2015-03-04March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
4, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:02 p.m. by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the agenda as presented. 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.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ms. Mallek announced that on March 6 and the two subsequent weekends, household hazardous
waste collection will occur, on Saturdays from 2-6 p.m., with those days including paints and other toxic
materials; on March 14, furniture and mattresses will be collected; appliances will be gathered March 21;
and tires will be collected on March 28.
_____
Ms. Dittmar stated that the Town of Scottsville will hold a reenactment and commemoration of the
150th year since General Sheridan blew up the canal and the railroad, and Union soldier reenactors from
West Virginia as well as Confederate reenactors are expected.
Ms. Dittmar said she had attended the Habitat for Humanity release of their economic impact
study, which has been contracted with the Weldon Cooper Center. It was a very impressive report on the
impact to local jobs, investment in the community, and general quality of living. She noted that the report
is available on Habitat’s website.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. Proclamations and Recognitions.
a. THE BIG READ 2015: “The Namesake” by Jhumpa Lahiri.
Ms. Dittmar reported that she had attended the commencement of “The Big Read,” an annual
month-long celebration held in March, where one book is selected for the entire community to read – this
year’s selection was The Namesake. She then read the following proclamation for the Board’s
consideration:
Proclamation
THE BIG READ 2015: “The Namesake”
By Jhumpa Lahiri
WHEREAS, THE BIG READ is designed to restore reading to the center of American
culture and provides our citizens with the opportunity to read and discuss a single book within our
community; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library invites all book lovers to participate
in THE BIG READ that will be held throughout March 2015. The Library's goal is to encourage all
residents of Central Virginia to read and discuss “THE NAMESAKE” by Jhumpa Lahiri; and
WHEREAS, the novel follows the Ganguli family from their traditional life in Calcutta
through their fraught transformation into Americans; and
WHEREAS, THE BIG READ is an initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts in
partnership with Arts Midwest; and is supported by the Art and Jane Hess Fund o f the Library
Endowment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Jane D. Dittmar, Chair of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, proclaim THE BIG READ during March 2015 and encourage all
residents to read ‘THE NAMESAKE” during this time.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek moved to adopt the proclamation 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. Abbey Harris of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library came before the Board and
accepted the recognition.
__________
b. Blake Abplanalp for County Coat Drive.
Ms. McKeel read a recognition for Albemarle County’s coat program, led by Blake Abplanalp,
whereby people can donate new or used clothing to the County and provide warm clothes for those who
may not have them. She stated that the program is in its second year, and the goal this year was 500
coats – with 709 coats actually received, along with 155 sweatshirts and sweaters and more than 300
other pieces of clothing. Ms. McKeel said the group made deliveries to Hinton Avenue Church clothing
closet, the Earlysville Exchange, Goodwill, Albemarle High, Monticello High, Greer Elementary, Clark
Elementary, and W alton Middle schools, for families within those schools. She stated this effort motivated
Albemarle and Monticello High School staffs to start their own clothing closets to help families within their
schools’ communities. Therefore, combined with last year’s efforts, Albemarle County employees have
donated 1,110 coats to help neighbors in the County stay warm. Ms. McKeel asked Mr. Abplanalp to
introduce the coat captains of this effort.
Mr. Blake Abplanalp stated that he appreciated the recognition, and the credit went to the County
employees – both local government and schools – who contributed to the coat drive. He said the first
volunteer coat captain was Sgt. Steven Wilkins of Albemarle County Police, and Gretchen Craybill also
served as a captain. Mr. Abplanalp noted that there were many helpful employees from County schools
as well.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Susan Kruse, of the Legal Aid Justice Center, said that the Center recently learned that its
Just Children program was recommended for zero funding, and the County’s initial review proposes cuts
to the Center’s health and civil program. Ms. Kruse stated the total of the proposed cuts to Legal Aid is
more than $11,000, and she was before them to request that the County not reduce funding for the
Center. She said they provide unique and invaluable services to Albemarle residents, helping them
defend their legal rights and strengthen civic participation on a rang e of issues critical to residents’ lives.
Ms. Kruse stated they help families overcome legal crises and help courts and other service organizations
to function better. She said the recommended funding for Legal Aid was dramatically cut, but their
program has remained the same over several years, and they believe their poor grade could be attributed
to changes in the ABRT process this year – specifically, having different people review each program’s
proposal and not doing site visits. Ms. Kruse said in retrospect, Legal Aid should have provided
additional information to ensure that each program would be as well reviewed as their unified proposal
had been in the past. She stated there is a meeting scheduled with County staff to discuss their scores
more in detail, but she also wants to point out that the center submitted an amended work plan after last
year’s proposals were not funded at the fully requested level. It appeared that the proposal was judged on
their prior goals, not the amended ones, even though they met the vast majority of goals in the amended
work plan and exceeded them in some categories. She said in the few areas where they came in short, it
was because they shifted resources to more impactful services. Ms. Kruse said the civil program , for
example, exceeded its goal of providing legal representation by 43%, but the center missed its goal of
providing legal advice by 54% - a tactical decision to focus limited resources where they would do the
most good rather than to try to hit an arbitrary goal. She stated that it would have been imprudent to turn
away meritorious cases for representation in order to give more people advice (for example, failing to
prevent an unnecessary eviction in order to advise a resident on how to document a reques t for a needed
repair). Ms. Kruse said that Legal Aid Justice Center’s clients and County residents should not be
punished when they exercise good judgment, and she hopes they will ensure that vital services to
residents remained unharmed.
__________
Ms. Bertha Durbin addressed the Board, stating that she is a 37-year resident of Albemarle
County and wants to speak about the fire prevention code fee schedule. She explained that for years,
her family has been putting on a fireworks display at their farm in the County. They have tried during
those years to be in compliance with rules and regulations , but it is becoming increasingly difficult, as
there is not one source for all of the regulations in terms of applying and putting on a display. Ms. Durbin
said she would like to see a list of all the rules and regulations so that people know up front when they
apply for a permit that they can be in compliance. She stated, by having such a document with the rules
and regulations included, it would cut down on the applications filed that are not in compliance, and cut
administrative costs in a lot of ways. Ms. Durbin offered to serve on any committee formed to do research
and put together such a document, in conjunction with the Fire Marshal.
__________
Mr. Michael Durbin addressed the Board, stating that he puts on the show at his parents’ farm in
Free Union, although he is a City resident, and expressed his opposition to the proposed 700% increase
in the fireworks permit fee. Mr. Durbin said that the fee and its associated process applies to a huge
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
variety of so-called “displays,” with no accounting for scale or risk, public or private status, profit or non-
profit, and even if there is no audience. He stated that the proposal is written to treat the smallest
backyard show the same as it treats the largest municipal shows. Mr. Durbin said the proposed fee
seems excessive to him, as it is four times higher than the most expensive locality’s fee, and even
exceeds the most expensive places such as Fairfax County b y a significant margin. He stated that the
City of Charlottesville charges nothing for the permits, and Rockingham County charges $160. Mr.
Durbin said whenever he asked why Albemarle should have such a uniquely expensive fireworks display
permit fee, the reference is always to a well-publicized dispute between neighbors in the Greenwood
area. He stated if someone is not complying with the state fire code, they can probably be stopped for
less than $600. If no laws are being broken, then hiking up the fee as a punitive measure seem s
inappropriate. He stated it is likely to be ineffective since those people can probably afford that fee, and
may result in significant collateral damage. Mr. Durbin stated they can all agree that the community’s
safety should guide the actions of the Board and the Fire Marshal’s office. As such, it would seem
important to have a process and a fee that is proportionate and encourages willing participation. He said
he has a great number of suggestions to decrease the costs as sociated with administering fireworks
display permits, while ensuring or encouraging greater safety in the operation of the displays, and he ha s
shared some of these in emails as well as in public forum. Mr. Durbin asked the Board to remove or
postpone that particular increase from the proposed fee schedule, until some of the concerns he has
raised have been addressed.
__________
Mr. Jeff Werner addressed the Board, presenting photos of the Rio Road and Fashion Square
area that shows erroneous “before and after” images that are being circulated by opponents of the Route
29 Solutions and Rio Interchange Project. Mr. Werner said the Board is doing the right thing by investing
money in transportation improvements in the corridor, and the most important thing for the County to do
to assist the community and businesses is to help get information out, coordinate with VDOT, let people
know about delays and detours, and inform people of accesses to businesses. He stated that the
communication in this process is critical, but it is another matter for the County to get involved with
businesses on marketing and financial planning.
__________
Mr. Neil Williamson, of the Free Enterprise Forum, said that he did not mean to spread
misinformation with the photos he is circulating. He stated that it is important for the County to consider
what they want to do to help businesses survive and thrive. Mr. Williamson said that when you are
drowning, you appreciate being thrown a flotation device or a rope, and emphasized that t his is not a
mess of the businesses’ making. He stated that one item that was not as strongly noted in the
businesses assistance documents was the summary addressing regulatory relief . He commended staff
for coming forward with the signs proposal, and feels it is timely as it is critical to take care of those
businesses. Mr. Williamson said this is an opportunity for the County to shape what the community looks
like, and he referred to grants available for facades to make buildings look better. He stated that one of
the things that staff is seeking from the Board is direction as to what they are willing to do to help
preserve businesses. Mr. Williamson said that he was at the ARB meeting on Monday, and significant
challenges are coming forward with the CVS, and regulatory relief could provide some opportunity to
make that work better. He stated that the question still remains as to whether the Rio ramp is an
Entrance Corridor.
__________
There were no further public comments, so the Chair closed the matters from the public portion of
the meeting.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. Consent Agenda.
(Discussions: Regarding Item 8.1, Ms. Palmer said that she needed to pull all her assigned
minutes except for March.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he had read his assigned minutes.
Ms. McKeel stated that she is approving her October 30 minutes and pulling her July 2 minutes.
Ms. Mallek said that she is pulling her October 29 and September 3 meetings.
Mr. Boyd said that he needs to pull his minutes.
Ms. Dittmar said that she needs to pull all of her minutes.
_____
Regarding Item 8.3, Ms. Palmer said she does not want to pull this item from the agenda, but she
wants to say a few words about it. She stated that the Hedgerow land is 350 acres, about a mile from the
UVA campus at the I-64/Route 29 intersection south of town, and it abuts 900 acres owned by the City,
which houses the new Ragged Mountain Reservoir. Ms. Palmer said when she looked at the County’s
budget for next year, she did not see anything that would open this park and move it forward with a
master plan – so she came to the Board and asked them to put in some matching funds. She stated that
since that time, she has contacted Parks & Rec Director Bob Crickenberger, and he responded via email.
Ms. Palmer read from Mr. Crickenberger’s email: “The current parks budget includes working with our
stakeholders, using a Bioblitz trail master design. Design identification could occur before the park is
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
open, and could begin as early as fall 201 5. Through this process, the trail master planning can be
accomplished at no cost by experienced staff, volunteers, user groups, and preservation and
conservation stakeholders. We were very successful with this practice at Byrom and Preddy Creek,
collecting more than 1,700 hours of volunteer assistance at Preddy alone. This process allows for the
community engagement participation, ownership, stewardship, and by performing this process sooner,
the trails can be on the ground, and it does not conflict with the developer or the work zone during the
development of facility infrastructure.” Ms. Palmer said that she d oes not need to ask for matching funds
now, and after all of the volunteer work is done, she will be asking the Board to put some money in the
budget in future years to open up the park. She stated that she has asked Ms. McKeel and Mr. Sheffield
as the County’s PAC representatives to bring this up there, because the site is close to UVA and has lots
of historic ties including connections with Edg ar Allan Poe. Ms. Palmer said she has asked Dan Mahon,
the County’s outdoor recreation supervisor and a great volunteer motivator, and he indicated he w ould be
happy to go to the PAC meeting and do a presentation.
_____
Ms. McKeel then moved to approve Items 8.1 (as read) through 8.4 on the Consent Agenda. 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.
__________
Item No. 8.1. Approval of Minutes: March 5, April 2, June 4, July 2, July 8, July 9, August 6,
August 13, August 26, September 3, September 9, September 10, October 7, October 29, October 30,
and December 16, 2014.
Ms. Palmer had read the minutes of March 5, 2014, pages 93 (begin #23) – end, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Sheffield had read the minutes of August 6, 2014 and found them to be in order.
Ms. McKeel had read the minutes of July 2 and October 30, 2014 and found them to be in order.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the minutes as read and carried forward
the remaining minutes to the next meeting.
__________
Item No. 8.2. FY 2015 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
The executive summary states that Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may
amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in
the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the
total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a
notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies
to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 15 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $211,215.28. A
budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations
does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. Mission: To enhance the well-being and
quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with t he
prudent use of public funds.
This request involves the approval of nine (9) appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2015078) to appropriate $159,228.90 for various school division
programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2015079) to appropriate $6,750.00 from the training pool account
to various departments for training and professional development. This appropriation will
not increase the total County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015080) that transfers $57,564.94 from the Family Support
Fund to the General Fund, reducing the planned use of General Fund fund balance. The
appropriation will not increase the County Budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015081) to re-appropriate $267.00 from Federal revenue
received for a Fire Rescue smoke detector grant;
One (1) appropriation (#2015082) to appropriate $8,033.38 in donations to the
Department of Fire Rescue;
One (1) appropriation (#2015083) to appropriate $55,000.00 from the Reserve for
Contingencies to the Department of Fire Rescue for system-wide pager replacements.
This appropriation will not increase the tot al County budget;
One (1) appropriation (#2015084) to appropriate $10,086.00 for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program;
One (1) appropriation (#2015085) to appropriate $210,000.00 from the Reserve for
Contingencies to Refunds. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget;
and
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
One (1) appropriation (#2015086) to appropriate $33,600.00 from State Revenue
received for a Department of Conservation and Recreation grant.
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2015078, #2015079, #2015080, #2015081,
#2015082, #2015083 #2015084, #2015085, and #2015086 for general government and school division
programs and projects as described in Attachment A.
*****
Appropriation #2015078 $159,228.90
Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $ 18,120.40
State Revenue $ 120,000.00
Shannon Grant Fund Balance $ 21,108.50
This request is to appropriate the School Division appropriation request approved by the School Board on
January 8, 2015:
National Board Certification – This request is to appropriate $120,000.00 in State funding for
National Board Certification. National Board Certification is an extensive year -long assessment of
actual teaching practice based upon high and rigorous standards established by the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards. This funding will provide stipends to 35 teachers who have
completed the process and are eligible for the stipend award.
Club Yancey Program – This request is to appropriate $6,215.00 in tuition, fundraisers, and
donations to cover operating expenses of the Club Yancey Program.
This request is to appropriate the School Division appropriation request approved by the School Board on
January 22, 2015:
Shannon Foundation for Excellence – This request is to appropriate $7,661.00 in Shannon Grant
funding and to re-appropriate $21,108.50 in remaining Shannon Grant fund balance from FY 14.
The mission of the Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education is to award teachers of
all grade levels and subject areas with funds to support individual projects through an annual grant
process in support of the Division’s strategic plan.
Contributions – This request is to appropriate $4,244.40 in funding from the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc. for field trips to Monticello.
Appropriation #2015079 $0.00
This appropriation will not increase the County budget.
Source: Training Pool $ 6,750.00
This request is to appropriate $6,750.00 from the Training Pool to various departments for approved training
opportunities and professional development. The current budgeted amount in the training pool is
$26,702.00. After this appropriation, $19,952.00 will remain in the Training Pool.
Appropriation #2015080 $0.00
The appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Family Support Fund Fund Balance $ 57,564.94
General Fund Fund Balance $ (57,564.94)
This request is to appropriate and transfer $57,564.94 from the fund balance in the Family Support Fund.
The Family Support Program provides prevention and intervention services that support ch ildren’s growth
and development, strengthens families, and promotes school success through home, school, and
community collaboration. The Fund was initially set up as a separate Fund, but is no longer required to be
separated, as the Program is now budgeted in the General Fund. This will reduce the planned use of
General Fund fund balance in FY15 by the same amount.
Appropriation #2015081 $267.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 267.00
This request is to re-appropriate $267.00 from the FY14 Fire Rescue smoke detector grant to fund eligible
expenses in FY 15.
Appropriation #2015082 $8,033.38
Source: Donations $ 4,461.00
Donations Fund fund balance $ 3,572.38
This request is to appropriate $8,033.38 from the Fire Rescue Donations Fund to the Department of Fire
Rescue. These donations support various efforts, including the car safety seat program, public education
and one-time equipment or station furnishing purchases.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Appropriation #2015083 $0.00
The appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 55,000.00
This request is to appropriate $55,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Fire
Rescue for fire rescue system-wide pager replacements. In 2010, the region replaced th e fire rescue paging
system, including the pagers carried by personnel to be notified of an emergency incident. Those pagers,
now well outside the warranty period, have experienced problems that the original vendor has been unable
to correct, and volunteer stations have reported inoperable pagers and members not receiving alerts
reliably. A new vendor has been identified and, based on testing, the requested replacement pagers have
proven to be reliable.
Appropriation #2015084 $10,086.00
Source: Federal Revenue $ 10,086.00
This request is to appropriate a $10,086.00 reimbursement from the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program (SCAAP). SCAAP reimburses localities for compensation expenses incurred for correctional
officers who supervise aliens in local and regional jail facilities. Program revenues received from the State
are appropriated from the locality’s General Fund to the correctional facility (Albemarle Charlottesville
Regional Jail) to reimburse the jail for qualifying expenses incurred.
Ap propriation #2015085 $0.00
The appropriation will not increase the County Budget.
Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 210,000.00
This request is to appropriate $210,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to Refunds for tax
overpayment refunds based on anticipated expenditures in FY15.
Appropriation #2015086 $33,600.00
Source: State Revenue $ 33,600.00
Borrowed Proceeds $ -70,230.00
Water Resources Tax Revenue $ 70,230.00
This request is to appropriate $33,600.00 in State revenue from a Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) grant and $70,230.00 in Water Resources Dedicated Real Estate Tax Revenue for a
total appropriation of $103,830.00 to perform dam break an alyses and flood inundation mapping for three
of the County’s dams. This appropriation will also reduce the Hollymead Dam Spillway Improvement project
by $70,230.00 and the equivalent in borrowed proceeds for a total net increase to the County budget of
$33,600.00. The engineering cost for the Hollymead Dam Spillway Improvement project is less than
originally estimated.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved Appropriations #2015078, #2015079,
#2015080, #2015081, #2015082, #2015083 #2015084, #20 15085, and #2015086 for general
government and school division programs and projects as set out below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
APP# ACCOUNT AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
2015078 3-2000-62000-324000-240218-6599 120000.00 SA2015078 National Board Certification Bonuses
2015078 3-2000-62000-318100-181109-6599 4244.40 SA2015078 Contributions
2015078 4-2000-62100-461101-160120-6199 37157.45 SA2015078 National Certification – Elementary
2015078 4-2000-62100-461101-210000-6199 2842.55 SA2015078 Natl. Cert. FICA – Elementary
2015078 4-2000-62100-461101-160120-6299 37157.45 SA2015078 National Certification – Middle
2015078 4-2000-62100-461101-210000-6299 2842.55 SA2015078 Natl. Cert. FICA – Middle
2015078 4-2000-62100-461101-160120-6399 37157.45 SA2015078 National Certification – High
2015078 4-2000-62100-461101-210000-6399 2842.55 SA2015078 Natl. Cert. FICA – High
2015078 4-2000-62111-461311-137100-6501 3170.85 SA2015078 PT Bus Driver
2015078 4-2000-62111-461311-210000-6501 242.59 SA2015078 FICA
2015078 4-2000-62111-461311-420100-6501 830.96 SA2015078 Field Trip Mileage
2015078 3-3157-63157-318000-181254-6599 5515.00 SA2015078 Club Yancey-Donations
2015078 3-3157-63157-318000-181284-6599 700.00 SA2015078 Club Yancey-Tuition
2015078 4-3157-63157-460000-111400-6113 4752.00 SA2015078 Salaries-Other Management
2015078 4-3157-63157-460213-210000-6113 363.00 SA2015078 FICA
2015078 4-3157-63157-460000-221000-6113 500.00 SA2015078 VRS
2015078 4-3157-63157-460213-231000-6113 500.00 SA2015078 Health Insurance
2015078 4-3157-63157-460213-232000-6113 50.00 SA2015078 Dental Insurance
2015078 4-3157-63157-460000-241000-6113 50.00 SA2015078 VRS Group Life
2015078 3-3502-63502-351000-510100-6599 21108.50 SA2015078 Shannon Grant Fund Balance
2015078 3-3502-63502-318000-181223-6599 7661.00 SA2015078 Shannon Grant
2015078 4-3502-63502-460606-601300-6599 28769.50 SA2015078 Ed & Rec Supplies
2015079 4-1000-12040-412040-550100-1001 750.00 SA2015079 Training Pool Distribution
2015079 4-1000-81021-481020-550100-1008 6000.00 SA2015079 Training Pool Distribution
2015079 4-1000-99900-499000-999984-9999 -6750.00 SA2015079 3rd Qtr Distribution
2015080 3-1000-51000-351000-510100-9999 -57564.94 SA2015080 App fund balance
2015080 3-1000-51000-351000-512077-9999 57564.94 SA2015080 Transfer from Family Support Fund #1557
2015080 3-1557-51000-351000-510100-9999 57564.94 SA2015080 App fund balance
2015080 4-1557-53150-453010-930009-1005 57564.94 SA2015080 Transfer to General Fund
2015081 3-1576-51000-351000-510100-9999 267.00 SA2015081 Reappropriation of fund balance
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
2015081 4-1576-31092-432010-800100-1003 267.00 SA2015081 FEMA Training Grant balance
2015082 3-1000-51000-351000-512008-9999 8033.38 SA2015082 Trs. From Contribution Fund
2015082 4-1000-32015-432010-561415-1003 3000.00 SA2015082 Car Seat Program
2015082 4-1000-32015-432010-600000-1003 1000.00 SA2015082 hazmat & safety items
2015082 4-1000-32013-432010-350000-1003 1100.00 SA2015082 Burn Law Brochures
2015082 4-1000-32013-432010-601300-1003 933.38 SA2015082 Public Education Supplies
2015082 4-1000-32011-432010-600200-1003 2000.00 SA2015082 Promotions/awards ceremony
2015082 3-8405-18000-318000-181114-9999 4461.00 SA2015082 Donations-Fire Rescue
2015082 3-8405-51000-351000-510100-9999 3572.38 SA2015082 App Fund Balance
2015082 4-8405-93010-493010-930009-9999 8033.38 SA2015082 Trs to General Fund
2015083 4-1000-32015-432010-331601-1003 55000.00 SA2015083 R&M-RADIO EQUIP - pager replacement
2015083 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -55000.00 SA2015083 Reserve for Contingencies
2015084 3-1000-33000-333000-330085-1003 10086.00 SA2015084 DOJ - SCAAP Funds
2015084 4-1000-33020-433020-700002-1003 10086.00 SA2015084 SCAAP
2015085 4-1000-92010-492010-580301-9999 210000.00 SA2015085 Refunds
2015085 4-1000-99900-499000-999990-9999 -210000.00 SA2015085 Reserve for Contingencies
2015086 3-9100-24000-324000-240049-9999 33600.00 SA2015086 State-Dam Safety Grant
2015086 3-9100-51000-351000-512050-9999 70230.00 SA2015086 Water Resources Rev To Dam Break Study
2015086 3-9100-41400-341000-410500-9999 -70230.00 SA2015086 Borrowed Proceeds for Hollymead Dam Spillway
2015086 4-9100-82059-482040-312350-9999 -70230.00 SA2015086 Hollymead Dam Spillway to Dam Break Study
2015086 4-9100-82045-482040-800975-9999 103830.00 SA2015086 Dam Break Study
2015086 4-1650-93010-493010-930202-9999 70230.00 SA2015086 Water Resources Rev to CIP Dam Break Study
2015086 4-1650-99900-499000-999999-9999 -70230.00 SA2015086 Water Resources Rev to CIP Dam Break Study
TOTAL 553,627.20
__________
Item No. 8.3. Hedgerow Property Acquisition.
The executive summary states that the Hedgerow Property (See Attachment A) is a 340-acre
tract located on the west side of US Route 29 near Interstate 64. It is adjacent to the 980- acre Ragged
Mountain Natural Area, a natural area owned by the City of Charlottesville that buffers the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir, one of six drinking water impoundments in Albemarle County.
The Hedgerow Corporation conveyed the property to The Nature Conservanc y by deed of gift
dated December 29, 2006. It had always been the wishes of the prior owners that the property be gifted
to the County for a park to be used by the general public for outdoor recreation. The Nature Conservancy
has agreed to convey this Property to the County subject to the terms of the Deed of Gift and
Conservation Easement (Attachment B). The Conservation Easement allows for the necessary
infrastructure and site furnishings such as hiking, running and biking trails, an access road, a parki ng
area, a kiosk/information center, small shelters, an accessory building, and restrooms.
Access to the property would be directly off of US Route 29. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has determined the existing entrance and necessary site distance is in compliance with its
Commercial Entrance Standards.
The Hedgerow Property is proposed to be designed and developed as a multi-use trail park and
will provide a variety of recreational opportunities. The park will be kept in its predominantly natural forest
state to protect habitat and water quality, preserving the scenic and open-space resources adjacent to the
Ragged Mountain Reservoir property. Access through Hedgerow will allow direct access to the unused
portion of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir property, and the addition of trails on the Hedgerow property to
the currently unused portion of the Ragged Mountain property will compensate for land and trails flooded
during the elevation change of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir dam. Once completed , it is envisioned
that both properties will operate as one park through close coordination between the City and County
Parks and Recreation Departments.
Parks and Recreation staff has recognized a keen interest of many area preservation and
conservation stakeholders to assist in natural resource identification and preservation, as well as
management and maintenance support of the property. These stakeholders will also serve as an advisory
group during the master planning process.
No funding is currently programmed or available to make any of the proposed park
improvements. Parks and Recreation requested that funding be provided in FY 17, at an estimated
development cost of $450,000, including design/master planning and PM fees. However, funding for
this project is not recommended in any year of the proposed CIP. Once opened, the park is
estimated to have an annual operating cost of $65,000, including annual personnel and maintenance
costs. Until then, no immediate budget impact is expected for this park. Unlike the earlier Byrom and
Arrowhead parks, the Hedgerow property is basically undeveloped, with no network of
existing/established trails and roads to maintain. Until the property is improved and opened as a
public park, a large group of enthusiastic stakeholders will assist staff in identifying/inventorying its
nature resources, trail locations/routes and points of interest. Therefore, staff does not anticipate any
significant budget impacts, such as those identified for Byrom and Arrowhead properties, until the
Hedgerow property is improved and opened to the public.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) to approve the
County’s acquisition of the property and to authorize the County Executive to sign all documents
necessary for this conveyance once (a) these documents have been approved as to form and substance
by the County Attorney and (b) the use of the property as a public park has been determined to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following resolution to approve the
County’s acquisition of the property and authorized the County Executive to sign all documents
necessary for this conveyance once (a) these documents have been approved as to form and
substance by the County Attorney and (b) the use of the property as a public park has been
determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF HEDGEROW PROPERTY
LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE RAGGED MOUNTAIN NATURAL AREA
(TMPs 75-2C, 75-2C1, 75-2D, 75-11, 75-46, 75-47, and 75-64)
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to accept certain properties within the County by gift
from The Nature Conservancy for the purpose of providing a public park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the acceptance of the property located on Tax Map Parcels 75-2C, 75-2C1, 75-2D, 75-11, 75-46,
75-47, and 75-64 in the County subject to a finding that the property’s proposed use as a public park is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and further authorizes the County Executive to execute all
necessary documents in a form approved by the County Attorney that are necessary for completing the
acquisition of the property.
*****
This document was prepared by:
George W. Barlow, III, Division Attorney
VSB #29008
The Nature Conservancy
490 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Tax Map Parcel: 75-2C, 2C1, 2D, 11, 46, 47, 64
Title Insurer:
DEED OF GIFT AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT
This DEED OF GIFT AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT, exempt from all recordation taxes
pursuant to Virginia Code §§58.1-811(A)(3), (D) and (F), and from the payment of Clerk’s fee pursuant to
Virginia Code §17.1-266, is made on this _____ day of February, 2015, by and between THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation, (“Conservancy”), index as grantor and
grantee, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, with an address of 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (“Grantee”), index as grantor
and grantee.
W I T N E S S E T H:
Conservancy owns all those certain tracts or parcels of land, together with the improvements
thereon and all rights, privileges, appurtenances, easements and rights of way thereunto belonging or in
anywise appertaining, situate in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia, more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”).
The Property is a natural habitat of fish, wildlife, plants and ecological communities. The specific
conservation values of the Property are set forth in a Conservation Easement Baseline Documentation Report
(the “Baseline Report”) of even date herewith, prepared by the Conservancy and signed and acknowledged
by the Grantee. Conservancy and Grantee have the common desire and purpose to protect the conservation
values of the Property described in the Baseline Report and wish to create a conservation easement in favor
of Conservancy. The Commonwealth of Virginia has authorized the creation of conservation easements
pursuant to the Virginia Conservation Easement Act, Virginia Code § 10.1-1009 et seq. (the “Act”), and the
Conservancy and Grantee wish to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act. The conservation values
of the Property are further described below:
A. Conservancy and Grantee have the common purpose of conserving in perpetuity the Property’s
conservation values as natural habitat in the public interest.
B. As required under §10.1-1010(E) of the Act, the use of the Property for open space land conforms
to the County of Albemarle Comprehensive Plan 1996-2016 (the “Comprehensive Plan”), as more
particularly set forth in this Paragraph. The Open Space Resources section of the Comprehensive
Plan identifies as its primary goal the protection of “the County’s natural, scenic, and historic
resources in the Rural Area and Development Areas” (p. 7). The Rural Areas Plan of the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan adopted on March 2, 2005, states in its Introduction that: “Agricultural
and forestal resources have been identified as the most critical County resources and the desired
primary land use in the Rural Areas. Such uses play an important and long-standing role in the
environment, heritage, and economy of the County. Loss of these resources to development is
irreversible and irreplaceable. Stewardship of these resources also provides an opportunity to
conserve and efficiently use other resources such as: (1) water resources (with use of property
conservation techniques); (2) natural, scenic, and historic resources with the maintenance of
pasture land, farmland, and forested areas; and (3) fiscal resources by limiting development and
lessening the need to provide public services to wide areas of the County”; and
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
The Rural Areas Plan in its section titled “Guiding Principles for the Rural Areas” states the
following “defining principles”:
“i) Agriculture - Protect Albemarle County’s agricultural lands as a resource base for
its agricultural industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the
County’s rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health.
ii) Forestry resources - Protect Albemarle County’s forests as a resource base for its
forestry industries and watershed protection.
iii) Land Preservation - Permanently preserve and protect Albemarle County’s rural
land as an essential and finite resource through public ownership or through
conservation easements.
iv) Land Conservation - Protect Albemarle County’s rural land through planned
management of open spaces to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
v) Water supply resources - Protect the quality and supply of surface water and
groundwater resources.
vi) Natural resources - Preserve and manage the Rural Areas’ natural resources in
order to protect the environment and conserve resources for future use.
vii) Scenic resources - Preserve the County’s rural scenic resources as being essential
to the County’s character, economic vitality, and quality of life.
viii) Historical, archeological and cultural resources - Protect the Rural Areas’ historic,
archeological and cultural resources.”
The Rural Areas Plan further notes in its section titled “Land Preservation or Voluntary Land
Conservation” that: “Some landowners are willing to donate easements that protect important
resources by eliminating development potential. The Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other
organizations hold such easements.”
C. This Conservation Easement protects the Rivanna River and the Chesapeake Bay by, among other
things, restricting development, construction, and timbering activities on the Property, thus
preventing excessive degradation of aquatic habitat. In particular, this Conservation Easement
protects the habitat for aquatic species by (i) prohibiting timbering, thus protecting riparian forest
buffers along tributaries to Moore’s Creek, which buffer and traps sediments, filter run-off, prevent
streambank erosion, and generally protect and enhance w ater quality, and (ii) preventing certain
development and uses of the Property, such as the creation of excessive impervious surfaces on
the Property, that would increase runoff and pollution and materially impair the habitat for aquatic
species in the Rivanna River and the Chesapeake Bay.
D. The Property is adjacent to the 980-acre Ragged Mountain Natural Area, a natural area owned by
the City of Charlottesville to buffer the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, one of Albemarle County’s six
surface drinking water impoundments. Ragged Mountain Natural Area is open to the general public
for hiking, fishing, and observing wildlife. The Conservation Easement will protect scenic and open -
space resources adjacent to Ragged Mountain Natural Area, and will allow for recreational uses of
the Property in the form of hiking trails open to the public.
E. The Property was conveyed to the Conservancy by deed of gift dated December 29, 2006 of record
in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in D eed Book 3346, Page
488 (the “Deed of Gift”), for the purpose of substantial and regular use by the general public for
outdoor recreation, including but not limited to the intended us of hiking trails, and consistent with
that purpose shall be kept in its predominantly natural, forested state to protect habitat and water
quality. This conveyance of the Property is subject to the terms of the Deed of Gift, including the
reservation of a qualified mineral interest therein.
F. The characteristics and condition of the Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement, the
Property’s current uses, and the current state of improvements on the Property are described in
the Report. Grantor and Conservancy hereby acknowledge that the Report is a complete and
accurate representation of the Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement. The Report
will be used by Conservancy and Grantee to assure that any future changes in the use of the
Property will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement. However, the Report is
not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to establish the present condition of the Property
if there is a controversy over its use.
NOW, THEREFORE, Conservancy does hereby grant and convey unto Grantee the Propert y with
special warranty of title, subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record, including without
limitation the hereinafter described conservation easement (the “Conservation Easement”) reserved and
retained in perpetuity by Conservancy.
FURTHERMORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals incorporated herein and made
a part hereof and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein and their acceptance by Conservancy,
Grantee does hereby grant and convey to Conservancy the Conservation Easement in gross over, and the
right in perpetuity to restrict the use of, the Property of the nature and character as follows:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to ensure that the Property will be
retained forever predominantly in its natural and scenic condition; for substantial and regular use by the
general public for outdoor recreation; to protect native plants, animals, or plant communities on the
Property; to allow the general public access to hiking trails; to pre vent any use of the Property that will
significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Property described above, while allowing
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
for traditional uses on the Property that are compatible with and not destructive of the conservation valu es
of the Property, such as trail maintenance, trail construction, and hiking.
The Grantee may not transfer or convey the Property to any other party unless the Grantee
conditions such transfer or conveyance on the requirements that (a) all restrictions and conservation
purposes set forth in the Deed of Gift are to be continued in perpetuity, and (b) the transferee is an
organization then qualifying as an eligible donee as defined by §170(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 as amended, and the applicable Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the “IRC”).
Grantee will not perform, nor knowingly allow others to perform, any act on or affecting the Property
that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. However, unless otherwise specified
below, nothing in this Conservation Easement shall require the Grantee to take any action to restore the
condition of the Property after any act of God or other event over which Grantee had no control. Grantee
understands that nothing in this Conservation Easement relieves it of any obligation or restriction on the
use of the Property imposed by law.
2. PROPERTY USES. Any activity on or use of the Property inconsistent with the terms and purposes
of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following
is a listing of activities and uses which are expressly prohibited or which are expressly allowed. Additional
rights of Grantee are set forth in Paragraph 3 below.
2.1 Subdivision. The Property may not be divided, subdivided or partitioned, nor conveyed or pledged
for a debt except in its current configuration as an entity.
2.2 Recreational Uses. Grantee shall have the right to engage in and permit others to engage in
recreational uses of the Property (such as hiking, biking, and horseback riding) that require no
surface alteration or other development of the land other than minor grading for trail construction.
All such recreational uses shall be conducted in a manner that does not degrade water quality in
the streams on the Property. If such uses are found by the Conservancy to degrade water quality,
such use may be prohibited until measures are implemented, as approved by the Conservancy, to
alleviate such degradation to water quality. Recreational uses involving motorized transportation
are prohibited. Motorized transportation shall be allowed: (a) in designated parking areas, (b) for
emergency or maintenance purposes, and (c) as required for compliance with applicable state a nd
federal laws.
2.3 Improvements. There shall be no construction of buildings used for commercial or residential
purposes. With written notice to the Conservancy as set forth below, Grantee shall have the right
to construct the following improvements that are associated with permitted recreational uses
described in Paragraph 2.2:
(a) entrance road, associated stream crossing, parking lot and trailhead facility, provided that
such improvements are constructed in accordance with local, state and federal laws. All routes of
travel, stream crossings, walkways, and footbridges beyond the trailhead and within the Property
shall be no more than fifteen (15) feet in width. The total square footage of paved surfaces shall
not exceed forty-seven thousand (47,000) square feet.
(b) public buildings (such as a building for environmental education purposes), sheds,
accessory buildings, and lavatory facilities to provide needed services for the permitted uses. Such
public buildings, sheds, accessory buildings, and lavatory facilities may not be used as dwelling
units. The total square footage of impermeable surfaces created by all public buildings, sheds,
accessory buildings, and lavatory facilities is not to exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
(c) Conservancy’s Consent. Prior to beginning construction of allowed improvements Grantee
shall submit site plans to the Conservancy for its review. The plans shall be sufficiently detailed to
allow the Conservancy to fully evaluate the construction’s conformance to this Conservation
Easement. No construction of the improvements may take place until the Conservancy reviews
and approves the plans. The plans will be deemed approved unless the Conservancy objects in
writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of complete plans, setting forth with specificity the
Conservancy’s grounds for objections. Conservancy agrees that if the new construction is
consistent with the terms and provisions of this Conservation Easement, Conservancy’s approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(d) Prohibition of Other Construction. No other structures or improvements may be placed or
constructed on the Property except as expressly permitted by this Conservation Easement.
Furthermore, there shall be no constructing or placing of any airplane landing strip on the Property.
(e) Utilities. Grantee may construct or install utility lines, poles, pipelines and conduits
necessary to serve the Property’s improvements. Unless such utilities are placed on or over the
Property under eminent domain proceedings or the threat thereof, Grantor may not consent to the
construction or placement of utilities on the Property that serve entities and/or users located off the
Property (a communications tower or wind turbine for example) without the prior written consent of
the Grantee. Such consent shall only be granted if their construction or placement would not
deleteriously impact the conservation values of the Property or would produce a smaller impact
than if those utilities were located on an adjoining or nearby property.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
2.4 Existing Improvements. Grantee shall have the right to maintain, remodel, and repair existing
structures, water tanks, fences, water wells, dams, lakes, ponds, utilities, and other improvements,
and in the event of their destruction, to reconstruct any such existing improvement with another of
similar size, function, capacity, location and material.
2.5 Mineral Extraction. Extraction of subsurface minerals, oil or gas is prohibited.
2.6 Excavation. Except as necessary to accommodate the activities expressly permitted under this
Conservation Easement, there shall be no ditching, draining, diking, filling, excavating, dredging,
removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, minerals or other materials, drilling, building o f roads, change
in the topography of the Property or disturbance in the soil in any manner.
2.7 Destruction of Plants, Disturbance of Natural Habitat . Grantee shall have the right to cut and
remove diseased or exotic trees, shrubs, or plants, to salvage diseased or damaged trees in the
case of a catastrophic event such as a wildfire or cyclonic storm, and to cut firebreaks. Grantee
shall also have the right to cut and remove trees, shrubs or plants to accommodate the activities
expressly permitted under this Conservation Easement. There shall be no additional removal,
harvesting, destruction or cutting of native trees, shrubs or plants. Unless approved in advance by
Conservancy, there shall be no planting of non-native trees, shrubs or plants on the Property.
Furthermore, except to accommodate the activities expressly permitted under this Conservation
Easement, there shall be no use of fertilizers, plowing, introduction of non-native animals, or
disturbance or change in the natural habitat in any manner.
2.8 Hydrology. Except as necessary to accommodate the activities expressly permitted under this
Conservation Easement, there shall be no alteration, depletion or extraction of surface water,
natural water courses, lakes, ponds, marshes, drainages, subs urface water or any other water
bodies on the Property. Creation of new surface water, such as ponds, is prohibited. Development
of existing springs into watering sites for horses shall be permitted, provided that the trough,
springbox or other basin is constructed in a manner that prevents horses from accessing or
standing in the spring, stream or other water source.
2.9 Signage. No signs or billboards or other advertising displays are allowed on the Property, except
that signs whose placement, number and design do not significantly diminish the scenic character
of the Property may be displayed to state the name and address of the Property, to advertise or
regulate permitted on-site activities, to advertise the Property for sale or rent, and to post the
Property to control unauthorized entry or use. Kiosk(s) displaying trail maps and other information
relevant to the public use of the Property are permitted.
2.10 No Biocides. Except to aid in removal of invasive plants and exotic species, there shall be no use on
the Property of pesticides or biocides, including but not limited to insecticides, fungicides,
rodenticides, and herbicides.
2.11 No Dumping. Except for trash receptacles consistent with the operation of a public park, there shall
be no storage or dumping of trash, garbage, or other unsightly or offensive material, hazardous
substance, or toxic waste on the Property. Except as needed to service permitted improvements,
there shall be no placement of underground storage tanks in, on, or under the Property. There shall
be no changing of the topography through the placing of soil or other substance or material such as
land fill or dredging spoils, nor shall activities be conducted on the Property or on the adjacent property
owned by Grantee, that could cause erosion or siltation on the Property.
2.12 No Pollution. There shall be no pollution, of surface water, natural water courses, ponds, marshes,
subsurface water or any other water bodies, nor shall activities be conducted on the Property that
would be detrimental to water quality or purity or that could alter the natural water level or flow in or
over the Property.
2.14 Commercial Development. Any commercial or industrial use of or activity on the Property, other
than those specifically permitted herein, is prohibited.
2.15 Archeological Investigation. Subject to Paragraph 2.8 (Hydrology), Grantee may conduct
archeological research on the Property provided that: (1) Grantee has obtained Conservancy’s
prior written approval; (2) Grantee gives prior notice and obtains necessary approval from the
appropriate state or federal agencies; and (3) any such disturbance and investigation is performed
in such a manner as to minimize any adverse impact on the conservation values of the Property.
2.16 Density. Neither the Property nor any portion of it shall be included as part of the gross area of
other property not subject to this Conservation Easement for the purposes of determining density,
lot coverage, or open space requirements under otherwise applicable laws, regulations or
ordinances controlling land use and building density. No development rights that have been
encumbered or extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred to any other lands
pursuant to a transferable development rights scheme, cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
3. ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF GRANTEE. Grantee shall have the following additional rights:
3.1 Existing Uses. The right to undertake or continue any activity or use of the Property not inconsistent
with the terms and purposes of this Conservation Easement. Prior to making any change in use of
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
the Property, Grantee shall notify Conservancy in writing to allow Conservancy a reasonable
opportunity to determine whether such change would violate the terms of this Conservation
Easement.
3.2 Transfer. The right to sell, give, mortgage, lease, or otherwise convey the Property subject to the
terms of this Conservation Easement.
4. CONSERVANCY’S RIGHTS. To accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement, the
following additional rights are reserved by the Conservancy:
4.1 Right to Enforce. The right to preserve and protect the conservation values of the Property and
enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, including the right to prevent any activity on or use
of the Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement and to require the
restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity
or use pursuant to Paragraph 7 herein.
4.2 Right of Entry. The right of Conservancy’s staff, contractors and associated natural resource
management professionals to enter the Property after prior written notice to Grantee, for the purposes
of: (a) inspecting the Property to determine if Grantee is complying with the covenants and purposes
of this Conservation Easement; (b) enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement; (c) taking any
and all actions with respect to the Property as may be necessary or appropriate, with or without an
order of court, to remedy or abate violations hereof; (d) monitoring and research as described below;
and (e) management of exotic and invasive species as described below. Prior written notice is not
required if Conservancy is entering upon the Property because of an ongoing or imminent violation
that could, in the sole discretion of Conservancy, substantially diminish or impair the conservation
values of the Property, as described in Paragraph 7 herein. Such right of entry shall include the
permanent right to cross other lands of the Grantee for access to the Property.
4.3 Monitoring and Research. The right, but not the obligation, to monitor the plant and wildlife
populations, plant communities and natural habitats on the Property, and to actively protect and
manage them, if necessary, to ensure their continued presence and viability on the Property. Grantee
shall cooperate with Conservancy in establishing, at no expense to Grantee, a written Monitoring and
Research Plan to direct the monitoring of and research on plant and wildlife populations, plant
communities and natural habitats on the Property. Grantee agrees that all monitoring activity, natural
resource inventory and assessment work or other natural resource research, conducted by Grantee
or others, shall be reported to Conservancy.
4.4 Management of Exotics and Invasive Species. The right, but not the obligation, to control, manage
or destroy exotic non-native species or invasive species of plants and animals that threaten the
conservation values of the Property. Conservancy will consult with Grantee prior to implementing
management activities.
4.5 Discretionary Consent. The Conservancy’s consent for activities otherwise prohibited or requiring
Conservancy’s consent under Paragraph 2 above, may be given under the following conditions and
circumstances: If, owing to unforeseen or changed circumstances, any of the prohibited activities
listed in Paragraph 2 are deemed desirable by both the Grantee and Conservancy, the Conservancy
may, in its sole discretion, give permission for such activities, subject to the limitations herein. Such
requests for permission, and requests for permission for activities requiring the Conservancy’s
consent, shall be in writing and shall describe the proposed activity in sufficient detail to allow the
Conservancy to judge the consistency of the proposed activity with the purpose of this Conservation
Easement. The Conservancy may give its permission only if it determines, in its sole discretion, that
such activities (1) do not violate the purposes of this Conservation Easement AND (2) either enhance
or do not impair any significant conservation interests associated with the Property. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Conservancy and Grantee have no right or power to agree to any activities that
would result in the termination of this Conservation Easement under state or federal law. Nothing in
this section shall require Conservancy to consent to any activity otherwise restricted in this
Conservation Easement, or to consult or negotiate regarding the withholding or provision of such
consent.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEE AND CONSERVANCY NOT AFFECTED. Other than as
specified herein, this Conservation Easement is not intended to impose any legal or other responsibility on
the Grantee, or in any way to affect any obligation of the Grantee as owner of the Property. Grantee retains
all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation,
upkeep and maintenance of the Property. Among other things, this shall apply to:
(a) Taxes. The Grantee is exempt from real estate taxes and assessment. If the Property is
conveyed to an owner that is not so exempt, such owner shall be solely responsible for payment of
all taxes and assessments, if any, levied against the Property. If an owner of the Property becomes
delinquent in payment of said taxes or assessments, such that a lien created against the land is to
be executed upon, the Conservancy, at its option, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to
take such actions as may be necessary to protect the Conservancy’s interest in the Property and
to assure the continued enforceability of this Conservation Easement.
(b) Upkeep and Maintenance. The Grantee shall be solely responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of the Property, to the extent it may be required by law. The Conservancy shall have
no obligation for the upkeep or maintenance of the Property. Grantee shall keep the Conservancy’s
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
interest in the Property free of any liens arising out of any work performed for, materials furnished
to or obligations incurred by Grantee.
6. ACCESS. Nothing in this Paragraph prevents the Grantee from placing reasonable restrictions on
access for the safety of the public or for the maintenance of the Property.
7. ENFORCEMENT. The Conservancy shall have the right to prevent and correct violations of the
terms of this Conservation Easement; to request corrective action sufficient to abate any violations; and t o
restore the Property to its previous condition as of the date that this Conservation Easement is retained.
Grantee agrees that the Baseline Report (also known as an Easement Documentation Report) shall be deemed
to provide objective information concerning the Property's condition at the time of this grant. Failure by the
Grantee to abate the violation and take such other corrective action as may be requested by the Conservancy
within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice (the “cure period”) shall entitle the Conservancy to bring an
action at law or equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement;
to require the restoration of the Property to its previous condition; to enjoin the non-compliance by ex parte
temporary or permanent injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction; and/or to recover any damages arising
from the noncompliance. Such damages, when recovered, may be applied by the Conservancy, in its sole
discretion, to corrective action on the Property.
7.1 Emergency Enforcement. If the Conservancy, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances
require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the conservation values of the
Property, the Conservancy may pursue its remedies under this Paragraph without prior notice to the
Grantee or without waiting for the cure period to expire.
7.2 Failure to Act or Delay. The Conservancy does not waive or forfeit the right to take action as may be
necessary to insure compliance with this Conservation Easement by any prior failure to act and the
Grantee hereby waives any defenses of waiver, estoppel or laches with respect to any failure to act or
delay by the Conservancy, its successors or assigns, in acting to enforce any restriction or exercise
any rights under this Conservation Easement.
7.3 Violations Due to Causes Beyond Grantee’s Control. Nothing herein shall be construed to entitle the
Conservancy to institute any enforcement proceedings against the Grantee for any changes to the
Property due to causes beyond the Grantee’s control, such as changes caused by fire, flood, storm,
earthquake or the unauthorized wrongful acts of third persons. In the event of violations of this
Conservation Easement caused by the unauthorized wrongful acts of third persons, the Grantee
consents to the voluntary joinder by the Conservancy into any suit for the purpose of pursuing
enforcement action, all at the election of the Conservancy.
7.4 Standing. By virtue of Conservancy's retention of rights under this Conservation Easement, it shall
be entitled, at its option, to standing before appropriate courts of law to pursue remedies or other
matters which are necessary or incidental to the protection of the Property which is subject to this
Conservation Easement.
8. TRANSFER OF EASEMENT. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable in whole but not in part. The Conservancy shall have
the right to transfer or assign this Conservation Easement to any private nonprofit organization that, at the
time of transfer, is a “qualified organization” under IRC §170(h), and the organization expressly agrees to
assume the responsibility imposed on the Conservancy by this Conservation Easement. If the Conservancy
ever ceases to exist or no longer qualifies under IRC §170(h) or applicable state law, a court with jurisdiction
shall transfer this Conservation Easement to another qualified organization having similar purposes that
agrees to assume the responsibility.
9. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. Any time the Property, or any interest therein, is transferred by the
Grantee to any third party, the Grantee shall notify the Conservancy in writing within thirty (30) days prior
to the transfer of the Property, and the document of conveyance shall expressly refer to this Conservation
Easement. The failure of Grantee to perform any act required by this Paragraph shall not impair the validity
of this Easement or of the transfer or limit their enforceability in any way.
10. AMENDMENT OF EASEMENT. This Conservation Easement may be amended only with the
written consent of Grantee and Conservancy. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the purposes
of this Conservation Easement and shall comply with IRC §170(h), or any regulations promulgated in
accordance with that Section. Any such amendment shall also be consistent with the Act, as amended, or
any regulations promulgated pursuant to that law. The Grantee and Conservancy have no right or power
to agree to any amendment that would affect the enforceability of this Conservation Easement.
11. TERMINATION OF EASEMENT. The Grantee hereby agrees that at the time of the conveyance
of this Conservation Easement to the Conservancy, this Conservation Easement gives rise to a real
property right, immediately vested in the Conservancy, with a fair market value of the Conservation
Easement as of the date of the conveyance that is at least equal to the proportionate value that this
Conservation Easement at the time of the conveyance bears to the fair market value of the Property as a
whole at that time. That proportionate value of the Conservancy’s property rights shall remain constant.
When a change in conditions takes place which makes impossible or impractical any continued
protection of the Property for conservation purposes, and the restrictions contained herein are extinguished
by judicial proceeding, the Conservancy, upon a subsequent sale, exchange or involuntary conversion of
the Property, shall be entitled to a portion of the proceeds at least equal to that proportionate value of the
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Conservation Easement (minus any amount attributable to new improvements allowed under this
Conservation Easement made as of the date of the sale, exchange or conversion, which am ount shall be
reserved to Grantee). The Conservancy shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner consistent with
the conservation purposes set forth herein or for the protection of a “relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife,
or plants or similar ecosystem,” as that phrase is used in and defined under P.L. 96-541, 26 USC
170(h)(4)(A)(ii), as amended and in regulations promulgated thereunder.
12. EMINENT DOMAIN. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in exercise of eminent domain
by public, corporate, or other authority so as to abrogate the restrictions imposed by this Conservation
Easement, the Grantee and the Conservancy shall join in appropriate actions at the time of such taking to
recover the full value of the taking and all incidental or direct damages resulting from the taking, which
proceeds shall be divided in accordance with the proportionate value of the Conservancy’s and Grantee’s
interests, and Conservancy’s proceeds shall be used as specified above. All expenses incurred by the
Grantee and the Conservancy in such action shall be paid out of the recovered proceeds.
13. INTERPRETATION. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, resolving any ambiguities and questions of the va lidity of specific provisions so
as to give maximum effect to its conservation purposes.
14. TITLE. The Conservancy covenants and represents that it is the sole owner and is seized of the
Property in fee simple and has good right to grant and convey the Property subject to this Conservation
Easement.
15. NOTICES. Any notices required by this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and shall be
personally delivered or sent by first class mail or by facsimile, to Grantee and Conservancy, respectively,
at the following addresses or fax numbers, unless a party has been notified by the other of a change of
address.
To Grantee: To the Conservancy:
County Attorney Attorney
County of Albemarle The Nature Conservancy
401 McIntire Road 490 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902 Charlottesville, VA 22901
Fax: 434-972-4068 Fax: 434-979-0370
16. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Conservation Easement is found to be invalid, the
remaining provisions shall not be altered thereby.
17. PARTIES. Every provision of this Conservation Easement that applies to the Grantee or
Conservancy shall also apply to their respective successors and assigns, as their interest may appear.
18. RE-RECORDING. In order to ensure the perpetual enforceability of the Conservation Easement,
the Conservancy is authorized to re-record this instrument or any other appropriate notice or instrument.
19. MERGER. The parties agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any
merger of the fee and easement interest in the Property.
20. SUBSEQUENT LIENS ON PROPERTY. No provisions of this Conservation Easement shall be
construed as impairing the ability of Grantee to use this Property as collateral for subsequent borrowing,
provided that any deed of trust, mortgage or lien arising from such a borrowing would be subordinate to this
Conservation Easement.
21. ACCEPTANCE & EFFECTIVE DATE. As attested by the signature of its authorized representative
affixed hereto, the Conservancy hereby accepts without reservation the rights and responsibilities conveyed
by this Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement is to be effective the date recorded in the
Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia.
RESERVED this Conservation Easement together with all and singular the appurtenances and
privileges belonging or in any way pertaining thereto, either in law or in equity, either in possession or
expectancy, for the proper use and benefit of The Nature Conservancy, its successors, and assigns forever.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said Conservation Easement unto The Nature Conservancy forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Nature Conservancy, a District of Columbia non-profit corporation,
has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized representative.
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY,
a District of Columbia non-profit corporation
By: _______________________________
Its: _______________________________
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
ACCEPTANCE
Albemarle County, Virginia, Grantee, hereby executes and seals this document to indicate
acceptance of the terms contained herein on this ____ day of _______________, 2015.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia
By: _______________________________
Thomas C. Foley
County Executive
EXHIBIT A
Real Estate Description
All those certain tracts or parcels of land, together with the improvements thereon and all rights,
privileges, appurtenances, easements and rights of way thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining
(except as specifically described below), situate in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District of Albemarle
County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
Parcel One: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 80.08 acres, more or less, designated
as Tract B on the plat entitled “Plat Showing Rural Subdivision of Tax Map 75 Parcel 2 into Tracts ‘A’ and
‘B’ Containing 144.38 and 80.08 Acres Respectively and Also Showing Boundar y Surveys of Tax Map 74
Parcels 28B1 and 30 Containing 3.79 and 3.13 Acres Respectively” dated June 19, 2006 and recorded in
the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Clerk’s Office”) in Deed Book 3291,
Page 662. Parcel One is Tax Parcel 75-2D.
Together with that certain that certain easement of right of way fifty (50) feet in width retained in
the deed dated April 7, 1964 from Charles W. Hurt and Letitia H. Hurt, his wife, to Thomas C. Joseph and
Frances R. Joseph, husband and wife, of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 398, Page 451, as
modified by agreement of record in Deed Book 500, Page 156, and which easement of right of way is
located pursuant to the Statement of Road Location and plat thereof of record in Deed Book 703, Page
521.
Parcel Two: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 29.2 acres, more or less, being a
portion of that certain parcel containing 268 acres, more or less, conveyed to Hedgerow Corporation, a
Virginia corporation, by deed of exchange dated November 3, 1970 from Charles William Hurt, sometimes
known as Charles Wm. Hurt, and Letitia H. Hurt, his wife, of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 479,
Page 326, and being comprised of a 21.6 acre tract and a 7.6 acre tract c onveyed to J. E. Sprouse by deed
dated March 21, 1925 from A. P. Walker and C. R. Yardley, Special Commissioners, of record in the Clerks’
Office in Deed Book 189, Page 316. Parcel Two is Tax Parcel 75-2C and 2C1.
Parcel Three: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 121.69 acres, more or less, and
being the remaining portion of a 134 acre tract as shown on a plat of survey of record in the Clerk’s Office
in Deed Book 153, Page 183, after deducting therefrom a portion of the acreage conveyed to the
Commonwealth of Virginia by deed dated April 30, 1970 from David N. Goodwin and Carol C. Goodwin,
husband and wife, of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 471, Page 593. Parcel Three is Tax Parcel
75-64.
Parcel Four: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 36.5 acres, more or less, and being
the same property shown on a plat thereof of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 132, Page 40.
Parcel Four is Tax Parcel 75-11.
Parcel Five: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 21.045 acres, more or less, situate
on the south side of Interstate 64, and being the remaining portion on the south side of such highway of a
189 acre parcel of land as shown on a plat of survey of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1 57, Page
455 after deducting therefrom a portion of the acreage conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia by deed
dated April 30, 1970 from David N. Goodwin and Carol C. Goodwin, husband and wife, of record in the
Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 471, Page 593. Parcel Five is Tax Parcel 75-47.
Parcel Six: All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 51.07 acres, more or less, being shown
on a plat of survey of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 526, Page 43, and shown on an earlier plat
of survey of record in Deed Book 326, Page 374, less and except therefrom that portion of such tract
acquired by the Commonwealth of Virginia for improvements to Route 64, as evidenced by certificate of
record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 430, Page 87 and order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
of record in Deed Book 523, Page 296. Parcel Six is Tax Parcel 75-46. The eastern and southern
boundaries of Parcel Six are more accurately described on that certain plat made by Draper Aden
Associates dated December 21, 2006 and captioned “Plat Showing A Boundary Line Declaration, Property
of Hedgerow Corporation” and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3345, Page 55. That
certain right of way reserved for the benefit of this Parcel Six in t he deed dated November 22, 1897 from
J.L. Maury and Lucy J. Mary, husband and wife, to Jane Maury Maverick of record in the Clerk’s Office in
Deed Book 110, page 326 was released, vacated and extinguished by Hedgerow in that certain Certificate
of Plat and Easement Vacation of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3345, Page 55.
Parcels One through Six inclusive comprise the same real property conveyed to The Nature
Conservancy, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, from Hedgerow Corporation, a Virginia
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
corporation, by deed of gift dated December 29, 2006, of record in the Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 3346,
Page 488.
__________
Item No. 8.4. ACE - Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services grant for
easement acquisition.
The executive summary states that the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services’ (“VDACS”) Office of Farmland Preservation has awarded a grant in the amount of $286,983.46
to the County under a program established by the 2007 General Assembly to provide funds for the
preservation of working farms and forest lands.
VDACS awarded the County similar grants of $149,678.46 in 2014, $160,715.64 in 2013,
$110,952.46 in 2012, $55,290.31 in 2011, $93,932.19 in 2010, $49,900.00 in 2009 and $403,219.75 in
2008. Albemarle County is one of only six localities to receive a grant this year, and one of only five to
receive the full amount requested.
Natural Resources: Thoughtfully protect and manage Albemarle County’s ecosystems and
natural resources in both the rural and development areas to safeguard the quality of life of current and
future generations.
VDACS has requested that the County enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the
“Agreement”) (Attachment A) as a condition for receiving this grant. While the County has yet to identify
the specific easement(s) to which it would apply these funds, it intends to apply them toward the
acquisition of the next qualifying easement. This should come from the current pool of applications that
were received in October, 2014. This grant will remain available to (partially) reimburse any qualifying
purchase for up to two years from the date of the Agreement. The key provisions of the Agreement are
summarized below.
1. The Agreement would obligate VDACS to set aside the grant amount in a restricted account and
reimburse the County for its eligible costs for the purchase of conservation easement(s). The
County’s funds would be restricted exclusively for the County’s qualifying costs for a period of up
to two years.
2. The Agreement also would restrict the use of the grant funds to purchase a conservation
easement resulting from the conversion or diversion of a subject property from open-space use,
unless the conversion or diversion satisfies the requirements of the Op en Space Land Act.
Conversion or diversion of land is permitted under the Open-Space Land Act in limited
circumstances upon the concurrence of the County and the Public Recreational Facilities
Authority and upon the placement of substitute land of equal or greater value and quality under
an open-space easement. The Agreement would entitle VDACS to reimbursement of its pro rata
share of the market value of the easement if conversion or diversion ever occurred.
3. In exchange for the state’s grant commitment, the Agreement would obligate the County to:
appropriate matching funds equal to the grant amount for the purchase of a subject
easement; apply the grant funds to the purchase of the easement;
provide VDACS with annual progress reports (while the grant Agreement is in force)
describing the County’s efforts to obtain easements on other working farms, and its
programs for public outreach, stewardship and monitoring, and measuring the
effectiveness of the County’s efforts to bring working farms under easement;
maintain sufficient title insurance for the subject easement(s), which is already a standard
County practice;
allow VDACS the opportunity to review easement instruments and the title insurance
policy prior to closing;
receive copies of the recorded easement instrument after closing;
provide notice to VDACS if the County receives an application to convert or divert a
subject easement from its permitted easement uses; and
enforce the terms and conditions of the deed of easement.
In addition, because the grant funds for the VDACS grant obtained in 2013 were not expended by
December 31, 2014 (the two-year deadline from the date of the December 31, 2012 Agreement to be
reimbursed such funds), VDACS has agreed to extend the deadline for the County to be reim bursed such
funds. An Addendum to the 2012 Agreement is attached (Attachment B). The addendum requires that
VDACS restrict the County’s 2013 awarded grant funding until June 30, 2015 for eligible reimbursements
to the County for conservation easements recorded no later than May 29, 2015.
Staff has reviewed the terms of this year’s proposed Intergovernmental Agreement and of the
Addendum to the 2012 Intergovernmental Agreement between VDACS and the County, and finds the
terms of the Agreement and of the Addendum acceptable.
The County’s execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement would allow the County to receive
$286,983.46 in state funding to apply to the ACE program. In order for the County to receive these funds,
it must appropriate matching funds of $286,983.46. That local match is available through funds most
recently appropriated for ACE by the Board in FY15. There is no additional budget impact related to the
Addendum beyond that identified at the time of the approval of the underlying Agreement.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the Agreement and
the Addendum to the 2012 Agreement on behalf of the County.
By the above-recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the
following Agreement and the Addendum to the 2012 Agreement on behalf of the County:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Between
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
and
Albemarle County
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is entered into this 31st day of December, 2014, in
the City of Richmond, Virginia, between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(“VDACS”) and Albemarle County (collectively, “the parties”) to provide mutually advantageous terms for
cooperation between VDACS and Albemarle County to implement VDACS’ contribution of funds in support
of Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements.
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, by Chapter 2 of the 2014 Special Session I Acts of Assembly,
has appropriated $1,000,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 to VDACS for the continuation of a
state fund to match local government purchase of development rights program funds for the preservation
of working farms and forest lands; and,
WHEREAS, § 3.2-201 of the Code of Virginia authorizes VDACS’ Office of Farmland Preservation
to develop methods and sources of revenue for allocating funds to localities to purchase agricultural
conservation easements, and to distribute these funds to localities under policies, procedures, and
guidelines developed by VDACS’ Office of Farmland Preservation; and,
WHEREAS, for all purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, the term “agricultural
conservation easement” shall mean a negative easement in gross that has the primary conservation
purpose of preserving working farm and/or forest land; and,
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has enacted an ordinance or passed a
resolution that: authorizes, in accordance with Title 10.1, Chapter 17 of the Code of Virginia (“the Open -
Space Land Act”) and other applicable law, Albemarle County to purchase agricultural conservation
easements from landowners (each hereinafter called “Grantor”); sets forth a clear, consistent, and equitable
administrative process governing such purchases; and outlines the goals and purposes of Albemarle
County’s farmland preservation program; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to maintain a public outreach program designed to
educate various stakeholders in Albemarle County—including farmers, landowners, public officials, and the
non-farming public—about Albemarle County’s initiatives to preserve working farms and forest lands; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a transparent and replicable process for
valuation of agricultural conservation easements; and,
WHEREAS, the purchase of agricultural conservation easements is one component of Albemarle
County’s broader farmland preservation program; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to use a deed of easement that is sufficiently flexible to
allow for future agricultural production in purchases of agricultural conservation easements for which
Albemarle County uses funds contributed to it by VDACS; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed that any agricultural conservation easement purchased
as per the terms of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall meet the definition of "real estate
devoted to agricultural use", "real estate devoted to horticultural use" or "real estate devoted to forest use"
as established in § 58.1-3230 of the Code of Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a clear strategy for monitoring and enforcing the
terms of the agricultural conservation easements that Albemarle County purchases; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has agreed to establish a process that Albemarle County will use
to evaluate the effectiveness of its farmland preservation program, including a protocol for making changes
to Albemarle County’s agricultural conservation efforts based on such evaluations; and,
WHEREAS, VDACS, in reliance on the veracity of the foregoing recitals, certifies Albemarle County
is eligible to receive contributions of funds from VDACS in reimbursement for certain costs Albemarle
County actually incurs in the course of purchasing agricultural conservation easements; and,
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, and the agents and employees of Albemarle County, in the
performance of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, are acting on behalf of Albemarle County,
and not as officers or employees or agents of the Commonwealth of Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, VDACS and Albemarle County agree their respective responsibilities,
pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, shall be defined as follows:
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
1. VDACS Responsibilities
a. VDACS shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, restrict $286,983.46 (hereinafter “the
allocation amount’) in an account, from which VDACS shall withdraw funds only to
pay contributions of funds that Albemarle County is eligible to receive pursuant to
this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, except that upon the expiration of
two (2) years from the date of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, or
immediately upon Albemarle County’s failure to perform any of its obligations
under the terms of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, VDACS shall
have the right to withdraw any funds then remaining in such account and the right
to redirect those funds to other localities that VDACS certifies as being eligible to
receive matching funds and that enter into an intergovernmental agre ement with
VDACS to govern the distribution of matching funds for the purchase of agricultural
conservation easements. The allocation amount from this and any prior
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall not be considered to be a grant as
that term is used in paragraph 1(b) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT.
b. Upon Albemarle County or any agent acting on behalf of Albemarle County’s
recordation of a deed evidencing Albemarle County’s purchase of an agricultural
conservation easement in the circuit court of the city or county where the Grantor’s
land is located and Albemarle County’s submission to VDACS of a completed
claim for reimbursement, on a form prescribed by VDACS, together with the
supporting documentation required under paragraph 2(e) of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, VDACS shall reimburse Albemarle
County fifty percent (50%) of the reimbursable costs that Albemarle County
actually incurred in the course of purchasing that agricultural conservation
easement, limited to that portion of the allocation amount remaining in the account
maintained by VDACS pursuant to paragraph 1(a) of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. The following shall not be considered
to be reimbursable costs that Albemarle County actually incurred and shall be
subtracted from the total amount of reimbursable costs considered for
reimbursement by VDACS in connection with any particular agricultural
conservation easement transaction: grants made by the United States of America,
the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation (VOF), or any other governmental agency or political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia; payments made by any other funding sources either
directly to the landowner or to reimburse Albemarle County; or in-kind donations
or contributions. VDACS may make alternative arrangements for the distribution
of funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, provided
Albemarle County presents a written request for such alternative arrangement to
the Commissioner of VDACS or the Commissioner of VDACS’s designated agent
(referred collectively hereinafter as “the Grant Manager”) prior to incurring any
expense for which Albemarle County seeks a distributi on of funds under the
proposed alternative arrangement.
For purposes of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, “reimbursable
costs” include:
1. The purchase price of the agricultural conservation easement actually
incurred by Albemarle County, at present value, including any portion that
Albemarle County will pay over time pursuant to an installment purchase
agreement;
2. The cost of title insurance actually incurred by Albemarle County;
3. The cost actually incurred by Albemarle County of any appraisal of the
land by a licensed real estate appraiser upon which Albemarle County
purchases an agricultural conservation easement;
4. The cost actually incurred by Albemarle County of any survey of the
physical boundaries of the land by a licensed land surveyor upon which
Albemarle County purchases an agricultural conservation easement,
including the cost of producing a baseline report of the conditions existing
on the land at the time of the conveyance of the agricultural conservation
easement;
5. Reasonable attorney fees actually incurred by Albemarle County
associated with the purchase of an agricultural conservation easement,
where reasonable attorney fees include those fees associated with outside
counsel required for the completion of the easement, but do not include
fees related to county or city attorneys serving as staff and who are paid
regular salary in the county’s or city’s employ;
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
6. The cost actually incurred by Albemarle County of issuing public hearing
notices associated with Albemarle County’s purchase of an agricultural
conservation easement that Albemarle County is required by law to issue;
and
7. Any recordation fees actually incurred by Albemarle County that Albemarle
County is required to pay pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
c. VDACS shall only be responsible for reimbursing Albemarle County under
paragraph 1(b) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT for reimbursable
costs that Albemarle County actually incurs in the course of purchasing an
agricultural conservation easement when Albemarle County or any agent acting
on behalf of Albemarle County acquires, by such purchase, a deed of easement
that, at a minimum, provides:
1. The primary conservation purpose of the easement conveyed by the deed
of easement is the conservation of the land in perpetuity for working farm
and/or forestal uses.
2. The Grantor and Albemarle County agree that the land subject to the
agricultural conservation easement shall not be converted or diverted, as
the Open-Space Land Act employs those terms, until and unless the Grant
Manager, with the concurrence of Albemarle County or an assignee of
Albemarle County’s interest in the agricultural conservation easement,
certifies that such conversion or diversion satisfies the requirements of the
Open-Space Land Act.
3. The Grantor and Albemarle County agree that, in the event of an
extinguishment of the restrictions of the agricultural conservation
easement that results in the receipt of monetary proceeds by Albemarle
County or an assignee of Albemarle County’s interest in an agricultural
conservation easement in compensation for the loss of such property
interest, VDACS shall be entitled to a share of those proceeds proportional
to VDACS’ contribution toward the total reimbursable cost of acquiring the
agricultural conservation easement as evidenced by the completed claim
for reimbursement required under paragraph 1(b) of this INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL AGREEMENT.
4. If the Grantor conveys the agricultural conservation easement for less than
its fair market value, the Grantor and Albemarle County m utually
acknowledge that approval of the terms of this Deed of Easement by
VDACS and/or its legal counsel does not constitute a warranty or other
representation as to the Grantor’s qualification for any exemption,
deduction, or credit against the Grantor’s liability for the payment of any
taxes under any provision of federal or state law.
5. All mortgagors and other holders of liens on the property subject to the
restrictions contained in the deed of easement have subordinated their
respective liens to the restrictions of the deed of easement acquired by
Albemarle County. All such mortgagors and other holders of liens shall
manifest their assent to the easement’s priority over their respective liens
by endorsing the deed of easement.
6. A baseline report documenting the conditions existing on the land at the
time of the conveyance of the agricultural conservation easement is
incorporated into the deed of easement by reference.
2. Albemarle County Responsibilities
a. Albemarle County shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, have available local funds greater than
or equal to the allocation amount for the purpose of purchasing agricultural
conservation easements.
b. Albemarle County shall use matching funds that VDACS contributes to Albemarle
County, pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, only for the
purpose of purchasing agricultural conservation easements that are perpetual and
that have the primary conservation purpose of preserving working farm and/or
forest lands.
c. Within one (1) year from the date of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT,
and for each subsequent year in which the INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT or a subsequent agreement is in force, Albemarle County shall
submit to VDACS a progress report that:
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
1. describes any properties that Albemarle County has identified as
prospects for Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation
easements and the status of any negotiations for the purchase of such
agricultural conservation easements;
2. estimates the timeframes within which Albemarle County will execute
contracts for any such purchases, close on such purchases, and request
reimbursement of reimbursable costs for those purchases from VDACS;
3. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop
and/or maintain a public outreach program designed to educate various
stakeholders in Albemarle County’s community—including farmers,
landowners, public officials, and the non-farming public—about Albemarle
County’s agricultural conservation easement program and other initiatives
to preserve working agricultural land;
4. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop
and/or maintain a formal plan for stewardship and monitoring of the
working agricultural land on which Albemarle County acquires agricultural
conservation easements; and
5. describes the measures Albemarle County has undertaken to develop
and/or maintain a process that Albemarle County will use to evaluate the
effectiveness of its program, including a protocol for making changes to
Albemarle County’s agricultural conservation efforts based on such
evaluations.
d. For any purchase of agricultural conservation easements for which Albemarle
County requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall obtain a policy
of title insurance on its purchased interest that covers at least an amount equal to
the amount for which Albemarle County requests reimbursement from VDACS.
e. Prior to closing on a purchase of an agricultural conservation eas ement for which
Albemarle County requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall submit, for
review and approval by VDACS and its legal counsel, the following documentation:
1. a written agreement setting forth, in the manner prescribed by Albemarle
County’s ordinance or resolution governing its program to acquire
agricultural conservation easements, the terms of Albemarle County’s
purchase of the agricultural conservation easement, including the
purchase price;
2. a written confirmation from the Albemarle County Commissioner of
Revenue or Director of Finance, or the Albemarle County Commissioner
of Revenue’s or Director of Finance’s designated agent that the
property/properties to be encumbered by the agricultural conservation
easement meet the definition of "real estate devoted to agricultural use",
"real estate devoted to horticultural use" or "real estate devoted to forest
use" as established in § 58.1-3230 of the Code of Virginia;
3. a written description of the agricultural, environmental and social
characteristics of the property/properties to be encumbered by the
agricultural conservation easement;
4. any installment purchase agreement;
5. the deed of easement that the Grantor will deliver to Albemarle County at
closing, including all exhibits, attachments, and/or addenda;
6. a title insurance commitment for a policy to insure the easement interest
under contract indicating an amount of coverage at least equal to the
amount of funds for which Albemarle County requests reimbursement from
VDACS; and
7. an itemized list of all reimbursable costs that Albemarle County has or will,
up to the time of closing, incur in the course of purchasing the agricultural
conservation easement.
Albemarle County shall make whatever changes to the proposed deed of
easement and/or the installment purchase agreement, where applicable, that
VDACS and/or its legal counsel deem necessary to ensure compliance with
applicable state law and the requirements and purposes of this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Albemarle County may fulfill its obligation under this paragraph by submitting
accurate and complete copies of all documents enumerated in this paragraph,
provided that Albemarle County shall deliver or make available the original
documents to VDACS for review at VDACS’ request.
f. Together with any claim for reimbursement pursuant to this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT that Albemarle County submits to
VDACS, Albemarle County shall also submit the following supporting
documentation:
1. a copy of the recorded deed of easement that VDACS and/or its legal
counsel approved prior to closing, showing the locality, deed book, and
page of recordation, and including all exhibits, attachments, and/or
addenda;
2. copies of invoices, bills of sale, and cancelled checks evidencing
Albemarle County’s incursion of reimbursable costs in the course of
purchasing the agricultural conservation easement;
3. a copy of any executed installment purchase agreement related to the
purchase, which shall indicate the purchase price; and
4. a copy of any deed of trust related to the purchase.
g. Albemarle County shall provide the Grant Manager immediate written notice of
Albemarle County’s receipt of any application or proposal for the conversion or
diversion of the use of any land upon which Albemarle County or its assignee,
where applicable, holds an agricultural conservation easement, for the purchase
of which VDACS contributed funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT.
h. Albemarle County, or any assignee of Albemarle County’s interest in an
agricultural conservation easement for which Albemarle County receives a
contribution from VDACS pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT shall at all times enforce the terms of that easement. Albemarle
County shall provide the Grant Manager immediate written notice of any actions,
whether at law, in equity, or otherwise, taken by locality to enforce the terms of the
easement or to abate, prevent, or enjoin any violation thereof by any party. Any
failure by Albemarle County or such assignee to perform its enforcement
responsibility shall constitute a breach of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, for which VDACS shall have a remedy by way of a civil action for
specific performance of that enforcement responsibility; or, VDACS shall have the
right and authority, at its option, to demand and receive from Albemarle County a
portion of the full market value of the agricultural conservation easement at the
time of the breach in proportion to VDACS’ contribution toward the total
reimbursable cost of acquiring the agricultural conservation easement as
evidenced by the completed claim for reimbursement required under paragraph
1(b) of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
i. For any purchase of an agricultural conservation easement for which Albem arle
County requests reimbursement from VDACS pursuant to this
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, Albemarle County shall derive its
valuation of the agricultural conservation easement according to the valuation
methods prescribed by ordinance or resolution.
3. Merger and Supersedure of Prior Agreement
The parties agree that terms of any INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT previously
entered into between the parties to govern VDACS’ distribution of funds to Albemarle County
in support of Albemarle County’s purchase of agricultural conservation easements shall be
merged into the instant INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, the latter of which shall
supersede all former INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS to the extent that there are any
inconsistencies between the terms of these INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS.
Notwithstanding the language of this paragraph, VDACS shall be required to restrict the
allocation amount(s) provided in paragraph 1(a) of any prior agreement(s) in addition to the
current allocation amount, but shall only be required to restrict any prior allocation amount(s)
until the expiration of two (2) years from the date of execution of the prior agreement(s).
4. Recertification
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT pertains exclusively to VDACS’ contribution of
funds that the General Assembly has appropriated to VDACS through the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2015. VDACS shall not contribute other funds in the future to Albemarle County
except upon VDACS’ recertification of Albemarle County’s eligibility to receive such funds.
VDACS may establish and communicate to Albemarle County certain benchmarks of program
development that VDACS will impose upon Albemarle County as preconditions to Albemarle
County’s recertification for future contributions.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
5. Governing Law
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is governed by and shall be interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In all actions undertaken pursuant
to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, preferred venue shall be in the City of
Richmond, Virginia, at the option of VDACS.
6. Assignment
Albemarle County shall not assign this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, either in
whole or in part, or any interest in an agricultural conservation easement for the purchase of
which VDACS contributes funds pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT,
without the prior, written approval of the Grant Manager.
7. Modifications
The parties shall not amend this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, except by their
mutual, written consent.
8. Severability
In the event that any provision of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is
unenforceable or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of
this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT have force and effect and shall not be affected
thereby.
In witness, whereof, the parties hereto have executed this INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT as of the day and year first written above.
________________________________ ________________________________
Sandra J. Adams Date Name Date
Commissioner County Executive
Virginia Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services
*****
ADDENDUM A
TO
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Between
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
and
Albemarle County
1. Notwithstanding any provision in this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, any unused
allocation amount provided in paragraph 1(a) of the agreement entered into on December 31,
2012 remaining as of December 31, 2014 shall be restricted by VDACS until June 30, 2015,
from which VDACS shall withdraw funds only to pay contributions of funds that Albemarle
County is eligible to receive pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, and only
if the approved agricultural conservation easement to be submitted as part of the claim for
reimbursement pursuant to this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is recorded no later
than May 29, 2015.
2. This Addendum has no effect on any provision of this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
other than those provisions setting forth the date until which VDACS is required to restrict any
unused allocation amounts provided in paragraph 1(a) of the prior agreement(s).
This Addendum to the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT is effective as of the date when all four (4)
signatures solicited below are affixed here to.
By signing this Addendum, the Parties are agreeing to its terms:
________________________________ ________________________________
Sandra J. Adams Date County Executive Date
Commissioner
Virginia Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services
__________
Item No. 8.5. Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter
CY 2014, was received for information.
This report provides summary level information on all projects managed by OFD, both Capital
Projects and Capital Maintenance Projects.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
Following are some notable highlights on key projects. Substantial Completion was achieved on
the Crozet Streetscape and Belvedere Boulevard Bond Default projects. The Northside Library and
Storage Facility project is scheduled to reach substantial completion in February 2015. The Agnor -Hurt
Elementary School Addition/Renovation project is under construction. Construction on the Crozet
Elementary School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) project is scheduled to start in March 2015. Bid
opening for the Henley Gym Auxiliary Gym Addition project is scheduled for Marc h 2015. The Regional
Firearms Training Center is being advertised in February 2015. OFD staff is also gearing up to support
the upcoming school summer maintenance projects.
The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed inform ation of select
Capital Projects. In the 3rd quarter 2014 report, OFD introduced a “project budget tracker” for the
Regional Firearms Training Center to provide a history of the budget. The Board feedback was that
providing this type of budget history tracker for the major CIP projects would be useful in explaining the
reasons for the variance to baseline. Based on this feedback, OFD staff has created project budget
trackers for the select projects reported individually in the quarterly report.
__________
Item No. 8.6. Board-to-Board, March 2015, a monthly report from the Albemarle County School
Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors , was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.7. County Grant Application/Award Report, was received for information.
The executive summary states that pursuant to the County’s Grant Policy and associated
procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants.
The attached Grants Report (Attachment A) provides a brief description of one grant award
received during the time period of January 15, 2015 through February 13, 2015. Also attached is an
annual Grant Report summarizing the approximately $3 million in grant funding received by the County
(General Government) during calendar year 2014.
The budget impact is noted in the attachments.
County of Albemarle
2014 Grants Summary
Grants Awarded in Calendar Year 2014
The grants presented in this report are grouped into thematic categories:
Arts Public Safety
Economic Development Social Services/Education
Environmental Support to Agencies
In calendar year 2014, the County was awarded grants totaling approximately $3 million.
Category Total
Public Safety $1,251,373
Support to Agencies $951,353
Social Services/Education $427,500
Environmental $322,892
Economic Development $17,500
Arts $5,000
Grand Total $2,975,618*
*Does not include cash match and in -kind contributions toward the grant or overall project.
GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY – January 16, 2015 through February 13, 2015
No applications were made for grants during this time period.
An award was received for the following grant:
Granting Entity Grant Type Amount
Received
Match
Required
Match Source Department Purpose
Virginia
Department of
Conservation and
Recreation
Dam Safety,
Flood Prevention
and Protection
Assistance Fund
State $33,600 $38,400 Water
Resources
Fund
Department of
General Services
This grant will be used to provide
funds for three dam break
inundation zone analyses, mapping
and digitization reports.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
__________
Item No. 8.8. Copy of letter dated January 26, 2015, from Mr. Francis H. MacCall, Principal
Planner, to Mr. John W. Shanklin, Jr. re: LOD2014-00022 - OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL
OF RECORD & DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 119, Parcel 15 and Tax Map 119, Parcel 17
(property of John W. Shanklin, Jr.) – Samuel Miller Magisterial District, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 8.9. 2014 Annual Report of the Board of Zoning Appeals, was received for
information.
State Code Section 15.2-2308 requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to keep a full public
record of its proceedings and to submit a report of its activities to the governing body. The 2014 annual
report is attached for your information.
The Board of Zoning Appeals hears variances from the Zoning Ordinance, special use permits for
certain sign types, and appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator or her designee. These
appeals can include determinations of zoning violation.
No appeals and no variances were heard in 2014. This represents a decrease in appeals from
six (6) received in 2013 of which three (3) were heard. One (1) special use permit for an off -site sign was
submitted and heard in 2014. This is an increase from none (0) heard in 2013.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. FY15 Plan of Finance for School Capital Improvements.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that the Board received preliminary
information on February 4, 2015 regarding the status of the County’s Capital Improvements Plan’s (CIP)
expenditures already budgeted for and appropriated in the School Division’s CIP fund (See Attachment
A). Although the CIP expenditures are proceeding as planned, approved, and appropriated by the Board,
the timing of the expenditures occurred faster than anticipated.
Part of the annual budget process includes the Board’s adoption of a Reimbursement Resolution,
which allows the County to spend cash on appropriated capital projects and th en reimburse itself once
42%
32%
14%
11%
1%0%
Public Safety
Support to Agencies
Social Services/Education
Environmental
Economic Development
Arts
Category Grant Name Granting Entity
County Match
Amount
Received
Amount
Arts Challenge Grant Virginia Commission for the Arts $5,000 $5,000
Economic Development Agriculture and Forestry Industries Fund (Planning Grant)VA Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Affairs*$17,500 $17,500
Environmental Church Basin Project - Stormwater Virginia Department of Environmental Quality $172,000 $172,000
Trees for Clean Water Virginia Department of Forestry $1,214 $1,214
Agricultural Conservation Easements (ACE) Program VA Department of Agriculture Consumer Services (VCACS)$149,678 $149,678
Public Safety 2014 Dry Fire Hydrants - VA DOF Virginia Department of Forestry $0 $0
Byrne JAG Local Award 2014 Department of Justice $0 $15,735
FEMA Assistance to Firefighters – Fire Prevention & Safety Grant Fire Emergency Management Assistance $4,972 $94,478
FY15 Local Emergency Management Performance Grant (LEMPG) Virginia Department of Emergency Management*$8,484 $66,623
FY15 VA DUI Enforcement Grant to ACPD Virginia Highway Safety Office $2,122 $27,735
FY15 VA Speed Enforcement Grant to ACPD Virginia Highway Safety Office $768 $10,000
FY15 Victim Witness Program Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services $0 $84,506
National Crime Victims Week Community Grant National Association of VOCA $0 $5,000
Selective Enforcement - Speed Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles $5,000 $10,000
Strategic Prevention Framework Phase II, Year 2 Virginia Commonwealth University $0 $273,550
VA DCJS JAG15 CA Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Servcies $16,941 $50,818
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response FEMA - SAFER Grant $0 $612,928
Social Services/Education 2014-2015 Virginia Preschool Initiative (Bright Stars)Virginia Department of Education $420,000 $420,000
Bama Works Fund of Dave Matthews Band Charlottesville Area Community Foundation $0 $2,500
MJH School Community Health Partnership Award Martha Jefferson Hospital $0 $5,000
Support to Agencies Comprehensive Community Corrections Act (CCCA)Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services $0 $725,084
FY15 Pre-Trial Services Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services*$0 $226,269
Grand Total $803,679 $2,975,618
* Represents grants with additional matching funds by other organizations.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
loan proceeds are secured. For the past few fiscal years, the County has issued debt on an every-other-
year basis in an amount sufficient to reimburse itself for prior fiscal year capital improvement fund
expenditures and to fund the then-current fiscal year expenditures. Authorization to borrow is granted
through the annual appropriation of the CIP budget that reflects, and is balanced on, loan proceeds as a
source of funding (revenue). The County needs approximately $9.5 million in bond revenue to fund
Schools CIP expenditures through June 30, 2015.
The County’s Financial Advisor, Davenport and Company, and County staff have prepared the
attached Plan of Finance (Attachment B), which would authorize borrowing funds for the School Division
CIP in this fiscal year to support the projected expenditures through June 30, 2015. The recommended
Plan of Finance would not jeopardize the County’s current credit rating. It would allow the County to
maintain adequate cash and fund balances and to take advantage of the current low interest rate
environment.
As with any financing, the budgetary impact will depend on the rates for the financing. The exact
amount will be unknown until the financing is finalized.
Staff recommends the Board approve the attached recommended Plan of Finance.
_____
Ms. Betty Burrell, Director of Finance, stated that she would discuss the County’s finance plan for
the schools’ CIP, and said that although CIP expenditures for FY15 are those already planned, approved
and appropriated by the Board, the funds that were anticipated to be a revenue source were loan
proceeds which had been expended more quickly than anticipated. Ms. Burrell stated that David Rose of
Davenport and Company, the County’s financial advising firm, will make a presentation to the Board. She
said that Chris Culp, the County’s bond counsel, is also present in the event the Board has any questions.
Mr. Bill Letteri, Deputy County Executive, said that borrowed proceeds is a major part of how the
County funds its capital program, and is a plan by which they try to time the borrowing for those projects
at the most opportune time. Mr. Letteri said the fund balance is used to the fullest extent possible for as
long as possible, and in building a five-year plan staff tries to predict when major borrowing is needed in
these projects. He stated that it is not an exact science, but they tr y to optimize the timing of the
borrowing so they minimize their costs. Mr. Letteri said that this is not an issue of staff missing something
or not planning properly, it is just a question of how quickly the projects are executed. He stated that the
County is looking now at borrowing at least a portion of funding sooner than the every other year cycle
that had been initially anticipated.
Mr. David Rose stated that when moving forward with major capital projects, this is part of the
normal course of events. Mr. Rose said that the positive side of this situation is that interest rates are
currently quite favorable, and it is an attractive marketplace for borrowing – whether short-term or
permanent monies. He stated the immediate objective is covering $9.5 million, and the first goal in
pursuing that is to make sure any strategy executed will continue to ensure that the County enjoys the
highest credit ratings possible in the AAA level. Mr. Rose said everything they will discuss going forward
is consistent with best practices in the industry, as well as preserving the rating. He noted that Mr. Letteri
mentioned making sure they have the money necessary to move the projects along undisturbed . He
stated they are also evaluating those projects, and the cash flow of that, within the context of the FY16
budget as well as financial policy guidelines – which Davenport has helped the County put together over
the years. Mr. Rose said that all of those things will be met, if not exceeded, on the positive side. He
stated when he started in the financial industry in 1982, interest rates were not as favorable as they are
now, and they have moved down steadily over the last 30 years. He said that since January 2014
interest rates have moved even further down, but have edged up slightly in recent months. However, he
stated, they will not know with certainty what the new interest rate will be until they get bids in or go to the
VPSA and borrow – which will not be until the latter part of April. Mr. Rose said that interest rates c an
certainly get worse, but with the action suggested, Davenport w ill be moving as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rose stated that Davenport is recommending a dual-track approach for the County, which will
include first talking to local, regional and national banking institutions about providing some definitive
interest rates. The second step will be to go forward with a resolution to be approved by the School
Board, as required in Virginia, which will allow the schools and the County to be part of the Virginia Public
School Authority pool program, which will go to market on or about April 27, with a drop-dead date of April
10. He explained what they will actually do is go out and formally solicit for fixed bids from institutions
and get back from them some locked-in rates, and those banks will also convey what security is required
for the monies borrowed – the $10 million. Mr. Rose said that Davenport will ask for provision of interim
funding, that could be up to two or three years and then taken out; and they will also ask those institutions
to lock in funding up to 20 years, but they may not be willing to go that far and may be willing to suggest a
15-year rate for certain, with the next five years to be a readjustment. He stated that whatever the model,
the banks will be asked for hard and fast numbers that can be brought back to the Board as locked-in
rates, which they can either accept or delay in favor of waiting for the VPSA process several weeks later.
Mr. Rose noted that the VPSA approach is a public sale, so the interest rates cannot be controlled at that
time. He emphasized that from Davenport’s perspective as advisor, the County has the ability to ask
banks to lock in rates, but is not required to go forward if they do not like what is offered. It will simply be
a situation in which the Board decides yes or no, weighing the consequences of passing on what is
available to wait for the VPSA sale.
Mr. Rose said that he is asking, at this time, for the Board to provide verbal consent to allow
Davenport to move forward and work with staff and bond counsel, so they can get out as early as March
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
5 to pursue financing options. He stated that during the week of March 9, the School Board will hopefully
pass their resolution, as required by state law, and on March 19, Davenport will hopefully get back the bid
requests then work with the School Board during the week of March 23. Mr. Rose said at the Board’s
April 1 meeting, it is hoped that Davenport will have specific information for the Board to evaluate, as well
as a recommendation to be made in conjunction with staff. He stated they have an April 10 deadline to
tell VPSA whether the County would like to stay with them or not, and at that point the VPSA w ill then put
their documents together because this pool has multiple different local governments. Mr. Rose said that
Davenport serves as financial advisor to VPSA and like the program, and he typically works with local
governments on a day to day basis, not the association. He stated that it is unknown until the last part of
April when they go to market what the actual interest rate will be. Mr. Rose said that he wants to assure
the Board that short of a few bumps in the marketplace over the last 35 years, by mid or late April they
are still looking at a favorable interest rate environment in the greater context.
Ms. Palmer asked if this pertains just to the $9.5 million as already approved. Mr. Rose
confirmed that it does.
Ms. Palmer asked how this might change if they approve a larger amount, as the County is right
in the middle of budget season. Mr. Rose said that Davenport has talked about that with staff, and this
will not have any negative bearing on the FY16 fiscal year budget. He stated that this matter is related to
timing of needed cash flows, and the actual repayment of the $9.5 million ha s been factored in by staff
over the long run.
Mr. Boyd asked if Davenport will provide the two alternatives, and if issuing their own bonds
through VPSA will include all of their fees, and the fees of issuing institutions. Mr. Rose said the
information he brings back will be comprehensive, and he is hoping to provide the Board with good bids.
He stated that in their request of the banks, Davenport will ask not only for permanent financing, but also
a shorter-term financing of two to three years.
Ms. Palmer asked what the timeline for borrowing more money would be, should the Board
decide to put more money aside to pay debt in the future for school-related projects. Mr. Rose said that
Davenport has spoken with staff about the next series of needs that have been approved in the previous
CIP, and the timing and cash flows are such that the thought is to revisit that once the budget for 2016 is
done, around the time they start the new fiscal year around July 1. He stated that because of interest
rates, they will start looking at this over the summer, and Davenport has always had it in their plan to
address it after January 2016, six months into the fiscal year.
Ms. Palmer said that she is trying to understand the timeline should the Board decide to put more
money aside during this particular budget season for debt service to borrow more for the schools. Mr.
Letteri clarified that Ms. Palmer is asking what the impact on debt service will be if additional capital
projects are added to the previously approved 2016 or 2017 list of projects.
Ms. Dittmar said that it is hoped with the citizens’ focus to establish what the County’s long-term
capital goals are, and from that will extrapolate exactly what they are looking at in terms of the 10% and
the projected cost of the interest. She added that they need to have a goal first, and then can work
forward from there, chipping away at it as early as next year.
Ms. McKeel stated that Mr. Foley’s timeline will start pretty quickly.
Ms. Mallek said that it is another whole year’s budget, which is what Ms. Palmer is trying to
address.
Ms. McKeel said that the public process as Ms. Dittmar mentioned is critical.
Mr. Rose said that with the County’s policies, they have the ability to structure some of the new
anticipated debt because they pa y their debts off rapidly and put themselves in a very good position to
add additional debt. He stated that if the next phase of borrowing were to be accelerated within reason,
they have the ability to do that structuring, so they would not be blowing a single year’s budget out of the
water. Mr. Rose said that they can likely take advantage of the relatively favorable interest rates, once
they decide to move forward with projects.
Ms. Dittmar commented that they may want a presentation from Davenport for their citizens
group. Mr. Foley said that staff is thinking about involving Davenport in the committee work, so they can
look at some other strategies to maximize borrowing potential.
Ms. Dittmar asked what typical market forces are to cause a radical shift in interest rates. Mr.
Rose responded that the Federal Reserve has made it known for about a year that beginning in June,
they will raise certain interest rates that effectively act as a proxy for the overall interest rate environment,
at least in the American system. He said there was a period where there were enough unsettled activities
in Europe and other places that made people in the credit market think that rates were going to be raised
last year, but they were not raised. Mr. Rose stated there is an impression now that the national
economy is improving, with the federal government pointing out some indicators in December and
January – promoting the sense that rates will be adjusted upward in June. He said that to the degree the
market believes that, they will act ahead of time. Mr. Rose stated that one counter-force to that is the
geo-political environment and how unsettled the world is, and another is the fact that the federal
government has relatively high interest rates when compared to countries like Germany and Japan. He
added that things like housing starts also play a role in the perception of whether the feds will raise rates.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Rose said that he is not an economist, but he knows that current interest rates are favorable, and that
they can move quickly.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the risk differential will be between them going directly to market versus
pooling with the VPSA. Mr. Rose said that on April 1, he will present what he knows, including what rates
are available at that time, but he will not know what the market will look like when the VPSA pool is
established in late April.
Ms. Dittmar said that she is not referring to rates, but to risk – and is concerned about a situation
like that in Fluvanna County. Mr. Rose stated that the Board will have a very good handle of what the
interest rates will be because of the first part of the process with the banks . He stated when it comes to
VPSA, Davenport can provide estimated interest rates and add percentage points, then in turn show what
that will mean to the overall debt service.
Ms. Dittmar asked if this will have any future implications on debt service, as Ms. Palmer has
asked.
Ms. Mallek responded that they will have to pay for it, and they will have to have 10% in cash of
whatever they borrow.
Mr. Foley said they have an amount of money budgeted for debt service, so if interest rates
comes in at less than projected, that should save money and help the budget.
Mr. Letteri stated in building their model, staff has made certain assumptions about the timing of
debt and interest rates, therefore, on April 1 they will be able to evaluate what is known at that time, and
then compare it to the County’s model.
Ms. Mallek said this is still separate from the part of the CIP that had the extra pennies built in,
and is really just today’s snapshot.
Ms. Dittmar asked about the relationship between the School Board and the Board of
Supervisors, and if they work together beyond the resolution passed for VPSA. Mr. Davis explained that
under the VPSA program, one option to borrowing is to use the state program, which requires the School
Board to make application, and the Board of Supervisors to approve it – so it is a joint decision made by
both bodies. He said that it is a fairly standard practice in that regard, but if the School Board chose not
to want to borrow that way, they could make that decision, but he d oes not anticipate that it will be an
issue.
Mr. Rose added that in terms of time frame, to have the application go in and be considered, the
way that VPSA staff inquires is by going in and requesting that the School Board approve the application
process to get started. After that, he said, Davenport would be back before the Board on April 1 with the
necessary resolutions for them to take action.
Ms. Palmer said that the budget recently presented to the Board includes $6-7 million for school
modernization projects, and that was stripped down to $1 million. She stated that she wondered if the
Board wanted to put something back into that, what the timeline would be, given the favorable interest
rates.
Mr. Foley said that there is an analysis staff would ask the County’s financial advisors to do, as
they typically do not borrow before they need the money – and there is still design and other preliminary
work needing to be done first. He stated that staff will request that the Board adopt a resolution that
allows the County to spend money before they borrow, so they put off interest rates and paying interest
for as long as possible. If they authorize additional money, staff will move more quickly to get all of that
done. Mr. Foley noted that the approval by the Board will not guarantee that they will get these rates,
because the County will not borrow until after construction has started. He stated that they have planned
to borrow at an accelerated rate, and that is reflected in all of the budget documents, with an assumed
4% interest rate but expectations of a better rate, which will save money and free some up for debt
service for other projects.
Mr. Davis suggested that the Board adopt a motion authorizing staff to proceed with the Plan of
Finance as presented.
Mr. Sheffield then moved to authorize staff to proceed with the Plan of Finance as presented.
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.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Fire Prevention Code Fee Schedule.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that the Albemarle County Fire Rescue
Department Prevention Division (ACFR-Prevention) presented information regarding the Virginia
Statewide Fire Prevention Code (VSFPC) Fee Schedule to the Board at its September 3, 2014 meeting
(See Attachment A). The current fee schedule has not been amended by the Board since 2005, and it
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
references outdated code sections and omits several hazardous activities and occupancies that require
enforcement actions pursuant to the VSFPC. Prevention is th e most effective way of protecting the
citizens of Albemarle County from fires. One method of prevention discussed on September 3 rd is the
ACFR-Prevention “target hazard” permit and inspection program. It was identified that this program’s
current fee schedule recovered only 10-16 % of the costs of the program’s administration from 2005 to
2013. A proposal was presented that would modify the fee schedule to potentially recover as much as
25% of the associated expenses. The Board expressed an interest in revising the fee schedule to recover
more of the ACFR-Prevention program expenses. The discussion focused on “user” fees and fair
application of those fees. Board members expressed an interest in recovering 100% of the costs
associated with those operations that are discretionary, such as fireworks displays, while costs for other
operations, such as facility inspections for permits, should be recovered relative to the time and effort
expended in administering the programs. The Board requested that staff engage stakeholders and
citizens through meetings, focused discussions and/or surveys, and provide a report to the Board in the
first quarter of 2015.
As directed by the Board, ACFR-Prevention staff, with the assistance of Community Engagement
staff, conducted a focus group meeting and a survey. Four stakeholders (of the 200 invited) attended the
focus group meeting and 197 people (of the 4600 invited) responded to the survey. The Community
Engagement Report is attached (Attachment D).
There was a low turnout for the stakeholder meeting, but those present spent several hours
discussing the proposed fee changes. Attendees expressed concern regarding fee increases and
generally did not agree with increasing the fees. Additionally, potential process changes and efficiencies
were discussed, which ACFR-Prevention staff will evaluate internally.
The survey sought to gauge attitudes towards cost recovery among citizens and business
owners. The survey included links to the September 3, 2014 Board meeting agenda, discussion, fee
proposal, and associated documents as a means of providing background and education on the topic.
197 people responded to the survey in total but not every respondent answered every question. Of the
197 respondents, 49 (approximately 25%) indicated they are business owners.
As expected, not everyone agrees with the proposed increases, but survey respondents
overwhelmingly supported increasing the fees and recovering more of the costs of the ACFR -Prevention
permit and inspection programs.
When asked if a greater percentage of costs should be recovered through fees (183 respondents
answered the question), 131 (72%) responded “yes” while 52 (28%) responded “no.”
When asked if a 25% recovery rate from fees is reasonable (184 respondents a nswered the
question), 94 (51%) responded yes, 48 (26%) indicated fees should recover less than 25%, and 42 (23%)
indicated fees should recover more than 25%. Of the 184 responses to that question, 136 respondents
(74%) believe a 25% or higher recovery rate for fees is reasonable.
When asked the appropriate percentage recovery rate for administrative costs for fireworks
permits (181 respondents answered the question) 121 (67%) indicated that 100% of the costs should be
recovered, 57 (31%) indicated less than 100% should be recovered, and three (2%) indicated that more
than 100% should be recovered.
The survey showed a high level of support exists among respondents for an increase in the fees
associated with other inspections, re-inspections and plan reviews as well.
The survey results and specific comments made by many respondents may be found in the
attached Report (Attachment D.) The comments include support for cost recovery; recommending caution
because pricing may cause people to avoid inspections/permits, ultimately lessening community safety;
ensuring that the prevention operation is efficient to control costs; concern that re-inspections will be
generated just to increase revenue; and opposition to any fee increase.
Attachment E sets forth the current and proposed fees for each category. The current fee
schedule does not include fees for several permits that are required by the VSFPC. Those are identified
in Attachment E as being new fees. The proposed fee schedule includes an approximate 14% increase
(from $175 to $200) in many fees. These include hazardous materials operations and similar programs.
There are some fees with greater proposed increases, such as open burning, which increases from $325
to $500. Complaints about open burning increase the work load associated with these events, and the
increase is to cover the additional work load. Other fees, such as tire plants, dry cleaning and other
hazardous operations, are proposed to be increased from various amounts to $200 to ensure uniformity.
Firework displays represent the largest increase. There is a desire as expressed in the survey responses
to recover all costs associated with these events. The current fee of $75 barely covers reviewing the
application. The work load for a normal firework display equated to a $600 fee or a 700% increase.
Some categories of the proposed fee schedule require a permit fee, but do not require an
inspection fee. The inspection fee is designed to capture the additional time spent conducting the
inspection at a permanent/fixed facility to issue a recurring permit. Those permits that do not require an
inspection fee are generally for one-time operations outside of fixed facilities. The permits not requiring
the inspection fee have the cost of providing the service built into the permit fee. These permits include
open burning, firework displays, carnivals/fairs, some hot works/welding events, floor finishing and tents.
Costs recovered based on the County’s current fee schedule range from $41,512.00 in
FY 2005 to $83,950.00 in FY 2013, which represents between 10% and 16% of the operating
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
budget for the ACFR-Prevention Division. Staff estimates that implementation of the proposed fee
schedule would offset as much as 25% of the ACFR-Prevention Division’s operating budget
annually and/or could provide additional funding for additional fire prevention resources.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution adopting the proposed revised
fee schedule (Attachment F) effective May 15, 2015.
_____
Albemarle County Fire Rescue Deputy Chief John Oprandy addressed the Board, and stated that
ACFR had come before the Board in September to discuss revising the fees charged for permits and
inspections, as it has been nearly 10 years since they had done so. Mr. Oprandy said that they are also
looking to recover a greater percentage of the operating costs associated with issuing these permits and
conducting those inspections. He stated that when they last spoke, the Board made it clear that they
wanted ACFR to engage with stakeholders who may be affected by the proposed changes as well as the
community at large for feedback on the proposal. He said with the help of the County’s Community
Engagement Office and staff member Emily Kilroy, they were able to hold a focus group and a survey. A
full report on the results of those efforts is attached to the Board’s executive summary. Mr. Oprandy
acknowledged that there are individuals who have expressed concern and are in disagreement with the
proposed changes. This was expressed during the focus group and in the survey, and Board members
have also received comments, questions and opinions from the public. He stated that overall, 72% of
survey respondents indicated that recovering more of the cost of prevention se rvices through fees is
desirable, and 74% indicated that recovering one-quarter or more of operating expenses through fees is
reasonable. Mr. Oprandy said that the two areas of the fee schedule that have attracted the most
attention are fireworks and open burning. ACFR staff is prepared to discuss the fees associated with
these permits, but a full discussion related to items beyond the fees may need to carry over into the
future. He reported that before the Board is a proposed fee schedule that is based predominantly on
recovering 25% of the costs to provide permits and services, and ACFR is asking the Board to pass a
resolution adopting this fee schedule.
Chief Howard Lagomarsino, the County’s Fire Marshal, addressed the Board and stated that fire
codes have been derived from tragedy. Mr. Lagomarsino said that whenever the fire codes are adopted
and enforced, they see a decrease in loss and a decrease in tragedy involving people. Mr. Lagomarsino
stated that the fire code requires certain permits, and uses the word “shall” rather than “may,” which
means people must have the permits. The resolution before the Board encompasses all of the codes that
require permits, as listed in Table 107.2. He said that ACFR has done some of these permits where there
was not a fee, but they were required, and had done inspections without collecting any cost recovery. Mr.
Lagomarsino said that the state requires localities to do certain things within their fire prevention code, but
also says that local governments can enact a resolution to recover some of those costs. He stated that
their current program targeted those hazards that are most dangerous to people – hazardous chemicals,
open burning, explosives, etc. Mr. Lagomarsino said that across the board, the resolution reflects mostly
a 14% increase, with hazmat fees going from $175 to $200. He stated there are some categories that
have a significant increase, such as fireworks at a 700% increase, but that is the difference in recovering
either 12.5% of the cost, which is a $75 fee, or 100% of the cost, which is a $600 fee. Mr. Lagomarsino
said that in the 2005 fee schedule, there were codes attached to each fee. The state changed the codes
every three years and this year renumbered the codes, so with the 2012 code that Albemarle is using,
none of the codes match up with the current fee schedule. He noted that they also did not include
everything from Table 107.2 in that 2005 fee schedule, so there will be new fees for those items.
Mr. Lagomarsino stated that fireworks and open burning generate the most complaints, and
create a lot of the labor for the department. If they want to discuss changing the burn laws or the
fireworks code, that is a larger discussion that will take several months, and they still must issue permits
until those things change. He said there has been concern expressed about the cost for a firework s
permit. He looked at an analysis of the Fire Marshal’s office workload, and permits and inspections
account for 52% of their workload. Mr. Lagomarsino said this equates to approximately 1,100 hours
going into those programs. If they are going to recoup one-fourth of their costs, it will come to $100 an
hour, which is a good place to start in that it is easy to calculate, and in line with what other jurisdictions
are charging per hour. He said the closest locality to that is Spotsylvania at $105 per hour, with Fairfax
as high as $312 per hour for certain things. Mr. Lagomarsino said it takes his department about six hours
to do a fireworks permit, which is where the $600 mentioned by Mr. Durbin came from. He stated they do
not want to overburden businesses by charging all businesses the same rate regardless of size, so they
implemented an hourly rate as part of the proposal. Mr. Lagomarsino said they have also built in a
provision so that the first two hours of the permitting process are free, and it takes only about two hours
for an inspection of a store the size of Carl’s Grocery. He stated that the benefit of recovering more fees
is it provides a source of funding for prevention resources, and there are constant challenges with doing
prevention programs and getting them out to the public. Mr. Lagomarsino emphasized that the best way
they protect the community is by preventing the incident from happening before it ever happens.
Ms. Palmer asked if Mr. Lagomarsino would elaborate on the fireworks issue. Mr. Lagomarsino
said one of the things suggested in public comments was to differentiate between 1.3, which is the old
Class B, and 1.4, which is the old Class C fireworks. He stated that both classes rise in the air, shoot
across the ground, and explode – the difference being less propellant and explosives in one than the
other. Mr. Lagomarsino said they still present a fire and life hazard, and the Fire Marshal’s procedure is
the same for both – review the paperwork and visit the site, even if the site has been used before. He
stated with the 1.4 fireworks, they had to be closer to the audience because they are less powerful. He
stated at one event at Clifton, they had to change the shoot site and reduce the amount of fireworks being
shot off because at the normal shoot site the audience would not have been able to see the fireworks
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
because they would not have gone high enough to clear the tr ees. Mr. Lagomarsino said the Fire
Marshal’s office goes out and makes sure the setup is the way it was when the site was first inspected.
Also, they check to insure that the owners have not changed anything or tried to sneak anything in, and
that they are shooting the proper size shells and are following all agreed-upon safety procedures. He
said at any time if something unsafe happens, the Fire Marshal can shut the show down. That is the
reason for attending the show – which can range from two to four hours, with earlier arrival to give the
fireworks vendor time to implement any needed changes. Mr. Lagomarsino said his office is currently
working 15-25 fireworks shows per year.
Mr. Lagomarsino said the question then became whether you differentiate between public and
private shows, but that becomes an administrative and enforcement nightmare. He stated that
establishing an administrative tiered cost will add another dimension to the workload.
Ms. Palmer said that Ms. Durbin asked for a centralized source of information so that people
could have all the rules in one place, and asked Mr. Lagomarsino to comment. Mr. Lagomarsino said on
the fireworks application, it lists all the items people need to send in to get their permit approved – ATF
license, state license, etc. He stated that they can create a link to the ATF license on their website as
part of that process.
Ms. Palmer suggested that he also speak with Ms. Durbin to see what she was looking for. She
said that the other criticism the County has received is that these high fees will drive people underground,
and there will start to be fireworks shows that are not permitted.
Mr. Lagomarsino said that there are fireworks shows that happen underground currently, and the
County does not have the staff to go out and patrol for fireworks shows – it is complaint-driven. He stated
that companies like Dominion Fireworks that do the big shows have federal licenses, and any conviction
could put that in jeopardy. Mr. Lagomarsino said if they do not have a permit and are supposed to, they
put themselves in jeopardy with their insurance. He stated that his entire staff works on the Fourth of July
and does what it can to answer complaints, because they do not want to overburden the police
department.
Mr. Boyd said that Albemarle is a big county, and most of these things are done out in the rural
areas. He asked if they charge a trip fee or $100 for travel time to get to a location.
Mr. Lagomarsino said that it includes all the time spent, and they estimated low, with travel time
included – but the reality is that they most likely put in more than six hours. He stated that for the actual
permits such as Carl’s Grocery, that includes travel time.
Ms. Mallek said that public versus private means that public shows are those advertised, such as
an event at Crozet Park, and the private shows would be private parties. She stated that the County use d
to disallow fireworks shows at private parties, but now it is the big events where a landowner hires
someone to come in and do a show at a private event that generates lots of calls from neighbors. Ms.
Mallek said the reason they get so many calls are the big events, not people in their backyards. She
stated that when there are two or three people onsite for an entire night it seems over the top as far as
burden on the department.
Mr. Lagomarsino said there was a specific incident in Greenwood, but that has not happened
anywhere else. He stated it is easy to tell public versus private, with private being something like a
wedding, and public including an event where one person sent out a notice inviting all of his neighbors.
Mr. Lagomarsino said this is where he has trouble with enforcement, and ends up having to seek counsel
as to whether an event is public or private.
Ms. Mallek said if anyone could pull off of I-64, it would be public, but if participation is restricted
in any way – such as a neighborhood or a specific guest list – then it is a private show.
Mr. Davis stated that the basis for the fees is a cost recovery system, and whether an event is
public or private should not matter what the fee is, unless there is a different cost for inspecting a public
event versus a private event. Mr. Davis stated he is not sure there is a significant difference in terms of
the Fire Marshal issuing a permit and making those inspections.
Ms. Mallek said in the case of a community that has raised thousands of dollars for a fireworks
show, and they are charged $600 on top of that, that is the kind of subsidy that the County should be
making as a gift to the fire company or whomever is putting it on.
Mr. Davis stated that it may be a decision to be made as far as making a donation to them, rather
than changing the fee amount.
Mr. Lagomarsino said that in Mr. Durbin’s case, for example, he is a hobbyist – but he still has to
have a state license and follow those procedures. He stated that this is set out by state code, which
allows localities to enforce that code, but they cannot be any less restrictive; they can only be mo re
restrictive.
Ms. Palmer stated she had advocated for recovering the full cost of private fireworks because she
felt uncomfortable asking the general public to pay for private parties in terms of the Fire Marshal’s
inspections, and she appreciated the work that goes into figuring out what the cost is to the community.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the proposed revised fee schedule effective May 15, 2015 . 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 thanked Mr. Lagomarsino for all the work put into this, and asked if he could make it
user-friendly to help people figure out all the things they need to do to comply. Mr. Lagomarsino said his
office will try to get the information on the process up onto their website.
Ms. Mallek stated she would like to request that the Board support asking Mr. Lagomarsino and
his staff to come back to them with alternatives to burning for construction debris and landscapes. She
said the smoke on I-64 can sometimes create visibility problems, and anyone with respiratory issues is
dramatically affected by this. Ms. Mallek stated that she will continue to complain about the fact they
allow open burning of construction materials and greenery in the growth area, because of all the people
who live closely around it, when there are mechanical means to deal with this.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Foley to help get more information back to the Board.
Ms. McKeel thanked Mr. Lagomarsino for his attempts to reach out to the community.
Mr. Lagomarsino said that it was Emily Kilroy, of the County Executive’s office, who did much of
the work.
Ms. Mallek said that she would also like Mr. Foley to look into a donation for the Crozet Park for
the fireworks display.
(The adopted ordinance and fee schedule is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHERE AS, pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-97, the Board has adopted the Virginia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code as set forth in § 6-200 of the Albemarle County Code; and
WHERE AS, the Board is authorized b y Virginia Code § 27-98 to establish such procedures or
requirem ents as m ay be necessary for the adm inistration and enforcem ent of the Virginia Statewide Fire
Prevention Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board is authorized by County Code § 6-203 to establish fees in order to defray
the cost of such adm inistration, enforcem ent and appeals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Office of the Fire Marshal Fee Schedule, attached hereto, to be
effective on and after May 15, 2015.
DESCRIPTION
PERMIT
REQUIRED
(Yes or No)
PERMIT FEE
INSPECTION FEE
Aerosol products. An operational permit is required to manufacture, store or
handle an aggregate quantity of Level 2 or Level 3 aerosol products in excess
of 500 pounds (227 kg) net weight.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Amusement buildings. An operational permit is required to operate a
special amusement building.
Yes
(Fixed–
Annual/location or
mobile–30
days/location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Aviation facilities. An operational permit is required to use a Group H or Group
S occupancy for aircraft servicing or repair and aircraft fuel-servicing vehicles.
Additional permits required by other sections of this code include, but are not limited
to, hot work, hazardous materials and flammable or combustible finishes.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Carnivals and fairs. An operational permit is required to conduct a carnival
or fair. Yes
(30 days/location) $200 No
Cellulose nitrate film. An operational permit is required to store, handle or
use cellulose nitrate film in a Group A occupancy. Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Combustible dust-producing operations. An operational permit is required
to operate a grain elevator, flour starch mill, feed mill, or a plant pulverizing
aluminum, coal, cocoa, magnesium, spices or sugar, or other operations
producing combustible dusts as defined in Chapter 2.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE /OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
FEE SCHEDULE (Effective May 15, 2015)
(Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Table 107.2)
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Combustible fibers. An operational permit is required for the storage and
handling of combustible fibers in quantities greater than 100 cubic feet (2.8 m3).
Exception: An operational permit is not required for agricultural storage.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Compressed gas. An operational permit is required for the storage, use or
handling at normal temperature and pressure (NTP) of compressed gases in
excess of the amounts listed below.
Exception: Vehicles equipped for and using compressed gas as a fuel for
propelling the vehicle.
PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR COMPRESSED GASES
TYPE OF GAS AMOUNT (cubic feet at
NTP)
Corrosive 200
Flammable (except cryogenic fluids and liquefied petroleum gases )
200
Highly
toxic
Any amount
Inert and simple
asphyxiant
6,000
Oxidizing (including oxygen) 504
Pyrophoric
Any amount
Toxic
Any amount
For SI: 1 cubic foot = 0.02832 m3.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Covered and open mall buildings. An operational permit is required for:
1. The placement of retail fixtures and displays, concession equipment,
displays of highly combustible goods and similar items in the mall.
2. The display of liquid-fired or gas-fired equipment in the mall.
3. The use of open-flame or flame-producing equipment in the mall.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Cryogenic fluids. An operational permit is required to produce, store, transport
onsite, use, handle or dispense cryogenic fluids in excess of the amounts listed
below.
Exception: Operational permits are not required for vehicles equipped for and
using cryogenic fluids as a fuel for propelling the vehicle or for refrigerating the
lading.
PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR CRYOGENIC FLUIDS
TYPE OF CRYOGENIC INSIDE BUILDING OUTSIDE BUILDING
FLUID (gallons) (gallons)
Flammable More than 1 60
Inert 60 500
Oxidizing (includes oxygen) 10 50
Physical or health hazard Any amount Any
amount
not indicated above
For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Cutting and welding. An operational permit is required to conduct cutting
or welding operations within the jurisdiction. Yes
(per
event/location)
$100 No
Dry cleaning plants. An operational permit is required to engage in the
business of dry cleaning or to change to a more hazardous cleaning solvent
used in existing dry cleaning equipment.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Exhibits and trade shows. An operational permit is required to operate
exhibits and trade shows. Yes
(per
event/location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Explosives, fireworks, and pyrotechnics. An operational permit is required
for the manufacture, storage, handling, sale or use of any quantity of explosive,
explosive materials, fireworks, pyrotechnic special effects, or pyrotechnic special
effects material within the scope of Chapter 56.
Exception: Storage in Group R-3 or R-5 occupancies of smokeless propel
lant, black powder and small arms primers for personal use, not for resale, and in
accordance with the quantity
limitations and conditions set forth in Section 5601.1, exception numbers four and
twelve.
Note: Manufacture, storage, handling, sale of explosives, explosive
materials and pyrotechnics requires annual permit and facility inspection
with associated fees.
Use of explosives/blasting requires a use permit every 30 days with
associated fees.
Fireworks and Pyrotechnic special effects require either wholesale (60
days), retail (60 days) or use/display (per event 1 day)
Fixed Facility:
Yes:
(annual/location)
Site Storage: in
addition to use (30
days)
Use/ Blasting :
Yes (per event –
30 days
maximum/location
)
Wholesale
(fireworks):
Yes (60
days/location)
Retail (fireworks):
yes (60
days/location)
Display/Use
(fireworks):
Yes (per event 1
day/location)
$200
---------------------
$200
---------------------
$500
---------------------
$500
---------------------
$600
See inspection fee
below
No
No
___________
See inspection fee
below
No
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Fire hydrants and valves. An operational permit is required to use or operate
fire
hydrants or valves intended for fire suppression purposes that are installed on water
systems and accessible to a fire apparatus access road that is open to or
generally used by the public.
Exception: An operational permit is not required for authorized employees of the
water company that supplies the system or the fire department to use or
operate fire hydrants or valves.
Yes
(per
event/location)
$100 No
Flammable and combustible liquids. An operational permit is required:
1. To use or operate a pipeline for the transportation within
facilities of flammable or combustible liquids. This
requirement shall not apply to the offsite transportation in
pipelines regulated by the Department of Transportation
(DOTn) nor does it apply to piping systems.
2. To store, handle or use Class I liquids in excess of 5 gallons
(19 L) in a building or in excess of 10 gallons (37.9 L) outside
of a building, except that a permit is not required for the
following:
2.1. The storage or use of Class I liquids in the fuel tank of a
motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, mobile power plant
or mobile heating plant, unless such storage, in the
opinion of the fire official, would cause an unsafe
condition.
2.2. The storage or use of paints, oils, varnishes or similar
flammable mixtures when such liquids are stored for
maintenance, painting or similar purposes for a period of
not more than 30 days.
3. To store, handle or use Class II or Class IIIA liquids in excess
of 25 gallons (95 L) in a building or in excess of 60 gallons
(227 L) outside a building, except for fuel oil used in
connection with oil-burning equipment.
4. To remove Class I or Class II liquids from an underground
storage tank used for fueling motor vehicles by any means
other than the approved, stationary on-site pumps normally
used for dispensing purposes.
5. To operate tank vehicles, equipment, tanks, plants, terminals,
wells, fuel- dispensing stations, refineries, distilleries and
similar facilities where flammable and combustible liquids are
produced, processed, transported, stored, dispensed or used.
6. To install, alter, remove, abandon, place temporarily out of
service (for more than 90 days) or otherwise dispose of an
underground, protected above-ground or above-ground
flammable or combustible liquid tank.
7. To change the type of contents stored in a flammable or
combustible liquid tank to a material that poses a greater
hazard than that for which the tank was designed and
constructed.
8. To manufacture, process, blend or refine flammable or combustible
liquids.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200
See inspection fee
below
Floor finishing. An operational permit is required for floor finishing or surfacing
operations exceeding 350 square feet (33 m2) using Class I or Class II liquids.
Yes (30
days/location) $75 No
Fruit and crop ripening. An operational permit is required to operate a
fruit-ripening or crop-ripening facility or conduct a fruit-ripening process using
ethylene gas.
Yes
(annual/per
location)
$200 See inspection fee
below
Fumigation, thermal and insecticidal fogging. An operational permit is
required to operate a business of fumigation, thermal or insecticidal fogging and
to maintain a room, vault or chamber in which a toxic or flammable fumigant is
used.
Yes (annual
for facility/
location)
(per
event/location
)
$200 (annual)
$75 (event)
Facility :
See inspection fee
below
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Hazardous materials. An operational permit is required to store, transport on site,
dispense, use or handle hazardous materials in excess of the amounts listed below.
PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TYPE OF MATERIAL AMOUNT
Combustible liquids See flammable and combustible liquids
Corrosive materials
Gases See compressed gases
Liquids 55 gallons
Solids 1000 pounds
Explosive materials See explosives
Flammable materials
Gases See compressed gases
Liquids See flammable and combustible liquids
Solids 100 pounds
Highly toxic materials
Gases See compressed gases
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
Oxidizing materials
Gases See compressed gases
Liquids
Class 4 Any amount
Class 3 1 gallona
Class 2 10 gallons
Class 1 55 gallons
Solids
Class 4 Any amount
Class 3 10 poundsb
Class 2 100 pounds
Class 1 500 pounds
Organic peroxides Liquids
Class I Any amount
Class II Any amount
Class III 1 gallon
Class IV 2 gallons
Class V No permit required Solids
Class I Any amount
Class II Any amount
Class III 10 pounds
Class IV 20 pounds
Class V No permit required
Pyrophoric materials
Gases See compressed gases
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
Toxic materials
Gases See compressed gases
Liquids 10 gallons
Solids 100 pounds
Unstable (reactive) materials
Liquids
Class 4 Any amount
Class 3 Any amount
Class 2 5 gallons
Class 1 10 gallons
Solids
Class 4 Any amount
Class 3 Any amount
Class 2 50 pounds
Class 1 100 pounds
Water reactive materials Liquids
Class 3 Any amount
Class 2 5 gallons
Class 1 55 gallons
Solids
Class 3 Any amount
Class 2 50 pounds
Class 1 500 pounds
See Note on following page
Yes (annual/per
location) $ 200
See
inspection fee
below
For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L, 1 pound = 0.454 kg.
a. Twenty gallons when Table 5003.1.1(1) Note k
applies and hazard identification signs in accordance
with Section 5003.5 are provided for quantities of 20
gallons or less.
b. Twenty pounds when Table 5003.1.1(1) Note k
applies and hazard identification signs in accordance
with Section 5003.5 are provided for quantities of 200
pounds or less.
Yes
(annual/per location) $ 200
See
inspection fee
below
HPM facilities. An operational permit is required to store, handle or use hazardous
production materials. Yes
(annual/per location) $ 200
See
inspection fee
below
High piled storage. An operational permit is required to use a building or portion thereof
as a high-piled storage area exceeding 500 square feet (46 m2).
Yes
(annual/per location) $ 200
See
inspection fee
below
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
Hot work operations. An operational permit is required for hot work including, but not
limited to:
1. Public exhibitions and demonstrations where hot work is conducted.
2. Use of portable hot work equipment inside a structure.
Exception: Work that is conducted under a construction permit.
3. Fixed-site hot work equipment such as welding booths.
4. Hot work conducted within a hazardous fire area.
5. Application of roof coverings with the use of an open-flame device.
6. When approved, the fire official shall issue a permit to carry out a Hot
Work Program. This program allows approved personnel to regulate
their facility’s hot work o perations. The approved personnel shall
be trained in the fire safety aspects denoted in this chapter and shall
be responsible for issuing permits requiring compliance with the
requirements found in this chapter. These permits shall be issued only to
their employees or hot work operations under their supervision.
Facility: Yes
(annual/location)
------------------
Fixed Site: Yes
(annual/location)
_________
Other: per
event/location
Yes (30 day/location)
$200
_______
$200
_______
$100
See
inspection fee
below
See
inspection fee
below
_______
No
Industrial ovens. An operational permit is required for operation of industrial ovens
regulated by Chapter 30. Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Lumber yards and w oodworking plants. An operational permit is required for the
storage or processing of lumber exceeding 100,000 board feet (8,333 ft3) (236 m3).
Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Liquid-fueled or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in asse mbly buildings. An
operational permit is required to display, operate or demonstrate liquid-fueled or gas-
fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings.
Yes
(per event 30
days/location)
$200
See
inspection fee
below
LP-gas. An operational permit is required for:
1. Storage and use of LP-gas.
Exception: An operational permit is not required for individual containers with a 500-
gallon (1893 L) water capacity or less or multiple container systems having an aggregate
quantity not exceeding 500 gallons (1893 L), serving occupancies in Group R-3.
Operation of cargo tankers that transport LP-gas.
Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Magnesium. An operational permit is required to melt, cast, heat treat or grind more
than 10 pounds (4.54 kg) of magnesium. Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Miscellaneous combustible storage. An operational permit is required to store in any
building or upon any premises in excess of 2,500 cubic feet (71 m3) gross volume of
combustible empty packing cases, boxes, barrels or similar containers, rubber tires,
rubber, cork or similar combustible material.
Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Open burning. An operational permit is required for the kindling or maintaining of an
open fire or a fire on any public street, alley, road, or other public or private ground.
Instructions and stipulations of the permit shall be adhered to.
Exception: Recreational fires.
Yes (Land Clearing
Operations Only – 60
days/location)
$500
See
inspection fee
below
Open flames and candles. An operational permit is required to use open flames or
candles in connection with assembly areas, dining areas of restaurants or drinking
establishments. Yes (annual/per
location)
$200 (annual if
sole permit)
$100 (if
ancillary to
another permit)
See
inspection fee
below
Open flames and torches. An operational permit is required to remove paint with a torch;
or to use a torch or open-flame device in a wildfire risk area. Yes (per event-30
days/location) $100
See
inspection fee
below
Organic coatings. An operational permit is required for any organic-coating
manufacturing operation producing more than 1 gallon (4 L) of an organic coating in one
day.
Yes
(annual/per location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Places of asse mbly. An operational permit is required to operate a place of assembly
(greater than 50 persons) Yes
(annual/per location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Private fire hydrants. An operational permit is required for the removal from service,
use or operation of private fire hydrants.
Exception: An operational permit is not required for private industry with trained
maintenance personnel, private fire brigade or fire departments to maintain, test and
use private hydrants.
Yes
(annual/per location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Pyrotechnic special effects material. An operational permit is required for use and
handling of pyrotechnic special effects material. Yes (per event–1
day/location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Pyroxylin plastics. An operational permit is required for storage or handling of more
than 25 pounds (11 kg) of cellulose nitrate (pyroxylin) plastics and for the assembly or
manufacture of articles involving pyroxylin plastics.
Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Refrigeration equipment. An operational permit is required to operate a mechanical
refrigeration unit or system regulated by Chapter 6. Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Repair garages and service stations. An operational permit is required for operation of
repair garages and automotive, marine and fleet service stations.
Note: (If in conjunction with Flammable/Combustible Liquid permit than no fee for
this permit)
Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Rooftop heliports. An operational permit is required for the operation of a rooftop heliport. Yes (annual/per
location)
$200
See
inspection fee
below
Spraying or dipping. An operational permit is required to conduct a spraying or dipping
operation utilizing flammable or combustible liquids or the application of combustible
powders regulated by Chapter 24.
Yes (annual/location)
Yes (per event /30 days
/location)
$200 (fixed
facility)
$100 (per
event)
See
inspection fee
below
Storage of scrap tires and tire byproducts. An operational permit is required to establish,
conduct or maintain storage of scrap tires and tire byproducts that exceeds 2,500 cubic
feet (71 m3) of total volume of scrap tires and for indoor storage of tires and tire byproducts.
Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
Temporary membrane structures and tents. An operational permit is required to operate
an air-supported temporary membrane structure or a tent.
Exceptions:
1. Tents used exclusively for recreational camping purposes.
2. Tents and air-supported structures that cover an area of 900 square feet (84 m2) or
less, including all connecting areas or spaces with a common means of egress or
entrance and with an occupant load of 50 or less persons.
Note: (permit good for 30 days with a maximum of 5 renewals (total of 180 days
within a 12 month period allowed before tent must come down)
Yes
( per event – good for 30
days/location)
$100 if
application
received 30
days before
event
$150 if
application
received 15-29
days before
event
$200 if
application
received 8–15
days before
event
$300 if
application
received 7
days or less
before event
No
Tire-rebuilding plants. An operational permit is required for the operation and
maintenance of a tire-rebuilding plant. Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Waste handling. An operational permit is required for the operation of wrecking yards,
junk yards and waste material-handling facilities. Yes (annual/per
location) $200
See
inspection fee
below
Wood products. An operational permit is required to store chips, hogged material, lumber
or plywood in excess of 200 cubic feet (6 m3).
Yes (annual/per
location)
$200
See
inspection fee
below
PURPOSE DESCRIPTION FEE
Facility Inspection Fees
(in any fixed facility requiring
a permit in Table 107. 2 of the Fire Prevention
Code)
Inspection Fee First two hours no charge
$100/hr thereafter
Required Fire Inspection for Social Service
License
(Ex: Day care/Adult Care etc)
1 – 8 persons
9 – 20 persons
21 – 50 persons
51 – 100 persons
101 – 150 persons
151 – 200 persons
201 or more persons
$25
$50
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500 plus $50 for every 100 persons over 201
Re-inspection Fee
After initial inspection, if all
violations are corrected, no
charge. If not, then each re-
inspection incurs a fee until an
agreement on remediation is
reached or all violations are
corrected.
$0 (violations corrected)
$100 (per inspection)
Albemarle Fire Rescue Plan
Review Fee
Site Plans
Special Use Permit
All Other
$100 (per set of plans)
$50 (per application)
$75 (per event)
Request for Fire Code Variance/Modification and
Albemarle County Fire Code Board of Appeals
Request
Similar to the Zoning Variance
and Appeals Process to offset
Cost of the Fire Board of Appeals
Operations
$350 (application fee)
_______________
Agenda Item No.11. Route 29 Solutions Update.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that the Board has expressed a strong
desire to consider strategies and develop a business assistance program for businesses in the Route 29
construction areas. Staff has researched various communities in Virginia and across the country to see
what types of assistance programs were used in similar circumstances. In addition, the County has
provided a number of different opportunities to solicit input from businesses in the Route 29 corridor
regarding strategies they think could be beneficial before, during and immediately after construction. A list
of assistance ideas generated from staff’s research and from stakeholders’ input was presented to the
Board in December, 2014 for its initial reaction and discussion. Based on the Board’s direction at that
meeting, staff has conducted a more detailed assessment of the potential strategies and has prepared
preliminary recommendations for the Board’s consideration during this work session.
Following the December, 2014 Board discussion of this issue, staff refined the potential strategies
into a preliminary proposal (provided as Attachment A) for the Board’s consideration. This proposal has
been shared for feedback from the community in the following ways:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE /OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
FEE SCHEDULE (Effective May 15, 2015)
(Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Table 107.2)
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Reviewed with the Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance subcommittee
Reviewed with representatives from the Small Business Development Center (SBDC),
the Senior Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE) and the Central Virginia Partnership for
Economic Development (CVPED)
Reviewed with representatives from the Greater Charlottesville Chamber of Commerce
Reviewed at drop-in opportunities at locations in the Rio intersection quadrants
The attached proposal provides an overview of the components of the draft business assistance
program. Major highlights are outlined below:
Justification for use of a comprehensive business assistance program for the Route 29
Solutions Package
Establishment of a public private partnership to manage the program
Creation of a geographic tier system to determine where specific strategies would be
deployed
Recommended strategies in the following areas:
Technical assistance
Marketing
Communication
Signage
Regulatory
Some suggestions that came forward during early feedback sessions are more complex that
those in the categories above and involve significant financial and/or policy implications. The attached
proposal provides background for the Board’s review and consideration to determine if there is interest in
proceeding further in any of those areas.
Once the Board has provided final direction regarding specific strategies to be included in the
business assistance program, a full implementation schedule will be developed to establish the timeline of
when the various business assistance strategies will be deployed.
A draft list of possible strategies to consider was compiled based on feedback from the
community and was presented in full to the Board in December, 2014. Board members expressed
interest in seeing how those individual strategies were dealt with as this proposal moved forward. Most of
those items have been incorporated into the recommendations. The full list from December is included
as Attachment B with outcomes indicated for the information of the Board and the public.
Reference is made to a VDOT Route 29 Solutions US 29/Rio Road Benefit Cost Analysis
Executive Summary in the attached proposal. It is included as Attachment C.
While an exact budget cannot be determined until the Board provides final direction, it is
anticipated that funding would be required for the several of the marketing initiatives. Adequate
funding to support those initiatives is available from existing sources , including unexpended funds
from the Economic Development budget and from the County’s Economic Opportunity Fund. It is
important to note that currently there is no source of funds available for any type of loan or grant
program.
Staff recommends that the Board provide direction regarding the recommended business
assistance strategies, as well as, any of the other strategies that fall into the category of significant
financial and/or policy implications, for staff to prepare a final proposed package to be presented to the
Board in May, 2015.
_____
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board and introduced Mr.
Gerald Gatubo, the County’s new transportation planner. Mr. Graham reported that the Route 29/250
interchange project is now under construction, and VDOT has been doing a good job with putting out
public service announcements and information. He said the contractor w ill be coming to the Route 29
Solutions Panel meeting soon to lay out their timeline, construction phasing and impact on those traveling
in the area. Mr. Graham stated the contract has been awarded for the Rio/Route 29 grade-separated
interchange, Berkmar Extended project and Route 29 widening, and Mr. Philip Shucet has notified him
that the notice to proceed was granted the previous day by VDOT. He said Mr. Shucet hopes to have the
contractor in with the panel for their March 19 meeting, and the March 5 meeting has now been canceled
due to the anticipated snow. Mr. Graham said a lot of the emphasis has been on signage, especially
during construction, in terms of detour signage as well as, business identification within the right of way.
He stated there has also been some talk about branding of the area and naming of quadrants, but the
panel has agreed that it is more of a County responsibility, and it is hoped the County will work on that as
part of a small area plan in the near future.
Ms. Dittmar said that she is pleased to see that the Best Buy ramp project was awarded to a local
contractor, so those dollars will stay in this economy. She stated that if people had planned to attend the
March 5 kickoff event and afternoon panel meeting, those ha ve been postponed and not yet rescheduled.
_______________
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
Agenda Item No.12. Route 29 Solution Business Assistance Program.
Ms. Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive, said that she and Ms. Susan Stimart, Economic
Development Facilitator, would be addressing the Board. Ms. Catlin said that this is an ongoing
conversation that they will have to continue to adjust and revisit from now through construction, based on
how conditions actually evolve. Ms. Catlin said they want to ensure they are being responsive and
allowing the program to be somewhat organic as they see what conditions actually are. She stated it is
important for staff to get the Board’s guidance on as many elements as they fe el comfortable with, so they
can be proactive and start to get programs in place that will make a difference in the early stages of the
projects. Ms. Catlin reported that staff had put together an extensive engagement process last fall and
winter with businesses to get some ideas in front of the Board. They then went back and had another
round of refinement of those ideas, some research, and more conversations with businesses over the last
several weeks. She stated that they have held a meeting with Chamber of Commerce representatives,
and Ms. Stimart has hosted drop-in opportunities in the Rio intersection quadrants, which included four
sessions and 15 participants. Ms. Catlin stated they also had Peter Borches added to their subcommittee
as a liaison from the PDAP group, and he has been very engaged in their discussions going forward.
She said due to their timing and deadlines for their agenda process and getting the item through their
system, some of the feedback did not get into the proposal before the Board, but staff will assure that it is
highlighted as they move through the presentation.
Ms. Catlin stated that she wants to highlight a few items from the staff presentation, including the
justification aspects, because there are a number of highway and construction projects happening in the
County on a regular basis – so staff wants to make sure they articulated what made this one appropriate
for a comprehensive business assistance program. She said some of those factors are project duration,
the number of businesses directly impacted, the widespread benefit to the community and to the entire
region, and the fact that they are talking about a major traffic artery in one of the County’s entrance
corridors. Ms. Catlin stated in moving through the program, they want to ensure that they ha d some
goals in place that directed and led the choices and decisions made about what should be included . That
will give them an idea as to whether they are being successful in putting the assistance program in place.
She said the goals include making sure they provide complete and accurate information in advance to
help businesses plan for and be prepared for the construction process; to ensure they are providing
resource expertise to the greatest extent possible to support affected businesses; to make sure they ha ve
a good, strong rapid response communication network during construction that can identify critical
business issues and respond quickly to their needs; to ensure they are providing fair and equitable
assistance for all qualifying businesses; to leverage opportunities for partnership across the spectrum of
organizations while managing the construction situations; and to make sure the County is actively
engaging the construction partner to positively affect business outreach and support.
Ms. Catlin said staff believes that because of the broad nature of the proposed assistance
program and the need to bring a variety of skills and expertise to the table, they ought to consider forming
a public/private partnership to oversee this program both in its development and its implementation –
including being able to make adjustments as needed as the program proceeds. She stated they envis ion
the team would be led by the County Executive’s office, and there would be representation from groups
that are already engaged with the community in different ways: the Small Business Development Center,
the Senior Corps of Retired Executives, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, the
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Virginia Department of Transportation, and County
staff from Community Development and Economic Development. Ms. Catlin said that staff ha s met and
talked to representatives from all of these organizations, and they have indicated a willingness to be on a
team and help as the construction project moves through. She stated there were already some
construction mitigation projects underway to assist businesses, ranging from early engagement to having
business representatives serve on a project advisory committee and the business assistance sub-team,
as well as a lot of direct conversations – with VDOT and Economic Development staff meeting onsite, one
on one with businesses to work with them on issues that are concerning to them at this point with the
project. Ms. Catlin said the design-build contractor for the Route 29 Solutions project has contractual
obligations for supporting and maintaining business activity during the construction period, covering
access management, signage, business communication, emergency incident response, and a lot of other
aspects of an overall business assistance program that f all under the responsibility of that contractor.
She noted that the contractor is required to maintain access to all businesses at all times during the
project.
Ms. Catlin said that staff is aware there will be different impacts felt in different parts of the Route
29 corridor, because of the length and breadth of the project, and their overarching principles suggests
that they look at a tiered approach that would make different parts of the assistance program available to
businesses in the different tiers. She stated that what is before the Board are businesses outlined based
on the limits of construction for the projects as defined by VDOT, and she noted on a chart provided the
businesses that would be considered within the limits of construction within the Route 29 widening project
– and they are considered to be the Tier I group. She said that Tier II are those businesses in the Rio/29
intersection project area boundaries, so any of the lower-level access to the business assistance program
would be open to anyone in Tier I or Tier II – such as getting emails on pre-construction information, etc.
Ms. Catlin said that the higher-impact business assistance programs would be recommended for the Tier
II group, and in some of staff’s conversations with the business community, there was discussion of
honing in on a tier that is even more central to the intersection itself. She stated that the basic concept
here is to look at different possibilities for programs depending on how close businesses are to intense
impact areas.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Catlin said that the other element they will consider is the duration and time period of the
project, and while the entire project goes from 2015-2017, there are different times during which things
will be much more impactful, so the assistance strategies will come into play at different points in time.
She stated that staff will suggest that the final recommendation will include an implementation plan that
will spell out strategies specifically for identified geographic tiers, and will also place them in a schedule
that will align with the construction milestones in the project. Ms. Catlin presented strategies in different
categories, with the first group being the “technical” group, which recognizes that business in the corridor
have different levels of interest and desire for technical support, regarding things like business counseling
and business education. She said that they can issue a survey to see what is interesting to people,
continue to do more one on one to develop the needs case for what businesses might like to see, a nd
then put together some strategies including a preconstruction package of information for all businesses
with construction details, single point of contact, a checklist for construction preparation, survival toolkit,
and those types of materials. Ms. Catlin said that staff has spoken with the SBDC and SCORE about
doing onsite workshops on topics such as building customer loyalty, mastering social media, and creating
a marketing plan – for those businesses that would find that helpful to them. She stated that this can also
include one-on-one consulting for businesses, which those organizations already do, with the overarching
goal being to provide a concentrated opportunity for this particular area of the County, during this
particular time, and also to bring the services onsite as much as possible for convenience and
accessibility. Ms. Catlin said that this effort will also identify a program liaison to provide go-to assistance
if businesses needed that going forward.
Ms. Catlin stated the second broad category of strategies is the marketing piece, and staff
envisioned this as an opportunity to establish some visibility and identity for this very important destination
area of the County. She said they want to make sure they are putting effort and emphasis on portraying
this part of the County as a vibrant and attractive destination for shopping, dining and entertainment –
before, during and after construction. Ms. Catlin stated that one marketing initiative the County could
possibly fund would be a collective marketing campaign that would be an overall spotlight on this part of
the County, reinforcing that it is here, functioning, open, and accessible, and not something to be scared
away from during the construction period. She said that the other kind of marketing assistance that some
communities have chosen to do is a matching grant program for business-specific construction-based
advertising, and for businesses in a tier identified, the County will in some form provide matching dollars
for marketing and advertising related to construction. Ms. Catlin stated that other ideas include hosting
marketing boot camp programs onsite, the “Buy Local” campaign in which businesses would be identified
in the corridor that the County could channel work to once construction began, such as restaurants, sign-
makers, print shops, etc. She added that there was a lot of interest and creative thinking among
businesses about things like events, coupon books, passport programs, etc. – that the County will not
necessarily sponsor, but the Chamber or other organizations could partner on.
Ms. Catlin said that the next broad category of strategies is communications, and as Lou Hatter
from VDOT had reported at the last Board meeting, there is already a robust communications plan
underway, but staff feels that there might be some additional targeted strategies to ensure good
communication. She stated that other suggestions have been to establish project space at the Northside
Library to have regular onsite briefings, to hold regular onsite briefings and face to face opportunities
during construction, to provide weekly emailed updates with graphics and photos that business owners
can forward to their customers, coordinate with individual business efforts to ensure they have the
information they need to put out, establish a clear and immediate line of communications between
businesses and the project team, create a get-around guide or map that helps people navigate the area
during construction. Ms. Catlin said that once the project gets going and the access routes are
established, it will be pretty stable, and they plan to work closely with GPS services , such as Google
maps, to ensure they are communicating pertinent traffic information, especially for regional travelers.
She stated that another important category is signage, which the Board will be hearing a lot about
in a future work session, and staff recognizes the importance of effective signage as a key component of
their overall business assistance program. Ms. Catlin note d that the County will continue to work
proactively with VDOT and the advisory panels to ensure that business needs are being heard and
reflected in how the signage program eventually comes forward. Ms. Catlin stated that the last major
category is regulatory, and the County has received suggestions about using an expedited review
process with a single point of contact for non-legislative processes that might be happening in that area
during the construction period, such as site plans, zoning clearances, and ARB review, to ensure they are
working as efficiently as possible. She said that in the regulatory area, the Places 29 small area plan w ill
be of great assistance, because it will establish the standards and kinds of things that will reduce the
need for major things like rezonings in the future, as the area develops during and after construction.
Ms. Catlin stated that staff did a lot of research on business assistance programs in other
communities, and the most comprehensive item was a study by the Un iversity of Wisconsin-Madison in
2010, which looked at 33 cities of different sizes across the country to see what kinds of programs they
had put forward to help with construction. She said that two-thirds of the cities did either one or all of the
strategies mentioned earlier – communications, public meetings, signage, websites, and program liaisons
– so those were fairly standard types of assistance. As part of the feedback heard from the local
community, she said, there are some other suggestions that emerged that are more complex and have
more significant financial and policy implications for the Board and the County. Ms. Catlin said that these
measures are also utilized at a much lower rate by other communities researched, so in looking at the
Wisconsin study, about 26% of the surveyed communities did some sort of loan package – and only two
of the communities did outright financial contributions to businesses without some expectation of
repayment.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Ms. Catlin stated that there has been a suggestion of an enterprise zone or another specialized
zone that will allow the County to provide local incentives such as BPOL reduction, but in doing research
at the federal hub zone and state enterprise zones, that does not seem to be a vehicle that is intended for
the type of project before them. Ms. Catlin said that both of those zone types ha ve requirements that
have to do with poverty thresholds or high employment areas, and they are very tied to job creation and
qualified investments, and not so much about construction impacts. She emphasized that it does not
seem like a tool that is intended to do that kind of thing, and in terms of BPOL reduction, it is a self-
regulating tool, so if a business’s sales decline and receipts go down, their BPOL tax will be lower just
based on how that tax is administered. She added that the County does not have the ability to implement
tax relief currently, and it will take an act by the General Assembly to do a tax relief in the way it has been
suggested. Ms. Catlin said that there are some other mechanisms – loans and grants – which other
communities use, and most of those would involve working through the EDA as the financing entity, as
the County is not legally able to act in that capacity.
Ms. Catlin said that other communities’ financial approaches include lines of credit, which in some
cases they have secured themselves to distribute funds to business owners, or they ha ve acted as a
guarantor for a line of credit. More frequently, the role that communities have played is to act as a
facilitator, to connect business owners and financial institutions to see if there is some way they can
develop a line of credit relationship. She stated that loans are also a possibility, and the most frequent
use in the communities researched is for those that had major rail construction projects – such as St.
Paul, MN, which implemented a loan program for businesses who experienced losses directly correlated
to construction impacts, and for each year the recipient stayed in business, th e loan had a forgiveness
element. Ms. Catlin stated that grants are outright infusions of cash, and most are again used in cases of
major railroad construction programs, and are done in different ways. She said that some are
implemented as “business interruption grants,” which pertains to businesses that had a loss of revenue
during a specific time period, and it had to be carefully audited, measured and reported before, during
and after the project. Ms. Catlin stated that grants are also provided for façade improvements, in the
event a business chose to do this during construction. She said that these measures would require
further work depending on the Board’s interest in exploring them.
Ms. Catlin said that the last category for discussion is an economic impact analysis, which had
been brought up as an area of interest. She stated that VDOT has already prepared a cost/benefit
analysis on the US Rio Road Grade-Separated Intersection Project to determine the cost-effectiveness of
the project, as requested by the Federal Highway Administration. Ms. Catlin said she ha s provided a
copy of the executive summary, and there is also a full report available. She said that level of cost/benefit
analysis has already been done, and if there is interest in evaluating additional economic impact, staff has
done some background and presented it to the Board. Ms. Catlin stated that some of the main points of
that are that it is very important to understand the reason or purpose for doing the economic impact
analysis before embarking on a study, because this would inform the measures, techniques and
approaches to be taken. She said some of the major reasons staff had seen in their research to do an
economic analysis were to guide decision making on how to maximize the benefits of public investment,
to ensure that projects are appropriately designed, to provide an objective evaluation of the economic
value of maintaining an existing condition or constructing a new facility or improvement. Ms. Catlin
emphasized that if this is an area they want to explore, the y will want to have a discussion as to what the
purpose and outcome of an economic analysis will be. That analysis will guide the factors listed in the
proposal, such as the measures to be considered, the data sources to be addressed, the timeframe of the
analysis, the geographic dimension of the analysis, and the causality factors. She said they w ill also
need a study that examines conditions related to seasonal or macro-economic trends versus what is
going on related to construction.
Ms. Catlin said staff has received some good suggestions from businesses over the last week,
and one of the major points is to ensure that the program and County staff – and others involved – stress
flexibility and responsiveness. She said the businesses really liked the idea of marketing approaches and
technical support, and looked at this as an opportunity to build up identity and visibility of that area as a
good destination for the County. Ms. Catlin said they talked about partnership with UVA and connection
to UVA transit and other entities that can be helpful during the process. They talked about establishing a
park and ride facility in the northern part of the County, using rideshare more aggressively as a way to
reduce traffic. She stated they also mentioned the possibility of implementing an express CAT route from
UVA to the area, to keep people out of cars and encourage them to use the area. She stated that
discussion areas that staff feel have some merit includes waiving permit fees, especially for signage
during and for a period after construction, and to help improve the viability of the area as a business
district. Ms. Catlin said that there has been interest in waiving real estate fees and BPOL taxes, and
there are questions as to whether there will be compensation for landlords who might lose business
during this time.
Ms. Catlin said staff provided an initial strategies list, which is a long list of ideas that have initially
come forward, and the great majority of them have rolled into this proposal in some form for the Board’s
consideration. She stated that as noted in the executive summary, there is no exact budget yet but there
are some funding sources for the marketing elements of this. She said that the E conomic Development
Office has not expended all of its funds in the current fiscal year because the director came on later than
anticipated, and there is some funding in the budget request for the Economic Opportunity Fund to
provide support. Ms. Catlin stated that there is no source at this point for a grant or loan program, or tax
relief – which are much bigger dollars.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
Ms. Palmer asked what businesses in that area are open late at night, as there will be more
construction activity from 9-6. Ms. Catlin said that is a good point, and it is important in consideration of
the tiers to note which businesses had more daytime activity and which are open at night.
Mr. Sheffield said that staff has talked about a public-private partnership and teams, and perhaps
some clarity is needed as to what those things mean. He stated when he hears “partnership,” he
envisions everyone in the partnership bringing something to the table, whether it is time, money or
manpower. Ms. Catlin stated that in speaking with the SBDC, CVPED and SCORE, they are very willing
to bring to the table some tailored programs and specialized counseling, and those kinds of elements to
make the partnership work. She said staff met with representatives at the Chamber, and there are still
discussions going on as to how this will play out. She said what the County has heard from them is, when
they get to the point that construction is happening, they want to be supportive to their businesses. Staff’s
expectation is at that point, the Chamber will be at the table, but she does not want to speak for them.
Mr. Sheffield asked for confirmation, from Joel DeNunzio/VDOT, that there will be a need to build
new signage for some of the businesses. He stated, he felt the County needs to articulate the process
clearly in terms of rebuilding, such as the regulatory steps , and he would like that to be an immediate
process for them. Ms. Catlin said that they have talked about both the possibility of expediting the
process for signs, and waiving the permit fees.
Ms. Palmer asked for clarification from staff as to what they want from the Board at this point.
Ms. Catlin responded that staff divided these into a few categories and put forward the ideas they thought
made sense in terms of feasibility, budget, and capacity, including the technical, marketing,
communications, signage and regulatory approaches. She said staff is seeking the Board’s reaction as to
whether they should proceed with those, or whether there are questions or concerns about those
strategies.
Mr. Sheffield said it would be helpful to articulate the public -private partnership aspects in each of
the categories, because they will be different in each case.
Ms. McKeel stated that she wants to clarify temporary changes to some of the County’s
ordinances that might be needed, and wants to be sure that is covered somewhere.
Mr. Foley said that is the primary topic of the next agenda item and work session.
Ms. Dittmar said she has had people comment that this type of assistance is not what
government should do, and is not an appropriate step. They also said the County should not be trying to
clean up a communications issue that was created by people outside of their control. She stated it might
be possible to find partners with the leveraging of additional marketing dollars, to create a new vision for
what they are trying to do in that area, and how they are helping to facilitate the purchase of goods and
services during the construction period. Ms. Dittmar commented that staff’s information from the
Wisconsin study does not include very many examples of projects in Virginia.
Ms. Catlin said they did not find as many examples as they would like, although some localities
did pieces of this, but not an entire spectrum of activities.
Ms. Dittmar stated this seems to be unprecedented in the state and is already working well, and
perhaps Albemarle can be a model for other communities in the future.
Ms. McKeel said the outreach they have already done is unprecedented as well, and she does
not recall a situation where they had this type of community outreach as well as working with businesses
in the community.
Ms. Catlin clarified that the technical strategies include s the business counseling and education,
the opportunity for information up-front, onsite workshops, one-on-one consulting, and peer mentoring
with the SBDC.
Ms. Palmer said her biggest concern is the budgetary impact and how much staff time these
things are going to take, as this will take them away from other objectives. Ms. Catlin said that as part of
an implementation plan, they can include who the lead people will be, and hopefully they will be partners
like SBDC, SCORE, Darden, etc.
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to know how their partners are doing with these items, and would
like them to provide up to date reports on who they ha ve assisted and what impact they think it has had.
She stated that when she was at the Chamber, they worked with a model that assumed that four out of
five businesses failed, and perhaps they may actua lly help businesses succeed.
Ms. Stimart said with the business assistance efforts through SBDC and SCORE, those
businesses are kept confidential, so they can report out how many businesses they worked with in a
specific geography, but not share their nam es unless they have permission.
Ms. Mallek said these are partners to whom the County provided funding, and asked if this is
something that will be considered part of their typical operations, or whether it would be an additional fee.
Ms. Catlin stated at this point, those agencies feel they can do this within their existing scope, but
if there is additional need, staff will come back to the Board with that. She emphasized that this is not
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
outside their mission, it is just a more concentrated effort in this particular area. Ms. Catlin said, staff is
not anticipating any additional funding, at this point, in the area of technical support.
Ms. McKeel said if there are additional costs that the County might incur, staff should let the
Board know.
Ms. Palmer said that should also apply to significant staff time, because that is a cost.
Ms. McKeel stated that some of this is really appropriate for the Chamber to help with.
Mr. Sheffield asked Ms. Catlin if the ARB is aware of these priorities, and if it has been officially
communicated. Mr. Foley said as the Board decides how they want to proceed, staff will be working with
Community Development and ask them to develop guidelines as to how they might be doing things
differently.
Mr. Mark Graham said they are already talking internally and trying to make sure this is all set up,
to ensure that every person in the department is aware of what is going on.
Mr. Sheffield stated that he wants to make sure the process is expedient, so that items do not
drag out for months.
Mr. Foley said when they did an expedited review process for economic development projects,
they developed a document and policy that gave guidance to staff . Therefore, one of the first things the
new Economic Development Director will do will be to sit down with Community Development staff and
get involved in this process.
Ms. Catlin noted that the only funding impact under the regulatory strategy w ill be if they waived
permit fees, as it will give up a little bit of potential revenue.
Mr. Davis stated there is not enabling authority to waive fees, but they can set up a structure
whereby the EDA would pay those fees on behalf of identified applicants because you cannot directly
waive fees under a zoning ordinance. Additionally, he stated donations can be made to a qualifying entity
set forth in the Virginia Code as being able to receive a donation, to cover fees.
Ms. Catlin said that signage is envisioned to apply only to Tier II businesses, but the Board can
decide how these strategies should be assigned when the implementation plan comes before them.
Ms. Dittmar said that while she understands how the BPOL tax worked, she asked staff to explain
the self-regulatory aspects of that.
Mr. Davis explained that the gross receipts tax is based on the prior year’s gross receipts. Every
year there is a filing deadline when you report your prior year’s gross receipts, and the amount of BPOL
receipts is assessed on that value.
Mr. Sheffield said the deadline was March 1.
Mr. Davis said that lower gross receipts means lower taxes.
Ms. Dittmar stated that her understanding is there will be great reticence on the General
Assembly’s part to get involved with waiver of real estate tax and the enabling legislation need s to do
that, and said that she has also heard that real estate property values in construction areas tend to be flat
during construction and then go up.
Mr. Davis said that regarding the real estate and personal property tax, it is a constitutional issue
that would require an amendment of the Virginia Constitution, in order to have a non-uniform tax on either
real property or personal property. He noted that this would require at least three years in the General
Assembly, and a vote via statewide referendum to approve that amendment. Mr. Davis said he does not
feel that is realistic, and other issues such as the BPOL tax would have to be addressed by specific
enabling legislation, and while some exists for certain zones, none of those seem to be the right fit for this
project – and even if they did, the enabling legislation would require a general law.
Ms. Palmer said she has no interest in pursuing that.
Ms. McKeel said she does not either, but the data she has seen indicated that after widening
Route 29, property values will go up.
Ms. Dittmar said while the state currently has no provision for an enterprise zone, after this
project is finished, perhaps the state will look at a zone for construction.
Ms. Mallek stated that it would be timely for the Board to focus on things they can control and do,
and not get bogged down in things they cannot.
Mr. Foley said that staff’s research supports that these are much less common tools.
Ms. Catlin said she is hearing that tax relief is not something to pursue at this point.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
Ms. Dittmar said she would like to discuss the ARB regulations further, as it seem s they are
facing some issues with other developments, as well as, the utility easement area that VDOT needs
requires a certain type of landscaping, yet the ARB wants beautiful trees, etc.
Mr. Sheffield said there will likely be conflicts encountered between what state code and local
regulations dictate, and they need to start either tackling those or cataloging them for future changes. He
noted that this is not unusual, as the County always has to amend its ordinances because of some sort of
conflict.
Mr. Graham said this is already coming up, and he had held a worksession with the ARB earlier
this week. He stated there is some flexibility the ARB has with the application of their guidelines, and in
the case that came forward this week, the County found a way to work around this. Mr. Graham said staff
is trying to keep tuned into this to see if there are any issues that they cannot work around, but so far it
looks as though there are workarounds with these things.
Ms. Catlin stated in the marketing category, there will be a funding impact, and the two programs
she has mentioned are the collective marketing of the district – with the County taking on some
responsibility for promoting that particular area of the County as being an accessible and viable
destination during construction. She said they will start to build an identity for that area as a destination,
with a collective marketing effort. Ms. Catlin said the other funding impac t will be if they are to do a
matching grant program for business-specific construction-based advertising, such as Charlottesville did
at the McIntire Plaza, with some sort of support provided by the County to leverage the use of advertising
dollars that businesses are putting into marketing. She noted that staff does not have a dollar value for
that yet, but feels that with the funds in the Economic Development budget plus what is proposed in the
FY16 budget, there should be approximately $150,000 for those programs.
Ms. Mallek said that what comes to mind are the spectacular ads done by the Town of Scottsville,
in which they talk about the river and focus on some of the businesses there. She stated the TV station
put those together, which cost them less than it would have if they had gone out by themselves, but she
was supportive of trying to facilitate collective efforts as a matching program – and having a shared effort
is really important.
Ms. McKeel asked about the involvement of the Chamber of Comm erce, as it seems they should
be a real partner in these endeavors and is the logical representative of businesses in this community.
She added that they have the wherewithal to do so, and she would like to see them at the table. Ms.
Catlin said that staff would like to see them at the table also, particularly with marketing in terms of event
sponsorships, coupon books, business passport programs – and staff hopes that once a less delicate
point is reached in this process, the Chamber will come in as a partner.
Ms. McKeel stated that she is not sure she is willing to determine what the County will do until
she sees what the Chamber is willing to do.
Ms. Dittmar said it would be great to have a conversation with Chamber Executive Director Tim
Hulbert and L.F. Wood, who is head of the North Charlottesville Business Council, to see if this effort c an
leverage some of their dollars and also encourage their partnership.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would rather have the Chamber with their expertise and knowledg e
provide some of this, rather than Ms. Catlin and County staff. Ms. Catlin said that staff will move forward
with pursuing that.
Ms. Dittmar asked about the mobile app that was mentioned, and said that she love s that idea.
Ms. Catlin stated that there is discussion about an app, and Mr. Shucet is going to pursue it – but she
does not think that is the direction he is going in currently. She said that staff feels this is important, and
perhaps UVA can develop it through one of their clubs.
Ms. Mallek said that it might be a candidate for the Hometown Challenge.
Ms. Dittmar said that VDOT has been talking about using the app to inform people of when lanes
will be open and other traffic matters, but she had thought of the use to be more in line with sales,
customer appreciation days, and other events.
Ms. Mallek stated that perhaps Willow Tree will partner with them.
Ms. Catlin said that she is hearing from the Board on marketing that there is some interest in
supporting the community and supporting businesses, and talking to the Chamber and North
Charlottesville Business Council to see what they might be able to come up with as a combined
marketing effort.
Ms. Catlin reported that the communications strategy is already underway with what Lou Hatter is
doing, and the project space at the Northside Library, and there is not significant cost attached to this
although there may be small expenses for display materials.
Ms. McKeel said that VDOT is a great player in this realm with the County, it is just a matter of
getting everyone together and having everyone communicating and getting the message out.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
Ms. Catlin asked if the Board wants staff to further explore any of the additional considerations,
beyond what they have addressed with marketing, communications, regulatory options, and tax relief –
which they have decided not to pursue.
Ms. Dittmar said they have been reaching out to institutional lenders.
Ms. Catlin stated that they have been talking to Virginia Community Capital and the Virginia Small
Business Financing Authority, so the County c an serve as a facilitator of those kinds of things.
Ms. Dittmar suggested reaching out to local banks, such as Virginia National Bank or the UVA
Community Credit Union, to see if they might be able to set up a special person within their banks as a
point of contact.
Ms. Catlin said that staff’s goal is to bring back something to the Board they can approve, which
will serve as the initial steps, but with the understanding that they will continue to evolve this as they go.
Ms. Dittmar said that she does not want to overlook the economic analysis impact, and it will be
great to do a baseline of what those properties are valued at now, and see what BPOL gross receipts are
in a GIS-described area, then compare them to the property values and receipts in the future.
Ms. McKeel said that they have also talked about a vacancy baseline as of right now for
businesses and empty storefronts, so this will also be a baseline approach. Mr. Foley responded that
staff can do that.
Ms. Mallek stated that regarding a full economic impact analysis, she ha s read that there are not
any comparables that are remotely the same size as what this project is, so she does not know what they
can ever get out of it.
Ms. Catlin said that if they approach it from the baseline method, using the indicators that are
important to track, there are certainly models out there that can be used.
_______________
Recess. At 3:48 p.m., the Board recessed their meeting, and reconvened at 4:04 p.m.
_______________
Agenda Item No.13. Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that beginning as early as spring 2015,
VDOT will begin utility relocation in preparation for the construction of th e grade-separated interchange at
the Route 29 – Rio Road intersection. A partial closure of the intersection is planned for a 103 day period
from May 23, 2016 through September 2, 2016, during which traffic flow will be limited to through traffic
on Route 29, right turns from Route 29 onto Rio Road, and right turns from Rio Road onto Route 29.
Outside of this 103 day window, all construction activity will be limited to night work. According to VDOT,
all business entrances will remain open during construction, including the 103 day period.
Approximately 200 businesses (of which approximately 1/3 are in Fashion Square) are located in
the affected corridor, which extends from the southern terminus of Berkmar Drive north to Myers Drive.
VDOT plans to use directional signage in the right-of-way to guide traffic to businesses during
construction. While its plans for construction signage have not been finalized at this time, VDOT has
enlisted the Route 29 Solutions Project Delivery Advisory Panel (PDAP) to provide feedback in the
development of temporary construction signage for the affected corridor. In addition, VDOT has identified
10 signs (identifying 12 businesses) that will need to be removed to accommodate utility relocation and
road construction. Removal of these signs could begin as soon as spring 2015. VDOT has begun
outreach to the 12 businesses and plans to compensate them for the loss of their signs.
The County recognizes the importance of effective signage as a key component of the County’s
overall business assistance strategy, and is focused on working proactively with VDOT and business
representatives to ensure that the County is aware of and responsive to the needs of establishments in
the affected corridor.
Prior to any work beginning on the interchange project, the County has been asked to consider
changes to its sign regulations in order to accommodate businesses that may be affected by Route 29
Solutions construction. The signage needs will be discussed in terms of three project phases. It is staff’s
opinion that VDOT temporary construction signage will be most effective for wayfinding due to its highly
visible location in the right-of-way and visual consistency with other roadway signage. To complement
VDOT’s signage efforts, staff proposes considering signage on private property in three phases:
Phase 1: Temporary Signage for Businesses Whose Signs Will Be Removed
It is staff’s opinion that the businesses whose signs will be removed will benefit most from
revisions to the current temporary s ign regulations. Currently, the County’s temporary sign regulations
allow:
Each “establishment” to have up to 6 temporary signs per year.
Each temporary sign to be up to 32 square feet in size, up to 12 feet in height, and as
close as 5 feet to the right-of-way.
Each temporary sign to be erected for up to 15 days.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
The aggregate temporary signage for each establishment may not exceed 60 days per
year. Time that a temporary sign is up without a permit is deducted from the time
allowed.
These signs are not subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board.
With their signage scheduled for removal as early as this spring, many of these businesses may
choose to not replace their permanent signs until construction is completed in late 2016. An extension o f
the current 60 day limit would enable these businesses to display temporary signage until their permanent
signs can be replaced.
Because this is the most time-sensitive issue, staff believes it should be considered prior to
addressing other signage needs so that new regulations are in place by the time the signs are removed.
Phase 1 signage is the subject of the attached resolution of intent. Staff has reached out to these
businesses to offer assistance and to let them know that the County will be cons idering changes to its
temporary sign regulations to accommodate the loss of their signs. Staff is working with VDOT to
coordinate the timing for removal of existing signs with the establishment of new regulations.
Phase 2: Temporary Signage for Businesses in the Affected Area During Construction
With approximately 200 businesses in the affected area, both VDOT and County staff share
concerns about the potential for increased temporary signage on private property creating confusion in
the field of vision and unsafe driving conditions in an already visually congested construction zone.
Therefore, it is the opinion of County staff that any provision to allow additional temporary signs during
construction should be very limited and focused so as to be effec tive. Staff also is evaluating whether
changes to the temporary sign regulations should be considered for all businesses in the affected corridor
during construction and whether these provisions should apply to similar road construction projects in the
future. Because construction is not scheduled to begin until May 2016, there is more time to seek input
from the business community on their temporary signage needs. Furthermore, because staff believes
that signage located in the right-of-way is more effective than signage located on private property during
construction, staff plans to meet with stakeholders once the VDOT signage plan has been finalized.
Noon is required on Phase 2 at this time. Once staff has the information to formulate a recommendation,
we will return to the Board for consideration. We will schedule this Board discussion to occur by
September so that any amendments could be in place by January 2016.
Phase 3: Changes to Permanent Signage for Businesses in the Affected Area
The creation of the grade-separated interchange has sparked some concern from the business
community about the visibility of permanent on-site signage once construction is complete. As the 29
Solutions project progresses and businesses are more aware of their long-term signage needs, staff can
begin to evaluate whether changes to the permanent sign regulations should be considered for
businesses in the affected corridor. Staff will seek input from the business community on this Phase 3
issue. No Board action is required on Phase 3 at this time. Once staff has the information to formulate a
recommendation, we will return to the Board for consideration. We will schedule this Board discussion
with Phase 2 signage to occur by September.
There is a potential for a temporary increase in staff time that would be required to review
temporary sign applications associated with this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment A).
_____
Ms. Dittmar introduced Director of Zoning, Ms. Amelia McCulley, and Senior Planner, Amanda
Burbage.
Ms. Amanda Burbage addressed the Board, stating that she would be co-presenting with Mr.
Nathan Umberger of VDOT. Ms. Burbage stated that the purpose of this agenda item is twofold – to
provide the Board with an update on the status of signage plans related to the work at the Route 29/Rio
interchange, and to request action on the resolution of intent that is included in the executive summary.
She presented a map from VDOT’s website, noting that the area of construction extended from the 29th
placed signal on Route 29 on the southern end, to Woodbrook on the northern end, and from the
Berkmar/Rio intersection on the west end of Rio Road, to the Fashion Square entrance on the east end.
Ms. Burbage said that Mr. Graham had mentioned that VDOT had issued the contractor’s notice to
proceed the previous day, and the contractor is Lane/Corman Joint Venture. She stated that VDOT has
provided the County with a scheduling estimate that the utility work will begin as early as May, and that
will take place outside of the roadway along the sides of the road. Ms. Burbage said that this fall, night
work will begin along the roadway between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., so that activity will be restored
during regular business hours. From May 23, 2016 to September 2, 2016 is the 103 -day period that will
encompass the most intensive construction, and during that time vehicular access w ill be limited to
through traffic on Route 29, and right turns from Rio Road and from Route 29.
Ms. Burbage stated that there are about 200 businesses within the limits of construction, which
includes all of the businesses located within Fashion Square Mall, and of those businesses 12 w ill be
affected by removal of their permanent signage – 10 signs, 12 businesses – which are being removed for
utility work. She said that VDOT has emphasized throughout the planning process that all business
entrances are to remain open during construction, including the 103-day window. Ms. Burbage said that
VDOT is going to be providing temporary construction signage within the right of way before that time and
extending beyond it, and their plans are still under development but they have a variety of approaches.
She noted that County staff feels that this signage is most important for way-finding during construction
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
because it is located in the right of way and has the appearance that people have come to expect when
they are traveling along a roadway. Ms. Burbage noted that the County has been asked to consider
amending its sign regulations for signs on private property, which she will address.
Mr. Nathan Umberger, Area Traffic Engineer for VDOT’s Culpeper District, addressed the Board
and stated that in November the regional operations group was tasked with working on a committee
approach as to how they could handle signage for these projects. He said that their first step was to meet
with Ms. McCulley and Ms. Burbage at the County, and from the VDOT standpoint there were several
programs they started to consider for businesses – such as interstate logos, tourist-oriented directional
signs (TODS), and all possibilities. Mr. Umberger stated that they also talked with other states, as there
are various states that are further along in this initiative than Virginia. He said that there are more than
200 businesses in the construction area, and VDOT solicited input from others, with Mr. Sheffield and Mr.
Graham being involved in the PDAP panel, and one of the ideas that emerged wa s district or quadrant
signing to try to group them together.
Mr. Umberger stated that this project does not quite fit into way-finding but is very close, and
applied in the general sense to identifying areas and how to get people to those areas, so rat her than
putting 30-40 businesses on a sign, they can identify an area and those businesses will be identified with
that area. He said that this will be very important as they changed traffic configurations during the 103-
day period, and in the final configurations so that people can get to where they need to go. Mr. Umberger
stated that on the slide before the Board are conceptual plans in progress, but with this being a design-
build contract, the final signing, fonts and dimensions will come from the contractor. He noted the colors
and names for different areas, with guide signs established to those areas. Mr. Umberger said that the
top sign is the generic overhead sign they will see for the interchange in its final configuration, and flowing
down from that will be the district or quadrant section signing concept. He stated that they c an build this
concept into their detours during construction, and potentially into the final configuration. He noted that in
looking at the 200 businesses, only about 40-50 of them fit into the existing TODS guidelines established
through federal requirements, so it is not the all-encompassing solution they are seeking.
Mr. Umberger reported that the quadrant signing will allow them to utilize colors and a simple
name, and integrate that with the detour and directional signage – so as you follow the signs for 29 South,
Rio West or Rio East, a placard can be added to those signs with easily identifiable colors and graphics to
provide visual cues for drivers. He presented the conceptual layout that VDOT has worked on thus far,
and said they will be working with the design-build team to come up with more permanent detail for exact
locations. Mr. Umberger said that one limiting factor is the amount of right of way they have, as they do
not want huge signs in a small area. He presented an example of a TODS sign, which identifies specific
businesses, and said that there is one in the area now for Jimmy John’s restaurant. He stated that there
has been some discussion on trying to provide some flexibility with the requirements of that program,
which is a paid program similar to the signs found on the interstate – and VDOT is working on ways to
waive that fee from the Virginia Logo Corporation or provide some flexibility during c onstruction. Mr.
Umberger said that there has been a lot of discussion as to what the quadrants should be named and
identified, and VDOT is looking to the County for community input. He stated that there are different ways
they can approach this – whether it is building something early or doing something generic at construction
time. He added that this is the concept VDOT wants to move forward with, and it is a very important
decision, so he is there to answer questions and hear their input.
Ms. Burbage stated that regarding the County’s temporary sign regulations, the current
regulations provide that each establishment is allowed to have up to six temporary signs per year, and
those signs cannot be up for longer than an aggregate of 60 days per year. S he said that the dimensions
of those signs are 32 square feet, and can be up to five feet from the right of way, and temporary signs
are not subject to review by the ARB. Ms. Burbage stated that staff has proposed addressing sign
regulations in three phases, with phase one addressing temporary signage exclusively for businesses
whose signs will be removed for the utility work beginning this spring, and this is to address the situation
whereby they have 12 businesses that could be without permanent signage for up to two years
throughout the entire construction process, and so the 60-day temporary sign maximum will present a
challenge for them She said that this phase is the subject of the resolution of intent before the Board
today. Ms. Burbage said that phase two pertains to temporary signage for all of the businesses within the
limits of construction, and staff feels that they are not prepared to make a recommendation on either
phase two or phase three prior to VDOT finalizing its signing plan, which shou ld be finalized by this July.
She stated that by deferring further discussion of this with the Board until September, it will give them
time to see what is within VDOT’s signing plan, and also to conduct outreach to the business community
to get their input on any gaps that might exist between the signs that VDOT is providing, and what the
County’s current sign provisions are. Ms. Burbage said that phase three will address concerns expressed
regarding the permanent signage for businesses in the affected c orridor, and essentially the creation of a
grade-separated interchange affects the visibility of some permanent signs, so the question will be
whether or not the County wishes to consider amending its permanent sign regulations in that area. She
noted that they will want to discuss this with the business community as part of their outreach, and zoning
staff have spoken with Ms. Catlin about piggybacking on her efforts with the business assistance
subcommittee group, using it as a springboard for that communication with the business community. Ms.
Burbage noted that they expect to bring these two phases back to the Board by September with a
recommendation from staff as to what should be done to address the two signage requests.
Ms. Burbage said that staff’s recommendation will be to adopt the resolution of intent to address
phase one of Route 29 Solutions business signage impacts, and if the Board is to move forward now,
staff hopes to go to public hearing with the Planning Commission on phase one on April 7, and come
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
back to the Board with a public hearing on phase one on May 6, then return in September with
recommendations pertaining to phases two and three.
Ms. Mallek asked who will be putting up the temporary signs this May, when businesses start to
lose their signs for utility work. Mr. Umberger said that there are different options, and referenced a slide
he had presented that showed a sign that can be posted at business accesses. He stated if there is a
loss of sign or a need, those can be included, but VDOT is hesitant to propose that because there are so
many businesses – and at an entrance that serves 20 businesses, it will be hard to get all of them on the
sign. He stated that there are other options for signage that can resolve this.
Ms. McCulley clarified that the resolution before the Board allows the businesses to proceed with
temporary signage on a longer-term basis than the ordinance currently allows, so the businesses can, at
least, have a temporary sign up now. She said that it is most likely they will want to wait until construction
is complete, so they can put their permanent sign up as close to the road as possible, using a temporary
sign in the interim.
Ms. Mallek said that she hopes VDOT will meet with the business quadrant people to come up
with names for their specific areas, other than just using compass quadrants.
Mr. Foley stated that VDOT is doing a survey with a marketing firm under contract to get
feedback from those businesses.
Mr. Umberger said that it is an overall survey for many project-related issues, but that question
was specifically added to solicit feedback, and they can keep the signage colors consistent even if the
naming does not specifically work out for the long term.
Mr. Sheffield asked if there is an inventory of signs that are coming down during construction,
because there needs to be distinction between signage issues related to those coming down versus
those to help remind people there is a business there. Ms. Burbage said that staff has a document of that
inventory with photos, and it references parcel numbers.
Ms. McCulley said that staff has reached out to all 12 businesses who will be losing a sign, with a
letter offering assistance as their sign comes down, to help them find interim signage.
Mr. Umberger noted that the 12 signs are all identified for the utility relocation, because those are
always part of right of way negotiations.
Ms. Dittmar asked whether a business will have to pay for a new sign permit, in a situation where
they had a temporary sign but wanted to put up a permanent one post construction. Ms. Burbage said
that the options for temporary signage and the process by which a business w ill restore their permanent
signs will need to be considered in the provisions established under phase one.
Ms. McCulley stated that typically, without any other provision made, a business will pay a permit
fee, and staff has evaluated each one of the signs and was thrilled to learn that each of them conforms to
County and ARB regulations – so provided they put the same signs back, they will not need additional
approvals, although they will need a sign permit. She added that the Board should probably discuss the
fees in phase one.
Ms. Mallek asked if VDOT will reimburse the person for the value of the sign coming down. Mr.
Umberger confirmed that is the case.
Ms. McCulley said that the businesses are also being given the option of keeping their original
sign, which they are being compensated for, so they c an choose to reinstall it.
Ms. Palmer moved to adopt the Resolution of Intent to address phase one, Route 29 Solutions
business signage impacts, Attachment A. 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.
Mr. Boyd commended staff for the job they are trying to do, as well as local and district VDOT
staff, but the “GSI Benefit Cost Analysis” report from VDOT is the biggest bunch of BS he has ever read
in his life, as if that is some way of justifying this particular grade-separated interchange. He said that a
fiscal impact study, for the impact this will have on the County and the businesses – and applying what
has been done in other parts of the country – might work. Mr. Boyd said that Mr. McKenzie has
calculated that if 20-40% of business traffic is reduced during that period of time, and they c an apply that
percentage to tax revenues for those businesses, as a best and worst -case scenario. He stated that he
thought this project will be a permanent blight on one of their major entrance corridors, and he does not
want this to be part of his legacy with the Board – so he will not participate in these discussions.
Ms. Dittmar said that Mr. Boyd has voted consistently against it, so it is duly noted that he
opposes the project. She stated that there was a time during the early part of this process where she was
distressed that much of her time was being hijacked to focus on legitimate citizens’ concerns, legitimate
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
citizen support, but she realizes that this is an incredible project and legacy. Ms. Dittmar said that staff
has done a tremendous job in getting them to this point, and the Board thank s them for that.
Mr. Foley recognized Ms. Catlin for her work on this, as she has done an incredible job with the
research on the business program, which is well-written, and the engagement has been extensive. He
said that he thought it was a model.
Ms. Palmer thanked VDOT also, and said that the econ omic analysis they have done is directed
by the Federal Highway Administration to focus solely on average daily traffic volumes and comparisons
of travel times, which is a much narrower scope.
Mr. Boyd said that his statement is that it is flawed, and is misinformation.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulates temporary signs and allows each
business to obtain up to six (6) temporary sign permits per year, limits each perm itted temporary sign to be
erected for not more than fifteen (15) consecutive days, and limits temporary signs being erected at a
business for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the road construction project commonly known as the “Route 29 Solutions” project will
require the removal of approximately ten (10) privately-owned permanent signs along Route 29 North
between the southern terminus of Berkmar Drive and Myers Drive to the north to allow utilities to be
relocated; and
WHEREAS, the removal of these permanent signs may be as soon as Spring 2015 and the affected
businesses may prefer to not establish new permanent signs until the Route 29 Solutions project is
completed; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the County’s regulations for temporary signs, under
suitable standards, to extend the duration for which temporary signs may be erected to allow those
businesses whose permanent signs are removed in conjunction with a road construction project to ere ct
temporary signs until new permanent signs are erected or the road construction project is completed,
whichever occurs first.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a
resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code § 18-4.15, Signs, and any other sections
of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
_______________
Agenda Item No.14. Virginia Department of Transportation Monthly Report for March 2015.
Mr. Joel DeNunzio addressed the Board and introduced Mr. Mark Nesbit, who would be acting
temporarily as VDOT’s district administrator while John Lynch is in Richmond on assignment until late
May. Mr. DeNunzio said that Mr. Nesbit is the resident administrator in the Warrenton residency, so the
Board will be working with both of them, and the phone number they used will also reach him.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that the project for the Route 53 intersection with Route 729 was
advertised in December, but is still under review and will be updated with his next monthly report. He
stated that Broomley Road Bridge will be awarded March 30, with construction expected to start in May,
and said that Pocket Lane (Route 703) has environmental clearance and the project will begin at the end
of May. Mr. DeNunzio reported that Doctors Crossing will be built this year, and hopefully that will
address the dust and rutting issues on that road. From the savings on Midway Road, VDOT is able to
reallocate that money for both Pocket Lane and Doctors Crossing. He said they are working on
environmental permitting for Doctors Crossing, and expects it to be a 30-60 day process, with the project
ready to go in July. Mr. DeNunzio stated that he and Mr. Benish have been working on getting
information on the six-year plan together for the Board, with a work session expected for the first week in
May, with the public hearing scheduled for the second week of June. He said that because they expect to
have the two rural rustic jobs done, and one additional one done the following year, they w ill probably
need to think about adding projects to that list.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that the adaptive signal projects on Route 29 continue to be under
construction at night, as weather permits, and they are in the northern corridor currently, putting loops in
the pavement – and the Best Buy ramp project started with tree removal earlier that day.
Mr. Sheffield asked if the City is in the same phase as the County on their adaptive signalization
project on 29. Mr. DeNunzio said that he will have to look at what phase they are in, but confirmed that
they are still implementing the system.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
Mr. DeNunzio stated that the Best Buy ramp clearing happened in the southwest quadrant of the
loop ramp, with the stormwater management, and they will see clearing of trees for the rest of the week
as weather permits, and the contractor’s plan for next week is to clear along the ramp and Best Buy to get
the retaining walls in. Mr. DeNunzio said that the notice to proceed for the Route 29 design/build project
was issued earlier that day, and VDOT has completed the project services requirement, which is basically
the department working with the City to acquire easements on the post office property.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that Dick Woods Road Bridge is under construction, with an August 4,
2015 scheduled completion date; Black Cat Road is under construction, with an October 15, 2015
completion date; and Broomley Road Bridge is soon to be under construction. He stated that VDOT
expects to have a new pavement marking contract in within the next few weeks and has a lot of requests,
with Route 250 West being the top priority. He stated that he is working with Lou Hatter to get a public
notice on Wakefield Road. Mr. DeNunzio said that there are a few items on Peter Jefferson Parkway –
including looking into dual right turns coming off of the parkway to go onto 250 West. He stated that
VDOT feels they will be able to implement that, and it is currently a single right-turn lane and through lane
with two left turn lanes. They will be making a middle lane go whatever direction they want, so they can
also turn right out of that lane – which should help with the traffic backup. Mr. DeNunzio said that there is
some interest in a mini-roundabout at State Farm Boulevard and Peter Jefferson Parkway instead of a
traffic signal, and VDOT is considering that as part of the four-way stop at the bottom of the hill, to be
done within the footprint of the existing intersection.
Mr. DeNunzio reported that VDOT will be implementing flashing yellow arrows at Route 22 and
250 at the Luck Stone entrance, which is the first intersection they are going to try with the flashing yellow
lights. He said they hope this will allow the traffic to flow better and possibly reduce angle collisions. In
speaking with traffic engineers they are also going to look at the I-64 interchange at Exit 124, which used
to be a permissive turn, as another location for flashing yellows – but they want to start with one that is
less risky.
Ms. Mallek asked for clarification of the “permissive turn.” Mr. DeNunzio explained that it is a left
turn, and when you have a sign that says “left turn yield on green,” sometimes people do not realize they
have to yield, so they go through – and at 250 and 64 ramps at the Shadwell exit, there used to be a lot of
crashes because the left turn was there, as that turn has very heavy movement. He stated that the yellow
turn arrow allows you to go, but notifies the driver to use caution because oncoming traffic is not stopping.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that there are currently no lights like this in Albemarle, but Mr. Umberger wants to try
them in the County.
Mr. Umberger stated that these yellow arrows are found in Route 29 South in Nelson County, and
at the first intersection on Route 3 in Fredericksburg, but this will be the first one implemented in the
Culpeper District. He said that these lights historically have yielded a 30-40% reduction in left-turn
crashes, and the light pattern went from red to yellow to flashing yellow and then a green arrow. Mr.
Umberger stated that the phasing remains the same, just the visual cue that people see is changing, and
the studies have found that people understand it more – and if people are confused, they waited and went
when they were clear. He said that if this goes well, VDOT would like to get back to protective/
permissive, with protective meaning you have the green arrow and the right of way, and permissive
meaning you are permitted to go once there is a gap in traffic. Mr. Umberger said that the Route 22/250
signals will go in sometime in April or early May, with the adaptive signalization company being the on-call
contractor for this work.
Mr. DeNunzio said that VDOT is going to go ahead and schedule the shoulders on Route 240,
and Mr. Umberger is going to follow up with the resident there about her other concerns. He added that
they will also be looking at the crosswalks at Peter Jefferson, with some mid-block type crossing to make
it look more like a pedestrian crossing. Mr. DeNunzio stated that the maintenance crews have done a
tremendous job with snow clearing this year, and while VDOT still gets complaints, they have been
greatly reduced this year. He added that they planned to continue to improve on that process.
_____
Ms. Palmer stated that she has only received one complaint about snow removal this year, and
something different is definitely happening. Mr. DeNunzio said that they have been putting monitors out
in neighborhoods, implementing district staff to monitor, because they found that in putting contractors on
subdivision roads, they tend to miss a lot.
_____
Ms. Mallek said that Advance Mills Road is the best it has ever been, and normally it is
treacherous in both directions. She asked him to update her on the next step for the truck ban. Mr.
DeNunzio said that he is meeting with David Benish and Gerald Gatobu about that specifically.
Ms. Dittmar said that when they had last met, not all of the snow removal money had been used,
and asked if there might be some left. Mr. DeNunzio stated that a lot of the costs have not hit yet, and he
is not sure where they are at this point. He said that the statewide budget is $145 million, out of a $1.2
billion maintenance fund, and if there are areas that go over their budget they can be adjusted for those
cost. Mr. DeNunzio said that he still planned to do a lot of spring maintenance proj ects, with gravel on
gravel roads, road patching and pipe work – and he feels that he does have the funding to do that.
Ms. Mallek thanked Mr. DeNunzio for the quick action on the logging truck and the mud on the
road.
_____
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Ms. Dittmar said that she had recently attended a DEQ hearing, and there was a proposal that
would take a pipe under Route 250 to Peter Jefferson’s birthplace farm, and asked Mr. DeNunzio if he
has some oversight on that project.
Mr. DeNunzio stated that his understanding is they are discharging into an existing culvert that
goes under Route 250, and the applicant is required to get a permit from VDOT on that.
_____
Ms. Mallek asked who is taking care of the extra velocity that is coming out of the VDOT drainage
pipe into the pasture, if the flow increases. Mr. DeNunzio said that it will be VDOT’s analysis that will
determine whether their culvert can handle the additional flow, and the impact off of the right of way will
be up to the applicant and the DEQ. He noted that there are a lot of agencies looking at this, and VDOT
is just one of them.
Ms. Dittmar thanked Mr. DeNunzio for his report.
_______________
Agenda Item No.15. Closed Meeting.
At 4:49 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 (1) to consider appointments to boards, committees,
and commissions in which there are pending vacancies or requests for reappointments; and 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.. 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.
_______________
Agenda Item No.16. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 6:02 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. 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.17. Boards and Commissions.
a. Vacancies and Appointments.
Ms. Palmer moved to make the following appointments/reappointments to boards, committees
and commissions:
appoint Mr. James Atkinson as the Samuel Miller District representative on the
Economic Development Authority to fill an unexpired term ending January 19, 2016.
appoint Mr. Donald Long as the At-Large representative on the Economic Development
Authority with said term to expire January 19, 2019.
appoint Mr. Jeremy Glode to the Natural Heritage Committee with said term to expire
September 30, 2019.
appoint Mr. Louis Lopez, Mr. Mark Sackson and Ms. Laurel Olson to the Pantops
Community Advisory Council with said terms to expire June 30, 2017.
reappoint Mr. Michael Gaffney as Chairman and Joint City/County representative to the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, with said
term to expire December 31, 2016
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.
_______________
Agenda Item No.18. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Ms. Laura Knox, Executive Director of the Smart 29 Coalition, addressed the Board and said that
three of the Route 29 Solutions Advisory Panel members resigned upon the announcement from VDOT
awarding the contract for the grade-separated interchange: John Nunnelly, Chuck Lebo and Eddie Giles.
Ms. Knox said that Eddie Giles had resigned because he does not want to be part of an “ill-fated legacy,”
and feels that the Board of Supervisors with the exception of Supervisor Boyd , did not listen to their
constituents, although there were 14,500 people communicating their opposition to the $84 million being
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
wasted on this GSI. Ms. Knox said that Chuck Lebo stated that the damage to the County’s tax base
without an economic impact study is “reckless and irresponsible,” and it is important to understand that
they are frustrated serving on this panel because the reasons that were given for the projects did not
show any real rationale. Ms. Knox said that the rationale behind the GSI was to save time, and it is now
estimated that 36-52 seconds will be saved. She stated that the GSI was deemed necessary because
this is a dangerous intersections, but accidents ha ve actually decreased from approximately 30 to 21 last
year, since the red light camera was installed. Ms. Knox said that traffic counts in this area ha ve actually
decreased over the last five years. She stated that the coalition appreciated the time that Ms. Catlin and
Ms. Stimart had taken to meet with businesses in the area, but a lot of the ideas presented w ill not really
help them – and the three points that would really help them included temporary real estate reduction,
waiving of the gross receipts tax, and waiving of permit fees. Ms. Knox said that there w ill be businesses
that go out of business. She stated that the Smart 29 Coalition maintains their position that this project
will be a nightmare, businesses will go out of business, jobs will be lost, and taxes will go up again.
_______________
Agenda Item No.19. PUBLIC HEARING to solicit public input on the proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to be submitted to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development for Phase II Sewer Project in the Oak Hill neighborhood. Residents of the
project area are encouraged to attend. The proposal will include installation of sanitar y sewer to
approximately 20 houses and laterals to connect the houses to the system. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 16 and February 23, 2015)
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that the Virginia Community Development
Block Grant (VCDBG) program is a federally-funded grant program administered by the Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided
funding to eligible units of local government (in non-entitlement communities only) for projects that
address critical community needs, including housing, infrastructure, and economic
development. Albemarle County has received numerous grants in previous years to support housing and
community improvement initiatives.
The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted. The first
public hearing was held on January 7, 2015, at which time information was provided on eligible activities
that may be funded by a VCDBG grant, the amount of funding estimated to be available, past activities
undertaken with VCDBG funds, and the process for applying for funding. There were two comments at
the hearing; one to consider using VCDBG funds for economic development and one to utilize VCDBG
funds to provide housing for the homeless. The purpose of this public hearing is to provide information on
the proposed project application and to accept public comment on the application. Applications are
submitted by the County to DHCD; however, the proposed activities may be undertaken by other
agencies. Albemarle County can submit one or more applications, but is limited to awards totaling no
more than $2.5 million.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and residents of the Oak Hill subdivision are
requesting that the County submit an application for the Oak Hill Phase II Sewer Project. In 2010, the
County received a VCDBG award for Phase I of the project in the amount of $712,500 which resulted in
the installation of approximately 5,000 feet of 8” diameter gravity sewer pipe, manholes, and service
laterals to 57 housing units. Phase II will include the installation of approximately 2,000 feet of 8”
diameter gravity sewer pipe and 3,000 feet of 4” service laterals to 20 additional housing units. The
amount of the grant requested is $300,000, which is the maximum amount the County may request for
this project based on an average of $15,000 per housing unit. ACSA is providing funding estimated at
over $525,000 for the acquisition of easements, engineering and design, and construction. In addition,
ACSA has agreed to waive connection fees for all properties. Waiving connection fees for low-to-
moderate income households is required by DHCD when CDBG funds are used. A survey of the 20
additional households proposed for service indicates that 85% of the households are low-to-moderate
income (CDBG requires that at least 60% of the beneficiaries meet that income category). In addition to
providing sewer services to residents of the Oak Hill neighborhood, the project would eliminate
contamination from failed on-site septic systems, which may be contributing to the impairment of Biscuit
Run and Moore’s Creek located east and north of the Oak Hill neighborhood.
The attached draft application (Attachment A) includes information current through the date of
submission of this executive summary. Updated information will be provided to the Board on March 4th.
Any further updates will be included in the submitted application.
There is no budgetary impact unless or until an application is made and approved for a funded
project. The application includes a request for fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) to cover administrative
and grant management costs for the funded activity. Projects applying for VCDBG generally require
some level of local financial support, which will be provided by ACSA for the proposed project.
Upon receiving information on the proposed VCDBG application (draft included as Attachment A)
and taking public comment on the proposal, staff recommends that the Boa rd: 1) adopt the attached
Resolution (Attachment B) approving the County’s submission of the application for the Oak Hill Phase II
Sewer Project; and 2) authorize the County Executive to execute the application as updated and all
required certifications and assurances (Attachments C through F) for submission with the application, as
well as the contract documents upon receipt of an award.
_____
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
Chief of Housing, Ron White, addressed the Board, stating that he had come before them in
January to provide information on Community Development Block Grant opportunities, and noted at that
time that his office is working on several potential applications. He explained that the CDBG process
requires two public hearings, with the second being the time a proposed project is presented to the Board
for their approval, then the application proceeds. Mr. White said that typically, they are processing
competitive applications that have a deadline the last week of March – and this particular proposal is a
non-competitive, construction-ready sewer project, which means they will not go through competition as
long as all threshold criteria are met. He noted that the project should be funded, provided the state has
the funding to award, and they currently have about $5 million in the pot. Mr. White said that there is the
potential for him to come back in the future with one or two planning grants, and there is an initiative in
Southwood for some community organizing and a needs assessment, and he anticipate s a needs
assessment for potential housing rehab projects next year in southern Albemarle County.
Mr. White stated that the application being brought forward now is for phase two of the Oak Hill
sanitary sewer, and said that in 2010 they had received an award that completed phase one, which
connected 54 housing units to public sewer. He stated that this project is anticipated to connect the last
20 units in the Oak Hill subdivision to sewer, and will involve about 2,000 feet of main eight-inch sewer
line and roughly 3,000 feet of four-inch service line to connect the houses. Mr. White said that by getting
the grant, ACSA is willing to waive the fees, which have to be waived for low and moderate-income
persons, but are going to be waived for anyone that connects – and will also make the connection from
the sewer to the house. He stated that approximately 85% of the households are low to moderate
income, and one of the threshold criteria is having at least 75% of eligible beneficiaries execute a
participation agreement – and to date 19 of the 20 have signed the agreements. Mr. White said that they
have to have all easements executed, and 19 are needed; to date, 14 have been signed and received.
He stated that one of the remaining five is an easement required from the state for Biscuit Run Park, and
while they gave an easement for phase one, it took a long time to get it. Mr. White noted that he
anticipates filing an application even if they do not get that easement, which will likely be a condition of
accepting the grant. He said that design documents must be substantially complete, and ACSA
Executive Director Gary O’Connell is present to answer specific project design questions, and as of
March 1, the service authority anticipate having 100% design documents and also authori zed to bid the
project at their February 19 meeting.
Mr. White said that the project has to be completed within one year, and the construction
timeframe for the project is anticipated to be approximately six months. He stated that they feel very
comfortable they are meeting the thresholds and can be successful in getting the money to carry this
forward. Mr. White reported that the amount of the grant being requested is $300,000, and $15,000 of
that will be used to offset administrative costs, so $285,000 will go to construction. He said that the
ACSA is putting in approximately $550,000 towards the project cost. Mr. White said that staff is
recommending that the Board hold a public hearing to get public comment, approve the resolution before
them, and authorize the County Executive to sign the application and any supporting documents that are
needed for the grant, and authorize him to sign necessary documents upon completion of the grant
process.
Ms. Palmer asked if the $285,000 that goes back to the ACSA will offset the $550,000. Mr. White
responded that it is in addition to that amount, and is an approximately $830,000 project cost, including
design, engineering, and construction.
Ms. Palmer asked how much the service authority had to put in for phase one. Mr. White said
that phase one was approximately $1.2 million, and they had a $660,000 grant to go towards it, with the
service authority putting in $600-800K.
At this time, the Chair opened the public hearing.
Mr. James Johnson addressed the Board, stating that he is a retiree and most of the people in his
neighborhood are on Social Security or disability, and they need help. He said that on January 2, 2014,
he had sewer running in his bathtub, and it was April 24 before he could get the lines put in. Mr. Johnson
said that he contacted the County and the Health Department came over, but they could only give him
four 40-foot ditches, which means they limited his property to three full-time occupants, and it cut the
value of his property enormously. He stated that he found out in the process that all of the sewer lines
were put in incorrectly, and were put in much too shallow, and the sewer line was sitting right on top of
shale rock, which was approximately three feet deep. Mr. Johnson said that the new systems go down
six feet, and had they done that he might be OK – but the homes there were built in 1964-1968, so the
sewer lines are worn out. He reiterated that the people who live there need help with this.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public hearing and the matter was
placed before the Board.
Ms. Mallek stated that this is a terrific idea and will help the water and Moores Creek as well as
helping the neighbors with a much safer situation.
Ms. Palmer said that they appreciated that the ACSA ratepayers are picking up the additional
money for that, so it is hard to argue with the proposal.
Ms. Dittmar moved to adopt the resolution as presented. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll
was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted resolution is set out below:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that safe, decent,
affordable, and accessible housing is available for all residents and improving the livability of all
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, on-site septic systems are failing in the Oak Hill neighborhood, resulting in on-site
contamination and contributing to the impairment of Biscuit Run and Moore’s Creek; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to addressing conditions causing contamination
endangering the public’s health and safety or impairing streams and waterways in the County; and
WHEREAS, after holding public hearings on January 7, 2015 and March 4, 2015, the County
wishes to apply for $300,000 in Virginia Community Development Block Grant (“VCDBG”) funds for the Oak
Hill Phase II Sewer Project (“Project”) to support the installation of approximately 2,000 feet of eight -inch
sewer line and 3,000 feet of four-inch service laterals in the Oak Hill neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority will provide additional funding of over
$600,000 and waive connection fees for the Project and will undertake the Project responsibilities, including
procurement, providing project management, and providing timely reporting to the County under a
Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, at least sixty percent (85%) of the households to be served in Oak Hill are low- and
moderate-income; and
WHEREAS, the projected benefits of the Project include:
Sewer service availability to 20 housing units including approximately 35 persons;
Eliminating on-site sewage contamination in the Oak Hill neighborhood; and
Reducing the bacterial impairment of Moore’s Creek caused by contamination from failing
on-site septic systems in the Oak Hill neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the County’s submission of the VCDBG application for the Oak Hill Phase II Sewer Project and
authorizes the County Executive to execute the application and required certificates and assurances and
to take any further action required for this application.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 20. Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Update.
The following report was received from Mr. Gary O’Connell, Executive Director, Albemarle County
Service Authority:
1. Budget and Rates – The FY 2016 Budget and Rates will be presented to the ACSA Board of
Directors at the April Board meeting for July 1 adoption. The proposed Capital Improvements
Program will be presented at the March Board meeting. As we discussed before, the ACSA
average monthly water and sewer bill is slightly less than the statewide average for a typical
residential customer (using 4,000 gallons). We compare very favorably with our residential
rates, for which residential represents 75% of our customer base. We are com pleting the
budget and rate analysis currently, to be able to present recommendations in late April to the
ACSA Board.
2. Strategic Plan – The ACSA is in the second year of a five year Strategic Plan aimed at
improvements in our water and sewer system that will benefit our customers. We have
accomplished a number of Strategic Plan items including installing a new SCADA System
(computerized controls) to monitor our systems and pump stations.
3. ACSA Capital Projects Update:
Western Ridge Foxchase (Crozet) Water Connection – This project has been
completed, which created a looped system that eliminated a dead -end waterline. This
improves water quality and emergency backup.
Key West Water Main Replacement – A waterline project to replace an existing line that
is old and deteriorating. In addition to a new waterline, additional fire hydrants will be added
to increase the level of fire protection in Key West. This contractor will start the installation
in early March.
Westmoreland Water Main Replacement – This project is to replace a 50 year old
waterline that has recently experienced multiple leaks. The Westmoreland subdivision is
located between the Carrsbrook and Northfields subdivisions that are also scheduled for
future waterline upgrades. Initial project surveying is underway.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
Ashcroft Water Improvements – A new tank has been installed and pressure reducing
stations have been upgraded. A replacement pump station has been completed and now
in operation.
Michie Tavern Water Main Replacement – A new waterline is being designed that would
connect near PVCC on Route 20. The current line is over 70 years old and badly
deteriorating. The project is under final design.
Crozet Water Main Replacement Phase 2 – A phased waterline replacement program
has been underway in Crozet. Work recently has been completed on High and Myrtle
Streets, and we are completing the work on Hilltop Street.
Berkeley Water Main Replacement – This is another of our waterline replacement
projects for an older line, nearly 60 years old. A recent community meeting was held to
review the project with our customers in the Berkeley subdivision. We are at 50% in the
design. We are also coordinating with Charlottesville Gas, as the neighborhood is very
interested in new gas service.
Glenmore Water Tank Project – This project is designed to add an emergency backup to
the Village of Rivanna area, as there is a single 4½ mile waterline to the east to serve this
area. We are completing the easements needed for the project.
Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – This project, located near Ivy Nursery at Route
250, is an interconnect project to connect to the West Leigh area for water system and fire
protection improvements and emergency redundancy. The bid opening is the end of
February.
Ednam Water Pump Station Upgrade – This project will provide an alternate source of
water to West Leigh by upgrading the existing pump station and increasing pumping
capacity. We are in the final design phase with site plan submissions upcoming.
Orchard Acres Waterline Extension – One of our Crozet area waterline replacement
projects to upgrade and replace aging waterlines. This project is at the 50% stage in the
design documents.
Sewer System Rehabilitations – Work is near completion in the Ednam Sewer System.
We are working with Farmington on sewer upgrades to their private system that connects
into the Ednam System. The study phase of the PVCC Sewer Drainage Basin has been
completed, and the rehabilitation work is being scheduled.
Oak Hill Sewer (Phase 2) – The ACSA staff continues to appreciate the work of the
Albemarle Housing Office to assist in seeking CDBG grant funding for this new sewer line
project to serve 20 additional properties that have failing septic systems. A community
meeting was recently held. We are working on easements and property agreements to
meet the conditions of the grant application.
West Leigh Waterline Replacement – Work has been completed to replace an existing
waterline on Devonshire Road, and work has begun on Wendover Drive.
_____
Mr. O’Connell stated that in addition to the report he provided to the Board, the ACSA is still in the
process of developing budgets and rates, working with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority on
wholesale rates for treatment costs, and the ACSA will take their budget and rate recommendations to
their board on April 16. He stated that in April, they will also take a capital improvements program
proposal to their board, and will schedule a public hearing from that point – and at the next quarterly
briefing to the Board, he will review some of the newer projects included in the capital program. Mr.
O’Connell said that the ACSA is in the second year of a five-year plan, which is pretty aggressive and
contained 130 items, with a number of new initiatives. He stated that he has given the Board a capital
projects summary, with 20 active projects totaling roughly $20 million, and he has tried to note in his
report where there have been changes or completion of projects.
Ms. Palmer asked if construction prices have started to go up. Mr. O’Connell stated that the last
few bids have been under ACSA estimates, and have been fairly competitive, with four to eight bidders.
He said that their projects typically are water or sewer line projects, anywhere from half a million to $2.5
million, and there is a group of contractors who can work in that area, with it still being pretty competitive.
Ms. Mallek asked if ACSA will hire a contractor or take it on themselves. Mr. O’Connell said that
they will hire a contractor, and stated that they have finished all of the design work, and the ACSA board
had approved them to go to bid on the project, with the last hurdle being to get a few more easements.
He stated that they have been back and forth with several property owners that say they will sign, and
that will be a final condition of being able to apply for the grant.
Ms. Palmer asked if they are considering doing any other of these types of grants. Mr. O’Connell
said that the ACSA has several ideas about what might work with CDBG, but will be talking with Mr. White
in terms of identifying neighborhoods that meet all the conditions of the grant, and said that there are a
number of surveys that have to be done – and the amount of paperwork for each project is incredible.
Ms. Palmer said that she recalled that the first one was challenging from a paperwork standpoint,
and asked if this one is easier. Mr. O’Connell stated that they had to get used to the steps involved and
the amount of information they needed to collect, reports that had to be filled out, etc. – and a lot of that
went through Mr. White, with the ACSA’s job being to build the projects.
Ms. Dittmar said that she has been hearing great things about the authority in the southern part of
the County, and m entioned that they have held two meetings with the neighborhoods that are greatly
appreciated. Mr. O’Connell stated that the authority tries with every one of its projects to have contacts
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 55)
initially just so people are aware, and then try to have a community meeting about halfway through the
design process where anyone who is affected is invited, so that any issues that emerged will allow time to
change or move things.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 21. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Update.
The following report was forwarded to the Board from Mr. Thomas L. Frederick, Executive
Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority:
I. Schenks Branch Interceptor Replacement: RWSA has successfully negotiated with DEQ
a compliance schedule for this project which requires RWSA to award a construction
contract by July 31, 2015 for the proposed section of pipe across the City's "Greenway"
property, but sets in abeyance the section on or adjacent to County property until either
an easement is granted to RWSA by the County or the City grants RWSA a street cut
permit to install the new pipe in McIntire Road. We do continue to urge the County and
City to complete their negotiations, which have now been ongoing for over 18 months,
recognizing that completing this pipeline is important to the citizens of this community as
a whole.
2. Water Treatment Plant Granular Activated Carbon Improvements: Construction bids were
received on February 10, 2015. The RWSA Board and staff in consultation with counsel
have had to address a clerical error on the part of one bidder, and the evaluation of bids
is still in progress. We are hoping to complete the evaluation prior to the March 19 ACSA
Board of Directors meeting and March 24 RWSA Board meeting.
3. New Rivanna Pump Station: Excavation of the entrance shaft (at the RWSA Moores
Creek AWRRF property) for the new pipeline tunnel is nearing completion and the
excavation of the entrance shaft (at the existing pump station adjacent to Riverside Park)
has begun. Our contractor expects the tunnel boring machine to be delivered this month
and hopes to begin excavating the tunnel by April.
4. Wastewater Plant Odor Control: The RWSA Board approved a $9.3 million project in
January expected to be completed by 2017. The recommended project was based upon
a state-of-the-art computer model which predicts the "plume" of odorous gases based
upon historical weather and climate data for the area surrounding the Water Resources
Recovery Facility.
5. Facility Name Changes: At a national conference in September 2014 the Water
Environment Federation (WEF) recommended that water utilities consider changing the
name "wastewater treatment facilities" to "water resource recovery facilities", recognizing
that as a result of technological advancements, such facilities today are effectively
converting wastewaters into clean water for streams and healthy aquatic life, nutrients for
returning to the soil, and renewable electrical energy. In December 2014 the RWSA
Board accepted that recommendation and accordingly renamed RWSA' s facilities. R
WSA is a member of WEF, an international trade association focused upon preserving
and enhancing the global water environment.
6. Ivy Materials Utilization Center: RSWA is continuing to monitor decisions by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors with respect to public solid waste facilities for
Albemarle County citizens, and the role that the County is seeking from RSWA.
______
Mr. Frederick said that he would update the Board on some of the things Rivan na is working on,
and will take their questions. Mr. Frederick said that Rivanna will be changing the name of some of its
facilities, and said there is an interesting story behind it. He reported that he had attended the Water
Environment Federation conference in September, and stated that this is an international trade group that
most public utilities and most stormwater agencies are members of. Mr. Frederick said that it is very
technically-driven with a lot of research and advocacy with Congress. He explained that the federation
has suggested that it is time for wastewater treatment plants to start calling themselves “water resource
recovery facilities” because the technology is advanced to the point they are now producing outstanding
clean water for rivers and aquatic life, are producing nutrients for the soil, and are providing renewable
energy through the burning of digester gas to help with the carbon footprint. Mr. Frederick stated that
Rivanna is doing every one of those things at the Moores Creek facility, and he came back from that
conference and reported on his findings, and Mike Gaffney and Judith Mueller from the Rivanna board
approached him and suggested changing the name of all Rivanna facilities. Mr. Frederick reported that
they are now advanced water resource recovery facilities, with employees deservedly proud of what they
are doing. He added that it is remarkable what they are doing to promote the health and the environment
in the community.
Mr. Frederick reported that a comprehensive odor control program for the recovery facility was
approved at the Rivanna board’s January meeting, which is a $9.3 million project based on a lot of effort
put in over a year’s period of time using state of the art computer modeling and atmosphere/air testing.
He said that the goal is a 99% effective solution at the facility’s fence line, and Rivanna listened to what
neighbors in Belmont and Woolen Mills were saying and what they wanted for a solution. Mr. Frederick
noted that in 2017, the project will be completed.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 56)
Mr. Boyd said that the odor also affected I-64 and the Martha Jefferson Hospital area, and
recounted an incident from an operating room when a doctor was operating on someone and the intake
valve pulled in some of the outside air. Mr. Frederick agreed that the affected area expanded beyond just
the Woolen Mills area.
Ms. Mallek asked how the tree planting from a year ago was taking hold, in the created wetland
area. Mr. Frederick responded that for the wetland area off of Franklin Street and the Buck Mountain
area, there has been the first of 10 warranty inspections, and there are some minor tree fatalities, which
are being taken care of and replaced. He said that the wetland site is fenced in and is about a 10 acre
site, and the Buck Mountain site is too big to fence in – but is holding its own and will be an excellent
project for the community once it matures.
Ms. Palmer asked how they will get people to call this a “water resource recovery facility,”
because the Ivy Materials Utilization Center is still called “the dump.” Mr. Frederick said that the best
advice is to be persistent.
Ms. Palmer asked what has happened with the treatment choice in Scottsville with powdered
carbon versus granular-activated carbon. Mr. Frederick responded that Rivanna had received bids in
February for this project, including all five water treatment plants, and there was an item in this bid that
allows, if ACSA Board so chose, to delete the Scottsville treatment plant from the project – but the base
bid includes it, and the evaluation of those bids is ongoing. He said that there had been a clerical error,
and there had been some legal discussions, and they are still evaluating the bids. Mr. Frederick stated
that their hope is that they will have something ready to take to the ACSA Board this month.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 22 a. Department of Social Services Annual Report.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that pursuant to Virginia Code § 63.2-300,
all counties in Virginia are required to establish a local board to oversee the provision of social services to
its residents. The Board of Supervisors established the Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Advisory Board in 1997. One of its required duties is to make an annual report to the Board of
Supervisors, concurrent with the Department’s budget presentation, concerning the administration of the
public welfare program.
The FY 14 Annual Report provides a summary of the Department’s programs and services,
including the number of cases in each program area for the year, coupled with stories of some of those
served. Also included are the Department’s Key Performance Indicators and its unaudited finances. Of
particular note in this report are the continued increases in the number of individuals served through the
Department’s Benefit Programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Energy Assistance, and Medicaid, as well as the
increases in Foster Care, CPS and Family Preservation Services.
Funding for the Department of Social Services is included in the County’s annual operating
budget.
Staff recommends that the Board receive the Department of Social Services Advisory Board’s FY
14 Annual Report as presented. No formal action is required.
_____
Ms. Debbie Stone, this year’s Chair of the County’s Department of Social Services Advisory
Board, said she will present their annual report for the year ending June 2014. Ms. Stone said that this is
a very specific duty of the advisory board, which is defined in the code of Virginia, and she introduced
Linwood Bell from their board as well as acknowledging Emily Swift, Heather Taylor, and Lisa Jordan.
She stated that the theme of the report relates to the department’s tagline and brand of “listening to the
need, working together for solutions,” and their role in fulfilling the promise of that brand is realized in their
efforts to listen and learn, as well as to be an advocate for the important work of the department. Ms.
Stone referenced the report’s listing of key performance indicators for FY 14, stating that the department
regularly monitored 36 outcome measures specific to its programs, and the leadership team has chosen
11 key performance indicators – which focuses on things like insurance availability and keeping children
safe and successful in school. She said that while there is some good news to share, it is clear that the
department is not able to meet targets in most of the indicators. Ms. Stone stated that they are
particularly concerned with not being able to meet targets in child protection and foster care, and
protection of the elderly from abuse, neglect and exploitation. She said that they have also been unable
to process Medicaid applications fast enough.
Ms. Stone stated that each of these issues has two main causes: chronic staffing shortages, and
new mandates and system changes. She referenced a graph of the staffing shortages, as noted in the
report, and stated that these measures equate to a staffing shortage of about 23 positions for mandated
programs. Ms. Stone said that the report also includes a description of their programs and services, and
highlighted best practices as well as stories of how the department staff are commit ted to the promise of
listening to the need and working together toward solutions. She noted that the number of foster care,
adoption, child protection, Medicaid and adult services cases are all continuing to show upward trends.
Ms. Stone stated that more than $104 million came into the local community in FY14, which benefitted
recipients as well as the community at large through payments to area grocery stores, hospitals, doctors,
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 57)
landlords, retail establishments, and other businesses. She said that an investment of local dollars
leveraged a substantial sum of federal and state funds for the community.
Ms. Stone said that it has been an honor for her to serve on the advisory board with such a
professional and dedicated staff at DSS, and thanked them for the opportunity.
The Board thanked Ms. Stone for her service.
Ms. Dittmar asked DSS Director, Kathy Ralston, if the 23 mandated positions the department is
short on are necessary, in her mind to have, and if so where they should be assigned. Ms. Kathy Ralston
stated that the department is not able to meet state and federal mandates because of the staffing
shortage, and there are requirements in the department particularly in the child welfare and eligibility
areas that go beyond staff’s capacity. She said that there just are not enough hours in the day to make
the number of visits required for high risk child protection cases, and the same is true for the
requirements for holding family partnership meetings in the child welfare division. Ms. Ralston said that
these things are very time intensive, and the standards from the state ha ve not been updated since 2008
– so they do not reflect the standards for family partnership, child protection and visitation, extra training
for child welfare and adult staff, the limited English-proficient clientele, etc. She stated that if they applied
new standards based on the new requirements, it would be much worse than the 23 position shortage,
and the department has about double the caseload of the national standard for child welfare staffing.
Ms. Palmer asked if there are consequences to the County for not meeting those mandates. Ms.
Ralston said that there is always the potential for chargebacks to the County for not meeting certain
standards for the state, but so far that has not happened. She stated that they are more at risk with their
Title IV-E program, which is a foster care maintenance payment program, and the state is now doing
statewide monthly audits to ensure they are up to standards on that. Ms. Ralston said that they have not
realized any financial hardships from this, but it does not mean it will not eventually come. She stated
that they have received a lot of requests from the state to pay attention to what they are not meeting, so
she in turn will go to staff and tell them they need to work harder, longer hours – which has an impact on
staff in terms of their ability to stay fresh, work with families as needed, and still meet mandates. Ms.
Ralston noted that this is not an issue just for Albemarle, but with other social services departments
around the state.
Ms. Palmer asked if Albemarle is similar in Title IV to other localities. Ms. Ralston said that it is
Title IV-E, which pays for foster care maintenance payments and certain services for some children in
foster care, and Albemarle is better than many other localities. She stated that 10 or 15 years ago, her
department embedded an eligibility worker in foster care, which the state viewed as a best practice, and
the position the Board had approved the previous year was a second position for Title IV-E eligibility work.
Ms. Ralston noted that Albemarle is one of the leaders in the state as far as their ability to maintain high
standards for the IV-E process. She stated that they had an audit the previous week, and they were
100% compliant in that program.
Ms. McKeel thanked Ms. Ralston for her participation in the electronic town hall meeting and the
panel that spoke before the Board, regarding understaffing in the department and their challenges . There
are links on the County’s website that have sound clips of Ms. Ralston speaking about this, as well as
clips from the police and fire chiefs talking about similar issues.
Ms. Ralston thanked her for noting that, and stated that one of the highest risks they have in the
families they are serving is the inability of staff to get out often enough to monitor abused and neglected
children and adults – as that is the real risk in the long run for something worse happening.
Ms. Dittmar asked what the revenue needs will be to provide the 23 positions. Ms. Ralston said
she will have to get back to her with that figure, but said that they can get about 30% reimbursement from
the federal government on any positon put in the department.
Ms. Dittmar said that she would like to have that information.
Ms. McKeel said that during their discussion of the five-year financial plan, with the police
department information, they had identified a $30 million gap over five years.
Ms. Dittmar stated that the DSS need is current, not over five years.
Mr. Foley noted that the gap over five years includes trying to get caught up to current needs.
Ms. Dittmar asked how often they update the requirements and new mandates, so they will have
a better sense of what the state calculates as a shortage. Ms. Ralston responded that local DSS
departments have been asking the state to revise those standards every year since 2008, but they have
not done it yet – and she does not know when they will do it.
Mr. Foley said that everything the state has for which they attach a staffing standard to, they do
not fund completely, particularly in the school system.
Ms. McKeel noted that they have raised these issues with state legislators.
_____________
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 58)
Agenda Item 22b. Bright Stars Annual Report for FY2014.
The executive summary, as presented by staff, states that as a result of the Virginia Pre-School
Initiative (VPI) funding initiated by Governor Wilder in 1994, the Board established the County’s Bright
Stars program as a collaboration among Social Services, the School Division and Local Government.
Social Services serves as the coordinator and fiscal agent for the program. The first classroom was
established at Stone Robinson Elementary School, and this year the program has ten classroo ms in eight
elementary schools, including two at Greer and Cale and one classroom each at Agnor-Hurt, Red Hill,
Scottsville, Stone Robinson, Stony Point, and Woodbrook. In 2009, the Pre-School Network for Albemarle
County was established to oversee the blending of funding streams from the VPI, Title I and Early
Childhood Special Education programs to serve more children in inclusion classrooms.
The FY14 Annual Report includes a review of the Pre-School Network services, including the
number of children served and the results of educational and family outcomes. Also included are the
Program’s Key Performance Indicators and VPI unaudited finances.
Continued funding for the program is being requested in the FY16 budget.
Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY14 Bright Stars Annual Report.
_____
Ms. Ann McAndrew, Bright Stars Program Coordinator, addressed the Board and said that her
report describes the activities and outcomes for children in 10 Bright Stars classrooms in eight Albemarle
County schools. Ms. McAndrew said these classes include students funded by Title I monies, students in
need of early childhood special education, and those funded by the Virginia Preschool Initiative. She
thanked the Board for their support of Bright Stars, and said that the diversity of participants in 2014 is
consistent with past years, and these students are more likely to be from a minority population, have
limited English proficiency, and qualify for free or reduced lunch. Ms. McAndrew said that they ha ve
information describing their families, and over one-third of Bright Stars parents did not finish high school,
while another third finished with a GED or diploma; over one-quarter of Bright Stars students are from
families where no caretaker is employed.
She stated that on the most recent PALS screening, only 19% of Bright Stars students met the
benchmark in the fall, but 68% were able to do so in the spring. Ms. McAndrew said that their goal for a
pass rate was 80%, and they have implemented some changes for this school year to help achieve that.
She stated that there are great gains in early numeracy skills also, with 22% reaching the benchmark in
the fall, and 71% reaching the benchmark in the spring. She stated that they have data on Bright Stars
students comparing them to peers as they move through elementary school, and when compared to non -
Bright Stars students in the same schools. Ms. McAndrew stated that the Bright Stars students perform
very similar to peers in reading through second grade and in math through third grade, but begin to show
some lag in later elementary grades.
Ms. McAndrew stated that each Bright Stars classroom has a family coordinator that builds a
working relationship and remains available to the family until that student leaves fifth grade, and the
coordinators build trusting relationships with parents that allow them to help in a myriad of ways. She
said that coordinators assist families by encouraging regular school attendance and participation in parent
conferences, and work to engage parents in school events, with the goal of making the school a safe and
welcoming place for parents, that might increase their ongoing school involvement – which is an
important factor in student success. Ms. McAndrew said that coordinators also help facilitate students’
good health by assisting parents with scheduling and getting to medical and dental appointments, and
parents can also receive assistance with their own education, housing and employment circumstances.
She stated that the level of assistance each family receives is driven by the family and how much
involvement they want to have with the family coordinator. Ms. McAndrew said that on a measure of
personal social development, considerable growth can be seen from the fall to the spring in categories
such as self-concept, self-control, approaches to learning, interactions with others, and social problem -
solving – all of which are very important predictors of children’s later school success. She stated that the
report also includes multiple graphs that show Bright Stars’ parents reporting of great satisfaction with the
program, and major progress in their children’s development across domains, and 99% of them would
recommend the program to others.
Ms. McAndrew reported that the Bright Stars program will be the next recipient of the annual
$10,000 Youth Service Award through the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation, and will be
using those funds to provide parenting classes for families in the fall. She stated that graphs and data are
important for accountability to taxpayers, and in total they can make a strong case for successful readying
of Bright Stars to go into kindergarten much better prepared – but numbers cannot begin to describe
some of the most important experiences these children and their families have. Ms. McAndrew said that
the program is grateful for the continued collaboration with Albemarle County schools and the support of
local government, and invited Board members to visit a Bright Stars classroom.
Ms. Palmer asked how Bright Stars students compare to other students in terms of performance.
Ms. McAndrew said that some of that information is in the report, and Bright Stars students actually
outscore their peers on the kindergarten PALS test last year, and the children hold steady with other kids
through second grade, but then it gets a little bit rockier.
Ms. Palmer said that she is interested in the children’s self-control and approaches to learning,
and all of the things that are hard to score.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms. McAndrew said that there is research that shows that those types of things are better
predictors of later academic performance than scores, and she can say based on observation that the
difference in self-regulation skills between August and the present is remarkable.
The Board thanked Ms. McAndrew for the report.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
a. Review of proper notice requirements to adjacent property owners for special use p ermits.
Ms. Mallek asked Board members if they are interested in more discussion with staff as to
whether they are doing the best job possible on notification when special use permit items such as cell
towers are coming up, because it is left up to staff as policy to decide whether or not they will have
community meetings. She cited an example of a cell tower located on the river, and the people across
the river are not notified because they are not technically adjacent, and what they have found with the cell
towers is that there are many different holding companies who are really all the same people. Ms. Mallek
said that there are other non-cell tower examples also.
Ms. McKeel said that this concerns her, and had been assuming there was going to be a
community meeting for an application in her district, but now is not certain.
Ms. Dittmar stated that there are certainly criteria for this, and asked Mr. Cilimberg to address the
Board and help explain.
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning, said that the protocol is, if the County knows that an
adjacent property has the same ownership interest as the applicant, they do notify the next property out –
and while that is not legally required, that is the County’s protocol. He stated that with the Piney Mountain
notification, that did not happen to one property, and that was not really following their protocol. He said
that the Board did not necessarily need to make changes, staff just need s to follow the protocol more
closely – and said that they asked the applicants to provide all properties on the application that are
adjacent to them that they have an ownership interest in.
Mr. David Benish circulated sample applications, which asked for the property owner to identify
any properties in which they have interest. He said that when administrative staff reviews for adjacent
properties, they also query on the same ownership name on the applicant, so they will catch properties of
the same name – and they have to be careful of properties that are under a different entity. Mr. Benish
said that in the case of Piney Mountain, staff simply missed double-checking the property, and he is
working on ways to try to get that information more automated into the County View system so that it gets
picked up quicker and does not rely on human input.
Ms. Mallek said that having consequences for applicants who d o not fill it out properly is another
way to bring it to a stop.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that in this case, the applicant had provided that, and said that in cases
where there is a natural boundary such as a river, the next property beyond the river should be notified –
so perhaps the situation Ms. Mallek referenced has an intervening property.
Ms. Mallek said that this is the River Run neighborhood, which did not get any notice of the
Panorama Farms tower that is directly in their view.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff would have notified the part of River Run that was directly next to the
river, and the homeowners association would have been notified as well.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Planning, noted that the application came in before the requirement for
community meetings.
Ms. Mallek said that she understands that, but the notification should have happened – and the
tower was a big surprise to residents.
Ms. Dittmar asked when something triggered a community meeting and when it does not. Mr.
Cilimberg said that all applications for special use permits and zoning map amendments are subject to a
community meeting, and there have been some decisions made and some discretion in the zoning
ordinance not to require a community meeting when the project itself has no potential impact – no visual
impact or other impact on adjacent properties. He stated that most of those that decided not to include a
community meeting are additions with wireless facilities where there is replacement of antennae, for
example, and he and Mr. Benish have decided to have all of those applications go to community meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it is rare for a project not to have a community meeting, and the projects to which
Ms. McKeel referred has a community meeting requirement – it just has not been scheduled yet. He
emphasized that the Supervisor and Planning District representative are required to be notified of the
community meeting by the applicant, and they are given a list and a letter they can use along with the
stipulation that to have their application remain active, they must hold the meeting and notify according to
the list.
March 4, 2015 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr. Benish said that he has instructed staff to copy the Board and Planning Commission member
in their correspondence with the applicant on those meeting schedules, to keep them in the loop.
Ms. Dittmar commented that she and Rick Randolph have received community meeting
notification letters for a project very close to the night of the meeting, so they appealed back to the
applicant, who ended up rescheduling the meeting – and the applicants are usually happy to get to the
neighbors early and dispel any misinformation about the project.
Ms. McKeel said that it is also important to have everyone hear the same information at the same
time.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that some applicants are choosing to hold community meetings before
making application, and in staff’s exploratory pre-app meetings, they will encourage applicants to let
people know about the project before applying.
Ms. Mallek said that in places where there is an advisory council, they will host the meeting,
which improves attendance and helps the applicant get publicity out – and the questions neighbors have
asked have helped the applicant to make a better application and avoid obstacles they might encounter at
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Benish stated that in cases where staff do not feel a community meeting needs to happen,
such as a drive-through window application, they will contact the Supervisor and the Commissioner and
ask whether a meeting is even necessary.
Ms. Mallek said that in the case of cell tower replacement parts, sometimes the look changes
dramatically, so holding a community meeting may help reduce the element of surprise – which is really
the biggest issue.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 24. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley stated that in finishing the March 3 budget work session, they identified the probable
need for another work session beyond March 11, and said that they needed to schedule it – with the 17th
and 18th being the latest dates they could probably go.
He said that in their Dropbox is an executive summary regarding the solid waste alternatives at
Ivy, with the issue having been narrowed down, and they also need to have a special closed session
regarding contractual issues related to the information in that summary. Mr. Foley stated that they had
discussed the citizens’ survey at their last meeting, and staff will be reaching out to them in the next week
or so to engage with them on the questions to be included.
Ms. Palmer asked when the survey will go out, and said that the solid waste committee would be
able to use information from the special questions related to solid waste. Mr. Foley said that it is in the
May timeframe, with results coming back in June, with compilation in July at the latest. He stated that
staff will try to get information about the solid waste questions back as soon as possible.
Ms. Dittmar reported that Mr. Boyd will provide an interim report from the Fiscal Impact
Committee on Tuesday, March 10.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 25. Adjourn to March 10, 2015, 5:00 p.m., Auditorium.
At 7:23 p.m., Mr. Boyd moved to adjourn the Board meeting until March 10, 2015, 5:00 p.m. 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.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by
Board
Date: 10/07/2015
Initials: EWJ