Board of Supervisors Regular Second Meeting   2/17/2021

Good afternoon everyone.

I'm going to call the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to order for this February 17, 2021 1 p.m.

meeting.

And this meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20-A16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

The supervisors who are electronically present at this meeting are Supervisor Ann Mallek of the White Hall District,

Supervisor Donna Price of the Scottsville District Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley of the Rivanna District Supervisor Liz Palmer of the Samuel Miller District Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Jouett District and myself, Supervisor Ned Gallaway of the Rio District

The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website, on the Board of Supervisors homepage, and on the Albemarle County calendar.

Participation will include the opportunity to comment on those matters for which comments from the public will be received.

As we do, usually we have also with us our County Executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson.

our County Attorney Mr. Greg Campner, our Board Clerk Ms.

Claudette Borgeson, and our Senior Deputy Clerk Mr. Travis Morris.

And with that if everyone would please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

All right.

And if everyone would please join in a brief moment of silence.

All right.

and before we adopt the final agenda and I ask for other changes there are some small administrative things here that were changed.

There was an administrative correction to item 8.6 the Albemarle County 2020 year-end certificate of occupancy report this would originally was on our or is on our consent agenda.

The title page of the report should

uh read year end CO report however it was incorrectly titled as fourth quarter so that change was made and is currently posted and then attachment B of item 9 has been updated online to reflect the current signed economic development MOU

It was not previously the signed version, I believe, so that has also been corrected and added in the agenda materials.

Are there any other items that need to be changed for the agenda or items to be removed from consent?

If not, we need a motion to adopt.

Second.

Call the vote.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley.

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek.

Ms.

McKeel.

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer.

Yes.

Ms.

Price.

Aye.

And Ms.

Mallek.

Ms.

Mallek, you're muted there.

Do you want to

And I would also, Chair Galloway, I said move to adopt the consent agenda when it should have been the final agenda.

I didn't catch that.

No, I think that's fine.

It's interesting because my audio went silent when she said that word, so I missed that.

And Supervisor Mallek, you want to

Got the yes vote there.

Very good.

I like the Mr. Attorney.

Mr. Attorney.

Sorry.

All right.

So number five, our agenda is adopted.

Number five, brief announcements by board members.

We'll go through our order.

Supervisor Mallek, you're up first.

Announcements today?

Nothing there.

Okay.

Yes, just two things real quick.

One is Blue Ridge Health District has really been working hard to roll out the vaccination and we've had a substantial improvement it appears from what was previously the CDC VAMS website which I think is really improving the ability of our community members to sign up and get their vaccinations.

They're really working hard with all of the moving parts.

I want to just give them a shout out for the work they've done.

They've also provided a Spanish translation of the information, which is really important.

Just as a reminder for anyone, if you do sign up through the website and you get an appointment, be sure to bring a copy of your appointment confirmation email.

or have it accessible on your smartphone.

That is part of the check-in process.

And then the second thing I think we've all seen both within with regard to our own weather but also what's happened to the west and south of us in the United States, how bad the weather is.

We've got another big storm coming tonight.

I would encourage everyone to ensure that you have some alternate means of

Thank you, Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

None at this time.

Thank you very much.

I'm just hoping that, as Supervisor Price said, that everyone will be careful.

We are headed for some bad weather tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow.

All right.

I'm going to add to Supervisor Price's warnings to bring your pets in.

A lot of people have their dogs out in dog houses, and that is not a good thing for tonight.

and I did want to mention that the spots are all full but I did want the board to know that the health department is doing vaccinations this weekend at the Yancy Community Center and trying to get our senior citizens from that particular area taken care of with their vaccines and I'm just

Very grateful for the health department for arranging that and coming on down to Southern Albemarle and working with the community down there and the ANSI Community Center Director Ed Brooks to get that going and just wanted everybody to know that that was happening.

And that's it.

Thank you.

So that will take us to number seven from the public matters not listed for public hearing on the agenda or on matters previously considered by the board or matters that are pending before the board.

My understanding is we do have three people signed up and Travis you may be announcing those names so I will turn to Vice Chair Price to go through our procedures for matters from the public.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Sorry about that.

During that time set aside for matters not listed for public hearing on the agenda, individuals may address the Board of Supervisors concerning matters previously considered by the Board or matters that are pending before the Board, other than items listed on the agenda for public hearing.

Individuals are allowed three minutes to speak, and the sign-up sheet is managed by the Clerk's Office.

Timekeeping is conducted through a timer.

The timer will commence when you begin speaking and this begins your allotted time.

You will be notified when the three minutes are up and you are requested to bring your comments to a close as your microphone will be muted after about five more seconds.

In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the board requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines.

When called to address the board, please state your name and, if you live in Albemarle County, your magisterial district.

Address your comments directly to the board as a whole.

If you have written statements or other supporting material, you may email them to the clerk to be included in the record.

If you represent a group or organization, you may identify the group to be recognized.

Again, if you exceed your allotted time, you will be asked to end your comments and the microphone will be muted.

If a speaker does not use all allocated time, the unused time may not be shared with another speaker.

Back and forth debate is not permitted.

You are reminded that all comments are live streamed, recorded, and published on the Albemarle County website.

If participating by phone, please press star 9 to let us know you want to speak.

And if by Zoom, please remain muted until you are called to speak.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

My name is Gary Grant of Earliesville,

Here are some questions about your annual statements of economic interests.

Aren't these legally required statements designed to help the public figure out if you might have potential conflicts of interest when exercising your powers as elected officials?

If so, then why wouldn't all of you want to make it obvious to those who read your statements that you don't want to be perceived as political hypocrites

by failing to fill out your disclosures clearly and specifically.

Let's say hypothetically you were a Democrat Albemarle supervisor with stock in Amgen, a company that paid millions of dollars in fines for illegal marketing practices that put medical patients at risk.

Wouldn't you want to be careful about possibly voting on healthcare matters that might impact your portfolio?

If you were a Democrat Albemarle supervisor with mutual funds invested in communist Chinese companies that produce some of the highest levels of pollution on the planet, wouldn't you feel a bit politically hypocritical voting for a climate action plan while earning dividends from totalitarian polluters?

Or perhaps you were a Democrat Albemarle supervisor with investments in AIG.

a corporate insurance giant bailed out by millions of taxpayer dollars for gambling on housing related debt.

Wouldn't you want to steer clear of appearing politically hypocritical if deciding ahead of time how to vote on something like government support for housing?

Don't you all feel that the statement of economic interests law, which is part of the state and local government conflicts of interest act,

should be filled out clearly and specifically by all officials rather than just vaguely and generally by some?

Wouldn't you all agree that the purpose of this public record is to show the public how and where an elected official's money is concentrated so that potential conflicts can be reasonably identified on matters that could be related to such potential conflicts?

Why, can you imagine the ethics questions

Should a local board of supervisors endorse state legislation to incentivize electric vehicles if any of them had stock in Tesla?

Yet, regardless of these hypotheticals and despite clarity and specificity concerns in some of your 2021 statements, it can be reasonably argued now that the six of you Democrat Albemarle supervisors are not socialists, as some critics say, but truly

Wealth Seeking Capitalists.

Thank you for my almost three minutes of your valuable time.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Paul Perrone from Crozet, Virginia, and I come bearing some positive news today.

I'm the founder and CEO of Perrone Robotics.

We're a high tech company.

in the autonomous vehicle space based in Albemarle County with headquarters in Crozet.

And I'm happy to say we've recently closed a $10 million round of venture capital last week.

And I want to share this with you all because this $10 million of capital in our company gives us the ability to grow our company here and seize upon just an extraordinary array of opportunities and a surge of interest we've seen in our technology.

And I

here today also to thank the county, the Board of Supervisors, and the EDA, Economic Development Authority, because we can directly connect the dots to the county and the EDA support of our autonomous shuttle program.

The autonomous vehicle that we operated here in the county in 2019, which happened to be the first fully autonomous vehicle operating on public roads for the public in the state of Virginia, caught the eye of a company interested in similar vehicles

for deployment for their real estate developments in the Midwest.

And this interest further translated into their interest and closure of this $10 million investment in our company.

So I just wanted to say thank you.

I wanted to connect the dots here for you all to provide a concrete connection from sort of the visionary EDA grant to our investment and our ability to grow our business here.

and we're on the lookout for a new facility to house our growing facility needs.

So we look forward to being able to do that within the county.

And I just wanted to thank also the citizens of Albemarle County as well for supporting this program.

Thank you, sir.

Great news.

Travis, I'll confirm or I'm sorry, I think I heard Claudette's audio was working there.

Do we have a third speaker?

All right, then we will close matters from the public.

Thank you.

And move to the consent agenda.

Do we have a motion to approve consent?

Now I will make the motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Bea LaPisto-Kirtley Aye Ms.

Mallek

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

Very good, thank you.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, sir.

I apologize for the interruption.

I wanted to bring attention to Ms.

Mallek.

I believe she may be having volume challenges still.

Can anyone hear me?

Okay, I'll just have to speak loudly.

Mike Brown did some magic, so this is as much as we have for today.

Thank you all very much.

and it might be potentially a solution as we go through.

So maybe that could happen as well.

All right, well then we will move to number nine.

We're running a little ahead.

So our first action item, memorandum of understanding for collaboration among the city of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia regarding equity and inclusion.

And we have with us our director of equity inclusion, Siri Russell.

Good afternoon and happy Wednesday.

Sorry, I had to change my background.

Y'all are running a little bit ahead of my beach time, obviously, so I apologize for that.

Thank you for having me here today.

Siri Russell, yes, the director of the county's Office of Equity and Inclusion.

I'm very happy to be here today to bring to the board the

Hopefully final version of the memorandum of understanding for regional collaboration around equity and inclusion.

No PowerPoint today.

Just wanted to briefly recap for the board and for our community that we last would have publicly discussed this at our October joint meeting with the Charlottesville City Council as well as representatives of the University of Virginia.

At that time, we did receive some feedback for some potential edits to be made to this memorandum, which have been incorporated into this version that you have here today.

Since that date, myself, the University of Virginia's Vice President of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Community Partnerships, Kevin McDonald, and Charlottesville's Director of Human Services, Kaki Demick, have met to discuss

potential applications and opportunities of this memorandum, which we hope to be in a position to share with you guys in the near future.

I'm prepared to answer any questions if you have them.

All right, we'll go through if there are any questions or comments here.

I don't have any questions with regard to the memorandum, but I do have a comment and that is I do want to ensure, Ms.

Russell, that you and your office are being pulled in for prospective applications and considerations of projects.

That's one of the discussions that we've had for several

occasions now at the board meetings rather than retrospective.

So again, not a question, just a comment that I hope that the county is actually pulling you in at the beginning of discussions and not at the end so that you can help, your office can help guide the county in reaching some of its decisions rather than coming in at the end for just verification of what they may be.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

I have no questions and thank you very much for pushing this forward, Siri.

Yes, just a couple of comments and then a question.

I had the opportunity to listen to the Governor's Summit on Equitable Collaboration today.

And I think there is a portion tomorrow as well, if anyone's interested.

Some of us could send you the link if you don't have it.

And the point that they kept making, which really gets to what

Donna mentioned is that equitable collaboration is a process.

It's not just checking off a box.

And so I'm really anxious to see how this process becomes part of our culture and just what we do as part of our work in the county.

So comment there.

And then, Siri, I have a question.

I'm really anxious for us to have the ability to look at, learn how to use the Equity Atlas

and have that presented to the board and to the community.

That's a great question.

So we are still working with the Equity Atlas team to get it really usable for staff.

And I would sort of go further and say to get it usable for staff, mostly independently.

And so what will be happening in the spring is some work sessions with staff where they'll actually be

using it, the Equity Atlas and the Equity Impact Assessment, which I think the board knows is already being used on a handful of projects right now, sort of at the same time, because they're tools that are meant to sort of reinforce each other.

I think we have talked about having a work session for the board in using that as well.

Okay, that's great.

And especially the Impact Assessment Tool gets to the process

That's right.

The impact assessment is

a part of the process.

And so, you know, the projects that it's being used on right now, like the Rio Corridor Study, which was mentioned to you guys previously, we're also using it with the conversations around the potential

Cigarette Ordinance coming or that sort of thing.

So it's being used at a variety of places and we're looking for additional applications too.

And a process that needs to be embedded so that it just becomes a part of our business and doing our work.

And I want to really thank you because the memorandum talks about measurable goals and closing opportunity gaps.

And I really appreciate that.

So thank you very much.

I don't have any questions I just have a

I mean, it's always, you know, in our executive summaries, we always receive a budget impact statement.

And obviously the logistics of this MOU and getting it passed and all that does not have any budget impact.

But it was ironic to me when I read this in the bigger context of this should have incredible budget impact.

We should be directing resources in a way that makes this MOU come to life.

And just wanted to share that, but it struck me as I was reading the executive summary when I saw that statement.

I'll move that we approve the MOU as presented.

All right, we can call the roll.

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

She did say yes, I heard that.

Wilson-Keel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Galloway?

All right, very good.

That approves.

Thank you, Siri.

Thank you.

Is there any objection by board members to go ahead and allow that public comment to occur?

Okay.

So if Claudette or Travis, if we could make that happen, we will go ahead.

And just as a brief reminder to the speaker, you are allotted three minutes.

And if you hit the three minutes, we will give you a brief notice that you're at that time to please conclude.

And after about five seconds, the mic will be turned off.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Are you there?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Good afternoon to all of you.

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak.

Given that it's only three minutes, I'll go very fast through this.

I appreciate the opportunity.

I just want to say that it's my wife and I are the only residents in my relatively spacious house, which is about 3,500 square living space.

We have six bedrooms and four full bathrooms.

The whole space in front of my house is the clubhouse and tennis court and the closest home is far over 150 feet.

My neighbors to the right and left have average of five people in their houses and please look at the location map

If it's possible, you will see that please consider the building and population density just right behind my house and my neighbors is extremely dense.

I guess by right there can rent also two rooms.

I'm not sure about that.

But if it was not for the name, we in Fontana Drive are considered neighbors of Cascadia with such a high population density.

While my wife and I are the only two people compared to my neighbors of average of five, you're asking to allow four rooms in average of four to five days in a month during a year.

And I wanted to underscore that it's only an average in a year would be four to five days a month.

By the nature of their intent, my guests most of the time are away from home and only come home to sleep.

They come for a weekend and they don't stay at home much.

Given the open design of my house, it's important to only, it's impractical to only rent two rooms.

100% of my guests are extremely respectful and ethical families.

Usually there are grandparents who come with the family and enjoy the fact that it's a comfortable space for the older individuals of the family members.

I evaluate every inquiry and I have strict rules for my guests.

Respecting the neighborhood is the most important part of my instructions to them.

They have always been respectful of my house and the neighborhood.

Parties and events are strictly prohibited.

And please look at also the parking and house exhibit.

I have plenty of parking space available for the guests, which they would not usually have more than three cars, three to four cars, but there's plenty of obvious space.

They can park in the street by right, but they usually don't.

and also please remember the Fontana Board of Homeowners Association is very critical of any activity that may harm the interest of homeowners including the peace and the value of properties from the look of and they have never had, they have never had any complaints so far from any neighbors.

Believe me, they would always if there is a look of the mailbox.

Sir Hervosky, your time has expired.

Thank you, sir.

And if you would just state your full name for the record.

Is he still there?

We've got it posted there so I can see it.

I just I don't believe he actually said his name at the beginning.

Yes, Fray-Dune Hoveys, yes.

There you are.

Thank you, sir.

And we will move to our next item, number 10.

This is SC 2020-24, Homestay Special Exception 126, Montana Court.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

I have a presentation that I will begin to share.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And this is a special exception for 126 Fontana Court.

You just heard from the applicant and it has been a special exception, excuse me, a homestay that's been operating

since about 2018 and we brought the regulations to Dr. Hoveze's attention as part of our proactive compliance program for home stays.

So what I usually do in the beginning of these presentations is go over the applicable zoning regulations and the special exception process

before we jump into the particulars of the property, some of which were touched on by the applicant just now.

So this is a residentially zoned parcel.

It's zoned R4 in Fontana.

So those are limited to two guest rooms.

The house must meet primary structure setbacks.

No use of accessory structures is allowed.

No, there's only one homestay use that would be allowed on the parcel and no whole house rental.

And whole house rental is that limited number of days per month and per year that a larger RA zone property might be.

able to be rented when the owners were not home.

So in this case, I wanted to clarify that parking must be off street for all home stays.

That's something, if the special exception is approved, then we would confirm the location of parking.

We have been out to the site, we know where the garage and driveway are, but that was something that the applicant touched on that I think we should clarify.

In terms of the special exception request before you, it is just for the increase in the number of guest rooms from two to four.

There are no other special exceptions requested or available.

I wanted to let you know that this type of special exception will always be scheduled as an action item.

Request to increase guest rooms to waive owner occupancy or use of an accessory structure

will always be scheduled as action items.

We talked last time about a new process just for the 125 foot setback requests in the rural areas.

the request to reduce those.

So the things that we talked about last time were that we could start scheduling those on the consent agenda provided that there was no neighbor objections, staff was recommending approval, and that the buffer and screening was adequate and would be maintained on the property.

And you have probably seen in your emails that we've begun to copy you on the abutting owner notices in those cases.

but like I said we'll continue to schedule any other requests such as this one to increase guest rooms as an action item.

And then the criteria again that we're looking at is that there's no detriment to abutting lots and no harm to public health safety and welfare.

You may approve the application with conditions, you may deny it or defer it if there would be any reason

So switching to the specifics of this proposal, I wanted to show you the vicinity map.

The asterisk in the middle of the screen there shows you where the home is located in Fontana.

It's kind of at the back of the subdivision that does join Cascadia.

and Fontana of course is off Richmond Road in the Pantops neighborhood near Darden Tow Park.

We provided you some information about the master plan and the zoning.

It is in an area that is designated neighborhood density and then the green areas on the screen are green space.

It's not located near a center or in an area that is recommended for higher intense uses.

This will look similar to the last, it's all yellow.

Yellow is neighborhood density residential on the comprehensive plan and then R4 residential in the zoning map.

Again, the property is highlighted in yellow and there's an asterisk and you can see

The proximity of the townhouses in Cascadia that was mentioned earlier.

The aerial doesn't show

the homes yet but this is an aerial of the the context of the street it is across the street is the the Fontana Clubhouse and then in the rear of the lot it does back up to Cascadia open space and there is a bit of a buffer on the applicant's property to that open space and it was really the sides neighbors 132 and 120

Fontana Court that were closest to the house.

Now all of these properties were notified of the special exception request and I've only heard from one person and that was the manager for the HOA.

I'll get into that in a little bit.

Again, just familiarizing you with the property as the applicant requested that we do.

The driveway is off of Fontana Court and then the driveway slopes down and there's plenty of room

For parking, it could meet the parking requirements off street for up to four guest rooms, but you can see again the proximity of the neighbors to the sides.

And there is a deck off the back of the house that would be potentially available to guests.

I mentioned that I heard from the HOA.

I haven't received any complaints about this homestay from any of the immediate neighbors.

The context of the conversation with the HOA was mainly about the covenants and then it was nice to talk to the HOA manager and learn about the things that he does hear complaints about.

So we talked about all things Fontana.

One of their issues that they're having that they told me about was one street parking, which if the homestay was approved, we couldn't allow that.

And then there has been some additional traffic in the neighborhood related to construction and the new phases of development that are happening in Fontana.

So we talked yesterday.

I just received an email with the covenants from him yesterday.

And then we had a phone conversation and

I went over with him, regardless of what the covenants say, that's the private matter for the HOA to enforce.

And so just clarified that we must review this request under the zoning ordinance and not their covenants.

So that's sort of a recap of any comment that I've received.

And so we outlined for you what we were seeing as factors favorable or unfavorable to approve this request.

As I mentioned, we haven't had any complaints to date and this property is unique in that it backs up to open space.

has a buffer to the residents in the rear and then there's the clubhouse across the street which is a non-residential use.

But we did note, as I mentioned, that it's not in an area designated for tourism.

We've approved one special exception request

to increase the number of guest rooms on a residentially zoned parcel and that was one in Crozet where the master plan had some language about tourism supporting tourism in downtown.

We mentioned the proximity of the homes on either side and we have noted that we feel like two is the number that we settled on as far as the maximum number of guest rooms and in these neighborhoods during the

the zoning text amendment process and I think that's because you know you increased to four or five there's more potential for maybe a little bit more activity and guests in terms of parking needs so staff for those reasons has recommended denial of the request and suggested the motion to move to adopt the resolution to deny however if you all feel differently and

Would like to recommend approval.

We have provided some conditions.

that we would suggest in terms of limiting the number of guest rooms to four, limiting the number of occupants to eight, and then limiting the number of days per month to seven that the guest rooms up to four could be rented by right, you know, a homestay of up to two guest rooms could be approved.

I think you'd probably best leave that

Thank you, Rebecca.

So the narrowness of the lots is your main concern and the fact that there's no existing buffer between.

We have talked about in many other locations where the lots are bigger and there's more space to accommodate people coming and going.

Correct that that's your main tip for the denial and the expectation of our ZTA?

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Ms.

Ragsdale, thank you.

You know, this gets into what I think are some of the tough calls that we have to make, because clearly what we have in front of us, it's an applicant who constructed the home or at least purchased it when it was constructed in 2000, has been there for now 20 plus years.

Obviously stable is clearly, I believe we can say, built as a residential property, not envisioned at that time necessarily as income producing.

From the sense of this particular applicant, we have a lot of strong factors that go in favor.

But as we know, if we approve this, it goes with the land, not the applicant.

and the close proximity left and right does raise some concerns, whereas front and back there appears to be plenty of room.

Would you pull up the previous slide to this one?

I'm sorry, it was the one that if the board was to approve it, you had some conditions, that one.

Okay that would essentially be three and a half weekends a month though if you looked at it from a weekend rental usage.

I know that there are times of the year, graduations, perhaps football games, where availability of lodging for guests to the area can be somewhat limited.

It appears to be one that would be conducive for the other two restrictions that you've listed there.

For guest rooms, parking, as you discussed, would be addressed, and more than eight occupants

which, if you had a child who was graduating from UVA, for example, and you couldn't find hotel rooms, it would be very nice for a family to be able to get there.

The seven days is the one, I would say, principal stumbling block that I've got.

The applicant in his

comments said on average four to five days.

But I suspect that there are periods of the year where the utilization is substantially higher than others.

Spring, summer, maybe football weekends are examples, whereas other times of the year there may not be as many people.

But I would say that I'm inclined to be supportive of

what you put here, although I think the seven days may be a little more than I would be comfortable with just in terms of the nature of the neighborhood because that is one of the concerns.

So I'll just leave it at that for now and I'd like to hear what the other supervisors also think about it.

Thank you, Ms.

Yes, I'm concerned about

This area, I know the area well, and it is residential.

It is completely residential.

And as Supervisor Price said, the permit goes with the land.

You could have as many as, let's see, a couple people who maybe a boyfriend, girlfriend have two cars, you could potentially have 10 cars in there.

I just

I'm not seeing the necessity to raise it to four guest rooms in an area where it's 40 feet between one house and the other.

It's on almost a third of an acre.

So we're not talking about a large parcel.

We're not talking about a home that's in the middle of something and that is buffered.

This is not buffered.

And I think the two

rooms, that's by ride or they can do that.

I don't have any problem with that, of course, but going up to four rooms in something that is such a small area, I just have a real problem with that.

So that's not something that, unfortunately, I wish I could, but it is not something that I feel would be conducive to the neighborhood

I have no questions.

I'll go ahead and comment since that seems to be the way we're going here.

Having been on the board when we went through all this with great pains and tremendous amount of discussion, I see absolutely nothing about this property that supports a special exception.

It's clearly a residential area.

I don't think that because the clubhouse is across the street that somehow makes this a unique piece of property and I think that the two guest rooms is totally appropriate for the area and the house and as we keep saying homestays are accessory uses to residential

and it seems an awful lot more like a hotel to me when you've got four guest rooms in there and renting those out on the weekends.

I would not want to be the next door neighbor in the neighborhood where that number of people were coming in each weekend.

So I'm done.

Yes, thank you.

A couple, maybe a couple of questions.

Rebecca, can you go, will you go back to the map that you had with the parking?

And I wanted to see that again because this gets into what a problem we have, problems we have had in our neighborhood.

So I'm experienced with a problem where we'll have all, we say we have the parking,

But you may be able to get the cars in that driveway, but everybody's gonna have to back out and move every time someone but the last car needs to get out.

Well, that would be the case.

We still count parking.

It doesn't have to be a parking lot.

That's the case when I go stay at an Airbnb with my family.

Yeah, but the reality is that

We say we have, so when you're increasing the number of rooms, you're increasing the number of cars and that's why I think he talks about letting them park on the road because people are now having to back out and move and adjust every time somebody needs to move a car.

I guess what I'm saying is it seems like to me this is too many people and too many cars for that parking area.

and I have one, just to be clear because the applicant confused me a little bit.

Our packet says 150 feet away from the front and the rear but 40 feet away from the neighbors on either side.

That's what I approximated from GIS as far as the building separation.

I think maybe he was referring to the homes in the back in Cascadia.

Just for clarity, I just want to make sure.

And I have another question.

you were and you can go back to the slide or not but you what Donna was referencing about the number of days in all the slide 14 so and another thing if I may seven days is the number of days um it's in the ordinance provisions for whole house rental um so that's where seven also came from and I think that would give him flexibility

So how do we monitor this?

I mean, I'm always hesitant to set up rules, especially rules where we have a situation where this goes with the land, not with a particular homeowner.

We do have the service now that allows us to monitor booking activity, but that is, as you know, we've been taking that year by year.

It's kind of, I would still say a home stay proactive compliance is, you know, been somewhat of a pilot one time initiative.

I don't know if we'll continue to have that service, but we can also require that that they keep logs themselves is the only other

and make it available upon request by the zoning administrator is the other alternative.

That's my concern.

We start adding all of these conditions and I understand you're trying to, but I'm not sure.

And the only other question, you referenced covenants.

We need to make sure that everybody understands that any of, and I hope I word this properly, maybe you or Greg can help me, but the neighborhood covenants are very separate from anything we do.

So while we might approve something, if the covenant, say they're not, it's not allowed, then it's not allowed.

Correct.

Okay, just so the public understands the issue with covenants.

All right, thank you.

I am not inclined to support this.

It seems like to me, I live on a cul-de-sac and I would not, given what I'm looking at with that map and knowing life on a cul-de-sac and how close these houses are, I am not looking favorably.

I think two guest rooms is a plenty, I don't see the need for four.

I'll ask my first question because it was related to what Supervisor McKeel finished with.

But they said they have an issue of on-street parking.

That's just a general complaint through the neighborhood.

So if we approve the special exception, anybody that's there staying as a homestay guest cannot park on the street.

I guess the owner could if it's not disallowed by the covenants or something else.

So in some ways, the special exception request actually gets the parking off the street for the use that they're asking for the special exception.

All right, thank you.

If you could put the favorables, unfavorables up, I just wanna look at the, just ask some questions here.

This came up in the last one that we looked at that was obviously in-resident.

I mean, it's not lost on me that most all of these, if not all, maybe it won't be all, but most of these are going to be in residential areas, their homesteads.

So to expect that they're not going to be in residential areas seems

It's like, oh, we're shocked that it's in a residential area.

Well, of course it is because it's a homestay.

Where else would it be?

So when it says it's not designated for commercial or tourism development, this tourism piece came up in another application.

I don't know that the master plan for Pantops speaks to tourism, but that's why it's not in an area shown in the master plan to become a future neighborhood center or an area for mixed use.

Those are the things that we're looking at.

There are instances where

You know, a neighborhood might have a different, you know, it might be zoned residential and have that residential character today, but a master plan might envision it to involve, you know, to have some mixed use or commercial.

You know, I bring it up because, you know, when we did the very first special exception last year, we, you know, we always bring in the comp plan information and in the first one we did, you know, it was

Well, I mean, my thoughts on this, I'm gonna try to maintain some consistency as I see these come before us.

When we worked through the homestay ordinance that we adopted, I was somebody that was saying that versus limiting rooms or people, that the impacts were something we should have focused on.

So in this case, if the parking can be required to be on site and not creating an additional parking issue in there,

then if the parking can support the four rooms then so be it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have to go from four to eight guests.

I don't necessarily think that equates to eight to ten cars as was mentioned.

I mean it's possible I just don't know if

If that's how it would work here, then the history of the fact that there's been no complaints so far is compelling, even though obviously it opens us up to risk.

If it goes with the land, you have a different owner and a different character, I guess, who could be managing it down the road.

But I'm inclined to support it just to stay consistent with how I think about these with previous applications and how I thought of this ordinance and why the special exception was something that I was hopeful would be an option for applicants to do.

With that, are there any additional questions for staff?

and if there are not, then I wasn't, I didn't really keep a hard count on favorable versus unfavorable, but it sounded like unfavorable might be consensus here.

I'd like to make at least another comment before we go.

Sorry about that.

That's fine.

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

I don't think that we necessarily need to conclude that seven days for a whole house rental in a rural area could be approved and permitted in a development area or in a neighborhood like this.

And so, you know, a thought that I had is, if you could go back to slide 14, Ms.

Ragsdale, on the third item.

I would be very comfortable, I believe, with a rental of up to four guest rooms to exceed one weekend of not more than four days per month, which basically would provide for something like a graduation or a holiday weekend one time a month.

a bit concerned even with that proposal that I just made in terms of how many variables we may be approving countywide, which makes compliance and enforcement difficult.

But anyway, that's where I would, I think once a month for a long weekend, four guest rooms would be reasonable.

Thank you.

I have a couple of comments that I didn't do in the earlier question round.

To me, having these numbers of nights per month becomes a management nightmare, and it really puts the burden on neighbors, where I don't think that's fair to always having more things where the neighbor is responsible for being the policeman on this, and it's impossible for the county representatives to do it.

The clubhouse across the street is for the use of the residents and that's another thing that becomes a management nightmare if people who were staying in the house decide that they're going to go over there and use those things.

That's going to be a source of friction.

And I agree that the parking

while you can put one car behind the other, there's no way they can function in that way and they're going to be on the street for some amount of time while the jockeying is going on or I'll leave all these out here and when everybody else comes back then I'll move mine.

So I will, I'm remaining with my earlier thought that this does not have the facility or the size or the space, the capacity to be able to manage the bigger number of rooms.

Someone did mention about the tourism zone.

That was created in 2010 for the entire Crozet growth area so that we could have a better financing opportunity for a small hotel.

But that was part of our zoning in the Crozet Master Plan.

All right, very good.

I will.

Yes, I'll go ahead and offer a motion.

But before that, I did want to say, addressing Supervisor Mallek's concern, I think what they propose is the guests would not be allowed to use the clubhouse.

So that's one of the things.

But the other thing that concerned me is that they have a backyard barbecue and a backyard whirlpool that they have since closed.

So that means that maybe future people that

You know, they may open it up or future landowners may open it up.

That would cause a lot, you know, that would cause parties and such if you have a barbecue, if you've got a whirlpool out there.

So, but they have closed it evidently for a reason.

But anyway, I will go with staff's approval since it's in my district.

I will, if we can go to the, okay, I will move to adopt resolution attachment F to deny the home state special exceptions for SC 2020 00024-126 Fontana Court.

All right, we can call the roll.

Ms.

Episto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

No.

All right, that motion carries.

All right, thank you.

You as well.

That brings us to our next item, number 11, the CARES Coronavirus Relief Fund Final Report and potential uses of the pandemic and an easy for me to say pandemic response recovery and reconstitution and contingency reserve and the Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve.

And Nelsie, good afternoon.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors.

I'm Nelsie Burch.

I'm the CFO for

the county government here.

And I believe Lance, yes, thank you.

Lance is going to share the slides and take us through this agenda item today.

I'm going to be leading and starting this off.

When I get to the overview of the agenda in just a moment, I will be introducing the other speakers who will be joining me today.

What I did want to make sure that I spoke to at the beginning of this conversation is related to the CARE-CRF funding.

Last month, you might recall during your grant reporting,

Report, there was an update on the CARES funding.

It was the January 20th meeting.

And it was our intention that what we would do is put that in the consent agenda for you to review, and then we would come back during this meeting and have a work session to share with you all of the things that we did with that funding.

We have pulled that from the agenda this evening for two reasons.

One of them is, as you may or may not recall from that report, the federal government actually extended the deadline for us to use the $19 million that we received.

It was originally due December 30th of last year.

On December 23rd is when they let us know that they extended it for another year.

And so we have until the end of December this year, December 31st of 2021, to spend that money.

Now, we've actually almost had the whole amount spent because our plan was to do that by the end of December.

But there was a few projects in limbo that we were going to move over and pay for it out of the pandemic reserve, which I'll get to later on in this presentation.

And so the full reporting and the full accounting is not yet complete for the CARE-CIRF report.

So that's one reason.

The second reason is, as we were preparing for today's conversation, we started to realize that the depth of these conversations that we're about to have with respect to these projects and the use of some funding to pay for them would likely take up our entire time.

And we want to make sure that CARES-C-R-F funding, because it was $19 million that was

that was infused into our community and to offset our pandemic related cost gets its moment.

And so I'm gonna work with the clerk to come up with another time over the next few months that we can actually spend some time, walk you and the community through what we did with that funding and it be more deliberate and not as rushed as it was starting to become.

I really do apologize for that because it was certainly our intention to do that today.

Moving on, Lance, to the next slide.

What I want to talk about for a moment is our desired outcomes for today.

And so we have these two reserves, and I'm going to speak a little bit more detailed about them for those that might not remember what we did here.

But what we're going to talk about is two specific reserves that can be used to support some of the boards

priorities, and three projects that the board directly asked us to bring it back at a later date when we met with the board to talk about capital and strategic priorities last November.

And so the first one I alluded a little bit to this is a reserve that we established that was part of

our CARES CRF funding.

So it was always our intention by the end of the fiscal year, excuse me, by the end of the calendar year of 2020 to fully spend the 19 million dollars.

And one of the areas that allowed us to do this was to offset

our public safety costs that were fully compliant with care CRF funding protocols.

And it's called supplantation for those of you who know that's typically not allowed.

But we were able to do an offset cost that were already in our budget.

using CARES funding.

And so it allowed us to take those funds and set aside this reserve.

So it's that reserve that we're going to speak to the use of a portion of that today.

And then the second one is the board has had established an advancing strategic priorities reserve as part of the capital planning process.

and I have a timeline and a few slides on that.

And that's worth $3.6 million.

And so these are the two buckets of money and only these two buckets of money that we're going to talk about.

And they're actually just a portion of each of them.

And the three projects that we're bringing forward that I will hand over to some of my colleagues in a little while is broadband access and affordability, the development of a solid waste convenience center in the southern part of the county, and then a conceptual analysis and preliminary design for the Race Forward and Earliesville intersection.

And we will leave a little bit of time at the end for the board to bring forward, as I said, we're only

talking about a portion of each of these reserves.

And so there will be a time for the board to also communicate back to us if there are additional projects that you'd like for us to bring forward for discussion at a later date.

And so the agenda for this meeting, if you go to the next slide, is I will in a moment, after I talk a little bit about the reserves in a little bit more detail,

I will turn it over to Trevor Henry, who's the Assistant County Executive, who's going to speak to broadband.

And then he will turn that over to Lance Stewart, our Director of Facilities and Environmental Services.

Lance will then turn that to Kevin McDermott to talk about the raised Fort and Earliesville intersection.

And each of these after, what's important to note here, after each of these three projects, we will leave a moment for the board to have a discussion.

So each project will get a discussion moment.

And then at the end, once you've heard about all these projects and deliberate on them, that is when you'll make the motion for each of the three projects.

We wanted it to be more comprehensive so that you didn't feel like you were voting for one without knowing kind of where you might go on another project.

All of that action will take place at the end.

And then we'll save a little bit of time, hopefully, for another round robin with the board members to talk about any future items they'd like to bring up for discussion with respect to projects.

And so if you go to the next slide, what I wanted to make sure I connected was why now?

Why are we talking about this now?

Sorry.

It was just a good breaking point there.

We do have, if it's my understanding, do we have the broadband authority with us?

Thank you very much, Supervisor Galloway and Chairman of this meeting.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Nelsie that was awkward so I apologize.

It's okay.

Yeah, thank you for that.

So one of the questions that you all might be thinking is why are we talking about this right now?

Isn't the county executive bringing together a budget for us to deliberate on next week?

And the answer is absolutely yes.

But these are a little bit different.

And so what we had, as you all know, when the pandemic hit, there was a series of things that we had to stop funding because we were unsure about the capital markets.

We were unsure about how our revenues were going to play out.

We were unsure about how the underlying economic posture, if you will, of our community was going to withstand this pandemic.

And as you see here, there's been several things along the way that have led us to realize, you know, we're actually stabilizing.

We aren't fully recovered.

We're not fully back to where we were.

But it looks significantly better than where we thought we were.

and the 366 approach that the county took back during the pandemic has really played out well as we look to be able to open up projects and funding and have a discussion and make a decision about them and not continue to hold those funds back because we're fearful that we're not stabilizing or on our way to being stabilized.

And so, as you all know, the FY20 was that first three.

When we understood where FY20 ended, that was the first piece of this to let us know that things didn't look as bad and we managed pretty well in FY20.

And then the second look was going to be the second quarter, the first half of this year, which is that six.

The 366 means the six is the July through December.

and that report was in your consent agenda today.

And then also, what was our real estate assessment looking like?

Pete Lynch, our county assessor, provided that last month along with Steve Vosshaus to look at where does this, what does this mean for the future?

And all of those are leading to us realizing that we're at a good spot where some of these reserves that have been held up, particularly the strategic initiatives reserve,

It's time for us to bring some projects forward and give the board some comfort that we can do so and not jeopardize the financial underpinnings of our government.

The second reserve we're talking about is this pandemic reserve.

I've shortened that very, very long title to just the pandemic reserve.

And that was a reserve that we were able to take advantage of directly because we received $19 million from the federal government.

And we were able to offset costs that were already in our general fund and use that money to establish a reserve to continue to carry out some of the needs that we have.

And Lance, if you go to the next slide.

This speaks to this.

So right now we have about $7 million that is in that fund or in that reserve that we use CARES funding to offset the cost of our public safety consistent with what the compliance regulations say that we can do.

And much of that is to continue using it as we wanted, as we outlined and as we did for the first nine months of the pandemic.

And so there's some community and human services and economic development programs, the LIFT program, the business LIFT, the community LIFT programs, much of that is continuing.

and we want to keep $4.9 million to continue the programming that we already have for those programs for the community as well as some of our pandemic related expenses that continue because we're still not out of the pandemic.

And so what that leaves is about $2 million

that we have carved out of this to advance some priorities that the board has been discussing and that really became obvious to us during the pandemic and that is broadband.

And so we're tying that two million of this pandemic reserve because broadband during the CARES-CRF compliance and regulations was really restrictive on what we could do with broadband.

And so now that we have the flexibility to use that funding to advance some priorities, we thought it was appropriate to use this reserve, two million of that, to advance broadband.

And Trevor Henry will talk more about that in a moment.

And then the last piece of this that I want to speak to

is the Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve.

And so this is a reserve that was established by the board back in May of 2019 and was then added to about a year later.

And this has been discussed several times with the board over the last few years.

But we had very specific feedback from the board when we were discussing the capital budget back in November to bring back three projects.

And as I mentioned at the outset, it's Broadband Access, Southern Albemarle Convenience Center, and the Ray Ford or Leesville Road intersection.

And so those are the three projects we'll be talking about today.

And these two reserves, portions of them would be used or could be used if the board chooses to

to start to advance these projects forward.

And so with that, thank you for letting me open this up.

Thanks, Nelsie.

Just a sound check.

Everybody hear me okay?

Let's see, thumbs up.

Thank you.

My name is Trevor Henry, Assistant County Executive.

Good afternoon.

Chairman, members of the board.

It's an honor and appreciation of an opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm grateful for the conversation.

Along with me on the call, we have Mike Culp, who is wearing dual hats.

He's our director of IT.

He also serves as our chief administration officer for the broadband.

And then you met Bucky Walsh who came in early on in this agenda item and called the broadband authority board to order.

I should note too that supervisor Palmer and Price are also dual hats as board supervisor members and also

sit on the authority.

Just to kind of manage expectations of this piece of the agenda, I have six or seven slides that I'd like to work through to give a little bit of background, a little bit of context, and then the framework of the program with the recommendation at the end.

And I hope to move through it at a pace that will allow us plenty of time for questions and discussion.

I will be the, you know, have the microphone through this

through this presentation, and then we'll pause, and for more technical questions or detailed questions, we have Bucky and Mike that can turn on and answer any questions that the board may have.

So again, thank you for the opportunity, and I'll try to work at a proper pace through the discussion.

Next slide, please.

This shows just kind of a brief timeline of really the last half of the calendar year.

Broadband has been a topic of many conversations.

It was specifically talked about amongst board members and school board members at a joint meeting of the two bodies back in October.

It was discussed by all board members, planning commission in November, and our county executive, Mr. Richardson, took a specific action item at the end of the November 18th meeting to work with staff and to come back at this meeting to propose a recommendation of

expanding our broadband programs.

And so staff took action on that.

Mike and I presented to the broadband authority in November to walk through the framework.

That framework is what is going to be reflected today.

And then finally, the memos that were attached to the executive summary were the formal recommendation of the program that went to the county executive and

Chief Financial Officer in December that is formulating kind of what is the recommendation today and also what the board will see by Mr. Richardson in the FY22 budget recommendation into next week.

Next slide, please.

This is just to provide some historical context.

The Albemarle County Broadband Authority was chartered and convened in the

Late summer, early fall of 2017.

I'll note that there are no staff resources that were formally assigned to support this activity, but we have had staff involvement.

Mr. Caulk certainly has been a key player in broadband since 2017.

He served on the authority for a couple of years and then a year ago was moved from a member itself to the chief administration officer to be able to support in ways that we didn't have to call a broadband meeting every time Mike spoke to the board of supervisors and has been doing great work.

since the inception of the authority.

We've had two other staff members that support.

One, Bill Fritz, supports as an authority member and an attorney, Ritchie Deloria, that supports as staff for the meeting.

In 2018, the Board of Supervisors authorized approximately $1 million of one-time funding, and that really has been the primary funding source for the work that ABBA has done

since the 2017-2018 timeframe, using that as our reserve to draw down state funding to work with internet service providers as part of the expansion of broadband into the underserved areas of the county.

The last bullet on this slide really is just noting the pandemic and the acceleration of

Internet access, demand, and need.

You know, it was a tsunami of need that we've all experienced and that we all continue to experience regarding the criticality of accessing broadband and internet.

And what we've found is even those, I'll say pre-pandemic, that thought they had adequate access for downloads and uploads, I think have found that in many cases that

The connectivity level was inadequate when you had multiple family members and multiple demands on that service.

So not only do we need an expansion, the levels of service we identified as not really adequate for the demand that we've seen across our community.

Next slide.

So what is the framework of our recommendation?

And I'll say that today's discussion is about the one-time funding use that Ms.

Burch walked the board through to tee this conversation up and those two funding sources.

But part of this presentation will blend in some FY22 early look on what will come from the county executive in the recommendation.

So it is, you know, purpose of today is the one time money that we thought it was important to show the whole framework of the program that does have potentially a recurring component to it if the board would approve it.

And so what are the three components of this program or, you know, as a deputy county executive, Doug Walker likes to say, kind of the three legs of the stool.

It is an expansion of our infrastructure, our broadband infrastructure.

is continuing the work that the board and the authority started in earnest in 2017.

And so it's continuing that infrastructure, pipes in the ground, moving it into our rural areas.

With the pandemic, part of what is proposed for this funding is really to continue some of the triaging work that we started this fall.

And I'll talk a little more about each of these over the next couple of slides.

Sorry, go back, please, Lance.

The second component really is a new component, but we also think is as important as the infrastructure, which is providing an affordability program to our community.

And that's for both rural and urban community members.

What we discovered, especially through our school partners, is that a lot of families

had theoretical access to high-speed internet, but they couldn't afford it.

And schools started some programs in the fall to help overcome that gap.

What we would like to do is formally build a program that supports this component.

So it's the infrastructure piece, so it's gaining access, and then it's the affordability piece.

And then finally, the last one is establishment

of a broadband, Office of Broadband Access, formally putting some staff and resources to manage this work, to lead these programs, and to help move this mission where we think it needs to go.

The modeling would be similar to our Office of Equity Inclusion or our Economic Development Office.

All right, Lance, we're going to do a little bit of a deep dive and then get back to the summary.

So the infrastructure and expansion opportunities or strategies since 2017 have really been to work with internal service providers in the state to put proposals in via the Virginia Telecommunication Initiatives

Program, VADI, which is the acronym.

And we've had a lot of success over the past three years with this program.

We're still waiting on our 2021 application with the state.

And that is, again, leveraging some of county funding, the ISP cost and funding, and then state funding.

The Federal Communications Commission for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, it's a mouthful, RDOF, also is an opportunity and has some potential impact for expansion into our rural areas and there will be more we communicate about that program over the upcoming months.

The triage work that we did this fall was recognizing the time that it takes working with our ISPs to put fiber in the ground.

It takes time.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes years.

We were able to work with our CARES funding in the fall, some programs that we call a triage.

Using the Chantal as an example, we're partnering with them.

We were able to create some fixed wireless opportunities that in a matter of a few months was able to expand broadband access

to support the needs of those that previously did not have access.

And we think that this program and funding recommendation would allow us to continue that really throughout the calendar year, and it provides an opportunity for

for access in the near term, while the infrastructure in the ground kind of follows secondarily.

And at some point, it offers some options for citizens of which many don't have any options now.

So that's really the continuation of our infrastructure program.

Staff is doing estimates on, you know, assuming the RDOF and Nevada 2020 are approved and completed, there's still a significant number of locations in the county, we believe, that need to have access to at least one provider.

And finally, we're recommending a level of funding that could allow us to even do some direct

funding opportunities and partnering with ISPs to hit areas that, quite frankly, are areas that won't get the attention without additional incentive.

So that is a big leg of the stool, but that's one of the three.

Next slide, please, Lance.

I talked a little bit about the affordability program.

You know, the

This program really is to support urban and rural families that are under financial stress, gain access to what we consider critical resources for school, for work, for family.

The program would likely use existing and established partnerships we have via our Health and Human Services area, such as United Way or the Community Investment Collaborative.

Those are programs that we have used through the fall and continue to use now in support of pandemic relief.

We have done some vetting of

of these programs and we do believe there is an opportunity that with additional resources we could expand that to internet and broadband access.

This program could be funded from part of the one-time funding we're suggesting today, but in our 22 budget it'll be reflected as a recurring number

And our hope is that we can pilot that work through the balance of this fiscal year.

And then if the board approves our 22 budget as recommended, it would be a recurring funding line.

And then finally, the last slide on the three lamps, if you can go to the next slide, please.

This is a proposed Office of Broadband Access.

It is noted as an FY22 request.

So noting that we're going to have a lot more discussion on this as part of our 22 budget, we thought it was important, though, that we key it up here so that the board has the context of the full framework of the program.

My involvement with broadband dates back to when I moved into this position in mid-2018.

I certainly got much more involved with broadband just through the portfolio work and having, you know, my direct report.

And really my observation has been since the 2018 timeframe, we have dedicated at least an FTE or have absorbed an FTE's worth of support.

through county operations in support of broadband.

And that kind of got us, I'll say, to the pandemic.

We have now reached a critical mass or tipping point in, I think, the work that we have to do both in customer service need and in working with

you know, with our partners, both internal and external, with the state, with federal agencies in order to really manage this at the proper, that was dedicated both leadership and management resources to do this in the way that will give us the best chance

of overcoming barriers that we have, and really with the idea of maximizing our accessibility and affordability.

It would be modeled similar to the Office of Equity Inclusion or EDO, as I mentioned before, that the role is really outward facing, working with our community, working with, you know, with board and other entities or partners, such as our school division, ECC,

you know, other partnering entities and with the providers.

And we really feel that this, you know, this is what it will take in order to manage this in a way that gives us the best chance of success on moving this work forward.

And again, this is just a note for today to know that this is part of the 22 requests that will be coming in next week.

And then finally, this is the last slide and then it'll be over to the board for

This is a recommendation summary of what's ahead in front of you today.

So the numbers and cents on this, as you can see on the slide, it's recommending the use of one time funding.

from the sources that NLC teed up at the beginning with $2 million coming from the pandemic reserve, $1 million from the advancing strategic priorities.

That request, if endorsed and approved by the board, would come back in March for an appropriation.

And then that would allow staff, accounting, and broadband authority to immediately move forward and continue with some of the programs that I mentioned

in the presentation earlier and also documented in our executive summary attachment.

Secondly, the bullet on the bottom, just noting that the county exec will be recommending the formal creation of the office.

as well as recurring funding to support both the office and that affordability component.

My hope is as we work through this discussion, there'll be support for the overall program and the program concepts.

And then as we would work into the budget process, if the board is comfortable at the right time with the recommendation as it would move forward,

then we would come back to the board and suggest that we try to spin up that office in this fiscal year to really provide the resources that we need to adequately manage and lead the work.

So a lot that I've thrown at you, hopefully I was able to adequately tie the history to current state, to the program needs, the different components of it,

And then I'll turn it over, Mr. Chair, to you, just noting that Mike Culp and Bucky Walsh are on this call and on board to answer questions and follow-ups that the board may have.

Thank you, Trevor.

So we'll do a round here of questions and comments.

Thank you.

Good.

Okay.

Now I have a microphone that works.

So, I'm sorry to be looking away because I'm looking at my other thing here for notes.

This is all very exciting, and I do have a slew of questions, so I will try not to hog the whole time.

I guess what's in the back of my mind all along, and someone can answer this another day, is

What are we doing or is anything that we're doing now helping toward getting the state or somebody to require a universal service guarantee, such as when there's a structure, the power company is required to provide electricity to it.

It seems as though our providers should be required in their territories to do the same for broadband.

We are not successful at all

in that now because we've been sort of divided against ourselves and played off against one ISP against another so that we're much weaker than we should be.

Now, localities have the right as of last year's legislative session to actually be involved in projects on their own dollar without having to

try to incentivize a less than interested ISP to do a not very successful delivery.

In the White Hall district I am finding that the ISP who has been paid enormous amounts of money both by taxpayers and by residents of neighborhoods

has not even followed up on maintaining the things they just put in.

And their backbone is so terrible that even they cannot possibly deliver what they're promised to deliver.

So that is a concern for me that I hope some of the things we're planning now will make better.

I understand completely that having survived for many, many years on crummy DSL with six of us at home trying to do school and work,

with 320 KB, whatever the little thing is as your download speed.

That is a virtual impossibility, but all over the White Hall District, that is the situation.

Anybody who's getting their service through CenturyLink has no opportunity to get service or maintenance or anything.

So I am very concerned about pouring more money in

to pay ISPs who have shown such a terrible track record so far.

SEVAC is the only one who is really exemplary in the way that they're treating their customers.

And so that's a problem.

I am concerned under the expand infrastructure category.

In discussions with members of the broadband authority, I do understand that fiber is the goal

But all the money we're putting into short term is therefore cutting out money that we're going to be putting into our better quality, better service fiber.

So I'm concerned about that.

The affordability component is a great idea.

but wireless is not the answer.

Verizon charges $125 a month for really crummy service to residents in Greenwood and Western Albemarle for what they call internet.

And whenever it rains, it doesn't work.

So it troubles me that we will be subsidizing that kind of really crummy service.

If there are so many people who don't have access to

service at any cost.

And there also are people who might have something going by their road, which is outrageously expensive.

And I understand that dilemma as well.

Talked about that, talked about that.

This RDOF funding is, I hope, in calendar 21.

I don't know if someone can answer that.

I talked about that.

Okay, so

I guess I will stop.

I am concerned about the wireless because it completely leaves out people who are electro-sensitive and cannot have it.

So when we're talking about equitable access and equitable opportunity to all, it means health issues as well.

There are many, many categories of equal opportunity that we need to be working on, and that is certainly one.

If we're putting our whole

eggs in the basket of wireless towers, then the certain segment of people who have had to move out of the city because of their health issues will still have no capability if we're not bringing them something in the wire eventually.

Yeah, certainly there were, I think, some questions in there, a lot of commentary, and I will say that part of what I would suggest that we would do is that the broadband authority and board aligning kind of their strategic goals or even a strategic plan related to how we implement.

I would invite Bucky and Ann or Mike to respond specifically, but I wouldn't translate the affordability component to

to just helping one provider.

That's not the strategy.

And there has been some work, I know, that staff have done, Mike and Mikey, with some potential around our utility providers and some programs there that we're very optimistic about.

But it's not

quite ready to be talked about as a formal program yet.

And so the funding, I guess, I didn't hear Supervisor Malek really articulate about the funding other than just the concerns.

For Trevor, this is Bucky.

Supervisor Malek, I hear your concerns.

I live in White Hall, so you and I have a lot of the same concerns in that regard.

As we are looking at the options in front of us, one of the things we have done is reach out to the internet service providers in our areas and talk to them, trying to be righteous governmental body type purchasers, so we need to talk to everyone fairly and openly.

But talk about what are the options for completing the connection of the county, not just trying to do bits and pieces and dribs and drabs.

And really we're focused on, as Trevor has made in his presentation the point, focus on how we get a fiber connection to folks so they can have broadband, not just for today's definition, but for the likely definition that will be our need for two years or three years or five years from now.

And I look at my situation

Five years ago, what my house has met the definition of broadband.

But today, if three of my grandchildren were here trying to do schoolwork, they'd be out of luck.

They couldn't possibly do the work they need to do.

So broadband needs are only increasing, and we expect them to, and we see the likely solutions to that to involve, to a large extent, some sort of fiber or hybrid fiber connectivity to the household.

and we're exploring doing that with vendors in a very substantive way.

We don't, as Trevor said, we don't have something to bring to you right now, but our preliminary thinking is this is gonna be achievable, that this might be very affordable.

And we hope that's something that the Board of Supervisors wants us to move forward with.

I think some of the work that's been done recently with wireless service provision

has been really driven by the short term availability of the CARES funding last year, trying to put that money to use and get some availability for people.

It has not historically and I'd be surprised if it would be the focus of the direction that the broadband authority is going to go in the future.

For the reasons you mentioned and others, we just don't see that as the likely solution to the needs of broadband for the county.

Again, we want a long-term solution.

We'd like the broadband authority to be out of business and have this problem solved for the county.

Shall we move to the next person, Supervisor Price?

Thank you, Chair Galloway.

Mr. Henry, thank you.

I am a both and, and,

supporter of this.

I believe that both we need to improve cell coverage, which is sort of a Band-Aid for broadband, but it's essential for telephonic communications.

And I believe we need to continue to support towards more fiber.

And I believe that we need to look at that equity between the rural and the development areas so that we don't improve access in the rural areas to the point that we increase pressure to develop the rural areas because we haven't

taking care of the urban areas.

So I recognize that there's still more to do but I'm very supportive of what you have proposed here.

Yes, I'm very encouraged by what you're presenting.

I know it's not going to be easy.

We don't have all the answers yet, but what you're proposing and what you want to do, we are moving forward, and I'm very appreciative of that, not only in the urban areas, but also especially in the rural areas.

I know myself, I get very frustrated.

I give you one instance.

There's a road in my area called St.

John Road, and

CenturyLink was going to put in fiber, but they couldn't, the VATI wouldn't let them because it went to CBEC, the bidding competition.

So it went to CBEC.

The problem is CBEC is putting fiber in with their electric lines.

However, CBEC doesn't provide electricity to St.

John Road, that's Dominion.

And Dominion's not doing anything about fiber.

So it's very, very frustrating.

But I like where you're going.

And if you have the wireless and the fiber and are looking to the future, I think that's what we need to do.

I think there was a provision also in your discussion for private donations.

Okay.

Okay.

And

If that was a question, the proposal is funding of infrastructure.

And as Mr. Walsh mentioned, the primary focus is fiber in the ground.

And I didn't mean to get the board off track or be confusing in talking about the fixed wireless option.

This was reflecting that that was work we did in the fall with CARES Act.

And that is an opportunity to triage in a short term

Horizon, while the primary goal of the authority, and I believe the board, is to get fiber in the ground and that fiber connected to all our homes.

So the primary funding would be for that infrastructure in the ground, but also recognizing there may be some options that could get access

in a couple of months, possibly, that might not actually get it in for a couple of years.

Okay, thank you.

And I understand what Supervisor Mallek's concerns are, not giving money to the entities that are not doing the work or being good actors, not helping us out here.

Yeah, let's not do that if we can.

So thank you very much and I'm really excited.

So while I agree with Chairman Walsh's goal to put the broadband authority out of business,

I'd like to know what the relationship, how this new office of broadband director is going to work with the broadband authority.

It's envisioned that the director would support the broadband authority directly in support of executing the program, but also would be connected into the county executive office for functional and operational management.

So similar to Roger Johnson, that is our director of the economic development office, he also supports the economic development

the Economic Development Board and serves that board.

So he has kind of dual roles within the county and in support of the board.

So I would envision it to be very much the same.

Okay, I would just really like to see that.

And if we're going to get that in the budget discussion,

and one of the work sessions, that would be great.

I wanna make sure that I understand how you see that relationship.

With respect to what you're gonna bring forward in the next budget proposal and our work sessions, is that going to include some

some direction to try to get everybody connected, those 7,500 homes to fiber?

It's our goal.

Sorry, I had a little bit of an echo.

Through the request for today and then a recurring funding would get us to that ultimate outcome.

Just for clarity, that's not going to be achieved in FY22.

We didn't fund it to the level that would accomplish that in a year.

We do think this is still incremental in the work that we do.

It will take us

a few years.

And then just noting, you know, Bucky's vision is that ABBA is out of business in five years, which would be great.

The need for, I think, for the office and the work with our community will always continue around broadband.

You know, many folks talk to

have talked about, since the pandemic, access to the internet in the same way they talk about access to electric and water.

So I wasn't expecting the budget to come forward with something to get everybody connected in a year, just to be clear.

But I would think that it should be a goal of the board, of this board,

that the broadband authority and this new office be working on a plan to get everybody connected.

I know that's the goal, but I'm just wondering about the structure in that plan going forward.

So I would hope that that's coming.

I'm on the broadband authority, and I know that that's everybody's goal.

And I'm pretty sure our whole board supports that goal.

Our whole board of supervisors supports that goal.

So I just wanted to comment on on on German Walsh's statements.

So yes, I approve of this.

It's much needed and putting some money in and getting dedicated resources, staff resources is really important.

I think you said me, Ned.

Sorry about that, can you hear me okay?

I really appreciate all the hard work on this report and in general am supportive.

Having said that, I really do like the idea of an establishment of a broadband office

But I would only sign off on that office if it has a connection to OEI.

And by that I mean a prospective, not a retrospective review of its work through the lens of equity.

And that has, I mean, I really want that

taken seriously and because we're talking again we're talking today about accessibility and affordability and I get it I want to help the rural area as much as possible but we also have issues in the urban areas and the development areas.

and your report referenced equity and OEI, but I don't believe that this, again, I don't think this has been looked at through the lens of that office.

Has this recommendation or what you're proposing to us today, has that been reviewed through OEI?

and how it would, who benefits and just a different lens on this work.

Supervisor McKeel, I can tell you the framework of affordability and access component has absolutely been worked through with CIRI and OEI and coming up with the

The mechanisms and the options on how we would do that.

So anyway, I really think we need maybe- Let me finish, if I could.

The broader program as it was presented today, you know, I have not had to sit down and work that, you know, work the cons of this through with OEI.

But what we think, and again, today wasn't a discussion around the office and its structure.

That'll happen with the 22 budget.

But a key partnering entity of our broadband office would be the Office of Equity Inclusion as much as it would be the County Attorney's Office.

So I do see that it is an integrated component to the work.

And the importance of this office is it is both outward looking and then internal to work across those organizational bounds.

So I think this program has been reviewed in part, what's presented today, but there's more work to do.

Okay, great.

That sounds good.

And I'm not, I know we're not approving this today, but I'm just simply saying that to just give you a heads up that that's what I would be looking for, Trevor.

And I do agree, I think with Donna and Bea, I believe that it seems like to me it's going to take, while I'm all for fiber, I don't think fiber is going to do it till for last mile for us.

I think we're going to have to have some cell

some expectation of cell tower coverage or cell coverage.

And that gets us to, and I'm not trying to take us down the squirrel, but I want to point out here that we have a 30 year old cell tower policy that is not serving us at this point in time at all.

And if we're talking about connectivity and broadband, I don't see how we

Solve this problem without reviewing our cell tower policy at the same time because there is a huge connection.

Not to say that we shouldn't be running fiber, but if we're gonna do what Liz wants and get it to everybody, and I heartily agree with that, then it seems like to me that our cell tower policy is gonna be a part of this work.

And if we're establishing a broadband office,

then I certainly would, my expectation is that that work would be including cell coverage and not just looking at only fiber.

But I will say your proposal right now is, I think I'm all right with but I would really feel a lot more comfortable from the urban

Development Area piece if we had more of a presentation or at least a look through the lens of equity from OEI because I think that would benefit not only the rural area but the urban area as well.

But thank you.

I mean, I think this is a great start.

I just think we have more work to do.

All right, it sounds like some of the things that I would have questions about, I'll have the opportunity to do that through the budget piece that others were saying they have questions about as well.

this office, what that exactly means and entails.

So generally I'm supportive.

I do agree with how on the heels of what Supervisor McKeel just stated and Supervisor Price and others that, you know, the and, and, and comment that Supervisor Price opened with is well put and I would be of the same mind.

I just, I don't see how we get to everybody as fast as possible without a combination of solutions here.

Now with that I know that we still have other areas to cover.

No, sir, I think the input is appreciated and valued from the board members.

Thanks to Bucky and Mike for participating.

And then there'll be a chance at the end of this work session today to discuss further if there's any action the board wants to take or provide direction otherwise.

Hold on just a second.

Yes, thank you.

And I didn't want to come down as being against all these things because I have been in favor of investing to do this better.

I just want to make sure that there were some items put out there to identify the areas of poverty and

Lack of service, we need to work on our mapping and making sure where our service gaps are and overlaying all that with our impoverished neighborhoods so that we get a complete picture throughout the county of what the needs are.

I think there was some mention somewhere in the paperwork but I can't find it right now about the mapping and my question was I know we've had a survey that is getting occasional information back from citizens but can we find out and this is for later figuring out the answer can we find out where the gaps are in our survey information and then hire somebody to fill in those gaps

where we get somebody with the car to go and check out the five miles where nobody has called in or reported in about their service because that would very quickly, we talked about this years ago, but that would very quickly get us a much more complete map that could then be overlaid with demographic data and get us somewhere fairly quickly.

So I'll just leave that thought for other people to think about.

Very good.

It looks like we got, I saw two different hands.

I just wanted to point out that I thought, to get to what Ann's point was, I was thinking that the school division did a lot of mapping recently.

Of course, they don't cover everybody, I realize, but I thought the school division did a lot of really great mapping that maybe we were tied into as well.

And that gets, I think, Ann, to what you were saying.

Thanks, Trevor.

It's Mike Culp, the IT Director.

Trevor, you did a great job with the presentation, so congratulations.

Great work.

Supervisor McKeel, yes, you're correct.

The schools have done an outstanding job on the equity lens of this.

They've taken

A very good approach of going out and getting information from not only the school children, meaning households that have ACPS students, they've also polled their employees.

So employees who are working for the school division have also been polled about their internet access and those mapping layers have been provided to us.

So they are included in our internal maps.

and we're working very hard.

We agree with both Supervisor Mallek and Supervisor McKeel, we need better mapping and it takes a good effort.

And fortunately, we have a person who is on the ground doing that type of work and his name is John Noreen.

So John is doing an outstanding job and helping us do better mapping.

So it's no shortage of projects, we just have to prioritize and work the ones that are going to give the best benefit

from the equity lens.

We are also on the community value of this.

It's definitely an equity issue that needs to be addressed and quickly.

So lots of ideas about using some funding to help the affordability index, bringing down the cost to those who are financially struggling both before and because of the pandemic.

So lots of work to come.

I've taken too much time.

So I'll thank you all for listening and have a great meeting and I'll be here to

Thanks, Mike.

That was helpful about the mapping.

I appreciate it.

Yes, this comment is for Mike also.

And I understand the electric companies or the cell phone companies, they also have mapping.

because I know that you can call them and say, give them an address and they'll let you know if they have internet access or not, if they're gonna be involved in the future.

But they have, I know CenturyLink and I'm sure the others do too, have an extensive mapping program of where internet is and isn't.

So you're probably already using that information or working with them.

Yes, thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, you're correct.

We use a couple of features.

The FCC is the primary mapping, but the listing there is based on what is called the Form 477.

I'm getting into the weeds, so let's just answer the question is, yes, we use a wide variety of maps to help us determine where the service gaps are, so thank you.

All right, I think any follow-ups can then go to the individuals as needed here.

Got it.

My job is now to tee up the next item.

Lance, if you could advance the slide.

So the next report or the next part of the agenda is a discussion that Lance Storey, who is the director of our Facilities and Environmental Services Department, also sits on the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board.

He will be talking about some convenience center options, potentially in our southern part of the county.

And so, again, this is reflecting a request in direction from

several members of the board made and Lance, I'll mute myself and take it away.

Thank you, Trevor.

Chair Galloway, members of the board, thank you so much for supporting this opportunity to talk to you today.

I'll be presenting a staff recommendation for the board's consideration that the board formally direct staff to pursue the development of a new convenience center to serve the southern part of Albemarle County.

The convenience center is a collection site for residential trash and recyclable waste.

As you know this past year a new convenience center opened at the Ivy Materials Utilization Center serving the western portion of the county.

The construction was funded several years prior with the intention that it would be the first of several additional convenience centers to be located strategically throughout the county.

There have been a number of times in the past when the board has discussed the establishment of a convenience center in Southern Albemarle as a priority.

Going back to calendar years 2012 through 14, the board had several work sessions regarding a Southern Albemarle convenience center specifically.

Two county-owned properties were carefully considered as potential sites.

More recently at a budget work session last February the board discussed the possibility of utilizing the Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve to fund design of an additional convenience center.

Staff anticipated that we would return at a later date with a recommendation but any action on that matter was deferred due to financial uncertainties associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

In November of last year, several board members expressed support for Southern Albemarle Convenience Center during a work session for the FY22 budget development process.

When this specific reserve was established, staff were directed to, as uses are brought forward in the future, to make sure that we consider them in light of the board's strategic plan and also, among other things, ties to other formal plans adopted by the county.

So I'll speak to that briefly.

The strategic

Your number one priority is climate action.

The climate action plan that you adopted last year specifically addresses increasing opportunities for recycling as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And it specifically states that we should do this in an equitable manner to provide services in rural areas consistent with how

The comprehensive plan also anticipates that at a later comp plan update that the recommendations of a committee that had been established

at that time that was still working, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee would be worked into the next version of the comprehensive plan.

And that plan very strongly suggests that Albemarle County lags in the number and location of convenience centers for rural areas and that that should be a priority for the county to address in future years.

Included with the board packet for today's discussion is a memorandum detailing staff's base assumptions for the extent and level of services that would be provided at the Southern Albemarle Convenience Center.

As proposed, the new center would be constructed and operated by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.

It would be operated on the same schedule as the Ivy and McIntire Convenience Centers, six days a week with hours seasonally adjusted.

Like the Ivy Convenience Center, it would include a tag-a-bag program for residential trash.

There would be a compactor on site with the container emptied at least once per day.

Stickers for this program cost two dollars each and may be placed on bags of 32 gallons or less.

Recyclables collected would continue to be free to all Albemarle County residents.

Specific recyclables collected would be consistent with those collected at Rivanna's other sites.

The center would be staffed with an attendant to assist residents with any questions they may have about what bins to use for different recyclable materials and to operate the compactors for both trash and cardboard.

If the board directs staff to proceed with this recommendation and authorizes staff to bring back to you a request to appropriate funds, our next step would be to initiate the site selection process.

Staff do recommend that process begin by considering properties already owned by the county.

In addition to reducing our upfront costs, we expect that it would be difficult to locate an appropriate undeveloped site.

A site would need to be centrally located and of sufficient size to accommodate both the center and sufficient land to allow for visual screening from neighboring properties.

The timeline for that effort is difficult to predict.

Following site selection, however, we anticipate conducting several project development steps in parallel.

This would happen, initiation of this would happen very quickly.

We would develop and seek the approval for agreements between the county and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.

for the construction and the operation of the new center.

At the same time we would engage a civil engineering firm to initiate design and to work through the county's process to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And following these steps, we'd expect the Rivanna managed procurement and construction duration to be approximately six months.

So the total schedule would be roughly 15 months following the site selection process.

So in collaboration with Rivanna, throughout these last few months, staff have estimated the design and construction efforts to cost $1.1 million.

And we recommend that funds be committed from the Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve.

Funding would cover design, construction, and all costs for the purchase of containers and compactors for the center.

If it is necessary to purchase land for the site, additional funding would be required.

Operating costs for the facility are estimated to be $400,000 in the first year of the center's operation.

Given the project development schedule, we estimate that these costs would not be incurred prior to fiscal year 2023.

Chair Galloway, that

That concludes my formal presentation.

Thank you for the opportunity presented, and I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lance.

Thank you.

I'm so excited about this going forward, and just to ask, we had county-owned site identify, do we have to start all over again with that, or can we just move on?

and expand on the design which was already made, the preliminary work that was already done.

I don't have a direct answer to that question except that the county has looked at two sites that we own, one of which was purchased specifically to meet the community's future solid waste needs.

Supervisor Price.

Thank you Chair Galloway.

Mr. Stewart, thank you for your presentation.

I'm excited and thrilled about this.

I've wholeheartedly supported.

I appreciate the support that the other supervisors over the last year have expressed for this and the only thing I would add is that once this one gets approved that we need to look to have a second site on the northern side of the county.

Yes, my comment is finally.

I am just so excited about this.

I can hardly contain my excitement because this is something we desperately need down in Southern Albemarle.

I do look forward to getting one in Northern Albemarle County, but definitely in Southern Albemarle.

Long overdue.

commend the staff.

Thank you.

I like the idea of using a county owned property.

Looks like we've got one or two good sites and go forth with and bring it forward.

Yes, if you would, I know we don't have a huge amount of time, but I'd like to say

I'd like to say a little bit more than I normally do.

Back in 2014, I just want everybody that wasn't on the board back then to understand this long haul of a process.

Back in 2013, the then County Board of Supervisors was really looking at privatizing all our solid waste in the county and closing the transfer station.

and we had more change and we took another look at this and decided that having places for people to drop off trash, not taking over the hauling industry or anything like that, but just places for people to drop off trash, both commercial and residential was a core government service.

And in 2000,

2015, when we were looking at the IVMUC to begin with, it had been actually out of compliance with the DEQ for stormwater for well over a decade.

And I spoke with a DEQ representative at that time who I actually went to him to complain about a private company and he said,

that he said, Liz, Albemarle County is the bad actor here.

You've been out of compliance with the DEQ for all these years.

And I said, well, why didn't you close that facility?

And he said, because it's the only one in Albemarle County and you are one of the very, very few counties in the state of Virginia that have such limited access for trash.

and I thought that was a very

a very interesting statement.

I didn't realize how poorly we had done to supply this.

So since then, this board and staff have really gone a long way.

We have improved dramatically the IVMUC and in the plans that the Solid Waste Solutions Committee back then said is that we had to

develop Ivy as a hub first.

That was number one, get that done and then move out to the rest of the county and put in these residential convenience centers.

And so this has been a long time coming with a lot of thought and a lot of support and I'm just thrilled.

and what I would like to suggest is that we go ahead and look at the Kean site that was bought by the county for a transfer station actually in 1990 and this use as a convenience center would be a much less intensive use of that area but I think it's what makes the most sense from

from a location and equity situation, I think that it's long overdue and I would love to see the Keene site actually develop.

So if it's okay with the board, I think we can skip the discussion of whether we're going to be looking at an urban, a more urban area in the Scottsville district.

That was the other place over in the Mill Creek and the general Mill Creek area.

That piece of property now is

you know, we're looking at that for school expansion and whatnot.

And it just makes a lot more sense to put it down at the Keene site.

So if that's acceptable to the board, that's what I would like to suggest.

And I very much approve of the work that staff has done on this and their recommendation to have the county do the design

while working with Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.

Thank you.

Yeah, if you'd like to.

Certainly, I have been to that site.

That was one of the two sites that was studied in 2013 and 14.

There was a fit test done at that site at that time to determine the zoning implications, possible cost.

We have recently brushed that off and updated it to ensure

that, you know, any changes that may have happened in the county code or

VDOT requirements for entrances or other federal or state requirements regarding stormwater have been accounted for.

Also at that time in 2013-14 we didn't have the benefit of Solid Waste Authority Director on the same par as Phil McCalups.

So having his input into a refreshed view of the scoping of the footprint

and the cost of the operations over the last few months has been extremely helpful.

So the Keen site is certainly very appropriate in terms of its physical attributes.

It has ample acreage to be screened from neighbors.

And I'll say its location is really optimal.

It's basically a few hundred yards off the intersection.

of Plank Road and Route 20.

I am very supportive of this recycling center in Southern Albemarle.

I would say Liz references the Keene site and I personally would feel a lot more comfortable

about a particular site just to know that the Scottsville Town Council is in support of or would feel comfortable with that site because what I don't want to do is I don't want to go get into a situation where the Scottsville Town Council is upset about a site that we've chosen and I recognize this is not in Scottsville but it is in Southern Albemarle

and I would like to just make sure that whatever site we choose, and the Keene site sounds reasonable to me, that the Scottsville Talent Council has the ability to weigh in.

I will just add though that I do think that once we, I'm happy to get started on this one, but as Liz and everybody says, we are so lacking.

in Albemarle County that we need to put one up 29 North, which is where our population center is.

And I will remind people that we have proffered land.

We wouldn't even have to pay for the land.

We have proffered land that we could put it on.

Albemarle County land.

So with that, I guess I am good.

I have no objections to this.

I just agree with what was said about, you know, I see this one going into place and then, you know, it's the blueprint for one that will find its way up in the northern part as well.

I mean, this isn't a one and done.

We've got to continue going with providing these.

So I'm in agreement with that.

And I mean, I'm fine with the site.

I have to defer to Supervisor Palmer and Price on the sites, but it sounds like this one because of the previous scoping and everything that was done.

seems most appropriate, and since it's a lesser use than what it was originally done, that seems suitable as well.

I think that maybe it would be a good time, I don't know if Lance was going to talk about this, but the public hearing and process going forward

and yes, of course, the Scottsville Town Council.

Donna can comment on that, but they would certainly be involved as well as the rest of the community.

Well, I'll say, you know, because of some restrictions in our comp plan,

We will be required to go through that plan review process so there will be a public hearing with the planning commission on this.

I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to hear input from the board on your thoughts and I think about a public process.

It is difficult to outline how that is on the certainty

and somewhat temporarily with a specific side in mind.

So, you know, I think the suggestion to speak with the Scottsville Town Council is a great one.

And I think that if we were, if you do elect to direct us to come back to an appropriation, I think that would be a good time to have given some more thought and perhaps gotten some more feedback from the board members in the southern part of the county on the

I will say that certainly when we bring this to the Planning Commission, when this goes to the Planning Commission, all the abutting neighbors will be notified.

But certainly, I know some of those abutting neighbors and I will plan on alerting them to this, making sure that they

that they understand what's going on.

And I know that Supervisor Price has already considered not to speak for her, but already considered reaching out to the Scottsville manager who has been involved in a lot of these discussions.

Supervisor Price.

Thank you Chair Galloway.

Thank you all for your comments.

I did speak last night at the Scottsville town council meeting specifically about this was a proposal coming up.

I think in general terms it's fair to say that there is great support from the residents in the town council in Scottsville for this type of improvement.

But I can't speak specifically for anyone until we actually get the firm proposal.

But we definitely will continue the communications with them.

I generally meet with the mayor and town administrator the day after our board meetings.

So we will go into more depth of discussion.

And as a specific proposal comes up, and that's the, I think the appropriate time for people to be able to formulate their opinions in terms of approval or not.

But as a general proposal, I think there's great support for this.

All right so we're coming up on what our scheduled time we've got a little cushion here we're running ahead of schedule so I know there's another item what's the is there any additional items here for this particular one before we move?

I had a question and that is about the process is this a notice of intent from the board to the planning commission to do this com plan review?

I'm trying to figure out how we have a 30-day interval so that we keep this moving along and don't lose track because

I've been talking about this since 2010.

This is the review that's required by state law for public facilities that are not already shown.

on the comprehensive plan.

So what community development will do, we'll look at the land use map, see whether this type of public facility is shown.

And I'm looking at it right now.

It doesn't appear to be shown.

So it automatically will go to the Planning Commission.

The one thing that the board can do and we can come back is the board can direct that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the matter.

And the sole issue for the commission is whether or not the proposed public facility is in substantial accord with the comprehensive plan.

Is that the fastest route or is the fastest route to change the comp plan with a sentence identifying this parcel?

Or which is the better route?

I think just the process of the commission doing the review to find substantial

Accord at this point.

All right, and obviously we'll be taking an action here at the end.

No, sir, I'll just thank you for your time.

That was extremely helpful and encouraging.

Kevin?

Yeah, thank you Chairman Galloway, members of the Board of Supervisors, Kevin McDermott, the Planning Manager in Community Development Department.

I was asked to come here today to discuss the potential to direct some of the Board's strategic reserve funds to this project that I know has been on the Board's mind and in Board's discussion quite a bit over the previous couple years at least.

You can go ahead and advance Lance.

So a little bit of background on the Ray's Ford, Earliesville Road intersection.

There have been, we've been aware of safety concerns at the intersection.

We've discussed it quite a few times among the board with the Department of Transportation in 2019 and again in 2020.

Vietnam did do two safety studies to evaluate the issues of the road.

A lot of that was brought on because in 2017 there was a really high number of crashes for the intersection.

I believe eight in one year, which is a significant number for an intersection that doesn't seem

quite as high of volumes as others in the county.

At least one of those was a severe injury accident.

So VDOT proceeded with these multiple safety studies to identify some potential solutions to the issues out there.

In partnership with the county in 2019, VDOT went out there and did some of the initial recommendations from that study.

that included redoing the pavement markings improvements, clearing vegetation, and then at that they stopped that that was stuff they could do that was really low cost following the 2020 study.

We worked with VDOT once again to direct some of our secondary six-year plan money to improve the area by installing a flashing LED stop sign and also two permanent radar speed display signs for the approaches to the intersection on Earliesville Road.

So all those initial improvements have been done at this point.

Lance, you can move forward.

So now also as part of that second study, it was identified that

If there were long-term improvements that were desired, what we should be doing is likely looking at the potential to reconfigure that intersection into a roundabout.

So that was the recommendation.

There was an initial conceptual study included in that safety study for a roundabout.

It had shown that it could be done.

that would likely address some of the remaining safety issues.

And the cost was fairly significant somewhere in the area of around $2 million for construction right-of-way utilities and design.

So with that, we tried to work with VDOT to see if there was any possibility to get them to fund some of that.

They were unable to do that.

They didn't have the funds available in any of their funding categories.

So we're looking now at the next steps that the county could take to move forward with something.

What we are discussing today is that from the board strategic reserve funds

There is approximately $350,000 that we could put towards supporting that project.

That funding, what we would do would be to bring on one of our on-call engineering consultants and have them do a preliminary design on that roundabout so that we can identify specifically what those future costs might be for the construction right-of-way and utilities.

and once we had that in hand we could come back to the board and see if we wanted to move forward with that construction.

Also look at the potential for any grants that might help support that.

Of course if we have a specific design and cost estimate it makes seeking those grants much easier.

So that's really what I'm here to discuss.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the project.

Thank you very much.

I'm glad to say that the first of the seven accidents, the woman who was T-boned there is now finally, after six years, off a walker and able to function.

But it was a near-death experience for her, and she was a young critical care nurse at the hospital, and it was a really traumatic thing.

All of the things that have been done so far have been a step in the right direction.

I'm very grateful.

And we're all working hard.

The tree trimming was not finished going south of the intersection.

So that's something, Kevin, I wish you would put back on your list with Kerry to say when that shear is back in the neighborhood, you know, they gave a lick and a promise and drove away as fast as they could.

So they should have done 50 trees and they only did two or three.

We just paid Kimley-Horn some amount of money to do an engineering study on this intersection I think last year.

and they came back with an enormous hundred yards of right-of-way, you know, which was way beyond what it should have been done.

So I want to make sure that what you're planning is going to be very carefully scoped and we're not just going to open the box and say, you know, take as much as you want because this is a rural intersection and it has needs but it's not Route 64.

and that was really what came back the first time.

So I'm very much in support of making some progress on this for sure.

And I think that the wonderful study that was done for the enormous Eastern Avenue Bridge was only $25,000.

And I'll stop talking.

All right.

Obviously we will work with the selected consultant to try and get the best project that will address the issues.

Kimley-Horn, that was the safety study.

It was actually funded by VDOT, although obviously the funds they use are from the county, but it was funded by VDOT.

So we will go back and see if we can

All right, Supervisor Price.

Thank you.

Mr. McDermott, thank you for your presentation and I appreciate your response to Supervisor Malek's questions regarding some of the expense relationship.

I support it when you addressed in your comments

the type of accidents based upon the location and the traffic flow.

Safety is a major concern and so I'm supportive of this project.

Thank you.

I'm good with this also.

Yes.

In general, I'm supportive of this project, but I did have a question, Kevin.

Do you think that, you said that VDOT said they couldn't help us with the funding, and that was just because they didn't have the money?

Yes, they do.

Both the initial study said that we should consider that, and then the follow-up study in 2020

So we're still looking at a mini-roundabout?

Yes, okay.

And just in general, do you feel like that we have given enough time to watch the changes that have already been made?

You think that at this point it's time to move forward, or would you suggest giving it a little bit more time to see what the less expensive changes, and certainly we don't want to leave people at risk or create safety issues, but

Yeah, I mean it is hard to say.

Typically we like to watch an intersection for, we use typically five years of data to see, to look at safety issues, to review for safety.

It hasn't been five years obviously since we've put in those improvements.

It does seem like that the improvements

have helped right now.

We haven't had any accidents yet this year.

We had one in 2020 and one in 2019, which is a great improvement, obviously, from eight in 2017.

But these things come in fits and starts.

You never know if we've really addressed it or if maybe just the change has made people reconsider.

Is there approaching the intersection or to pay more attention?

But I would say that

The improvements that we've made look like they could have started a change in that safety record.

Yeah, yeah.

So, I mean, I'm obviously supportive of this.

I've been after this project for a little bit here since we first started talking about what could come out of the strategic reserve.

I like that you're using language up to approximately 100.

Obviously, if we would have done this, you know, the studies before didn't have those mitigating things that we've already put in.

Of course, those things should be having some impact because that's better than what was there before.

So if this study, you know, if it came to be that it was just going to be a $2 million project, I think we all have to stop and step back.

And if our own study reinforces that, then we'd all probably consider it differently.

I just happen to think that it's going to be a different consideration or a different outcome, I guess, from what we're going to look at here.

And with those pieces that are in place now, as I've stated before, those were never the end goal.

Those were things that we could do immediately and quickly to help get some safety measures out there for that intersection, knowing that another project would be coming along that we could potentially do here on a smaller scale.

But you know if we go out and we can use the design elements and this can turn into an $80,000 study or a $60,000 study and then the remainder of the up to 350 can be used to help You know split grant money or be used to something, you know to go to the actual project To match or help offset what other types of costs and I think that's a that's a proper use to your market for that So obviously I'm very supportive of this of this project

Well, I think the motion that would be put before you today would be to move forward with engaging with one of our design consultants to do whatever level of design they think might be necessary to get a more specific cost on the future construction.

As I said, the $2 million cost included engineering.

So part of this would get us on that way.

I think it was like $1.2 million in construction costs.

I'm hoping that we could do this for, like I say in this slide here, approximately $100,000 would get us far enough in that design.

So that's what we're recommending we move forward with.

Thank you.

So Mr. Chair, I have one clarifying question.

And that would be that Mr. McDermott just laid that out for Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley.

Kevin, about how long would that take to get that back to the board for their approval as you just laid out?

And then Kevin, how long would the study take?

I think we could be back with the appropriation.

And once again, I'm talking about another department here.

This is Lance and Blake's division.

I think they could probably get that within a month and a half, two months to get a scope back.

Three months maximum.

And then a study would probably take six months to eight months somewhere in that vicinity.

So thank you, Kevin.

And the reason I asked that question, Mr. Chair, is Ms.

LaPisto currently said we've got two years of analytics since the changes have been made, and will we continue to collect that data?

And Kevin, you correct me if I'm wrong, but we would over the next eight to 10 months, we would continue to collect data on how that intersection with the changes that were made.

I know Mr. Chair said that those were intended to be short-term changes, but we'd still collect data

to continue to monitor that.

And so once we finished with the study and the study did come back forward through our engineering folks, we would have had close to probably, Kevin, you correct me if I'm wrong, but at least another 10 months of performance data that would continue to build close to three years of data to see how this is coming.

Is that kind of a fair statement to say there?

Yes, sir.

That is a fair statement.

So Mr. Chair, you've got kind of the path forward if it's the board's will to move forward with this and I appreciate Mr. McDermott trying to really thread the needle on trying to give the board his opinion as to the changes that have been made and then what we'll learn moving forward.

So I hope this helps.

Plus, very helpful.

Thank you.

Just an update.

Carrie Shepherd, in responding to me about requests for studies on Crozet Avenue, said that they were using a three-year

study time, not a five year.

So that's just her perspective on that particular thing, which is quite similar studies and how to affect things.

And the two study years were 2018 and 2019.

So those were pre-COVID.

And so I don't think that they're necessarily at risk from the lower job traffic.

It's surprising how construction and agriculture have continued on unabated.

So the truck traffic through there is continuous.

All day long.

All right.

So just in the interest of time, we have to take some actions here.

We have to do some things.

Do we have a thank you, Kevin, by the way.

My pleasure.

I think this is up to you now, Chairman Galloway.

These are the motions for all three of those.

Trying to move my view around so I can see these.

So board, these are the suggested motions.

It didn't sound like any major concerns or rewrites had to be made to any of these.

I'll move that the board adopt motion number one.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

McKeel?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Mr. Gallaway?

Yes.

I feel compelled to read motion number two.

It's a little shorter than motion number one.

I move that the board request that staff bring back an appropriations request to the board to provide 1.1 million in one-time funding from Advancing Strategic Priorities Reserve to support the development of a southern Albemarle convenience center at the Keene site.

The motion was made.

Mr. Campner said yes to add that and it was seconded.

Any further discussion?

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Yes.

Very good.

I move adoption of motion number three.

Okay.

Ms.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Ms.

Palmer?

Yes.

Ms.

Price?

Aye.

Ms.

Yes.

All right, well done.

I mean, those are two or three very significant motions.

Good job, work, board and others.

And Bucky, we'll go to you for the procedural.

Thank you, Chairman Galloway.

Thank you, sir.

And I mean, Nelsie, Trevor, thank you.

And then the Ed, Mike, Lance, Kevin, everybody participating here.

This was a lot of material and information to get through.

It was great.

Chair, I just wanted to take a moment.

I know we are out of time, so it can certainly be at another point in time.

But if there are any projects that the board wanted to tee up for another discussion such as this one,

I think it would be as we are going to be approaching budget work sessions this is a reserve that is often discussed during our budget process so that I would just call out to supervisors if you have things in mind like these to have them ready and then we can tee them up for conversation as we move through the budget process if there's no objection without a group.

And then I would, as a final comment on, you know, this strategic reserve was just created a few years ago.

This is not an ongoing or has long been in existence.

So I would

We just make me feel better to say it out loud, but we have to track the money that's being spent out of it.

And then when I don't I don't know what the right word is.

You know, I hate to see in five years that you know all you know, 85% of the money was spent in one strategic area.

We just have to be balanced and how we do it.

Um, and that, of course, I expect that will just be part of the process year and year out as we consider how to spend money from that.

Mr. Richardson, any final comments here?

No sir, Mr. Chair.

You summed it up by saying it's a lot of work and a lot of information for the board to take in today.

A lot of great direction from the board.

I can't thank each of the board members enough for your undivided attention through this.

I know you've got a heavy evening and for the staff involved, all the staff members worked exceptionally hard and I can't thank everyone enough.

Okay, we are running a little behind now, but that was a big chunk of a big topic there.

So we had a 10-minute recess planned.

If it's all right, if we can go ahead with that 10 minutes, and that'll bring us back in a few minutes past four, and then we'll pick up with where we're at.

So we'll take a 10-minute recess.

OK, you're live.

All right, very good.

And the next item on our agenda, number 12.

So work session ZTA 2019-8 section 33, zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments, special use permits, and special exceptions.

And Bill Fritz is going to help us.

This certainly sounds like a topic we can breeze through and make up for lost time.

Thank you.

I'll try to be quick.

It's quite a mouthful to list off that section, isn't it?

This is a work session to discuss the potential amendments to section 33 of the zoning ordinance.

This is the section that contains all the procedures and requirements for the items you just mentioned.

You have in your packet, you have a packet that includes potential amendment language and we're here today to answer any questions that you might have about those amendments and most importantly to receive direction on any changes that you might desire.

The proposed amendment correct

some unintended impacts caused by the amendments adopted in 2018, improves the middle and review procedures, they correct some technical errors in the existing ordinance, brings us into compliance with the state code and removes requirements, notably removes a requirement that applications must be acted on within 36 months or the project is deemed withdrawn.

And I'm going to talk about that specifically later.

The Planning Commission discussed this on January 12th.

At their request, they wanted a brief history of Section 33 and that's included in your packet and that's just for your information.

The Planning Commission also supported the proposed amendments and requested some changes to include a provision to allow the Planning Commission to defer action on an application at the request of an applicant.

a provision to consider equity when evaluating an application and that cultural and heritage resources be included as a type of study that can be required when submitting a special use permit or zoning map amendment.

We've not made these changes yet.

We wanted to hear what the board had to say and then we'll just make all the changes in at one time.

To provide some background, in 2018 the ordinance was amended.

This amendment was made because of a desire to fix deficiencies in the ordinance and to improve the process.

Unfortunately, it did not have the desired effect.

In fact, the administration of the ordinance has proven to be complex and resource-sensitive.

There was some support to simply repeal the 2018 amendments and revert to the prior ordinance.

We have not done that.

The need to amend the ordinance in 2018 existed and simply reverting to the prior ordinance would leave the need to amend the ordinance again.

This amendment attempts to correct the process issues created by the 2018 amendment and retain the improvements to the ordinance that were adopted in 2018.

The changes that you have before you or will have before you include a reorganization.

The proposed amendment reorganizes the process.

It doesn't restore it to the original or pre-2018 process.

It builds on lessons that we've learned.

Time limits for actions.

This was a major issue in the 2018 amendment.

The amendment created a 36 month time limit where all applications had to be acted on within 36 months.

The process involved with this time limit is overly complex and has created an administrative burden.

The proposed amendment removes the time limit and replaces it with a clear statement that the county is not obligated to accept a request for deferral.

The proposed amendment also clarifies the procedure for reactivating applications and review of applications.

It fixes some other problems with the procedure.

Currently a deferred application is not to be reviewed.

However, this is the primary purpose of a deferral.

It's to allow issues to be identified and addressed.

The proposed amendments clarify that the public hearing is deferred, not the review.

The proposed ordinance provides that once a deferred

Reactivated, the timeline for review is reset.

The current ordinance creates significant procedural difficulties because the timelines for deferred applications is not clear.

The proposed ordinance allows for collection of a new fee for the activated application.