2015-03-11March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting and a regular night of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, were held on March 11, 2015, in Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. The adjourned meeting was held at 3:00 p.m., and was adjourned from March
10, 2015. The regular night meeting was held at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:02 p.m. by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2015/2016 Operating and Capital Budgets – Final Discussion.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that this was the Board’s
final work session on the County Executive’s FY16 recommended budget. Mr. Letteri stated that their
proposed outcome for this session is to incorporate the various changes and recommendations the Board
would like to make to the budget, so they can end the day with a proposed Board budget, which will then
be available for advertisement to the public in advance of the public hearings in April. He said that they
had three prior work sessions, with the first just broadly reviewing the general revenues and expenditures
for the budget, and they also talked about the Capital Improvement Plan as proposed in the
recommended budget. Mr. Letteri said that they also went through all of the operational departments and
agencies proposed, and throughout the review process the Board has had time to ask questions and put
items on a list, which will be brought back to them at this point for final discussion. He noted that they
had also heard from the School Board, so they have that information also, and the purpose of this
meeting is to wrap all of that together and make a final decision on the proposed budget. Mr. Letteri said
that the first item is for Jail Superintendent, Martin Kumer, to talk about a jail grant-funded program that
was requested by a Board member to discuss, allowing time for questions and clarification – and then
they will come back to the issue for final action as they consider the rest of the items on their list so they
can view them in context.
Mr. Letteri stated that Ms. Lori Allshouse will present revenue and expenditure updates, and said
that she will share some better news from the state, so as the Board consider s the list items these
additional funds and resources can come to bear. He said that they will then turn to the list itself, and talk
about the CIP and operational components, as well as addressing future considerations and challenges,
many of which are related to the decisions the Board will make at this meeting. He said that Ms.
Allshouse will also talk about the school budget, as they too ha ve received additional positive news from
the state, along with other housekeeping adjustments in the budget to get it to a final form. Mr. Letteri
stated that they will then take a break and try to incorporate all of the Board’s various decisions into a final
spreadsheet, which staff will bring back to them for final action.
Colonel Martin Kumer, Superintendent with the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail,
addressed the Board. Col. Kumer stated that he is before them to seek additional funding for a Center of
Risk Reduction (CORR). He explained that several years ago the jail was overcrowded, and the Jail
Board Authority decided at that time they could either expand the jail or reduce their population, and the
Jail Board at that time chose to reduce the population. Col. Kumer said they then began searching for
grants and opportunities and ways to implement initiatives to reduce the jail’s population . After five years
of data analysis, collaboration with local criminal justice partners and national pr oviders, they came up
with a Center of Risk Reduction. He stated that the Center will use evidence-based and proven concepts
that are used all over the U.S. to reduce recidivism, thereby reducing crime, by offenders. Col. Kumer
said that the offenders will be diverted from incarceration to the program, which will create a savings
within the jail. Inside the Center, he said, there is a substance abuse program and cognitive behavioral
therapy. Every individual will be assessed using evidence-based assessment tools to determine what
criminal-genic factors they have, i.e. why they commit crimes, and they w ill be matched appropriately with
evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy to reduce the likelihood of them committing future crimes.
Col. Kumer said that there is also an employment aspect and an after-care component to the program.
Offenders who graduate the program can return and seek assistance free of charge if they experience
problems out in society.
He stated that the CORR’s primary focus is to reduce recidivism – and therefore crime – in
Albemarle and Charlottesville. Through their data analysis they anticipate a savings to the localities
through a reduction in the jail’s operating budget. Col. Kumer said that for every 10-15% of the jail
population diverted to the CORR, he can close down a wing of the jail, and through attrition can eliminate
five full-time positions, in addition to reductions in food and medical costs – an annual savings in the jail’s
budget of approximately $300,000. He stated that the operating cost of CORR is about $550,000 per
year with the current vendor, creating a $250,000 shortfall, so they will need that from both localities in
order to continue to operate it. Col. Kumer said they hope that through reductions in recidivism and
crimes there will also be cost savings or cost avoidance in other aspects of the criminal justice
community. He stated that the jail also foresees the potential for cost avoidance, and the last time the jail
was expanded was in the late 1990s/early 2000, at a cost of $25 million to add 120 beds. Col. Kumer
said that the rated capacity now is 329 beds, and the daily population is 450, which was exceeded years
ago. He stated that their tipping point is 500-550, and at that point they will need to expand – with no
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
definitive timeframe as to when that will need to happen. By operating the CORR and reducing crime
now, they can greatly expand the life expectancy of the current jail without having to expand. Col. Kumer
said that every time there is a reduction in crime and recidivism, there are fewer victims in the City and
County. He stated that the grant funding will cover $335,000 in the first six months, and the jail is hoping
to finish out the year with funding from the City and the County. Any savings realized from CORR will be
reinvested, with an additional $250,000 from both localities to continue funding it.
Col. Kumer said that the vendor through the RFP process, if the funding is achieved, would be
GEO, an international company that runs diversion centers all over the U.S. and have achieved recidivism
rates of 30-40% in their programs, using evidence-based programming. He stated that a preliminary site
in Pantops has been selected, which is served by bus routes as a majority of CORR participants will lack
transportation.
Ms. Palmer asked if they had these programs before at the jail, as she has heard about these
types of things for years. Col. Kumer responded that they have not had them before, and there are only a
few localities in the state that have them – including Richmond – and they just instituted theirs in 2014.
Ms. Mallek asked how this is different from the programs offered through Offender Aid and
Restoration (OAR), who supervise and have drug training and testing. Col. Kumer stated that OAR deals
only with misdemeanors, and CORR will deal with both felonies and misdemeanors, and will coincide with
some of OAR’s current services. He said that OAR currently only provides services to those individuals
who are released, and the CORR program will divert individuals from the jail.
Ms. Palmer asked if it will include violent individuals. Col. Kumer confirmed that it will only serve
non-violent individuals.
Ms. McKeel said that she is confused by the contention that this is a best practice, as there are
no programs instituted in other places that show it was. Col. Kumer clarified that there has never been a
diversion center in Charlottesville, but they are used all over the United States, and there are facilities in
Richmond, Chesterfield, and Norfolk.
Ms. McKeel said that she has not been terribly impressed with the program through the
Richmond jails. Col. Kumer said that March 1 is their one-year anniversary, and is a program started to
reduce recidivism in their jail. He stated that CORR will be based on other programs like this that have a
demonstrated track record, with evidence-based components that have been proven through independent
third-party studies.
Ms. Mallek asked Col. Kumer if he can provide some reassurance as to the program, as she has
some trepidation about using a private for-profit organization for this type of treatment. Col. Kumer said
that he will share that information with the Board.
Ms. Mallek said that it is one thing to use psychiatrists, but another matter to use corporate
people. Col. Kumer acknowledged her concerns.
Ms. Palmer asked what the cost for the program will be. Col. Kumer responded that the total cost
is $550,000 per year, with remaining costs split between the City and the County.
Ms. Dittmar asked him to redo the math and clarify the figures, and said that the grant will
supplement the first year costs. Col. Kumer stated that the grant is $335,000, so for the first year they will
need an additional $112,000 from each jurisdiction; and for the second year and subsequent years, they
will need about $125,000 from each locality.
Ms. McKeel noted that if they do not realize cost savings, he will be coming back to the Board for
the additional money. Col. Kumer confirmed that is the case, stating that this is a two-year contract.
Ms. McKeel asked where the City of Charlottesville stands on this. Col. Kumer responded that he
is talking to them now, and they have not yet agreed.
Mr. Boyd asked what the first-year cost will be. Col. Kumer stated that it will be $112,000.
Mr. Foley said that staff has talked with Col. Kumer about this and have included it on one of their
slides for “future” projects, listing it as $110,000 – with the important point being that it is an obligation of
$125,000 as a continuing commitment.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the company running CORR tracks alumni from the program so they will
have some statistics as to its success. Col. Kumer said that they track recidivism rates and do a three-
year study to measure alumni success.
Ms. Dittmar said that can be hard to do. Col. Kumer agreed that it can be difficult.
Ms. Mallek asked if this is a partnership with Region Ten, or if it is done in-house at this other
facility. Col. Kumer said that there will be mental health referrals to the community service provider in the
RFP, but how Region Ten will handle those referrals, he does not know.
Ms. McKeel asked if he is certain that Region Ten has the capability to handle this number of
cases. Ms. Mallek said that Region Ten does not, as they are already oversaturated. Ms. McKeel said
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
that her understanding is that Region Ten has not had the ability for years to handle much more than
what they have now. Col. Kumer said that he imagined it will be handled the same way it would when the
inmates are released, and it will be the same individuals and the same quantity. Ms. McKeel said that
this is concerning.
Ms. Dittmar asked how long the jail has been working on it. Col. Kumer said that the Jail Board
has been working on it since 2011, when they started doing the data analysis, with the grant applied for in
2010.
Ms. Dittmar stated that this is the tail end of the Board’s budget process, and while she is pleased
that Mr. Boyd has asked them to be educated about it, the date is coming up fast – and she wonders if
the jail is actually planning to start it this year. Col. Kumer said that this is a four-year grant process, and
they just received phase four approval in August, which meant they can ask for money – so they
submitted the RFP and got it back in November. He stated that they reviewed the RFP in January, and
the price exceeded what the grant will cover, so that is why he is before the Board requesting money. He
added that this is supposed to be a cost-neutral program.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the program can be scaled back to be the size of what the grant covers. Col.
Kumer stated that because of all the stakeholders involved – which includes the courts, Commonwealth
Attorney, public defender’s office, probation and parole, and Region Ten – in order for them to have buy-
in, there are certain things required before they will agree to release people to the program. He said that
the original bid came in at $600,000 and they got it down to $550,000.
Ms. McKeel said that she is still concerned for the community to pick up the other piece of this, as
that happens a lot of times with programs failing because the whole program has not been covered. Col.
Kumer emphasized that they are not talking about new individuals, these are people already in the jail
system under that mental health treatment – which is very little – and most of them are already on Region
Ten’s caseload.
Mr. Boyd said that these individuals are already under Region Ten’s care, so they are not being
let out ahead of time, they are being let out when their sentence is over, which is where the OAR program
kicks in.
Ms. Mallek points out that the treatment then is for 30 days only.
Ms. McKeel asked if this raises the level of Region Ten’s involvement. Col. Kumer responded
that he cannot answer for what they will provide.
Ms. Dittmar said that Ms. McKeel is trying to confirm whether Region Ten has the capacity.
Ms. Mallek said that her information indicates that the organization is still shorthanded. Col.
Kumer stated that these are the same individuals being referred to Region Ten upon release anyway.
Ms. McKeel said that it is at a different level.
Ms. Dittmar asked if some of these individuals are still on probation upon release. Col. Kumer
said that some will be.
Ms. Dittmar said that when Judge Hogshire was sitting on Charlottesville Circuit Court, he had her
come and observe the drug court. There was strong accountability for offenders attending AA meetings
and other programs, and they were closely monitored, so that they had to report back to the judge if they
missed. She asked how the CORR program will track their participants upon release.
Col. Kumer said that this falls under the same principles as drug court with full accountability.
They must check in daily, and if they do not, then a letter is written back to the court as to the fact the
individual failed to abide by the conditions of their bond. He stated that if they d o not comply, they will
have their bond revoked or their sentence reimposed, and can be put back in jail, going before a judge for
their failure to abide.
Mr. Boyd said that he appreciates Col. Kumer coming in and discussing this, and stated that the
Jail Board did not realize they were receiving the grant at the beginning of the budget process.
Col. Kumer stated that the jail was not notified of the funding allocation with the grant until the end
of February, and apologizes for the lateness of their request.
Ms. McKeel asked if the jail has anything from their partners to show their support. Col. Kumer
said that Pat Smith is there to show her support, along with Neil Goodloe, the criminal justice planner. He
said that the Commonwealth’s Attorney, the public defender’s office, and probation and parole are all on
board.
Ms. Mallek asked if the partners have done background checks on this company, and said that in
a quick Google search a lot of items popped up, which will raise questions from the public. Col. Kumer
said that the Jail Board has visited some of their sites and has talked to stakeholders in those
communities, who have offered rave reviews about them, and if they have a funding commitment they w ill
extend that vetting process further.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Ms. Dittmar asked if he is requesting a two-year commitment. Col. Kumer confirmed that the
request is for two years, and thanked the Board.
Mr. Foley said that this will be shown as $125,000 annually in the five-year plan, should the Board
choose to move forward with it.
_____
Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, addressed the Board,
stating that staff has been working to bring the most up to date information on both the school and
general government side to the Board for this discussion. She presented a chart that she ha d previously
emailed them prior to their March 3rd work session, showing available resources including expenditures,
savings and revenues based on “natural growth” and where those resources are applied in this budget.
Ms. Allshouse noted that the chart does not include the penny increase for the fire rescue services fund.
She presented an update on general fund resources, stating that there are revenue updates and
expenditure savings – with an additional $359,767 projected in state revenues for FY16. Ms. Allshouse
said that the state has been talking about raises for constitutional officers and for state-funded local
employees. She put that as a separate line item because it is based on revenues coming in as expected,
with little contingency aligned with this source of funding on the general government side, and it can be
put in their budget as $53,833 – with the Governor making his final determination on it after June 25. She
stated that the third line is a reduction of false alarm fees, based on a January ordinance change, with
staff having built in $80,000 and this bringing it down to $50,000.
Ms. Allshouse stated that there are two columns – one for ongoing expenses and one for one-
time expenses. She explained that there is an increase in jail costs because of the state funding changes
and a reduction in aid to localities that got removed, resulting in a $60,000 positive difference for the
County – which she included in the ongoing column. Ms. Allshouse said that $186,141 was put in the
one-time column because of a savings realized in the jail’s averaging of money over five years, so the
total was $246,481 in savings for the jail. She stated that in the “other” column is a calculation adjustment
due to a double count on a spreadsheet, resulting in an extra $211,237 for the fund balance. She said
that the Board has a total of $443,600 due to these state savings and adjustments, which is available to
them without any increased tax rate, and said that there is also $397,718 in one-time money – which can
go to capital if they do not use it. Ms. Allshouse noted that the total over the recommended budget is
$841,318.
Ms. Allshouse referenced a slide showing the advertised real estate tax rate and the dollar
amount resulting from the advertised rate over the penny in the recommended budget – about $2.4
million.
Ms. Allshouse presented an updated slide from the schools, stating that they ha ve received some
updates from the state also and have expenditure savings on the VRS side – so the $880,000 funding
gap as presented in their work session is now $750,000.
Mr. Letteri said that he will review the CIP recommendations shared with the Board previously,
and stated that the CIP program in the recommended budget made certain adjustments that enables
them to transfer a penny out of the capital program over to operations in support of schools and local
government.
Ms. McKeel asked Mr. Letteri to clarify for the public the particulars of transferring that out of
capital. Mr. Letteri explained what they have impacted was ongoing transfer to capital, which supported
debt service and capital programs over time, and that has been reduced by the equivalent of a penny.
Mr. Foley stated that one of the key issues is that the revenue generated each year has been
automatically going to CIP for some things that may not be as high on the list in terms of core issues, so
moving it back provided an ongoing source for things like police and social services.
Mr. Letteri said that to create that ongoing environment, they made some changes in the Capital
Program, including the reduction in the ACE Program, and took off some major projects that will be
subject to referendum in the future. He stated that they also made changes based on conversations with
the schools that they are not able to get into the printed document but are shared with the Board in the
first work session. Those changes included the addition of $2.2 million in excess funds from the Meadow
Creek Parkway that will be available in FY16 for various projects. He said that the other change made
was to introduce $1 million in modernization funds, which had originally been taken out to get to the
penny transfer reduction, but in further conversations with schools it was felt to be such an important item,
it should be put back in for FY16. Mr. Letteri stated that they have also reduced the ongoing funding for
school buses by $300,000 per year, and delayed the COB windows replacement project for one year. He
said that also incorporated into the worksheet is the refunding from VPSA, with refinance savings
reflected in the five-year program. Mr. Letteri stated that notable in this FY16 lineup is the $18.8 million
project for ECC, with $1.2 million in solid waste and recycling solutions, $250,000 for ACE – which is a
reduction, and $643,000 for Western Albemarle Environmental Studies Academy. He said that the
additions include the $2.2 million for revenue-sharing, $1 million for school maintenance, and the other
adjustments he has discussed.
Mr. Letteri stated that in further conversations with the schools and comments the Board has
made about the Red Hill project, staff felt it was important to allocate part of the $1 million for
modernization to that, to enable it to proceed with design work – so the proposal before the Board is to
transfer $100,000 to Red Hill for FY16.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Dittmar asked if this will transfer it to the schools to decide what to do with it.
Ms. Mallek said that it will be allocated in the CIP for that project, it will not be going back to the
schools.
Mr. Foley said that these adjustments allow for $1 million to be put in the modernization line item,
and the school system will need to determine how that will be used up. However, in discussions with
schools and local government, there is support to begin the design work for the Red Hill project. He
stated that the design work may only address some core facilities, and it is very difficult to parse between
“modernization” and “core,” which is one of the reasons this became a bit confused. Mr. Foley said that
there is support at this point for some of that to go toward design services for Red Hill, but it is ultimately
the School Board’s decision on how to proceed.
Mr. Letteri said the change will not cause any changes to the document they have seen
previously, and that which is included in the budget documents.
Mr. Letteri stated that he wants to further discuss the Meadowcreek Parkway question and what
is proposed there, and explained that in November 2014 they had learned that approximately $2.2 million
in excess funds was going to come back to them from that project. He said that in a technical sense it
would be a combination of the state’s share and the locality’s share, and it is VDOT’s recommendation
that these funds be allocated directly to a series of projects on the priority list already underway and
approved by the Board – some of which were in design. He added that this went beyond a
recommendation, and was more of a direction that they need to finish up these projects before
introducing new projects. Mr. Letteri said that the only other choice would have been to decide not to
take the funds back from the state and liquidate the obligation to do those projects . They would have
gotten their $1 million back but would have lost their state allocation. He stated that what is reflected now
is $2.2 million to sure up various projects in the six-year plan, and in the case of the Barracks
Road/Hydraulic project that is short on funding, staff has learned that there are proffer funds available to
sure up that particular project.
Mr. Foley clarified that they have taken the money out of the CIP for sidewalks in terms of an
ongoing source of revenue, so there is no new money going into that program because it has been
reallocated into operating.
Ms. Palmer asked how long it will be to finish out the projects mentioned by Mr. David Benish.
Mr. Foley said that Mr. Trevor Henry can address that.
Ms. Mallek commented that one of the biggest problems with the sidewalk delays has been the
requirement to bundle them, and one that is all ready to go had to wait for ones that are not ready.
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, said that there are projects in
construction currently, projects like Barracks and Hydraulic in which they are entering right of way
acquisition, and projects like Rio Road/Avon Street/Route 250 that are just entering design, which are
about a year out of right of way and a year out of construction. He stated that within three years, they
should get through this suite of projects.
Ms. Palmer asked when they should make sure they have money for sidewalks to ensure they
are moving them forward. Mr. Foley said that another way of asking that would be, are there other
projects they can start if they had the money.
Ms. Mallek and Ms. McKeel said that the answer is “yes.”
Ms. Palmer said that she is a bit confused because David Benish had indicated that they needed
to finish up these projects at the direction of the state and VDOT, prior to them awarding the County any
more money. Mr. Henry stated that the County’s spend rate on the project is not where VDOT wants
them to be, and they are certainly working on that – and a lot of this has been tied to the right of way
acquisition piece, which is not moving as quickly as VDOT wants.
Ms. Palmer asked when the County will need to make sure they put money into it. Mr. Henry said
that there are other projects on their priority list they will want to get in the queue, probably in FY17 in
terms of the preliminary design and scoping, but it is at the discretion of the Board as to when they want
to fund it.
Ms. McKeel said that her sense is that they should have a conversation this year to figure that
out. Mr. Foley agreed.
Mr. Letteri said that each year in November, staff comes to the Board with a list of priority projects
and a request to make an application for the following year for revenue-sharing money, so at that time the
additional projects can be addressed.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, addressed the Board, stating that the County requests
revenue-sharing money in September or October, with staff coming to them with recommendations for the
funding, and the application is due around November. He noted that this is for that particular source of
funding, which is what the County has been using for the past three or four years to do mostly sidewalk
projects. He said that the CIP has always had a separate request for sidewalk projects, and t hat is
straight-out money used directly without leveraging other funds, which gets them into the timeframe and
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
time requirements of the revenue-sharing program. Mr. Benish stated that the general target is about four
years, but as long as they are working toward construction they will have the time to finish – and VDOT’s
advice to him and Jack Kelsey was to wrap up existing projects before making application for more. He
said that they still have a list of other sidewalk projects to be constructed, and revenue-sharing is one of
the sources to fund it, and proffer money is available for that also along with straight capital funds.
Mr. Foley asked if the state would accept a revenue-sharing application from the County in
November, or if they will say it is too early to put in for it given other unfinished projects. Mr. Benish
responded that it will depend on how far they progress with existing projects, and there is no magic
number provided – but they are continuing to add projects without fully completing them, and once they
start to complete them they can make application again.
Ms. McKeel said that it sounds as though this is a priority item for the Board to discuss over the
summer. Mr. Foley agreed.
Mr. Henry also agreed, and said that staff has targeted summertime for having a comprehensive
review of the program and where the projects stand, along with getting guidance from the Board as to the
next cycle.
Mr. Boyd asked how they can get pedestrian and bicycle crossings for Route 29 and Route 250
into that discussion. Mr. Benish said that in April, staff will start to walk them through the process for the
transportation improvement priority list, and they will start to see a reformatting of the priorities. He stated
that money had been set aside for those projects, but there has been workload issues to get to those and
now there are some resource needs emerging. Mr. Benish said that VDOT is advising the County on
Rolkin Road, in terms of interim improvements that can be put in.
Mr. Boyd said that he is very concerned that they are not following their land use policy for access
in mixed-use neighborhoods, because there are two big barriers running right through the areas they
want to see as walkable and scalable. He stated they are developing more and more houses at Pantops
that are right across the road from employment, retail, dining, etc. – and it seems as though they are
defeating themselves.
Mr. Foley said that the short answer is there is no money for that, and that is why they need to
have this conversation, as the only money they have is what they already set aside. He said that the
pedestrian crossings over 29 and 250, which support the neighborhoods, have no funding available
without some discussion as to how to achieve that in the future.
Mr. Boyd said that he would like to have a discussion of redirecting some funding, as those things
are more important than a sidewalk built on State Farm Boulevard, for example.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the frustration is that there are a lot of things to be done with limited
resources, so the discussion is how to get the job done for their jurisdictions.
Mr. Foley said that some of the projects that m ight be targeted for reallocation are already far
enough along that there would be a significant loss of funds already invested, and they would lose the
50% match.
Mr. Boyd said that he understood that, but he wants to address priorities before they get too far
down the road with the next set of projects.
Ms. Mallek said that one of the biggest delays is the significant amount of time it takes to get right
of way acquisition done, and perhaps community support through advisory councils or Board leadership
will help cut the costs down and speed the process along.
Mr. Foley said that their April 1 agenda has a work session on transportation priority setting, so
staff will be coming back to this at that time.
Ms. McKeel stated that she understand that there is a fixed amount for the ACE program, but
asked if they receive matching money for that, and at what level. Mr. Benish explained that the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Conservation Services has a program that looks like a grant – it is grant
funding – and that money is set aside for the easement agencies within the state and gets apportioned
out to them. He said that in order to use that money, a locality must provide a match in that amount and
must also have a property to purchase.
Mr. Foley clarified that in this budget, staff put $250,000 with the idea of getting that much from
the state, and this year the County has received $286,000 in a grant. Mr. Benish stated that it fluctuates
significantly from year to year.
Ms. Mallek said that it depends on how many jurisdictions participate, and the County for many
years has received the benefit of other localities’ lack of participation – but none of that would have
happened if they did not have the match to put up. She stated that t here are other grant programs in
which ACE participates, in addition to the funding from the state.
Ms. McKeel asked if there is a way to leverage some of the savings from the Route 29 Solutions
projects to cover some of the items like the ones Mr. Boyd has described.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Mallek said that there are lots of ongoing programs already in the vision section of the long-
range plan that can be accelerated into the six-year plan for the $93 million, which will all have to be part
of HB2 anyway.
Mr. Sheffield said that this Board needs to get ahead of that and identify the smaller aspects that
are not in the long-range plan that they can take advantage of, in terms of the savings from the Route 29
money and other sources.
Ms. Dittmar stated that in the end it will be the political leaders who determine this, so it will be the
City and County through the MPO that would reorganize this, were they ever to go down that path.
Mr. Boyd said that there are some other projects out there too, and the Pantops congestion
committee has studied options for alleviating some of those problems – so if the $93 million is on the
table, they need to give some thought to that.
Mr. Sheffield said that the sooner this Board moves to make other projects a priority to get into
the long-range plan, the better, and the City is probably also thinking of ideas for this.
Ms. Dittmar noted that staff will be bringing this forth in early April as part of the Board’s whole
process. Mr. Benish said that in April there will be the beginning of a discussion with a new priority list,
and the Board can provide feedback to staff that they c an continue to work with. He stated that it is not a
decision point, but is a starting point.
Ms. Mallek said that it will be helpful to have the spreadsheets from the long-range plan available,
to make sure what is in each and what is not. Mr. Benish responded that the way staff has it structured is
to start with the Board’s priority list and work from there, but it does include all of the projects in the
constrained long-range plan list currently, although not the vision list projects.
Mr. Boyd said that it would be helpful to get the conclusions from the Pantops congestion
committee, which is a separate type of grant studying the environmental impacts of road designs , but
included several different options.
Mr. Letteri said that he will report on operational issues and challenges. He stated that the firing
range project is out to bid, and they have just taken bids on the Henley gym addition – which is estimated
at about $1.5 million, and came in almost $300,000 over budget. He stated that staff has been talking
with the University, and they, too, are seeing these higher prices as a trend, and staff will be going back
and negotiating with the low bidder on Henley to see if they can bring the scope closer to the budget. Mr.
Letteri said that this may be a potential challenge with the firing range project, and said that they ha ve
recently bid out replacement of air handlers – wanting to replace four, but given the bids are only able to
address two large units.
Ms. McKeel said that they really need to be quicker to the draw, because they let opportunities go
by, and they have these discussions in the CIP meetings – so it is a shame to have missed them.
Mr. Boyd clarified from a previous point that the committee has not yet completed the 250
congestion committee report, and the next step will be a public hearing, which will include all of the
options they have defined – and that will be through the TJPDC.
Mr. Letteri said that staff also wants to present some comments on future challenges that goes
beyond FY16, but that might relate to some of the decisions made today and some that are just ongoing
concerns. He stated that the first and most noteworthy is in their capital fund, and for the last two years
they have adopted a five-year capital plan that contemplates the need for additional pennies to support
debt service. Mr. Letteri said that these are not new projects, they are those underway now or recently
completed that are driving the need for the increase – notably the Agnor-Hurt school, the school
maintenance projects, the $18 million ECC center, and the Northside Library. He stated that these are
projects in the financing package that is driving the debt service to rise in the coming fiscal year that will
require an additional two pennies.
Ms. Palmer pointed out that these two pennies are needed for debt service, before anything else
is done.
Ms. Mallek said that it will need to be, unless natural growth exceeds expectations.
Mr. Sheffield noted that it is the equivalent of two pennies, because if home values soar it w ill be
less.
Ms. Dittmar stated that they are not told they have to do two pennies, it is a choice they made.
Ms. McKeel responded that they had built it in.
Ms. Mallek said that it is the equivalent of paying the mortgage.
Mr. Foley said that there are two factors: if revenues are stronger than anticipated, they might not
have as much pressure to raise those two pennies; but if they need two pennies, they c an also look at the
CIP and figure out whether they want to cut some things back. He stated that Mr. Letteri’s point is that
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
there is an obligation for debt service on projects already completed, but that does not mean they cannot
try to adjust other things in the CIP – but they have a CIP without a lot of flexibility in it.
Ms. Mallek stated that this is exactly what happened four years ago, and that is why the CIP is
zeroed out for new projects – because they are using everything they had to pay the mortgage.
Ms. Dittmar said that she just wants them to keep in mind that these are choices, and the
landscape can be changing for other reasons, such as co-location of the courts project – so they look at it
each year to see where they are.
Mr. Foley said that they tighten up their schedules, and if the court shifted a year it could have
some impact, but most of it is moving forward as expected.
Mr. Letteri stated that on the operating side, the proposed budget is to increase salaries in the
current year to achieve market-competitive salary rates so they can retain and hire employees, and that is
a half-year obligation in FY16 that will become a full-year obligation in FY17. He said that any new
growth will have to be dedicated to funding that full year of increases based upon their current decision,
and in FY17 staff will anticipate that the competitive market rate will move again, with an additional salary
obligation.
Mr. Foley noted that this is both a school and local government challenge going forward.
Mr. Letteri said that they have not yet quantified these challenges on the watch list, but they are
aware of many complications and challenges in health care – and as they monitor claims, they are seeing
higher trends. He stated that they are making adjustments in their plan design that will mitigate some of
these costs, and these challenges will be monitored very closely in the future. Mr. Letteri said that school
growth is happening and they have seen charts provided by the school as to anticipated trends, and for
FY17, the schools are anticipating as many as 200 additional students. He stated that VRS affected both
schools and local government, and is on a cycle of every other year, and for FY16 they will see notice of
rate changes, with the state putting some additional funding into VRS that will hopefully mitigate it
somewhat.
Mr. Letteri stated that one of the aspirational goals emerging from the Board’s five-year retreat
intends to address capacity issues, and staff has worked hard within the five-year plan to identify the
necessary changes to staffing to get them to a catch-up and keep-up position over time. He said that the
initial work done at the five-year plan suggested that there may be 40 or 50 positions required to get back,
and he and Doug Walker have both worked with their departments to try to limit those increases and
phase them over time, which resulted in the budget before them. Mr. Letteri said they had started with 33
positions requested for FY16, and they have reduced that down to about 15 positions considered to be
essential positions. He stated that even with the efforts made in the FY16 budget, they are still
substantially short in the police department and will need another five officer positions to round out
Colonel Seller’s geo-policing model.
Ms. Mallek said that those will be for the FY17 year, not the FY16.
Mr. Foley clarified that these are not the positions in the proposed budget, they are the things that
did not get funded that will be challenges going forward.
Ms. Allshouse presented a slide depicting several departmental items from the Board’s list that
emerged from their work sessions, and noted the estimated net cost for all of the items. She said that
when they reach the spreadsheet portion of the meeting, the Board will need to provide direction as to
which of the items should be worked in. Ms. Allshouse stated that the first item is a traffic safety officer
position, which was put on the list by Mr. Sheffield.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he is looking for two positions, and his understanding from Albemarle
County Police Department is a goal to have these filled at some point, so that there will be one in each
district.
Ms. Allshouse said that in the traffic safety officer position, there are start-up costs associated
with that – an extra $64,703 per officer to cover vehicle and equipment – and one-time money can be
used for that.
Mr. Boyd asked if there will also be depreciation funding as part of this for the vehicles. Ms.
Allshouse confirmed that it will work into the vehicle replacement cycle, and there will be some ongoing
costs that will start increasing in addition to the actual position request.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the next item on the list is Bright Stars, with the discussion revolving
around how to pull down the maximum amount of money from the state for all available slots in the
County, and said that this will bring in two new classrooms – with federal and state dollars for a portion of
a family support worker. She said that the estimated net ongoing cost to do this will be $224,888, and
noted that they need to be mindful that they are working closely with the school division, so they will need
to identify a location for the two classrooms and discuss capacity issues.
Ms. Dittmar said that where there is the greatest need and waitlist are the schools that are
coming apart at the seams, and where there are additional classrooms there may not be a waiting list.
She asked how they will know how much to do, and how many children they can actually place.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Ms. McKeel said that in order to utilize all 175 slots, an additional $210,000 w ill be needed. Ms.
Allshouse said that the number is updated to $224,888.
Ms. Dittmar asked if they have an idea of how many students they actually can take. Ms.
Allshouse said that they did expand some of the classrooms, and added some individuals to some of
those classes.
Ms. Ann McAndrew, Project Coordinator for Bright Stars, addressed the Board and asked for
clarification of their questions.
Ms. Dittmar said that the question is how many they can realistically take, based on classroom
availability and waitlist.
Ms. McKeel stated that the concern is that the schools may not have the space.
Ms. McAndrew said that she would like to get back to Board members on that.
Ms. McKeel said that the Board feels it is a great and worthwhile program, but the question is
whether they will be able to serve the students in the spaces they are really in.
Ms. Mallek said that is an ongoing study in process now.
Ms. McAndrew stated that Bright Stars had been assured at points that if they ha ve the kids, the
schools will find the space, but it really does become an issue for the space to be in the right place, so it
will take some negotiating and perhaps some additional flexibility.
Ms. Mallek said that this can be used as a placeholder while this is being sorted out.
Ms. Allshouse stated that another item on the list is restoring the Legal Aid Justice Center to the
FY15 funding level, as this was reduced in the FY16 budget per ABRT’s analysis. She said that there is
also an item for additional hours at Yancey, and that number is basically a placeholder at Ms. Palmer’s
request.
Ms. Palmer stated that because of all of the construction the previous summer, Yancey does
have some money left over that they can use to keep it open in the summertime, but they have received
some additional small requests that she has received, and she has discussed with Dr. Pam Moran the
fact that they have received some additional federal money. Ms. Palmer said that if they are asking for
any additional money, it will likely be a very small amount.
Ms. Mallek said that some of this was to keep the computer lab open, but if the library is going to
be open that will pick up some of that slack.
Ms. Dittmar said that this is for Club Yancey.
Ms. Mallek said that it started as computer lab only.
Ms. Palmer clarified that they had provided a figure of $9,750 per school year to keep the Yancey
Library open for four hours, two days a week – and they asked for that number when they found out that
the Scottsville Library was not going to be open for that period of time. She said that if the Scottsville
Library is going to be open that might negate the need to have the Yancey facility open.
Ms. Mallek noted that Yancey had received a big grant the previous year that is ongoing for two
additional years and covers the program.
Ms. Palmer said that it covers the Yancey program, but only for specific items, and it is very
restrained. She stated that she needs to have a conversation to determine exactly what the needs are in
light of the Scottsville Library being open, but she had just received the email.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the next item on the list is increasing hours at Scottsville Library at a
cost of $8,592. She said that another item is a request to restore the Municipal Band funding to FY14
levels of $8,000, and staff is recommending funding it at the current level of $5,000. She stated that there
are several options for a natural resources position in Community Development, and the dollar amount of
$54,929 is a net number – with $20,000 currently in Mark Graham’s budget for temporary support – so
the total cost will be about $75,000.
Ms. Palmer said that she and Ms. Mallek have spoken with Community Development about this
position, which had been in place prior to the recession but was eliminated, and the role of that person
was to bridge the gap between the County’s ordinances and its enforcement. She stated that Albemarle
has been a leader in watershed protection and environmental stewardship in the rural areas with
protection of buffers, but they are now far behind. She said that this individual was also able to pull down
a lot of grant money for stream protection, but there is now no one doing that – so it is an important
position. Ms. Palmer said that currently, stream buffer issues are all complaint-driven, so people have to
call up the County and report their neighbors, which is a deterrent, and in many cases the buffer would
already be gone. She stated that currently, issues that are complaint-driven are prioritized so that the
development area came forth, with rural areas being the last priority for staff, and that is another reason
why she and Ms. Mallek want the position added back on. Ms. Palmer said that this position will likely
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
save them money in the long run, and it is easier to keep a relatively healthy stream from degrading than
it is to bring a stream back to life when it is dead – and the return on investment is much greater.
Ms. Mallek said that they are now beginning to see the cost implications of catching up to state
requirements to water quality and the whole water resources effort, so the prevention side should be
considered an asset to that effort.
Ms. McKeel stated that the development areas also have issues, and asked if this person would
be able to do anything in those areas, such as addressing the abandoned swimming pool complaint-
driven issues.
Ms. Palmer said that she does not know if it will encompass swimming pools, but perhaps Mr.
Graham can clarify that position’s role.
Ms. Mallek said that increasing staff capacity will help with inspections, but they have to change
the ordinance in order for the swimming pool enforcement to have some teeth.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, stated that the swimming pool issue is a
separate problem, but the natural resources position will allow existing staff to focus more carefully on the
development areas. He said that it adds a resource and expands capacity that is currently strained.
Mr. Sheffield asked for clarification of the $74,000 and the $54,000. Ms. Allshouse said that there
was already $20,000 in the budget as a placeholder, so that will come off the $74,000 cost.
Ms. Palmer noted that the $20,000 will also help the Natural Heritage Committee, so they will no
longer need an intern.
Ms. Allshouse reported that another list item is $6,375 for the County’s share of half a year of
funding for a part-time Cooperative Extension 4-H assistant position, and if they picked it up it will be a full
year in FY17. She stated that the reallocation of tourism money in the general fund to ACE was moved to
support Parks & Rec tourism, and she presented a figure as to what it will cost to move that back to ACE.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff included $110,000 for the regional jail’s grant, which is the number
provided to them for FY16 and an ongoing cost after that. She said that another list item is beginning the
salary increase in October instead of January to help achieve commonality with the schools, with the
general government cost at $346,408 including the ECC’s portion.
Mr. Foley noted that to be consistent with what the schools have proposed, staff is recommending
that this be one-time money to advance that, rather than coming out of an ongoing source. He stated that
they sat down with schools to strategize how they might achieve that, and decided that moving it to
October would be the best approach for both staffs.
Ms. Allshouse clarified the location of the tourism fund information within the budget documents,
as Mr. Sheffield had requested, and noted that it funds parks as well as agencies.
Ms. Palmer said she assumes that they will not be taking money from parks for ACE without
replenishing some of that for the department, as they are stripped down currently.
Ms. Mallek said that in different times, $400,000 of the transient occupancy tax (TOT) went to
ACE off the top, and when the recession happened it was taken out of ACE and put into operations for
Parks and Rec to keep it going – which is also important for tourism. She stated that they have been
working to try to get it back to the old levels, and pointed out that the transfer to the CACVB is more than
$800,000.
Mr. Davis noted that the transfer is required by the agreement, with 30% of the five-cent TOT
required to go to the CACVB.
Ms. Mallek said that an equal amount or more came to local government, with $400,000 of that
coming into ACE originally.
Ms. Dittmar stated that her hope is to have Parks and Rec funded out of general operating, and
keep what is meant for tourism. She said that one of the reasons why the Chamber of Commerce
supports increasing the TOT is because more money is needed for overall marketing, and it is more
transparent to have that money in a program like this.
Mr. Foley said that staff can find out how much of Parks and Rec in total is supported in tourism
money, and the idea is whether it can eventually be moved over to support other things. He stated that
the amount going to general fund is the part they had flexibility on, whereas they did not with the other
part.
Mr. Sheffield said that if they are reallocating $192,000 of tourism money to ACE that is coming
from the Parks and Rec budget. Mr. Foley explained that the reason it is on the Board’s list is because
that is the amount they would have to come up with to replenish it if they moved it to ACE. He said that
staff will do something to better clarify that, and want to make sure there is understanding that this is the
amount that has to be sent back to Parks and Rec to make it whole.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Sheffield said that at some point they will also need to talk about cuts, because there will be
pressure to hold to a certain tax rate and sort out their priorities.
Ms. Dittmar said that these are just items the Board members want to put on the list to consider,
and they are not necessarily voting to fund all of them. Mr. Foley said that this is the time for the Board to
indicate what they would like to leave on the list, and the $443,000 is the ongoing revenue available. He
said that the first eight items on the list total about $500,000.
Mr. Sheffield stated that the first step is to figure out how to allocate some of the additional
revenue – the one-time money and the ongoing money. Ms. Allshouse said that they can consider the
individual items on the list and make some decisions, or come back and talk about them after reviewing a
few more items, but they will ultimately have to get to a proposed budget.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the most important piece of inf ormation from the schools’ budget is
that their current gap is $750,000, reflecting the latest information from the state.
Mr. Sheffield said that if the Board is going to entertain a few cuts, he would like to hear the Board
come up with some compromises as well over the next several weeks. He stated that he will be
interested in funding the gap, but would also like to hear the schools’ suggestions.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the listed items will be changes to the Board’s proposed budget, and
also noted adjustments that will not change their budget – such as moving funding for a new IT position to
the fire rescue services fund, with the position staying in IT but the funding coming from fire rescue. She
said that they can also move funding reserved for the childcare scholarship contingency to the United
Way, and it will have zero impact on their bottom line. Ms. Allshouse said that adjusting the City’s share
of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service will result in a $7,303 shift, increasing both revenues and
expenditures. She stated that the EDA will provide funding for the full cost of the Central Virginia
Partnership for Economic Development, yielding a $14,365 increase in revenue to the budget. Ms.
Allshouse said that the last bullet is an adjustment in the EDA office to get that position started and to get
the budget complete, so that will increase $25,344 to the salary and benefits line.
Ms. Palmer asked if they are increasing a salary in the EDA office. Mr. Foley explained that it is
the difference between what they had planned in the current year, and is just a change as a result of
updating numbers in that office. He asked if all of those housekeeping adjustments are acceptable to the
Board.
The Board members confirmed that they are acceptable changes.
Ms. Allshouse stated that any calendar year 2015 tax rate change the Board made when
approving their proposed budget will also impact their revenues in the current year, as the tax rate year
was a calendar year and their budgets are fiscal years – so raising the tax rate means additional funding
coming into the current year’s budget. She said that the practice in the County ha s been to wait until the
end of year fund balance and make sure it is recalculated after the year-end audit is complete before
doing anything with additional funding, because at the end of the year they look at revenues over
expenditures and come up with a number, as well as going through policy processes such as securing
the 10% fund balance, etc. Ms. Allshouse stated that they wait until the audit for final figures because
they do not know how the whole year is ending, and per County policy, at the close of the year the first
thing they do is sure up the 10% fund balance – and any available FY15 end of year fund balance would
be directed to the capital budget.
Mr. Foley said that with a 2.5-cent tax increase, which is advertised at this point, half of that
money will come in during the current year and be subject to the potential transfer to the capital fund,
which will equate to roughly $2 million – with most of that going to capital, but not until the audit is done.
Mr. Sheffield asked if that will be the case even if the penny is dedicated to fire rescue. Mr. Foley
confirmed that it will be, because it is dedicated in the plan for FY16, not in the current fiscal year, and
this will allow them to sure up capital and deal with challenges going forward.
Ms. Palmer commented that the issue for her is the timing of a possible two-penny increase in
light of a potential referendum for schools. She said that it has been suggested to have the referendum in
November 2016, as it is a Presidential election that will likely have higher voter turnout, but the Board will
be announcing the two-cent increase in the spring and then turning around and trying to get the
referendum through. She suggested that putting a penny in there now might relieve taxpayers and not
have a tax increase next year.
Mr. Foley said that based on current projections, the Board will only have one penny left to raise –
and it will be an advance on what they know their obligations are going to be.
Ms. Palmer stated that if they decided to cut things next year, it would be a lot less if they decided
they did not want a tax increase right before going to the public for a referendum.
Mr. Foley said that at some point the Board will need to direct staff as to whether they want a
referendum, and then staff will come back to them with a work session – and the issue of the long-term
funding committee will have to play into this also.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Allshouse said at this point it will be helpful to have their guidance as to what they would like
to move into the budget. She stated that the Board can look at things to cut also, as they need to have
these discussions with all the pieces they have reviewed.
Mr. Sheffield stated that when he had recommended funding the two traffic officer positions, he
was looking at what things can be deferred for another year – and Pantops Fire Station seems to be a
candidate for being deferred and addressed next year, but given the new money identified it is possible
that the positions can be funded by that money. He said that he would like to try to find the balance with
what the County Executive has proposed tax-wise, and while he is open to other ideas, they are facing
two cents next year and it will be just another uphill battle. Mr. Sheffield said that he would like to hear
from other Board members as to what they might be able to cut in order to keep them below or at the tax
rate they have now but still achieve some of their priorities.
Ms. Allshouse said that staff can input what the Board agrees on with a minimum of four votes,
and in the end they have to have a balanced budget using the state revenues or other means.
Mr. Davis said that they essentially need a straw vote on the 11 list items.
Board members said that they do not want to do that yet.
Mr. Sheffield stated that if they are holding at a certain tax rate, they will have to cut – but if not,
then they are obviously going to increase the tax rate.
Mr. Foley said that the Board has already voted on an advertised tax rate, and they know they
have a certain amount of room – but they have to figure out how to fill in the expenditures so the public
knows what they are coming to comment on. He stated that even if the Board ends up not approving
enough expenditures to meet that full tax rate, they can leave a reserve and decide when they get
through the public hearing process.
Mr. Sheffield said that by the April 1 public hearing, they c an look at reductions and take those to
their constituents as well as what they are willing to cut to bring the tax rate down.
Ms. Dittmar said that this is a great idea, but the Board has a legal requirement to do something
next week.
Ms. Allshouse explained that there are essentially four budget iterations: the recommended
budget in February; the proposed budget in March, which has to be balanced so it can be presented to
the public for them to respond to; an adopted budget after hearing from the public in public hearings and
town hall meetings; and finally an appropriated budget. She emphasized that the Board is on the second
step and must put something balanced out for the public to respond to.
Mr. Davis said that in order to meet the legal requirement for advertising a public hearing for the
budget, which is held on April 1, that ad will be put in the newspaper on Sunday, March 22, and in order
to submit it on time it will need to go to them on the 18th, no later than the 19th.
Ms. Allshouse confirmed that the Board will add the $443,000 in new revenue to the spreadsheet.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there are items on the list that need further clarification.
Ms. Mallek said that the extra penny for the fire rescue fund raises the current rate from 79.9 to
80.9 cents. Mr. Foley confirmed that it does.
Ms. Mallek said that she has proposed adding another penny for capital, and another Board
member proposed adding a half penny.
Ms. Palmer said that the additional half will even out the school budget.
Ms. Mallek stated that if they take $250,000 of the $1.6 million generated by the additional penny,
to add to the $250,000 already in the CIP for ACE that will put it at $500,000 – which is where it was in
the CIP report. She said that she does not feel that ACE is a referendum category, and feels that it is the
County’s only rural area protection ordinance that actually accomplishes anything. Ms. Mallek said that
she will also propose that they leave the rest of the penny for second-year capital to either put toward
bonds or to projects that get developed in the meantime, to try to work towards more of a cash position in
the CIP to allow them to do more things in a tim ely manner.
Mr. Foley said that her suggestion will mean $250,000 going to support ACE, with the rest going
to a “capital reserve” for future decision-making, but it will not be used to put all the money back in
modernization and put all the money back in sidewalks, until there is a decision-making process. He said
that in taking the $250K out of the $1.6 million, they will put that in a separate line to ensure it is held out
for a future process.
Ms. Palmer said that she will support that, but will want it put in reserve until they have the
discussion as to how it will be used. She stated that one of her reasons for supporting it is she would like
to take the burden off of taxpayers for the year they are going out to referendum, and if that does not work
she does not want them to get further behind.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Mallek said that her incentive in proposing this is that she is very concerned about taking
money out of capital for operating.
Mr. Boyd stated that he feels the exact opposite and feels that they should take more money out
of capital, because he does not feel they should invest in “stuff” when they are not investing in people and
in the operating budget. He said that he recommends taking another penny out of the capital deposit, or
perhaps taking a half-cent, and he will give some consideration to Mr. Sheffield’s suggestion about
Pantops.
Ms. Palmer said that investing in “stuff” is investing in people, because when you look at some of
the parity issues in schools and some of the things that are falling down, that is investing in people.
Mr. Sheffield stated that when they invest in “stuff”, there is an ongoing operating burden that
future Boards are having to commit to, and he does not think the public is aware that there are a lot of
operating costs associated with the capital costs. He said that staff was clear in explaining that when
they laid out their budget, but it is not making it to the public.
Ms. Mallek said that her other idea is not to do the salary increase on October 1, because that is
$690,000 for schools and $346,000 for local government that she feels should be spent in other places or
used to offset some part of the increase.
Ms. Palmer noted that the proposed budget has included a position for a policy analyst, but given
all of the changes in administration – including a new Economic Development department, a community
outreach person, completion of comprehensive plan meetings, etc. – she wonders if they can use interns
for another year before filling the analyst position.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like more detail about what that analyst person will be doing.
Mr. Foley said that one of the things that staff has done recently is to restructure their office to be
responsive to needs such as research, and they had a resource for that at one point but instead had to
scramble around and use fellows. He stated that as a fellow, Matt Regis has done the lion’s share of
work to help the citizen committee on solid waste move forward, but in the long term those types of things
will be better served with a full-time staff person. Mr. Foley said that the citizen committee on funding the
future will generate a huge demand, and there is a lot of work entailed with that, which is not typically
done by the Clerk’s office. He stated that they will continue using fellows, if necessary, but feels they will
be much more effective with a staff person.
Ms. Mallek stated that she wants to clarify her comment about using fellows, as there is a big
difference between fellows for the long term and interns who come for six weeks.
Ms. Dittmar said that she likes the Fellows Program because people like Mr. Regis do an
outstanding job, and this is also a way for a graduate program student to experience local government,
which is where they will be – and the County is helping the whole profession by offering a space. She
stated that she really likes the Fellows Program, but is not arguing against having a staff person work on
the long-term tasks.
Mr. Foley said that staff really likes the Fellows Program also, but the type of ongoing work
related to that is much more effectively done with a person on staff.
Ms. Palmer asked if this is something that can be put off for a year, given how tight the situation
is.
Ms. Dittmar stated that another issue for discussion is the funding of the YMCA, as over one
penny of capital is currently line-itemed for a project that may or may not happen.
Mr. Foley clarified that it is a one-time penny, not an ongoing expense.
Ms. McKeel said that she would like to see the other half -penny go back to schools, based on the
fact they are an education community, driven by education, with the greatest driver being education .
They heard very clearly from their new Economic Development Director that education K-12 is critical to
her work. She asked how they will get at this with the new monies they have available.
Mr. Foley said that one penny will be allocated to the CIP, and $250,000 will be added to the first
year of ACE – which will eliminate the need for the $192,000 on their list. He stated that what is not on
the list is the additional money for the schools, although the issue is raised at $750,000 – and the half-
cent will be exactly the amount needed if it goes 100% to schools for their gap. Mr. Foley said that if
there is support for that, they can allocate the 1.5 cents, and the $443,000 in revenue coming from the
state can be allocated among what is left on the list.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would like to hear from the community as to what they feel is
important, adding that she believes the salary increases are important and should begin in October – and
anything given to employees comes back to the community in terms of boosting the local economy and
local businesses.
Ms. Dittmar said they have limited time left for this discussion, and asked whether they agree on
the items on the list and the suggestions made by Board members.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Foley asked if there is support for the two things suggested, so it can be put on the list.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would prefer to take these things to the town hall meetings to get input
on what the additional revenues can potentially add.
Mr. Foley said that staff can run all of the list and the half-penny going to the schools, and the
suggested penny to capital. W hile the list is bigger than what they will have to balance the budget, they
will at least know what they have to take off of it to get balanced. He said that they should emphasize the
list to the public, but take off now what they really do not support. Mr. Foley stated that staff will show an
unallocated revenue line and then make sure the information prepared for the Board will reflect the things
that are under consideration.
Mr. Sheffield asked Mr. Boyd if he wants his idea of taking the penny out of capital to be reflected
as well. Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see it fleshed out by staff. Mr. Sheffield agreed, saying that it
will be a mixture of additions and subtractions. Mr. Boyd said that it will offer an alternative.
Ms. McKeel said that she does not want to take this out to the public without the funding for the
schools.
Mr. Sheffield said that it will be included.
Mr. Foley suggested that he walk them through this and get their confirmation as to whether it is
correct. He said that the presumptions are: one-half penny to fill the school gap; two traffic safety
officers; all of the items on the list with the exception of dedicated money to capital, which will take the
$192,000 off the list.
Mr. Sheffield said that there is sentiment to increase funding to ACE, so they should look at a
penny partially dedicated to ACE in the first year, or pulling funding away from Parks and Rec.
Mr. Foley said that staff can include the two alternatives for funding ACE, but that will be a bit
difficult.
Ms. Mallek said that if the extra penny to capital is not going to fly, they can take out the
reallocation line and put in an extra $250,000 for ACE from the new money that is coming in, which will
provide a third option and get it back to the $500,000 as proposed in the CIP.
Mr. Foley said that might be the cleanest way to do it, and it will not change the CIP.
Ms. Palmer stated that the reason she strongly supports a penny in capital is that there is nothing
going into modernization, and there is a parity issue between the schools – with Red Hill renovation of
particular concern, and a referendum will take several years.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that there is $1 million in Mr. Foley’s budget for capital, and planning and
design can be taken out of that.
Ms. Palmer said that the idea for the referendum is to take the $1 million of capital that Mr. Foley
has included for modernization, to spread that around to the different schools so that people can see what
they are going to get.
Ms. Dittmar said that what she heard earlier in the meeting is that the design work will happen
this year, and Red Hill will be looked at again next year as part of overall prioritization.
Mr. Foley said that the determination will be how much of the Red Hill project might be
considered more of a core thing that needs to be done, and that can be handled in next year’s CIP
process, with the rest moving off into the modernization decision.
Ms. Palmer said that it is a zero-sum gain, because if it is used for that it will not be available for
something else, and they have a lot of pressures – which is why she is interested in putting more into
capital. She stated that Ms. Mallek’s suggestion work s for her, and helps alleviate some of those
concerns.
Mr. Foley said that the $192,000 will be replaced by $250,000 for ACE, which will help minimize
confusion. He suggested that staff take what they ha ve heard from the Board and come back to them
after their night meeting, and if they are short from the revenue available, they can make the decision as
to whether to have the public provide input on that, or decide what to cut prior to taking it out to them.
Mr. Boyd said that he and Mr. Sheffield agree that they would like to see the numbers run without
the additional funding to the CIP.
Mr. Sheffield stated that his thought is to hold the budget the way it is, and the additional
revenues will be shown as unallocated, and the list of items will be considered unfunded – with suggested
changes being compiled as a “shopping list” they can take to the public in order to solicit their feedback.
Ms. Mallek said that she would also like to show division of the half -penny between local
government and schools.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Ms. Dittmar asked how the additional items will be balanced on the expense side.
Mr. Foley said that it will be a list of items for consideration, and it will exceed the available
revenue so they will need to make a decision on that.
Ms. Dittmar said that she likes Mr. Sheffield’s approach of having the items on a separate list as
part of the budget advertisement.
Mr. Foley said that staff will organize this during the break and bring it back to the Board for
review prior to advertising the budget.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2a. Closed Meeting.
At 5:41 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (5) to discuss possible grant applications concerning
two prospective businesses because there has been no previous announcement of the businesses’
interest in locating in the County. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Call to Order.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 6:08 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3a. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 6:08 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: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 5. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Mr. Sheffield moved to adopt the final agenda as presented. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to continue the budget discussion, even though it was not
added before the vote.
Board members agreed that it can be continued under “From the Board.”
_____
Mr. Sheffield reported that the list of town hall meetings had gone out late the previous week, and
he has added two additional meetings – for March 23 and March 25 – which will be published on the
County’s website, with one to be held at the Seminole Trail Fire Station and one to be held at CATEC.
_____
Ms. Palmer encouraged the public to look at the County’s website to note all of the different times
the Supervisors will be holding town hall meetings.
_____
Ms. Mallek reported that she will hold a town hall meeting in Crozet on March 12, following the
Crozet Community Advisory Council meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Ms. Mallek stated that Shenandoah National Park is holding a youth art contest for Wildflower
Weekend. More information is available on the Park’s website. The event will go through May.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
She said that the Rivanna Conservation Society, jointly with UVA students, is hosting a World
Water Day cleanup day at Free Bridge, Meadow Creek and the Rivanna Reservoir on March 21, 2015
from 10 a.m.-1 p.m.
Ms. Mallek announced that the Rivanna Conservation Society will also be hosting a Toads, Frogs
and Critters of the Night Workshop on April 17, 2015 at the Scheier Natural Area in Palmyra .
_____
Ms. Dittmar reported that Monticello High School has been honored with a National School Board
Association Magna Award, making it the first high school in the country to have received two of these
recognitions.
She said that the schools have also received an “MQ” award, which focuses on math, mission
and young men at the middle school level, with a focus on minority students.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Proclamations and Recognitions.
a. Virginia Festival of the Book, March 18, 2015 through March 22, 2015.
Ms. Dittmar read the following proclamation in honor of the 21st annual Virginia Festival of the
Book, to be celebrated during the week of March 18-22, 2015:
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
WHEREAS, Albemarle County is committed to promoting reading, writing, and storytelling within
and outside its borders; and
WHEREAS, our devotion to literacy and our support of literature has attracted thousands of
readers to our VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK, serving as an economically significant event for this
area, while providing the majority of events free of charge; and
WHEREAS, businesses, cultural and civic organizations, and individuals have contributed to the
ongoing success of the VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle and Virginia, and the wor ld, have made the
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK the best book festival in the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, I, Jane D. Dittmar, Chair, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
Wednesday, March 18, 2015 through Sunday, March 22, 2015
as the
Twentieth-First Annual
VIRGINIA FESTIVAL OF THE BOOK
and encourage community members to participate fully in the wide range of available events and
activities.
Ms. Mallek then moved to adopt the resolution as read. Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Jane Kulow, Program Director for the Virginia Festival of the Book, expressed the Festival’s
appreciation for the County’s support. Ms. Kulow said that the Festival offered 200 programs this year,
with 194 of them being free, and they provided program s for readers of all types. She stated that there
are 18 programs as part of “StoryFest” that are free for children from preschool age through teens, all
offered on Saturday, March 21.
________
Non-Agenda. Travis Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk, Recognition of Service.
Mr. Boyd recognized Mr. Travis Morris, who came to Albemarle County in 2005 as Deputy Clerk
of Circuit Court, where he worked under the Honorable Paul Peatross, the Honorable Shelby Marshall,
the Honorable Cheryl Higgins, and the Honorable Debbie Shipp. Mr. Boyd said that Mr. Morris came to
the Board of Supervisors office in 2012, helping to keep track of the Board’s 70+ committees, its councils
and authorities – served by over 200 volunteers at any given time. He stated that during this tim e, Mr.
Morris had worked with 11 different Supervisors as part of the Clerk’s office team, helping to keep it a
friendly and resourceful place for Supervisors and County staff. Mr. Boyd presented Mr. Morris with a
Ten-Year Award for Service.
________
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Non-Agenda. Ella Jordan, Clerk, Recognition of Service.
Ms. Mallek recognized Ms. Ella Jordan, who was hired as one of two Deputy Clerks in June 1985,
and was later promoted to Clerk in January 1993. Ms. Mallek said that Ella has served 27 different
Supervisors and three County Executives, and has seen the automation of Board records from electric
typewriter to PC to Dropbox. She stated that Ms. Jordan had served as President of the Virginia
Municipal Clerks Association in 2006, hosted its annual conference, and was honored by her peers in the
association as Clerk of the Year. Ms. Mallek said that the same organization will hold their state
conference in Albemarle this April, and Ms. Jordan was responsible for organizing that again. She stated
that during all of her work, Ms. Jordan enrolled at Bluefield College – attending classes at nights and on
weekends – and graduated in May 2014 with a B.S. in Leadership and Management. Ms. Mallek said
that the County is fortunate to have people like Ms. Jordan, who have a long history and institutional
memory for work here, which helps the functions of the Board to provide a more consistent operation, and
provide assurance to citizens. Ms. Mallek stated that from her years as Chair, Ms. Jordan has been the
essential element to her success, in being prepared for meetings and ready for whatever may come up.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Mallek read the ground rules for speakers, and Ms. Palmer explained the timing system.
Ms. Heidi Gordon addressed the Board, stating that she work s for Charlottesville City Schools,
but also has a subcontract with the International Rescue Committee, where she t eaches English to newly-
arrived refugees. Ms. Gordon said that many of the IRC clients are being resettled in U-Heights, and in
the past 16 months, there have been 109 people resettled there. She stated that only 40% of residents
there are University students, and they have access to the UTS bus – but when the University is closed,
there is no bus service or CAT service to that area. Ms. Gordon said that the residents there who d o not
have cars have to walk about one mile to Emmet Street, where they can pick up the bus in front of the
Budget Inn. She said that she is asking for increased bus service to U-Heights.
__________
Ms. Fate Steers addressed the Board, stating that she is a classroom teacher in the Adult
Learning Center in Charlottesville, but does not live in Albemarle County any longer. Ms. Steers said that
she teaches Civic Engagement and Democracy to her students, and said that the students have sent
petitions to U-Heights and have contacted the Mayor, but he indicated that U-Heights is in the County.
Ms. Steers said that her students come to class after a full day of work, and class goes from 6-9 p.m.
She stated that when her students left class the previous evening, they walked to Water Street, caught
the trolley to the bus stop, and then made their way through a mile in the rain to get to the next bus stop
to U-Heights. Ms. Steers said that this is a hardship, and she is before the County to see if there is a way
to get bus service.
__________
Mr. Sheer Ali addressed the Board, stating that he is from Afghanistan but has lived in
Charlottesville for the last five months, and said that there is limited bus service for him to get to work and
shopping.
__________
Mr. Tom Olivier of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population addressed the Board,
stating that he is joined by ASAP Board members Jack Marshall and Hank Hellman. Mr. Olivier said they
are providing the Board with a copy of the book Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot, which is
part of ASAP’s campaign to raise awareness about the impacts of population growth and to stimulate the
search for solutions. He stated that the book is intended to illustrate the ecological and social tragedies of
humanity’s ballooning numbers and consumption, and ASAP’s distribution of the book is done in
conjunction with a network of organizations and individuals through the 2015 global “Speak Out”
campaign. Mr. Olivier said that Speak Out is jointly administered by the Population Media Center and
Population Institute, and aims to bring worldwide attention to the crises posed by overdevelopment and
human population size and growth. He stated that while ASAP’s special focus is on local growth and
limits in the local community, advanced copies were awarded to the organization for its “strong history of
population activism,” and in keeping with the saying “Think Globally, Act Locally”, ASAP hopes the book
will help stimulate the Board’s thinking about population growth and development issues at every level.
__________
Ms. Salma addressed the Board, stating that she is from Afghanistan and does not speak much
English, and cannot drive.
__________
Mr. Steve Janes addressed the Board, stating that he lives in the Rivanna District, and has been
a resident of Albemarle County for five years and loves it here. He said that two years ago, his taxes
were $2,400; they are now at $3,000 – which represents a 25% increase. Mr. Janes said that while $600
is not a particularly big number, the step change is notable. He stated that in seeing the equalized rate,
the increase is more along the lines of a five-cent increase, and the property values should be more than
enough to offset the County’s needs. Mr. Janes said that he is on a fixed income and has to make
choices to stay within his budget, and asked the Board to make those same choices. He added that he
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
serves on the Long-Range Solid Waste Planning Committee and wants to personally thank Ms. Palmer,
stating that it is one of the most enjoyable and gratifying work groups he has been on in a long time.
__________
Mr. Taher Barberi addressed the Board, stating that he is a resident of Colonnade Drive, and
would like to see additional bus service there.
__________
Mr. Tom Loach addressed the Board, stating that he is the Planning Commissioner for the White
Hall District and is before them to speak about the item that will effectively strip the voting rights of the
advisory councils. Mr. Loach said that he heavily depends on input from the community and the votes
cast when there is a development issue before them, and without that he must guess what the will of the
council is. He stated that although there is concern about the councils having too much power, if you ask
the developers in Crozet, they would likely express a positive opinion on their relationship with the
advisory councils. Mr. Loach said that the potential developer of the Barnes Lumber site came before the
advisory council and gave a presentation, showing pictures that are consistent with the master plan, but
at the end of the discussion stated that he is not going to build according to the Downtown Master Plan.
He stated that the master plan is an assurance between the developer and the community that they are
working with a standard – the one that the County has provided for them to adjudicate – which should be
used when the advisory council makes a decision. Mr. Loach emphasized that he hope s the item can be
pulled from the Consent Agenda, because the Board does not want to send a message to growth area
residents that they neither want nor care about their opinion.
__________
Mr. Mike Marshall, a Crozet resident, publisher of the Crozet Gazette, and former member of the
Crozet Advisory Council, addressed the Board. Mr. Marshall said that he would like to remind the Board
of who serves on the council, with 15 members on Crozet’s council, all very diligent residents of the area
who are giving their time as volunteers to ensure that the town gets the best choices possible made for it.
He stated that the advisory councils are sparing the Board of Supervisors a lot of fights by working out
with developers kinks that the public sees in the first plac e. Mr. Marshall said that the way they do this
resolution is to call for votes on things to clarify where positions are, just as the Board d oes, and the
council’s resolutions are saved for especially important issues – so they are giving the best advice
possible to help the Board sort through an issue. He stated that if the Board tells the councils that their
votes do not matter, then he predicts a mass resignation of members, and said that he is sorry this has
reached this point. It is concerning to the councils that some very wrong thinking is going to be enacted.
Mr. Marshall added that he feels the advisory councils have been valuable to them and has provided a lot
of solidity to decision-making affecting the growth areas.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum addressed the Board, stating that he would
recommend the book Snob Zoning as a companion read to the Over book presented by ASAP. Mr.
Williamson said that the FEF has serious concerns regarding the mission-creeping community councils,
which they had been on record about since 2009. W hile these entities may have been well-intentioned at
their formation, they have become mandated review stats – with those councils ending up as gatekeepers
of policy. He stated that Mr. Loach said that he will have difficulty supporting any project that does not
have the support of the community council. Mr. Williamson said that he has seen great things come out
of community councils, and out of neighborhood associations where the government is not involved. He
said that the FEF believes that citizens should be free to gather however they see fit in their community,
speak out on any policy or project – but the government should not be directly involved in that
assemblage. Mr. Williamson stated that the FEF calls on the Board as elected leaders to lead, to
evaluate projects on their merits, vote them up and down with the input of the community – but not to
promote some members of the community to “unelected fiefdoms” to control which projects advance, and
how. He said that the Forum calls upon them to disband the community councils, and if they fail to do
that, they encourage the Board to reign in the unelected mission-creeping bodies to their original intent:
as simple sounding boards.
There were no further public comments, and the Chair closed the matters from the public portion
of the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Consent Agenda.
Regarding Item 10.1, Ms. Ditmar, Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer stated that they
needed to pull their assigned minutes.
_____
Regarding Item 10.4, Ms. Mallek said that she would like to pull the Community Advisory Council
item for discussion and possible modification.
Mr. Foley said that typically the Board would move that to an agenda item if it is a full action item.
Ms. Dittmar suggested the Board consider this item after taking action on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mallek moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Ms. McKeel seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 10.1. Approval of Minutes: June 4, July 2, July 8, July 9, August 13, August 26,
September 3, September 9, September 10, October 7, October 29, and December 16, 2014.
Mr. Boyd had read the minutes of June 4, 2014 and found them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel pulled the minutes of July 2, 2014 and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Dittmar pulled the minutes of July 8, August 13, August 26, October 7 and December 16,
2014 and carried them forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Palmer pulled the minutes of July 9, September 9 and September 10, 2014 and carried
them forward to the next meeting.
Ms. Mallek pulled the minutes of September 3 and October 29, 2014 and carried them forward
to the next meeting.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read and carried forward
the remaining minutes to the next meeting.
__________
Item No. 10.2. Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement for the Meadows Community
Center.
The executive summary states that the Crozet Meadows Community Center Building, more
commonly known as the Meadows Community Center, was built in the 1970’s in partnership with the
Jordan Development Corporation (JDC). The history of the development is set forth in the July 14, 2010
Executive Summary (Attachment A) presented to the Board when it approved a Lease between the
County and the JDC for the Meadows Community Center (Attachment B).
The Meadows Community Center is primarily used by the residents of the Meadows/
Meadowlands housing complex, with weekend and evening use available to the community. With the
recent rehabilitation and expansion of the Meadows/Meadowlands housing complex, the activity in the
JDC leasing and management office and the overall use of the community center by the
Meadows/Meadowlands residents has increased. The 2010 Agreement will expire on July 31, 2015
unless renewed for an additional period as agreed upon by the County and the JDC.
The County and the JDC have agreed to extend the term of the Agreement to July 31, 2020. The
attached Amended Agreement of Lease (Attachment B) has been approved as to form and substance by
the County Attorney and does not require a public hearing if the Board approves it before the 2010
Agreement expires, or by July 31, 2015.
In addition to extending the term of the 2010 Agreement, the Amended Agreement provides that
the JDC will pay annual rent in the amount of $6,546.00 to the County in equal monthly installments, to be
adjusted annually by the CPI Index. The rent amount is determined to offset the estimated annual electric,
water; sewer and routine maintenance and repairs at the community center, which will remain the
County’s responsibility.
The JDC will continue to maintain an office for the leasing and management of the
Meadows/Meadowlands housing complex and will continue to be responsible for the supervision and
operation of the community center during the Monday through Friday daytime hours while the leasing
office is open.
The approval of the attached Amended Agreement of Lease (Attachment C) would result in
revenue in the amount of $6,546.00 in FY 16 and in an amount to be calculated using the CPI Index
in subsequent years. Pursuant to the 2010 Agreement, the rent paid to the County in FY’s 11 -15 was
$6,000 in FY’s 11, 12 and 13, $6,317 in FY 14, and $6,426 in FY15.
Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment D) approving the
Amended Agreement of Lease between the County and the Jordan Development Corporation and
authorize the County Executive to sign the Amended Agreement of Lease (Attachment C) on behalf of the
County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution approving the
Amended Agreement of Lease between the County and the Jordan Development Corporation and
authorized the County Executive to sign the Amended Agreement of Lease on behalf of the
County:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDED AGREEMENT OF LEASE
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
FOR THE CROZET MEADOWS COMMUNITY RECREATION BUILDING
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
WHEREAS, the Jordan Development Corporation leases from the County of Albemarle
approximately 2,305 square feet of space in a building located at 5735 Meadows Drive, Crozet, known as
the Crozet Meadows Community Recreation Building; and
WHEREAS, the original Agreement of Lease for the Crozet Meadows Community Recreation
Building was dated August 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the current lease term expires July 31, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the attached First Amended Agreement of Lease extends the le ase of the Crozet
Meadows Community Recreation Building through July 31, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes the County Executive to sign the First Amended Agreement of Lease between the C ounty of
Albemarle and the Jordan Development Corporation to extend the Crozet Meadows Community Recreation
Building lease through July 31, 2020.
FIRST AMENDED AGREEMENT OF LEASE
THIS LEASE AMENDMENT is made this 2nd day of February, 2015 by and between the COUNTY
OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Landlord, and JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Tenant.
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into an Agreement of Lease (the "Lease") dated August
1, 2010 for the lease of a portion of the Crozet/Meadows Community Recr eation Building; and
WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant, for the sum of ten and NO/100 Dollars ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, agree
as follows:
1. Section 3.1 of the parties' Lease is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 3.1. Commencement and Expiration. This Lease shall commence on August 1,
2010 (the "Date of Commencement") and shall expire July 31, 2020. All references to the
"term" of this Lease shall, unless the context indicates a different meaning, be deemed to
be a reference to the term described herein."
2. Section 4.1 of the parties' Lease is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 4.1. Annual Rent. Commencing August 1, 2015, Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord
annual rent of Six-Thousand Five-Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($6,546), payable in equal
monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each month during the term hereof.
After July 31, 2016, the rent for subsequent years of the Lease shall be indexed for inflation
and shall be calculated by first establishing a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the
level of the CPI Index (as defined herein) as of the first day of June in the subsequent
years, and the denominator of which shall be the level of the CPI Index as of the first day
of June, 2015. The resulting fraction shall be multiplied by the rent agreed upon or
established above for the first year of the term of the Lease to determine the annual rent
due for the year. The rental figure shall be revised each year based upon this formula. The
CPI Index shall be the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (all items, all
urban consumers, 1982-1984 = 100). If the CPI Index shall be discontinued, Landlord shall
designate an appropriate substitute index or formula having the same general acceptance
as to use and reliability as the CPI Index and such substitute shall be used as if originally
designated herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the rent due for any
lease year decrease below the rent payable for the first year."
In all other respects, the parties' Lease shall remain in full force and ef fect as previously executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day and year
first above written.
TENANT
JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By: (Signed) Forrest D. Kerns, President
LANDLORD
This Lease Amendment is executed on behalf of the County of Albemarle by Thomas C. Foley,
County Executive, following approval thereof by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By: (Signed) Thomas C. Foley, County Executive
__________
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Item No. 10.3. Fiscal Year 2015 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local
Government Agreement.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 32.1-31 allows local governing bodies to
enter into contracts with the State Board of Health for the operation of local health departments. It also
requires that these contracts specify the services to be provided in addition to those required by law and
contain such other provisions as the State Board and the governing body may agree on. The County’s
contract specifies both the scope and costs for the services to be provided locally.
The Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of
Health, is the primary provider of public health services and programs for Albemarle County and
surrounding localities. TJHD offers specific health programs targeted at preventing and controlling
infectious diseases as well as initiatives aimed at improving the health of low income women, children
and infants. In addition, the Health District provides an inspection and monitoring progr am to ensure the
safety of food and private well/septic systems. These services are funded cooperatively by the State,
County and other neighboring jurisdictions. Non-local funding for these TJHD programs is provided by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, grants and income from local fees charged to individual clients. The localities
served by TJHD provide matching local funds for the allocations made by the state and allocate
resources for Local-Only Programs such as food safety. The Virginia Department of Healt h requires that
local governments enter into agreements stipulating the scope of health services to be provided by the
TJHD to citizens in their respective jurisdictions. The FY15 agreement (Attachment A) has been reviewed
and approved as to form by the County Attorney’s Office. Attachment B is an attachment to the
Agreement, and sets forth services to be provided by the TJHD.
The County appropriated $640,217 in FY15 for the Thomas Jefferson Health District, of which
$583,104 was the County’s required match for Cooperative State and Local Matched Programs and $838
was the local only (unmatched) funding for the food inspection program in accordance with the
agreement, and $56,275 was for a budgeted increase in the County’s share of building rent. The rent
increase did not occur in FY15 and so will be held back by the County and not spent in the current fiscal
year. Increased rent cost is anticipated in FY16 and will be reflected accordingly in the FY 16 Budget.
Based on the vital nature of the services provided by the TJHD, staff recommends that the Board
approve the FY 15 County of Albemarle & State Health Department Local Government Agreement
(Attachment A) and that it authorize the County Executive to execute that Agreement.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the FY 15 County of Albemarle & State
Health Department Local Government Agreement and authorized the County Executive to execute
that Agreement.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Under this agreement, which is created in satisfaction of the requirements of § 32.1 -31 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Virginia Department of Health, over the course of one fiscal year, will
pay an amount not to exceed $712,683, from the state general fund to support the cooperative budget in
accordance with appropriations by the General Assembly, and in like time frame, the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County will provide by appropriation and in equal quarterly payments a sum of $583,104 local
matching funds and $838 one-hundred percent local funds for a total of $583,942 local funds. These joint
funds will be distributed in timely installments, as services are rendered in the operation of the Albemarle
County Health Department, which shall perform public health services to the Commonwealth as indicated
in Attachment A(l.), and will perform services required by local ordinances as indicated in Attachment A(2.).
Payments from the local government are due on the third Monday of each fiscal quarter.
The term of this agreement begins July 1, 2014. This agreement will be automatically extended on
a state fiscal year to year renewal basis under the terms and conditions of the original agreement unless
written notice of termination is provided by either party. Such written notice shall be given at least 60 days
prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in which the termination is to be effective. Any increase or decrease
in funding allocation shall be made by an amendment to this agreement.
The parties agree that:
1. Under this agreement, as set forth in paragraphs A, B, C, and D below, the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Health shall be responsible for providing liability
insurance coverage and will provide legal defense for state employees of the local health
department for acts or occurrences arising from performance of activities conducted
pursuant to state statutes and regulations.
A. The responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health to
provide liability insurance coverage shall be limited to and governed by the Self -
Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia, established under
§ 2.2-1837 of the Code of Virginia. Such insurance coverage shall extend to the
services specified in Attachments A(l.) and A(2.), unless the locality has opted to
provide coverage for the employee under the Public Officials Liability Self -
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Insurance Plan, established under § 2.2-1839 of the Code or under a policy
procured by the locality.
B. The Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health will be responsible for
providing legal defense for those acts or occurrences arising from the performance
of those services listed in Attachment A(l.), conducted in the performance of this
contract, as provided for under the Code of Virginia and as provided for under the
terms and conditions of the Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
C. Services listed in Attachment A(2.), any services performed pursuant to a local
ordinance, and any services authorized solely by Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia,
when performed by a state employee, are herewith expressly excepted from any
requirements of legal defense or representation by the Attorney General or the
Commonwealth. For purposes of assuring the eligibility of a state employee
performing such services for liability coverage under the Self -Insured General
Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General has approved,
pursuant to § 2.2-507 of the Code of Virginia and the Self-Insured General Liability
Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legal representation of said employee
by the city or county attorney, and the Board of Supervisor of Albemarle County
hereby expressly agrees to provide the legal defense or representation at its sole
expense in such cases by its local attorney.
D. In no event shall the Commonwealth or the Virginia Department of Health be
responsible for providing legal defense or insurance coverage for local government
employees.
2. Title to equipment purchased with funds appropriated by the local government and transferred to
the state, either as match for state dollars or as a purchase under appropriated funds expressly
allocated to support the activities of the local health department, will be retained by the
Commonwealth and will be entered into the Virginia Fixed Asset Accounting and Control System.
Local appropriations for equipment to be locally owned and controlled should not be remitted to the
Commonwealth, and the local government's procurement procedures shall apply in the purchase.
The locality assumes the responsibility to maintain the equipment and all records thereon.
3. Amendments to or modifications of this contract must be agreed to in writing and signed by both
parties.
(Signed) Marissa J. Levine, MD MPH (Signed) Thomas C. Foley
State Health Commissioner Local authorizing Officer
Virginia Department of Health County Executive
Attachments: Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(l.)
Local Government Agreement, Attachment A(2.)
_____
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
BASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE ASSURED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS
INCOME LEVEL A IS DEFINED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO BE MEDICALLY INDIGENT (32.1-11)
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SERVICES Income A
Only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All (specify
income
level if not
ALL)
Immunization of patients against certain diseases, including
childhood immunizations
As provided for in 32.1-46
Code Link-32-1-46
X
Sexually transmitted disease screening, diagnosis, treatment, and
surveillance
32.1-57, Districts may provide counseling
Code Link-32.1-57
X
Surveillance and investigation of disease
32.1-35 and 32.1-39
Code Links-32.1-35, 32.1-39
X
HIV/AIDS surveillance, investigation, and sero prevalence survey
32.1-36, 32.1-36.1, 32.1-39
Code Links-32.1-36, 32.1-36.1, 32.1-39
X
Tuberculosis control screening, diagnosis, treatment, and
surveillance
32.1-49, 32.1-50, and 32.1-54
Code Links-32.1-49, 32.1-50, 32.1-54
X
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Children Specialty Services; diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and
parent teaching
32.1-77, 32.1-89 and 32.1-90
Code Links: 32.1-77, 32.1-89, 32.1-90
X
Screening for genetic traits and inborn errors of metabolism, and
provision of dietary supplements
Code Links-32.1-65, 32.1-69
X
Well child care up to age __ (enter year)
Board of Health
Code Link-32.1-77
X
WIC
Federal grant requirement
Public Law 1-8-265 as amended, Child Nutrition Act of 1966;
Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act 2009
Code Link-32.1-351.2
X
EPSDT
DMAS MOA
Social Security Act section 1950(r) (5)
Code Link-32.1-11
X
Blood lead level testing
Code Link-32.1-46.1, 32.1-46.2 X
Outreach, Patient and community Health Education
Code Link-32.1-11, 32.1-11.3, 32.1-39 X
Community Education
Code Link-32.1-11, 32.1-23 X
Pre-School Physicals for school entry
Code Link-22.1-270 X
Disabled disability Waiver Screenings
DMAS MOA
Code Link-32.1-330
X
Services for Children with Special health care needs Title V,
Social Security Act
Code Link-32.1-77
X
Child restraints in motor vehicles
Code Link-46.2-1095, 46.2-1097 X
Babycare
DMAS Moa X
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Prenatal and post partum care for low risk and intermediate risk
women,
Title V, Social Security Act
Code Link-32.1-77
X
Babycare Services
DMAS MOA X
WIC
Federal grant requirement
Public Law 108-265 as amended, Child Nutrition Act of 1966;
Code Link-32.1-351.2
X
FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Clinic services including drugs and Contraceptive supplies
Family Planning Population Research Act of 1970, Title X
Code Link-32.1-77, 32.1-325
X
Pregnancy testing and counseling
Family Planning Population Research Act of 1970, Title X
Code Link-32.1-77, 32.1.325
X
The following services performed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Virginia,
the regulation of the Board of Health and/or VDH agreements with other state or federal
agencies.
Ice cream/frozen desserts:
Under the agency’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Virginia Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services (VDACS), the local health department is responsible for initiating the
issuance, suspension, reinstatement and revocation of permits for all frozen desserts plants which
are an integral part of any premises, including Grade “A” milk plants, hotels, restaurants, and
mobile units where frozen desserts are frozen or partially frozen or dispensed for retail sale.
X
Investigation of communicable diseases:
Pursuant to §§ 32.1-35 and 32.1-39 of the Code of the Code of Virginia, the local health director
and local staff are responsible for investigating any outbreak or unusual occurrence of a
preventable disease that the Board of Health requires to be reported.
Code Links-32.1-35, 32.1-39
X
Marinas:
Pursuant to §32.1-246 of the Code of Virginia, local health department staff are responsible for
permitting marinas and other places where boats are moored an d is responsible for inspecting
them to ensure that their sanitary fixtures and sewage disposal facilities are in compliance with the
Marina Regulations (12VAC5-570-10 et seq.)
Code Link-32.1-246
X
Migrant labor camps: X
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Pursuant to §§ 32.1-203-32.1-211 of the Code of Virginia, local health departments are responsible
for issuing, denying, suspending and revoking permits to operate migrant labor camps. Local
health departments also must inspect migrant labor camps and ensure that the construction,
operation and maintenance of such camps are in compliance with the Rules and Regulations
Governing Migrant Labor Camps (12VAC5-501-10 et seq.).
Code Links-32.1-203, 32.1-211
Milk:
Pursuant to §§ 3.2-3-513-, 3.2-5206, 3.2-5208 of the Code of Virginia and the agency’s MOA with
VDACS, the local health department is responsible for issuing, denying, suspending and revoking
permits for Grade “A” milk processing plants which offer milk and or milk products for sale in
Virginia. Local health department are also responsible for the inspection of Grade “A” milk plants
for compliance with the Regulations Governing Grade “A” Milk (2VAC5-490-10).
Code Links-3.2-5130, 3.2-5206, 3.2-5208
X
Alternative discharging sewage systems:
Pursuant to § 32.1-164(A) of the Code of Virginia, local health department are responsible for
issuing, denying and revoking construction and operation permits for alternative discharging
systems of less than 1000 gallons per day serving single family dwellings. Local health
departments are also required to conduct regular inspections of alternative discharging systems in
order to ensure that their construction and operation are in compliance with the Alternative
Discharging Regulations (12VAC5-640-10 et seq.).
Code Link-32.1-164
X
Onsite sewage systems:
Pursuant to §32.1-163 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, local health department staff is responsible
for performing site evaluations and designs of onsite sewage systems. Local health department
staff is also responsible for issuing, denying and revoking construction and operation permits for
conventional and alternative onsite sewage systems. Local health department staff are also
responsible for inspecting the construction of onsite sewage systems for compliance with the
Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations (12VAC5-610-20 et seq., “SHDR”) and the Alternative
Onsite Sewage Regulations (12VAC5-613-10 et seq., “AOSS” Regulations). Local health
department is also responsible for ensuring the performance, operation and maintenance of onsite
sewage systems are in compliance with the SHDR and the AOSS Regulations.
Code Link-32.1-163
X
Rabies:
Pursuant to §3.2-6500 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, the local health department is
responsible for investigating complaints and reports of suspected rabid animals exposing a
person, companion animal, or livestock to rabies.
Code Link-3.2-6500
X
Restaurants/eating establishments:
Pursuant to §35.1-14 of the Code of Virginia, local health departments are responsible for issuing,
denying, renewing, revoking and suspending permits to operate food establishments. In addition,
local health departments are required to conduct at least one annual inspection of each food
establishment to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Food Regulations (12VAC5 -421-
10 et seq.). These regulations include requirements and standards for safe preparation, handling,
protection, and preservation of food; the sanitary maintenance and use of equipment and physical
facilities; the safe and sanitary supply of water and disposal of waste and employee hygiene
standards.
Code Link-35.1-14
X
Sanitary surveys:
The local health department is responsible for conducting surveys of properties which include soil
evaluations and identification of potential sources of contamination. The surveys are conducted in
order to determine site suitability.
Code Link-32.1-11, 32.1-43
X
Single home sewage discharge:
Code Link-32.1-164
Hotels/Motels:
In accordance with §35.1.13 of the Code of Virginia, local health department staff is responsible for
issuing, denying, revoking and suspending permits to operate hotels. The local health department
is responsible for conducting inspections of hotels to ensure compliance with the Hotel Regulations
(12VAC5-431-10 et seq.). These regulations include requirements and standards for physical
plant sanitation; safe and sanitary housekeeping and maintenance practices; safe and sanitary
water supply and sewage disposal and vector and pest control.
Code Link-35.1-13
X
Water supply sanitation-Inspection of Water Supplies
Code Link-15-2-2144 X
Wells:
Pursuant to §32.1-176.2, local health departments are responsible for issuing, denying and
revoking construction permits and inspection statements for private wells. Local health
departments are also responsible for inspecting private wells to ensure that their construction and
location are in compliance with the Private Well Regulations (12VAC5-630-10 et seq.).
Code Link-32.1-176.2
X
Homes for adults:
The local health department, at the request of the Department of Social Services (DSS) will inspect
DSS-permitted homes for adults to evaluate their food safety operations, wastewater disposal and
general environmental health conditions.
X
Juvenile Justice Institutions:
Pursuant to §35.1-23 of the Code of Virginia and the agency’s memorandum of understanding with
the Department of Corrections, local health departments are responsible for conducting at least
one annual unannounced inspection of juvenile justice institutions in order to evaluate their kitchen
facilities, general sanitation and environmental health conditions.
Code Linik-35.1-23
X
Jail Inspections:
Pursuant to §53.1-68 of the Code of Virginia and the agency’s memorandum of understanding with
the Department of Corrections, local health departments are responsible for conducting at least
X
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
one annual unannounced inspection of correction facilities in order to evaluate their kitchen
facilities, general sanitation and environmental health conditions.
Code Link-53.1-68
Daycare centers:
At the request of DSS will inspect DSS-permitted daycare centers to evaluate their food safety
operations, wastewater disposal and general environmental health conditions.
X
Radon
Pursuant to §32.1-229 local health department may assist VDH Central Office with Radon testing
and analysis.
Code Link-32.1-229
X
Summer camps/Campgrounds:
Pursuant to 35.1-16 and 35.1-17 of the Code of Virginia, local health departments are responsible
for issuing, denying, revoking and suspending permits to operate summer camps and
campgrounds. The local health department is responsible for conducting inspections of summer
camps and campgrounds not less than annually to ensure that their construction, operation and
maintenance are in compliance with the Regulations for Summer Camps (12VAC5 -440-10 et seq.)
and the Rules and Regulations for Campgrounds (12VAC5-450-10 et seq.).
Code Links-35.1-16, 35.1-17
X
The following services performed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Virginia,
the regulations of the Board of Health and/or the policies and procedures of the State
Department of Health
Medicaid Nursing Home Screening
DMAS MOA
Code Link-32.1-330
X
Comprehensive Services Act
2.2-5201-2.2-5211
Code Link-32.1-254, 32.1-255, 32.1-272
X
Vital Records (Death Certificates)
Code Link- 32.1-254, 32.1-255, 32.1-272 X
Early Intervention Services Community Policy and
Management Teams (CPMT)
Interagency Coordinating Council (Infants/Toddlers)
Code Link- 2.2-5305, 2.2-5306
X
Immunizations for maternity and post-partum patients
Code Link-32.1-11, 32.1-325, 54.1-3408 X
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP)
Code Link- 32.1-42, 32.1-43, 32.1-229 X
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Code Link- 32.1-42, 32.1-43, 32.1-229 X
HIV Counseling, Testing and Referral
Code Link- 32.1-37.2 X
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SERVICES Income A
Only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Foreign Travel Immunizations
Other:
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
School health services
Sick child care
Other:
MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Funds for deliveries
Funds for special tests and drugs
Diagnosis, treatment, and referral for gynecological problems
Other: Prenatal Care Clinic X
(Louisa)
FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Nutrition Education
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Preventive Health Services
Pre-Conception Health Care
Other:
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES Income A
Only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Activities of Daily Living
Community Education X
General Clinic Services (100% Locally Funded)
Outreach
Occupational health services
Personal care
Pharmacy services-Alternate Drug Delivery Site
Hypertension screening, referral, and counseling
Respite care services
Other:
SPECIALTY CLINIC SERVICES (List) Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Income A
only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Preventive Clinic Services – Children
Preventive Clinic Services – Adults
Restorative Clinic Services
Community Education
Other: Bright Smiles Program (Greene, Louisa, Fluvanna,
and Nelson) X
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED
UNDER LOCAL ORDINANCE
Neither the Code of Virginia nor
Regulations of the Board of
Health requires the following
services to be provided by the
local health department
Place an X in
this column if
service is
provided for
locality
Local ordinance code cite
Provide a brief description of
local ordinance
requirements
Accident Prevention
Air Pollution
Bird Control
Employee Physicals
General Environmental
Housing – BOCA & local
building codes
Insect control
Noise
Plumbing
Radiological Health
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Rodent Control
Solid Waste
Swimming facilities
Weeds
Smoking Ordinances X Albemarle Code § 7-308
Charlottesville Code § 24.1-11 Enforcement
Other environmental services
(identify)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.)
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER
LOCAL ORDINANCES OR CONTRACT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES
For Each Service Provided, Check Block for Highest Income Level Served
Income A
Only
Defined by
Federal
Regulations
All
Employee physicals
Primary care for inmates in local
Jails or correctional institutions
Other medical services (List)
Other (please list)
__________
Item No. 10.4. Final recommendations regarding Places 29 Community Advisory Council.
The executive summary states that at its December 10, 2014 meeting, the Board discussed
concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Places29 Community Advisory Council in achieving its
mission. As a result of that discussion, the Board directed that operations of the Places29 Community
Advisory Council be suspended until staff could do an assessment and develop recommendations for the
Board’s consideration. The Board and County staff stressed the importance of an effective and well -
functioning advisory council given the significant amount of development activity affecting the Places29
master plan area and the expressed interest by the Council in resuming its responsibilities as soon as
possible. The Board’s preliminary review of staff recommendations during the February 4, 2015 Board
meeting provided further direction to staff on refining the composition of the Places29 Community
Advisory Council and the procedures and administration of all Community Advisory Councils.
Following the December 10 Board meeting, staff initiated a review of the Places29 Community
Advisory Council. That review included interviews with staff who regularly engage with the Council, a
survey that was circulated to all current Places29 Council members, and feedback provided by Board
members on December 10. During the course of the review, staff identified several areas where the new
Community Engagement Coordinator could reinstate some services that were originally in place to
support all of the Councils and where clarity could be provided to all Councils. Additionally, some
suggested operational changes specific to the Places29 Council were identified in response to feedback
received from the Board and from current Council members.
Further refinements and revisions were incorporated based on direction received from the Board
at the February 4, 2015 meeting. The recommendation s are included as red line edits to the existing
Community Advisory Council Fact Sheet-Places 29 (Attachment A) and the Community Advisory Council
Rules of Procedure (Attachment B). The highlights of those recommendations are provided below, with
the major recommendation being that the Places 29 Community Advisory Committee will be composed of
three sub-Committees rather than two, as previously recommended. The Places29 Committee Structure
(Attachment C) provides information regarding the three sub-Committees.
Community Advisory Committee Fact Sheet (Attachment A)
Recommendations for all Advisory Committees:
Title – changed title of the groups from Community Advisory Councils to Community Advisory
Committees.
Background – clarified new role in development review to provide venue for neighborhood
meetings.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Charge – clarified role in supporting adopted master plan implementation and clarified that
committees do not play an official role in the legislative process, but they are encouraged to
express comments and preferences with respect to development proposals.
Time Commitment – moved from Places29-specific list to General Committee list because it
pertains to all committees.
Liaison Role – language added to clarify distinction between roles of liaisons and appointed
members.
Responsibilities – language added to provide for annual reports to the Board regarding committee
activities to be consistent with Board’s adopted policy and to encourage committees to provide
comments and advisory input to the Board on emerging policies, projects, and programs.
Principles – language added to emphasize committees’ role in supporting elements of adopted
Master Plans
Recommendations for Places29 Community Advisory Committee:
Structure – recommend establishing three sub-committees – Places29 North, Places29-
Hydraulic, and Places29-Rio - to provide more productive focus on smaller geographic areas and
communities of interest.
Membership – revised membership composition to reflect sub-committee concept and to clarify
Board and Planning Commission assignments.
Liaisons – clarified liaison assignments for the sub-committees.
Joint Meetings – previously part of Time Commitment section; revised to reflect sub-committee
and full committee meetings.
Length of Term – clarified term limits to be in accordance with the Board of Supervisor’s Rules of
Procedure for Boards and Commissions and provided greater discretion for the Board in
determining the number of terms a member may serve.
Community Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure (Attachment B):
Recommendations for all Advisory Committees:
Officer Terms of Office – chairs and vice chairs may not serve more than two consecutive terms
to allow for rotation of leadership.
Orientation – staff requirement to provide timely orientation f or all newly appointed members is
strengthened.
Establishment of Agenda – staff to maintain a calendar of topics aligned with County priorities
and projects in the Master Plan areas to assist in agenda development with chairs and vice -
chairs.
Voting Procedures – noted that approval/disapproval votes for specific development proposals
are not appropriate given that the committees do not have an official voting role in the legislative
approval process.
There is no budget impact associated with this item.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the revisions to the Community Advisory Committee Fact
Sheet - Places29 and to the Community Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure as proposed in
Attachments A and B, and appoint members to the three sub-committees that will establish the Places29
Master Plan Committee in its reconstituted form as soon as possible.
(Pulled for discussion.)
__________
Item No. 10.5. SDP-2014-00013. Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II PWSF – Special
Exception.
The executive summary states that the County regulates the disturbance of slopes of 25% or
greater differently, depending on whether the slopes are within the steep slopes overlay district under
County Code § 18-30.7 (“SSOD”), which is composed of the County’s Development Areas, or outside of
the SSOD, which is composed of the County’s Rural Area. The parcel that is the subject of this
application is located within the County’s Rural Area, and its slopes of 25% or greater are regulated as
“critical slopes” under County Code § 18-4.2. County Code § 18-4.2.3 prohibits a structure, improvement,
or land disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement from being located on critical slopes
unless a special exception is approved by the Board.
AT&T is requesting a special exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes for the
installation of a proposed Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility (“PWSF”) and access road on property
owned by Royal Orchard Land Corporation located on lands currently identified in the Co unty’s tax
records as Tax Map Parcel 5300-00-00-00200. Royal Orchard Land Corporation also owns the adjacent
properties, Tax Map Parcels 05300-00-00-00100 and 05300-00-00-001B0. The request is in conjunction
with SDP201400013, which has tentative approval pending action on this special exception. The request
and plans (Attachments A and B) depict a total of 9,653 square feet of critical slopes will be disturbed, of
which 7,742 square feet is for the access road, and the remaining 1,911 square feet are loca ted at the
base of the PWSF. At the time the Applicant submitted its justification for disturbing these critical slopes,
the access road was exempt from the critical slopes regulations pursuant to County Code § 18 -4.2.6(c).
However, on February 11, 2015, the Board adopted the Phase 2 Wireless ZTA requiring that an access
road to a PWSF be subject to the critical slopes regulations, and any request to waive those regulations
must now be approved by the Board as a special exception. Engineering and Plannin g staff have
reviewed the request to allow the disturbance of critical slopes for both the PWSF and the access road.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
County Code § 18-4.2.5 authorizes the Board to approve a special exception to waive the
requirements of County Code § 18-4.2.3 to permit the disturbance of critical slopes. The applicant has
submitted a justification for the special exception and, because the subject property is in the Rural Areas .
This request has been reviewed for both the Planning and Engineering considerations pursuant to County
Code §§ 18-4.2.5(a)(2) and (3). Attachment C includes Planning and Engineering staff’s analysis of the
relevant factors for the critical slopes waiver request. Based upon this analysis, staff opinion is that this
request favorably satisfies all of the factors in County Code § 18-4.2.5 as explained in Attachment C.
No budget impact will result from approving this special exception.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve the
special exception to disturb critical slopes for the installation of a PWSF subject to one condition:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SDP 14-13 ROYAL ORCHARD LAND CORPORATION TIER II PWSF
WHEREAS, Royal Orchard Land Corporation (“Royal Orchard”) is the owner of those lands
currently identified in the County’s tax records as Tax Map and Parcel Number 05300 -00-00-00200 (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, AT&T leases a portion of the Property and filed a request for a special exception in
conjunction with SDP 2014-00013, Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier PSWF, to allow the disturbance
of critical slopes, as the Property is depicted on the pending plans under review by the County’s Department
of Community Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the executive
summary prepared in conjunction with the application, and its supporting analysis included as Attachment
C thereto, the plans entitled “Site Name CV479, Site Number CV479B” prepared by BC Architects
Engineers and last revised on February 16, 2015, and all of the factors relevant to the special exception in
Albemarle County Code § 18-4.2.5, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the
special exception to authorize the disturbance of critical slopes for AT&T’s installation of a proposed Tier II
Personal Wireless Service Facility on the Property subject to the condition attached hereto.
* * *
SDP 2014-13, Royal Orchard Land Corporation Tier II PSWF Special Exception Condition
1. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes shall not exceed 9,653 square feet as shown on
the attached plans.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
__________
Item No. 10.6. 2014 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of
Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during the fourth quarter of 2014, 99 building permits were issued for 99
dwelling units. There was one permit issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an exchange rate of
$2,500, for a total of $2,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a
condominium.
__________
Item No. 10.7. 2014 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Community
Development, was received for information.
The report states that during 2014, 474 building permits were issued for 475 dwelling units. There
were nine permits issued for a mobile home in an existing park, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total
of $22,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
__________
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
Item No. 10.8. 2014 Fourth Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the Department of
Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during 2014, 474 building permits were issued for 475 dwelling units. There
were nine permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of $2,500, for a total of
$22,500. There were no permits issued for the conversion of an apartment to a condominium.
__________
Item No. 10.9. 2014 Fourth Quarter Certificate of Occupancy Report as prepared by the
Department of Community Development, was received for information.
The report states that during 2014, 375 certificates of occupancy were issued for 375 dwelling
units. There were eleven permits issued for mobile homes in existing parks, at an exchange rate of
$2,500, for a total of $27,500. There were no certificates of occupancy issued for the conversion of an
apartment to a condominium.
_______________
(Note: At this time, the Board took up Item No. 10.4. Final recommendations regarding Places
29 Community Advisory Council.)
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, stated that in the February meeting, the Board gave
staff some direction on several items that were in the rules and procedures and the fact sheet brought
forward. She explained that there was a reference that said, “Committees are a venue to discuss and
provide comments on program and policy questions and/or proposals. Community advisory committees
are an important venue for discussion, and committees can provide feedback and indicate preferences
related to development proposals, although committees do not have a legislative role in the development
process, and are discouraged from taking votes of approval or disapproval.” Ms. Catlin said that staff
eliminated by redline the second part of that sentence – “…and are discouraged from taking votes of
approval or disapproval.” She stated that voting is also referenced in the “rules and procedures” section,
which indicates when to vote: “While the advisory committees are not expected to take votes of approval
or disapproval on specific development proposals, voting is a tool that the committee may use to express
support for a program or policy question under consideration by the Board of Supervisors or Planning
Commission.” Ms. Catlin said that the Board has not provided any direction to change that particular item,
so it stayed as it was, because the thought was that it is not expressly prohibited anywhere, but there is
also not an expectation that groups should feel they ha ve to get to the end result of a vote on any of these
proposals or projects. She stated that what staff has heard from the Board is that the value they get from
advisory councils is the discussion and ability from many viewpoints to come forward, and not necessarily
feel it has to come in the form of a vote.
Ms. Dittmar asked if people are looking at the old version of the documents or the new.
Ms. Mallek explained that the two pages are somewhat contradictory, and there are some
concerns that councils are taking votes on things that are not related to their charge, so she feels that
repeating the sentence about the charge in the rules and procedures will help to solve that problem in a
positive way. She read an email that she had sent fellow Board members, and stated that her goal is to
help try to make the documents stand alone, which they really do not do currently, and suggested that
they add wording to make it consistent. Ms. Mallek said that the language clarifie s the fact that
committees do not have a legislative role in the development proces s and emphasized the fact that
Citizens’ Advisory Councils are an important venue for discussion, in which they c an provide feedback
and indicate preferences related to the development proposals. She stated that this is a positive way to
encourage their participation, and the voting is an effort for them to be clear amongst the members of the
committee what the feelings are, so they know what message to be sending. Ms. Mallek said that there is
a lot of information related to voting, and her suggested clarification is that while the advisory committees
are not required to take votes, voting is a tool the committee may use to share their collective thoughts
about an application or policy question under consideration before the Board. She stated that the other
item raising concern is the perception that the Board only wants to hear from the councils if it is in support
of what the County is considering, and that is not what is intended – so she tried to simplify the language
in Section B, Item 5A.
Mr. Sheffield suggested switching out the word “expected” and putting in “they are not required,”
and instead of “expressing support,” include “express their position.”
Ms. Mallek moved that the Board adopt revisions to the Community Advisory Committee Fact
Sheet – Places29 and to the Community Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure, and to proceed with
the appointment of members to the three sub-committees that will establish the Places29 Master Plan
Committee in its reconstituted form . Ms. McKeel seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Dittmar said that the Citizens’ Advisory Councils are very important to the Board, and with the
Rivanna Village project, the developer – Andrew Panetti – found it very valuable to use that group, as well
as the homeowners association, as a sounding board. She stated that there is no doubt among those
council members that they have no legislative authority, but as liaisons to the councils, if there is ever a
sense they are straying into the Board’s areas, it is important to help them understand that part of it.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Ms. Mallek said that as projects evolve, citizens having the opportunity to share their concerns at
the committees’ meetings has often resulted in them coming in and supporting the applications, with
developers sometimes modifying plans to accommodate the concerns of those residents.
Ms. McKeel stated that she is looking forward to having a committee in her district.
(The Fact Sheet and Rules of Procedures are set out below:)
PLACES 29 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FACT SHEET
General Community Advisory Committee Information
Background: Community residents, local government, the business community, and other
organizations play a role in shaping a community. The Master Plans are created
with substantial time and effort from all these groups collaboratively. To continue
that collaboration and communication, the Plan calls for the appointment of a
citizen group that will serve as one of the major vehicles by which the
communities will remain engaged in the plan’s implementation. The Committee
can provide a venue for neighborhood meetings for development projects and for
the Master Plan revision process.
Charge: The Advisory Committees will provide assistance, feedback and input to County
staff and the Board of Supervisors on community and county efforts related to
implementation and support of the adopted Master Plan, in accordance with
established county procedures. Advisory Committee members will communicate
with their constituencies to increase understanding of and support for successful
implementation of the Master Plan. The membership is broad-based to
incorporate a variety of perspectives and ideas and to provide citizens, business
people, and representatives of community groups a chance to be engaged and to
be heard in a constructive and meaningful way.
The Committees will be a catalyst for helping foster a sense of community and
work towards effective and efficient Master Plan implementation. Committees are
a venue to discuss and provide comments on program and policy questions
and/or proposals. Community Advisory Committees are an important venue for
discussion and Committees can provide feedback and indicate preferences
related to development proposals, although Committees do not have a legislative
role in the development process.
Timing: The Advisory Committee should be formed immediately after the adoption of the
Master Plan.
Time Commitment: All Committees will meet together as a group annually to focus on issues of
common interest to development area communities and individual committees
will meet several more times during the year as needed based on master plan
implementation activity.
Liaison Role: The role of the liaison is distinct from the appointed members. Liaisons should
report back to their Board or Commission at their regular meetings with a
synopsis of the Committee’s meetings/activities, as appropriate. Liaisons may
also identify agenda topics in order to receive feedback from the Committee on a
pertinent topic or project. Liaisons should provide information or context during
discussions as requested, but should allow appointed Committee members to
lead and fully engage in conversations so they can fulfill their advisory role.
Responsibilities: 1. Serve as liaisons by: 1) contributing to public understanding of and
encouraging support for Master Plan implementation; 2) keeping the community
informed of the needs, purposes, and progress of Master Plan implementation; 3)
encouraging interest and participation in community and county efforts related to
the Master Plan and participation in public meetings; and 4) enhancing
collaboration among all community stakeholders.
2. Gather input from constituencies represented and bring these issues to the
attention of staff and the Committee, and distribute information from the
Committee back to constituents.
3. Stimulate creative thinking in examining implementation issues and identify
ways of using community resources to meet implementation needs and
challenges.
4. Provide advisory input, comments, and information to the Board of Supervisors
on new and emerging policies, projects, and progr ams as requested.
5. Maintain a forward-looking agenda with respect to adopted Master Plans and
policies of the Board of Supervisors. Committee meetings are not the appropriate
venue to oppose adopted policy.
6. Commit to support and work to implement the adopted Master Plan.
7. Work with Staff to provide an annual report of activities to the Board of
Supervisors in accordance with the Board of Supervisors’ adopted Rules of
Procedure for Boards and Commissions.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
Principles: To assist with meeting facilitation thereby ensuring that all members’ voices are
heard and viewpoints considered, all Committee members will:
Familiarize themselves with the Vision and Implementation Plan of the
Master Plan and work in coordination with County staff to provide input on
Master Plan implementation.
Act on the basis of information and understanding and in support of the
projects, policies, and programs outlined in the Master Plan.
Focus their efforts strategically to achieve the greatest possible contributions.
Strive to achieve a consensus on actions/recommendations that are
important to Master Plan implementation.
Comment as a council constructively and with appropriate suggestions and
offers of help.
Work toward benefiting Master Plan implementation rather than special
needs or interests
Accept responsibility for the success of the Advisory Committee by
contributing appropriate time and energy.
Places29 Community Advisory Committee Information
Structure: The Places29 Community Advisory Committee will be comprised of three sub-
Committees, Places29-North, Places29-Hydraulic, and Places29-Rio. Places29-
North will focus on the Piney Mountain and Hollymead Neighborhoods.
Places29-Hydraulic will focus on the neighborhoods and businesses between
Hydraulic Road and Rio Road in the Places29 Master Plan area. Places29-Rio
will focus on the neighborhoods and businesses between Rio Road and the
Rivanna River in the Places29 Master Plan area.
Membership: The Board of Supervisors shall appoint eleven members to each of the three
sub-Committees (Places29-North, Places29-Hydraulic, and Places29-Rio). Each
member shall be a resident of or business owner in Albemarle County. For all
representatives, the member’s home or business shall be located within their
appointed sub-Committee’s geographic area. An individual may not serve on
more than one sub-Committee. Each sub-Committee shall have members along
the following representations:
Representation P29 North P29 Hydraulic P29 Rio
Large Neighborhood 2 2 2
Small Neighborhood 1 2 2
Development Community 1 1 1
Business Community 2 2 2
School Community – staff, school
board, PTO parent member
1 1 1
Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial or
Heavy Industrial
2 1 1
Urban Mixed Use 1 1 1
Other – RSWA, RWSA, CHO Board,
non-profit or community group with a
focus on open space, water
resources, transit, etc.
1 1 1
Liaisons: Each sub-Committee will have one Board of Supervisor liaison and one Planning
Commission liaison. Liaisons will be appointed based on magisterial districts
within the Master Plan boundaries for the sub-Committees. For Places29 North,
the BOS Liaison will be appointed from the Rivanna District and the Planning
Commission liaison will be appointed from either the Rivanna District or the At-
Large member. For Places29-Hydraulic, the BOS Liaison will be appointed from
the Jouett District and the Planning Commission liaison will be appointed from
either the Jouett District or the At-Large member. For Places29-Rio, the BOS
Liaison will be appointed from the Rio District and the Planning Commission
liaison will be appointed from either the Rio District or the At-Large member.
Joint Meetings: The Places29 sub-Committees will meet jointly two times each year to discuss
Master Plan topics across the planning area.
Length of Term: Members will be appointed for either a 2 or 3 year term to stagger the
transition of new members on and off the council. After initial
appointments, terms will be for 2 years. While Members will be generally
expected to serve no more than 2 terms, additional terms may be
considered if desired and if the Board of Supervisors deems appropriate.
NOTE: Each committee member will receive the following, some of which will be
distributed prior to the first meeting and some of which will be developed during
the first committee meetings with the committee:
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
1. Copy of the Master Plan
2. Copy of the Information for Advisory Committee Members
3. Copy of Advisory Committee Procedures
4. Advisory Committee Members List
5. Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule
*Also see Albemarle County Community Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure (Revised March
2015).
*****
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RULES OF PROCEDURE
Background: The Advisory Committees will provide assistance, feedback and input to County staff and
the Board of Supervisors on community and county efforts related to implementation and
support of the adopted Master Plan, in accordance with established county procedures.
Advisory Committee members will communicate with their constituencies to increase
understanding of and support for successful implementation of the Master Plan. The
membership is broad-based to incorporate a variety of perspectives and ideas and to
provide citizens, business people, and representatives of community groups a chance to
be engaged and to be heard in a constructive and meaningful way.
Committees are a venue to discuss and provide comments on program and policy
questions and/or proposals. Community Advisory Committees are an important venue for
discussion and Committees can provide feedback and indicate preferences related to
development proposals, although Committees do not have a legislative role in the
development process.
1. Officers
A. Chairman. At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Chairman who, if present,
shall preside at the meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected.
B. Vice-Chairman. At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Vice-Chairman, who,
if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge
the duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability.
C. Secretary. At its annual meeting, the Committee shall elect a Secretary, who, if present,
shall record the proceedings of the meeting.
D. Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms;
but either or both may be re-elected for one additional term. Chairs and vice-chairs may
not serve more than two consecutive terms. The Secretary shall be elected for a one-
year term; but may be re-elected for one or more additional terms.
E. Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are
absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman.
2. Meetings
A. Annual Meeting. The first meeting following the annual appointment of new members
shall be known as the annual meeting. At the annual meeting, the Committee shall
establish the day, time, and place for regular meetings of the Committee for that year,
and shall elect the chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary.
For Places29, the annual appointment of new members occurs in January.
For Crozet, the annual appointment of new members occurs in April.
For Village of Rivanna, the annual appointment of new members occurs in April.
For Pantops, the annual appointment of new members occurs in July.
B. Regular Meetings. The Committee shall meet in regular session at the time and place
and on the day or days established for regular meetings. The Committee may
subsequently establish a different day, time, or place to conduct its regular meetings by
passing a resolution to that effect.
If the Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares
that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Committee members to
attend a regular meeting, the meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting
date. This finding shall be communicated to the members of the Committee and to the
press as promptly as possible.
Without further public notice, a regular meeting may be adjourned from day to day or
from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular
meeting, until the business of the Committee is complete.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
C. Attendance. Two unreported absences from regular meetings within a 12-month period
shall be considered grounds for dismissal from the Committee. Staff will work with the
Committee’s Secretary to ensure adherence to the attendance policy.
D. Orientation. Staff will schedule a required orientation session for all new members within
4 weeks of their appointment to the Committee.
3. Order of Business
A. Establishment of Agenda. The agenda for each regular meeting shall be
established by staff in consultation with the Chairman. Staff will maintain a
calendar of agenda topics to align with County priorities and projects in the
Master Plan area for assistance in formulating the agenda. Staff and the Chair
will approve the agenda before it is circulated to the Committee.
B. Organization of the Agenda. The agenda of each regular meeting shall be
organized in substantially the following order, subject to change at the request of
the Chairman and with the consensus of the other members of the Committee:
(1) Call to order
(2) Announcements
(3) Scheduled presentations
(4) Discussion Items
(5) Community Updates
(6) Other business
(7) Adjourn
C. Deferrals. The Committee may defer any matter at the request of a m ember of
the Committee or County staff. The request may be either oral or in writing, and
may be made at any time prior to the vote on the matter. The person making the
request shall state the reasons therefore. A motion to defer shall either specify
the date to which the matter is deferred or defer the matter indefinitely.
4. Quorum
A simple majority of the appointed members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for any
meeting of the Committee. If, during a meeting, less than a majority of the members of the
Committee remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If, prior to
adjournment, a quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue.
5. Voting Procedures
A. When to Vote. While the Advisory Committees are not required to take votes of approval
or disapproval on specific development proposals, voting is a tool that the Committee
may use to express the position of the Committee on an application, program or policy
question under consideration by the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission.
B. Approval of Motion by Majority. Except for a decision on a motion of the previous
question, each decision of the Committee shall be made by approval of a majority of the
members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and properly
seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be further
considered.
C. Manner of Vote. The vote on a motion pertaining may be either by roll call vote or voice
vote, in the discretion of the Chairman; provided that a roll call vote on such a motion
shall be required if requested by a member of the Committee. For each roll call vote,
staff shall record the name of each member voting and how the member voted on the
motion. For each voice vote, staff shall record the result of the vote.
D. Tie Vote. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon.
E. Abstention. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his
abstention. The abstention shall be announced by the Chairman and recorded by staff.
F. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Committee shall be discussed
and voted by the Committee before any vote is taken on the original motion unless the
motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original
motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the
Committee for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original
motion is again before the Committee for its consideration.
6. Amendment of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Committee at the next
regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
7. Suspension of Rules of Procedure
These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the members of the
Committee present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of
the Committee. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of
the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before
the Committee; provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the
Committee to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution
of Virginia, or any other applicable law.
8. Rules of Procedure not Covered by These Rules of Procedure
Any rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedure shall be governed by the current
Robert’s Rules of Order.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. PROJECT: SP-2014-00017 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III
Personal Wireless Service Facility (Signs #24&27).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 02100-00-00-010A1.
LOCATION: 5249 Piney Mountain Road.
PROPOSED: Request to replace six (6) existing panel antennas on a single array on an existing
150 foot self-support tower that was previously approved by a special use permit in 1997
(SP9700022), and amended in 2003 (SP200200081). With the proposal two special exceptions
are required to permit the size of the antennas and the mounting distance of t he antennas.
PETITION: Section 10.2.2.48 Tier III personal wireless facilities (reference Section 5.1.40).
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: NO.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 1 -preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23 and March 2, 2015.)
The executive summary forwarded states that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its
meeting on January 27, 2015, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval of the above -noted petition and
two associated Special Exceptions. The Planning Commission also directed the applicant to hold a
Community Meeting for the project before the item is sent to the Board of Supervisors for Public Hearing.
The applicant complied with the Commission’s request and held a community meeting on
Thursday, February 19th from 5:00pm to 6:30pm at the Hollymead Community Room at the Hollymead
Fire Rescue Station located at 3575 Innovation Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911. Two citizens attended
the meeting, along with County Planning staff, a representative from Ntelos and their legal counsel, and a
representative from the tower owner (Crown Communication INC PMB).
The applicant and staff responded to questions from the attendees. A prominent concern
identified by the attendees is how the property owner, or future property owners, of the property that the
tower is located on would be aware of the 100 feet tree conservation area around the tower site. To
address the attendees concern, the applicant has revised the conceptual plan to provide a note (on Sheet
A-0) citing Section 5.1.40(c) 5 of the Albemarle County Ordinance which requires the tree conservation
area. A radius depicting the tree conservation area has also been added to this same sheet. Please note
that one other technical correction was made to note #10 on sheet N-1 of the conceptual plan. Also, the
County Attorney has recommended Condition 5 be deleted from the conditions of approval because it is
supplanted by the procedures in the Zoning Ordinance (5.1.40 modifications are now by spec ial
exception, which is how the modifications with t his application were processed.
Staff recommends that the Board: (1) adopt the attached Resolution approving SP 14-17 Ntelos
“CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF (Attachment A); and (2) adopt the attached Resolution approving
the special exception for SP 14-17 (Attachment B).
_____
Mr. Christopher Perez, Senior Planner, addressed the Board, stating that his presentation will
include two parts. The second part will be from Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects, who will speak on
FCC guidelines.
Mr. Perez said that the Planning Commission held its public hearing on January 27 and voted to
approve the Special Use Permit as well as the two special exceptions associated with this use, and at
that meeting the applicant was directed to hold a community meeting for this proposal, which had
previously been waived. He reported that they held the meeting on February 19, and there were two
citizens in attendance, as well as staff, the applicant, and their legal representative. Mr. Perez said that at
that meeting, some concerns emerged as to how property owners or future owners would know about a
potential tree conservation area, which is dictated by the ordinance for a 100-foot buffer around the tower.
He reported that the applicant went back to the drawing board per staff’s recommendation and modified
the conceptual plan – to cite that section of the ordinance, as well as to provide a visual representation of
that section. Mr. Perez said that there is a minor modification to Note 10 on sheet N-1 of the conceptual
plan, pertaining to color of the tower arrays, which is a small error that had been previously corrected but
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
somehow reverted back. He stated that between the Planning Commission meeting and now, the County
Attorney recommended that condition #5 be omitted, because they w ill be restating what the ordinance
already permits.
Mr. Perez presented an image of the Piney Mountain Tower on Tax Map 21-10 and 21-10A1, a
62-acre parcel with a 150-foot existing self-supported tower approved in 1997 and amended in 2003. He
stated that the property is in the rural area, and all surrounding properties adjacent to it are also in the
rural area. Mr. Perez said that it is not Entrance Corridor, and it is a highly wooded area. He presented a
photo of the existing tower, noting the existing arrays, and said that as part of this proposal, the applicant
is requesting two special exceptions – one to increase the size of the antenna from the maximum of 1,152
to 1,385.83 square inches, an increase of 233.83 square inches beyond what is allowed per the
ordinance. Mr. Perez said that the second special exception they are requesting is for standoff distance
from the tower, and stated that in 1997 they were originally approved for a distance of six feet from the
tower, and are now requesting an additional six inches, for a total of 6’6” standoff. He presented a photo
simulation with the existing view and the propose d view, stating that the visual impacts of the tower and
the resulting additional impacts of the six-inch standoff distance are not seen as significant, nor is the
expansion of the antenna size. Mr. Perez stated that favorable factors in staff’s review include the fact
that the proposal is for an existing facility and modifications will not increase or cause any new negative
impacts to adjacent properties or important features; the proposal will not increase the negative visual
impact of the existing tower. He said that unfavorable factors are that the applicant has to get two special
exceptions. Mr. Perez said that staff recommends adoption of the resolutions to approve the special use
permit, as well as the resolution to approve the special exceptions, and presented the revised conditions
– omitting #5 – and the proposed motions.
Mr. Bill Fritz stated that the FCC has mandated changes in how collocations and replacements
are handled, and those that are not a substantial change must be approved by localities, and no
conditions may be placed on the approval. He said that the FCC has also developed a definition of what
constituted a “substantial change,” and those rules go into effect on April 8. He stated that the
Commission had held a public hearing on a text amendment that will make the County’s ordinance
consistent with the FCC rules, which will be presented to the Board on April 8. Mr. Fritz said that the
proposal before them now is not a substantial change as defined by the FCC, and following those rules
would mean that the request will have to be approved as submitted.
Ms. Palmer asked if there is any way to make mention in the new ordinance of older towers that
are not the proper distance from the property line or the fall zone. Mr. Fritz said that the only thing that
can be done in the definition the FCC has is that the towers cannot be increased in height without a
previous modification, but they c an have replacements or collocations on them. He noted that this is built
into the new ordinance as part of the definition of “substantial change.” Mr. Fritz explained that if there is
an existing nonconforming tower that was approved that is taller than the distance to the property line,
and an applicant wanted to add antenna, they will be able to do that – as it will not be a substantial
change as defined by the FCC.
Ms. Mallek commented that she is at a loss as to how they have sizes in the ordinance, when
they are just ignored and added onto. Mr. Fritz said that the FCC was very clear on that point that those
height restrictions and limits on number of arrays do not apply unless there is a previous condition that
accompanies that facility, such as a setback that was previously done at the time the original tower was
approved.
Ms. McKeel said that it seems the height and setback are key to this. Mr. Fritz said that there
may be cases where those are issues, and they will have to look at the original approval for a facility, so
there is no blanket answer.
Ms. Palmer asked if there are any other development changes identified here, or just collocation
or height. Mr. Fritz said that the FCC actions deal only with collocations and replacements, not new
construction.
Ms. Mallek said that replacements can be much bigger than the original approval, according to
the new rules. Mr. Fritz said that it can if it does not constitute a substantial change, but they will talk
about that more in-depth on April 8.
Ms. Mallek noted that this property has access easements that will be expiring in a year or so,
and asked if this approval put any of these landowners in jeopardy of having to extend if they do not want
to. Mr. Davis said that this approval will have no impact on the private agreements between property
owners.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long of Williams Mullen law firm , said they were present to represent Ntelos
Wireless. She also introduced Mr. Jessie Wilmer of Ntelos. Ms. Long said that this is a straightforward
request by the applicant to replace existing panel antennas with new, upgraded -technology antennas to
improve better and broader service for their customers, including improved data speed. She stated that
this is the same type of technology that many of their competitors are implementing around the country
and in the community, to provide 4G or LTE service. Ms. Long said that due to a technicality with the
current ordinance, this requires a special use permit, even though it is only a collocation, and once the
new FCC regulations take effect it will be considered an exempt collocation, which will only require a
building permit. She stated that this complies with all other requirements of their ordinance, with two
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
exceptions: the first is that the panel antennas very slightly exceed the current maximum size, which was
established more than 10 years ago. Ms. Long said that due to changes in technology, carriers like
Ntelos need slightly larger antennas to accommodate the spectrum needs that they have to serve. She
stated that the increase in these panels is 234 square inches, which is a very modest increase, and that is
why this application went to a Tier III special use permit, along with the increased standoff distance of the
antennas from the mounting structure. Ms. Long said that they had held a community meeting in which a
lot of the residents’ concerns were resolved, with some ongoing conversations happening with Crown
Communications, which owns the tower and is responsible for maintenance payments to those who
maintain the road.
Ms. McKeel commented that she thought technology as allowing things to get slimmer. Ms. Long
said that this is true of phones, but with this technology, carriers are providing service along different
spectrums – 800, 1900, etc. – and each requires specific equipment. She said that they also have
special equipment that allows data speeds to be faster, and must find a single antenna that can make all
of that work. They must have enough room for all of the cables within the spectrum components, and the
antenna must have enough space to host all of the ports for all of the cables that fit into each antenna.
Ms. Long stated that they are doing a whole lot more with just 234 square inches of space, and the visual
difference is negligible.
The Chair invited public comment.
Mr. Chuck Boldt of Piney Mountain Road addressed the Board and said that he can support the
application but has some issues with the process that got them to this point. Mr. Boldt said that this
special use permit is another example for the residents of Piney Mountain of a process that d oes not
necessarily work. Several administrative decisions were made about the special use permit, over which
he has no recourse, because of the presumption that the County staff acts in good faith in making those
decisions. He stated that the question is, what happens if they do not, and the answer is, not much can
happen. He stated that even if the staff reaches a decision that is incorrect, the report on the project is
flawed, or the adjacent property owners disagree with the representation of the impacts to their property,
those concerns have no forum in which to be considered, and the decision potentially modified or
reversed. Mr. Boldt said that the default position of the County is an arrogant one of “take us to court,”
with the message that they are right and have a process that ensures it. He stated that if a goal of the
County is to increase citizen involvement, then citizens – especially those who are directly affected –
need to be given tools to use so that their concerns are addressed on a level playing field, and a good
place to start is the ability of someone other than the applicant to appeal an administrative decision or a
finding of general accord.
Mr. Boldt said that under the current rules, only the applicant has that ability – and to a limited
extent – and even the Supervisors cannot review an administrative decision because they have given
away the power to do so. He stated that this is just wrong, and it directly affects any landowner in the
County who they are elected to represent. Mr. Boldt said that the requirement for a community meeting is
a good first step to change that, and unfortunately in this case, it did not happen until the Planning
Commission requested it. He stated that it is hard to imagine that the residents of Piney Mountain are not
interested in something that will directly affect them. Mr. Boldt said that part of the goal of the community
meeting is to listen and to find common ground. If the applicant fails to fulfill his promises and staff finds
that what is presented is in general accord, there is not really any recourse without deep pockets and an
affinity for lawyers. He suggested that the accountability of staff starts at a lower level, where the costs
are more reasonable and can be handled by the individual representing himself. Mr. Boldt said that it is
his opinion that in expanding the ability of aggrieved parties to challenge administrative decisions, they
will get better decisions, better staff work, and will give property owners a sense that their voice will be
heard in actions that affect them. He stated that they will also get more citizen involvement in the
process, which is currently set up to protect staff from accountability and discourages people at every
turn. Mr. Boldt said that dealing with the County should not be a one-sided, unpleasant or frustrating
experience.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter is
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek moved that the Board adopt the proposed resolution approving SP-2014-0017 Ntelos
“CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF subject to the recommended conditions. Ms. Palmer seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Mallek then moved that the Board adopt the proposed resolution approving the special
exceptions associated with SP-2014-00017 Ntelos “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF. Ms. McKeel
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification as to the issue with the public meeting on this application.
Ms. Mallek said that they did not hold a public meeting, but staff intends to make that more
standard now.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, stated that there was a notification error made as part of the
standard notification for the special use permit, and the County’s practice is to notify any properties
around where there is an ownership interest by the applicant, and they missed that on the application.
Ms. Mallek said that the adjacent land is owned by the same people, but under a different name.
Mr. Benish stated that the applicant had identified that on the application, but staff had missed it
when they checked, so it was human error and they will work to correct it.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Mr. Boldt for looking at this item, and said that Ms. Mallek had begun to
address it with some suggestions.
Mr. Fritz encouraged the Board to contact him if they have any questions prior to the thorough
review that will take place on April 8.
Ms. Mallek stated that there have been some court challenges to these proposed FCC changes,
and asked why there is a reason the County is moving ahead so quickly to give away their rights on this,
when it is still really in flux.
Mr. Fritz said that this goes into effect on April 8, and no lawsuits have been filed yet. He stated
that there might be, and they will have to work their way through the courts.
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, stated that he has researched this as recently as
that afternoon, and he has not found any locality that is challenging these regulations. Mr. Kamptner said
that Albemarle is moving ahead now because the ordinance they have developed fills in some of the gaps
in the regulations, which will deal with some of the disagreements anticipated with this. He stated that
they feel it is to their advantage to have something in place.
Ms. Palmer said that Mr. Kamptner has described this ordinance as “self-executing,” and will
automatically become the law, and part of the acceleration is to try to define “concealment.” Mr.
Kamptner said that “concealment” and “concealment elements” are very important to Albemarle primarily
because of the Tier II and Tier I facilities in terms of strategies they ha ve employed to conceal wireless
facilities. He said that the wireless industry disagrees with how the County is defining it, and surprisingly
the FCC did not define that term.
(The adopted resolutions and conditions are set out below:)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-17 NTELOS “CV108” (PINEY MOUNTAIN) TIER III PWSF
WHEREAS, Crown Communications Inc. is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 02100 -00-
00-010A1 (the “Property”) and of the Tier III Personal Wireless Services Facility (the “PWSF”) located
thereon; and
WHEREAS, Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., d/b/a NTELOS, who leases space on the PWSF, filed an
application for a special use permit to replace six existing panel antennas on a single array on the PWSF,
and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-17 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III
PWSF (“SP 2014-17”); and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-17 with the conditions recommended by County
staff and directed the applicant to hold a community meeting for the project before the item was presented
to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, the community meeting was held on February 19, 2015, and non-substantive changes
were subsequently made to the plan as set forth in the Board of Supervisors March 11, 2015 Executive
Summary, and the changes to the plan did not warrant any changes to the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noti ced
public hearing on SP 2014-17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff report
prepared for SP 2014-17 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public hearing, and
the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code §§ 18 -10.2.2(48) and 18-33.8, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2014 -17, subject to the conditions attached
hereto.
* * *
SP-2014-00017 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain) Tier III PWSF Conditions
1. The development of the site, and any modifications to the uppermost array at elevation 146’, shall
be in general accord with the plan titled “Piney Mountain CV108” prepared by Christopher D.
Morin, and dated 12/31/14 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan,
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential
to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan (copy on file in the Clerk’s
office):
a. Mounting type and distance
b. Antenna type and size
c. Number of antennae
d. Color
e. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The tower shall not be increased in height.
3. The lowest array of panel antennas may be attached only as follows:
a. All equipment attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower. The
cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black;
b. The antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in width;
c. No antenna shall project from the facility, structure or building beyond the minimum
required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an
antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the facility, structure or building.
d. The antennas and dishes attached to this tower may be replaced without amending this
special use permit, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of the
replacement equipment are in compliance with these conditions of approval and in
accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The tower shall be limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No additional
relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on the tower.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 49)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 50)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 51)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 52)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 53)
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 54)
_____
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
FOR SP 14-17 NTELOS “CV108” (PINEY MOUNTAIN) TIER III PWSF
WHEREAS, Crown Communications Inc. is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Number 02100 -00-
00-010A1 (the “Property”) and of the Tier III Personal Wireless Services Facility (the “PWSF”) located
thereon; and
WHEREAS, Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., d/b/a NTELOS, who leases space on the PWSF, filed an
application for a special use permit to replace six existing panel antennas on the uppermost array on the
PWSF, which application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014 -17 NTELOS “CV108” (Piney Mountain)
Tier III PWSF (“SP 2014-17”); and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 2014 -
17 with conditions, and also recommended approval of a special exception to increase the size of three (3)
of the six (6) panel antennas and to increase the distance for six (6) of the panel antennas from the
structure; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(3)(i) establishes a maximum antenna size of
1,152 square inches, which may be modified by special exception; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(ii) requires that antennas be mounted so that
their face extends no more than twelve (12) inches from the structure, which may be modified by special
exception; and
WHEREAS, when the uppermost array on the PWSF was originally approved, the antennas were
authorized to be mounted six (6) feet from the structure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the Executive
Summary, the Planning Commission staff report prepared in conjunc tion with the application, all of the
factors relevant to the special exception in County Code § 18-33.8, and the information provided at the
Board of Supervisors meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special
exception to authorize the modification of County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(3)(i) to increase the maximum size
of three (3) of the six (6) replacement antennas from 1,152 square inches to 1,385.83 square inches and
the modification of County Code § 18-5.1.40(c)(3)(ii) to increase the maximum mounting distances of six
(6) replacement antennas from the structure by an additional six (6) inches for the uppermost array from
the previously approved distance of six (6) feet for a total mounting distance of 6 feet 6 inches from the
tower for each antenna.
_______________
Agenda Item No.12. PUBLIC HEARING: SP-2014-00018. Maxwell Boat Dock (Sign #1).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 04500-00-00-00400, 04500-00-00-004A0.
LOCATION: 432 Woodlands Rd. PROPOSAL: Private floating dock on South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir.
PETITION: Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries under Section 22.2.2.10 of
zoning ordinance. No dwelling units proposed.
ZONING: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots). FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 55)
flooding. Water related uses such as boat docks and canoe liveries (30.3.11).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space,
and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23 and March 2, 2015.)
The executive summary forwarded to the Board states that the Albemarle County Planning
Commission, at its meeting on January 13, 2015, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-
noted petition as recommended by staff.
The County Attorney has prepared the attached Resolution reflecting the recommendation of the
Planning Commission. Please note that some technical and non-substantive modifications have been
made to the language and form of the conditions contained in the resolution. The original conditions
reviewed by the Planning Commission were based on standard condition language that has been used
for boat dock special use permits for a number of years. In drafting the resolution, the County Attorney
updated the conditions to be consistent with current practices (ex. lighting vs. luminaire).
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution as presented.
_____
Mr. Scott Clark, Senior Planner, said that this is a special use permit request for a private floating
dock on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, in the Flood Hazard Overlay zoning district. Mr. Clark pointed
out the location of the parcel on Woodlands Road, with the property leading up to the reservoir, and an
aerial view of the property that shows two parcels. He stated that there is a long driveway off of
Woodlands Road with a dwelling, and a slope down to the reservoir, with the proposed dock location at
the bottom of the slope. Mr. Clark presented a view of the reservoir from a higher elevation on the
property, and noted the site of the existing boat rack. He explained that the dock will be a floating dock in
three sections, a total of 144 square feet, with no connection to the bottom of the reservoir and the only
anchoring point being on the shore with two six by six posts. Mr. Clark said that prior to submission to the
County as a special use permit, the design was reviewed and approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, who have a set of existing standards for the design of these docks – and this did meet those
standards. He stated that this is for private use, with no commercial use and no lighting involved, and no
significant impacts expected on the adjacent properties or on the reservoir. Mr. Clark said it is compliant
with the language in the natural resources plan that talks about allowing and managing recreational uses
on the reservoirs, and this is a fairly low impact use that does not affect the water supply function of the
reservoir and does not have a public health impact expected with it.
Mr. Clark stated that favorable factors include: no impact on the water supply or neighboring
properties, no increase in flood levels, and review and support from the City of Charlottesville and the
RWSA. He said that the only unfavorable factor is if they were to get a large number of applications over
time, there could be a cumulative impact on the reservoir – but they have not seen that happening yet.
Ms. Mallek asked him to expand on the latter point, because there are a lot of boaters who have
no place to dock except for the pullout where the old Hydraulic Road was. Mr. Clark said that if they went
from five or six docks to dozens of individual floating docks on the reservoir, there could be impacts from
the treatment materials used on them, or docks coming loose in bad weather – and that would be more
serious than the current threats. He stated that it is not a significant concern, but is something they will
need to consider over time.
Mr. Clark reported that on January 13, the Planning Comm ission recommended approval with the
three conditions presented, addressing the prohibition of lighting, vegetation removal, and limiting
structures in the 200-foot stream buffer on the reservoir to the boat rack shown in the picture and the
dock shown on the plan. He said that since the Commission hearing, the exact wording of the conditions
has been changed to what is in their staff report, but the substance has not really changed – and it is just
to make it consistent with conditions from other approvals. He said that staff’s recommendation is to
approve the SP for the boat dock.
Ms. Mallek asked if the RWSA regulations addressed use of treated wood and required certain
types of wood. Mr. Clark said there is a list of standards, and one of them prohibited treated wood with
chromated copper arsenate; another one addressed the requirement to use pressure -treated wood that is
consistent with EPA standards.
Ms. Mallek asked if the pathway existed to get the materials down there, so they do not have to
bulldoze. Mr. Clark said that there is an existing path verging onto the driveway, and it is a partial
grass/partial gravel surface.
Ms. Palmer said that her question is also related to access, and asked if the steep grass-covered
gully area is considered to be part of the buffer. Mr. Clark said that the area right next to where the boats
are stored now is open, as is the path down to the reservoir, and most of the rest of the area is wooded or
has shrubs. He said that there will not need to be any further removal, and it is just the two posts that
hold the dock to the shoreline.
Ms. McKeel noted that the RWSA inspected these docks, so it will be their domain. Mr. Clark
said that they can inspect them, and can also require removal.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 56)
The applicant, J.T. Maxwell, addressed the Board, stating that he has been a resident of
Albemarle County for 25 years and is moving to this parcel from another location. Mr. Maxell stated that
the environment is important to his family, which is why they are moving here, and said that the strip
down to the water is about a 15 feet mowed surface in dry conditions that has been maintained for a long
time. He said that he has worked with the RWSA on the guidelines, along with staff, and there is a fee
with the dock also to cover the cost of inspections.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Ms. McKeel moved to adopt the resolution approving SP-2014-0018 for the Maxwell boat dock
subject to the recommended conditions. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The resolution in full is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
SP 2014-18 MAXWELL BOAT DOCK
WHEREAS, Robin W. Maxwell (the “Owner”) is the owner of Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 04500-
00-00-00400 and 04500-00-00-004A0 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, J. T. Maxwell, the Owner’s husband and acting for himself and as the Owner’s agent,
filed an application for a special use permit to establish a private floating dock on the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir, and the application is identified as Special Use Permit 2014-00018 Maxwell Board Dock (“SP
2014-18”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville co-signed the application as the owner of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir parcel onto which the dock would extend; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of SP 2014-18 with the conditions recommended by County
staff; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2015, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed p ublic
hearing on SP 2014-18.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the foregoing, the staff
report prepared for SP 2014-18 and all of its attachments, the information presented at the public
hearing, and the factors relevant to a special use permit in Albemarle County Code § 18 -33.8,
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves SP 2014-18, subject to the
conditions attached hereto.
* * *
SP-2014-00018 Maxwell Boat Dock Conditions
1. There shall be no outdoor luminaire installed or maintained within twenty-five (25) horizontal feet
of the Reservoir, measured from the elevation of normal pool, which is Elevation 382 (above sea
level, based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988, expressed in feet).
2. There shall be no plant removal, other than dead, diseased, or noxious vegetation, o r earth
disturbance, within the two hundred (200)-foot stream buffer associated with the installation of the
boat dock. The stream buffer is measured from the edge of the floodplain, which is Elevation 391
(above sea level, based on North American Vertical Datum of 1988, expressed in feet).
3. Structures and improvements located in the two hundred (200)-foot stream buffer shall be limited
to those shown on the Maxwell Dock Plan, dated 10/21/2014, and a storage rack for kayaks and
canoes. There shall be no other structures, such as decking or stairs, constructed in the two
hundred (200)-foot stream buffer.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
_______________
Agenda Item No.13. PUBLIC HEARING: ZMA-2014-00004. Old Trail Village (Signs #5,&6&12).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 055E00100000A1; 055E00100000A2; 055E00100000A3;
055E00100000A4; 055E00100000A5.
LOCATION: Old Trail Drive and Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Route 250).
PROPOSAL: To amend Code of Development to add carriage houses as a use for approved
ZMA200400024 (Old Trail NMD). No change to density is proposed.
PETITION: Request to amend Code of Development for ZMA200400024 to allow carriage houses
as a use on property zoned Neighborhood Model District (NMD) which allows residential mixed
with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units/acre.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Entrance Corridor (EC); Flood Hazard (FH); Steep Slopes (SS); Scenic
Byways (SB).
PROFFERS: Yes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Greenspace; Mixed Use- residential (18 units per acre maximum),
commercial, and office uses; Neighborhood Density Residential- 3-6 units/acre; supporting uses
such as religious institutions, schools and other small scale non-residential uses; Urban Density
Residential- 6-12 units/acre; supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 23 and March 2, 2015.)
Ms. Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner, stated that this is a request to amend the code of
development and proffers to include carriage houses as an allowable use for ZMA 2014-00004. She said
that the applicant would like the opportunity to provide carriage houses within Old Trail, and the units
would be provided above the detached garages in the back of the units – which are not currently allowed
in the code of development as detached units; however, accessory apartments within an existing house
are permitted. Ms. Yaniglos said that the applicant wishes to add an addendum to the code of
development that was approved, to add carriage houses as an allowable land use. She stated that the
proffers are also being amended to allow carriage houses as an affordable unit type, and these would be
permitted in single-family residential lots only. Ms. Yaniglos presented a map of the Old Trail Village
area, noting the location of Route 250, Western Albemarle High and Brownsville Elementary, and noted
where this use would be allowed within the application plan. She said that this ZMA went to the Planning
Commission on January 13 and was approved with the condition that the applicant make some technical
and grammatical revisions to the proffers as recommended by staff. Ms. Yaniglos said that the ZMA is
consistent with the Crozet master plan, and the addition of carriage houses as an a llowable use provided
a variety of residential types. She stated that accessory units are currently an allowed use within Old
Trail Village, and this amendment would allow that use to be detached from the main unit. Ms. Yaniglos
said that staff has not identified any unfavorable factors and therefore recommended approval of ZMA
2014-00004.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board, stating that she is representing the applicant and
landowner – March Mountain Properties, LLC, the developer of Old Trail Village. She introduced Mr.
David Brockman, the development manager for Old Trail. Ms. Long presented a map depicting Old Trail
in proximity to Route 250, noting the location of the blocks that are undeveloped and will be subject to this
provision. She stated that they have held a neighborhood meeting to discuss this, which is really just a
technicality – as carriage houses are currently permitted above attached garages, but not above
detached.
Ms. Mallek stated that there is an existing trail that goes all of the way around the periphery, and
she said she is confident Old Trail will find a way to maintain it and reroute it through their green spaces.
Ms. Long said that there are several areas where the trails already exist, some of which are already
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
dedicated to the County and some that the homeowners association already own s, and Mr. Brockman
has been in frequent contact with County Parks & Rec regarding the trails.
There being no public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing, and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Ms. Mallek said that she is glad to see the application, as it will help some older people be able to
stay close to their children and grandchildren.
Mr. Sheffield said that in Belvedere, it is college students – primarily graduate students.
Ms. Mallek said that this helped old timers in other areas of the country stay in their houses, by
having students live over their garages.
Ms. McKeel said that the difference with this versus older neighborhoods is that Old Trail is being
built this way and is recognized right up front, rather than taking an older existing neighborhood and trying
to retrofit it.
Ms. Mallek said that she hopes the small size will allow these to stay affordable.
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the ordinance approving ZMA-2014-00004 for Old Trail, with the
amended Code of Development (inclusive of addendum). Mr. Sheffield seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance in full is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 15-A(1)
ZMA 2014-00004 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE – CARRIAGE HOUSES
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FOR TAX MAP AND PARCEL NUMBERS
055E0-01-00-000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-01-00-000A3, 055E0-01-00-000A4 AND 055E0-01-00-
000A5
WHEREAS, the application to amend the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 055E0 -01-
00-000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-01-00-000A3, 055E0-01-00-000A4 and 055E0-01-00-000A5,
collectively, “the Property”, is identified as ZMA 2014-00004, Old Trail Village – Carriage Houses (“ZMA
2014-00004”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Neighborhood Model District – NMD, subject to the proffers, a
code of development, and a general development plan (the “Application Plan”), all of which were adopted
on September 15, 2005 in conjunction with ZMA 2004-024; and
WHEREAS, the Property was subsequently amended by ZMA 2008-05 on November 12, 2008,
which amended the code of development and the proffers; and
WHEREAS, a number of variations to the code of development have been approved since 2005;
and
WHEREAS, ZMA 2014-00004 proposes to amend the proffers and the code of development
applicable to the Property in order to include carriage houses as an allowable use; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2015, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2014-00004, provided that technical revisions were made to the proffers,
and such revisions have since been made.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the staff report prepared for ZMA 2014-00004 and their attachments, including the proffers
revised after the Planning Commission public hearing, the information presented at the public hearing, the
material and relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284, and for the purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board hereby approves ZMA 2014 -00004
with the proffers dated February 9, 2015, and the code of development, which is hereby amended to include
the “Old Trail Village Addendum to Code of Development, Carriage Houses,” dated November 17, 2014,
and the zoning map for Tax Map and Parcel Numbers 055E0-01-00-000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-
01-00-000A3, 055E0-01-00-000A4 AND 055E0-01-00-000A5 are amended accordingly.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Application Plan, not amended by this zoning map
amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
PROFFER STATEMENT
OLD TRAIL VILLAGE
Date: February 9, 2015
ZMA #: ZMA 2014-00004 Old Trail Village Amendment #2
Tax Map Parcel Numbers: 055E0-01-00-000A1, 055E0-01-00-000A2, 055E0-01-00-000A3,
055E0-01-00-000A4, and 055E0-01-00-000A5
The Owner of the parcels identified herein above (the “Property”) is March Mountain Properties, L.L.C., a
Virginia limited liability company (the “Owner”). This Proffer Statement shall relate to the Code of
Development for Old Trail Village approved as part of ZMA 2004-024, as amended by ZMA 2014-00004,
as such Code of Development may be amended from time to time in the future in accordance with the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (the “Code of Development”), and to the Application Plan prepared by
Timmons Group entitled “Old Trail Village Rezoning ZMA 04-024 General Development Plan,” last revised
September 12, 2005, and including any previously approved amendments thereto (the “Application Plan”).
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to
rezone the Property as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers
pursuant to Section 15.2-2303 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily proffered as part of the
requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. This proffer
statement shall supersede and replace in all respects the proffer statements approved by the Board of
Supervisors in connection with ZMA 2004-024, and ZMA 2008-05. If rezoning application ZMA 2014-00004
is denied, these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect.
1. Green Space; Park Land and Greenway Dedication. The Owner shall devote a minimum of
twenty percent (20%) of the land within the Property to green space as shown on sheet 5 of 9 of the General
Development Plan. Of this green space land, within five (5) years after the date that ZMA 2004 -024 is
approved by the County, or within thirty (30) days after the request of the County, whichever is sooner, the
Owner shall dedicate to the County for public use for parks and open space resources and for a greenway,
a 25-acre park, a 10.8-acre greenway area, and a 6.7-acre greenway area, each as further shown on sheet
5 of 9 of the General Development Plan (collectively, the “Park and Greenway Area”). After it is dedicated
to public use, the Park and Greenway Area shall continue to be included in the total area of green space
and amenities within the Property. At the time of the conveyance and dedication, the Park and Greenway
Area land will be subject to the Architectural and Landscape Standards for Old Trail Village, as provided in
the Code of Development. The remaining green space land within the Property that will not be dedicated
to the County for public use shall be maintained by the Old Trail Owner’s Association. The dedication of
the Park and Greenway Area land shall be a fee simple interest in such land. If t he Park and Greenway
Area land is not dedicated as part of a site plan or subdivision plat, the Owner shall pay the costs of
surveying the land and preparing the deed of dedication. The Owner shall construct the trail through the
6.7-acre Greenway Area, as shown on sheet 5 of 9 of the General Development Plan, within six (6) months
after the approval by the County of the first subdivision plat or site plan applicable to any portion of block
30 or 31. The trail shall be constructed to the County standards for a Class A trail, with a surface of
compacted stone dust.
2. Affordable Housing. The Owner shall provide affordable housing equal to fifteen percent (15%)
of the total residential units constructed on the Property, in the form of for -sale condominiums and
townhouses, and for-rent condominiums, townhouses, apartments, “accessory units”, and “carriage units”,
as such terms are defined in paragraph 2(C)(3) below. The affordable housing dwelling units shall be
reasonably interspersed throughout the Property as provided in this paragraph 2, subject to the
requirements of the General Development Plan and the Code of Development. If the Owner elects at its
option to provide for-sale single family detached units at affordable rates (as defined herein), such units
shall be applied toward the 15% requirement. Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the
Property shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this
proffer, incorporate affordable units as described herein, and the aggregate number of such lots or units
designated for affordable units within each subdivision plat and site plan shall constitute a minimum of
fifteen percent (15%) of the lots in such subdivision plat or site plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
however, the Owner may “carry-over” or “bank” credits for affordable units in the event an individual
subdivision plat or site plan designates affordable units that in the aggregate exceed the fifteen percent
(15%) minimum for such subdivision plat or site plan, and such additional affordable units may be allocated
toward the fifteen percent (15%) minimum on any future subdivision plat or site plan, provided however,
that the maximum number of affordable units that may be carried o ver or banked shall not exceed fifteen
percent (15%) of the total units on any subdivision plat or site plan.
The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the subsequent
owners of lots within the Property. The subsequent owner/builder shall create units affordable to
households with incomes less than eighty percent (80%) of the area median income such that housing
costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not e xceed
thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income.
A. For-Sale Affordable Units. All purchases of the for-sale affordable units shall be approved by
the Albemarle County Housing Office or its designee. The subsequent owner/builder shall provide the
County or its designee a period of ninety (90) days to identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the
affordable units. The ninety (90)-day period shall commence upon written notice from the then-current
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
owner/builder that the unit(s) will be available for sale. If the County or its designee does not provide a
qualified purchase during this ninety (90)-day period, the then-current owner/builder shall have the right to
sell the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the pur chaser(s). This proffer shall apply
only to the first sale of each of the for-sale affordable units.
B. For-Rent Affordable Units.
(1). Rental Rates. The initial net rent for each for-rent affordable unit shall not exceed the
then-current and applicable maximum net rent rate approved by the County Housing Office. In each
subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for each for -rent affordable unit may be increased up to
three percent (3%). For purpose of this proffer statement, the term “net rent” means that the rent does not
include tenant-paid utilities. The requirement that the rents for such for-rent affordable units may not exceed
the maximum rent established in this paragraph 2B shall apply for a period of five (5) years following the
date the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for -rent affordable unit, or until the units
are sold as low or moderate cost units qualifying as such under either the Virginia Housing Development
Authority, Farmers Home Administration, or Housing and Urban Development, Section 8, whichever comes
first (the “Affordable Term”).
(2). Conveyance of Interest. All deeds conveying any interest in the for-rent affordable
units during the Affordable Term shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this
paragraph 2. In addition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for -rent affordable unit, or any part
there of, during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and
controls established by this paragraph 2B. At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of any interest
in any for-rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then-current owner shall notify the County in
writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone number of the potential grantee,
and state that the requirements of this paragraph 2B(2) have been satisfied.
(3). Reporting Rental Rates. During the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each
rental or lease term for each for-rent affordable unit, the then-current owner shall provide to the Albemarle
County Housing Office a copy of the rental or lease agreement for each such unit rented that shows the
rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement. In addition, during the Affordable
Term, the then-current Owner shall provide to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or
lease agreements, or other data pertaining to rental rates as the County may reasonably require.
C. Mixture of Types of Affordable Units.
(1). At least forty percent (40%) of the affordable housing dwelling units shall be for -sale
units.
(2). No more than thirty percent (30%) of the affordable housing dwelling units may be for -
rent apartments.
(3). No more than fifty percent (50%) of the affordable housing dwelling units may be
accessory units and/or carriage units. For purposes of this proffer statement, “accessory units” shall mean
Accessory Apartments as defined in the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18, Section 3.1, and as regulated
by the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 18, Section 5.1.34, and a unit within a two -family dwelling as a
two-family dwelling is defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. For the purposes of th is
proffer statement, “carriage units” shall mean any separate, independent, accessory dwelling unit detached
from, but located on the same parcel as the structure of and clearly subordinate to a single family detached
dwelling, as distinguished from a duplex or other two-family dwelling.
3. Cash Proffer for School Projects. For each dwelling unit constructed on the Property, the Owner
shall contribute cash to Albemarle County for funding school projects within the Community of Crozet and
shown on the County’s Capital Improvements Program, as follows: one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for
each single family detached unit, five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each townhouse unit, and two hundred
fifty dollars ($250.00) for each multifamily unit. The cash contribution for each dwelling unit shall be paid
at the time of the issuance of the building permit for such dwelling unit, unless the timing of the payment is
otherwise specified by state law. If the cash contribution has not been exhausted by the Count y for the
stated purposes within ten (10) years from the date of the issuance of the last residential building permit
within the Property, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
4. Cash Proffer for Park Master Plan. Within one (1) year after the date that ZMA 2004-024 is
approved, or within thirty (30) days after the request by the County, whichever is sooner, the Owner shall
make a cash contribution to the County in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for the purpose
of funding a master plan for the 25-acre park land shown on sheet 5 of 9 of the General Development Plan
(the “Park Master Plan”). If the Park Master Plan is completed for less than fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00), any remaining funds may be retained by the Co unty and used to fund parks and recreation
projects and improvements as described in paragraph 5. If such case contribution is not expended for the
Park Master Plan within two (2) years from the date of the contribution, all unexpended funds shall be
refunded to the Owner; provided that any portion of the cash contribution note required to fund the Park
Master Plan that is retained by the County as provided herein, shall be refunded to the Owner as provided
in paragraph 5 if such funds are not expended within the time provided therein. THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS PARAGRAPH FOUR HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
5. Cash Proffer for Park Projects. For each dwelling unit constructed on the Property, the Owner
shall contribute cash to Albemarle County for funding parks and r ecreation projects and improvements
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
identified on the County’s Capital Improvements Program within the Park and Greenway Area in general
accord with the Park Master Plan as available funding allows, as follows: one thousand dollars $1,000.00)
for each single family detached unit, five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each townhouse unit, and two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each multifamily unit. Notwithstanding the terms of this paragraph 5 to
the contrary, however, the Owner shall receive a “credit” against the first fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00)
that would otherwise be owed to the County pursuant to this paragraph 5, in recognition of the cash proffer
referenced in paragraph 4. In the event the cash proffer referenced in paragraph 4 is not sufficient to fund
the Park Master Plan, the County may apply a portion of the case proffer described in this paragraph 5 as
required to fully fund the Park Master Plan. If the County determines it to be a more reasonable use of
funds, the County may substitute facilities shown on the Park Master Plan or locate facilities shown on the
Park Master Plan elsewhere in the Community of Crozet. The cash contribution for each dwelling unit shall
be paid at the time of the issuance of the building permit for such d welling unit, unless the timing of the
payment is otherwise specified by state law. If the case contribution has not been exhausted by the County
for the stated purpose within ten (10) years from the date of the issuance of the last residential building
permit within the Property, all unexpended funds shall be refunded to the Owner.
6. Phasing of Retail Development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the five hundredth
(500th) dwelling unit within the Property, the aggregate retail space with in the Property shall not exceed
forty-eight thousand (48,000) square feet. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the one thousandth
(1,000th) dwelling unit within the Property, the aggregate retail space within the Property shall not exceed
ninety-six thousand (96,000) square feet. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the one thousand
five hundredth (1,500th) dwelling unit within the Property, the aggregate retail space within the Property
shall not exceed one hundred forty-four thousand (144,000) square feet. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the two thousandth (2,000th) dwelling unit with the Property, the aggregate retail space within the
Property shall not exceed one hundred ninety-two thousand (192,000) square feet. Retail space shall not
include office space or any health and fitness facility.
7. Overlot Grading Plan. The Owner shall submit an overlot grading plan meeting the requirements
of this section (hereinafter, the “Plan”) with the application for each subdivision of the single family detached
and single family attached dwelling units shown on the General Development Plan. The Plan shall show
existing and proposed topographic features to be considered in the development of the proposed
subdivision. The Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to final approval of the subdivision
plat. The subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved Plan. No certificate of occupancy shall
be issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer has determined the lot is not graded
consistent with the approved grading Plan. The Plan shall satisfy the following:
A. The Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, surface drainage, driveways, trails and
other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements
of this paragraph 7.
B. The plan shall be drawn to a scale not gre ater than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet.
C. All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet. All
concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All proposed
grading shall be shown to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from flooding of
dwellings in the event a storm sewer fails.
D. Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a
gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper
slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be appropriate by the County’s
program authority in its approval of an erosion and sedim ent control Plan for the land disturbing activity.
These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot
of vertical rise or fall (2:1), unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper
slopes have adequately addressed the impacts.
E. Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer
or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots.
F. No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one-half (1/2) acre of land
draining to it.
G. All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the rear
of the building site.
H. The Plan shall demonstrate that driveways to lots will not be steeper than twenty (20) percent
unless certified by an engineer that the driveway at the proposed steepness would be safe and convenient
for vehicles (including emergency vehicles) to use the driveway, and shall include grading transitions at the
street that the agent determines will allow passenger vehicles to avoid scraping the vehicle body on the
driveway or the street. Additionally, the driveway grading shall provide an area in front of the proposed
garage, or an area proposed for vehicle parking where no garage is proposed, that is not less than eighteen
(18) feet in length that will be graded no steeper than eight (8) percent.
I. The Plan shall demonstrate that an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if it is less
than (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street, has grades no steeper than ten (10) percent
adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also
shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
J. Any requirement of this condition may be waived by the County Engineer by submitting a waiver
request with the preliminary plat. If such a request is made, it shall include: (i) a justification for the request
contained in a certified engineer’s report; (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no
smaller than one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (iv) topography
of the property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance
of five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the
agent; (v) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; and (vi) the
proposed layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable. In reviewing a
waiver request, the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies
the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an equivalent degree. In approving a waiver, the
County Engineer shall find that requiring compliance with the requirement of this condition would not
forward the purposes of the County’s Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinances or otherwise serve the
public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the publ ic health, safety or welfare, to
the orderly development of the Project, and to the land adjacent thereto.
K. The Owner may request that the Plan be amended at any time. All amendments shall be subject
to the review and approval by the County Engineer.
L. In the event that the County adopts overlot grading regulations after the date ZMA 2004 -
024 is approved, any requirement of those regulations that is less restrictive than any requirement of this
paragraph 7 shall supersede the corresponding requirem ent of this paragraph, subject to the approval of
the Director of the Department of Community Development.
8. Construction of School Connections. The Owner shall construct the pathway connections to
the schools, shown as “Pathway Connection to Schools,” and “Road and Sidewalk Connection to Schools”
on sheet 5 of 9 of the General Development Plan, within six (6) months after the approval by the County of
the first subdivision plat or site plan applicable to any portion of a block that either includes or is adjacent
to any such connection.
WITNESS the following signature:
M ARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
By: (Signed) James L. Jessup, Jr.
Printed Name: _James L. Jessup, Jr.___
Title: _Manager____________________
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 63)
_______________
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 64)
Recess. The Board recessed at meeting at 7:49 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No.14. Evaluation of Solid Waste Alternatives Including a Transfer Station at the Ivy
Materials Utilization Center (MUC).
The executive summary forwarded to the Board staff states that over the past year, the Board has
supported the evaluation of both the near term options regarding the current transfer station facilities and
operation at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center (MUC), and the long term solid waste solutions for the
County generally. Regarding the use of Ivy MUC for near term solid waste solutions, the Board, at its
meeting on August 6, 2014, determined that it would not pursue County control of transfer station
operations at the Ivy MUC at this time, but left open the option to either work with the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority (RSWA) to close the transfer station and revert the facility to a convenience center or to
work with the RSWA to bring the transfer station into compliance with the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) regulations. The Board understands that under both options, the RSWA
owns the Ivy MUC property in its entirety and holds the VDEQ permit governing the operation of the
transfer station. The August 6, 2014 Executive Summary and background materials are attached
(Attachment A).
At its meeting on October 8, 2014, the Board approved retaining Draper Aden Associates (DAA)
and Gershman Brickner and Bratton (GBB) to address two specific questions: 1) is the Ivy MUC location
an economical place for an upgraded transfer station; and 2) what are the primary factors influencing the
determination of economic viability for this location. The resulting report, provided as Attachment B, was
received by the Board at its meeting on December 3, 2014.
At its meeting on December 10, 2014, the Board authorized staff to enter into a contract with DAA
to:
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 later than March, 2015.
This evaluation will include a review of previous studies conducted by the RSWA and the
County; and
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 will
include an environmental assessment to determine site suitability and more detailed cost
estimates for design, construction, and operations.
At its meeting on February 4, 2015, the Board directed that there be no further consideration at
this time of a transfer station at any location in the County other than at the Ivy MUC.
This iteration of an evaluation of alternative solid waste solutions is focused primarily on a more
detailed analysis of a specific site located at the Ivy MUC that has been determined to be suitable for site
development and construction of a new transfer station to replace the existing facility. In performing this
analysis and developing a conceptual plan, DAA met with RSWA staff and its environmental engineering
consultants to verify that site development and construction could occur on this site without impact
prohibitive to the current and on-going operations. The resulting report, provided as Attachment C,
includes the identification of a viable site plan and estimate of probable costs for site work and
construction of a transfer station with enhanced recycling operations and services. This option, which
includes a tipping floor, loading area and additional interior space for recycling operations, was developed
to illustrate the maximum reasonable development potential of this particular site with an emphasis on
flexibility, operational efficiency, and a more extensive recycling operation including material recovery.
This option can also accommodate a broad array of self-haul, self-sort recycling services on the Ivy MUC
property.
A second option specific to this site was first presented to the Board as part of the DAA/GBB
November 17, 2014 report (Attachment B, Figure 1). This option is addressed in the most recent report
with a conceptual building floor plan and estimate of probable costs for a basic 7,800 sq. ft. transfer
station, without enhancements. This option reflects a more modest capital investment that would allow
for continued transfer station operations under the existing permit. This option can also accommodate a
broad array of self-haul, self-sort recycling services at the Ivy MUC.
A third option, not specifically evaluated but available for consideration is the full development of
the site with only the construction of the smaller, basic transfer station. This scenario would allow fo r an
initial, targeted capital investment in a basic transfer station to replace the current transfer station
operations and still reserve opportunity to expand the building and services with additional capital
investment at any point in the future. This option would also accommodate a broad array of recycling
services at the Ivy MUC.
A companion report identified as Comparison of Alternatives is provided as Attachment D. This
report identifies specific facility scenarios and highlights major factors tha t inform the cost of construction
as well as implications for on-going operations. Because of the number and variety of alternatives
already considered by the Board for the Ivy MUC, staff views this compiled information as important
primarily as a frame of reference as part of the Board’s discussion.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 65)
Staff acknowledges that the Board has indicated its interest in the continued operation of a
transfer station at the Ivy MUC and that this decision was made, in large part, to allow the facility to
continue to receive waste from small commercial haulers. To this end, a primary determination for the
Board to make is whether to proceed with the construction of a new, permanent transfer station (basic or
expanded) at the Ivy MUC at this time, or whether to pursue another alternative, such as a canopy to
cover the existing facility and thus retain the DEQ permit for a more limited period of time. The timing of
this decision has been driven largely by a DEQ Letter of Agreement with the RSWA specifying April 1,
2015 as a hard deadline for submittal of a definitive solution to address the non-compliance of the current
Ivy facility. It is important for the Board to know that while official action has not occurred, County staff
and RSWA representatives have received verbal support from VDEQ officials regarding an extension of
the Letter of Agreement to the end of the calendar year. This extension would allow RSWA the
opportunity to evaluate and respond to the Board preferences for a transfer station at Ivy. This exte nsion
would also allow time for the completion of the work by the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory
Committee, which may inform the Board’s final determination.
As the Board is aware, the Ivy MUC is owned and operated by the RSWA and any action
regarding its utilization, including the construction and operation of any and all new facilities, must
ultimately be supported by the RSWA. Further, the most recent letter report from DAA identifies several
environmental issues that may be meaningful to the RSWA if there is to be land disturbance and new
construction at the identified new transfer station site. Finally, all identified transfer station facility
alternatives have corresponding operational impacts that will determine total one-time and on-going
costs. Before making an informed decision, the Board will need the RSWA’s professional analysis and
recommendation regarding these factors, particularly because RSWA is the property owner, holds the
DEQ permit, and currently manages the entire operation.
The impact on the budget will depend on the options selected by the Board. Based on the
information provided, it is reasonable to assume that capital costs will range from about $150,000, plus
soft costs, for the construction of a canopy to cover the existing transfer station operation; to
approximately $1.5 million, plus soft costs, for site development and construction of a basic 7,800 sf.
transfer station at the specified site; to approximately $1.75 million, plus soft costs, for site development
and construction of a basic 7,800 sf. facility with room for future expansion; to approximately $2.4 million,
plus soft costs, for site development and construction of a 15,530 sf. building with room for a transfer
station, as well as materials recovery and more extensive recycling services. It is reasonable to assume
operating costs associated with the canopy option would be similar to the cost of current RSWA
operations. However, it is impractical to estimate operating costs for the other scenarios without further
development of service assumptions for each alternative. The recommended FY16 FY20 CIP includes
$1.2 million for a project identified as Solid Waste and Recycling Solution. Staff assumes the County
would also pursue depreciation funds set aside in recent years by the RSWA to pay for construction
costs.
Staff acknowledges that the Board has determined an interest in providing a transfer station at
the Ivy MUC at least in part to allow for its continued use by small commercial haulers. Staff also
understands that in authorizing a more detailed evaluation of a specific site at the Ivy MUC, the Board has
expressed a preference for the construction of a new, permanent facility to replace the existing non -
compliant facility in order to maximize operational efficiency and potentially allow room for future
expansion. If the Board concurs with this direction, staff recommends that the identified transfer station
alternatives be submitted to the RSWA, as the property owner and permit holder, for its further evaluation
of environmental impacts so that the Board can make a more informed and actionable decision.
_____
Mr. Doug Walker, Deputy County Executive, stated that there is considerable information on this
item, and he will provide a brief overview of it. He said that this is a topic the Board has considered over
the past several months, and on December 10, the Board authorized Draper Aden to proceed with a high
level evaluation of transfer station alternatives, including a site at Ivy. Mr. Walker said that on February 4,
the Board clarified their position and wanted to limit their evaluation of transfer stations to the Ivy site only
– and Draper Aden’s report accomplished that by focusing only on the Ivy site, which is a detailed
evaluation of a specific site references as “the western site.” Mr. Walker said that their outcome identified
two primary options – one that is fully fleshed out in the report, a full build-out allowing for maximum
flexibility and maximum efficiency of the operation of the site, at a cost of about $2.4 million plus soft
costs. He stated that another option, which was originally identified in their November 2014 report, was a
transfer station only on the site, at a cost of about $1.5 million. Mr. Walker said that there is a third option
that includes doing the site work without building out the whole site, at a cost of approximately $1.7 million
plus soft costs.
He stated that the report also identified some major factors during the evaluation, and part of the
scope of work included an environmental assessment, and Draper Aden consulted with the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority’s environmental engineer in order to satisfy that requirement. Mr. Walker said that part of
this recognition is that any site development is going to disturb the land next to the landfill, and a number
of environmental considerations were given and observations were made, with the limits of waste
reasonably identified by the edge of pavement and location of bollards, but ther e is a strong
recommendation to verify those limits. He stated that landfill gas and stormwater are identified as issues
that will be addressed during construction at that site. Mr. Walker said that the groundwater impact got
some specific attention because they are unable to determine any impact until construction is complete
on that site. He stated that because the RSWA is the property-owner and the permit-holder, staff is
recommending that before additional work proceeds with work on the site, the County submit these
alternatives to the Authority for their evaluation of these factors and other possible elements of risk that
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 66)
might be associated with the development of this site. Mr. Walker said that it is assumed that the
Authority will work with the County to determine any additional technical analysis required as part of their
evaluation.
Ms. Palmer asked if the alternatives given to Rivanna will be concentrated on the western site.
Mr. Walker confirmed that it will be the three alternatives specific to the western site that are the subject of
the evaluation.
Ms. Palmer said that one of her concerns is that the more expensive option should be scaled
down, and if there is concern about the footprint, Rivanna will come back to the County for more clarity.
She stated that she had suggested to the committee that they might want to help with that, and ha s asked
the RSWA Board if they would like their help and input on what is needed, which might result in a scaled-
down version.
Mr. Boyd said that he does not necessarily feel that they should concentrate on the western side
of it, and should leave all options open for discussion.
Mr. Foley said that staff has developed some specific options with engineering data behind them,
and evaluation of site issues and conditions and potential concerns – and variations now, before they
start this process with Rivanna, will create a moving target for Tom Frederick to get the Board to give an
opinion on. He stated that the way they have developed their options is broad enough to be able to get
some good input from them about where along that spectrum they are willing to move forward, before
refining it further. Mr. Foley said that they have a good series and range of options on the table that will
allow Rivanna to provide some direction. He said they can get to a broader scope at some point, but right
now what is on the table should be adequate to give direction as to where they are willing to go or not go.
Ms. Palmer said that her point is, if they need more comment, that should be available to them
and she would like the committee to have the opportunity to provide that input.
Ms. Mallek said that the second option seems to be the one that the Board ha s discussed as
wanting Rivanna to consider, and asked if they want them to focus on something that is more than twice
as big and twice as expensive. If they are asking them to consider the second option, which is a 7,800
square foot transfer station and the ability to have all of the recycling buckets in the paved area. She
stated that throwing all of these options at them is a bit bewildering.
Mr. Walker stated that any of these options will require that the ground be cut, and that it be cut
close to the edge of waste, and it will have environmental factors associated with it – groundwater, storm
water, and the landfill gas. He said that there is a matter of degree to the extent that the site work can be
more limited, to the extent that the road alignment can be brought further away from what is currently
understood to be the edge of waste. Mr. Walker said that the smaller the site development, the lower the
impact, and bringing these alternatives all on the same site but just in matter of degrees should not cause
Rivanna a significant problem. He said that the intent is to illustrate what the maximum capacity of the
site can be, so they can do something less than that, but cannot do anything more than that.
Mr. Foley stated that is really because they do not know yet what the long-range planning
committee will propose in terms of expanding recycling and such, and the reason they went to the other
end of the spectrum is to provide a range.
Ms. Mallek said that it is so monstrous, they are sabotaging themselves by providing a much
larger option. She stated that there are so many ways to look at this, and she is just trying to keep it
simple.
Ms. Palmer stated that she is agreeing with what Ms. Mallek is saying, and she does not support
the really big option – but she does understand the inclusion of a maximum and a minimum, to give
Rivanna a platform on which to decide whether they can build on the site.
Mr. Walker noted that RSWA staff were involved in the work on the site, and in review of
materials that came out as an outcome of the study, and they provided some input in that process. He
said that there is some concern about the location of recycling facilities, but there are also some
compliments as to how much they are able to fit on the site they had to work with. He stated that it is not
a surprise to them, although it may not mean they will be satisfied with the impact it will have on that
piece of property.
Ms. Dittmar said that the idea is to go to RSWA, as the landowner and permit holder, to see
where they are weighing in on this, giving a wide range of solutions, to allow them to narrow it down.
Mr. Foley said they are all pretty much on the same page, so if the Board can trust that staff will
work that through with Rivanna it will be helpful – and if they run into problems, staff can come back to the
Board to seek more clarity.
Mr. Boyd stated that he just does not want to narrow this down to the western site.
Mr. Foley said that the existing site can be reconfigured to help meet some needs, and staff has
the consensus to work with Rivanna on alternatives and then come back to the Board.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 67)
Ms. Mallek asked if they have enough to go on in order to move forward. Mr. Boyd said that they
have had this conversation at the Rivanna Board level for many months.
Ms. Mallek said that the County has not shown them any money or anything else.
Mr. Boyd said that they are under the DEQ deadline, with the current date in May and a request
to extend it to December 31, which seem s probable.
Ms. Palmer said that they have significant amount of money in the budget for this already.
Ms. Mallek said that is a really important message to convey as part of the story to Rivanna
partners.
Mr. Boyd said that City Council will want to take this up as well.
Ms. Mallek said that it is really important not to be put off until July.
Mr. Foley said that he will make this point to the City Manager also.
_______________
Agenda Item No.15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar said that she, Ms. McKeel and Ms. Palmer will be in class with Virginia Tech, VACO,
and the Extension Office as part of a certification course – Governance in the 21st Century.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said she would also like to find out more about the long-range funding committee and
the timeframe for that. Mr. Foley said that he is going to get it started in April. The question is whether
staff will be able to bring it to the Board at their first meeting – but at a minimum, he will be talking to each
Supervisor to get their thoughts and ideas so they can start to shape something.
_____
Ms. Dittmar said that the Board members have received the books from ASAP, which has a value
of $50, and she wants to make sure they are reporting it correctly. Mr. Davis recommended that they
disclose that gift value, and that is put on Schedule E of their report, which will be due again in June.
_____
Ms. Dittmar stated that she, Ms. Palmer, Bill Letteri and Mike Culp have been meeting monthly
about broadband to ensure collaboration and communication, and at their last meeting they had
discussed the fact that they need to communicate with legislators. She said that she ha s met with
Senator Tim Kaine and took a lot of what they have talked about and turned it into slides of text. Ms.
Dittmar said that the theme of the meeting is to identify why broadband is important and where Albemarle
County is with it. She stated that each County is trying to figure this out on their own, which does not
make a lot of sense to her. Ms. Dittmar presented a slide that highlighted the areas having broadband.
Mr. Sheffield said that broadband is the backbone of commercial activity also, and if there is
broadband lacking in any part of the County, the ability to connect cellular is also lacking. He stated that
JAUNT uses tablets for dispatching, and other entities such as police and fire also ha ve communications
needs – and significant money is being spent on an ECC system that will likely be replaced by internet
technology on an 800 MHz band within the next 10 years.
Ms. McKeel said that the major topics related to broadband, as shown on Ms. Dittmar’s slide, are
education, economic development, citizen access to government and courts, pub lic safety, digital living
and healthcare.
Ms. Dittmar suggested adding a bullet under economic development related to what Mr. Sheffield
had said, adding that the emphasis of this slide is that broadband access is essential. She said that in
her meeting with Senator Kaine, they also looked at broadband as being critical to agriculture.
Ms. McKeel said that the most important point to her relate d to education is the issue of
institutionalizing poverty, because of lack of access.
Ms. Dittmar said that regarding broadband milestones, they are doing some good foundation
work, but still have a lot left to do. She said that Senator Kaine and Senator Warner both have internet-
savvy people on their staffs, and stated that they are going to meet and discuss the challenge of providing
internet in rural areas.
Ms. McKeel requested an electronic copy of this presentation.
Ms. Palmer said that she and Ms. McKeel should also share this information with the TJPDC.
Ms. Mallek asked what the next steps are, and whether they are sending a letter. Ms. Dittmar
and Ms. McKeel agreed to send them a thank -you letter, and said that the legislative liaison is very helpful
in this process.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 68)
Ms. McKeel said that it will be huge for the state if they could get some federal support for this
initiative.
_____
Continuation of Work Session: FY 2015/2016 Operating and Capital Budgets
Mr. Foley said that the public hearing will be held on April 1 for the proposed budget, so the
Board will get the reaction to the list that is yet to be finalized, and they can comment on it, and a week
later, there will be a public hearing on the tax rate. The following Tuesday, he said, the budget will need
to be adopted in order to meet tax bill deadlines, ordinances, etc. – and staff will need to schedule a work
session in order to get to the final decisions as to what needs to be incorporated in the budget. Mr. Foley
said that if they wait until April 8, the Thursday after that – April 9 – will be the only available day, as
Monday is a holiday. He noted that the tax rate for April 8 will be the one they have already approved, or
a lower rate.
Mr. Davis stated that on April 1, the budget ad also includes the proposed tax rates, so it is
standard expectation that they will get comments on April 1 on the tax rate as well as the budget; on April
8 is the special public hearing required if they are going to raise the tax rate above the lowered rate that is
advertised – so that will set the maximum rate they will adopt.
Ms. Dittmar suggested that they put a placeholder on their calendars.
Mr. Sheffield said that the Board needs to communicate the process they will follow, within the
confines of what is required by law. Any meeting held outside of April 1 or 8 will likely be the meeting
they decide what goes in and what comes out, and the public will come to the meeting wanting to know
whether the Board is going to vote yes or no on something.
Ms. Mallek suggested that Monday, April 6 will be the more effective date, because it will give
them a chance to think about things that they have heard on April 1, including the list, and it will be before
the second public hearing – and then they will have the tax rate hearing to see if any new information has
come in.
Ms. McKeel said that they will have to convey to the public what items have been changed at the
April 8 meeting.
Mr. Davis said that is the night they will be considering the wireless ordinance.
Ms. Dittmar said that it just seems like a good idea to have a placeholder for a meeting.
Mr. Sheffield said that he does not expect anything on April 1, other than people who could not
attend town hall meetings or have not sent emails yet to come out and respond to what the Board has
developed as a proposed budget. After that, he said, the Board will have another meeting to say what is
in, what is out, and what the budget would look like. Mr. Sheffield stated that whatever they built was
going to define the tax rate.
Ms. Mallek said that having the opportunity to remove or include some items at least gives them
something more concrete to react to, and she would like to have more information for people.
Board members agreed to reserve April 6, 2015 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for an additional
budget work session.
Mr. Foley said that Ms. Allshouse and Mr. Letteri will revisit the budget discussion from the
Board’s earlier conversations.
Ms. Allshouse stated that OMB staff has worked to get to one number, and one option will be for
the Board to go with Mr. Foley’s recommended budget and add $3,256,327 in revenues – which includes
the total of their maximum tax increase based on their advertised tax rate, the state revenues, use of fund
balance, and other local adjustment in revenues, along with housekeeping items as approved by the
Board. She said that they can establish an undesignated reserve in that same amount on their
expenditure line in their advertisement, and they will have the list that the Board has considered as
options. Ms. Allshouse showed the addition of the traffic safety officer positions, noting the total amount
for two positions as $313,556. She stated that there is a communication between Mr. Walker and Mr.
Kumer about the grant, and that number is updated to $125,000. She clarified that the ACE funding at
$250,000 will also be one option.
Ms. Mallek commented that she tried to do some quick information-gathering about the company
that will be running the CORR program for the jail, but it seem s to be a real rush job – and she would
rather have it come off the list and set aside for something they may want to do when they have all the
information, funded out of a contingency.
Mr. Sheffield asked if she does not think they can get the information in the next month.
Ms. Mallek said that if it is on the list, she will have to defend it at her town hall meeting tomorrow
– and the only information she has is from Google, and it is bad.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 69)
Mr. Sheffield said that no one has to defend anything on the list except what they want to support,
and he would recommend that the list be comprehensive enough that they can identify what everyone
has contributed.
Ms. Mallek said that it was OK to keep this as a master list, but in past years they have not
usually gone into the budget process with things that are this vague – and if there is procurement, it is
broad-based procurement rather than a single-source procurement.
Mr. Foley said that this is a unique situation because the item has not gone through the budget
process, and he realized that the grant had just been awarded – but even the original grant, which the
Board had reviewed almost a year ago, had some very different conditions regarding matches and other
stipulations.
Mr. Sheffield said that it was Mr. Boyd who had asked to place it on the list, so he should be the
one to weigh in on it.
Mr. Boyd explained that the Jail Board had thought this would be a sustaining grant that would
cover all of the costs of the program, but when they put it out for bids, it came back much higher – and
they took it back to a five-day program, but it still exceeds the grant.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding is that the grant offset is coming from the company as an
offset of their first year operation to get in the door.
Mr. Boyd said that it is either a federal or state grant, and is not coming from the company.
Ms. Mallek said that was not clear from Colonel Kumer’s presentation.
Mr. Boyd said that it was a five-year process to secure the grant, and the jail had to submit an
RFP in order to get a bid.
Ms. McKeel noted that they had been notified of the grant back in the fall.
Ms. Mallek said that all of the agencies had the sam e timeline to apply for funding.
Mr. Boyd stated that they have a Jail Board meeting the next day, so he will be able to get more
details at that meeting.
Mr. Sheffield said that the idea of the list is to include all of the items Board members want for
consideration, and then they can discuss whether to keep them on or not.
Ms. McKeel asked who is asking for the Municipal Band at $3,000, and Virginia Cooperative
Extension funding. She also asked if Ms. Allshouse could split the one-time and ongoing costs for the
traffic officer positions, and said that in looking at this it might be confusing for the public to see the
Meadowcreek Parkway figure.
Mr. Foley said that this will be revised significantly for public consumption, and this is more of an
internal budget list.
Mr. Sheffield asked if this is something they should include as part of the budget terminology, or
whether they want it to be on the website for people to see.
Mr. Letteri stated that he wants to make it clear that the revenue items added are in a line-item
reserve.
Mr. Foley said that a typical budget addition will not have detail on projects, but would instead
send people to the website or the office.
Mr. Sheffield said that it would also be helpful to explain what the additional $8 mi llion is funding.
Ms. Allshouse stated that they kept the recommended budget online, chapter by chapter, and
then have a list of all the changes – and does not print a whole new budget book until the Board adopts it.
Ms. Palmer said that it troubles her a bit that she has included additional hours for Yancey, and
she does not want to give the wrong impression until she has talked to them.
Mr. Sheffield said that it can be added back on.
Ms. Mallek suggested that since it is mostly about computer access, they can push the Scottsville
Library to 10 and take Yancey off which will solve the problem.
Ms. Palmer said that it does not, because the school hours for computer access are an additional
$9,700, and she needs to talk to them about this – and had just received an email from Bob
Crickenberger earlier that afternoon. She stated that she would like to take it off for now because she
does not want to send the wrong impression, but would like to have it as an ongoing item depending on
their needs; she just needs to clarify that first.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr. Foley said that if it is an ongoing need, it should get into the County’s budget process,
because it is not currently identified.
Ms. Mallek said that they had made the point last year of only funding it as a one -time item.
Mr. Foley commented that if the public information disseminated are changing, people will not be
sure what they are coming to comment on, so it will be good to get some finality to the list.
Ms. Dittmar said that the advertisement is not changing – expenditures and revenue – but until
the Board votes on April 14, they can add or subtract whatever they wish, based on input from town hall
meetings and other information.
Mr. Sheffield said that they can set an earlier deadline for themselves to add to that list, and that
can be right after April 1.
Mr. Foley asked if the whole Board is going to be comfortable with what anyone adds, regardless
of what it is.
Ms. Dittmar and Mr. Sheffield stated that they are not adding anything to the budget, they are just
contemplating items and establishing a list of items under consideration, and none of these things will be
in the advertised budget.
Mr. Davis said that the budget ad does not include any specific line items, as it is a categorical
advertisement. He stated that what will be helpful is if the Board can agree on the list that is going to be
published on the website tonight, that will stay on the website until they have the public hearing – and
they can add or subtract from the list after the public hearing. Mr. Davis said that in terms of informing the
public of the list, it needs to have some stability.
Mr. Boyd noted that he is not advocating for the $125,000, and he is the only one on the Board at
the time they were faced with putting a multi-million dollar addition onto the jail – and that is something
similar to what they are facing with the courts, where they are being mandated by other requirements. He
stated that this is what Colonel Kumer is trying to head off, and he does not know much more about it
other than the fact the jail was applying for the grant – and he was not sure how to approach the Board
about it. Mr. Boyd said that it may be a worthwhile cause, but if they d o not feel comfortable with it, they
can take it off.
Ms. Dittmar said that they do not need to discuss individual items now.
Ms. Mallek said that she would like to read the attachments from Colonel Kumer, as she has not
seen the email yet.
Mr. Sheffield said that they can make these decisions after their meeting on April 1.
Mr. Davis explained that typically, the budget public hearing – which is what they are holding on
April 1 – is held, and then seven days later the Board has always adopted the budget. He said that t his
year that schedule has changed, mostly to accommodate potential school participants in the hearing
process, because of spring break for schools. Mr. Davis said that they c an legally adopt the budget on
April 8, and their calendar said that is a possibility – but the tax rate public hearing is required to be a
separate public hearing, although traditionally it is held on the same date. He stated that this year, they
did not do that, in an attempt to accommodate the school schedule. Mr. Davis said that they can adopt
the tax rate on April 8, as there is no legal requirement to wait until after the tax rate public hearing.
Board members agreed that the list should be referred to, “Additional items for consideration by
the Board.”
Ms. Mallek said that depending on the availability of funds, a priority for her would be to start to
address the significant staff shortages in the Department of Social Services.
Ms. McKeel asked if the salary piece on the list is for schools and general government.
Ms. Mallek said that it is only for local government.
Ms. Palmer asked if they can look at this before it goes on the website.
Mr. Foley agreed that this is a better approach, and said that staff will confirm the list as well. He
suggested moving $250,000 for ACE as a separate item, as the Board has not yet decided whether they
are going to dedicate a penny to capital.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the list also includes two traffic safety officer positions, Bright Stars
expansion to 175 slots, the Legal Aid Justice Center, additional DSS positions, the Scottsville Library, the
Municipal Band, the natural resources position, the part-time 4-H program assistant, the jail grant, the
salary adjustment for general government and schools for October to January, and additional local
support for the school division.
Mr. Foley clarified that $346,000 is just to support local government advancement of that pay
amount.
March 11, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned and Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 71)
Mr. Boyd said that they also should clarify the ongoing costs of the natural resources position.
Mr. Foley said they have built in $20,000 on an ongoing basis, so it will require an additional
$50,000 to sustain it.
Ms. Allshouse said that the $20,000 will just shift over from the intern funding. She mentioned
that if they add the Bright Stars slots, there will be some offsetting state and federal revenue.
Ms. Mallek moved that the proposed FY16 County budget be advertised for public hearing.
Mr. Sheffield said that there should be a caveat that there is not a unanimous intent to spend the
additional $3.2 million in additional revenues, and is still to be explored.
Mr. Davis said that the budget ad will show a reserve line item of revenue that does not designate
that it be spent for any particular line item. He stated that the Board is required to have a legal ad for a
public hearing on a proposed budget, and hold the hearing at least seven days before they adopt the
budget. He clarified that the motion is that the Board advertise for public hearing the Board’s proposed
FY 16 operating and capital budgets.
Ms. Dittmar said that if you vote for the budget to go forward, you w ill be communicating that you
like it by voting for it. Mr. Davis said that is not necessarily the case – and they are simply asking for it to
be advertised for public hearing; it does not indicate that they will vote for or against the budget.
Ms. Mallek said that the whole point of this is that they are asking for response, and they have not
yet made decisions because they want to hear from people. She noted that this is the first time in seven
years they have done it this way, and it may have a great result – with a big turnout.
Mr. Sheffield said that they are voting to advertise the budget, not to adopt it, and it d oes not
mean that anyone is endorsing it.
Ms. Dittmar said that she did not vote in favor of the tax rate, and this seems to go along with
that, and she does not want to signal that she will vote for a budget this size.
Mr. Foley stated that they are advertising a budget for public hearing that has a tax rate in it that
supports that budget, so therefore it would seem to be consistent to vote against the budget since the tax
rate is part of the budget.
Ms. Allshouse noted that everything in the recommended budget w ill be included in the ad, plus
the additional change.
Mr. Davis said that the ad is simply the proposed budget, which is being presented after the
Board has received the County Executive’s budget and made their changes to it.
Ms. Mallek noted that it is the first round of changes.
Mr. Foley said that the Board and public understand what was done here.
Ms. Palmer seconded the motion to advertise the budget. Roll was called, and the motion
passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer and Mr. Sheffield.
NAYS: Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
Ms. Catlin confirmed that she will provide the Board a draft of a presentation that will help them to
set up a discussion about the list of items for consideration.
_______________
Agenda Item No.16. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There was no report.
_______________
Agenda Item No.17. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/07/2015
Initials: EWJ