2014-12-10December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 1)
An adjourned and a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on December 10, 2014, in the County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The afternoon meeting was adjourned from December 9, 2014 and was held in Room 241. The regular
night meeting was held at 6:00 p.m., in the Lane Auditorium.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann H. Mallek, Ms. Diantha H.
McKeel, Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m., by Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Kate Acuff, Mr. Ned Gallaway, Mr. Stephen
Koleszar, Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly, Ms. Pamela Moynihan, and Mr. Eric Strucko (left meeting at 4:41
p.m.).
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jason Buyaki.
SCHOOL STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Pam Moran, Superintendent; Dr. Matt Haas, Assistant
Superintendent for Organizational and Human Resource Leadership; Mr. Dean Tistadt, Chief Operating
Officer; Mr. John Blair, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School
Board.
Mr. Gallaway called the School Board to order and asked that attendees observe a moment of
silence, and noted the passing of Ms. Sue Pasternik, Literary Specialist at Agnor Hurt Elementary School;
and also the passing of Ms. Robin Aldridge, Special Education Instructor, and her daughter, Mani.
_____
Item No. 2a. Review of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Oversight Committee
Recommendations.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development (OFD), addressed the Board
and stated that part of OFD’s role is to help shepherd the capital improvement program through the
planning and budgeting process. Mr. Henry said he, along with Lori Allshouse and Lindsay Harris, do the
bulk of the work related to the CIP process. He stated that the CIP has exited the Oversight Committee
with a recommendation and is now being reviewed by Mr. Foley; however, the purpose of this meeting is
to have a ‘check-in’ with the Board. Mr. Henry said the Board met on the CIP a few weeks earlier and, at
that time, explored what came out of the Technical Review Committee, walked through projects and
reviewed a recommendation which had formulated out of the TRC and the Financial Review Committee
which also tied in to what the Board had been looking at as part of its five-year plan. He stated that the
purpose for today’s meeting was to provide an update on the Oversight Committee’s work, the
recommendation which came out of Oversight to the County Executive’s Office and for the Board to
provide some input on that, which would also tie into the five-year plan discussion happening later in the
day. Mr. Henry said the Oversight Committee was made up of Supervisors Ann Mallek and Liz Palmer,
School Board members Barbara Mouly and Eric Strucko, Planning Commission member Rick Randolph,
and one at-large citizen. He said the group met three times in November where the requests that came
out of the TRC ranking were reviewed at which time they took action to adjust the classification, reviewed
the recommendation, looked at a few different scenarios, and added a few projects into the
recommendation.
Mr. Henry reported that CIP requests total nearly $307 million over the five-year period which
included 83 requests of which eleven were new. He said the priority of funding is to cover existing and
new debt service; mandates and obligations; maintenance, repair and replacement projects with an
emphasis on maintaining core infrastructure investment to the County; and non-maintenance projects,
which are enhancement and/or expansion projects. Mr. Henry stated that one of the item s the joint
Boards discussed several weeks ago, as well as at the Technical Review Committee and Oversight
Committee processes was the request by the School Division for the learning space modernization
project and the Red Hill modernization project. He said what came out of Technical Review was a
classification of maintenance and also a recommendation by the Financial Review Committee to partially
fund the project at $3 million in year one, and $3 million in year two. He said that project request totaled
$67 million over ten years. Mr. Henry stated that, through multiple discussions and in an effort to clean
up the definition of maintenance replacement versus non-maintenance replacement, the Oversight
Committee directed staff to reclassify those projects as non-maintenance replacement. He explained that
there has been a lot of discussion with regard to understanding the difference between maintenance in
keeping a building occupiable versus work that would basically enhance a building. Mr. Henry said they
tried to delineate that definition as well as these requests, and Oversight felt it was more properly
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 2)
classified as non-maintenance, and requested that the Technical Review Committee rank the projects
under that classification with both ranking on the scale between 1 and 3.
Mr. Koleszar said the Oversight Committee realized that a lot of the projects labeled
“maintenance” do not meet the strict definition of maintenance but, rather than going back through and
reclassifying everything, the Committee decided to develop a stricter definition of maintenance going
forward.
Mr. Henry said one of the steps at the end was to bring back a recommendation to the Board to
tighten up those definitions, so what the Board saw as the Financial Review Committee’s
recommendation is what is now in front of it today in terms of the funding of those two projects. He stated
that one of the other projects that was added, through the Oversight Committee process, was the first part
of the Western Albemarle High School environmental studies academy, which was a combination
greenhouse/classroom requested for funding in year one, and tied to the Board’s priorities of creating the
science academy and also the fact it actually started this year. He said, in the recommendation, the
committee pulled out the first phase of that versus the addition in year five, so what is in the
recommendation is the greenhouse classroom portion in year one. Mr. Henry said another high priority
request which was not in the initial recommendation is the Rescue 8 renovation and expansion, which
was discussed at the last joint Board meeting. He said this request would take the old Charlottesville
Area Rescue Squad (CARS) building adjacent to the Berkmar/Seminole Trail property, and modernizing it
as well as expanding it to allow the bay to support the ambulance stationed there now. He said the
County has taken over the space that Seminole Trail has relocated out of, but it is really an interim
solution now with the ambulance sitting outside most of the time because there is only a one-inch
clearance.
Mr. Henry said the next project that came in, which has not yet been discussed by the joint
Boards, was the McIntire Office Building window replacement project. He explained that the request
process begins with requests being submitted and those working through the process. He said when
everyone last met in this phase, the County Executive’s Office was also reviewing the recommendations
going to Oversight and, through that analysis, the question came up as to what happened to the windows
which was a request that has been active for more than 10 years. Mr. Henry said General Services
Department had contemplated putting the project in again this year but deci ded to wait because it is a CIP
amendment year, and it was not approved last year. He said the justification in the past has been an
energy loss situation, but recent studies have also identified issues with the seals, so it has migrated from
a comfort and energy savings issue to more invasive issues which could occur with the weather. Mr.
Henry said this request came in out of cycle, but the TRC ranked it as maintenance replacement and is
currently a recommendation from the Oversight Committee.
Mr. Henry reported that the last project which came in was a Parks and Recreation project. He
said the Parks and Recreation Department’s number one non-maintenance project is trails – blue ways
and greenways - which have not been funded in the past because those are lower in the rankings based
on how criteria prioritizes public safety and schools. He said they have talked about different ways to
fund this project, including use of proffer balances, and have applied proffers to projects that are in the
adopted plan and are approved, and are currently carrying just over $1/2 million in proffers that are
eligible for this particular project. Mr. Henry said they have talked about directing proffers to help partially
fund this project, which would allow work to get started and tie to these proffers. He said, that would not
fully fund it, it would get the County farther along in improving some of the trails and addressing some
quality of life components. He presented a chart showing the projects by fiscal year and amount, noting
that the total request for the Western Albemarle High School project was $3.2 million with year one to
fund the greenhouse classroom, and years three and four to fund the design and construction of an
addition. Mr. Henry said the other projects reflected are the Rescue 8 renovation, the window
replacement project, and the proffers for trails use. He said the request for that project was $1.3, and the
committee has estimated about $600,000 that could be applied. He noted the total impact to the CIP
above what was reviewed and modeled a month earlier at a net impact of approximately $5.2 million.
Mr. Henry presented a listing of projects organized by priorities: classification, mandates,
obligations, maintenance replacements, and non-maintenance projects. He said it is listed in ranking,
and has the total amount requested by departm ents as the FY16-20 request, the TRC recommendation
which ties to what is in the five-year planning scenario two, and the FY16-20 Oversight Committee
recommendation. He noted what was presented to the Board as the TRC/FRC recommendation, and the
additional projects coming out of Oversight which was just discussed. Mr. Henry said Mr. Boyd had
asked about the net cost to the County for specific projects, so staff added keys to indicate a revenue
offset from sources like the state or a partnership, i.e., the 800 MHz communications system which cost
$18.8 million total with the County’s share at $9 .5 million. He stated that staff would provide project
details similar to what was done at the Board’s last meeting in advance of the Board’s March work
session. He noted that the document was still available on the Dropbox.
Mr. Henry said the adopted CIP has two pennies dedicated in FY16 and one in FY18, plus $2
million at the end of five years which would meet financial policies. He presented a summary of different
scenarios that were modeled during the Oversight process, and the bottom-line effect, with Scenario A
taking the initial TRC/FRC recommendation of deferring a penny from FY16, with the additional projects
bringing the reserve to just $600,000 by year five, and does not meet the County’s policy goals. Mr.
Henry said the Oversight Committee suggested looking at scenarios which might help meet those policy
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 3)
goals, and Scenario B basically stipulates what it would take to include those projects as recommended .
He noted that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did modeling which showed that 1.2 cents in
year three and 1.8 in year four would need to be added in order to meet the financial goal. He said OMB
also modeled what it would look like if they just took the revenues as adopted and, in all three cases, the
project requests and recommendations are the same; it is only the revenues that are different. Mr. Henry
said the Oversight Committee talked a lot about its role in the recommendations, and there was quite a bit
of discussion as to whether they model what was adopted by the Board in the last CIP, or if it was their
role to vet what comes out of technical review, to do any adjustments to classifications and process, and
to make sure there is a recommendation of projects which they feel should be funded. He said the
recommendation to Mr. Foley does not dictate potential revenue phasing, it just indicates that they think
those projects are important, the County should try to fund those as much as possible, and it does give
the County Executive’s Office the ability to negotiate through that. Mr. Henry noted that the total CIP
requests were $307 million, and the unfunded total was $136 million.
Mr. Henry said, in addition to the recommendation going to the County Executive, the Committee
wants to tighten up the ranking criteria in reviewing projects and return to the Board with some
recommendations to set the stage for next year’s process. He said there was a need to fund some of the
park projects and neighborhood planning, along with better defining core maintenance and non-
maintenance definitions, to include words such as “modernization” and “renovations.” Mr. Henry said
what is coming out of the Oversight process is the TRC/FRC committee recommendations, with the
addition of Western Albemarle, Rescue 8, the COB-McIntire windows, and the blueways and greenways
partially funded through proffers. He stated that there was still some process work to do, which they
would do collaboratively with the Technical Review Committee and ultimately to the Board in the spring.
Mr. Strucko said the committee spent a lot of time looking at the financial structure behind the
capital budget and overall County finances. He stated that county staff and both Boards value the
County’s AAA bond rating and tend to be very conservative with its assumptions and decision-making to
maintain that rating. He said, in some of the numbers, they saw additional borrowing capacity which the
County still had and could exercise and still maintain the rating. Mr. Strucko said there are some
assumptions even in the memo regarding interest rates which appear very conservative as well. He said
the County tends to finish fiscal years very differently from when it budgets. He noted that, for FY14,
there was $1.8 million more revenue than what was budgeted and spent roughly $4 million less than
budgeted so there was $6 million in resources left at the end of FY14. Mr. Strucko said those are very
small percentages of total revenue and expenses – less than 1% and 2% respectively – and, when
combined, they are about 3% off on total resources, which is a very tight margin. He said the question is
whether the County should get even tighter in its planning and questioned if it was prudent to budget this
way, and if it is even possible. Mr. Strucko said what the Boards do not want lost in the discussion is the
reality of the fact that the operations produced $6 million of resources which were not deployed for public
use, and that money gets rolled into cash balances which become part of cash balances used in capital
planning going forward.
Ms. Mallek pointed out that, of the end of year balances, the grand majority of that is already
encumbered, and that is why there is $400,000 going to capital and not $6 million . She stressed that she
did not want people to think there was $6 million just lying around.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Strucko to expand on ‘capacity for borrowing.’ Mr. Strucko explained that
when the County issues debt, it is done on a two-year cycle to be a source of capital for these types of
projects and, when one set of debt is paid down, it frees up capacity to borrow in the future and the timing
of that is what is being discussed here. He said he is looking at what the debt capacity would be for a
county of Albemarle’s characteristics to maintain a AAA bond rating, and where it actually was, and he
saw some space in there.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that the limiting factor is having the cash to pay off the debt, and that is
where the County cannot use the gap, because it does not have the cash to pay it back.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, said there are two ratios which staff looks at very
closely: total debt to taxable assets and the goal is to keep that below 2% with the County currently well
within that threshold; and debt service to revenue, which is a 10% ratio, also currently achieved. He said
that is what AAAs look at, adding that there is headroom with respect to those two ratios, but a locality
must have the ability to afford the debt service. He stated that the transfer that goes into the capital fund
must be sufficient to be able to absorb the ability to borrow for additional projects.
Mr. Koleszar said, theoretically, one way to pay for more projects would be to extend the terms
and, currently, it is seven years for some debt service.
Ms. Mallek commented that the County has already done that.
Mr. Letteri pointed out that the terms can be anywhere from seven years to 15 years, with larger
projects at 20 years, and staff tracks how quickly they are paying down debt as a combination of all of
that and, generally, the ratios have been about 65% of debt is paid off in 10 years.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 4)
Mr. Henry said, as part of the CIP requests, they look at the expected life of the debt to see what
could be applied to it.
Mr. Koleszar said, if they paid for shorter-term items with cash and took debt for longer-term
items, then the debt service ratio would decrease.
Mr. Letteri said you would be decreasing the debt service, but would most likely do far fewer
projects as you would be putting in more cash.
Mr. Koleszar said, if you move the cash from longer-term projects to shorter-term projects, then
the debt service would decrease.
Mr. Letteri said one of the things staff works on once the collection of projects is identified is to
run a whole series of different models in which they try to leverage the cash assets as much as possible,
to be able to do the collection of projects in a way that makes sense. He added they also look to make
sure they get the ratio of debt to equity which is strong for AAA bonding agencies.
Ms. Mallek noted that, about a year ago, the Board re-mastered its portfolio with
recommendations from financial advisors to change some of the years of paying things off, and that was
a pretty substantial adjustment.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff had anything in the figures showing how much is moved into capital funds
every year, including surpluses, designated pennies and percentages by formula. Mr. Henry said, by
formula, $20.1 million transferred to CIP and the first pay-down covers debt, which is $18.5 million,
leaving the remainder as capacity for the fiscal year.
Mr. Boyd said, when these funds are dedicated to CIP, the Board is making choices to invest in
infrastructure and taking those dollars away from the operating budget. He emphasized that it is
important to think about those things in those terms, because some of the spending on technology is
taking money out of the classrooms.
Mr. Koleszar said, with the technology grant, the School Division is spending $3,760,000 over five
years, but the cost to the County is zero because it is all state money.
Ms. Mallek said that was not shown as an offset, so it needs to be fixed.
Mr. Boyd said he is trying to get the thought process into the mode of remembering that
investment in capital takes money out of operating costs.
Ms. Palmer said Supervisors get reminded of that by constituents on a regular basis, and they
would rather have teachers than new things put into schools.
Mr. Boyd said that was the point he was trying to make.
Ms. Dittmar said Ms. Lori Allshouse had provided the Boards with different strategies to address
financial needs, and she found it interesting that proffers were being used in this regard and asked what
that might do in the future. She said she would also like to further explore bond possibilities and service
districts, perhaps to be used for a library in her district.
Mr. Henry said Mr. Letteri had presented information on service districts at the Board’s last
meeting, but staff could drill down in greater detail.
Ms. McKeel said she would like to have both Boards consider a bond referendum to address
some of the most valid capital items, many of which have been in the CIP for a long time and would take
many years to fund. She said, if both Boards never have the discussion, it would just continue to move
through the years, so perhaps there is a way to package some of these items and take them out for bond
referendum.
Ms. Mallek said it would still have to have the tax pennies to pay for it, so it is the same issue
everyone keeps coming back to.
Ms. Dittmar said this is why she was interested in exploring a service district, as the benefits have
to accrue in that area.
Mr. Koleszar stated that modernization projects and the expansion of Woodbrook and Crozet
required to meet capacity are really more countywide projects, and he did not want to get those two
concepts mixed up. He also said that, if the County were going to go out and ask for authorization from
the taxpayers to borrow money, then it needs to be made clear that it would require four cents on the tax
rate or whatever the impact would be so that this is not conceived to be “free money.”
Ms. Dittmar said that to go out directly with it is a more transparent way to ask.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 5)
Ms. Palmer said Mr. Davis had indicated that the County could not put that kind of information on
the ballot.
Mr. Koleszar said it could not be put on the ballot, but the Board could be very clear in its
communications and description as to what it implies.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that, when the Board has added a penny to the CIP, it was very
transparent and taxpayers knew it was going directly into capital and not to operations.
Ms. McKeel said if the Boards are going to move the CIP forward, it would need to do something
differently, and she would lik e to explore appropriate bond referendums for projects.
Mr. Foley said what Ms. McKeel seems to be articulating is going through a scenario to determine
how much it would cost, find out how a bond referendum would work and the same could be done for Ms.
Dittmar’s suggestion. He said the question is whether the Board would want staff to do that analysis, and
whether there is enough support on the Board to move forward. He said other AAA localities go to the
voters every few years, but that is a choice the Board would have to make.
Mr. Boyd said what he would rather see is for staff to identify the projects which might fit into that
category first before going through that step, i.e., considering the projects in the CIP.
Ms. Mallek said one bit of guidance the Board has been given repeatedly is not to put items on
the list that have to be done, and so it is the non-mandated things she would like to see before asking
staff to do any more work.
Ms. Dittmar said Warren County used a model where it asked residents for two cents and built a
high school, and their County Executive could come and do a presentation. She stated that this was a
way to look at things differently, especially for the Supervisors who are new to this post-recession. She
noted that she would like to see some of the capital improvements for a county this size.
Mr. Foley said having staff bring forth a scenario to get started would not be difficult, and then the
Board could say whether or not there was an interest to go forward. He added that this is a healthy
process for Board members to take a look at and the Board could stop at any point. He noted that
zeroing in on a service district is another approach.
Ms. Acuff said she had attended a recent Virginia School Boards Association seminar on CIP,
and Fauquier County gave a presentation on how it had done a bond referendum for the first time in order
to build a high school. She said Fauquier was successful in reaching out to its populace, and the
referendum passed the first time.
Mr. Foley said localities that are engaging with the public on a regular basis are typically fairly
successful with referendums, but one must be careful about putting a mandated project like the courts out
there unless they are told it is the best way to finance it.
Mr. Boyd said he would like the physical numbers associated with doing a bond referendum . He
said the last time the Board evaluated this, it was determined to be at a cost of $200,000 to issue its own
bonds, and the savings were $210,000 in taxes because of the difference in the rates.
Mr. Foley said staff would make that part of the analysis and, in the current low-interest rate
environment, the savings margins would not be that great. He said the question is whether the Board
would want the voters to participate in that decision.
Ms. Palmer said, if the County does something like that, it should be in a year when there is a
national election so there is a better turnout.
Mr. Koleszar commented that, in the budget presentation Mr. Foley prepares, he talks about
school CIP and school debt service, and he has always felt that was double counting expenses for
schools, because the schools are charged when they build the project for which they borrow the money,
but also the same amount when they pay off the debt service.
Ms. Mallek said her understanding is it would come off the top before any allocation of school
versus local government, so it is not an issue.
Mr. Koleszar said he was referring to the way it was presented, not the way it is actually funded.
Ms. McKeel noted that the concern is the way it is framed.
Mr. Foley said staff would take a look at it to make sure it is being explained well.
_____
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 6)
Item No. 2b. Brief Discussion of Joint Compensation.
Mr. Foley reported that both he and Dr. Moran had discussed the desire to have both Boards on
the same page regarding what is proposed in the five-year financial plan, as well as the annual budget
process. He said there is discussion about a 2.3% salary increase planned in the five-year financial plan,
and putting it in place mid-year for classified employees; the teachers were in at 2%. He said that is
recommended for some primary reasons: it implements the Boards joint strategy on compensation, which
is focused on keeping employees up to market and, while this achieves market salaries, however, it
delays it for six months. Mr. Foley said this also makes up the 1% the County fell behind market last year
and, even though the delay takes the County longer to get to market, the plan obligates some revenue
growth in the future year to pick it up for the full year, and does put staff at market. He stated that this is a
$2 million increase across schools and local government if it is implemented in July and, given the
circumstances, it was felt this was a better approach in terms of going forward into the next year and
beyond.
Dr. Pam Moran stated that it doubles the cost of compensation for the year, but there is also a
question as to how health increases get offset in the coming year, and this will help employees at the
lower end of the scale with a half year implementation versus a full year. She said the Schools have
employees that would be phased in at different points, given 10 and 12-month contracts and, depending
on when mid-year is hit, some people would get that increase in an earlier check, some with a la ter
check. Dr. Moran said she wanted to be sure everyone was all on the same page as far as full year and
half year implementation.
Mr. Foley said it is hoped, in future years, that the revenue situation would put the County in a
position to do that in July, but that would have to be looked at each year. He noted that, for this year, the
mid-year salary increase was deemed to be most appropriate. He added that the County is on a different
cycle with health insurance rates, with an October change versus a July 1 change, and there are a few
months where there is no raise but there would be a health insurance increase. Mr. Foley said staff has
brainstormed some ways to help employees out but have not come to any conclusion on how to address
this.
Dr. Moran said staff would like to find a way to keep employees’ net pay from taking a dip in the
next year, but there is still quite a bit of work to do on this.
Mr. Foley pointed out that a 1% in July for the entire year is 1% behind market but implementing
that in January allows the County to get its employees up to market.
Dr. Moran said she and Mr. Foley had discussed implementing this with a five-year plan which
would mean this would most likely roll forward in terms of future raises.
Mr. Foley said they were assuming that, each year, there would be a January raise given current
revenue projections and, hopefully, if revenue projections look stronger in the future, they could move it
back to July.
Ms. Palmer asked what the options were for making up the difference in November or December.
Mr. Foley explained that, assuming they had two months, they could contemplate a one-time bonus which
would make everyone whole.
Mr. Koleszar said it could be looked at as an increased contribution rather than a bonus.
Mr. Foley said staff could look at it as an increased employer contribution for two months,
although there would be som e tax implications, however, they could look at some different alternatives to
try to achieve that.
Dr. Moran said they do not want to enter the holidays with increased insurance costs having
kicked in October, as it would be a morale detractor for employees, so she would like to work on
strategies with staff and come back with some recommendations.
Mr. Gallaway asked if staff were looking to get some consensus on this from the two Boards, and
he agreed that there should be some consensus.
Mr. Koleszar said it is very important that the Boards do this together, and his concern is
determining which scenario would be more effective in teacher recruitment, i.e., 1% on July 1, or 2% on
January 1.
Mr. Foley said if 1% is implemented in July and the market is moving at 2%, we are guaranteeing
that the employee would be behind market for an entire year, versus having to wait and knowing they are
going to market when they are hired.
Dr. Moran stated that she and Mr. Foley will continue working with Human Resources staff to look
at what is going on in the market. She said some of the preliminary information from the other school
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 7)
divisions does not look promising in terms of them being able to gain. He added that everyone in the
state will likely be in a similar position with challenges for the next budget cycle.
Mr. Foley emphasized that the one thing they do know is, based on last year, Albemarle is
starting out 1% behind.
Dr. Moran agreed with Mr. Koleszar that the County would need to look at the most effective
recruitment strategy, because there are employees who have delayed retirement in order to get the 5%
higher VRS kick-up which gives them a higher payout at retirement, which is in its third year and may
result in a higher level of retirements this year.
Mr. Gallaway asked what the cost difference was between July 1 and January 1. Mr. Foley said it
was $2 million.
Mr. Koleszar commented that one of the things that had gone poorly in the County’s last budget
cycle was the fact that the School Board had to go ahead and make a budget decision about salaries
without doing it jointly with the Board of Supervisors . He said his thought for this cycle is, when the
schools are sending a funding request to the Board and need to make a salary adjustment , it should be
done jointly, either as they make the funding request or as the Board gets further into their process, rather
than the School Board making a unilateral decision.
Mr. Foley said there has been a good bit of discussion about that, noting that it would be ideal not
to have the School Board request delivered with a change and, before that happens, there should be
discussions between the two Boards. He said staff will be looking for that opportunity in order to avoid
the situation previously encountered.
Dr. Moran said there might be the need to hold some joint Board meetings to bring that issue
some closure if it gets to that point. She emphasized that this is scenario two, not scenario one, and the
cost difference was approximately $1.2 million for schools if the Boards were to go with a full year.
Mr. Gallaway said staff uses terms like “at market” and “strategy” with good reason, for planning
purposes, but there are real people who have not realized a take-home raise in four or five years and the
strategy being discussed is to offset increases and make them whole for two months so, when they get
their raise, they again will not realize an increase. He stated that, if the County did a 2% increase in fiscal
year one, they would actually realize an increase in take-home pay and, after listening to teachers, he is
at the point that this is a real concern for him. He said he would advocate for going to the community with
a recommendation for a 2% raise in the start of the fiscal year and, if they have to back up due to a lack
of resources, the community would understand that decision.
Ms. Mallek said the Board is already aware there is a gap, and this or nothing is really where they
are because they do not have the ability to have an extra $2 million.
Mr. Foley said the current gap for the school system , based on the five-year plan, was $4.4
million, and this would raise it up to $6 million. He said staff’s analysis would say that this was a
challenging place to start out.
Mr. Gallaway said capacity must be discussed and looked at even to do this scenario.
Ms. Palmer said she would want to have a number attached to that, adding that the School Board
sets its own priorities.
Ms. Dittmar added that the Board does not need a lot of research into the methodology, it is
whether the Boards do one or the other scenario.
Mr. Gallaway said he agreed that they should not move forward with the Superintendent and the
County Executive presenting two different scenarios, but he wanted to express his personal viewpoint.
Ms. Dittmar said scenario one was building in nothing for raises, and scenario two is for Dr.
Moran and Mr. Foley to work together on a commonality of a raise which would happen mid-year.
Ms. Moynihan suggested that staff start out with the best-case scenario as a starting point, see
how much it is and how much they have to work with which would not be known until early next year.
She said she hears from teachers and administrators about the compensation issue, and she knows the
limitations. She said she is afraid they are going to get into nuts and bolts again in the spring and detract
from where they really want to go, and she would hate to be in the same situation as they were last year
when they were getting down to pennies, nickels and dimes. Ms. Moynihan said, on the other hand, she
thinks they owe it to staff that this is what they would like to do if they can do it in the best of all possible
worlds. She said they have always said their goal as a School Division is to bring forth a needs-based
budget, and scenario two would be consistent with a needs-based budget.
Mr. Gallaway asked for a show of hands among School Board members to indicate support of
scenario two, as proposed by Dr. Moran and Mr. Foley, with a January 1 implementation for raises.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 8)
Ms. Moynihan said she would not mind moving forward with this but, since they do not know what
revenues will be until April or May, it does not hurt to see what it would look like at the maximum end with
the understanding that they may end up at the minimum end. She emphasized that, if they only present
the minimum, there is no way of going forward.
Ms. McKeel said she did not want staff to have any doubt about the Boards’ decision on this
matter.
Ms. Dittmar noted that only two School Board members raised hands in support of scenario two.
Ms. Acuff said this is a forced choice between doing nothing or doing a little bit better than
nothing and, for eight years, the School Board has essentially taxed teachers by increasing class sizes,
by increasing the number of periods, by not giving them raises and all because the Boards do not have
the fortitude to go to taxpayers and say, “We need to pay for a good school system.” She said, in looking
at relative tax rates compared to the top ten size counties in the state, Albemarle County is at the very
bottom and, even compared to rural counties, they are not high on that either. Ms. Acuff said the Boards
should look at this, as a minimum, but need to send a strong signal to teachers, who are left holding the
bag year after year after year.
Mr. Gallaway said this could turn into a much larger discussion, and the consensus sought here is
what Dr. Moran and Mr. Foley have presented to the Boards. He said he did not know whether it was
possible beyond this meeting to consider different scenarios.
Mr. Foley said it is important to point out that Human Resources provided the Board some data
which indicated that teachers are still at the bottom of the top quartile so, even though there have not
been raises, this is the 75th percentile with employees subject to commonality at the 50th percentile. He
said staff would recommend the Boards not drop the 2% to 1% in July, as that would not keep employees
up with market, however, if the preference is to shoot for market, Mr. Gallaway’s suggestion was to start
that July 1, not mid-year. Mr. Foley said the first decision here is Dr. Moran’s proposed budget to the
School Board, so they were hoping everyone would be on the same page.
Ms. Acuff added her support to scenario two.
The Board indicated it could support scenario two moving forward.
Mr. Boyd said that was acceptable to him for planning purposes.
Mr. Koleszar said the thing the Boards must face regardless of which scenario is done this year,
somewhere in the next few years with lots of pending retirements, the County will be facing a situation
similar to that of 2002 or 2003 where there was a bidding war for teachers. He noted that delaying salary
adjustments would only make it harder to catch up as the bidding war starts.
Note: The School Board adjourned its meeting at 5:24 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session and Action: Five Year Financial Plan (continuation)
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that the Board has had four work sessions on the five-year financial planning process, starting in
November. She said five-year planning is something which financially resilient governments do, and is a
very important component of being a AAA-rated organization. Ms. Allshouse stated that it provides for
the consideration of long-range financial implementations of current proposed operating and capital
budgets, and brings together the operating and capital plan. She said this planning is good for greater
transparency and collaboration, especially with the School Division, and it provides foresight when
flexibility and adjustments may be required. She said it is great for community engagement opportunities
and promotes dialogue, allows for consideration of multiple strategies for long-term financial health, and it
is important to connect resources to the Board’s strategic plan.
Ms. Allshouse said staff has presented two scenarios, with scenario one providing funding for
operating mandates and obligations, increased costs associated with healthcare, and a full year of
funding for positions that are funded in FY15. She said scenario one does not provide market salary
increases for existing staff over the five-year period and, as Mr. Foley mentioned, it does provide some
small marginal increases in the out years. Ms. Allshouse said the scenario did not provide for additional
staffing to meet current needs, nor those associated with growth. She noted t hat the current tax rate
does not support the CIP, actually reducing it by about $70 mill ion over five years, with maintenance
reduced and/or deferred. She stated that it does not adequate ly support core agencies, nor does it
provide any increases to health and human services agencies or cultural agencies.
Ms. Allshouse said, in October, both Boards met to talk about what guiding principles would be
needed for building a five-year plan and that was before everyone knew the revenue picture, however,
the Boards worked together about guiding principles to build the plan together. She stated t hat the
guidance staff received was to maintain the compensation in accordance with market and commonality;
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 9)
try to implement the strategic plan to the best of their abilities; to be considerate of the physical
infrastructure and address community needs and priorities; to be aware of changing demographics,
prevention, public engagement and involvement; to exercise fiscal responsibility, provide quality services
within a reasonable tax obligation for residents; and to provide adequate staff capacity across al l
functional areas. Ms. Allshouse said scenario two funds the mandates and obligations discussed, the
salary increase starting in January, which is in the Human Resources’ recommended range, and it
assumes a dedicated three-penny tax increase in the out years to support the CIP. She said scenario
two provides more adequate funding for agencies, as well as funding to begin to address current service
level needs and staffing shortages and staffing to keep pace with anticipated population and enrollment
growth over the five-year period. Ms. Allshouse stated scenario two ended up with a gap in the funding
that started at $8.1 million in the first year and became larger in the out years. She said the revenues
were built on assumptions a few months earlier which will be updated.
Mr. Boyd asked what the projected population increase was. Ms. Allshouse said this scenario
included a 1.5% population increase.
Ms. McKeel noted that the increase was usually 1,400 to 1,500. Ms. Allshouse noted that
sometimes the population increase impacts areas like Social Services in a different way, so this also
contemplates those service levels moving forward.
Ms. Mallek said the CIP recommendation was to leave the two cents in FY16, which is the next
budget year.
Ms. Allshouse said scenario two was built at the time at the Technical Review Committee, and
was adopted at two cents in the current year, but staff moved it to FY17 at 1.45 cents, so there was no
penny increase at all in scenario two for capital, as it was moved to FY17 and FY18. She explained that
the Board has an adopted CIP in its FY15 budget so, this time last year, there was an adopted budget
with scenarios that considered raising the tax rate by two cents, which would be coming up in FY15 -16,
however, when staff built this scenario, it moved to FY16-17.
Mr. Foley said, since the time staff presented the five-year plan, the Oversight Committee has
made some other recommendations which are not yet built into the plan.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification of the change in scenario two which would not have a tax
increase next year, but the year after.
Ms. Allshouse clarified that it would go to capital.
Mr. Boyd said there was still an operating deficit.
Ms. Palmer said she was trying to figure out, under which scenario, the 2% salaries in January
were covered.
Ms. Allshouse said Ms. Palmer was raising a really good point, because scenario two was
unbalanced with a gap of $8.2 million, of which about half is on the school side. She stated that scenario
two was built into the expenditure line, but the revenue line was not adjusted for operating in any tax
rates. She noted that, when they did scenario two, they had not finished with the Oversight Committee,
so they just built in what the Technical Review and Financial Review committees had at that point. Ms.
Allshouse said scenario two covers the recommended CIP items, and Mr. Henry had presented what was
covered under both scenarios.
Ms. Palmer said, in order to meet the obligations under scenario two, the County would have to
have a tax increase next year.
Ms. Dittmar said that was one strategy.
Ms. Palmer said there was not much time to work on other strategies.
Ms. Dittmar said perhaps other strategies should be crossed off, but it should be noted that the
tax rate increase was just one strategy.
Mr. Boyd asked staff to clarify how many pennies the Board would have to raise the tax rate in
order to close the gap on the operating side, CIP notwithstanding.
Ms. Mallek said it would be five cents. Ms. Allshouse confirmed that it would be five cents.
Mr. Boyd asked how much would be needed the following year.
Ms. Mallek said it would depend on what revenues came in.
Mr. Foley said it would end up totaling 19 cents over the end of the term.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 10)
Mr. Boyd said there was no way he could support that. Ms. Allshouse said it would be very
significant if the revenue picture did not change, adding that these are long-term projections which will
obviously change in the future.
Ms. McKeel asked if staff was looking for direction from the Board at this meeting in order to build
the budget. Ms. Allshouse said she would present a few questions to the Board, and see if they are clear
enough.
Mr. Foley said this is a five-year planning process, and it is much more important for staff to
understand Board priorities and some strategies in order to move in a direction it believes the County
should be going in.
Ms. McKeel said staff needs to be able to start building the budget to present to the Board in
February, and the five-year planning discussion is a longer look.
Mr. Foley said, after this process is finished, staff would update revenues mid-year and there
would be some changes which will affect it.
Mr. Sheffield said, after the Board’s discussion with legislators, the legislative action is going to be
dead on arrival, as they are going to be wrestling with their own budget issues. He stated that , for the
long term, he wants to clarify what kind of economic-related investments it wants to make for growth,
sales tax revenues, etc., and defining what that means should be a primary focus for Supervisors. He
said, in the next year, he would like to be able to define what all those pieces are, and be able to
communicate that to the public.
Ms. Allshouse stated that she had a series of three questions, which were put together to elicit
conversation from the Board. She said scenario two was created to provide an implementation plan that
reflected the principles, policies and priorities expressed by the Board. She asked if the Board supported
the direction embodied in scenario two with the understanding that there is an unresolved gap.
Ms. Dittmar said the County’s tax collection rates have improved and, while staff is right to be
conservative in its financial projections, there is more optimism in the real estate market where properties
are beginning to come back, except for those that are competing with ne w housing. She said Supervisors
would either need to cut or reduce expectations on services as one st rategy, or raise property taxes and,
in doing its annual budgeting, Supervisors may have to look at just those two. Ms. Dittmar stated that
there are six strategies to consider for the long term, and she would like to keep those on the table as the
Board looks at the five-year scenario.
Ms. Allshouse said she is talking more about strategies, and asked if Supervisors wanted to
continue on that path.
Ms. Palmer said she has heard a lot about assessments with the Assessor’s O ffice down at least
one employee for quite some time. She said her understanding is that there is not enough staff to go out
and do all the necessary things. She stated that she is also convinced the Board needs to be looking at
the land use tax to ensure people who are getting tax relief are actually using their property in the way the
County believes they are, so she would like to focus on assessments for both of those reasons which
could provide some cash flow for operating expenses.
Mr. Boyd said he appreciated Ms. Palmer’s comments, but the County went through this process
a few years ago with a revalidation process and town hall meetings and staff would basically be redoing
what they just did.
Ms. Mallek said it took ten years of constant work to get revalidation adopted, so that is a huge
step forward. She said Bob Willingham, County Assessor, would be coming forward early in the new year
with a compilation of best practices from other communities, including what the County is requiring for
landowners to get into the program. She said it is high on her priority list to make sure the County is
getting proof of five years previous farming instead of some affidavit, which in her mind holds little merit.
Ms. Mallek added that she also wants to ensure the information learned about revalidation sticks adding
that, in the two or three years since the County began this, there has been a big change in the numbers
of properties.
Mr. Boyd said he was talking with a small business person recently about the County’s new
policies to track people down who were not paying taxes, and was told they were being harassed by
County auditors who were asking them to identify what was used in their business. He sa id an example
would be, if you are using a desk in your home for any part of your work, you had to claim it and pay
business taxes on it.
Ms. Palmer said Ms. Betty Burrell, Finance Director, had told her there would be a grace period to
follow through.
Mr. Foley said staff would follow up on this.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 11)
Ms. Palmer said the County does need more inspections on the land use end of things, such as
whether people are simply mowing their fields or really haying them.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the County had cleaned up most of those provisions.
Ms. Mallek said huge progress has been made, but there are things which could be required that
the County currently does not. She noted that there had been a big discussion by the Board as to how
high a standard to include.
Mr. Foley said staff would follow up on the business personal property issue, and look at whether
they are maximizing the revalidation program and both could be follow-up items, however, this would not
solve the $8.1 million gap.
Ms. Palmer said assessments are another issue, and she is hearing from real estate agents that
the County is too low.
Ms. McKeel said she has been hearing the same thing and, when people in neighborhoods have
complained their assessments were too low and appealed them, they have been told that the
assessments were indeed too low.
Ms. Mallek said that is the process and, when the state auditors come in to review, the County
has been in the 98th percentile.
Mr. Foley said staff would follow up on this as well.
Ms. Palmer said this is a problem that apparently has arisen in the last several years, and
perhaps there are fewer comps as home sales have decreased.
Mr. Foley said the five-year plan contemplates a 2% increase in the out years, so the question is
whether it should be slightly more.
Ms. McKeel said using best practices such as short sales was important also.
Ms. Mallek said state rules are very clear on that.
Mr. Sheffield asked if staff had a sense of the increase in values based on home improvements.
Mr. Foley said that is picked up when staff does their manual assessments.
Ms. McKeel said she has lived in her home 40 years, and no one has ever come.
Ms. Mallek said assessors come during the day and, if you have building permits for work, there
are people who come out to check on it.
Mr. Foley said if they are not coming out, that is a performance issue for County staff assessors.
He stated that the County’s real estate base is huge, so missing a few properties is not going to make a
dramatic difference, but they still need to be maximized.
Ms. Mallek said those need to be captured for fairness reasons also.
Mr. Sheffield said his point about home improvements was more for a long-term strategy,
because the investments the County hopes homeowners would make in their homes would pay off in
higher real estate taxes, and could be coupled with the investments the County makes in terms of
sidewalk and other infrastructure improvements. He said, at some point, the Board should look at short-
term strategies that help with increasing the long-term quality of neighborhoods. He mentioned that the
City defers the difference of the tax increase for people who do home improvements, so it encourages
people to stay in their homes and simultaneously improve the quality of neighborhoods and that is
something the County may want to consider.
Ms. Mallek said Mr. Davis would need to advise as to whether the County has enabling authority
to make those kinds of distinctions.
Mr. Davis said the County has that authority in some very narrow parameters, and there are
some tax programs which allow older neighborhoods to qualify under certain criteria to get some tax
relief, but it is not available countywide.
Mr. Sheffield said if the County is encouraging homeowners and businesses to look at making
improvements, and the County is matching that with improvements, then the County could possibly see a
long-term return on that. He asked if staff was taking into account any approved homes and commercial
businesses that had not been built yet. He noted that they are also talking about projecting the impact of
those homes and businesses. Ms. Allshouse responded that staff works closely with Mark Graham and
others to project all new development, and use lead indicators in that process.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 12)
Mr. Foley said staff projects new construction values each year.
Ms. Allshouse asked if the Board had any other recommendations about long-term strategies to
move forward on, in addition to service districts and bond referendums.
Ms. Palmer asked if staff could provide a list of partnerships with others to share expenses, which
has probably been compiled before. Ms. Allshouse said Parks and Recreation had provided a list of all of
its partnerships and, to expand on that, there are probably other opportunities the County still needs to
move forward on. She stated that, when staff built scenario two, they created it based on the Board’s
priorities, strategic plan principles, etc., and asked the Board if staff had covered what was intended with
the model.
Ms. McKeel said her priority item is salaries and capacity which is what causes the gap to begin
with.
Ms. Allshouse said this is more of an overriding question, and they will get into specifics of
priorities going forward. She asked if scenario two had captured what the Board intended.
Ms. Mallek said, in comparing the two scenarios at town hall meetings, people were very attached
to the improvements in public safety which have been achieved, even with the struggle over the past
several years. She said the concerns she heard most were in the discussions of perceived need for law
enforcement. She said, on a personal level, it is where people feel the most threatened, and she
appreciated scenario two’s attempt to address this.
Mr. Foley asked the Board which of those items were most compelling. Ms. Mallek said it was
police and social services, in her mind.
Mr. Foley noted that a panel had presented to the Board.
Mr. Sheffield said they all expressed needs, and it helped the Board put it in context of what the
community is concerned about. He stated that, in the short term, it helps to create the foundation that can
be built upon for alternative revenue streams.
Mr. Foley said, in looking at an $8.1 million gap, staff split the catch-up between the first two
years, which is what created the gap. He said with police officers, for example, they would add 12 police
officers in the first year and 12 in the second.
Ms. Mallek said the County might get five police officers in one year instead of 12, and she would
be happy with five every year for the next four years, because it would help reach the goal without placing
such a significant financial strain and would allow the department to continue with geo -policing.
Ms. Dittmar said pulling out of the recession is an anomaly, and she does not think there is any
citizen that expects the County to go from where it is now to where it wants to be overnight. She said the
goal is to see some thoughtful, reasonable progress.
Ms. McKeel said she thought that is what Supervisors were all saying.
Ms. Allshouse asked if others agreed.
Mr. Sheffield said it is priorities that are tangible for the public, so they would be talking about
direct services and also capital improvements to some degree.
Ms. Mallek said, in her outreach to the community, not one person had raised a concern about
the .7-cent increase to cover the storm water program. She said this surprised her, and she credits it to
the well-done public discussion spanning a few months, so that is a good model to follow going forward.
Mr. Sheffield said he has heard people expressing concern about the disparity between rural and
urban areas, and how the .7 cents applies to the real estate tax.
Ms. Mallek said that is why they are having the committee do its work.
Ms. Allshouse asked if there was any other additional guidance for staff, noting that this was a
long process and she appreciated the Board’s involvement and explanation of the five -year plan to
constituents. She said this meeting would end the Board’s five-year planning for this year.
Ms. McKeel said she still hears people in the community say they do not understand what caused
the gap. She stated that it would have been easy to do a single slide explaining what caused it, adding
that it is important for Supervisors to be able to explain those points simply and very clearly.
Ms. Dittmar said the five-year planning required many hours from staff, and she thanked them for
their work.
_______________
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 13)
Non-Agenda. Closed Session.
At 6:15 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.7119(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel
and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice relating to an agreement regarding the Ivy
landfill. 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.
__________
Certify Closed Session.
At 6:49 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. 4. Reconvene and Call to Order Night Meeting.
Ms. Dittmar called the meeting back to order at 6:50 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 6. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Sheffield said he would like to add a discussion on the Places 29 Community Advisory
Council to the agenda, as he has some frustrations he would like to talk about and would possibly like to
take some action related to that.
Ms. Dittmar suggested adding it between Agenda Items 15 and 16.
Mr. Sheffield moved to approve the agenda as amended. 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. 8. Brief Announcements from Board Members.
There were none.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Nancy Carpenter addressed the Board, stating that she is a resident of the Scottsvi lle District
and was before the Board because she was a bit late in submitting a resolution concerning December
21st as National Homeless Person’s Memorial Day. She said this day recognizes people who have died
homeless in and around their communities, and asks all citizens to take a moment of silenc e and
remembrance and encouraged citizens to support local efforts to eliminate homelessness in the
community. Ms. Carpenter said they chose December 21st because it is the Winter Solstice, having the
longest number of hours when people are unhoused and unsheltered. She read the resolution aloud to
the Board, and asked for its support in helping homeless people become housed and, ultimately,
participate in the community.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Ms. Carpenter for her comments, and for her service as a representative on
the Monticello Area Community Action Agency’s (MACAA) Board.
_______________
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 10. Consent Agenda. Ms. McKeel moved to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. 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. 10.1. ZMA-2012-00002. Variations from Riverside Village Application Plan and Code of
Development.
The executive summary states that a zoning map amendment was approved for Riverside Village
(ZMA201200002) on November 13, 2013 that rezoned the property from R -1 to Neighborhood Model
District (NMD), inclusive of an Application Plan and Code of Development (Attachment A). A Site Plan is
now under review for this property (SDP201400043). During the Site Plan review, several
inconsistencies and items needing clarification in the Application Plan and Code of Development have
been identified. The applicant has submitted two variation requests (Attachm ents B and C) to clarify
tables and to slightly modify side setbacks in certain blocks within the Application Plan and Code of
Development.
County Code § 18-8.5.5.3 allows special exceptions to vary approved Application Plans and
Codes of Development upon considering whether the proposed variation: (1) is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the approved development density or
intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of development of any
other development in the zoning district; (4) does not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general
accord with the purpose and intent of the approved application. The requested variations are for minor
changes to the Minimum Green Space, Civic Areas, and Amenities by Block Table in Section VII, the
Landscape Treatments Table in Section IX, and to change the side setbacks in certain Blocks (2, 3, and
4) from zero feet (with a minimum eight foot building separation) to three feet with no minimum building
separation. The requested changes to the two tables include clarifying the references to green spaces
and civic areas, revising the minimum size of the green space area within the “muse” civic area from
13,000 to 5,000 square feet, integrating ARB recommended landscaping for stormwater management
facilities located in the Entrance Corridor, and revising other landscaping requirements (Attachment B).
The requested side setback change in Blocks 2, 3, and 4 (Attachment C) has been reviewed by the
Department of Fire Rescue and Zoning staff and each has no objection to the proposed change because
the standards to which the structures are built under the Building Code will determine the minimum
building separation. Staff opinion is that the requested variations meet the five criteria listed above and
will help to clarify the requirements set out in the Application Plan and Code of Development.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the
special exception to vary the Riverside Village Application Plan and Code of Development subject to the
following condition:
1. Before it obtains approval of the final Site Plan (SDP201400043), the applicant shall
provide a complete amended Application Plan and Code of Development reflectin g the
approved variations as provided on the Applicant’s Landscape and Green Space Tables
Variation Request dated October 20, 2014 and last revised on November 14, 2014, and
the Applicant’s Side Setback Variation Request dated August 26, 2014 and last revised
on November 14, 2014, both of which are attached hereto.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
special exception to vary the Riverside Village Application Plan and Code of Development subject
to the condition as outline.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR ZMA 2012-00002, RIVERSIDE VILLAGE
WHEREAS, Riverside Village Properties Inc. (“Riverside Village”) is the owner of Tax Map and
Parcel Number 07800-00-00-05800 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Riverside Village filed a request for a special exception in conjunction with SDP
2014-00043, Riverside Village, to vary the application plan and the code of development approved in
conjunction with ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, to: (1) amend the descriptions and requirements in
two tables in the code of development pertaining to green space, civic areas, amenities, and landscape
treatments as depicted on the Applicant’s Landscape and Green Space Tables Variation Request dated
October 20, 2014 and last revised on November 14, 2014; and (2) vary the side setback requirements in
the application plan and the code of development by increasing the side setback from zero feet (with a
minimum eight foot building separation) to three feet in Blocks 2, 3 and 4, as depicted on the Applicant’s
Side Setback Variation Request dated August 26, 2014 and last revised on November 14, 2014.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 15)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the special exception requests, staff’s supporting analysis included
in the executive summary, and all of the factors relevant to the special exceptions in Albemarle County
Code §§ 18-8.5.5.3(c) and 18-33.8, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the
special exception to vary the application plan and the code of development approved in conjunction with
ZMA 2012-00002, Riverside Village, as described hereinabove, subject to the condition attached hereto.
*****
SDP 2014-000043 Riverside Village Special Exception Condition
1. Before it obtains approval of the final Site Plan (SDP 201400043), the applicant shall
provide a complete amended Application Plan and Code of Development reflecting the
approved variations as provided on the Applicant’s Landscape and Green Space Tables
Variation Request dated October 20, 2014 and last revised on November 14, 2014, and
the Applicant’s Side Setback Variation Request dated August 26, 2014 and last revised
on November 14, 2014, both of which are attached hereto.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 16)
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 17)
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 18)
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 19)
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 20)
__________
Item No. 10.2. Albemarle County Service Authority Sales Contract Extension-East Rivanna/
Glenmore Water Storage Facility.
The executive summary states that nearly two years ago, staff worked in conjunction with the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (ERVFC) to negotiate the sale of permanent easements to the
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for a portion of the unused East Rivanna firehouse property,
which is jointly owned by the County and the ERVFC (TMP 93A1-2). The ACSA is seeking to construct a
water storage facility on the property to serve the Rivanna Village community, which includes Glenmore.
The property was acquired by proffer when the Glenmore Planned Development was approved in
1990. The six-acre parcel was proffered for a fire station and/or other public facilities. ERVFC currently
fully utilizes approximately 2.62 acres for the fire station, leaving approximately 3.38 acres unused. The
proposed permanent easement for the water tank will utilize approximately .48 acres of the site.
At its January 16, 2013 meeting, the Board approved the parties’ sales contract by resolution (see
January 16, 2013 executive summary, Attachment A). The contract includes a provision that the
closing/settlement of the sale is to take place no later than December 31, 2014. The ACSA has recently
contacted County staff, requesting an amendment of the sales contract to allow an extension of the
settlement deadline to March 31, 2015.
The sales contract provides that the County and the ERVFC will receive $100,000 from the ACSA
and will grant several easements related to ACSA’s proposed installation of a water storage tank and/or
pump station, including a perpetual easement for the location of the water storage facility, a permanent
access easement across the existing ERVFC parking lot onto Steamer Drive, and waterline and
temporary construction easements. The proposed location of the easements is shown on the attached
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 21)
sketch (Attachment B). The exact location and dimensions of the easements will be shown on a final plat
to be prepared by the ACSA and approved by the County Attorney’s Office.
County staff has no objection to the requested amendment and extension. ACSA is making the
same request of ERVFC. ERVFC consent would be necessary for the closing date to be extended.
The easements have been valued at $100,000. No budget impact is expected from the proposed
extension.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to authorize the
County Executive to execute all legal documents, in a form approved by the County Attorney, necessary
to amend the previously-approved sales contract with the ACSA to allow an extension of the settlement
deadline to March 31, 2015.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution as presented to
authorize the County Executive to execute all legal documents, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, necessary to amend the previously-approved sales contract with the ACSA to allow an
extension of the settlement deadline to March 31, 2015:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE
THE AMENDMENT OF A SALES CONTRACT FOR EASEMENTS ON AND
ACROSS TAX MAP PARCEL 93A1-2 TO THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the East Rivanna firehouse property (Tax Map Parcel 093A1-00-00-00200) is jointly
owned by the County and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company (“ERVFC”); and
WHEREAS, for and in consideration of $100,000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
agreed, by Resolution dated January 16, 2013, to grant permanent easements and temporary
construction easements on and across TMP 93A1-2 to the Albemarle County Service Authority (“ACSA”)
necessary for the ACSA to locate and install a water storage facility and water lines to serve the Rivanna
Village community; and
WHEREAS, the ERVFC Board of Directors also approved the sale of the easements to the
ACSA; and
WHEREAS, the ACSA has recently requested that the parties’ sales contract be amended to
extend the settlement deadline from December 31, 2014 to March 31, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does not object to the requested
contract amendment or extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to execute all legal documents, in a form approved by the County
Attorney, necessary to amend the contract for the sale of the easements to the ACSA on and across TMP
93A1-2, to extend the settlement deadline from December 31, 2014 to March 31, 2015.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 22)
__________
Item No. 10.3. FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as sho wn in
the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies
to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self -Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 15 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $602,460.90. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
This request involves the approval of seven (7) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2015056) to appropriate $55,235.00 from the Reserve for
Contingencies to Community Development for a Transportation Planner position. This
appropriation will not increase the total County budget.
One (1) appropriation (#2015058) to appropriate $533,050.90 for various school division
programs and projects.
One (1) appropriation (#2015059) to appropriate $6,700.00 from the Training pool
account to various departments for training and professional development. This
appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015060) to appropriate $42,910.00 from the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management to the Police Department for law enforcement
equipment and personal protective equipment.
One (1) appropriation (#2015061) to appropriate $5,000.00 from proffer revenue for
roadside historical markers;
One (1) appropriation (#2015062) to appropriate $14,000.00 to the Finance Department
to expand the Purchasing Card program; and
One (1) appropriation (#2015064) to appropriate $7,500.00 for a Local Emergency
Management Performance Grant to the Emergency Communications Center.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2015056, #2015058, #2015059, #2015060,
#2015061, #2015062 and #2015064 for general government and school division programs and
projects as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2015056 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 53,894.00
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 23)
This request is appropriate $53,894.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to Community Development for
a Transportation Planner position pursuant to the Board’s action at its November 5, 2014 meeting. This
position is budgeted to begin in January 2015.
Appropriation #2015058 $533,050.90
Source: Local Non-Tax $ 19,247.60
Summer School Fund Balance $ 207,730.30
Community Education Fund Balance $ 306,073.00
This request is to appropriate School Division appropriation requests approved by the School Board on
October 9, 2014 and October 23, 2014:
Approved by the School Board on October 9, 2014:
Club Yancey Program: This request is to appropriate $19,247.60 in tuition and donations for the
Club Yancey Program. These funds will be used for operating expenses related to the program.
Approved by the School Board on October 23, 2014:
Summer School Fund: This request is to appropriate $207,730.30 in fund balance remaining in
the Summer School Fund to support the salaries, benefits, and supplies expenses for the Summer
School Program that has just been completed and to provide funding to support the first month of
the Summer School Program in June 2015.
Community Education Fund: This request is to appropriate $306,073.00 in Community Education
Fund fund balance to pay for Community Education Progr am salaries, benefits, and supplies,
including the purchase of radios for Community Education -funded personnel. Community
Education programs include the after-school enrichment program, student holiday/spring break
programs, and the inclement weather program. This is a self-sustaining fund. If this additional
funding is not fully expended in FY 15, it will be returned to the Community Education Fund fund
balance.
Note: the Community Education Fund fund balance request was initially approved by the School
Board in the amount of $385,875.23, however, based on additional analysis, the request has
subsequently been reduced to $306,073.00 by School Division Fiscal Services staff.
Appropriation #2015059 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Training Pool $ 6,700.00
This request is to appropriate $6,700.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for approved training
opportunities and professional development. The current budgeted amount in the training pool is
$33,402.00. After this appropriation, $26,702 will remain in the Training Pool.
Appropriation #2015060 $42,910.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 42,910.00
This request is to appropriate $42,910.00 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management f or its
award of the 2014 State Homeland Security Program Grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
to the Police Department. These funds will be used for the replacement of various items of law enforcement
equipment and personal protective equipment. The grant also provides video evidence training for the
Video Focus Pro system.
Appropriation #2015061 $5,000.00
Source: Proffer Revenue $ 5,000.00
This request is to appropriate $5,000.00 from Belvedere Proffer revenue to the Community Development
Department for the procurement and installation of two roadside historical markers. The historical markers
were proffered by the Belvedere proffer (ZMA 2004-07). One marker will be a Virginia Department of
Historic Resources roadside marker to commemorate Free State and the second marker will be a private
marker to commemorate Amy Parker Bowles at the Bowles cemetery in Belvedere.
Appropriation #2015062 $14.000.00
Source: General Fund Fund Balance $ 14,000.00
This request is to appropriate $14,000.00 to the Finance Department to support software modifications for
the Purchasing, BuySpeed Online (BSO) to Payments, and Great Plans (GP) systems’ process. This
modification will provide benefit to Albemarle County in two major ways: 1) increas ing the transaction totals
processed by the Purchase Card program, thus increasing efficiency and rebate revenue opportunities; and
2) reduction in check issuance volume, thereby decreasing operational costs and improving cash
management. This is a one-time cost. Since inception, the usage of the Purchase Card program has
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 24)
generated $29,063.00 in rebate revenue to the County and these software modifications are anticipated to
significantly increase the County’s Purchase Card Rebate revenue in the future.
Appropriation #2015064 $7,500.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 7,500.00
This request is to appropriate $7,500.00 to the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) for a Local
Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG). This grant was awarded to the City of
Charlottesville Virginia by the Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) from the U. S. Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The City will manage the
grant. The grant funding will be transferred from the Cit y to the County, as the fiscal agent for the ECC,
upon City Council’s approval of the City’s appropriation, scheduled on its December 1, 2014 agenda. This
appropriation will transfer those funds to the ECC to supplement the salary of the Assistant Emergency
Management Coordinator.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved appropriations #2015056, #2015058,
#2015059, #2015060, #2015061, #2015062 and #2015064 for general government and school
division programs and projects.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-110000-1008 36233.00 SA2015056 Salaries
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-210000-1008 2772.00 SA2015056 FICA
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-221000-1008 4888.00 SA2015056 VRS
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-241000-1008 478.00 SA2015056 Group Life
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-231000-1008 3897.00 SA2015056 Health Insurance
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-232000-1008 126.00 SA2015056 Dental Insurance
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-520300-1008 250.00 SA2015056 520300 - Telecommunications
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-550100-1008 250.00 SA2015056 550100 - Travel/Training/Education
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-580100-1008 200.00 SA2015056 580100 - Dues & Memberships
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-601200-1008 200.00 SA2015056 601200 - Books & Subscriptions
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-601400-1008 100.00 SA2015056 601400 - Other Operating Supplies
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-800700-1008 2000.00 SA2015056 Computer/Software
2015056 4-1000-81021-481020-800200-1008 2500.00 SA2015056 Furniture
2015056 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -53894.00 SA2015056 Reserve for Contingencies
2015058 3-3157-63157-318000-181254-6599 18797.60 SA2015058 Club Yancey Donations
2015058 3-3157-63157-318000-181284-6599 450.00 SA2015058 Club Yancey Tuition
2015058 4-3157-63157-460000-111400-6113 12000.00 SA2015058 Salaries - Other Management
2015058 4-3157-63157-460213-210000-6113 1000.00 SA2015058 FICA
2015058 4-3157-63157-460000-221000-6113 900.00 SA2015058 VRS
2015058 4-3157-63157-460213-231000-6113 5000.00 SA2015058 Health Insurance
2015058 4-3157-63157-460213-232000-6113 150.00 SA2015058 Dental Insurance
2015058 4-3157-63157-460000-241000-6113 197.60 SA2015058 VRS Group Life
2015058 3-3310-63310-351000-510100-6599 207730.30 SA2015058 Summer School Fund Balance
2015058 4-3310-63310-461120-117200-6599 6500.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Transit Aide
2015058 4-3310-63310-461120-132100-6599 30000.00 SA2015058 PT Wages Teacher
2015058 4-3310-63310-461120-137100-6599 30000.00 SA2015058 PT Wages Bus Drivers
2015058 4-3310-63310-461120-210000-6599 6000.00 SA2015058 FICA
2015058 4-3310-63310-461120-420110-6599 20000.00 SA2015058 School Transportation
2015058 4-3310-63310-461120-601300-6599 7730.30 SA2015058 Educational & Recreation Supplies
2015058 4-3310-63310-461124-117200-6599 5000.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Transit Aide
2015058 4-3310-63310-461124-132100-6599 30000.00 SA2015058 PT Wages Teacher
2015058 4-3310-63310-461124-137100-6599 20000.00 SA2015058 PT Wages Bus Drivers
2015058 4-3310-63310-461124-210000-6599 4500.00 SA2015058 FICA
2015058 4-3310-63310-461124-420110-6599 10000.00 SA2015058 School Transportation
2015058 4-3310-63310-461124-601300-6599 2500.00 SA2015058 Educational & Recreation Supplies
2015058 4-3310-63310-461125-132100-6599 30000.00 SA2015058 PT Wages Teacher
2015058 4-3310-63310-461125-210000-6599 2500.00 SA2015058 FICA
2015058 4-3310-63310-461125-601300-6599 3000.00 SA2015058 Educational & Recreation Supplies
2015058 3-3300-63300-351000-510100-6599 306073.00 SA2015058 Community ED Fund Balance
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-115000-6521 60000.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Office Clerical
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-112100-6521 25000.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Teachers
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-119402-6521 32000.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Supervisors
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-119403-6521 34000.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Special Needs
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-159400-6521 35000.00 SA2015058 Salaries-Subs
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-210000-6521 15000.00 SA2015058 FICA
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-221000-6521 15000.00 SA2015058 VRS
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-231000-6521 10000.00 SA2015058 Health
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-232000-6521 10000.00 SA2015058 Dental
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-241000-6521 10000.00 SA2015058 VRS Group Life
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-242000-6521 10000.00 SA2015058 Group Life-PT
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-601300-6521 30073.00 SA2015058 Education & Recreation Supplies
2015058 4-3300-63300-465301-800101-6521 20000.00 SA2015058 Machinery/Equipment Replacement
2015059 4-1000-31013-431010-550100-1003 5700.00 SA2015059 Training Pool Distribution
2015059 4-1000-12040-412040-550100-1001 1000.00 SA2015059 Training Pool Distribution
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 25)
2015059 4-1000-99900-499000-999984-9999 -6700.00 SA2015059 2nd Qtr Distribution
2015060 3-1605-33000-333000-330042-1003 42910.00 SA2015060 Federal Revenue
2015060 4-1605-31013-431010-800100-1003 40840.00 SA2015060 Machinery & Equipment
2015060 4-1605-31013-431010-550100-1003 2070.00 SA2015060 Training expenses
2015061 3-8536-18936-318000-189923-9999 5000.00 SA2015061 Proffered Historical Markers
2015061 4-8536-93010-493010-930010-9999 5000.00 SA2015061 Proffered Historical Markers
2015061 3-1000-51000-351000-512068-9999 5000.00 SA2015061 Proffered Historical Markers
2015061 4-1000-81021-481020-800000-1008 5000.00 SA2015061 Proffered Historical Markers
2015062 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 14000.00 SA2015062 Pcard Program
2015062 4-1000-12141-412140-301210-1001 14000.00 SA2015062 Pcard Program
2015064 3-4100-24000-324000-240548-9999 7500.00 SA2015064 City of Charlottesville LEMPG Grant
2015064 4-4100-31045-435600-110000-1003 2500.00 SA2015064 City of Charlottesville LEMPG Grant
2015064 4-4100-31045-435600-120000-1003 5000.00 SA2015064 City of Charlottesville LEMPG Grant
TOTAL 1,214,921.80
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. Regional Firearms Training Center - Approve Terms of Land Lease and
Operating Agreements and Additional Funding.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that at its October 1, 2014 meeting,
the Board received an informational update on the Regional Firearms Training Facility project. The Board
was provided a status of a proposed Operational Agreement, Ground Lease, and the total project cost
estimate based on schematic drawings and refined project needs.
The establishment of the proposed firing range requires the approval of a Ground Lease and an
Operational Agreement. The Ground Lease would be a lease between UVA, which owns the property,
and the County and the City. The City was not a party to the initial draft lease, but has asked to be added
as an additional tenant. Because the County would retain responsibility for property management as the
fiscal agent, adding the City as a tenant should not have a significant impact on the facility’s planned
operations. The Operational Agreement between the County, the City and UVA would govern the
ongoing day-to-day operations of the facility and the funding formula, based on officer use, for both the
initial capital expense and ongoing operational costs.
The draft Ground Lease is attached (Attachment A). The County and City, as tenants, would
have the responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the facility and related site improvements,
with costs shared pursuant to the terms of the Operational Agreement. The initial term of the Lease
would be for a period of forty (40) years commencing on the date of the full execution of the Lease. The
rent would be a one-time payment of one dollar ($1.00) for the initial term and for renewal terms. The
County and City would take possession of the property upon commencement of the initial term.
The County, the City and UVA have worked together on a proposed Operational Agreement for
the Establishment of a Regional Firearms Training Facility. The draft Operational Agreement is also
attached (Attachment B). The Agreement would govern the day-to-day operations of the facility and
would provide a funding formula for both the capital investment and ongoing operating costs. The County
would serve as the fiscal agent and would oversee and administer the construction and operation of the
facility. The County, the City and UVA have agreed to contribute their shares of an asset forfeiture award
totaling $2.91 Million from the Office of the Attorney General to the initial capital cost of the facility. The
funding formula for capital costs and annual operations is based proportionately on the number of full-
time certified law enforcement officers in each jurisdiction’s Police Department and/or Sheriff’s Office.
Under this formula the County’s share would be 44%, the City’s share would be 38%, and UVA’s share
would be 18%. The formula for operating costs would be computed annually. Annual operating costs are
estimated to be approximately $194,151.
UVA would agree to contribute a long-term lease of the land on which the facility will be
constructed and the County and City would agree to recognize this contrib ution as having a value of
$330,000. UVA’s land contribution would be applied to reduce the amount of initial capital cost to be
contributed by UVA, and the County and City would fund an additional amount of $330,000 (allocated
53% to the County and 47% to the City). UVA would also agree to cover the cost to relocate an existing
monitoring station and to remediate the existing outdoor range upon completion of the project.
The total project cost for an indoor firearms training facility with two eight-lane ranges on the
Milton site is estimated to be approximately $6.4 to $7.4 Million, based on two independent cost
estimates. Original estimates for the project based upon the conceptual work totaled $4.9 Million. There
is currently $4,865,422 appropriated for the project. At an August 15, 2014 executive meeting of fiscal
management staff from the County, the City, and UVA, there was an agreement to establish a not to
exceed (NTE) total project budget of $6 Million. Potential bid deduction items are curren tly being
explored, including a reduction of one of the ranges from 50 yards to 25 yards which will provide
$700,000 to $800,000 alone in savings, and other deducts should allow the project to reduce costs by
nearly $1 Million if needed to meet the budgetary cap. The Regional Partners are supportive of the
proposed deducts. The County’s share based on the NTE cap is $1,532,960 in addition to its asset
forfeiture award.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 26)
The total budget appropriated to date for this project is $4,865,422. The total budg et will increase
$1,134,578 for a revised total project budget of $6,000,000. The construction cost is offset by an asset
forfeiture award totaling $2,913,501 from the Office of the Attorney General, leaving a balance of
$3,086,499 to be shared among the partners. Based on the funding formula and other capital
considerations described in the proposed Operational Agreement, the County’s total share would be
$1,532,960, the City’s total share would be $1,327,970, and UVA’s total share would be $225,569.
Annual operating costs are estimated to be approximately $194,151. The County’s share would be 44%
of this amount in the first year of operation. The County will receive a 2% fiscal agent fee to offset its
administrative costs. Total operating costs for the first partial year following completion of construction (7
months in FY16) is estimated to be $116,111.
If the Board approves the Ground Lease and the Operational Agreement, staff will present an
appropriation request for the Board’s approval at its January 7, 2015 meeting for the additional
$1,134,578 in funding required for a $6 Million total project budget.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to approve the
Operational Agreement and the Ground Lease and to authorize the County Executive to sign the
Agreements once they are approved as to form and content by the County Attorney.
_____
Mr. Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that Mr. Trevor Henry,
Director of the Office of Facilities Development (OFD), would be overseeing the presentation.
Mr. Henry stated that he had been involved in the planning and execution of the design on this
project, and the action is to get permission from the Board for signature on the agreements, and felt it
would be helpful to do a quick review of the scope. He said the Board has been provided with a lot of
information since June on some of the design issues and budget, and now he would provide information
on where things stand from a scope, schedule and strategy perspective.
Mr. Walker stated that the Board packets include the agreements which were prepared by the
County Attorney in collaboration with the City Attorney, and the General Counsel at the University of
Virginia (UVA). He said, although Supervisors have heard a lot about this project over the past months,
each update has included a comment that the agreements are being worked on. He said the business
terms agreed to in principle over the last several months had to be translated into the legal language
necessary to reasonably protect the interests of all three parties over a period of 40 years, and that was
done effectively with two agreements: the ground lease which is a fairly standard real estate transaction
between the lessees, which would be the City and the County, and the landlord just for the ground the
facility would sit on. He said the bulk of the agreement was contained in the operating agreement, which
does all of the other ‘heavy lifting’ for the three parties over 40 years. Mr. Walker said, in some cases, it
is fairly complex with regard to the formula that drives the participant’s share in the initial capital cost, as
well as the formula that will drive the participation in the annual operating cost of the facility over the 40-
year span. He said it also addresses insurance provisions, capital reserve, on-going maintenance, day to
day operations, establishment of a committee and a consensus model which relies on the agreement of
all three chiefs to facilitate ongoing management. Mr. Walker emphasized that Mr. Davis and his staff,
along with the other attorneys, have done significant work to get it to this point. He said the resolution
presented approves these agreements and authorizes the County Executive to sign the agreements on
the Board’s behalf.
Mr. Davis stated that this was a process between public entities which led to the agreement
before the Board, and offered to answer any questions about the terms.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the County would be paying more for the facility use if it increases its police
force this year. Mr. Davis confirmed that was correct, stating that it is based on the number of police
officers that would be using the facility. He said there is an anticipation that the County might grow larger
than the City and University over time.
Mr. Boyd asked how disputes would be settled with regard to who gets to use it more or less, etc.
Mr. Davis said that would be part of the management, and the facility would be managed by the
Albemarle County police chief, however, his decision-making would be consultative with the other two
police chiefs. He said any decision that is made requires a unanimous decision.
Mr. Henry said he would walk through the scope of the agreement, talk about the budget and
schedule as well as answer any questions. He then presented an aerial view of the site and a site plan.
He said the area is about 3.8 acres, and noted the location of Milton Road, stating that there was a bit
more work to do on the entrance for site distance clearing to meet VDOT’s requirements. He said there
would be a well built to service the facility. He stated that the orientation of the building runs north/south
for the most part, and there would be paved parking for about 30 spaces in addition to a drain field and a
bio-filter. Mr. Henry said the biofilter is a bit bigger in size than anticipated due to some changing
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements. He pointed out the location of the current
outdoor range at UVA. He said, once the indoor range is completed and functional, UVA would be
decommissioning that through an environmental process. Mr. Henry presented a floor plan, statin g the
design-development phase is complete, which is about 70% drawings, and the architectural team is
quickly moving through construction drawings.
Mr. Henry said the total square footage of the building is just under 20,000 square feet with 3,100
square feet designated for a classroom area for dual purpose training, both seated and physical training;
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 27)
there is a simulator area for training to be done in conjunction with the range use; the remaining space is
reserved for administration and storage to support range operations. Mr. Henry said the scope has been
reduced due to budget constraints to two eight-lane ranges, stating that each range is able to operate
independently, each range will be approximately 50 yards long and approximately four feet wide. He
stated that the mechanical spaces are adjacent and are bump-outs, and are enclosed due to stringent
noise requirements and environmental concerns. Mr. Henry said the design team recommended that it
be enclosed, which has added some cost to the project but has resulted in a project that will be quiet and
environmentally sound. He noted that the total square footage for the range itself is just over 16,000
square feet. Mr. Henry stated that the construction method is concrete plank construction on the exterior
walls, about 10 inches in thickness with insulation, allowing both ballistic and noise mi tigation; the interior
walls are eight inches in thickness; the roof is four inches in thickness with an EPM surface; with
additional insulation and sound dampening under that.
Mr. Henry said what is in the approved CIP budget for appropriation is $4.8 m illion, with the
forfeiture award from the three partners at $2.91 million. He said some of the challenges as he has
communicated over the past several months have been changing the method of construction to concrete
plank to improve sound mitigation, the decision to enclose mechanical spaces, and other onsite
alterations. Mr. Henry said they had to make a decision early on through the design team, which included
members from each of the jurisdictions – police officers, chiefs, UVA facilities representatives – and
coming out of the design process, they reduced the number of lanes from 20 to 16 to avoid cost
increases. He stated that they are requesting an appropriation in January that would increase their
appropriated budget authority to $6 million and, in order to bring the project in under budget, they would
need to keep soft costs down to around $660,000; target for the site and building construction would be
just over $5 million, leaving a little bit of contingency. Mr. Henry said the cap was established through a
meeting of executive-level partners on the project in August, and they are seeking Board authorization at
this meeting. He stated that the project has had two independent cost estimators that have ranged from
$5.5-6.5 million, with differences of opinion on site costs, admin building costs, etc., but the range seems
to be accurate. Mr. Henry said it is hoped that the competitive bidding process may also yield some lower
numbers. He noted that the primary way to reduce costs would be to shorten one range by 25 yards. He
stated that the decision was made coming out of the schematic design process, and the chiefs felt that ,
since 80% of the qualification training was handgun training, the effective range of the training was up t o
25 yards. Mr. Henry said this would still allow effective training for the three partners, however, if the
range goes down, the facility would be limited to just handgun training. He stated that their strategy going
into the bid process would be to list the deductions in order of precedence. He stated that one of the
ranges has sidewall steel which allows 270-degree training, rather than one direction at the rubber trap.
Mr. Henry said the big deduction was halving the range, giving a total of $1/2 million in deduct ions.
Mr. Henry reported that they were in design phase now and hoping to have final drawings
delivered to the County right after the holidays; the County and UVA would review the construction
drawings and give feedback to the architect, who would prepare for bid drawings to start in early February
and run for four or five weeks. He said they would then need to analyze the bids in March, with the goal
of award in April and subsequently about 200 days of construction. Mr. Henry said the key driver above
just the operational need was the two-year limit of the forfeiture award money, which must be spent by
12/18/2015. He stated that some of the approvals they have already achieved include the Virginia AARB
review, a comp plan hearing held in September in which the program was approved as part of
coordination with UVA’s architectural and landscape architects, with the University providing the building
code official. Mr. Henry said the site plan is coming through the County, and the DEQ is also a reviewer,
with the Treasury Department reviewing the project because of the use of the forfeiture award.
Mr. Davis said, under the operational agreement, there is an assumed budget of $6 million and,
upon award of the contract, the City, County and University must pay their share into a designated fund
for which the County is fiscal agent. He said, if the project comes in under $6 million, the remainder goes
into a reserve fund for this facility and starts funding for future capital requirements . He noted that, if it
ends up being more than $6 million, each localit y would have to contribute more based on the
proportional shares set forth in the agreement.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to hear from the Police Department on its thoughts about the project,
as it has gone through several iterations.
Chief of Police, Steve Sellers, addressed the Board, stating that, as the three chiefs worked
through the process of value engineering with the project planning and design committee, they saw the
latest deductions and drew a line in the sand because they felt any more cost cuts would likely mean
expansion of the facility in 20-25 years. Chief Sellers said they feel this is a good plan and are supportive
of it, and are hopeful they do not have to make some of the cuts but are prepared to do so if necessary.
Officer Rob Heide addressed the Board, stating that the bid deductions are cuts to the bone and
get to the heart of real training as opposed to qualification, which is testing. He said, as they look at court
cases coming out of appeal, a lot of those decisions drive how you train as a police officer, and they have
to be realistic so, if a department knows that an officer would have to change direction in a gunfight, they
must be trained in that capacity; if they know targets are going to move, they must also present that type
of scenario in training. Officer Heide said the running man target is a realistic scenario, yet the
deductions eliminate that, and this creates some risk although it could be added back in when funding
becomes available. He said qualification training is not hindered by cuts, but real-world training is, and it
is important to train as they work.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 28)
Mr. Boyd stated that the reason he asked that question is because he would hate to be penny-
wise and pound-foolish. He said it concerns him that the County may not be providing the training police
officers need, or possibly looking at an expansion down the road.
Ms. McKeel agreed and said, in her experience, the County has had projects that are cut back
once or twice and then end up with a facility that must be expanded or improved in a short period of time.
She said she was not happy when they cut the number of lanes back, and she was definitely not in favor
of shortening the lanes. Ms. McKeel asked if this could come back to the Board with a different number.
Mr. Davis said the agreement sets forth a $6 million cap, at the request of project partners, and
any increase would require them to agree to a larger number. He said it is instructive to County staff to
know that, if the Board supports a larger number, staff could initiate a process to bring it back should the
numbers come in higher than the $6 million budget.
Mr. Walker said it was the University who offered the $6 million cap, with the hope tha t it would
come in less. He noted that it was part of the discussions at the executive level as to how to frame that
within the context of the agreement, with budget numbers that were consistently moving.
Ms. Dittmar said there have been several community meetings held in the neighborhoods where
this range would be located, and residents are very pleased with the plans as they stand, adding that they
felt the issues with the range had been thoroughly explored and addressed. She said the grant they had
received for this was under a different administration, and it might be an opportunity to go back at a future
time.
Ms. McKeel said she thought the group had already explored that and it had already been
answered. Mr. Walker agreed that it had been broached.
Mr. Sheffield asked about the additional share the County would be faced with. Mr. Henry said
that, in order to get to the $6 million, it would be an additional $1.2 million in aggregate, split among the
jurisdictions.
Ms. Palmer commented that the County already had a budget deficit, so they would have to do
something quickly. Mr. Foley said it is possible that any addition to the project budget could be a
document process to amend the agreement, and the item could come back for consideration if the bids
come in higher.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to take a stronger stance and suggest the Board take the position
that it is in favor of building the entire facility – not the reduced facility.
Ms. McKeel commented that she did not have a problem with that. Mr. Foley said that was a
better way to state it, if that is the Board’s intent.
Mr. Davis stated that the Board would need to offer a motion to approve the resolution in
Attachment C, which would authorize the County Executive to enter into this agreement on its behalf and,
after the bid process is completed, staff would inform Board members as to additional actions it may need
to take.
Mr. Boyd asked which building would be going out to bid. Mr. Henry confirmed that the base bid
would be the full scope, and the bid document would have the deductibles.
Ms. Mallek asked if that was dangerous to do because, if they say to contractors to bid high
because they would whittle down the project, it seems to send the wrong message.
Mr. Sheffield said he was not in favor of putting the reduction in the bid, as it would just be setting
them up.
Mr. Davis said, if the partners in the project do not agree, that would put the project schedule
behind.
Mr. Sheffield said it could be contingent on the other partners agreeing.
Ms. Palmer asked if the County would need to increase the tax rate to pay the additional cost.
Mr. Davis said there would be increased operational costs associated with this which would have to be
funded in FY16-17.
Ms. McKeel said the amount of those costs was $194,000. Mr. Henry clarified that what is
currently in the capital program is the $4.8 million appropriation, of which the County’s share is about half,
so this increment would have to come out of the CIP. He said the strategy of bidding it as a base bid and
on a deduct basis is it indicates exactly what they want to build; the alternative strategy would be to base
bid the reduced range and have an add-on. Mr. Henry said, in working with procurement, it is preferable
to make a statement to bidders that this is what they want and it has to be the best price.
Ms. Dittmar said she was not interested in the one requiring the bidders to build it back up.
Mr. Sheffield stated that, if staff comes across this, staff will know where the Board stands.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 29)
Mr. Foley said the Board’s direction is clear on this.
Ms. Mallek said the reason this costs what it does is for all the right reasons, and the fact that
they are doing a really good job with air quality inside and remediation outside, and she supports the
entire amount. She said the partners supported this, even before the grant was known, so somehow the
County has allowed itself to retrench on the amount of money they were willing to invest because
someone was going to do part of it for them. She added that she is hopeful the County will have the
resolve to do it right.
Ms. McKeel added that they have already had a reduction in the number of lanes, which was
concerning to her.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the proposed Resolution to approve the Operational Agreement
and the Ground Lease and to authorize the County Executive to sign the Agreements once they are
approved as to form and content by the County Attorney. 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.
Mr. Boyd directed staff to make sure the project partners know it was a unanimous vote to go with
the larger project.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATING AGREEMENT AND
A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A REGIONAL FIREARMS TRAINING FACILITY
AT 2300 MILTON ROAD, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle (“County”), the City of Charlottesville (“City’), and the
University of Virginia (“UVA”) have agreed, through the approval of their governing bodies, to construct a
regional firearms training center (the “facility) on property owned by UVA located at 2300 Milton Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia (Tax Map and Parcel 09300-00-00-00700) for the use of County, City and UVA
public safety personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Operating Agreement between the County, the City and UVA will set forth the
funding formula for both the capital investment and the ongoing operating costs of the facility, as well as
the provisions that govern the day-to-day operations of the facility; and
WHEREAS, the Ground Lease Agreement between the County, the City and UVA will set forth the
terms of the Lease of the property, with the costs shared pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the Operating Agreement and the Ground Lease Agreement and authorizes the County Executive
to sign the Agreements once they are approved as to content and form by the County Attorney.
*****
LEASE
THIS GROUND LEASE ( “Lease”), is made as of this __ day of ____, 2014, by and between THE
RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, an educational institution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (“UVa” or “Lessor”), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“County”), and THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE,
VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“City”), the
City and County together to be known as “Lessees.”
Recitals
WHEREAS, the Parties hereto have determined that it is in their interests to construct and operate
a law enforcement training facility, including an indoor firing range, and related improvements (the “Facility”)
for their mutual use and benefit, on property owned by UVa and known as the Milton Airfield;
WHEREAS, the Lessor and the Lessees, for and in consideration of the keeping by the parties of
their respective obligations hereinafter desire to enter into an agreement for a lease of land on which the
Facility will be established;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby set forth their agreement, as follows:
1. LEASED PREMISES
The Lessor does hereby lease, let and demise to the Lessees, and the Lessees hereby lease from
the Lessor, the following described premises, situate, lying and being in Albemarle County, Virginia
(the “Leased Premises”):
Approximately 130,680 square feet of land as shown on Exhibit A, attached and
incorporated herein by reference, which is page # 8 of the “Schematic Design Submittal”,
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 30)
prepared by Clark Nexsen, titled, “Regional Firearms Training Center”, 2300 Milton Road,
Charlottesville, VA 22902 and dated June 25, 2014,
together with a non-exclusive right of ingress and egress to the Leased Premises over an access
road, as shown on Exhibit A (“Access Road”).
The Leased Premises are leased to the Lessees "as is" with all faults, without warranty or
representation by Lessor as to condition or usefulness of the Leased Premises for any purpose,
and subject to all liens and encumbrances of record. The Lessees covenant and represent that
they have inspected and are fully familiar with the condition of the Leased Premises and accept i t
"as is."
2. LEASE TERM; RENEWAL
The term of the Lease (“Term”) shall commence on the last date of signature by a party to this
Lease (the “Commencement Date”). The Term shall automatically expire: (a) forty (40) years after
the Commencement Date, or (b) on December 15, 2015, if construction of the Facility referenced
in Section 6, below, has not commenced (either, “Expiration”). This Lease may be renewed by a
written lease addendum signed by each of the parties, for any additional term(s) of years agr eed
to by the parties.
3. RENT
The rent for the Term is a one-time payment of one dollar ($1.00) from the Lessees to the Lessor,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.
4. MODIFICATION; AMENDMENT
The provisions of this Lease may be modified or amended only by a written agreement (“Lease
Addendum”) executed by the Lessor and each of the Lessees. No changes or modifications to the
Operating Agreement referenced in Section 6, following below, shall operate or be construed as
an amendment or modification of this Lease.
5. DELIVERY AND POSSESSION
Lessor covenants to deliver quiet possession of the Leased Premises to the Lessees upon the
Commencement Date. Thereafter, Lessees shall have quiet, undisturbed and continued
possession of the Leased Premises, free from all claims against the Lessor and all persons claiming
under, by or through the Lessor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as the owner and Building Official
of the Leased Premises, Lessor shall have a right of access to the Leased Prem ises to prevent or
abate any nuisance, hazard, or unlawful conditions, or to make emergency repairs necessary to
prevent an imminent danger to persons. Lessor shall be required to give advance notice, as may
be reasonable under the circumstances, to the Lessees. Absent an emergency, the Lessor may
conduct health and safety inspections, to ensure the Facility is being properly maintained, but only
upon twenty-four (24) hours’ advance notice to both the Lessees.
6. USE OF LEASED PREMISES
The Leased Premises shall be used solely for the purposes of construction and operation of a
public safety training facility, including a firing range (“Facility”), for the use of public law
enforcement personnel of the parties to a separate written Operational Agreement (“Oper ational
Agreement”) and the licensee(s) of any such party.
7. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
(a) The Lessees shall construct (i) the Facility, (ii) such site improvements on, over, across or
under the Leased Premises as needed to support the use of the Facility for the intended
purpose (“Site Improvements”), and (iii) such improvements within the Facility as the
Lessees may deem necessary (“Lessee Improvements”). The Lessees shall also make
such additional improvements to the Access Road and its commercial entrance (“Additional
Improvements”) as may be necessary to support the use of the Leased Premises for the
Facility. (Collectively, the Facility, Site Improvements, Lessee Improvements and
Additional Improvements comprise the “Improvements”). All costs and exp enses of or
relating to the construction operation, maintenance and repair of the Improvements shall
be borne by the Parties to the Operational Agreement. Title to the Improvements, once
made, erected, constructed, installed, or placed upon the Leased Prem ises, shall be and
remain in the Lessees until the expiration or termination as provided in Section 2 of this
Lease. Per the Operational Agreement, Lessor and Building Official shall review and
approve all plans and modifications thereof prior to construction.
(b) Within 45 days after issuance of a final use and occupancy permit, the Lessees shall
forward to Lessor a physical survey of the Facility and Leased Premises. After being
approved by the Parties, a copy of the physical survey shall be endorsed in writ ing by the
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 31)
Lessor and each of the Lessees, and such endorsed survey shall be attached to this
Agreement, referenced as Exhibit B, and shall be a part hereof.
(c) The Lessees shall not cause or permit any mechanics or other liens or encumbrances to
attach or remain against the Leased Premises. Likewise, the Lessor shall not take any
action that would cause the Leased Premises to become encumbered in any manner.
8. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASING
The Lessees shall not assign this Lease or sublet the Leased Premises, in whole or in part, except
with the written approval of the Lessor.
9. REMEDIES
During the Term of this Lease, the Lessor and Lessees shall have all rights and remedies which
this Lease and the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia assure to them. Al l rights and remedies
accruing to any party shall be cumulative; that is, each party may seek to exercise any rights and
to obtain any legal remedies available to it in law or equity. No right or remedy set forth in this Lease
or available to the Parties in law or equity is intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy.
In any action to enforce any covenants, agreements, conditions, or provisions of this Lease, each
Party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, t he Parties shall
provide not less than thirty days’ notice of any intended legal action.
10. TERMINATION; SURRENDER
(a) Upon expiration of this Lease the Lessees shall surrender the Leased Premises to the
Lessor in good order and condition, reasonable wear a nd tear excepted, and free from all
liens and encumbrances. Upon said expiration or termination, the Lessees shall remove
their personal property.
(b) Within 180 days of the expiration or earlier termination, of this Lease, Lessees shall remove
the Improvements and restore the Leased Premises as nearly as possible to their original
condition with existing funds as provided in the Operational Agreement. To the extent
existing funds are not sufficient to cover the full cost of removal and restoration, any
additional costs shall be allocated per the original construction percentages which are
Lessor, eighteen percent (18%); County Lessee, forty four percent (44%); City Lessee,
thirty-eight percent (38%). If the Lessor chooses to relieve the Lessees of their obl igation
to remove and restore, this Lease modification shall be set forth in a written amendment
prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. This amendment may contain a
mutually agreeable buy-out provision.
11. CONDEMNATION
If the Leased Property or any portion of the Leased Property shall be taken or condemned for any
public purpose, or for any other reason whatsoever, to such an extent as to render it untenantable
or unusable for the purposes described herein, then the Lessees shall h ave the option, within six
(6) months following the date of such taking or condemnation, to terminate this Lease.
12. SEVERABILITY
If any clause or provision of this Lease is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable under present
or future laws effective during the Term of this Lease, the remainder of this Lease shall not be
affected thereby. Additionally, the rights, responsibilities, liabilities, and obligations of any party to
the Operational Agreement shall not be affected by the illegality, inva lidity or unenforceability of
any provision or provisions of this Lease.
13. BROKERAGE CLAIMS
The Parties warrant that they have had no dealing with any real estate broker or agent in connection
with the negotiation of this Lease and that they know of no other real estate broker or agent who is
or might be entitled to a commission in connection with this Lease. The Parties agree to assume
responsibility for their own broker's fees, if any.
14. RECORDATION
The Lessor shall record a memorandum of lease, at the Lessor’s expense, in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the Lessor shall provide the Lessees
with a certified true copy thereof.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 32)
15. GOVERNING LAW
This Lease and the performance thereof shall be governed, interpreted, construed and regulated
by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Parties choose the state courts of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, as the venue for any action instituted pursuant to the terms of this Lease.
16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This instrument, and all exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties as
to the terms and conditions under which the Lessor’s property is leased to the Lessees.
Notwithstanding any promise, provision or condition contained herein, nothing in this Lease shall
be deemed or construed as a waiver of any regulatory authority or of the sovereign immunity of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the University of Virginia, the City of Charlottesville, or the County of
Albemarle or any of their departments, officers, officials, employees or agencies.
17. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, the Parties hereby agree that: (i) no individual
or entity shall be considered, deemed or otherwise recognized to be a third-party beneficiary of this
Lease; (ii) the provisions of this Lease are not intended to be for the benefit of any individual or
entity other than the Parties; (iii) no individual or entity shall be entitled to any right make any cl aim
against the Parties under the provisions of this Lease; and (iv) no provision of this Lease shall be
construed or interpreted to confer third-party beneficiary status on any individual or entity. For
purposes of this section, the phrase "individual or entity" means any individual or entity, including,
but not limited to, individuals, contractors, subcontractors, vendors, sub-vendors, assignees,
licensees and sublicensees, licensors and sublicensors, or invitees or any sort, regardless of
whether such individual or entity is named in this Lease.
18. COUNTERPARTS
This Lease may be executed in multiple original counterparts, each of which shall be an original,
but all of which shall constitute one and the same Lease. Signature pages of this Lease may b e
detached from any counterpart of this Lease and re-attached to any other counterpart of this Lease
which is identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more additional signature pages.
19. UVa STATUS
Notwithstanding that certain issues are addressed in provisions of this Lease, the Lessees
acknowledge that provisions relating to mechanics liens, zoning applicability, insurance and real
estate taxes do not subject the Lessor to liability, exposure, or obligation to thir d parties under
Federal, State and/or local law and any rules and regulations promulgated therefrom. This
declaration and agreement does not excuse any obligation the Parties may have to the one another
pursuant to this Lease; rather it addresses only the potential creation of liability, exposure or
obligation to others.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Lease to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives.
*****
OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAW-ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING FACILITY
THIS OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT made this ______ day of ___________________, 2014 by
and between the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (hereinafter “City”), a municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Albemarle, Virginia (hereinafter “County”), a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia (hereinafter “University” or “UVa”), a public educational institution and government in strumentality
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City, the County, and the University (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the
Parties”) recognize that essential to their ability to furnish police services within their respect ive jurisdictions
is the ability to provide regular firearms training and practice for their certified law enforcement officers; and
WHEREAS, the parties deem it advisable to enter into a cooperative agreement for the purpose of
establishing and operating a law enforcement training facility to serve the needs of the law enforcement
officers employed by their respective law enforcement agencies, and by this mutual association and joint
undertaking, to improve the administration and delivery of law enforcement services within and among their
respective jurisdictions;
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 33)
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties do hereby set forth their entire agreement as follows:
I. PURPOSE AND LOCATION
The Parties agree to design, build, and operate a law enforcement training facility, i ncluding an
indoor firing range, consisting of a building and related improvements, fixtures and equipment (together,
hereinafter “the Facility”) to be located at 2300 Milton Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, on that land
known hereinafter as the “Leased Premises,” for the use and benefit of the law enforcement officers of their
respective jurisdictions. [As used in the Lease, the term “Facility” includes only the building to be
constructed on the Leased Premises, but for the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Facility” shall include
the building, the Site Improvements, the Lessee Improvements, and any Additional Improvements, as
defined in the Lease, for which Lessees are responsible for planning, constructing, maintaining, repairing,
replacing, or removing pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease and this Agreement.] The Facility
shall include at least sixteen (16) firing positions, classrooms, and office space.
II. TERM
The term of this Agreement (hereinafter “Term”) shall commence upon the date as to which all
three Parties have signed this Agreement and a long-term ground lease of the Leased Premises for the
Facility (hereinafter “Lease”), and shall continue in effect thereafter for all such period(s) in which the term
of the Lease remains in effect between the Parties hereto.
III. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACILITY
A. Design. The Chiefs of Police of each of the Parties shall approve 100% complete design drawings
for the Facility, after consultation with their respective chief executive/ adm inistrative officers
(hereinafter, “CEOs”). The County shall assign one or more of its employees to oversee and
administer the other aspects and phases of the final design process and the procurement process
necessary for the selection of a construction contractor for the Facility, consistent with the terms
and conditions of this agreement and the estimated Initial Capital Costs referenced in Section IV of
this Agreement.
B. Procurement. The County shall be responsible for conducting a procurement procedure in
accordance with applicable state laws and County ordinances, on behalf of all Parties hereto, for
the selection of contractors to provide construction and related services, materials and equipment.
For any procurement transaction or task that requires or includes a component of negotiation, the
City and University shall be consulted and shall be offered the opportunity to assign a
representative to participate in any portion of the competitive process that involves or requires
negotiations with prospective contractors, or modifications of the final design of the Facility.
C. Construction administration. The County shall oversee and administer the process of construction
of the Facility, and shall have authority to make decisions regarding changes to the co nstruction
contract (including the Scope of Work, the Contract Price and the Time for Performance), and to
resolve contract claims, whether for money or other relief, within the budgetary limits (Initial Capital
Cost) set forth within Section IV of this Agreement. In doing so, the County will be acting as the
Fiscal Agent of the Parties. Any decision(s) that would cause or result in the Initial Capital Cost
exceeding the estimate set forth in Section IV of this Agreement must be approved by the CEO of
each Party, or his or her designee. The CEO of each Party shall designate a representative of his
or her office to monitor the progress of construction of the Facility. At least monthly during
construction of the Facility, a representative of the County shal l brief the Parties’ CEO-designees
on the progress of construction, and on the balance of the contract price that has been paid and is
remaining to be paid under the contract.
D. Construction of improvements
(a) The County shall notify the City and UVa of the date on which construction of the Facility
is commenced.
(b) The County agrees to provide City and UVa with proposed site plans and architectural
plans for any improvements or alterations to the Facility, as applicable, to review prior to
commencement of construction. If UVa or the City reasonably believes that the plans are
aesthetically deficient or inconsistent with the intended uses of the Facility and
incompatible with or detrimental to the surrounding area, then UVa and the City, acting,
respectively, by and through the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of
the University of Virginia and City Manager, or an authorized designee, each reserves the
right to reject the proposal(s) and prohibit construction of the Facility based on such plans.
UVa’s and the City’s approval of the County’s plans shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(c) The County and/or its agent(s) shall obtain any due diligence studies or tests that it may
deem necessary to proceed with the construction of the Facility and sha ll submit any
applications for building permits, rezoning, conditional use permits, and all such other
permits and approvals related to the use, construction and operation of the Facility on the
Leased Premises referenced in Section II of this Agreement. The cost and expense of all
said due diligence studies or tests shall be allocated as provided in this Agreement.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 34)
(d) Except as otherwise specifically stated herein, the Facility and alterations to the Facility
shall be constructed and completed by the County in a good, first class and workmanlike
manner, substantially in compliance with the approved plans and specifications therefore
and with all applicable permits and authorizations, building and zoning laws, and other
applicable laws, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations and other requirements of all
federal, state, and local governments, departments and in compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The cost and expense of the Facility and alterations to the
Facility shall be shared by the Parties, allocated as provided in Section IV of this
Agreement.
(e) The County acknowledges that the University of Virginia Building Official is the Building
Official for construction on, over and upon state-owned land, and no other approvals shall
be construed to be approval by the Building Official. Responsibility for all costs, fees and
other charges incurred or assessed by the Building Official for permitting, inspecting or
otherwise performing their functions shall be allocated as costs of construction of the
Facility. Further, the County shall be responsible for compliance with all laws governing
construction on state-owned land.
(f) During construction administration, the County agrees to comply with all applicable laws,
ordinances, orders, rules and regulations promulgated by agencies or bodies having any
jurisdiction thereof, including UVa, relating to the construction of the Facility.
(g) The County and/or its agents will contract for the conducting of due diligence studies and
testing prior to commencement of construction, surveys, and construction of the Facility, to
include, but not limited to, well and water distribution, improvement of the commercial road
entrance, paving, sidewalks, septic system and storm water improvements. The County
shall be responsible for operating and maintaining the Leased Premises and the Facility,
to include water wells, septic system, storm water improvements and the entrance road
serving the Facility as well as maintenance service charges, connection and disconnection
charges, use charges for electricity, heating, air conditioning, telephone, and all other
utilities serving such Leased Premises and the Facility. The County shall be responsible
for waste disposal and grounds maintenance within said Leased Premises. The County
shall make arrangements for the activities and services listed in this subsection; however,
the cost and expense of the said activities and services shall be shared and allocated
among the Parties as provided in Section IV of this Agreement.
(h) UVa shall have the right, during construction of the Facility, to inspect any improvements
to ensure that they are being constructed or installed in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications. In the event of deviation from such plans and specifications, UVa
shall provide notice to the City and the County, as set forth herein, and the County shall
remedy or seek UVa’s approval of such deviation within thirty (30) days of the notice.
IV. INITIAL CAPITAL COST ALLOCATION
A. The County shall establish a separate firing range capital fund for the Facility within its Capital
Improvement Fund and shall maintain this firing range capital fund until final completion of
construction of the Facility and thereafter, until final payment, and any and all contract claim s have
been resolved.
B. The total capital cost of the Facility as estimated based on design drawings available as of the date
of this Agreement is to be six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) (hereinafter “Initial Capital Cost”),
inclusive of contingency costs. The Parties shall provide funding for the Initial Capital Cost as
follows:
(1) $2,913,501.00 from Asset Forfeiture Funds. The City, the County, and the University have
each received asset forfeiture funds from the Office of the Attorney General of Vi rginia in
the amount of nine hundred seventy-one thousand, one hundred and sixty-seven dollars
($971,167.00); in the aggregate, the funds add up to $2,913,501.00. These asset forfeiture
funds are required to be utilized for the design, construction, and equipping of an indoor,
regional firearms training facility and must be expended on or before December 31, 2015.
The Parties each agree to contribute their respective asset forfeiture funds to the Initial
Capital Cost of the Facility. In the event that the referenced asset forfeiture funds are not
available to the Parties, then any Party may cancel its participation in this agreement in
accordance with Section VIII (non-appropriation) or may, at its sole option, appropriate
other funds to cover the loss of its share of the asset forfeiture funds.
(2) Establishment of Funding Formula. In addition to their respective contributions of asset
forfeiture funds as set forth in paragraph (B)(1) of Section IV, above, each of the parties
shall provide funding for the remaining portion of the estimated Initial Capital Cost in
accordance with the following funding formula: the number of full-time certified law
enforcement officers (hereinafter “LEOs”) employed by each Party’s law enforcement
agency/agencies shall be divided by the total (aggregated) number of full-time certified
LEOs employed by all of the Parties law enforcement agencies. For purposes of this
agreement, the reference to “certified law enforcement officer” includes every full-time LEO
employed within a Party’s police department and also includes every full-time LEO
employed within a Party’s Sheriff’s Office. The numbers used shall be those full-time LEO
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 35)
positions authorized by the Parties as of January 1, 2014. Applying the formula, each
party’s resulting share is as follows:
a) County’s Share: 144 total full-time County LEOs, divided by 330 total full-time
LEOs of all the Parties, equals forty-four percent (44%).
b) City’s Share: 127 total full-time City LEOs, divided by 330 total full-time LEOs of
all the Parties, equals thirty-eight percent (38%).
c) University’s Share: 59 total full-time LEOs, divided by 330 total full-time LEOs of
all the Parties, equals eighteen percent (18%).
(3) $330,000.00 Imputed to the University-Land Contribution. The University has agreed to
contribute a long term lease of the Leased Premises, on which the Facility will be
constructed. The City and County have agreed to recognize this contribution as having a
value of three hundred and thirty thousand dollars ($330,000.0 0). The Parties agree that
this University contribution shall be applied to reduce the amount of Initial Capital Cost to
be contributed by the University, and that the City and County will cover the additional
amount of $330,000.00 (allocated 53% of the County and 47% to the City).
(4) Calculation of Total Required Party Contributions for Initial Capital Cost:
a) Total Required Contribution, University - $225,569.00 ($3,086,499.00 x 18% =
$555,569.00; adjusted by a deduction of $330,000 equals $225,569.00)
b) Total Required Contribution, City-$1,327,970.00 ($3,086,499 x 38% =
$1,172,870.00; adjusted by $155,100 in recognition of the University’s land
contribution = $1,327,970.00)
c) Total Required Contribution, County-$1,532,960.00 ($3,086,499.00 x 44% =
$1,358,059.00; adjusted by $174,900 in recognition of the University’s land
contribution = $1,532,960.00)
(5) Required Payment Date, Allocated Initial Capital Cost Contributions. Upon receipt of notice
from the County that a contract has been awarded for cons truction of the Facility, the City
and University agree to pay their capital cost contributions to the County within ten (10)
days after the date of the notice (“Required Payment Date for the Initial Capital”). Likewise,
the County shall appropriate its share of the Initial Capital Cost to the capital account
referenced in paragraph (a), above, on or before the Required Payment Date for the Initial
Capital Cost. If, for any reason, the Facility is not constructed, the University and the City
will reimburse the County for all costs expended on the Facility up to the point of
cancellation of construction of the Facility in accordance with formula contained in Section
IV(B)(2) of this Agreement.
(6) Shortage/ Excess of Funding for Initial Capital Costs. If the Initial Capital Cost for the
Facility exceeds the total estimated cost of $6,000,000.00, then the excess capital costs
shall be apportioned between the University, the City, and the County according to the
above-referenced formula. If the Initial Capital Cost for the Facility is less than
$6,000,000.00, the surplus shall be held in the Capital Reserve fund referenced and
defined in Section V, below.
V. CAPITAL RESERVE FUND/FUTURE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
A. Once the Facility has been completely constructed and has become operational, then the County
shall establish a Capital Reserve fund for the Facility (“Capital Reserve”). Any Initial Capital Costs
appropriated by the parties, but not expended, shall be transferred and appropriated from the firing
range capital fund to the Capital Reserve. Additionally, on an annual basis, the Parties agree to
contribute in total, an amount equal to one and one half percent (1.5%) of the building value, to the
Capital Reserve. The initial building value will be equivale nt to the cost to construct the Facilities,
estimated as of the date of execution of this Agreement to be Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000.00)
(“Base Value”). Beginning with the fifth year after the Commencement Date specified in the Lease,
and on each fifth anniversary of such date throughout the Term of the Lease, including any
extensions and renewals, the Base Value shall increase by the greater of (i) an amount equal to
the product obtained by multiplying the Base Value by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be
the CPI-U (as that term is hereinafter defined) on the Commencement Date, and the denominator
of which shall be (i) the CPI-U on the fifth anniversary of such date, or (ii) the average of all CPI-
U’s as of the anniversary of the Commencement Date for the preceding five years.
B. The CPI-U shall mean the “Consumer Price Index – Seasonally adjusted U.S. City Average for All
Urban Consumers (1982-84=100)”, published month in the “Monthly Labor Review” of the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the United State Department of Labor. If the CPI-U is discontinued, the
“Consumer Price Index – Seasonally Adjusted U.S. City Average for All Items for urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers (1982-84=100)”, published monthly in the “Monthly Labor Review” of
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor (the “CPI -W”), shall be
used for making the computation set forth above. If the CPI-W is discontinued, comparable
statistics on the purchasing power of the consumer dollar published by the Bureau of Labor
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 36)
Statistics of the United States Department of Labor shall be used for making the computation set
forth above. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall no longer maintain statistics on the purchasing
power of the consumer dollar, comparable statistics published by a responsible financial periodical
or recognized authority selected by Landlord shall be used for making the computation set forth
above. If the base year “(1982-84=100)” or other base year used in computing the CPI-U is
changed, the figures used in making the computation above shall be notwithstanding any such
change in the base year.
C. The amount due by each Party shall be determined in accordance with Section VI (e) of this
Agreement. Each Party shall make its contribution by July 15 of each year this Agreement remains
in effect.
D. At any time during the Term of this Agreement, the parties may by unanimous agreement provide
funding for and construct additional capital improvements at the Facility, as evidenced by written
approval of each Party’s CEO. All such capital improvements shall be planned and carried out
using the same process and procedure referenced in Section III of this Agreement for the initial
establishment of the Facility. If the funds in the Capital Reserve do not satisfy the costs of the
contemplated capital improvement, the balance of the costs shall be apportioned among the
Parties, in the applicable fiscal year, pursuant to the formula established in Section IV(B)(2) of this
Agreement; provided, however, that the LEO numbers referenced in Section IV(B)(2) shall be
updated to reflect the applicable numbers as of January 1 of the calendar year preceding the fiscal
year in which additional funding must be appropriated by the Parties.
VI. OPERATING COSTS
A. Operating Account. The County shall establish and maintain a segregated account for the Facility
within its General Fund, from which expenses of operating the Facility will be paid by the County
(“Operating Account”).
B. Annual Budget for Operating Costs. The Chiefs of Police of the County, City and University shall,
on or before December 1 of each calendar year, establish a proposed Fiscal Year Operating Budget
for the Facility for the succeeding fiscal year (“Operating Budget”). There shall be included within
each proposed annual Budget a line item specifying the amount of an Operating Reserve for the
Budget year. Each Chief shall be required to obtain the consent of his or her jurisdiction’s CEO
prior to giving his or her endorsement to the proposed Operating Budget.
C. Each fiscal year Operating Budget for the Facility shall estimate all anticipated operating costs
including, but not limited to, utilities, snow removal, removal of lead/ bullets from within the Facility,
custodial services and supplies, non-capital maintenance and repairs, and parking lot upkeep.
D. The proposed Operating Budget established by the Chiefs shall be transmitted to the County for
review and adoption as a component of the County’s annual operating budget process. Between
the time the proposed Operating Budget is submitted by the Chiefs to the County, and the time the
County adopts its annual budget, the County’s CEO or designee shall give notice to the other
Parties’ CEOs of any potential revisions to the proposed Operating Budget and s hall provide the
other Parties’ CEOs an opportunity to comment on such revisions. Following adoption by the
County, within its annual budget, of a final Operating Budget for the Facility, each Party, including
the County, shall appropriate funding for its share of the Facility’s Operating Budget and shall make
payment to the County of its required share of the annual operating budget on or before July 15 of
each year during this Agreement. The County’s required annual share, together with the payments
received from the City and County, shall be appropriated by the County to the Operating Account
effective July 1 each fiscal year.
E. Allocation of Operating Costs. Each party’s annual financial contribution to the annual operating
budget shall be determined by the formula established in Section IV(B)(2) of this Agreement;
provided, however, that the LEO numbers referenced in Section IV(B)(2) shall be updated to reflect
the applicable numbers as of January 1 of the calendar year preceding July 1 of the fiscal ye ar for
which the Operating Budget has been established. The County shall provide the City and
University CEOs, or designees, with quarterly reports showing budgeted versus actual operating
expenditures.
F. Shortage/ Excess Funding for Operating Costs. If actual Operating Costs exceed budgeted costs
for any fiscal year, the resulting deficit shall be apportioned and paid by the Parties pursuant to the
formula referenced in paragraph VI(e), above. The County will provide Notice to the City and the
University of the necessity for additional funding. The City and the University shall each remit its
share of the necessary additional funding to the County within forty-five (45) days of the date of the
Notice (“Required Payment Date”) and the County shall also co ntribute its share of the necessary
additional funding into the Operating Account by the Required Payment Date.
G. Failure to Fund. In the event that any Party fails to contribute its full share of the Facility’s Operating
Costs when due, the Party’s LEOs shall not have access to and shall not be permitted to utilize the
Facility until payment in full has been made, nor shall the Party’s LEOs, CEO’s or other designated
representative be entitled to vote on any matters requiring consensus herein. If the fa ilure to pay
is by the City or the University, no such suspension shall take effect unless and until 30 days’
advance written notice of the overdue amount(s) has been given to such Party by the County. In
addition, any Party shall have the right to pursue all other legal remedies and actions as may be
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 37)
necessary or authorized to obtain payment of amounts due and owing under this Agreement,
including, without limitation, an action seeking damages for breach of contract, and an action
seeking mandamus, declaratory or injunctive relief, to the extent that such actions are permissible
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
VII. OPERATION OF THE FACILITY
A. Services. The County shall provide employees, contract services, or a combination of both,
as necessary and expedient for the safe, efficient and cost-efficient use, operation and maintenance of the
Facility.
B. Oversight Responsibility. Decisions regarding the day-to-day utilization and operation of
the Facility shall be made by the Chiefs of Police of the City, County, and University, or their individual
designee(s). The Chiefs or their designees shall, on a quarterly basis, review the status of funds within the
Operating Account, resolve disputes relating to the use and scheduling of use of the Facil ity, and review
the general status of the Facility’s operations. Each Party’s Chief of Police shall be responsible for keeping
his or her CEO informed of the status of the Facility’s operations.
C. Range Oversight Team. A Range Oversight Team shall develop rules, policies and
procedures for the use of the Facility, in consultation with the Parties’ respective legal counsel, and shall
present all proposed policies and procedures to the Police Chiefs for consideration and adoption. The
policies and procedures shall include, without limitation, the days and hours of operation for the Facility.
No rule, policy, or procedure for the use of the Facility shall become effective unless by unanimous
agreement of the three Police Chiefs. The Range Oversight Team shall consist of one employee from each
Party.
D. Annual Range Schedule. The Range Oversight Team shall prepare an annual schedule
for use of the Facility by the Parties (“Range Schedule”). The Range Schedule shall cover July 1 through
June 30 of the following year. Each Party shall be allocated a number of days and hours of use sufficient
to facilitate fulfillment of required training and Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services certification
standards for full-time LEOs. The Range Oversight Team shall present the proposed Range Schedule to
the Parties’ Police Chiefs no later than the last business day of May immediately preceding the July 1
effective date of the Range Schedule. The Parties’ three Chiefs of Police shall agree upon a final Range
Schedule on or before June 30 each year.
E. Day-to-day Scheduling. The County shall assign an employee to monitor compliance with,
and to update and maintain, the Range Schedule on a day-to-day basis (“Scheduling Officer”). The
Scheduling Officer may authorize additional days/ hours of use by each Party. The Scheduling Officer may
remove/ delete days of use shown on the approved annual Range Schedule: (i) upon the request of a
Party’s Chief of Police, or with the written agreement of a Party’s Chief of Police, o r (ii) to correct errors,
mistakes or over-scheduling, as necessary, so long as following any such correction, no Party is allocated
fewer days than contemplated by the approved annual Range Schedule.
F. Liability:
(i) The Parties shall share and allocate, as provided in Section VI of this Agreement, any
incurred expense from routine maintenance or mandated inspections of the Facility, including reasonable
wear and tear to be anticipated from the Parties’ use of the Facility, and such other costs or expen ses
resulting from damage to property that is not covered by insurance on the Facility.
(ii) To the extent permitted by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Parties shall
each be responsible to one another or to persons not a party to this Agree ment for damage to property or
injury to persons resulting from or arising out of the acts or omissions of their agents and employees in
connection with the construction, maintenance, or use of the Facility, as set forth in this Agreement.
(iii) Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign or governmental
immunity of the Commonwealth of Virginia, UVa, the City, or the County or their respective officials or
employees.
G. Repairs and Maintenance of the Facility:
(i) The Parties shall share the cost of keeping, repairing and maintaining the Facility
and Leased Premises, in a manner so as to conform to and comply with any applicable present or future
laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations or requirements of any federal, state or municipal gov ernment,
department, commission, board or officers having jurisdiction, foreseen or unforeseen, ordinary as well as
extraordinary, whether or not such laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations or requirements shall
necessitate structural changes or improvements or interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Facility or
the Leased Premises referenced in Section II of this Agreement, and to take any and all actions necessary
to avoid or eliminate any violation. Costs and expenses of this shared obligation s hall be allocated to the
Parties as provided in Section VI of this Agreement.
(ii) The Parties understand that the users of the Facility will be the primary users of
the Access Road serving as ingress and egress to and from the Leased Property. The Parties sha ll improve
and maintain the Access Road solely for the benefit of the authorized users of the Facility and
Improvements, up to, but not extending beyond, the Facility, including sidewalks, curbs, entrances and
driveways, to the extent they exist, whether on the Leased Premises or other land of UVa, as necessary to
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 38)
keep the Access Road leading to the Facility, as described in the Lease, in good repair, and in good and
safe condition, free from snow, ice, rubbish and other obstructions, and in compliance with all regulations,
rules and other conditions regarding the management of storm water runoff. The Parties shall owe no duty
to users of any other land of UVa. Costs and expenses of this shared obligation shall be allocated to the
Parties as provided in Section VI of this Agreement.
(iii) In the event UVa exercises any right(s) it may have as the owner and Building
Official of the Leased Premises referenced within Section II of this Agreement, to enter the Leased
Premises to prevent or abate any nuisance, hazard, or unlawful conditions, or to make emergency repairs
necessary to prevent an imminent danger to persons, UVa shall be required to give advance notice, as may
be reasonable under the circumstances, to the City and the County. Absent an emergency, the Unive rsity
may conduct health and safety inspections, to ensure the Facility is being properly maintained, but only
upon twenty-four (24) hours’ advance notice to both the County and the City.
H. Proceeds of Condemnation:
(i) If the Facility or the Leased Premises on which the Facility is constructed shall be
taken or condemned for any public purpose, or for any reason whatsoever, to such an extent as to be
rendered untenantable or unusable for the purposes described herein, then all condemnation proceeds
shall be paid to County, as fiscal agent for the Parties, except any proceeds attributable to the valuation of
the land (exclusive of the value of the Facility) shall be paid to UVa. The County shall distribute
condemnation proceeds among the Parties to this Agreement, in the same percentages set forth within
Section IV of this Agreement.
(ii) If, in the sole opinion of the City and County, a taking or condemnation does not
render the Facility or the Leased Premises untenantable or unusable, then the Parties hereby agree to
share the costs and expenses of restoring the portion not taken, to the extent possible, to the condition
existing prior to the taking, but in no event shall the Parties be required to expend any amounts in excess
of the net condemnation proceeds received.
I. Use by Outside Law Enforcement Agencies. If the Facility is not scheduled for use by any
Party on a specific day, or portion thereof, the Scheduling Officer may reserve the Facility for use by an
outside law enforcement agency, if the outside agency pays a fee (“Facility Use Fee”), enters a written
agreement to comply with the established Rules and Operational Policies and Procedures for the Facility,
provides proof of a five million dollar general liability insurance policy that provides coverage for its use of
the Facility, and will itself provide on-site supervision for any individual(s) using the Facility.
(i) The Facility Use Fee for outside agencies, and a policy identifying any agency or
agencies that the Parties may wish to exempt from the Fee (“Budget Policy”), shall be established annually,
as part of the proposed Operating Budget. Once the Operating Budget has been approved as part of the
County’s annual budget, the Facility Use Fee shall not be waived, nor exemptions granted, except in
accordance with the Budget Policy. All Facility Use Fees shall be appropriated to the Operating Account.
(ii) No individual shall be allowed to use the Facility, unless: (i) such individual is
employed as a full-time LEO of a Party to this Agreement, or an independent contractor engaged in
providing training to a Party’s employees; (ii) such individual is an employee of an outside law-enforcement
agency engaged in providing training to a Party’s employees; (iii) such individual is a retired LEO employed
by a Party immediately prior to his or her retirement, and such individual is utilizing the range under the
supervision of a LEO currently employed by a Party, for the purpose of maintaining the retired LEO’s
concealed weapons permit; or (iv) such individual is using the Facility pursuant to an outside agency
agreement, in accordance with paragraph VII(I), above.
VIII. NON-APPROPRIATION
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, all funds for payment by the Parties are
subject to the availability and annua l appropriation of funding by each Party to support performance of its
obligations under this Agreement. While recognizing that no party may make any binding commitment
beyond its current Fiscal Year, it is the current intention of each Party to make suff icient annual
appropriations during the term of this Agreement to make all payments required pursuant to this Agreement.
IX. FUTURE PARTIES
The Parties may by unanimous agreement allow additional public bodies to join as a party to this
Agreement. The financial terms and conditions under which any prospective party would be allowed to
participate as a party hereto shall be set forth within a written addendum to this Agreement.
X. INSURANCE
A. Subject to the provisions below, throughout the Term of this Agreement, each Party shall maintain,
the following insurance, with the specified coverages and minimum limits:
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 39)
(i) Local government liability policy and coverage-- One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per
occurrence with a Two Million Dollar ($2,000,000) aggregate limit. Local government
liability coverage shall include premises/operations, personal injury, and contractual liability
coverage, as well as law enforcement liability, insuring against claims for bodily injury and
loss or damage of property caused by or arising out of such Party’s use and/or occupancy
of the Facility and the Leased Premises on which it is constructed, including use of the
Access Drive and entrance.
(ii) Umbrella or Excess Liability policy and coverage--which shall be written on an occurrence
basis and shall follow form, without exclusions, to the underlying local government liability
policy, and which shall have coverage limits of not less than Five Million Dollars
($5,000,000). If a Party maintains a minimum of Five Million Dol lars ($5,000,000) per
occurrence with a Five Million Dollar ($5,000,000) aggregate on its Commercial General
Liability policy, that Party is not required to maintain a separate Umbrella or Excess liability
policy.
(iii) Business Personal Property Insurance-- property insurance covering such Party’s owned
equipment, trade fixtures, inventory, fixtures and personal property located on or in the
Facility, for perils covered by the causes of loss included in a broad form special property
form policy. This obligation shall apply to property other than furnishings, fixtures and
equipment purchased with funds contributed by the Parties pursuant to Sections IV, V or
VI of this Agreement.
(iv) Commercial Automobile Liability insurance, or comparable self -insurance through the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including coverage for liability arising out of the use of owned,
hired, and non-owned automobiles, for both bodily injury and property damage, with a limit
of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident.
(v) Workers’ compensation – according to Virginia statutory requirements and benefits.
(vi) Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the contractual liability coverage noted in Section
X(A)(i) nor the provisions of Section X(A)(ii) are applicable to U Va as they are not included
in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s self-insurance.
B. Additionally, the County shall have the following insurance obligations:
(i) Obtain and maintain property insurance for the full replacement cost of: the Facility and
related improvements to the Leased Premises on which the Facility is constructed, and for
the furnishings, fixtures and equipment contained therein (“Insured Property”). Obtain and
maintain property insurance for the full replacement cost of: the Facility and related
improvements to the Leased Premises on which the Facility is constructed, and for the
furnishings, fixtures and equipment purchased with funds contributed by the Parties
pursuant to Sections IV, V or VI of this Agreement (“Insured Property”).” The insurance
coverage shall be for the benefit of UVa, the City and the County, and shall insure the
Parties against loss or damage by fire and other perils as provided in a broad form
extended coverage or similar property policy. Such policy or policies shall also include
coverage for earthquake and equipment breakdown losses and name UVa, the City, and
the County as insureds thereunder, as their respective interests may appear. All proceeds
paid pursuant to this coverage shall be paid to the County and the County shall apply said
proceeds to the Facility. The County may add the Insured Property to policies that it already
has in place, or may obtain other insurance. All costs and expenses of this required
property insurance shall be shared by the Parties as part of the Operational Costs
referenced in Section VI of this Agreement.
(ii) Require contractors and subcontractors procured by County to perform construction of the
Facility and related improvements, to have and maintain throughout performance of such
work, the following insurance coverage: (i) commercial general liability insurance with a
liability limit of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and an aggregate of $3,000,000, to
include premises/operations, personal injury, products/completed operations, contractual,
and “X,C,U” hazards, (ii) commercial automobile liability insurance of at least $1,000,000
per accident to cover all owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles, (iii) workers’ compensation
insurance in accordance with the Virginia Workers Compensation Act and em ployer’s
liability insurance with limits of at least $500,000; (iii) builder’s risk insurance coverage in
an amount not less than the completed value of the Facility, including all foundation work
and project soft costs. Liability coverages must be occurre nce based. The aforementioned
builder’s risk coverage shall remain in effect until completion of the Facility and at such
time as the Parties take possession of the Facility, and shall include the interests of the
County, the City, UVa and the Contractor, as their interests may appear. Evidence of the
above insurance policies must be provided by contractors and subcontractors in the form
of a certificate of insurance, prior to performance of any construction. Each policy required
by this paragraph shall be endorsed to name the County, the City and UVa as additional
insured parties, and to require 30 days’ notice of cancellation or modification of coverage.
UVa shall be listed as follows on the additional insured endorsement coverage: The
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, its
officers, employees and agents.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 40)
C. Licensed insurance pooling organizations in Virginia, such as VML and VACORP, are acceptable
insurers for meeting these insurance requirements. To the ex tent that any insurance policies
required by this Section are obtained from commercial insurance companies, the coverage shall
be obtained from companies rated A- or better in the most current issue of A.M. Best's Insurance
Ratings Guide. Insurers shall be licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia and be
domiciled in the USA. Any deductible amounts under any insurance policies required hereunder
shall not exceed $100,000 per loss. Each Party shall, upon request of any other party, provide
evidence of insurance required by this Section.
D. Any Party shall have the right to provide any insurance coverage required herein in a blanket policy,
provided such blanket policy expressly affords coverage for the Facility and related improvements,
and to the other Parties, as may be required by this Section.
E. Each Party shall give the other Parties written notice in the event of any change or modification of
its insurance coverage required by this Section X, when such change or modification would re duce
the insurance in coverage or limits, suspension, cancellation, termination or lapse of insurance
coverage. Such notice shall be sent directly to each Party in accordance with the notice
requirements of this Agreement. Such notice shall be sent within 10 days of such Party’s own notice
of such change or modification.
F. It is understood that UVa, an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, will meet its insurance
obligations outlined in this section 10 through its participation in the Commonwealth’s fin ancial plan
of risk management that is in the nature of self -insurance, administered in accordance with the
Code of Virginia, as amended.
G. Any Party shall have the right to provide any insurance coverage required herein in a blanket policy,
provided such blanket policy expressly affords coverage for the Facility and related improvements,
and to the other Parties, as may be required by this Section.
H. Each Party shall give the other Parties written notice in the event of any change or modification of
its insurance coverage required by this Section, when such change or modification would reduce
the insurance in coverage or limits, suspension, cancellation, termination or lapse of insurance
coverage. Such notice shall be sent directly to each Party in accordance with the notice
requirements of this Agreement. Such notice shall be sent within 10 days of such Party’s own notice
of such change or modification.
I. In the event that any Party fails to carry and maintain the insurance required by this Section X, such
Party shall be responsible for all damages to the other Parties arising out of such failure, including,
without limitation, payment of all monetary amounts and contributions that the required insurance
was intended to cover. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign
or governmental immunity of the Commonwealth of Virginia, UVa, the County or the City, or their
respective official, employees or agents.
XI. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
A. The County shall serve as Fiscal Agent for the Parties in connection with the joint undertaking
described within this Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding such fiscal agency, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed as
in any way creating, establishing or conferring any right upon any Party to act as an agent or
representative of any other Party for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever.
B. The City and County understand and acknowledge that UVa is an agency of the Commonwealth
of Virginia and with respect to tort liability for acts or occurrences on or about the Facility and the
Leased Premises on which it is constructed, including product liability, the Commonwealth and UVa
are either: (i) constitutionally immune (or partially immune) from suit, judgment or liability, (ii)
insured, or (iii) covered by a financial plan of risk management that is in the nature of self -insurance,
all as determined by applicable laws, government policies and practices.
C. No Party to this Agreement has agreed to provide any indemnification or save harmless
agreements running to any other Party or Parties. No provision, covenant or agreement contained
in this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of the sovereign or governmental immunity of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, UVa, the County or the City from tort or any other liability.
D. The County shall serve as Fiscal Agent for the Parties in connection with the joint undertaking
described within this Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. As the Fiscal
Agent, the County shall receive a total annual payment of two percent of the annual Operating
Budget, the cost of which will be allocated per the Formula established in Section IV(B)(2) of this
Agreement.
E. This Operating Agreement may be modified only by written agreement, signed and executed by
all of the Parties.
XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. Operational issues. In the event that a dispute about the operation of the Facility arises between
the Parties, the three Chiefs of Police shall settle the dispute among themselves. If the three Chiefs
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 41)
cannot settle the dispute, they shall refer the matter to the CEOs of their respective jurisdictions.
The CEOs shall then settle the dispute among themselves. If the CEOs cannot resolve the dispute,
they shall proceed as set forth within paragraph (B), below.
B. Other contractual issues. Any disputes or claims among the Parties, whether for monetary or other
relief, shall be resolved informally among the Parties’ CEOs. If the CEOs are unab le to resolve a
dispute or claim, the Parties agree that they will attempt resolution through non-binding mediation.
If such mediation does not resolve the dispute or claim, the Parties may exercise any legal rights
or remedies that may be available.
XIII. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Parties recognize and agree that the operation of a firing range by necessity involves the use
of substances that may be considered Hazardous Materials, including ballistics and explosives customarily
used at law enforcement training facilities/ firing ranges. It is understood that the Parties, and any third
parties licensed or permitted to use the Facility, may bring ballistics and explosives customarily used at law
enforcement training facilities/ firing ranges onto the Leased Property and may use said ballistics and
explosives within the Facility. Aside from the transport or use of ballistics and explosives, and incidental
use of cleaning agents, customarily used at firing ranges, the Lessees shall neither take any action to place,
nor cause or permit to be placed, Hazardous Materials on or within the Facility or the Leased Premises on
which it is constructed, nor will they take, or cause to be taken, any action that would result in an
environmental condition as referenced herein. As used in this Lease, the term "Hazardous Material" means
those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.10 1) or classified by the Environmental Protection Agenc y as
hazardous substances (40 CFR Part 302), or such substances, materials and wastes which are or become
regulated under any applicable local, state or federal law, including, without limitation, any material, waste
or substance which is (1) petroleum, (2) asbestos, (3) polychlorinated biphenyls, (4) designated as a
hazardous substance pursuant to the federal "Clean Water Act", the federal "Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act", or the federal "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabi lity Act",
or (6) lead, other than ballistics and/or explosives customarily used at firing ranges.
XIV. DISSOLUTION; EFFECT OF PARTY WITHDRAWAL
A. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement as to all Parties, any balances in the
Operating Account, Capital Fund, and Capital Reserve shall be applied as follows: (i) first, to
satisfaction of the Parties’ obligations under the Lease for surrender of the Facility, including,
without limitation, removal of the Facility, Lessee Improvements and/or Site Improvements (as
defined in the Lease) and repair or restoration of the Leased Property, and then (ii) any
unexpended funds shall be distributed and paid out to the Parties according to cost allocation
formula for the applicable year. Title to and ownership of the Facility shall be conveyed to the
University, as provided within the Lease.
B. To the extent existing funds are not sufficient to cover the full cost of removal and restoration, any
additional costs shall be allocated per the original co nstruction percentages which are University,
eighteen percent (18%); County, forty four percent (44%); City, thirty-eight percent (38%).
XV. APPLICABLE LAW, FORUM, VENUE AND JURISDICTION
A. This Agreement shall be governed in all aspects by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
the jurisdiction, forum, and venue for any litigation with respect hereto shall be in the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, and in no other court.
B. In using the Facility, and in otherwise performing their obligations under this Agreement, the Parties
shall comply with all applicable federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations, now
or hereafter in force during the Term, governing the establishment, maintenance, operation and
use of the Facility.
XVI. NOTICES
A. Form; effectiveness. Whenever this Agreement requires a Notice to be given to any Party/ Parties,
such Notice shall be given in writing, and shall be effective on the date given. Notice given by mail
shall be deemed given on the date deposited in the U.S. mail and sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
B. Addressees: Notices shall be given to the Parties’ representatives designated below. Any party
may, by notice to the other Parties, re-designate its representative to receive notices and/or the
addresses to which notices may be sent:
(1) Albemarle County: Send to Tom Foley, County Executive. Address for Mail and
Deliveries: County Executive, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902.
Facsimile: 434-296-5800. E-mail: tfoley@albemarle.org
(2) City of Charlottesville: Send to Maurice Jones, City Manager. Address for Mail: P.O. Box
911, Charlottesville, VA, 22902. Address for Deliveries: City Hall, 605 East Main Street,
2nd Floor, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902. Facsimile: 434-970-3890. E-mail:
mjones@charlottesville.org
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 42)
(3) University of Virginia: Send to Patrick Hogan, Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer. Address for Mail: P.O. Box 400228, Charlottesville, VA 22904 -4228.
Address for Deliveries: Madison Hall, 1827 University Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22903.
Facsimile: 434-982-2770. Email: pdh9t@Virginia.EDU Copies to: Director, Real Estate
and Leasing Services, P.O. Box 400884, Charlottesville, VA 22904 -4884 and Chief of
Police, University of Virginia Police Department, P.O. Box 400214, Charlottesville, VA
22904-4214
XVII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with the Lease, constitutes the entire and complete agreement of the
Parties, and the provisions set forth herein and in said Lease supersede all communications, negotiations,
arrangements and agreements, whether oral or written, between the Parties with r espect to the subject
matter of these Agreements.
XVIII. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in multiple original counterparts, each of which shall be an
original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Signature pages of this Agreement
may be detached from any counterpart of this Lease and re-attached to any other counterpart of this Lease
which is identical in form hereto but having attached to it one or more additional signature pages.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and
year shown below.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Work Session: Community Engagement Strategies and Future Direction.
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the Board’s FY 15 - FY 17
Strategic Plan includes a goal regarding community engagement -- “Successfully engage citizens so that
local government reflects their values and aspirations”. That goal includes a first year priority as follows:
By June 2015, increase opportunities for meaningful citizen engagement. Staff is anxious to review
current and planned community engagement initiatives with the Board and receive feedback and
guidance regarding fulfilling the intentions of the strategic plan goal. The purpose of t his agenda item is
to engage the Board in meaningful discussion about their preferences for the future direction of our
community engagement program, including creative and innovative ways to encourage and facilitate
active citizen involvement in county government.
Effective community engagement is a core function of local government. Recognizing the
growing needs identified with supporting a robust and meaningful community engagement program, the
County established a dedicated Community Engagement Specialist position in 2007. Major
responsibilities for that position included:
Liaison/support for the Board’s appointed Community Advisory Councils
Training/outreach with homeowners associations and other civic groups
Managing public participation related to capital projects and other major county initiatives
While the Specialist position was eliminated in 2009 as part of the County’s overall workforce
reduction effort during the recession, the critical needs associated with community engagement have
continued to grow significantly since that time.
The County’s capital program has projects underway, such as the Police Firearms
Training Facility, the Northside Library and the Crozet Streetscape Project, which all have
required substantial community involvem ent during planning, design and construction
phases to ensure that citizen needs and concerns are an integral part of the process.
The four Community Advisory Councils (soon to be five or six with the adoption of the
Southern/Western master plan at the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan update) are
all very actively engaged in issues of concern to their specific master plan areas and to
the development area as a whole.
The Route 29 Solutions Package will require significant and ongoing community
engagement for the entire three year period of design and construction.
Major policy issues, including identifying long-term solid waste solutions and a permanent
water resources funding mechanism, have extensive community engagement plans in
place.
The reestablishment of the Community Engagement position is an important step in addressing
the needs described above. In addition, County staff will continue to be proactive and strategic in using
available tools and identifying emerging options to promote effective communication and engagement.
The Board’s input on its expectations regarding community engagement will guide staff in prioritizing its
efforts.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 43)
Review of Current Community Engagement Initiatives:
The County’s community engagement efforts are guided by the administrative guidelines adopted
in 2007 that outline the County’s philosophy and approach (Attachment A). These guidelines require the
creation of public engagement plans that provide a very specific and detailed approach to assessing
needs and developing strategies to ensure that the appropriate level of public engagement is achieved for
each individual situation (Attachment B). The spectrum of community engagement options ranges from
fairly basic public information, which requires only one -way communications (an example would be an
upcoming election where people need to know about a change in polling location) to full collaboration,
which requires ongoing dialogue (an example would be the development of a long range solid waste
solution). There are different tools and strategies that are appropriate and effective for all stages along
the continuum. Attachment C provides activity levels for our major communications tools in 2014.
Examples of public information/education tools:
Website
Amail
Audiostreaming/podcasting of Board of Supervisor and Planning Commission meetings
Social media – Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Flickr
Press releases
Public hearings
Examples of public involvement/collaboration tools:
Engage Albemarle
Citizen surveys
Community Advisory Councils
Roundtables and town hall meetings
Advisory committees, such as the Long-Term Solid Waste and Water Funding
Committees
Next Steps:
An immediate focus area for the Community Engagement Specialist is to reestablish the County’s
neighborhood homeowners’ association database and outreach mechanisms to create an effective
network for Route 29 Solutions engagement and other pressing issues. Other short term priorities
include developing neighborhood association leadership training and partnering with the Virginia
Department of Transportation and other community partners on a comprehensive neighborhood
communication and outreach effort for Route 29 Solutions. Staff is anxious to hear other priorities of the
Board related to community engagement. Staff is also looking for guidance from the Board regarding
video streaming. Attachment D outlines options, including budget impacts, for implementing video
streaming.
The only immediate budget impact would be the cost of implementing video streaming a s
outlined in Attachment D if the Board decides to move forward with that initiative.
Staff requests that the Board provide feedback and guidance as to its expectations regarding the
future focus of the County’s community engagement efforts, including dir ection on video streaming.
_____
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that the Board has a
strategic plan goal related to community engagement which is: “Successfully engage citizens so that
local government reflects their values and aspirations,” and staff’s goal is to help those words come to
life. She presented a video showing previous community engagement activities related to the Crozet
Library, and said the goal is to make that happen as often as possible and as much as possible. She
reported that the first-year objective under the strategic plan goal is to increase opportunities for
meaningful citizen engagement, and ensure it is something which makes a difference in terms of how
citizens are engaging with local government. Ms. Catlin said she would present an overview of
philosophy and approach, current efforts and future direction and, at the end, would provide information
on video streaming to see if the Board is ready to make a decision on how to move forward with that.
She reported that the County’s community engagement efforts are guided by administrative guidelines as
adopted in 2007, and a copy of that is in Attachment A. She said it outlines the County’s philosophy and
approach, and how to ensure that is being done in a systematic, organized and consistent way so that,
when moving from project to project, they are not starting from scratch each time in considering how to
handle public engagement. Ms. Catlin said these guidelines require the creation of public engagement
plans which provide a specific and detailed approach as to how they assess the situation, determine what
kind of public engagement is needed, what the tools are, and how it will be carried out. She stated that
most Board members had worked with staff on putting these plans together, so staff has some familiarity
as to identifying the target audience, determining the level of concern and interest in the community,
identifying the most effective tools, establishing a road map and the feedback loop, as well as measuring
effectiveness.
Ms. Catlin said the foundation of the plan is the idea that community engagement really happens
across a spectrum and is not just one thing. She said, at the lower level, there is one-way communication
between the County and the public, i.e. disseminating basic information on polling places, severe weather
notices, tax deadlines, etc. She said the next step is going to consultation, which involves getting public
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 44)
feedback on a proposal and requires a response from the public but is a somewhat limited opportunity for
dialogue. She stated that the promise here is that the County will keep the public informed, listen to their
concerns, and provide feedback on a proposal. Ms. Catlin said, while it requires a response from the
public, it is a somewhat limited opportunity for public dialogue, with the promise being that the County
would keep them informed, listen to their concerns and provide feedback on how p ublic input has
influenced a decision. She stated that an example of this would be the Comprehensive Plan public
hearings, whereby the Board is giving people a chance to state what is important to them, considering
that, and explaining to them in the future how that has influenced their decision. Ms. Catlin said the next
stage is involvement or working directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that their
concerns and issues are understood, and there is two-way communication during the project as it is
moving forward. She said the promise here is that the County will work with stakeholders to ensure their
issues are directly reflected in the alternatives developed, and provide feedback as to how public input
influenced the decision. Ms. Catlin said a great example of this was the firing range process, which
included a continuous loop of involvement. She stated that the most engaged place on the community
engagement spectrum was collaboration, wherein the County looks to the public for advice, innovation,
and in formulating the solutions and their recommendations would be part of the decision-making
process. Ms. Catlin said two examples of this include the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory C ommittee
and the water resources funding group.
Ms. Catlin said, when the County does its planning, it thinks about where along the spectrum a
particular project might be, which helps establish shared expectations about public engagement. She
stated that most of the issues with community engagement are when the County thinks it is at the
informed stage, but the community thinks it is at the collaboration stage. Ms. Catlin said having these
plans in place ensures a predictable, transparent process which gets followed each time, gives the Board
the confidence to understand what the public engagement will be and to be reassured that citizens will be
involved appropriately in the decision making. She stated that each of these places along the sp ectrum
involves different tools and, for the inform/consult part of the spectrum, examples would be press
releases, the website, A-mail, audio streaming and podcasts all pushing information out so that people
are informed. With public hearings and social media, she said they are moving into the consultation
stage; it is not active two-way dialogue, but there is an opportunity for the public to react back to the
County in some fashion. Ms. Catlin noted that, for information/consultation, staff does a monthly
communications calendar which lists all the projects, programs and activities for the month, with a
checklist of tools across the top. She said, with the involve/collaborate part of the spectrum, all of those
communications tools are in play, but they also have to move to more engagement-oriented activities,
such as Engage Albemarle, the community advisory councils, roundtables, town hall meetings, and policy
advisory committees.
Ms. Catlin stated that the County’s website in 2014 had approximately 38,000 users per month;
about 24% of those users are using mobile devices, which will continue growing . She stated that there
are about 4,300 active users in A-mail and, this year to date, they have had about 560,000 contacts; there
has been an average of about 15 press releases monthly.
Ms. Palmer asked how many different accounts are reflected in the A-mail figures. Ms. Catlin
said there were 4,300 different users, and are divided into lists depending on specific interests, with the
whole list getting emails which staff feels everyone would be interested in and delineation for more narrow
topics. She stated that the County has over 1,900 likes, up 26% since the beginning of the year; the
Twitter feed has increased by 118% and, while none of their numbers are huge, you can take all of that
into account to determine who they are reaching and what all the methods are. Ms. Catlin reported that
staff has had 18 topics posted on Engage Albemarle since June, with 210 active engagement s, so it is
starting to take hold but it needs constant work and visibility in order to be effective. She stated that,
since January, there have been 38 town hall meetings according to staff’s records; there are four active
community advisory councils with 60 members total, and those groups are all meeting monthly. Ms.
Catlin said this is the current scenario, but the County needs to look ahead as to where it is going with
community engagement. She said staff is working to build up the database that includes neighborhood
and homeowners associations, which is needed now for Route 29 Solutions but everything else moving
forward. Ms. Catlin said the County used to have neighborhood leadership academies and capacity-
building events, information on how to help neighborhoods be self-sufficient, and also training on GIS.
She said the goal is to give residents the tools to be self-sufficient and to be able to advocate for
themselves.
Ms. Palmer asked why the County stopped doing that. Ms. Catlin said they lost their staff
resource during the recession, which was a big loss.
Ms. Mallek noted that, in the 1980s, there were about 40 neighborhoods represented with
homeowners associations, and now there are probably hundreds.
Ms. Catlin said other things staff is looking at include a strategic communications plan, which
provides a 12-18 month look as to what they want to accomplish with their communication and who their
target audiences are that they feel are under-represented. She said the Board has talked a lot about
quality of life and building neighborhoods back, and the County has a good story to tell but they must be
their own best advocates in telling it, which is what this type of plan would do. She stated that mobile
sites and apps need attention, and trying to look at the County’s website on a mobile device is ha rd to do.
Ms. Catlin said several Board members have brought crowd-funding to the Board’s attention, and the fact
is that a lot of communities are tapping back into the energy and interest of their own communities in
getting projects off the ground. She said tools include platforms like Civic Invest and Kickstarter, with
some geared specifically toward local governments. Ms. Catlin said video is an increasingly important
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 45)
tool for things the County is trying to communicate, such as the Book Brigade, and they need to get more
active in using video to get the message out.
Ms. Mallek noted that Coy Barefoot had put that video together, and it netted the library an
additional $40,000 in donations because of what was being talked about online.
Ms. Dittmar said video is an excellent communication tool internally also, and she learned at Cale
Elementary that one of the teaching assistants videoed the classroom and was showing it to parents as
they were waiting for teacher conferences.
Ms. Catlin mentioned that the County has a YouTube channel, but they have not been feeding it
regularly with content. She asked for Board feedback on current communications efforts, and what future
directions the County should be considering.
Ms. Mallek said she wanted to report on the success of the outreach for the Crozet streetscape,
and said that the bi-weekly updates on where traffic was blocked kept the community well-informed,
which made the process go much more smoothly.
Ms. Dittmar said staff has taken on a lot and has some benchmarks they are moving towards, but
technology changes so quickly, so there will be new social media tools which staff will bring to the Board.
She said, regardless of how information is distributed, there will always be people who say they did not
know about something so, as long as the County is innovative about the tools it uses, the Board can
explain to constituents all that has been done to communicate.
Ms. Mallek said, in addition to emerging new tools, there are still people who pick up flyers at the
grocery store or see a poster in the window, so it is important to continue to communicate with the smaller
communities.
Ms. Catlin said, in a recent session in Richmond about community engagement, she heard a
phrase that she liked: “high tech and high touch,” and the County should not forget the direct connection
while focusing on technology, because there are still people in the community for which that makes a
difference.
Ms. Palmer said she wished there was a better way to get the word out about meetings, and she
was not sure what the answer was beyond what is currently being done.
Mr. Sheffield said he would like the Board to consider holding work sessions at remote locations,
even though they had not previously em braced that idea. He said work sessions on a specific topic could
be held in remote locations, which might generate more interest because of the uniqueness of it and the
proximity to certain neighborhoods.
Ms. Catlin said the Board makes a great point in that the County cannot get too wedded to any
one particular tool because the world is changing quickly and there is a need to be agile. She said the
goal is to have as few people as possible say they did not know a particular meeting or event was
happening.
Regarding video-streaming, Ms. Catlin said staff had brought some of this information before the
Board previously, and staff has looked at a couple of options. She said the Board had indicated a
preference to start out with the regularly scheduled meetings of the Board which take place in Lane
Auditorium and, in addition to live streaming, video on dem and should be available within 36 hours of
each meeting, less if possible, and that the video produced must be broadcast-quality. Ms. Catlin said
the options that were considered included establishing a partnership, so the County put out a request for
information (RFI), however, the media outlets that were contacted declined to respond with a proposal.
She said staff looked at using volunteers, however, in looking at schools for a resource, because the
need for video streaming is during regular school hours, holidays and summer vacations, it was very hard
to see how a volunteer arrangement with local schools was going to be viable in order to get a consistent,
predictable quality piece. She stated that, in the 21 communities staff researched as part of their
assessment, none relied on volunteers.
Ms. Catlin said the other option considered was using an outside provider, such as the people
who do the Route 29 Advisory Council: they come in, set up, do the meeting and then leave. She
explained that this would not require additional County staffing, would provide professional quality and
multiple cameras, it is easy to pilot as there is not a big equipment investment, and it is mobile to other
locations. Ms. Catlin said the cost rises if the meetings go beyond a scheduled meeting time, or if the
number of meetings increase, and it does not integrate at all with the existing agenda process and would
be a separate structure. She said the County would have less control over scheduling, reliability and
quality, and the YouTube channel setup was not very viewer-friendly for watching selected agenda items.
She said Roanoke, for example, uses this kind of a system, and a user would pick a date and then scroll
through hours of meeting time until one finds the agenda item a person would wish to listen to.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be a list where someone could find particular items, with time
coding. Ms. Catlin said this particular system does not have that option.
Ms. Dittmar stated that Lynchburg does have time coding with its system.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 46)
Ms. Catlin said the other option would be going to a software platform which manages video,
however, the challenges include fixed cameras in a particular space and they would need several
cameras because of the auditorium setup. She said the benefits are that it integrates the audio and video
with the agenda, and eliminates the need for audio streaming and podcasting, so there would be one
package. She said there would be immediate access to archived video so people can use it; it provides
analytics so someone can see how many people are looking at particular things; it has the potential to
add citizen engagement options for the public input; and it has an IPad capability to integrate the agenda.
She stated that, of the communities that do this, most use this particular software package. She
presented an example from Loudoun County, and she clarified that there would have to be a person to do
the switching between cameras.
Ms. Palmer asked if that was something the Clerk could do. Ms. Catlin said, in looking at the
costs for these options, staff obtained a quote from the people who do the Route 29 Advisory Council,
and the cost to do the number of meetings with the length of time required would be approximately
$75,000 per year. She said one of the projects being proposed for the Innovation Fund is an agenda
management software package and, if that is the base, the video streaming module can be added for a
much cheaper up front and annual operating cost: $4,900 for one camera, $5,900 for two cameras;
$9,000 for software support for one camera; $12,000 for software support for two cameras, including
personnel to switch the camera. Ms. Catlin stated that the County had updated its audio streaming this
year to provide a better quality listening experience, and user statistics show that the number of people
who hit the landing page for day meetings ranged from 48 to 205; evening meetings ranged from 27 to
83; special meetings, such as setting the tax rate, had 106.
Mr. Sheffield said video streaming sounds great, but the County has a hard time handling the
technology it has now and he would not want to add another layer which could be a potential
disappointment.
Ms. Palmer said the reason she brought this up earlier in the year was because constituents were
frustrated with not being able to see who was talking, and did not know what was going on when they
tried listening to a podcast. She said when the Board was working on its strategic plan, the facilitator
expressed surprise that the County did not have video streaming.
Ms. Catlin said video streaming also creates a powerful record which people can go back and
access. She noted that the manual work Ms. Jordan and Mr. Morris are currently having to do with
loading the agenda to the IPad and putting the podcast files out on the website would almost completely
go away with some of these programs.
Ms. Mallek asked where all of this would be stored, as the file sizes of the videos are enormous.
Ms. Catlin said, with Granicus, the company that Loudoun uses, the files stay on their server, and the
$9,000 a year would be for them to host those files. She said the company does training on how the
system works, and eight of the 21 companies who do video streaming use Granicus, including the City of
Charlottesville.
Ms. Palmer asked if staff would reach out to those localities to see if they were having any
problems with Granicus. Ms. Catlin said staff has done that research, and the users are all very satisfied.
Mr. Foley said video streaming is becoming more of the standard, with many localities using
some form of video.
Ms. Mallek asked if Granicus was backing up data somewhere offsite because, if their site
crashes, there would not be a backup. Ms. Catlin said Mr. Mike Culp would certainly make sure there
was a backup stored somewhere.
Ms. Dittmar said Mr. Davis should confirm that the County owned the footage.
Mr. Boyd asked how long the video was kept. Mr. Davis said there is no legal requirement to
keep it at all, except until the minutes are approved.
Mr. Boyd asked if it could possibly eliminate the need for minutes. Mr. Foley said the question is
whether verbatim minutes would still be needed.
Mr. Davis said state law requires that there be a written set of minutes which are approved, and
there are record-retention requirements for the written minutes that are set forth in the state code. He
said the legal requirements for minutes is notations about when the meeting started, who was there, any
motions that were made, and the votes that were taken and recorded.
Mr. Boyd said it is basically an action item list.
Ms. McKeel said, if the video streaming was implemented, it may be possible to save money on
the other end by not having extensive minutes.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 47)
Mr. Foley said that would be possible, as the County does very detailed minutes and is very
unusual in that regard.
Ms. Mallek said, in making budget estimates, it is important to consider the ability to go and get
written records from what happened and, if the County is worried about getting its story out, it had better
have a very simple backup.
Mr. Sheffield said, if video streaming would engage the public, he would support it, but he cannot
see video streaming the Board meetings as further engaging the public. He also stated that, at some
point, the Board needs to realize that it cannot expect the public to come to them which video streaming
still does and, if it could be demonstrated that this fostered public engagement, he would support it.
Ms. Catlin stated that, once the County has the equipment and the software, the economies of
scale of additional use are fairly small so, if there was something the Board wanted to broadcast, staff
would have the backbone to do that with the only cost being a person to run the camera. She said the
cost is currently based on the Board’s two regular meetings per month, and staff acknowledges that there
could be some creep in terms of how much people might want to do that. Ms. Catlin said, with the
outside provider, it is very expensive to expand the scope, however, with the software platform approach,
it is much more reasonable to add to what the Board might want to do. She stated that, if the Board were
doing a panel discussion, for example, there may be the option of having the public interact through
video.
Ms. Palmer said few people would want to sit back and watch an entire Board meeting, and she
looks at this as one of the things the County is trying to do in terms of outreach. She suggested that
perhaps other localities might have some feedback on how this has helped them reach out to the public.
Ms. Catlin said staff, in their research, had asked localities for some measures but did not get
anything solid. She said staff could reach back out for additional feedback if the Board so desires.
Mr. Foley said this is staff’s third round of research with this, and their recommendation is to go
with the software platform if the Board wants to go to video streaming at all. He said staff feels that they
are now in a position to make a decision about it.
Ms. Dittmar said she was surprised at the lower cost figures because, when this was first looked
at, the cost was much higher.
Ms. Catlin said, if the County does this as part of the agenda management package, there is the
opportunity to realize some cost savings.
Ms. McKeel asked for more information about the agenda management package. Ms. Catlin said
the agenda management aspects are more on the staff side of things, how they build the agenda and do
the workflow to approve it, and how it gets from staff onto the Board’s IPad. She stated that this was in
the Innovation Fund request pool, so this is an opportunity to build on top of that with the video package.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there was any interest on the part of the Board to take action on this.
Ms. Palmer moved to pursue the software platform for video streaming along with the agenda
management system. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd said he did not feel it would engage the public and would create another layer of
technology which might fail and cause frustration, and agreed with Mr. Sheffield’s assessment as stated
previously.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she was resistant to this because of the cost, however, if the platform has
already been purchased, this is not a cost to be concerned about. She said she had heard this can
prolong meetings, but she can watch City Council meetin gs while she is making dinner and this is an
opportunity for the public to see what is going on at the meetings.
Ms. Mallek said this raises the question of how the video would be transmitted, because she and
others do not have cable.
Ms. Catlin said this is internet-based and is not related to cable at all.
Ms. Palmer said she also watches the City Council meetings all the time using DSL.
Mr. Sheffield said Supervisors are likely not watching City Council, but are probably listening.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Dittmar, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mallek.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 48)
Mr. Sheffield noted that the reason he voted against this was not because he was against video,
but because he wanted to see it demonstrated that the Board was increasing public engagement, not just
the opportunities, but the level of participation.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that Supervisors ask their constituents directly.
Ms. McKeel said it might be interesting to have this as a question on the County’s next survey: if
the County did this, would they be likely to use it.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to propose that the County go back to the individual survey which
pertains to Albemarle County, instead of the national survey that has generic questions because, to her,
the questions are not comparable at all.
Mr. Foley said that particular topic would be an agenda item, and the question would be posed
with the pros and cons of each.
Ms. Dittmar said even the Town Council of Scottsville uses video streaming.
Mr. Sheffield said he would be interested in the responses from A-mail list participants, because
they are already electronically engaged.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 13. Update from Draper Aden Associates regarding discussion with DEQ on
possible Ivy MUC transfer station alternatives and timeframe for action.
Mr. Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive, reported that this is a follow-up conversation from
the Board’s meeting the previous week regarding solid waste alternatives at the Ivy Materials Utilization
Center (MUC). He said he and staff, along with Draper Aden, were tasked with getting some additional
information and coming back with answers to questions which were posed to the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). He said Lynn Klappich of Draper Aden was present at the meeting and
had been the key representative working with the County in this regard. Mr. Walker said the questions
the Board had posed which were presented to DEQ in writing were: Will a new transfer station require a
new permit, permit modification, or otherwise require a process that includes a public comment period? If
a canopy is constructed over an existing facility, what would be the DEQ permitting process requirements,
if any? Would DEQ consider an extension to the April 1 deadline included in the letter of agreement with
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA)? Can the current transfer station continue to operate beyond
July 1, assuming that the established milestones are m et? In addition, he said, the Chair of the Long
Range Solid Waste Advisory Committee wanted the DEQ to weigh in on whether it would consider
allowing an enhanced convenience center which would not require a permit but would allow small
commercial haulers. Mr. Walker said those questions were asked in writing and were followe d up with a
conference call with Graham Zimmerman of DEQ, who responded in writing and his answers were
forwarded to the Board in advance of the advisory committee’s meeting. He asked Lynn Klappich of
Draper Aden to help explain the responses.
Ms. Lynn Klappich addressed the Board, stating that the solid waste community is regulated in
two ways: through the Virginia Code and the Waste Management Act, and also through the Virginia Solid
Waste Management regulations. She said that their previous considerations have been looking at this
through the perspective of regulations, because the general assumption is that the regulations will match
the Waste Management Act. Ms. Klappich said the regulations, in one case here, did not match the
Waste Management Act, and that very much impacts responses to the questions posed. She stated that
the question about a new transfer station – would public comment be required if it were going to be
constructed at Ivy – yielded new information from DEQ. Ms. Klappich said DEQ indicated that, if a new
transfer station were going to be constructed at Ivy, it would be permitted as a permit by rule under the
existing permit number. She stated that the second part of the answer was even more important and
referenced the Waste Management Act stating that, if a local government or public authority proposes to
operate a new transfer station on land where a municipal sanitary landfill is already located, it will be
exempt from the comment requirements for public hearing and public notice otherwise required under this
section. Ms. Klappich said the stand-alone piece of property owned by Rivanna in the far eastern part of
the site might fall under that same argument, however, if the transfer station was going to be moved
completely away from Ivy and completely away from any previous solid waste facility, then it would fall
straight into the regulations for the public comment period. She said the canopy does not require any
kind of modification, unless a professional engineer thinks the design is so different from the way it was
originally permitted that it needs a new engineering certification.
Ms. Klappich said DEQ’s response to the question from the Board regarding being allowed
additional time to work through everything indicated that they were willing to work with RSW A and the
County as they move forward to make a decision. She said they heard clearly in their call with DEQ that
there is an uneasiness in speaking with the County without the Authority present, because the permit is
with the RSWA. Ms. Klappich said, if DEQ felt an extension would be required, they would rescind the
existing letter of agreement and execute a new letter of agreement with the Authority with any
modifications necessary to the milestones and progressive steps moving forward. She noted that this is
DEQ’s way of saying it is willing to listen, but the Authority needs to come forward with the County with a
compelling argument for going through that process. Ms. Klappich said, regarding the fourth question,
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 49)
DEQ is essentially reiterating that it is willing to listen to compelling arguments about modifying the
schedule, and then would rescind the old letter of agreement and issue a new one. She stated that the
next question got very muddy, and it was posed by the chairman of the committee regard ing whether
there could be a variance to the regulations which would allow the County to operate a convenience
center but still accept trash from someone who collects it from mult iple residences. She said RSWA has
two options: one is a regulated option with a transfer station, or an unregulated option with a
convenience center. Ms. Klappich said, in black and white terms, it would be difficult for DEQ to set a
precedent of blurring those lines, and her interpretation of this statement is that they are no t really
interested in supporting something that is in between being a permit or not, however, DEQ would be
willing to listen to arguments in that regard. She stated that, with variance requests to any solid waste
regulations, one must indicate that there is a hardship preventing the County from meeting that
regulation, and that the variance is equally protective.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was a chance there could be a demonstrated hardship to the
community because it was hard for small businesses to operate with the distances to some other places.
Ms. Klappich said that would be part of the argument, but DEQ is not providing any guidance on that.
Ms. Palmer said the County would need to demonstrate that there was a reason it could not
continue as a transfer station. Ms. Klappich said what the County would be saying is that there is
something about the regulation which makes it extraordinarily difficult, i.e. it could be money, it could be a
community situation, etc. and variances do require public input.
Mr. Walker stated that there is another line of conversation that the Board had the pre vious week,
with regard to the Committee’s role and the Board’s interest in having them consider their participation,
particularly with regard to a new transfer station at Ivy. He said the Committee had a meeting yesterday
to consider that question and adopted a motion: “To facilitate the work of the committee, the Board of
Supervisors should move forward with the proposed new transfer station at Ivy. The committee supports
the development of new transfer station facilities and new recycling center c apabilities at the Ivy location.
In addition, the committee recommends that the Board explore options for the management and services
of these facilities.” Mr. Walker said the outcome of the committee’s conversation was that they
understood the option was for them to recommend either direction, and they were comfortable with the
Board making the decision on the Ivy facility and a transfer station, if that is the direc tion it wants to go in.
He stated that he, the committee chairman, Mr. Foley and Ms. Palmer met earlier in the week to frame
what this conversation would be and put the Board in the best position to consider its options, and an
outcome of that was some possible motions for consideration.
Mr. Foley distributed the motions for Board consideration.
Ms. Mallek said she interpreted the committee to say that the Board should consider the transfer
station as one of the options, but it seems to be worded more strongly here.
Mr. Matt Regis, Secretary of the Committee, addressed the Board and stated that the transfer
station would likely be one of several options the Committee would want to consider in its final report, so
any additional information the committee could get regarding that would be helpful, i.e. a more granular
level about the transfer station.
Ms. Palmer said one of the issues is knowing where the hub would be at Ivy, as that information
would help with the costing.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Committee had any information about the cost or what is involved with that.
Mr. Walker said they did not.
Ms. Mallek clarified that it is one of the options that should be considered going forward.
Ms. Palmer stated that her understanding is that the Committee would like the Board to move
forward with looking at what the cost would be, so that it informs their decisions in the future. She added
that the Committee cannot possibly say that the one site at Ivy is the one the County should go for,
without seeing additional information about that site.
Ms. Mallek said that is very different from what she is reading in the words here, but that is what
she understood. She noted that it is getting more information in order to make a decision; not saying to
go ahead and build a transfer station, which is what the words say.
Mr. Walker said the process has really been bifurcated between the near term – what is to be
done with Ivy – and the long term or what should be done for the next 20 years or so. He said, in the
charge, the Committee was specifically precluded from considering the current disposal practices at Ivy,
and so there has been a bit of a question mark as to how Ivy fits into its long-term thinking, and it now
may be considered as one component of the overall plan. He said it now puts the committee in a position
of deciding whether that should be central to its work, or if they are fine with the Board of Supervisors
making that consideration. Mr. Walker said he sees it as the Committee deferring to the Board,
recognizing that whatever direction the Board gives will still inform the work the Committee does with its
long-term planning. He stated that the language prepared and presented to the Board tries to address
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 50)
that from staff’s perspective, still looking at two parts of the evaluation, with one being the more
immediate evaluation, using Draper Aden to do high-level evaluation of collection and transport system
options which might be considered around the County. He said this also involves looking at systems that
might be utilized in other counties in the Commonwealth such as transfer stations and convenience
centers, with an evaluation of capital and operating costs. He said much of that information may already
be available without having to get too much further into details. Mr. Walker said the other part is to look
more specifically at the site or sites at Ivy which would be conducive to a new transfer station so, instead
of just providing a rough estimate included in their most recent report, there would be a more detailed
analysis that will help inform the Board as to what the actual capital and operating costs should be. He
emphasized that this information could help provide the Board with guidance as to whether it wants to
pursue that versus some other option. Mr. Walker said the second proposed motion is, as a component
of evaluating transfer station alternatives utilizing the RSWA site, immediately begin discussions with the
Authority on organizational and management options for the operation of future facilities. He noted that
anything which happens at that site must be done through the RSWA, since they hold the permit, own the
equipment, own the property, and are bound to the letter of agreement and deadline. Mr. Walker said the
last recommendation from the Committee is to initiate a procurement process to hire a technical
consultant to work with the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory Committee to consider the comprehensive
alternatives for a solid waste management program for the County. He stated that the Board discussed
this previously regarding consultant support for the committee, and it gets at the need to provide the
Committee with some resources that otherwise would not be available.
Ms. Mallek noted that the third recommendation is the one which everyone has been talking
about for quite a while which is a study period for the overall plan.
Ms. Palmer said staff has done a very good job in getting a handle on this and explaining it.
Mr. Boyd asked why the Board would not direct Rivanna to see about the extension to the time
limit as a first step. Mr. Walker stated that the first step must be Rivanna seeking an extension, because
any of these steps must involve Rivanna’s willing participation. He said he has had very frequent
conversations with Tom Frederick and has kept him informed and involved as a partner . He said Mr.
Frederick’s next step is to consult with the Rivanna Board regarding its willingness to proceed in a way
the Board wants to proceed.
Mr. Foley said this would probably require another special meeting of Rivanna, and the question
for the Authority would be whether it wants to pursue this approach and pursue an extension.
Mr. Boyd said it seems the County must cross that bridge first before the other items are decided.
Mr. Foley said the Rivanna Board could even say it does not want an expanded facility on this
site.
Mr. Boyd said he did not think that would happen.
Ms. Palmer said the Committee is talking about the same limit on the tonnage, not really an
expanded facility.
Mr. Foley clarified that it would be a new facility on the same site.
Ms. Palmer said DEQ has said it needs to see this moving forward before it will grant an
extension, so doing all of these things in parallel fashion is the way to go.
Mr. Foley said the first step is that Rivanna has to write a letter to DEQ outlining its intentions and
requesting an extension until the end of the year.
Ms. Mallek said the letter should include the steps that the County and Rivanna are considering.
She ask if the Board could direct its Rivanna representatives to ask for this so that it is a strong request.
Mr. Boyd said three members of the Rivanna Board are present.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the recommendations from the Long Range Solid Waste Advisory
Committee as presented (set forth below). Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Sheffield, Ms. Dittmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd.
1. Contract with Draper Aden Associates for the following:
a. Conduct a high level evaluation and comparison of possible collection and
transport system alternatives, including a transfer station at Ivy, with an estimate
of capital and operating costs, for consideration by the Board of Supervisors no
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 51)
later than March, 2015. This evaluation should begin with review of previous
studies conducted by the RSWA and the County.
b. As a part of the comparison of possible collection and transport system
alternatives, immediately begin a detailed analysis of the Ivy MUC site specific to
the construction of a new transfer station on one or more suitable locations on
the property. Analysis should include an environmental assessment to determine
site suitability and more detailed cost estimates for design, construction, and
operations.
2. As a component of evaluating transfer station alternatives utilizing the RSWA site,
immediately begin discussions with the RSWA on organizational and management
options for the operation of future facilities.
3. Initiate a procurement process to hire a technical consultant to work with the Long
Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee to consider comprehensive
alternatives for a solid waste management program for the County.
_____
Ms. Mallek said she was a little confused about how this direction and request would be acted
upon with the vote just taken. She asked what would happen if Mr. Boyd did not support the Board’s
action.
Mr. Boyd said he would support the Board’s position if passed, which it just did. He explained
that he was not in favor of the committee, and feels that this is an example of a “dog chasing its tail,” but
that does not mean he will not support the Board’s position going forward.
Mr. Sheffield commented that Mr. Boyd is a man of principles.
Mr. Boyd said one of those principles is supporting the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 14. Chairman, Year in Review.
Ms. Dittmar read a ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas poem recap of the year’s happenings.
Twas the Night.... W e mean….What a year!
Twas 2 weeks before Christmas all through the COB,
The staff was closing 2014 …Gleefully!
Ella and Travis breathed a sigh of relief.
Only one more Board breakfast was their fervent belief!
Tom and Jane reviewed 2014 milestones with care,
Teaming up as County Executive and Chair,
To prepare a board report of our ambitious run.
And to close the year with what Board and staff had done.
So listen patiently as we make our report.
It will take a few minutes and Ann will be a good sport.
Ken, cling to your groundhog you have heard some before,
While four new supes end year one – you two have had more!
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. County Executive, Year in Review.
Mr. Foley read highlights of 2014, stating that, in terms of operational and organizational
improvements, staff completed the replacement of the County’s financial management system, a very
long process over the past six to eight years with the final one being the revenue taxation so ftware, which
has enhanced online access for customers. He said staff has implemented a purchasing card program
which has dramatically reduced paperwork and has created rebates totaling about $28,000. Mr. Foley
said the County established a new County/City Fire Services contract and expanded EMS cost recovery
to Western Albemarle and Earlysville fire companies, generating significantly more revenue for the
County. He reported that they established an economic development office, with a director to be hired in
early 2015, and the Board held a strategic planning retreat and adopted the County’s FY15-17 Strategic
Plan. Regarding facility and infrastructure highlights, the County completed major urban service projects
including the Crozet streetscape, the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department addition, Belvedere
phases one and two improvements, as well as stormwater facilities. He stated that they completed new
security improvements at 13 County schools, made significant progress with the new indoor firing range
and police training capabilities in partnership with UVA and Charlottesville, established the County’s first
nature preserve at Arrowhead Farm, supported the establishment of the new Boys & Girls Club at the
Scottsville Community Center and, after a public input process, supported the investment of more than
$230 million from the state to improve mobility and reduce congestion along Route 29. He stated that the
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 52)
County supported an active broadband task force working to identify solutions and funding sources, which
continues with pending grant applications.
In terms of awards, Mr. Foley reported the County was again named among the top ten most
technologically advanced county governments of its size, finishing #2 in the country in its pop ulation
category. He said the County received the National Government Finance Officers Association budget
award, a gold certification award for environmental excellence for the fifth year out of the last six, and
were awarded two Governor’s Technology grants. Regarding citizen engagement, he said the County
launched Engage Albemarle, an online public engagement platform encouraging interaction with citizens,
reinstated the Citizens Police Academy and swore in its first class of auxiliary police officers. Mr. Foley
reported that they were awarded the fire prevention grant to fund community outreach programs, and
engaged with 88 boards and commissions throughout the year, held 38 town hall meetings for the annual
budget and five-year financial planning processes, formed two citizen advisory committees – one focused
on long range solid waste solutions, one on water resources funding. He stated that the County
successfully launched the Innovation Fund, with nine projects funded in the first round, and have just
recently begun the second round of innovation applications. Mr. Foley said they graduated their third
class from the Innovative Leaders Institute, which adds to the 50 alumni that have already gone through
the leadership program. He stated that the County introduced its “Living Our Values” and “Leadership at
All Levels” employee awards, tied to employment organizational excellence efforts.
In terms of partnerships, he said the Board held joint meetings with the School Board and
established five working groups to improve collaboration; held joint meetings with City Council and
established three working groups to improve collaboration, including examining the possible collocation of
the General District Court facility with the City of Charlottesville in downtown. Mr. Foley said the Board
held a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to clarify improved processes between the two bodies
and, in terms of regulatory and legislative improvements, the County met all requirements of the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program on time and with full state approval. He stated that they implemented
the farm brewery legislation and met legal guidelines to address local concerns, and conducted extensive
review of the Comprehensive Plan as part of the five-year updating process, including extensive public
comment opportunities. Mr. Foley said they began the process of reviewing cash proffer policies to
ensure fairness and effectiveness, and finally pursued a robust engagement process both locally and at
the regional level with state legislators to identify additional revenue-generating options.
227 board hours went by so lively and quick,
We knew post retreat that our team work would stick .
391 motions viewed more clearly than eagles,
336 were unanimous after full review of legals.
While Catlin increased Board transparency, Brad motioned us out of sight ,
For 120 appointments, and other issues sometimes till late night.
Diantha warmly welcomed the public without even a clatter,
And Liz banned water bottles and studied trash to see what was the matter.
Now Walker, Now Mullins, Lewis and Reges--On Wyatt, On Kilroy and Letteri,
Oh ----did we forget to ask -- is this ok Larry?
On to 50 Board meetings and 38 Town Halls,
Now dash away, dash away, dash away all
Driving monthly county-wide thousands of miles,
Public servants helping residents with service and trials.
So we exclaimed as we adjourned the year with a gavel,
“Good work Staff and Board and to all safe holiday travel!”
_______________
Agenda Item No. 16. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the Places 29 Citizens Advisory Council seems to struggle quite a bit,
and he has waited for them to get moving but would now like to take some action to help get them
focused or restructured. He said he was trying to be objective in his approach, and said he would like to
ask staff to step in and see what could be done to improve the productivity of that group . Mr. Sheffield
noted that his concern stemmed from the recent resignation of one of the members, which was followed
by others expressing the same concerns. He said it may be that the area the Council is covering is
perhaps too large to get its hands around. Mr. Sheffield said if Board members were to go around to all
the CAC’s and ask for a priority list of capital improvements, the other three would probably be able to
provide a list fairly quickly, but the Places 29 Advisory Council would probably not be able to produce
even one project. He stated that he does not like sitting at those meetings and not seeing any
productivity, and his tolerance with it has lowered.
Ms. McKeel said she agreed with Mr. Sheffield adding that it strikes her that the area is so large
that it might be better to break the council into two groups. She suggested the Board take a step back
and think about how it can make this committee work more efficiently.
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 53)
Mr. Boyd said this is the second one he has been involved with, and noted that there is a certain
growth period that one must go through with these councils. He stated that the group is fumbling through
what they are supposed to do and what part they play in the overall process. He stated that it may be too
big of an area, but he is not sure how to get them through their curren t struggles. Mr. Boyd said, before
the Pantops Advisory Council got moving, they had similar issues and they had staff support to begin
with, but then it went away. He agreed with Mr. Sheffield that the Places 29 group could use some
assistance at this point.
Mr. Sheffield said he hopes the next few years would be a reinvestment in the community and, if
the councils cannot help prepare for that, they are just spinning their wheels. His recommendation was to
suspend that group for the time being, let staff do an assessment, bring it back to the Board, and then
take action on how to move forward. Mr. Sheffield said this would need to be communicated to the
leadership of the CAC, adding that he does not want this to reflect on the members of that committee,
however, the County needs to get its hands around why this is dysfunctional.
Ms. Catlin said there was always the intent to look at the composition of that group once things
got going, because it is a big area to cover. She said, in order to have representation from such a large
area, it makes it hard for members to get down to the level of issues the County wants them to focus on.
She said this change should be presented as the next evolutionary step of a group which started out with
a particular focus and now that this is moving beyond that, it is time to reconstitute the council into
something that will help them be more effective. Ms. Catlin said there is a lot going on in this area so
strong citizen engagement is needed, and helping them get to the next step to allow that to happen is a
positive move.
Mr. Boyd said it is not that unusual to see this happening, because it took the Board six years to
approve the Places 29 Plan.
Ms. Catlin noted that there had been a lot of big decisions that have swung the emotions in that
area, so being able to move past that and get them focused on a more neighborhood-based kind of
approach would be helpful.
Ms. Dittmar said she was quite surprised to hear that there are 500 neighborhood areas, and they
may need a few councils to cover that.
Mr. Boyd asked if Supervisors felt the Board should make the decision to suspend the operation,
or instead go to their next meeting and talk to them about it, because he did not want to simply have
something that comes down from on high.
Ms. Catlin pointed out that the group would not be meeting again until January.
Mr. Sheffield said he would like staff do that assessment without the Board’s input, because he
has his own ideas of how that group should function.
Mr. Boyd asked if that could be done in the next couple of months.
Ms. Catlin said it could, but not by January. She said, as long as it is communicated as the next
step in the evolution, rather than as a punitive measure, that will convey to them that their involvement is
important and the County wants to make sure they are well-positioned for success.
Ms. Dittmar suggested the group take the first quarter off, with an explanation that the Board was
rethinking its focus.
Mr. Sheffield said he did not want the group to feel they were a lame duck, and perhaps staff and
the Board could come up with recommendations before the council meets again.
Ms. Catlin asked how he would like to communicate that to the council, and asked if it should
come from him and Mr. Boyd as Board liaisons.
Mr. Sheffield said he was fine with that, but he wanted to keep the Board’s own perspectives out
of it.
Mr. Foley suggested Ms. Catlin come up with something that the Board could sign off on. He
noted that there are a lot of different issues north and south of the river.
Ms. McKeel said there was a sense of frustration among many of the council members, and she
did not feel this would be a complete surprise to them.
Mr. Sheffield said he had differing views on the direction they should take, but he did not want to
interfere with the comprehensive look at the group.
_______________
December 10, 2014 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meetings)
(Page 54)
Agenda Item No. 17. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley said the County received notice from the state that the County would need to return
about $350,000 in state aid, which is part of the state budget cuts, explaining that the state allows
localities to take less money or send it back. He said the juvenile detention facility would like to do it one
way because of the way they do accounting, but everything else would go the other way. He noted that
what they do not want to do is have the money recorded as revenue so that is what would be
communicated to the state.
Mr. Foley said staff would develop a protocol related to weather events that cause outages, and
that is usually connected through the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) so that would be
coordinated with Tom Hansen at ECC and Lee Catlin, with the final policy shared with the Board.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn.
At 9:22 p.m., Mr. Boyd moved to adjourn the Board meeting to December 16, 2014, 8:30 a.m.
Room 241 of the County Office Building. 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.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/07/2015
Initials: EWJ