that kind of referendum.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the courts project was a mandate. Mr. Foley said it is not a mandate, but it is
about as close to one as one can get. He added that a judge could mandate it through a legal process.
Mr. Foley said the courts have not done that at this time.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is a lot of good information in the minutes of the last CIP committee
meeting. Mr. Foley said some localities have gone to the public and said it would have to do this one way
or another and would like approval for use of general obligation bonds; the real question is whether the
locality is engaging the public in these decisions along with how essential the facility is. He stated that
there is a strategy in approach whereby the Board could inform the public that the project would move
forward with or without the referendum.
Mr. Sheffield asked if Albemarle County had done a bond referendum previously. Mr. Davis said
the County did a bond referendum in the 1970s, for Western Albemarle High School.
Mr. Letteri said it would be important for staff to look at peer localities, as is done routinely, and
then carefully look at the real financial implications of doing it one way or the other.
Mr. Boyd asked what the turnaround time would be to finance a project if a bond referendum
failed. Mr. Davis said there is nothing legally that would prohibit the County from financing it through
other means, although politically, it may be more complicated.
Ms. Dittmar said she and Bill Letteri had attended a meeting at the VACO conference in which
Warren County reported on the building of two new schools, both through general obligation bonds and
perhaps they should be contacted to see how that was done.
Ms. Palmer said Mr. Davis had written the Board an informative email on the courts projects, and
she wanted to get clarification on the collateralized bonds. Mr. Letteri said it would be one of the County’s
building assets that is free of debt and is owned outright.
Ms. Mallek said the County Office Building would be one example. Mr. Letteri confirmed that it
would be, adding that the County has fire stations, libraries and other buildings which are owned outright
and are held against the loans required to finance them. He said, generally, the policy and practice has
been to collateralize lease revenue bonds.
Mr. Davis said the 5th Street building was collateralized for the last bond issuance done so, if the
Board defaulted on those bonds, the bond holders could sell that building and pay the bonds back.
Mr. Letteri reported on service districts which can be created by locality or a group of localities
that are contingent or together by ordinance, and those specifically involve boundaries with a line drawn
around an area of the County that is in question. He stated that, generally, service districts pertain to
services that are distinguishable against those provided to the rest of the County, so it is an added
service or a higher level of service involved. Mr. Letteri said there are a number of service district types
that are now authorized by statute, as listed in his report: sidewalks, economic development, promotion
of business and retail development services, beautification, control of infestation of insects, refus e and
solid waste collections, all specifically referenced and authorized. He stated that it is not about an
additional revenue source or a way to provide new revenue; it is a way to provide a higher level of
services and identifying taxes which would pay for those services and would not provide revenue benefit
for the rest of the County at large.
Ms. Mallek said, in some jurisdictions, they have a higher tax but, when going into detail, there is
a fire district or library district, etc. Mr. Letteri said it would only be within that geographic area.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Ms. McKeel said that is why service districts are not great for education. Mr. Davis confirmed that
service districts are not authorized for education.
Mr. Letteri said, generally, service districts are done by levying the assessed value of the
properties within those boundaries, and the taxes are accounted for separately so those funds go to the
services provided. He said a fire/EMS zone is allowable, but is not legally a service district.
Mr. Davis said a fire zone or fire district is not under the same enabling legislation as other
service districts and is set up under a separate portion of the State Code; it is possible under that section
to have a countywide zone. He stated that the County could have one or multiple zones depending on
the level of service it wanted to provide for fire services within different regions of the County.
Ms. Dittmar said, at the town hall meeting she held with Ms. Palmer, there was interest by the
public in service districts related particularly to transportation, where there would be a desire in the urban
area but not in the rural area. She stated that all but two of the top ten localities have service districts ,
with Albemarle and Stafford as the only ones without. Ms. Dittmar noted that Stafford’s tax rate to
support services without districts is $1.02 on $100, so there might be a possibility here to use a district to
serve people within a certain area.
Mr. Davis explained that service districts are not subject to referendum or citizen vote, but are
simply provided through ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said the primary focus of the transportation working group in 2005 was strategizing
different ways to provide funding for specific transportation projects, but the group ’s recommendations
were rejected by the General Assembly.
Ms. McKeel noted that the effective tax rate in Albemarle is 69.9 cents, and it is important to
continue to communicate that to the public.
Mr. Boyd said, as far as what the taxpayer pays, it is 79.9 cents.
Mr. Foley said the best way to articulate that is, when compared to another locality’s tax rate, that
locality actually has 10 cents more revenue to use for the services they provide.
Ms. Dittmar said Albemarle also collects a lot less from the rural area, and it is just part of the
plan and strategy.
Ms. McKeel agreed, but added that it is not bad to remind people.
Ms. Allshouse presented a slide with a hypothetical County employee who was making $50,000
beginning in FY10 and was enrolled in a specific health insurance medical plan . She said, factoring in
VRS changes and tax withholding adjustments as well as FICA reductions, adjusting for inflation, there
has been about a 6.3% decrease in real wages since FY10. She said Ms. Dittmar had asked for a
comparison with the private sector in the County, but it is not comparable. She said, using Virginia
Employment Commission data, there is a sub-category for the private sector. Using the average weekly
wages, she said the comparative points were not identical because of gross wages versus net and the
use of a different time period but it is a useful indicator as an aggregate of businesses.
Ms. Dittmar asked if it was based on hourly wages, because a UVA official mentioned to her that
they did not downsize during the recession and, while they pay a little less, the employment is reliable
and the benefits are great. Ms. Allshouse said there is no way to know, because this is called ‘average
weekly wage gross.’ She said this is information that is mandated for businesses to turn into the VEC.
She noted that another difference is that the VEC data is calendar year versus fiscal year but, using their
data, Albemarle County’s private sector wages have increased by over 1.71% between calendar year
2009 and 2013. Ms. Allshouse noted that another unknown factor is what other adjustments were made
to their salary, such as health or other benefit adjustments.
Ms. Allshouse presented information on the joint Boards’ adopted market for target wage and
benefit levels, and noted that cities, counties and school districts as well as selected local private
businesses are included in the adopted market.
Mr. Foley said the County was not really competing with the private sector group; it is competing
with other public sector organizations in the market but, if retaining and recruiting top employees is a
strategy, then that is what the Board has tied its comparisons to.
Ms. Dittmar said, in talking to residents in the context of recruiting teachers, police, firemen, etc.,
Supervisors convey struggles over income not keeping pace with inflation, so she had requested that Ms.
Allshouse bring the information in to provide some hard numbers.
Mr. Foley said, at this point in the five-year planning process, staff felt it was important to get as
much input as possible from the Board.
Ms. Allshouse said she had two questions for Supervisors: one about priorities, and one about
strategies. She read the first question: “Given your understanding of the five-year financial plan situation
and your feedback from the community to date, what are your thoughts and reflections at this time
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
regarding the most important priorities over the five years of the plan?” Ms. Allshouse said everyone was
still in the thought process of the plan and the priorities of the plan.
Mr. Foley stated that, as everyone looks at five years and the challenges ahead, staff wants to
know what the Board feels are the most significant things to f ocus on, to the degree that it can.
Ms. Mallek said, at her three town hall meetings, people had wonderful questions and
tremendous concerns about public safety and future enrollment ability for schools. She noted that the
kinds of things that bothered them most on a daily basis were cars speeding and aggressive driving, and
feeling endangered on their roads, at their mailboxes and a need for more traffic enforcement. Ms.
Mallek said this is something the County hopes to achieve when it gets better with police department
staffing levels. She stated that citizens were also very well aware of the overcrowding at schools.
Ms. McKeel agreed and said Ms. Mallek was correct about safety issues, especially police
enforcement, and education concerns regarding enrollment increases and funding for schools.
Ms. Palmer said she gets a lot of the same questions and concerns, but she also gets comments
about aging in place, as there are a lot of rural people who are older. She stated that this is one reason
why she is trying to ensure they have trash services, because a lot of the small haulers are the ones who
are doing the services for the least amount of money and doing the most services for a lot of these elderly
people. Ms. Palmer said she is concerned about aging in place in terms of transportation and JAUNT,
and how the County is addressing issues for the elderly.
Ms. Dittmar said she has only held one town hall thus far, and mentioned a teacher who came to
speak about concerns over her salary. She said Greg Jenkins, Police Captain in the southern Albemarle
area came and talked about staffing issues, and that concerned people. She said she had two more town
hall meetings in the coming weeks – one in the northeast end of the County, and one with a rural focus
the following week so she would like to wait to put all of that together.
Ms. Mallek said each section of a district often has very different concerns, so Supervisors need
to try to put it all together and find the middle ground.
Mr. Foley said staff would revisit this in the Board’s work session the following week. He said
staff had another introductory question which would lead up to that also.
Ms. Allshouse said the next question was related more to strategies: “What are your thoughts
about the strategies the County – schools and general government – should consider exploring to
address the funding gap of scenario two?” She referenced a graphic showing one group of strategies,
adding that Supervisors could add more to that list.
Regarding the strategy, “Use bonds for capital improvement needs,” Ms. Mallek said Supervisors
need to make sure people understand that the County still needs to have the cash from the tax increase
in order to pay for the bonds.
Ms. Dittmar said that is why she asked the question earlier about putting language in the
referendum so people will understand the relationship with the need to cover debt service.
Ms. Mallek said there are restrictions on the language allowed in the ballot itself, but there is a
thorough explanation kept on the wall of polling places, which contains all of the really important
information.
Ms. Palmer said she felt the Board must look at the special tax districts for transportation issues,
and that needs to rise to the top.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to have a more in-depth discussion of what that might look like.
Ms. Palmer said improvements such as having a bus stop that is not in the middle of the road are
basic safety concerns.
Ms. Allshouse said staff would come back to these questions the following week, and the Board
would hold a five-year financial plan work session on December 10, at which time Supervisors would
complete the plan and move into the annual budget process. She said the Board would also have a joint
meeting with the School Board regarding the CIP on that date. She said the School Division’s
recommended budget would come out on January 15, with a public hearing scheduled for January 29.
Ms. Allshouse said the County’s budget comes out on February 19, at which time the County Executive
would present the recommended budget to the Board, with the first public hearing on February 23.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 19. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Laura Knox addressed the Board, stating that she was Executive Director of a group called
Smart 29, a coalition of concerned citizens from Charlottesville and Albemarle County who are committed
to finding long-term sustainable and thoughtful solutions to the region’s transportation issues. She said
Smart 29 supports the following projects: the Berkmar Drive Extended project, the widening of Route 29
between Route 643 and Town Center Drive, Hillsdale Drive Extended, the upgraded traffic light system,
and the Best Buy ramp at the Route 29/250 Bypass. Ms. Knox stated that Smart 29 maintains its position
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
that the parallel road projects should be completed prior to the construction of any interchange, and the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) should proceed with the projects she listed and, once
completed, should conduct a full evaluation including a traffic study and economic analysis pertaining to
the Rio Road/US29 grade-separated interchange. She said these evaluations would help VDOT
determine if the $84 million of tax revenue is required for the proposed interchange. Ms. Knox presented
a petition with 640 signatures from members of the community, who are requesting that the Board and
Governor McAuliffe intercede and suspend proceedings with the grade-separated interchange and to
complete the parallel road projects before construction of any interchange.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: SP-2014-00013. Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07700-00-00-040J0, 07700-00-00-04-K0, 07700-00-00-04-L0.
LOCATION: 1740 Broadway Street.
PROPOSAL: Establishment of an indoor soccer training facility within an existing building.
PETITION: Request for an indoor athletic facility [Section 22.2.1(b)(24)] permitted via Section
26.2 as a "general commercial use." No dwelling units proposed. ZONING: LI-Light Industry -
industrial, office, and limited commercial uses; no residential use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial Service – warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 4 of the Development Area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 17 and November 24, 2014.)
Senior Planner, Claudette Grant, addressed the Board by presenting an aerial view of the
Broadway Street Soccer indoor facility, stating that the proposal is located at 1740 Broadway Stre et. She
said the property is zoned LI – Light Industrial, which allows industrial office and limited commercial uses
and no residential use. Ms. Grant said the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as industrial
service, which allows warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research and a host of other types of
uses. She stated that the applicant requests a special use permit to establish an indoor soccer training
facility within an existing warehouse building, and the applicant wishes to open a new business that would
allow for an indoor soccer training facility. She stated that all activities would occur indoors. Ms. Grant
said the applicant plans to rent approximately half of the 51,000 square foot building, providing three
small soccer fields that would be about 50’x100’ in size. She stated that there are no plan s to change the
exterior of the existing building, or the property, and minor changes to the interior would need to be
completed in order to accommodate the proposed indoor soccer use. Ms. Grant said the applicant has
explained that any changes he does to the interior of the building can readily be reverted back to its
original light industrial use, and has also explained that he plans to be in this building for three or four
years, which will allow him time to find a more appropriate commercial use space for his business. She
said it is staff’s understanding that the owner of the building is working to lease the other half of the
space.
Ms. Grant said staff sees the following favorable factors: there are no anticipated detrimental
impacts on adjacent property resulting from the proposed use; this allows an abandoned building to be
occupied; and it allows the startup of a new business. Ms. Grant said staff sees the following unfavorable
factors: the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed commercial use
will result in a potential loss of inventory in the industrial district; and there is a potential loss of a central
location for industrial uses. She said staff notes additional factors to be considered when reviewing a
special use permit for a commercial use in a light industrial district, and these factors were not met. She
stated that all of the factors that are unfavorable, plus the inconsistency of the additional factors not being
met, and the importance of the County’s economic vitality plan, led staff to not recommend approval of
this special use permit. She said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 11, 2015
and recommended approval with amended conditions. Ms. Grant said the first condition is specific to this
use as shown on the concept plan presented earlier, and is amended to describe ‘athletic facility’ instead
of ‘soccer facility’ and to clarify the correct attachment. She said condition two has been eliminated, as
described in a memorandum received in the Board’s packet from the County Attorney’s Office. Ms. Grant
said condition three describes an expiration of this special use permit which was amended to four years
to provide additional time. She stated that Ms. Catlin would also share pertinent information regarding
economic development.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that the assessment of
the economic development aspects of this project is not intended in any way to be a reflection on the
merits or desirability of an indoor soccer facility in Albemarle County. She said staff feels it is their
responsibility as an economic development staff to bring to the Board’s attention the strategic
opportunities presented by this particular site as an LI-zoned option, to create awareness as Supervisors
are considering the proposed application and, given what staff knows is the Board’s significant interest in
the status of the LI inventory available in the County. Ms. Catlin said the building is 46,000 square feet
and is one of the newer large-scale industrial zoned buildings in the County’s inventory, with some of the
other large industrial buildings dating back to the 1950s and 60s. She said this building was built in 1989,
which has some significance in thinking about modern up-fitting. Ms. Catlin said, currently, 1740
Broadway is the only stand-alone vacant industrial building above 45,000 square feet available in the
County. In considering location factors of the site, she said this building is the County’s only vacant
existing facility located within 1.5 miles or less from a major interstate: 1.1 miles from I-64. She said the
site does offer a complete package of infrastructure, with Charlottesville Gas, Dominion Electric Power,
public water and sewer, broadband, and a local street network. Ms. Catlin noted that the site is
considered tenant-ready with no requirement for any County regulatory or legislative approvals if a
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
primary target industry intended to locate in the space, except for the typical zoning clearance and
certified engineer’s report which would be required of any new business locating in industrial zoning. She
said it is also located near urban amenities which tend to appeal to high-tech companies, and is the
closest vacant space to downtown which is important to millennial workers and the new target companies
the County is hoping to attract. Ms. Catlin said, because of its location, it also provides the opportunity for
career-ladder jobs that are within walking distance for local residents, and is also served by two bus
routes that stop within five blocks or less of the facility.
Regarding the character of the Broadwa y corridor, Ms. Catlin said this building was part of an
historic corridor of industry that included the former H.T. Ferrin concrete plant, the Lexis-Nexis printing
company, Iso-temp Research, and others, ending at the Woolen Mills facility. She stated that, as
business models have changed and operations have evolved, the corridor is expanding with some
modern industry enterprises. She said Wimberly Photography opened a new production facility in 2012
for manufacturing specialized components for nature photography; in 2013, the Lumi Juice Company
invested nearly $1 million in new organic food processing technology; in 2014, Champion Brewery
expanded its production in the Broadway Street corridor, etc. Ms. Catlin said investments in these
enterprises combined for more than $2 million, including up-fits, equipment and lease payments, and
have brought a sense of innovation and boutique manufacturing to this corridor. She stated that these
businesses see themselves as an established and growing industrial cluster in this part of the County.
Mr. Sheffield asked how long the building had been vacant. Ms. Susan Stimart, Economic
Development Facilitator, confirmed that it had been vacant since November 2013.
Ms. Mallek said the staff report said nine months. Ms. Catlin reiterated that the comments were
not intended to be any reflection on the current applicant, but staff feels obligated to point out the
advantages to this as an LI site.
Ms. Dittmar commented that, in reviewing the Planning Commission minutes and speaking with
Commissioners, Tim Keller and Rick Randolph, those concerns were considered, and that is why they
wanted a very temporary special use permit to ensure it was available, as the County got going with a
new economic development office, a new vision and new resources, and to also have it back for that
specific use. She said this is part of why it passed unanimously from the Planning Commission.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, addressed the Board, stating that, at the Commission
hearing, they did not have the opportunity to have Ms. Catlin or Ms. Stimart speak, so he does not know
to what extent the full background had been provided to the Commission.
Ms. Dittmar said, for Mr. Keller and Mr. Randolph, they had already spent a lot of time talking
about it because this LI is important to the County and is of great interest to her a s this district’s
supervisor. She stated that she is eager for a master plan for this area. She said the County would have
an economic development director up and running within a year and this will be a choice property
eventually.
Ms. Grant said the applicant was present, and she had some motions prepared for the Board’s
use.
Mr. Boyd asked what the total square footage was, and how much the applicant planned to use.
Ms. Grant responded that the total square footage was 51,000 square feet, and the applicant was hoping
to use about half of it.
Mr. Boyd asked Ms. Catlin and Ms. Stimart when was the last time the County leased property
that was 50,000 square feet to any industry moving here. Ms. Catlin said the old Comdial building has
been leased pretty aggressively over time, with businesses moving in as a ‘condominium’ type
arrangement. She noted the MicroAire space is also about 50,000 square feet.
Ms. Susan Stimart addressed the Board, stating that Siemens Energy located in the Comdial
building as a partnership with Micro-technologies and, when they needed to grow, they had just the one
option at the UVA Research Park. She noted that the building was about 41,000 square feet, going into
the former MicroAire facility, and MicroSystems is still located in the Comdial building, with about 45,000
square feet. She said they are in partnership with Siemens Energy, which took over the former MicroAire
building next to the Research Park.
Ms. Catlin confirmed that MicroAire moved into the old federal post office building.
Ms. Stimart said MicroAire needed over 50,000 square feet, and they are continuing to grow.
She mentioned that Midwest Research Institute continues to use space in the Comdial building, and was
not up to 50,000 but was getting close. She said CustomInk was also expanding in that facility, and was
close to 70,000 square feet.
The Chair opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Mr. Tom Weber addressed the Board, stating that he was a resident of Earlysville and thanked
the Board and staff for its work. Mr. Weber said he moved here six years ago from Wisconsin, which is
cold, and indoor soccer is on about every corner there. He stated that, as members of SOCA, they have
been hopeful that the Belvedere project would take off so there would be indoor soccer there. Mr. Weber
said he and other parents are hoping to do something temporar y until Belvedere gets off the ground, and
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
have been looking for space for the past six months with this facility being the best around. He stated
that, as of his last check with the realtor several weeks ago, there were 13 other warehouses for rent in
the region, and this is especially good because there is a 50-foot span between the posts versus the
typical 25. Mr. Weber said this is a springboard and a temporary site, and have 30 kids already signed up
to play. He stated that they changed it to a general athletics field because other sports coaches such as
field hockey and lacrosse have expressed interest in using it. Mr. Weber said he understands that LI
space is limited, but the building has been vacant for over a year and no one has signed a contract for it
yet. He said his use would take up about 20,000 square feet, because the office space is 8,000 square
feet, and they would be dividing the building in half with a firewall. Mr. Weber said their use would be
primarily evenings and weekends, so it would not interfere with daytime business. He noted that there
are 110 parking spaces although they only anticipate using about 25 at any given time.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the applicant had any issues with the conditions the Planning Commission
had put forward. Mr. Weber said four years would be great as it provides some leeway but, in two years if
he can find a piece of property and build his own warehouse, he would like to do that. He stated that he
planned to employee 10-15 referees and 10-15 coaches, and is hopeful that SOCA can move forward
with Belvedere, however, the area could use at least one or two more warehouses for indoor sp orts, as
there are many children and adults who play sports. He said his big dream is to build a large facility that
could be used for regional tournaments and thus bring tourism here, with hotel rentals and other benefits
to local business.
Ms. Mallek said her concerns about traffic had been answered because it seems that parents
would not be staying and watching. Mr. Weber responded that it may be a mixed situation. He said, if
there is a game, it would be five kids versus five kids instead of 11 and 11 so, if there are parents here, it
would be a smaller group.
Ms. Hillary Lewis addressed the Board, stating that she was the owner and founder of Lumi Juice,
and she was representing her business as well as Hunter Smith, owner and founder of Champion
Brewery. Ms. Lewis stated that she and Hunter both were 28 years old and both had started their
companies about 19 months ago, neither having manufacturing facilities – with the Broadway Street
corridor being a wonderful place to start a business. She said there is fantastic proximity to downtown,
and the cost, although higher than real estate in Waynesboro or 29 North, is worth it because people can
stop by the shop and walk to work. Ms. Lewis said she employs 15 people and, in a full year of
manufacturing, they are already in 30 states and 350 stores across the United States. She stated that
she is a member of SOCA as well and has been a soccer player her entire life but, at the end of the day,
this is a really unsafe place for children and adults with semi-trucks coming down Broadway every single
day, night and weekends. Ms. Lewis said her facility manufactures some weeks seven days per week,
sometimes until 1:00 in the morning, sometimes at 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday, and late into the evening. She
said business does not stop just because it is the weekend, and a ball can roll into the street. Ms. Lewis
said the loading docks are all taken, so you could not do an industrial zone on the other end, and this is
really discouraging for economic development, with the building vaca nt for about nine months now. She
stated that Hunter Smith has said he would not have considered putting his brewery there if he knew this
was going in, adding that he is a parent of two children. Ms. Lewis asked the Board to reconsider
approval of this, because of the consistency of the culture they are trying to create on Broadway Street,
and the need for manufacturing increasing jobs that will be there for years.
Ms. Boyd asked what she manufactures. Ms. Lewis responded that she makes organic, cold-
pressed juice using a high-pressure processing machine using extreme water pressure instead of
pasteurizing. She noted that her business is considering expanding into baby food, meat marinades, etc.
Ms. Mallek said Lumi Juice has the only high-pressure pasteurizer in Virginia. Ms. Lewis
confirmed that fact, adding that they were the first integrated juice manufacturing firm in the entire U.S.,
with two major competitors, one is owned by Starbucks. She said both of those businesses have facilities
that are over 120,000 square feet, and that is her goal to expand on Broadway Street within three years.
Mr. Patrick Grant addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of the Still Meadow
development and has been a resident of the County for fourteen years. He said his son was present at
the meeting and was dressed to play soccer in an indoor soccer facility in Richmond. Mr. Grant said
these facilities are hard to find and, on their way to Richmond, they got into a traffic accident with the
police dropping them off at the courthouse in time to make this meeting. He stated that there are traffic
dangers wherever you go, and it would be fantastic for the community to have an indoor training facility
close by without having to travel 60-70 miles each way. He said there is a big demand for this activity,
and there are many events which are canceled because of weather. He strongly encouraged the Board
to endorse the proposal.
Mr. Weber said there is a row of bushes and parking is at least 30 feet off of the roadway, so he
is not worried about the safety factor of children running out in the street. He stated that everything would
be indoor and, in the 20 times he has visited this site, he has yet to see one other car or truck. Mr. Weber
emphasized that this would be as temporary as he could possibly make it and, if he can prove that this
activity will be really busy, the bank would likely provide the funding needed for a different facility and he
would cut his lease short. He added that the patrons of his sports facility would likely patronize the juice
and beer businesses in the same complex. Mr. Weber said Ms. Lewis’s comment about the loading
docks is incorrect, as those at the end of the field would be accessible with a large unloading door already
on that side.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Mr. Boyd stated that he was a Board member when the auditorium was completely packed with
people supporting the Polo Grounds indoor facility for SOCA, which the County turned down . He said he
and David Slutzky worked diligently to help find another location and, in the sense of the promise he
made back then, he would be in favor of this application. Mr. Boyd stated that the positives far outweigh
the negatives.
Ms. Mallek said she was very concerned about the long-term usability of the LI, and has seen all
the transitions accomplished because they were lucky with the County criticized because there is not
enough space ready. She said putting up the division wall might allow for usable space and, as long as it
is temporary, she would support it for that reason. Ms. Mallek noted that she would not support it if it
were a more permanent use.
Mr. Boyd agreed, adding that the Board has, in the past, been involved in decisions which
removed LI from the books, but this does not do that.
Ms. McKeel said she would be more comfortable with three years versus four.
Ms. Grant said it would simply provide the applicant with more time to find more space.
Mr. Weber said he had asked for five years, and this was the compromise adding that, if he can
find a space in two years, he would be gone.
Mr. Sheffield said this reminds him of the pet kennel that was planned for Avon Street Extended,
stating that he was in the audience at that time, and the Board had made a similar co mment about Light
Industrial. He said the comments at the time had to do with whether or not the County would be dictating
to landowners if it had the opportunity to maximize uses.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the County could really see something happening in this facility given
recent activity. Regarding the possibility of parents coming in there, she said she did not feel worried
about the loss of LI. She said the Commission said the proposed commercial use would result in a
temporary loss of inventory and a temporary loss of central location, and perhaps the Board could support
the four years as the Commission did.
Ms. Palmer said there was nothing in the staff report about safety, and asked if the Commission
had discussed that issue because of other unfavorable factors. Mr. Benish said, from a traffic standpoint,
staff did acknowledge under “health and safety” that there were different types of traffic conflicts, but the
volume of traffic seemed low so staff did not require an analysis.
Ms. Mallek said the railroad underpass was potentially the biggest obstacle but, hopefully, the
kids would be inside all the time and not running around. Mr. Benish said, since this is more of a training
facility and not events-oriented, it was less of a concern.
Ms. Palmer said not all of these children would be with their parents, as some of them would be
older.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be teen drivers as well. Mr. Weber said the main group of
participants would be 8-13 years old, however, there may be an opportunity with a small league for UVA
students to drive over and play but the facility does not lend itself to walking through the neighborhood, as
there is no field around it and there is very well defined by shrubbery. He said he had talked to the
owners about the safety issue in that neighborhood, and Ginger Ashcomb, a realtor whose family owns
the facility, has left late at night and has never felt threatened. Mr. Weber said he would consider
installing security cameras because he wants the kids to be safe, nothing that this facility would be safer
than many school gyms, which are not built for indoor soccer. He emphasized that this facility would be
designed with netting and padding and other safety measures, with “Footsall” installed on one of the
fields, which is a 6-7 mm rubber pad, and the other two fields would be field turf, the same used at
Albemarle High School.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the proposed resolution to approve SP-2014-00013, subject to the
two conditions as presented. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The adopted resolution and conditions are set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-13 BROADWAY STREET SOCCER (INDOOR)
WHEREAS, VAS of Virginia, Inc. (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers
07700-00-00-040K0, 07700-00-00-040J0, and 07700-00-00-040L0 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner filed an application for a special use permit to establish an indoor socc er
training facility within an existing building, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014 -
00013 Broadway Street Soccer (Indoor) (“SP 2014-13”); and
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2014, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle Cou nty
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-13 with the conditions recommended by County
staff; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2014, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed
public hearing on SP 2014-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff report
prepared for SP 2014-13 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 2014-13, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
* * *
1. The indoor athletic facility shall be limited to fifty percent (50%) of the production area, as shown
on the Data Visible Corporation Landscaping Plan, prepared by Wiley & Wilson, and dated 4/7/87
(attached hereto). All parking for the facility shall be located in areas designated on the
landscaping plan, referenced above. Any additional buildings or other site changes related to the
indoor athletic facility use, except for those required by the conditions of this permit, require an
amendment to this Special Use Permit; and
2. SP-2014-00013 shall expire on December 3, 2018.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 21. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Quarterly Report.
The following memorandum was received from Mr. Gary O’Connell, Executive Director of the
Albemarle County Service Authority:
“We appreciate the opportunity to again brief the Board of Supervisors. The ACSA has a number of projects
underway which this report will highlight. Below are some updates for review:
1. 50th Anniversary – We complete the year-end of 2014 celebrating our 50th anniversary to the
Albemarle, Crozet and Scottsville communities. We currently ha ve 18,300 customers serving
nearly 70,000 Albemarle residents with water and/or sewer service.
2. Budget and Rates – The FY 2016 budget and rates will be presented to the ACSA Board of
Directors at the April Board meeting, for July 1st adoption. We have recently begun the budget and
rate development process for next year. Our monthly rates are slightly less than the statewide
average for a residential customer.
3. GFOA Certificate of Excellence – We received in October the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) Certificate for Excellence in financial reporting. This is the 32 nd consecutive
year we have received this prestigious national award.
4. GAC Projects – The granular activated carbon (GAC) filtering projects at all five water treatment
plants are moving forward for bidding in January by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(RWSA). The final design work is underway, including GAC design for Scottsville which recently
was under debate. The five water plants include Crozet, Scottsville, Observatory, South Fork
Rivanna and North Fork Rivanna, all serving Albemarle water customers.
5. Debt Formula Agreement – A long standing issue that is needed to be settle d has been the debt
formula that RWSA bills for monthly water and wastewater use to the ACSA and to the City. The
Four Party Agreement (that established Rivanna and included the ACSA, RWSA, County and City
in establishing), currently provides that the monthly billings be on a monthly flow basis. This does
not create much of an issue for water, but for wastewater the monthly flows can vary dramatically
due to wet weather rains (infiltration/inflow that gets into the sewer lines) or drought. The proposed
agreement would use an annual monthly average for both water and sewer. This change would
be fair for all parties and help to stabilize the budgets. Discussion is underway on the final
agreement language.
6. Water Supply Plan – With the completion of the new Ragged Mountain Dam and Reservoir, the
first phase is complete. Our Board recently had a discussion about the future next steps in the
Water Supply Plan, and it is briefly outlined here.
The second part of the agreement is the filling of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir to full height
(another 12 feet). The adopted agreement for Ragged Mountain provided an automatic “trigger”
that when the average daily demand over a year reaches 85% of the safe yield, RWSA is
authorized, upon either ACSA or City request, to increase the Ragged Mountain pool level by the
additional 12 feet.
The final part of the Water Supply Plan was the construction of a new pipeline (from South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir). It was estimated that this pro ject would
cost $60 million. ACSA, by agreement, is responsible for 80% of the cost. The existing RWSA
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Capital Improvements Program has in FY 2017 and FY 2018, $2.295 million for the new pipeline
corridor design and right-of-way acquisition to begin.
7. ACSA Capital Projects Update:
Crozet Maintenance Building and Lot – The ACSA for a number of years has owned a
maintenance property in Crozet on Route 240 adjacent to the water treatment plant which
is staffed 24 hours a day. As part of the GAC water fil tering project, the ACSA property
will be reconfigured. Also recently our long-term tenant moved out. We are upgrading the
buildings and will continue to use the facility for equipment and project storage, such as
pipe, with no staff on-site.
Western Ridge – Foxchase (Crozet) Water Connection – The project was to create a
looped system, which now dead-ends. This improves water quality and provides an
emergency backup. All the waterlines have been constructed, and are now in service.
Key West Water Main Replacement – This waterline project replaces an existing
waterline that was constructed for what was once a large well system converted to a public
water supplied system. The waterlines are old and in need of replacement. Additionally,
fire hydrants will be added that will increase the level of fire protection in Key West. A
contractor has been selected, and the project is ready to start.
Ashcroft Water Improvements – A new tank has been installed and the pressure
reducing stations have been upgraded. A pump station that fills the tank is being replaced.
Construction has begun.
Michie Tavern Water Main Replacement – A new waterline is being designed that would
connect near PVCC on Route 20. The current waterline is over 70 years old and badly
deteriorating. The project is in the initial design stages
Crozet Water Main Replacement Phase 2 – A phased waterline replacement program is
underway to replace some of the older and less reliable parts of the system. Work is
complete on St. George Avenue, Wayland Drive and McCauley Street. Waterline
replacements are underway in the High Street and Hilltop Drive areas.
Berkeley Water Main Replacement – This 56 year old waterline is deteriorating, with
failures and leaks. We have completed field surveying, and the project is under design.
Glenmore Water Tank Project – Glenmore has a single waterline serving the Village of
Rivanna area, and is in need of an emergency backup which this project would provide.
The water tank is designed, and community meetings have been held. We are awaiting
final project approvals, including a site plan setback approval from the Board of Supervisors
(recommended by the Planning Commission and staff). Final easement preparation is
underway.
Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – This is another of the emergency redundancy
projects in our system. This project is located near Ivy Nursery, and would connect to the
West Leigh area for water system and fire protection improvements. This project is at the
permit stage.
Ednam Water Pump Station Upgrade – This project is also part of our emergency
redundancy plan, to provide an alternate source of water to the West Leigh area. This
work will upgrade the existing Ednam Water Pump Station to increase the pumping
capacity. We are in the final design phase.
Orchard Acres Waterline Extension – This project continues the ACSA efforts to
systematically replace aging and, in some cases like this, an undersized waterline in the
Crozet system. This project is in the preliminary design stage.
Sewer System Rehabilitations – Work is near completion in the Ednam Drainage Basin.
We will be working next in the PVCC Sewer Drainage Basin, with work to begin this spring.
Oak Hill Sewer – The ACSA staff is working with the Albemarle County Housing Office to
develop a Virginia Department of Housing Community Development (VDHCD) Grant for a
“construction ready” new sewer line project to serve 20 additional properties. The design
is nearly complete. As you will recall, we recently completed a sewer line to replace
deteriorating septic fields for over 50 households in the Oak Hill area. This project was
supported by funding through Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), in
cooperation with Albemarle County
West Leigh Waterline Replacement – The existing waterlines in this area are
deteriorating and in need of replacement. Work is nearly complete on Devonshire Road,
and work is about to proceed on Wendover Drive.”
_____
Mr. O’Connell addressed the Board, stating that he sent the Board a report in advance to apprise
Supervisors of major issues. He noted that the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) currently has
29 active projects underway to upgrade the water and sewer system. He thanked the Board for its
approval of the Glenmore water tank permit. Mr. O’Connell said one item that is not in the report is an
annual rate report done statewide covering 150 utilities around the state, and said it is a good comparison
of rates and bills compared to other areas. He stated that the ACSA’s average residential bill is below the
statewide average for other comparable bills and activities, and is 15% less than a comparable City water
and sewer customer. Mr. O’Connell said they often hear about rates going up but, when compared to the
state average, the ACSA is still slightly lower.
Ms. Mallek asked about the new waterlines along Route 240 westward along Three Notched
Road, and cited citizen concerns about the timetable for paving the road there. Mr. O’Connell said that is
a Rivanna project, but there is a commitment to make it drivable again and Mr. Frederick could speak to
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
that. He said both agencies work hard with residents and VDOT to do the best job possible with
roadways during construction, but that is a particularly difficult one because the line is right in the drive
lane and trying to stay on top of it every day, which the contractor and Rivanna’s inspectors have done, is
challenging.
Mr. Boyd asked if the comparison among jurisdictions also compared tapping rates. Mr.
O’Connell confirmed that it did, and noted that the ACSA was in the top tier, and within the top five in the
state. He said their ‘growth for growth’ policy whereby developers pay for their fair share of the cost helps
keep residential rates lower. He stated that the City’s new connection fees are about 50% lower but the
residential rates are much higher. Mr. O’Connell said a few of the faster growing localities have water
and sewer expansions and the need for more capacity.
Mr. Boyd said an earlier presentation talked about how urbanized the County was becoming, and
this relates to that as well, commenting on the Route 29 projects Mr. O’Connell had mentioned.
Mr. O’Connell said there are also 30-35 private development projects, and each one of those is
putting in new water and sewer infrastructure so they must have bigger pipes and a bigger treatment
plant to accommodate that growth. He said ACSA did a fairly significant rate study review the previous
year, looking at all costs for development and, last year as a region, they spent close to $1/4 billion on
water and sewer infrastructure improvement.
Mr. Boyd asked if the ACSA had a rate stabilization process as Rivanna has, and if it came out of
the tap fees. Mr. O’Connell responded that they do, and basically their capital program is funded by
setting aside between $5-6 million for water and sewer projects, and is more heavily weighted toward
water projects over the next few years. He said they have used up some of the reserves they have built
up to help either offset rate increases or to assist with capital projects, and mentioned that Ms. Palmer
had a deeper history with the ACSA.
Ms. Palmer said the ACSA knew they had some huge projects coming up 15 years ago, and
started accumulating funds in the early 2000s to pay for the infrastructure it knew was on the horizon.
She stated that the American Waterworks Association has best management practices on how to set
those tap fees, and the Service Authority has always gone with the BMPs to set those.
Ms. Mallek said she applauds the ACSA for its forward-thinking philosophy in setting aside money
for capital every single year, which was hard fought but very important and is hopeful the ACSA will go
after the irrigation people for more money.
Ms. Palmer stated that this is why the ACSA was able to do so many large projects during the
recession and take advantage of the cost reductions, adding that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(RWSA) did an excellent job as well.
Ms. Dittmar commented that she has a constituent in her district whose water bills were
humongous, and the ACSA team handled it right away.
Mr. O’Connell said if someone’s toilet is running, it can mean 60,000-80,000 gallons per month.
Ms. Mallek said if you lived in a countr y and had a well, you would never let that happen because
your well would be dry in 24 hours so people need to be aware of those things.
Ms. McKeel said, about 20 years ago in December, she received a water bill for $1,000, which
ultimately was traced back to a construction site and it all worked out, but it was an unpleasant
experience. She asked if Mr. O’Connell had a map of where septic systems are located, because she
was surprised at some of the neighborhoods in which they were located.
Ms. Mallek asked if they were in the jurisdictional area. Mr. O’Connell said that would be the first
question. He said, if the property is not in a jurisdictional area, then the ACSA is not allowed to provide
service. He stated that there are some locations where there is septic available, but they would have to
pay a connection fee.
Ms. McKeel said the residents in question found that it was cheaper to put in a new se ptic system
than to hook up to Service Authority utilities. She said it might be helpful to find out how other localities
are handling this. She stated that, environmentally, the County should be encouraging people to hook up
to public water and sewer.
Ms. Mallek commented that she is surprised someone got permission to put in more septic in the
growth area.
Mr. O’Connell said that it was probably an existing field.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. O’Connell if he had a comparison chart which showed tapping fees versus
installing a septic system.
Mr. O’Connell said the costs are actually pretty comparable, plus you never have to pump it and it
is never going to fail.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to have this discussion in the future, but it is not pressing.
_______________
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
Agenda Item No. 22. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Quarterly Report.
The following memoranda was received from Mr. Tom Frederick, Executive Director of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority:
“I am preparing this as a quarterly report in advance of meetings of the Board of Supervisors and Ci ty
Council in December 2014. I am also happy to address questions or other topics, either at scheduled
briefings, or by e-mail or telephone:
1. Schenks Branch Interceptor Replacement: I am informed that negotiations remain
incomplete between the City and County regarding the terms of an easement to be granted
by the County to RWSA for this project. Time is of the essence to complete these
discussions and complete a document for execution and recording.
2. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: This project will be
advertised for bids in early January for all five RWSA Water Treatment Plants, with bids
expected to be received and opened by mid-February. We will be reviewing bids for the
Scottsville Water Plant with the ACSA Board on February 19 seeking their inpu t on a
budget issue: comparing the cost of the construction of facilities for the granular form of
activated carbon versus the long-term use of powdered form. We anticipate construction
to begin by May 2015.
3. New Rivanna Pump Station: The project is under construction to build a new pump station
at the Moores Creek Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP) site, linked by a new
tunnel from the existing pump station site adjacent the City’s Riverview Park. Excavation
of the entrance shaft for the tunnel boring machine is now taking place, with tunnel
construction expected to begin within the next three months. A groundbreaking was held
at the existing pump station site on November 12.
4. Wastewater Plant Odor Control: A master plan for odor control at the Moores Creek AWTP
in 2007 stated that a complete program for odor control could cost as much as $33 million.
Given the high cost, the Board chose at that time to construct only an initial phase, after
which results would be re-evaluated. On the basis of feedback following the
implementation of the initial phase, a re-evaluation is now being completed regarding “next
steps” and will be presented to our Board of Directors in December.
5. Ivy Materials Utilization Center: RSWA is continuing to assist the County as requested in
their planning for how to use the Ivy Materials Utilization Center following the expiration of
the current contract between RSWA and the County on June 30, 2015. A report from
Draper Aden and GBB is being presented to the Board of Supervisors in early December.”
Mr. Frederick addressed the Board, stating that he had identified the top priorities for t he Board in
his report. He pointed out that the fourth item in his report relates to odor control which is a big report that
will be coming to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board on December 16. He noted that
this has been a tough issue for the Board. He stated that the RWSA did a master plan in 2007 and the
Board was shocked at the price tag, and made a decision, at that time, to take an incremental approach
in order to determine if the issues could be resolved that way. Mr. Frederick said the complaints are less
than in 2007, however, some of those have not gone away and there are some citizens who complain on
a fairly regular basis. He said it is a tough issue because growing bacteria is how they clean the water
and how they produce resources like green energy so they cannot kill the bacteria, but it is the process of
using the bacteria that causes the odor issues. He stated that, several months earlier, he had attended a
national conference of the Water Environment Federation, which is the flagship of the wastewater
industry. At that conference, he attended a specialty session on odor because he wanted to understand
whether there were some simple shortcuts the RWSA did not know about. Mr. Frederick said, in talking
with other attendees, the complaints experienced here are not at all unusual and the price tag is
reasonable when compared to those other utilities, however, there is no easy fix. He stated that they
have adopted, as part of the study they would be presenting in a few weeks, a fence-line standard with a
target of keeping odors onsite more than 99% of the time if they get the capital improvements they need,
but the consultant has estimated a cost of approximately $9 million.
Mr. Sheffield said he works at JAUNT, which is very close to the Rivanna facility, and the odor
has improved significantly with the stronger smell coming usually on rainy wet days. Mr. Frederick said,
at the specialty conference, he met two people who were specialists in this field, and he encouraged
Rivanna’s consultant to hire one of those firms as a quality control check. He emphasized that he w as
doing everything possible to ensure that the price was optimum but, most importantly, to address the
problem. Mr. Frederick stated that the citizens in the community who ar e dealing with this issue are not
going to be satisfied with a phased, partial solution; they want it fixed.
Ms. Mallek asked if the changes made to the septage were successful, as that was contributing to
the odor.
Mr. Frederick said, in 2007, their two greatest sources of odor were the compost facility and th e
septage receiving station, and they have both been changed, with the station now totally enclosed and
totally automated.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
Ms. Palmer said now that they know VDOT will be selling the land for the easement for the
pipeline from South Fork, her grave concern is that the land gets sold and built up, and the County is left
trying to figure out an easement. She asked if there was any way to identify the easement before
everything gets built.
Mr. Frederick said there are two critical issues: what VDOT’s decision would be because, from
the review done previously, trying to put the pipeline where the bypass was proposed is not the right
solution now that the land is being sold back. He stated that many people are joyous right now because
they are going to get their property back, so Rivanna does not feel it is right to come in and split it with an
easement again and feels that a different corridor is the right solution. Mr. Frederick said the second
issue is staffing and, if they are going to pick up the project and run with it, the RWSA Board would have
to make some hard decisions to postpone other projects, such as the granular activated carbon (GAC)
project that is driven by federal deadline, which he is not able to slow down. He said they are under
contract for the Rivanna pump station and breaking that would be expensive, and staff is loaded down
with other capital projects now. Mr. Frederick stated that a corridor study for this pipeline would generate
a lot of public interest and a lot of public concern, and he wants to ensure that staff has the time to
address it, and his suggestion is to wait a few years before they try to tackle it.
Ms. Palmer asked if any part of the VDOT corridor for the bypass was being considered for the
future pipeline. Mr. Frederick said there may be a few hundred feet, but the plan was to align with the
bypass because the road had already done the damage to the property. He stated that, now that the
road is off the table, they want to find the route that does the least amount of damage to property which
serves people the best, and they do not feel the bypass route is the correct route.
Ms. Mallek said VDOT has made it clear it would not sell properties encumbered with another
easement.
Ms. Palmer said she was suggesting the area right out of South Fork – the first third – that had
the bypass going along that section and always thought that it would have a lot of building on it. She said
the Georgetown Road area was already built up, and asked if the first third would st ill be going in that
bypass area.
Mr. Frederick said, in order to fully answer that, they would need to get into the details of a study
and he is suggesting that they wait a few years.
Ms. Mallek said it is an important part of the plan, so the Board is eager to see what happens, but
she acknowledged that the GAC project was the pressing issue right now.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 23. Board Rules of Procedures.
a. Policy on Presentations and Reports to Board from Organizations/Boards and
Committees.
b. Draft Policy on Proclamations and Recognitions.
Ms. Dittmar stated that there are 88 commissions, committees and authorities that the Board
hears from in some fashion, and there was some desire to revisit how it accepts those reports.
Ms. Mallek said, in preparing meeting agendas, she suggested the Board return to the long-
standing policy of having the Clerk and the County Executive work together to prepare the agenda,
because almost everything on there is coming through the process, and then informing the Chair as to
what the agenda looks like, possibly rearranging the order since the Chair is running the meeting.
Mr. Davis said nothing has changed in the procedures, but what Ms. Mallek is referring to is a
request to change the policy to align with prior practice, which is under the “Order of Business” section
which currently says, “The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultat ion
with the Chairman.”
Ms. Mallek said, for many years, the Clerk and County Executive prepared the agenda and
presented it to the Chair for consultation and, if there were concerns about items, the Board was polled
about what to do instead of having the leadership engaged and choosing what is going to be on the
agenda and what is not.
Mr. Boyd said he supported what Ms. Mallek is saying, as he served as chair and vice chair, and
he, along with the Clerk, would meet with Bob Tucker to review the agenda and, because there were
items flowing through the system, those needed to be on the agenda.
Ms. Dittmar said this is pretty much what happens now, although sometimes there are last minute
items.
Ms. Mallek said the last-minute agenda items can complicate things, and she would like to have
some work done on the wording.
Mr. Boyd said the wording needs to be corrected, as he did not realize it was worded that way.
Mr. Davis said the practice was never what the wording stated, adding that it has been written this
way for over 25 years.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Ms. Mallek said it should read ‘County Executive and Clerk.’
Mr. Foley said, over the course of the year, this question has come up and staff has worked
closely with Ms. Dittmar to try to make it work as effectively as possible.
Ms. Dittmar announced that there are two substantive items the Board would need to address
under its policies.
Mr. Davis said he provided a draft of the remote participation policy to Ms. Jordan, stating that it
arose from a state law change which says, in order to allow participation from a remote location
electronically under certain conditions where there was an emergency or a personal matter or a medical
disability, the Board now must have a written policy in place which says the Board is not going to consider
what is on the agenda but would only determine whether the disability and notice have been properly
provided. He said that he put this into a procedural form and, if the Board wished to allow remote
participation, they would need to include that wording in its policies.
Ms. Mallek asked if the participation guidelines would be decided at the beginning, or if those
decisions would be made up each time.
Mr. Davis said it would require a vote on the day of the meeting after the chair had been notified
in advance of the request, all of which is covered in his draft policy.
Mr. Davis said the other item to discuss was the proclamation procedure.
Ms. Dittmar said, in speaking with Ms. Jordan, it was contemplated to simply have a proclamation
recognition as an addendum to the procedures. She asked if that would need to go into the actual
procedures. Mr. Davis responded that it would not.
Ms. Mallek said what was already circulated worked pretty well. Mr. Foley clarified that all of the
changes being proposed would be part of the Board’s rules and procedures.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that the rules and procedures would be taken up in January.
Mr. Davis said the question was whether the proclamation policy needed to be included in the
rules and procedures and, while it can be, it does not have to be.
Mr. Foley asked where else would it be. Ms. Dittmar said she would like to reference it in a
paragraph, and have the several pages as an addendum, with the other alternative putting it directly into
the procedures.
Mr. Boyd said he would prefer having it in the procedures, so it is identifiable.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Davis if proposed changes would be in time for the Dropbox items for the
January meeting.
Mr. Davis said it would.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 24. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters not Listed on the Agen da.
Item No. 24a. Update on Rivanna Station.
Ms. Mallek reported that she had attended a meeting at Rivanna Station, and it was a fascinating
look at the processes which the Department of Defense (DoD) takes to look at their installations and the
very thorough work it is doing to address severe space shortages and security issues. She said the DoD
wants to bring its employees inside the security fence and, for solvency reasons, to move into space that
is not leased. She said she and County staff picked up lots of good contacts which would be helpful
going forward. She stated that the Rivanna Station leadership wanted very much to be notified when
there were any changes in policy being considered.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, said what they heard from Rivanna Station is that
they were doing an environmental assessment as part of their master plan process and were looking at
expansion possibilities to accommodate existing personnel and planned growth. She said this was not
about any new groups coming in; it was more about bringing existing staff into their perimeter. She said
the Governor and the Governor’s Office mentioned Albemarle as a desirable location for additional
facilities to come in. She stated that Rivanna Station has a comment period from now through December
19 and, at the meeting, they had representatives from VDOT and the Service Authority who needed to
weigh in on the four alternatives. She noted that the Community Development Department would be
providing comments on those. Ms. Catlin said the County would encase those comments in a letter that
would be supportive and welcoming to convey that Albem arle is eager to work with DoD in whatever ways
possible, both on their master plan and future growth as commands might move around. She added that ,
at an outgrowth of the Commission meeting, there has been an effort led by the Chamber and the Central
Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, the County and the University of Virginia, to set up
regular communication with Rivanna Station and have committed to a quarterl y meeting with a small
group of people which would begin early in 2015.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Ms. Mallek said Rivanna Station also mentioned issues with secondary egress because, if
Boulders Road were closed for any reason, that is their only way in and out currently. She said the road
loop that would someday circle back to Route 29 further north is what they were looking at. She asked if
Rivanna Station staff would like Boulders Road to be private but they felt strongly about keeping it in the
state system, and would even consider a pedestrian and driving bridge across Boulders if they were able
to choose a scenario with a new building across the street.
Ms. Palmer asked how many people at Rivanna Station were hired locally, versus coming here
from outside the area.
Mr. Boyd said there were 46-48 people hired locally, according to Rivanna Station.
Ms. Catlin stated that a fair number of people came with the jobs when Rivanna c ame down here
in the first wave but, since then, they have hired a few more locally. She said there is additional work with
contractors who are hiring locally.
Ms. Dittmar said one of the main issues in getting people locally to be able to work at a facility like
that is getting security clearance, and Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) has a program to
get them certified.
Ms. Catlin said the College does an “Analyst Boot Camp.”
Ms. Catlin said Mr. Sheffield has been interested in more information about job numbers and
economic impact of Rivanna Station, and staff would share that when it became available.
Ms. Dittmar asked what Rivanna Station would do when the comment period was over, and what
the next steps would be. After the comment period is over in December, they would do a draft
environmental assessment, publish it and then put it out for review. She noted that, according to their
schedules, there is a comment period in February and March; then they would prepare the final report
and issue their findings in May.
______
Item No. 24b. Request Letter to Federal Legislators, re: funding for broadband.
Ms. Dittmar stated that, over the holiday, her brother who works for the Governor of Connecticut,
had visited and asked her what her key interests were as far as Board initiatives, and she broug ht up
broadband. She said her brother mentioned USDA funds being used for broadband, specifically targeting
agri-business and farms that need broadband and, as soon as Connecticut learned about it, they went
right to their legislators and asked how to navigate this. She said she has worked through Congressman
Hurt’s staff member and has contacted Senator Warner’s office, but she has heard nothing back about
this. She asked if Board members would agree to have her sign a letter as Chair on its behalf, in order to
make a formal inquiry.
Ms. Mallek stated her support for the Chair to send a letter.
Ms. Palmer said Supervisors should also bring it up with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC) the following night.
Ms. Dittmar said she had let Chip Boyles know about this prior to the meeting.
Ms. Mallek noted that Information Technology Director, Mike Culp, did a wonderful presentation
at the agri-business meeting in November, and gave a great introduction on the topic for the many people
who were there. She encouraged those at the meeting to participate in the broadband survey.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 25. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley stated that the Board has received his monthly report. He noted that the Tuesday
Comprehensive Plan meetings would continue in 2015 and those meetings would be reflected in the
calendars distributed to Supervisors by Ms. Jordan. He said there were community members who did not
feel there were enough opportunities to be involved in the Comp Plan review and discussion, and Ms.
Catlin and Ms. Echols have compiled a flyer that illustrates the fact that the County has had 65 meetings
with the Planning Commission and two public hearings; the Board has had 10 work sessions thus far with
two opportunities at each one for public comment; adding that Engage Albemarle has also allowed for
questions and comments. He said the flyer also outlines other public engagement opportunities which lie
ahead, along with a timetable for anticipated completion. Mr. Foley also noted that some questions that
had arisen from the public related to Monticello, etc. and those have been captured on the website in
Community Development.
Ms. Mallek asked if the responses had been posted to those questions. Mr. Foley said those
items would come back to the Board for review, with an explanation on the website that the items were
considered and discussed by the Board, and no final decision has been made.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to have copies of the flyer for upcoming town halls as well as an
electronic copy.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Ms. McKeel said she would like to have an electronic copy of the panel presentation from earlier
in the meeting.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that the Historic Preservation Committee was working on some suggestions
for the Board to consider early in 2015 regarding the potential documentation issue of old buildings that
were slated to be torn down. She said there was an option to let people photograph the old buildings, but
there is no requirement for a landowner to allow it.
Ms. Mallek also reported that the Piedmont Workforce Network was entering another three -year
cycle and would be getting RFPs out for management of the One Stop Center on Hydraulic Road and
also in Culpeper. Ms. Mallek also reported that this is the third round of these, and the great
improvements that the One Stop operation has made are getting better and better.
Ms. Mallek reported that work is being done on pre-qualification information for applicants
entering land use, because five years of production information is not required to be submitted; it is only
an affidavit, and she would like to have a higher standard. She noted that Bob Willingham was gathering
information on the wide variety of standards across the state to get into the program, and would be back
at some point with that. Ms. Mallek said in the Dropbox in the next few days would be the notes from the
third round of the CIP Committee, adding that they held a very good discussion about bonds. She said
one excellent comment made by a citizen was to not put anything in the bond that must be built, as was
mentioned by staff earlier.
Ms. Mallek also mentioned that there had been information in the news about cancers related to
artificial turf, as soccer goalies spend lots of time on the ground. She added that the turf fields only have
an eight-year lifespan and there was supposed to be a ‘set-aside’ for replacement every year, however,
she was unclear if that was happening.
_______________
Non-Agenda Item. Closed Session.
At 8:51 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards,
committees and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments;
under Subsection (1) to discuss the annual performance review of the County Executive; and under
Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation
concerning purchasing issues because a public discussion would adversely affect the litigation posture of
the County. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Non-Agenda Item. Certify Closed Session.
At 9:12 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. Mallek seconded the
motion.
Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Boards and Commissions: Appointments (deferred from earlier in the
meeting).
Ms. McKeel offered motion to make the following appointments/reappointments:
reappoint Mr. Ross Stevens to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Appraisal Review Committee with said term to expire December 31, 2015.
reappoint Mr. Steve Janes, as the Rivanna District representative, Ms. Tammie Moses,
as the Jack Jouett District representative, Ms. Nancy Fleischman, as the White Hall
District representative, Mr. Kevin Quick, as the Scottsville District representative, Ms.
Judy Savage Jones, as the Rio District representative and Mr. John Lowry, as the
Samuel Miller District representative to the Equalization Board with said terms to expire
December 31, 2015.
appoint Mr. Dean Johnson and Mr. Brian Campbell to the Joint Airport Commission with
said terms to expire December 1, 2017.
December 3, 2014 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
reappoint Mr. Bruce Dotson to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with said term
to expire December 31, 2017.
appoint Mr. Paul Haney to the Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee with said
term to expire October 30, 2015.
Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn to December 4, 2014, 12:00 noon, Room 241.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/07/2015
Initials: EWJ